Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 34.

FORESTS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1998
(second reading)

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, I move that Bill 34 be read for the second time now.

[ Page 10272 ]

This bill introduces several amendments to the forest statutes. The changes mainly involve amendments to the Forest Act and the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act. They can be grouped into four categories.

[6:45]

The first is the community forest pilot agreements. As part of the jobs and timber accord, government committed to designing and testing at least three new models for community forest agreements. The objectives of this initiative are to increase community and first nations participation in forest management and to create jobs. Last December I established a special Community Forest Advisory Committee to provide input on these agreements. This committee includes participants from industry, first nations, the Union of B.C. Municipalities, forest workers, environmental groups and several communities. This bill incorporates their recommendations regarding the enabling powers needed to establish the new arrangements. In future months -- also based on the recommendations of this advisory committee -- the ministry will develop regulations under the Forest Act and the Forest Practices Code to provide further details. Some 88 communities across B.C. have expressed interest in the pilot tenures. It's been a very popular initiative. With the passage of these amendments, I look forward to formally inviting proposals for the pilots and to selecting the pilot sites.

The second category of amendments are other jobs and timber initiatives. Under the accord, government also promised to provide some specific incentives for companies which prepare and implement satisfactory job creation plans. The legislation follows through on that commitment with two amendments. First, provisions of this bill will clarify how licensees who do not harvest their full complement of timber in a five-year cut-control period can carry forward the under-harvested volumes if the timber will be used to further job creation plans. Second, amendments will allow the minister to return an automatic 5 percent tenure takeback, which occurs when a company is sold or a Forest Act agreement is transferred, if the purchaser submits and implements a satisfactory job creation plan.

The third category of amendments has to do with woodlots. The bill includes three amendments related to woodlot licence management. The first enables the ministry to collect a levy for the Woodlot Product Development Council to help it implement training and extension programs for woodlot owners. This will help the council to improve woodlot management and small-scale forestry in the province. The second amendment will remove a provision which prohibits woodlot licence holders from owning or leasing timber processing facilities. The intent of the amendment is to allow some licence holders to own facilities where it can be shown that they will create jobs and value-added processing. The third amendment will ensure that licence holders do not have to duplicate information provided in the Forest Act management plans which they already provide under the Forest Practices Code.

The fourth set of amendments are several which strengthen and clarify existing ministry provisions or reduce the administrative burden. The main ones will replace existing requirements for burning permits with a simpler, more streamlined system for fire control. Other amendments strengthen and clarify powers to deal with forest fires, ensuring that the ministry can assist local communities when they are threatened by fire. Other amendments strengthen and clarify code regulation-making powers and ensure that recent code streamlining changes can be properly implemented. I believe these amendments will significantly improve forest management opportunities, improve administration and help create jobs.

G. Abbott: It's a pleasure to rise and speak on Bill 34. The opposition is generally supportive of Bill 34, and I do want to thank the minister's staff -- in fact, commend the minister's staff -- for what was a very thorough and useful briefing with respect to the provisions contained in Bill 34.

Generally speaking, I think this bill offers a number of steps in the right direction. I don't think this is true of all the sections; there are actually very few sections in this bill which are pursuant to the provisions of the jobs and timber accord. Those, I think, are not steps in the right direction, and I'll comment briefly on that, but overall this is a bill which will improve forest policy in British Columbia, rather than see it go in the opposite direction.

I want initially to note, as the minister has, that much of this bill is devoted to community forest agreements. This has been an important issue in recent years in British Columbia. I know from my own time in the municipal realm that there has been a lot of interest among communities, and indeed some aboriginal bands, toward community forest arrangements. I think this is an important step in moving towards more community forest tenures in this province. Generally speaking, I think the approach that has been taken over the past few years with respect to community forests has been a sensible one. To move to community tenures on a gradual and careful basis is the right approach, and the pilot projects that preceded the provisions in this bill were an appropriate way to deal with that. This bill will, of course, now allow community forests to move on to the next stage.

There are some other provisions in this bill which I think are commendable as well. Section 12, as the minister has noted, provides for the cut control period to be extended over an additional five-year period. This is good. We are now going through one of those periods where for a variety of reasons -- some induced by the market, some induced by government policy -- we see quite dramatic under-cuts in the current year, and that's likely over the five-year period as well. The extension to the cut control period of another five years will provide further flexibility, and I think that is an important step in the right direction.

As well, there are some fire protection provisions in this bill. We want to explore some of those with the minister in committee. But again, particularly with respect to the province's ability to cooperate and to support firefighting efforts within a municipality or organized jurisdiction, this is certainly a step in the right direction. Hopefully, it will provide for more effective fire protection in those boundary areas.

We will have some questions about how the end of the permitting process is going to work in practice. I think that's an important thing that we need to know, just to understand how the provision contained in this bill will take effect across the province. With respect to woodlot amendments, I think most of these will be of the housekeeping sort, but again, we may have a few questions in committee.

There are consequential amendments to the Forest Practices Code. I did hear some concern today around the ability of the changes contained in this bill to mesh with the existing statutory requirements of the ministry. The Minister of Forests advised me recently that he will be putting forward amendments to Bill 34 to deal with that particular problem, and that's good. We will be supporting those amendments as a reasonable and practical way to address that problem.

[ Page 10273 ]

As well, as I noted, there are four sections which are pursuant to the jobs and timber accord. It's here, I think, where I have to offer some criticisms of the bill. Sections 10 and 16 in particular contain provisions with respect to job creation plans. Again, I think the experience of the past year particularly -- but also the period that we are in -- serves to point to the fact that we can make up as many job creation plans as we want, and we can make them as elaborate as we want, but if the fundamentals are not in place and if the cost structure is not in place to allow us to produce products at a price that is going to be competitive in the international marketplace and will allow producers to generate some return on their investment, the jobs aren't going to be there. It seems to me that these few sections of this otherwise very sound bill are examples of more of the kind of thinking that went into the jobs and timber accord, which clearly has been a colossal failure in the province of British Columbia.

As a government, we can't create or even cause to be created X number of jobs. Those jobs are contingent on a number of things -- the fundamentals, as I noted. They're contingent on the availability of a skilled workforce, and certainly we have that in British Columbia. Due to the quite massive unemployment in the forest sector particularly, we have a lot of skilled labour -- a lot more people available than would like to be available at this point in time. As well as that skilled workforce, we need a market for our products. That market has been diminished, but it should be noted that we have also been pushed out of that market -- I'm talking here particularly about Japan -- by competitors from Sweden, Western Europe, Eastern Europe and elsewhere in the world. We've been pushed out of there because, for a variety of reasons, we have become a high-cost producer in the international marketplace. Again, what I want to underline here is that we can call for as many job creation plans as we like, but unless the fundamentals are there, it ain't going to happen.

Most importantly, we need to have again in British Columbia some prospect of return on investment, and we have lost that, I think, in a most lamentable way. In the past couple of years, despite revenues to the government of, I believe, around $4 billion in the previous two fiscal years, we have seen losses suffered by the forest sector in the realm of $200 million to $300 million. So from all that effort, from all that investment, the government realizes about $4 billion in taxes and stumpage and so on, and the forest producers in the province have been suffering very substantial losses.

Some may say that that's a wonderful state of affairs; I'm not one of them. I think it's a deplorable state of affairs. Clearly, if we don't have a province where people can invest with some prospect that they will achieve some return on investment -- and, indeed, won't suffer dramatic losses as a consequence of their investment -- we're going to lose all of those investors, whom we need in British Columbia. We need people to put their investments, their lives, their energy on the line to try to produce jobs in British Columbia. It doesn't come as a result of the government compelling them to write plans which may or may not have any application or hope of achievement.

I think what we need most of all are sound forest policies that will allow people and companies to harvest wood, to process that wood in mills and to create products which can be sold on national and international markets at a profit. Without that, we're not going to see the jobs, and I'm afraid the job creation plans become another hollow exercise that really doesn't move us any closer to employing the number of people that we want to in the British Columbia forest industry.

Those are my comments with respect to the jobs and timber accord, sections 10 and 16 particularly, but as I said, on the whole this bill deserves support. It does contain some provisions -- particularly in the area of the community forests, cut control and, hopefully, fire protection as well -- which should be improvements to the forest policy framework in the province.

Thank you, and we will have a variety of questions for the minister in committee stage of this bill, hon. Speaker.

[7:00]

G. Wilson: In rising to speak to Bill 34, the Forests Statues Amendment Act, 1998, there are three real issues that come to mind. The first and, I think, one of the more important is the notion of the Ministry of Forests moving into community forest agreements as such and the definitions that are established within the act with respect to how these community forest agreements are going to operate. I think that when we start to look at that first issue, we have to ask ourselves what the Ministry of Forests is trying to respond to in the amendments that are provided for us, and how those responses are likely to change what has become the pattern of unemployment in the forest community for those people who are dependent upon it. One of the concerns is that when you look at the definitions that are provided here and how, within those definitions. . . . We'll get into this in committee stage in more detail. It's my understanding that the government is hoping to get consent in the Legislature to move directly into committee. I don't know if that's agreeable to all members, but certainly it would seem to me that the sooner we can get on with the business of getting this forest industry back on its feet, the better.

It would seem to me that when we start to look at the community forest agreements, we have to ask ourselves how the definitions have been arrived at and on what basis of tenure amendment these community forests have been established. One of the problems we have is the growing confrontations that exist within areas of harvest that are adjacent or close to residential areas. There is a growing desire on the part of many, many local British Columbians -- those who live in active forest areas, who have a regional district that is actively involved in the administration of those areas, who have involved themselves in a variety of societies and organizations or others who have taken an interest in forest management -- to know precisely, in the definition, what this community forest is going to constitute in terms of amended tenure. That's the key, so that's point number one.

If we are going to look at this provision with respect to the community forest agreements and how those are likely to work -- and there's a whole set of definitions set out -- we have to really question whether or not that amended tenure is going to be to the net benefit of the local communities, especially the small logging interests that have a desire to see some kind of guaranteed supply of fibre. For example, once this act has been implemented and has been acted on and is then part of law, is that going to help those people who are displaced by the closure of Interfor in Squamish? Are that small sawmill in Squamish and the people who are to be displaced more likely to be able to benefit from the local supply of fibre coming in out of this act?

My suspicion is that the answer to that question is no. If it is no, then we should be asking ourselves whether or not we really should be looking at amendments to the forest legislation in this province that provides the opportunity for a far greater security of supply of locally harvested fibre to go to

[ Page 10274 ]

local mills and to support them either through the small business program or through some community forest programs. I don't think we've quite hit the mark here. Now, the minister might want to explain how we have, but certainly my reading of this bill doesn't make it clear that that's what we are doing.

So the matter of tenure and tenure reform is really not seriously addressed in this legislation to any extent, and I think that's a concern. It's not that we should necessarily reject what's being proposed, but more that we should question why the ministry was not prepared to take the extra step at this time and provide a broader-based definition with respect to community forests that would provide a greater degree of local certainty in terms of supply of local harvest to local mills. That's point one.

Point two is what do these forest statutes amendments mean with respect to some of the serious concerns that we're now running into in terms of the extent to which the chief forester is able to establish an annual allowable cut to allow for timber to go into a more competitive marketing process? We were really hopeful in this session. . . . I've certainly been watching throughout the duration of this session to see something coming out of the Ministry of Forests that would signal a clear indication to those people in the industry that we are now prepared not only to deal with some kind of serious amendments to the tenure system, but we're also prepared to do something about changing the marketing of timber and making more fibre available in a more competitive style and in a more competitive log market. I think that we don't see that in Bill 34. The minister might say: "Well, that's not the intent of the bill." The question would be: "Well, why not?" In second reading we have to talk about principles, and so that's the second issue: why was that not there?

The third point that I want to make in talking about this is with respect to the whole financial transaction in terms of the way in which the associated costs of doing business in the forest sector have been addressed through a variety of amendments that have occurred here. There are a number of amendments to the Forest Practices Code that result from this legislation. There is a section that deals with annual rent, which is an interesting one we'd look at. There are a number that deal with the access of community forest agreements with respect to tree farm licences and so on. All of these are interesting amendments and changes, but do they really address a more fundamental question, a more fundamental need to have the whole notion of tariff against harvest addressed? What does it really do to take a look at a more competitive marketing and cost structure in the industry? I would say that it falls short there.

While we may not have a great issue with the text of Bill 34, in principle we have a serious objection to the fact that this government has failed to move the distance it needs to to address the three issues that I've just raised. None of it is properly or effectively addressed in this bill.

Let me spend the last few minutes that I have to address this bill, talking about the principles associated with what I think is needed with respect to this forest industry. In the first instance, I think that the community forest practice system -- if we can come up with some kind of consistent definition that each of us can grab hold of and really wrestle with and understand and pin down -- is not something that would be objectionable to most people, who would recognize that the community forest must target but one sector of supply. That would primarily be within what is generally considered small business harvest opportunities and would be predominantly controlled and managed within the community itself.

But in the larger context, we have to recognize that if we are going to move toward that community forest practice system, we also have to recognize at the same time that we are now taking a step -- albeit a very tentative step -- toward tenure reform. That's a good thing from my perspective, because I think the reform of the tenure system is long, long overdue.

Now, I know that there are some people from the major forest companies who are watching this debate tonight. I know they are, because I talked to them on the phone not so long ago. I know that they are tuning in just because they want to hear each of the parties represented here, because they have a vested interest in knowing. I know that they become a little uncomfortable when I talk about the need for tenure reform. But for us to reform the tenure and practices of forest harvesting in British Columbia through such small steps as we see in this, I don't think is going to really address the primary and fundamental need for change.

It would seem to me that the fundamental change we need is for us to recognize that certainly in the coastal communities there has to be a far greater portion of timber going toward a competitive log market so that that competitive log market can, through an open bidding system, provide us with greater opportunities to put value to timber that is being harvested right now. And that doesn't happen. One of the biggest problems we've got with our neighbours to the south, who are constantly hammering us over the head, is that they believe that the system we have is not a free enterprise system, that it is not directed with respect to a competitive log market. We can continue to fight those with all of the rhetoric, as we have done over the last dozen or so years, or we can say that we are now going to modernize and move toward a process of forest activity that will provide us with an opportunity to put more timber into a competitive log market. I'm confident that if we were to move toward a more competitive log market, we would find that small businesses that have a difficult time securing timber right now would be able not only to bid more competitively but to put greater value to timber and therefore to enhance the industry within the communities that this bill is trying to address.

Secondly, it would recognize that you can't have an industry that believes in free enterprize. . . . I say this to some of the people in the major forest sector, and I know that it causes them a little bit of indigestion, but in practice the CEOs are the staunchest, most solid representatives of free enterprise in every industry except their own, because they don't necessarily want to have that level of competition. Now, some are moving away from it. We've got some modern CEOs coming in who are recognizing that there are other ways to do it. Some of them, in fact. . . . The new CEO of MacMillan Bloedel went way further than that recently, which caught all of us by surprise, but it certainly made us sit up and pay attention.

So we are at a point now where there is an appetite for us to really get into a discussion and a debate on how we can amend the system to make it work for British Columbia and for all British Columbians. The tenure reform system has to provide an opportunity not just for the major forest companies but, through a competitive log-marketing system, it has to provide a greater opportunity for local sawmillers, local operators, small operators -- people who want to put value to timber but might want to do it on a slightly smaller scale.

I would be pleased if I could stand at my place tonight and say to those people who see themselves as displaced in Squamish or on the lower Sunshine Coast or to the people

[ Page 10275 ]

who are unemployed in Powell River or. . . . We could go through them all: Port McNeill, Port Hardy, Gold River, Tahsis -- there's no end to the number of communities on the coast that are now suffering as a result of the declining prices. I would be pleased if I could stand at my place and say to them tonight: "You know what? We've got an amendment to the forest statutes that is really going to solve your problem. We've really been very careful in analyzing what is necessary to be done, and now we've gone forward and actually hit the nail on the head. We are, through the establishment of this community forest process, going to put more and more fibre into a competitive log market. We're going to be able to address those concerns. We're going to make sure local supply is there. You know what, guys? You guys are going to go back to work, and we're going to start to see more value returned to the communities." I wish we could say that that was going to be a product of this bill, but I don't believe it will be.

I think some conflict resolution might come of out this, and that's a good thing. I commend the minister on at least having the initiative to be able to move into this area. It's a small but positive step toward trying to address some of those concerns at that local level. I don't think there's a particular problem there. But I don't think that this is going to go anywhere near far enough. In this session we wanted to see much more legislative change so that we could have moved forward with an aggressive attitude, telling the Americans that they can back off and leave us off their hit list when it comes to the countervail issue, because we are finally going to start to take the initiative to put in a competitive log market and move toward a better system.

[7:15]

The second issue comes down, again, to the whole question of cost. We needed to see the government recognize that now is the time for us to tie stumpage to actual market price -- no more arbitrary establishment of stumpage against harvest. There are people who end up paying stumpage that is absolutely no reflection of the quality of timber or the price they're able to get at market -- to the point that they will say to you, right up front: "Notwithstanding how the tenure system works, what the bidding process is, how the licences apply, I can't afford to go and harvest that timber, because the surtax on that wood -- the stumpage that's applied to that wood -- is so high that I simply can't make any money at market. So I'm going to do one of two things. I'm either going to simply back out of this and say that I'm sorry, but we're not going to work" -- which many have done -- "or I'm going to try to get into a more interesting trading process." They'll say: "Well, you know, if we can start to trade timber for timber, and we can start to find where we've got the more lucrative market -- whether for cedar or cypress or some other species of wood -- we're going to try and trade." Those people will stockpile and hoard and all of those things that go on.

If we saw in this bill, the Forests Statutes Amendment Act. . . . By the title of this bill, we would have thought that finally the government was going to come forward and take the steps that are necessary to make this thing work. We might have seen something in here that was going to tangibly alter the tariff structure so that we could tie stumpage to market price -- actually put that in place. Sadly, that's not there either.

Lastly, something that I think we have to start to look at fairly carefully is the whole process by which access to fibre and timber is going to be handled. How are we going to expedite the movement toward processing of cut plans that are going to meet the test of the Forest Practices Code? And how are we going to recognize that there are niche markets developing that will allow us the opportunity to actually put value to timber in niche markets that we didn't even know existed, frankly, even six months, eight months, a year or two years ago?

For example, in the salvage industry. . . . I commend the minister, because I know that he and I have spent many hours with many salvors in this province talking about how we can actually deal with this. I think the government is trying to take some positive steps in that direction, and I'm the first to acknowledge that. But I don't think we've got anywhere close to far enough. Here is an area where we can take timber that -- as the chief forester would look at the AAC -- in the scheme of things has absolutely no tangible values tied to it, and we can put enormous amounts of revenue into not just the pockets of people in the industry but, more importantly, into the pockets of those people who are connected to the communities. That's a niche market we need to really go after. We don't see any kind of movement toward that.

Secondly, those people who are doing custom cutting and who are looking at niche marketing. . . . The minister will know that the idea of now being able to provide a product for the Asian market that is very specific to their demands. . . . The minister will know that we have worked very hard, and I think we've finally come up with a resolution. Something called temple logs provide the opportunity for people who are cutting wood to build temples in Southeast Asia communities. In many instances, those are a highly specialized harvesting, cutting and marketing product. We had no way of meeting that. There was no flexibility, no opportunity for us to be able to say: "If somebody comes up with a blueprint that requires a log of particular size and dimension and it has one cut on it, and only one cut. . . ." The government would argue that that's a raw log. Well, no, it isn't a raw log, because it's custom-finished to the size required by the blueprint. It's a very lucrative market, and we're now starting to recognize that there are ways in which we can move.

When we look at Bill 34, I'm thinking that finally we're going into an amendment of the forest statutes -- we are going to take those steps necessary to address those concerns that British Columbians have. Here we fall short. The minister will say that that's not the intent of the bill, and I understand that. Nevertheless, time is running out -- I hope -- in this session. Certainly I'm prepared to stand here and debate legislation as long as its productive for the people of the British Columbia, although it would probably be more productive if we adjourned and came back at some later time in the fall. A legislative calendar might be an idea worth discussing some time along the line. But certainly we expected to see much more, and it hasn't happened.

I think there is a certain disappointment within the industry. The government seems timid to take the steps to actually bring in the changes, the alterations, that are necessary. Just to reiterate, those are to move toward a more competitive log market, to amend the tenure system to put more timber into that competitive log market for local supply and local control -- and that can be done through this community forest practice process -- to tie stumpage to market price and to finally recognize that there is a need for us to start to expand niche marketing and to make timber available to those people who can maximize value without necessarily maximizing harvest, because you can do that without expanding the annual allowable cut. Those are the kinds of things that I think we wanted to see. There are a lot of people who are hurting right now as a result of the downturn in the forest economy.

Let me say that what is in here is not necessarily offensive. What is in here does take some small steps toward the

[ Page 10276 ]

provision of some positive things within the statutes, particularly around the community forest agreements. I think that there are some very, very interesting ideas expressed in the process, and I know that there has been a great deal of consultation and work done in trying to establish how that is going to work. I think that there are some potential problems that come along with some of the sections, and maybe we'll deal with that in committee, unless the minister can allay our fears. For example, the whole of section 112.1, "Annual rent for council," is interesting, and I think we would want to look at that a little bit, and also some of the definition sections. I think we're going to want to have a much clearer understanding of exactly how that's going to work.

So there are a number of issues. The notion of probationary community forest agreements is interesting. I think that there is a little bit of contradiction between 43.4 and what follows in 43.5. Those are sections that I wouldn't mind getting a little bit of information on. In order to expedite that -- I would hope that we can take some steps, because goodness knows, the forest industry needs some good news soon -- I would be prepared to take my seat with one closing comment.

That is that I hope that the minister takes my comments tonight in the spirit that they are offered. We cannot take those small steps as slowly as we are and expect that we are going to have a healthy forest sector. We must now take the bold initiatives necessary to do the three things I've outlined tonight. We must reform the tenure system, we must put a more competitive log market in place, and we must tie stumpage to market price. And we must do those three things, at the very minimum, in the coastal sector, which is quite different than the interior. We must do it aggressively so that we can meet the countervail threat and so that we can expand our industry and put British Columbians who are out of work back into full and gainful employment. With that, hon. Speaker, I look forward to the committee stage, when we might hear from the minister in more detail about some of the text as we get through each of the clauses in detail.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I recognize the minister, who will close debate on second reading.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, I'll just respond to a couple of comments that were made, and I won't be lengthy, because we will get into some of the details. It's interesting that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast suggests both that we have more free-market wood and tie it to communities. The two are really contradictory. You can restrict the bidding to a community, and you're really restricting the bidding and not achieving the objectives that he sets forth, which is more free-market determination -- because any given community has a limited demand for the wood.

To respond, yes, this bill is not about major tenure reform. I don't think there's consensus in British Columbia about tenure reform, and I think there would have to be a lot more consultation and discussion around the subject of tenure reform. This is making a step in a certain direction; that is, to allow communities to be involved in forest management in the broadest sense of the word. I would say that the intent we have in the expression of what the community forest tenure is here. . . . We were guided by the advisory committee that we set up -- we implemented virtually every recommendation -- and they, in their wisdom, chose not to tie tenure to a particular processing facility. They did that because they felt it was important to maximize. . . . Whether it's job creation or perhaps return to the community, they wanted some flexibility in terms of where the wood would be marketed; it would be a community decision, not a decision of the minister.

The amendments that we have brought in here do reflect the consultations that we've had, whether with the woodlot association, the community forest sector -- and more particularly the committee. . .or the administrative streamlining that we need to make under the Forest Practices Code and what came by way of consultations with the major licensees.

With those few comments, I would like to put the motion.

Motion approved.

Bill 34, Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 1998, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

FORESTS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

The House in committee on Bill 34; W. Hartley in the chair.

On section 1.

G. Abbott: Section 1, the definitions section, makes reference to three different kinds of community forest agreements: probationary community forest agreement, long-term community forest agreement and community forest pilot agreement. At different points in this bill we can find some understanding of what those three different terms mean, but I think it would be useful here at the outset for the minister, in consultation with his staff, to outline the precise differences between those three different kinds of community forest agreements.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: First of all, the pilot agreements are the agreements we'll start with. It is a pilot program, but we thought it wise to amend the act to provide for the probationary agreement for the first five years. If it's successful and the proponents want to continue, then we could go into a long-term community forest agreement.

[7:30]

G. Abbott: So beyond that, it's as straightforward as that: if the pilot agreement is successful, the community and/or the government can elect to go on to a probationary agreement. I presume that after both the community and the province measure the benefits of that agreement on a probationary basis for five years, at that point the long-term agreement could be entered into, and that, as I recall from a provision later on in the bill, could be anywhere between 25 and 99 years. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Let me just try to explain that another way. During the pilot phase, we will go from a pilot to a long-term agreement if the pilot is successful after the probationary period -- the first period. After that, when we are beyond the pilot phase, which will be the first few that are issued -- say, in several years' time -- we would go from probationary to long term. So the pilot only exists for the initial phase here. We expect a series of amendments to the regulations and so on as we learn from it. There may need to be minor amendments. But we wanted to provide so that we didn't have to come back and amend the legislation again to establish it as a permanent feature of the tenure system.

G. Abbott: I don't want to dwell on this too much, but I'm not sure whether I misunderstood the minister, or perhaps

[ Page 10277 ]

he slipped a bit. I understood the minister to say in the early part of his last comments that you could move from a pilot agreement to a long-term agreement. Is it not correct that there is a probationary stage in there between the two, or is it possible to move immediately from a pilot to a 25-to-99-year agreement?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: During the pilot phase, a pilot is probationary. So it's the same thing as the probationary agreement later on. The probationary agreement is there for the long term. We've amended the act to go beyond the pilot phase. So during the pilot phase, you would prove up in the first five years and then move into the long term. After the pilot phase of three or four of these -- say, in a couple of years' time -- people will be able to go from a probationary. . . . The pilots wouldn't exist anymore; it would be a probationary licence for five years and then move into the long term. And yes, the long term is a term of 25 to 99 years.

G. Wilson: I'd like to go back one step. What I understand we're doing here. . . . Section 1(1) of the Forest Act is amended by adding the following definitions -- and it talks about a community forest agreement. But I don't see -- unless I've really missed something here, in which case I'd be happy for the minister to enlighten me -- where we have a definition of community forest and what that means, what its tenure means, who controls it, who makes decisions on it or how its application is going to be handled. Is it handled through the regional office, district office? Where is a community forest defined, spelled out, in terms of the jurisdictional questions that are obviously going to arise from people who might determine community as a regional district? It might be a subset of a subset within a larger electoral district; it might be a subset of a forest district. So how is community defined, what is a community forest, and where can I find that definition?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The only definition is "community forest agreement area," which defines the area of land that is subject to a community forest agreement. You could debate forever, and I think we'd be here till November if you tried to define a community forest. There are a number of things out there that people call a community forest without any kind of a definition -- using the existing tenures but where there's some kind of community ownership. So it doesn't read "regional district" or "municipality." They could qualify, but it could be some other kind of community organization. In fact, what we have done is to describe in section 5. . . . We've said what would be involved in a community forest agreement, and that's as close as we get to a definition. It does not mean ownership by any particular form of community organization. It can be a municipality. It can be another organization.

G. Wilson: I'm not trying to be argumentative here -- at least, not yet. You see, the fact that the minister would say that we could argue until November what's meant by a community forest causes me a great deal of concern. There are a whole bunch of competing interests out there that would like nothing more than to control the forest planning process, the cutting process -- what can be cut and what cannot be cut. There are a whole bunch of competing interests out there that would like very much to have access to timber they can't access now because of tenure restrictions, quotas and size regulations in terms of harvest minimums. There are a whole pile of reasons why we have to have a definition of what a community forest is. We have to know who designates it, we have to know who has authority over it, and we have to know who, finally, makes the decision within it as to whether or not it's going to be one of the three items that are outlined in this definition. Failing that, I would strongly urge that we take a careful look at what we're doing here. We're going to create more conflict than we're going to solve.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As minister, I didn't try to second-guess the advisory committee, which had upon it some considerable expertise, both in theory and in practice, about the nature of community forests and community forest tenures. As we get into section 5, there's actually a definition of who can enter into a community forest agreement. It says, a band as defined in the Indian Act, a municipality or regional district, or any of the following, if prescribed requirements are met: a society, an association, a corporation or a partnership. So we have given some definition, and we've worked it through. These changes reflect the advice we had from the advisory committee, which included virtually all the stakeholders that have an interest in the notion of community forests.

G. Wilson: We're in a bit of a difficult. . . . Technically, we can't be arguing section 5 before we get to it, but we don't want to leave the definitions section, because I can't come back to it. You know, one of those little problems we've got. . . . I don't want to belabour the point beyond trying to pin the minister down a bit more, because discretion as to what is and is not a community forest is not defined. I mean, how a subset of timber becomes governed as a community forest in terms of its tenure, the harvest plans and all of those other kinds of things that go around it is not defined in law anywhere. That's a real problem. We're going to have an inconsistent set of prerequisites -- depending on the minister of the day and the discretion of the staff who will decide on this -- as to what is and what is not a community forest. You're going to have a whole bunch of applications -- I can tell you that you're going to have some; I know of a couple that are going to be made right away -- for certain communities to have "their forest" defined as a community forest so that they can have a greater degree of control over what gets cut and what doesn't get cut.

Some people have an interest in seeing nothing cut, as the minister is well aware. Others have an interest in seeing everything get cut. The majority are in the middle, saying: "We need a responsible plan." So unless we have a definition of what a community forest is and how it's defined in law, I would strongly recommend that we take this back and go and rethink it. I don't say that to be obstructionist; I say that because I think that's sensible public policy planning. You don't want to introduce into law a concept of a community forest until you understand in law what a community forest is in terms of its tenure and its definition. Now, I've read at least some of the committee recommendations. I don't know that I can honestly stand here and say that I've read the whole report, because I haven't. But I've certainly read enough of the committee recommendations. I've met with some members who have been active participants in this discussion, all of whom, I think, recognize that there has to be something in law that defines a community forest, or you're going to have all kinds of litigated problems. People will start to have the judges make determinations on the basis of what is and what isn't and what does and what doesn't fit this model. We're walking into far more conflict without a concrete definition. Everybody's got to know where the line is and where it isn't -- what is and what is not a community forest. You can't be talking about probationary community forests and long-term community forests and pilot projects and pilot agreements of

[ Page 10278 ]

community forests if you don't have a clear definition of what a community forest is. With the greatest respect, I suggest that we need that definition, and we should have it in the definitions section before we move on.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We didn't want to straitjacket communities at all. They can apply, and we've tried to keep it somewhat broad, although we had to say that they had to address certain things. This is not the only part that defines what a community forest is. What gives effect to the tenure are things like the considerations during the evaluation of applications. I refer you to section 7, where we further define some of the objectives and uses and cooperation between stakeholders. It is a broad definition by nature. Community forests are a tenure that can achieve a broad number of objectives.

So while I as minister could provide an opportunity by defining an area, in which case the definition of the area, at least, has been provided by the minister. . . . They would seek proposals as to how it might be managed in the community interest. Or people can make proposals, as we will invite; they will make proposals, and through that process they will define what they think is a community forest.

G. Wilson: In these kinds of things, we get to the point where we agree to disagree. I don't want to be unnecessarily belligerent -- although being necessarily belligerent is part of the job, I suppose -- but it doesn't seem that anybody else on the opposition bench has a particular problem with this. I, for one, think that it's ludicrous to introduce legislation that talks about a community forest which is going to be some kind of subset of designated tenures that are already defined -- either through some kind of a licence area, or it's within a TFL or a defined regional area -- and just leave it loosey-goosey as to what it means. I think this minister is inviting all kinds of problems.

I can think of one right now. Homesite Creek, on the Sunshine Coast, had a very recent violent confrontation, because it's in an area adjacent to residential communities which should be within a designated forest but is not. Now, I can tell you that there are going to be applications coming out of my own riding to make that whole area a community forest. By what prescription will the minister say yes or no? By what measurement will the minister say that it qualifies or doesn't? By what definition will the minister be able to look at that application and say: "Yes, it fits" or "No, it does not"?

There is nothing here. It's purely discretionary, completely subjective, and that is just inviting tremendous conflict. Everybody's idea of a community forest is going to be very, very different, depending on where they're coming from in terms of whether they want active forestry or they don't.

Nobody else seems to think it's a problem; I suppose I should not pursue it. But I tell you -- because certainly I'd like to see this move forward -- that I strongly urge the minister to stand this down at this point. We've got lots of other business for the evening. Take it back to his drafters and really give this some thought. Bring it back tomorrow or the next day or the day after, and we'll try to give it speedy recognition and passage in the House. I think it's crazy to enter into a brand-new designation without having a definition of what that designation is and without having some clearly defined statutory authority to decide yes or no, it qualifies or doesn't.

[7:45]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: To dwell on this anymore would do a great disservice to the citizens that volunteered to sit on this committee. The elements of the draft were shared with them, and they're in agreement. My view is that there's no disagreement whatsoever when people sit down in the room and go through it. We have followed their direction. They wanted to leave it as it is defined, so that we can achieve a broad range of objectives. I think that any suggestion that we stand this down and put it back to a committee or give it some consideration, when it's had hours and hours, would be a disservice to those people who volunteered many hours to provide us advice on it -- which we took.

G. Wilson: Let me just try to have one more crack at this. If I'm the only person that's objecting, then fair enough.

With the greatest respect for those people who spent hours and hours drafting this, our business here is not to satisfy some subcommittee of a group that went out to make recommendations to the minister. It's to put in place sound statutory legislation, to write law that makes some sense, and it is the obligation and responsibility of the minister and the Ministry of Forests to make sure that the law of the land is a law that will be well applied -- will be evenly and fairly applied -- without contradiction and without inviting litigation. The language of this bill does neither. With the greatest respect to the people who made the recommendations, they're not legal drafters of legislation.

I'm not suggesting that you take it back to that committee; I'm suggesting that you take it to some legal drafters and that you sit down and look at this. Listen to what you might hear from people who would argue that you don't put in place a law that brings in a brand-new classification of forest land without some definition of what it means, of how it will qualify and of what that's going to mean in terms of its tenure -- the legal liabilities and obligations of the people who practise forestry on it -- none of which is included in this bill.

So I strongly urge the minister to rethink this. I mean, you wanted to go through second reading and jump straight into committee. We're in committee. There is no rush on this. By normal practice, we wouldn't be dealing with this until tomorrow or the day after. Go back and get some legal opinion, because that which has been given to me is that this is going to simply walk us into tremendous litigative problems.

G. Abbott: I just want to make a couple of comments with respect to the issues that have been raised by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

I think that at least a portion of the concern that I have heard is answered in division 7.1, section 43.2(5), which says: "A community forest agreement must be entered into only with (a) a band as defined in the Indian Act (Canada), (b) a municipality or regional district, or (c) any of the following if prescribed requirements are met: (i) a society incorporated under the Society Act; (ii) an association as defined in the Cooperative Association Act; (iii) a corporation; (iv) a partnership."

It would seem to me that if the prescribed requirements are of a precise or rigorous character, the problems of the sort that have been raised by the member should be met by subsection (5)(c).

Could the minister advise what's meant by prescribed requirements? How would we avoid the problem, for example, of individuals incorporating a society under the Society Act, seeking a community forest? What would be the prescribed requirements that would prevent an abuse of what we might characterize as a community forest?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The requirements that a society, association, corporation or partnership must comply with to enter

[ Page 10279 ]

into a community forest agreement will be set out in a regulation, but the intent is to ensure that these entities have specific attributes that the advisory committee have identified as being necessary to hold a community forest agreement. We intend to give further definition through the regulation. We think that's the appropriate place for it. The test as to whether it meets the requirements in community will, in part, be determined by the process of application through which they have to demonstrate, by way of a public meeting or open community process, that there is some validation in the community -- letters of support, results of hearings that they might hold, letters that might be written to the minister and that sort of thing.

G. Wilson: Can I move, then, to "community forest agreement area"? Since we've decided that we're not going to know what a community forest is, that there is no application there -- notwithstanding the member for Shuswap, who is defending the government's position with respect to section 43.2(4). . . . We'll get to that when we get to that section. I could not disagree more with that comment.

Nevertheless, let's talk for a moment about the community forest agreement area. It says that "means the area of land subject to a community forest agreement." Now, it's hard to define this without knowing what a community forest is, but if an application is made and is accepted, will that application take priority over land that would ordinarily be in a small business program or assigned with respect to other timber harvest applications? And will that community forest area then fall under a jurisdiction or a management agreement separate from and apart from the process that would ordinarily be in place today with respect to the long-term harvest potential of that land?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: One of my advisers is wondering if you're asking: where is the wood going to come from? If that is your question, it can't be encumbered. Would it take priority over the small business program? Well, if there's an established operating area, and there have been five-year development plans approved and so on, well-advanced planning -- probably not. That's not to say that it couldn't be, that you couldn't amend five-year development plans if the community wanted to do that. That would require some discussion between the Ministry of Forests, perhaps the small business operators and whoever is representing the community forest movement or committee in that area. We ask that they find timber that is available. It has to be some cut that is unallocated. It might be from the small business forest enterprise program. It might come out of a major forest licensee's quota. It might come out of one of their operating areas. This is very flexible legislation. The provision requires that the stakeholders come to some agreement about whether it is desirable or not. This will not take automatic priority over the small business program.

G. Wilson: That becomes a problem, because the minister says that they have to find some timber that is not allocated. The minister knows as well as I know that there is very little, if any, merchantable timber growing in the province of British Columbia that is not in some way allocated. It may not be allocated. . . .

Interjection.

G. Wilson: The member from the Peace says there's lots in the north. That may be true in the interior, and I will qualify that. It's true that it's a different system. But certainly on the coast, which is the area I most familiar with, you will find very little area that is not either allocated or within a timber harvest area or in some way defined with respect to the potential harvester.

Now, you're setting up a community forest agreement area without defining what a community forest is, which, frankly, I think is crazy. I seem to be alone in that view. If you're setting it up. . . .

Interjection.

G. Wilson: I'm alone in the view that I'm crazy? No, not at all. I think there are many people who would agree that I might be crazy, but I'm alone in the view that it's crazy to set it up.

Having said that, the minister has to acknowledge that this definition of community forest agreement area does mean that if the designation is provided, there is going to be a change in status with respect to the planning process, the harvesting potential and the whole mechanism for accessing that timber. Otherwise, what's the point of having it? Why would you do it if you're not turning over some authority from the district or regional management to the community? When we get to this section, we're going to find out just exactly how communities that are widely divided on this question are somehow magically going to come together to be able to administer this.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I suspect that if the stakeholders in a community don't come together, they won't get a forest licence. There has to be a broad base of support, and it's not designed to foment conflict; nor is it designed to provide all the solutions to all the resource management problems that people have. What's important is that a community forest may be created for purposes other than timber, but the management of trees might be important. So you might have a community watershed where the community agrees that it could be managed for water -- water and/or trees or botanical forest products or recreation. In fact, it might be that they can work in some kind of arrangement where someone else manages the timber.

G. Wilson: Then does a community forest agreement area, by definition, once it's assigned. . . ? Maybe I'll wait till the minister is focused again.

On this question, when a community forest agreement area is assigned, does that imply that that area is going to be provided a jurisdiction different from or other than the district or regional manager only if there is agreement -- we're talking about substantive agreement -- from both those people who would be, in the colloquial now, green and brown? In other words, what safeguard do we have that you're not going to have a community forest that would be driven by one side or the other, given that the minority will be able to protest but not be successful in their application? What is the minister's thinking on that area? Right now there are very clearly prescribed rules, and that comes back to the whole issue of tenure reform. I don't see anything in here that provides any comfort through definition that defines how this thing is going to work.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Under this legislation, it's quite possible that a sector in the community would want to do something with an area of land, and there might not be 100 percent

[ Page 10280 ]

agreement in that community. That will remain to be decided in the process. We have provided for a broad range of objectives, and we will assess that the proponents have an opportunity or a probability of success. Why would we create a tenure that then results in nothing but further problems in the community? We wouldn't do that.

By design, we have left it open through the pilot stage for us to experiment with a number of pilots. I suspect that there might be some of the nature that you might be imagining, but there certainly are going to be some that are different than others. I expect a wide variation in the three or four pilots that we've committed to.

Section 1 approved on division.

On section 2.

G. Abbott: The issue that is laid out in section 12 with respect to extending the cut control period under certain circumstances to an additional five-year period, assuming there's been some difficulty or extraordinary problem which makes the minister agreeable to the extension of that five-year period. . . . My question is: will that same ability be extended to community forests? For example, if the community forests in Revelstoke or in Mission find for economic or other reasons that they can't fulfil their five-year cut plan, will the same flexibility that is contained in section 12 for the larger licensees also be extended to community forests?

[8:00]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It will be only by way of agreement. They will be held to any cut control provisions only where the proponent suggests a certain cut control and it's agreed to by the ministry. The community forests in concept and in law are not subject to the normal cut control.

G. Abbott: So are those normal cut controls -- if we can call anything normal, given that this is quite a new form of tenure -- developed between the Ministry of Forests, either at the district office or at the provincial level, and the community forest corporation? Are they developed between those two, and then variances to that are negotiated over time beyond that agreement?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, but we expect that that would be addressed, if there is a need to address that, in the agreement itself. Provisions for amending the agreement will also be in the agreement.

G. Wilson: I just wonder if the minister might explain what the significance is of the reduction of tree farm licence area under subsections (3)(a) and (b). In reading this through, it seems pretty straightforward. I just wonder what the significance of that is.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This section had to be redrafted to include the community forest licence, so subsections (3) to (6) are the same as what was in section 8 before.

G. Wilson: Right, I see that in reading the act, but this doesn't preclude, then, the community forest licence from having within it a variety of licences that may in fact fit this section. In other words, it doesn't change what the chief forester is providing for with respect to the annual allowable cut.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: For the purposes of section 8, subsections (7)(a) and (b) are the ones that are relevant to the community forests.

R. Neufeld: Subsection (5) says: "In determining an allowable annual cut under subsection (1) the chief forester may specify portions of the allowable annual cut attributable to. . . ." I'm just wondering what the purpose is of that section in total as it refers to subsection (5)(c). What difference would it make whether the province of British Columbia funded silviculture or the federal government did, or both did together? What difference does that make at the end of the day, and why does it have to be spelled out in an act?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This was an existing provision, and it dates back to when the federal government funded improvements to forest productivity. It probably doesn't matter who does it. It says that the chief forester may be able to specify portions of the cut that are attributed to it. It just says that the chief forester may recognize productivity gains from certain investments. I suppose these particular categories were noted for convenience. So it's been in the act for some time.

R. Neufeld: I guess it's just a moot point. I can understand (a) and (b) to a certain degree. But just because it was in the old act. . . . I thought we were in the process of removing red tape and that we had a bill that's getting rid of some old legislation that isn't used, so why wouldn't the minister take advantage of that? I mean, if it means nothing at the end of the day. . . . Just because it was there before, it doesn't make any sense to me to keep it there if it doesn't do anything. That's the amazing part. Why wouldn't we clean it up a little bit and get rid of some of this stuff that's not needed?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We're not, by way of this act, going through and eliminating things that may be of less usefulness in the general Forest Act; it's just a matter of making consistent application of the act where it needs to apply to the community forest licence. So we're just rolling existing provisions into the sections and making community forest tenure applicable to those sections.

G. Abbott: I appreciate what the minister is saying about simply rolling over sections into this, but the member for Peace River North is absolutely right that subsection (5)(c) really serves no purpose. It may sort of implicitly invite the chief forester to undertake some work, which really will, for all intents and purposes, pose no constructive addition to this bill. I don't know that it's something that cries out for amendment at this point, but I think it's something that could be eliminated from this very happily, without any reduction in opportunity for community forests, the province or anyone else.

[E. Gillespie in the chair.]

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

On section 4.

G. Wilson: I understand that what (e.1) does is add to a long list of agreements granting rights to harvest Crown timber. The key is "to harvest Crown timber." The minister is going to satisfy a number of my concerns if the answer to this question is what I believe. The community forest agreement, as appended under (e.1) in this section. . . . I'm assuming that

[ Page 10281 ]

what that does is effectively. . . . By adding that, it says that a community forest agreement must be an active, working forest -- that it cannot be an area of protection. The minister is not suggesting that it's an area that can be in some way a community forest, therefore set aside. I'm assuming that that's what section 4 implies.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, it is a form of forest tenure, and it adds it to the list. The list includes forest licence, timber sale licence, tree farm licence, pulpwood, then community forest. It is an area of working forest, and there's no question about that. But the purposes for which the forest is operated and the work that people undertake in that can have a broad range of definitions. Some of them in there. . . . A road permit is not a working forest, but it's for the purposes of a working forest. That whole series of (a) to (j) -- and we're adding (e.1) -- adds to the type of tenure. It's a type of forest tenure for the working forest.

G. Wilson: I just want to nail this down one more time, because it's an area that has been brought to my attention. Under section 12 of the existing act, which is being amended by adding this paragraph, there is a long list -- (a) to (j), but the key. . . . I put this to the minister, because the minister was saying that there can be various purposes, and I want to make absolutely clear what we're doing when we establish these community forests. It's the minister's interpretation. . . . It says that "a district manager, a regional manager or the minister, on behalf of the government, may enter into an agreement" -- and these are the key words that I want the minister to confirm -- "granting rights to harvest Crown timber in the form of a. . .community forest." So a community forest, once established, is part of the provincial working forest. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That is correct. That's why we put the definition in section 12, which has a preface that states: ". . .enter into an agreement granting rights to harvest Crown timber."

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

G. Abbott: Just a couple of questions with respect to section 5. I think there's some reference to botanical forest products a little later in this bill. Could the minister quickly define what that means? Practically, what are the products that we're talking about?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I suppose some of these might be defined as we go, but the two that we could mention are mushrooms and salal. These are products as defined under the code. On a needs basis, we can define the definitions. But we haven't gone beyond that now. There could well be medicines, for example.

G. Abbott: More importantly, I would like to discuss with the minister a bit more about the process that is going to be involved in the evolution of community forest agreements from the probationary to the long-term community forest agreements. We already have in British Columbia at least three examples -- and there are quite possibly more -- of successful community forests. The one I'm most familiar with is in Revelstoke, but I know that they have been very successful in Mission and, I believe, at Cowichan on Vancouver Island as well. The minister may very well identify other ones.

We do have existing models of community forests in the province. In fact, the mayor of Revelstoke was one of the representatives on the minister's committee to look at this.

To take an example of a community in British Columbia that wants to move to the kind of community forest that they have in Mission or Revelstoke, what will be the process? Let's use one of the communities that has been a pilot project for community forests. What is going to be the process that occurs? Who is going to review their application to become. . . ? I don't know if they would become a probationary one first; that wasn't clear from the minister's original comments. But what's the process from then on -- once a successful pilot project has been completed?

[8:15]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think I know what the member is getting at, but I will talk about the process. We'll invite applications. The existing committee will make recommendations to me and presumably provide some options, and I'll make the final decision on which ones to accept as pilots. They will be assessed according to the criteria that have been defined for application under section 7. But an existing community forest licence, as we call it -- such as the Revelstoke tree farm licence -- may wish to go into a different form of tenure. There may be somebody operating out there who doesn't feel that they have the appropriate type of tenure, and they may wish to convert. I can tell you that my advice to the existing people is that they themselves are some kind of an experiment, and we're watching them as a type of tenure. Maybe we should explore different types of tenure under the community forest pilots.

G. Abbott: Actually, I endorse that flexibility, because the minister or the person authorized by the minister to make these designations down the line will be confronted with some interesting and different proposals. I just want to address that point in section 43.2(7): "After the public hearing, the minister or a person authorized by the minister must evaluate each application. . . ." Is the intention here that the ministry will retain that evaluation right or control? Or does the language here suggest that this could be a person outside the ministry or indeed a committee outside the ministry? Could the minister explain what is intended by "or a person"?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: "A person authorized by the minister" would only be an employee of the ministry. The advice will come from a committee. Of course, there are people within the licensing branch who do provide advice on the appropriateness of applications. They will give advice on the recommendations that I expect to get from the committee outside the ministry.

G. Abbott: Under 43.4(4), it says: "During the 6 month period following the ninth anniversary of a long-term community forest agreement, the minister or a person authorized by the minister must offer the holder a replacement long-term community forest agreement." Here I am a bit puzzled by the original explanation which the minister offered in terms of probationary agreements and long-term agreements. Why, if the tenure holder, the community. . . ?

The Chair: On a point of order, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

[ Page 10282 ]

G. Wilson: I'm sorry to interrupt the member. Have we by some agreement decided to take all of division 7.1 without voting on each subsection? If so, I wasn't aware of that agreement.

The Chair: We are on section 5.

G. Abbott: Thank you, hon. Chair -- exactly, we are on section 5 and pursuing different elements of section 5.

As I was saying, if the long-term agreement provides. . . .

The Chair: On a point of order, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

G. Wilson: I'm sorry to once again interrupt, but part 3 has a number of subsections: 43.1, 43.2, 43.3. . . . There are some things that are objectionable in some of those sections; others that are not. If we're to proceed the way that we are, we will be asked to pass all of section 5 of this bill without being able to vote either for or against each section. So I would request of the Chair that we deal with each section -- 43.1, 43.2 -- as they are completed. I think that would make for a more orderly debate.

The Chair: The Chair is in the hands of the committee. How does the committee wish to proceed?

An Hon. Member: Call the question on each individual one.

The Chair: We can proceed section by section if you wish.

An Hon. Member: That's the way it should be.

The Chair: Okay.

G. Abbott: I don't believe that there is anything in. . . . There is certainly no agreement about us concluding subsections of the different sections. We'll move on out of section 5 when all of the members' questions are exhausted with respect to section 5.

Interjection.

G. Abbott: The point I was getting to is: why do we have. . . ?

The Chair: Excuse me, member. On a point of order, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

G. Wilson: If the committee would indulge me, it is generally the normal practice when debating in committee that we go section by section so that we can vote on each section -- either for or against -- rather than in terms of the entire part. For example, section 43.1 has been discussed; section 43.2 is a very large section in which there are two and a half pages of information which should be debated and voted on separately from section 43.3, and so on.

The Chair: I appreciate the point of the member. As I have said, I'm in your hands. We will go through section 5 section by section, starting with section 43.1.

Section 5, section 43.1 approved.

On section 5, section 43.2.

G. Wilson: I have two questions that deal specifically with this section. One is actually under subsections 43.2(6) and (7) and deals with the advertising that the minister would be required to do and the public hearing that would be required to be held. I wonder if the minister might enlighten us as to what legislative or statutory authority such a public hearing would have. Is it prescribed under the Municipal Act and would it therefore have that weight of hearing? Is it under some other act that would regulate its authority? Or is it just an ad hoc public hearing that the minister calls just to get the general gist of the feeling of the community?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Under subsection (6), the minister specifies the nature of the hearing. We do this for pulpwood agreements and other tenures.

G. Wilson: That's true, but those hearings are held under the Forest Act, and there are prescribed procedures through which those hearings are posted and held and so on. If the minister is saying that it would be. . . . I guess my question is: what weight do these public hearings hold? If the public hearing is held, and there is overwhelming objection at the public hearing, is that going to be guidance to the minister that therefore this licence should not proceed? If the public hearing is held and there is no objection, does that obligate the minister to proceed? Or is the public hearing simply an arbitrary measure of community response?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The public hearing would be a genuine attempt to hear views in the community -- minority and majority views, if there are any -- about the proposed tenure. We govern the nature, timing and length of the hearing and the advertising through policy; that's not governed by the act.

G. Wilson: I would just assume, then, that it doesn't have the same weight as a public hearing prescribed under the Municipal Act, for example, where there are some very clear implications with respect to advertising and the ability to receive information once the hearing is concluded, and so on and so forth. My understanding is that that's going to be done by regulation. If the minister can confirm that, I'll come to my second point on this subsection.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We are treating these licences the same as we treat other licences and the public hearings that go with advertising them, so nothing changes here. It's the same as it's always been under the Forest Act, and it is regulated and governed by policy.

G. Wilson: That clarifies that question.

The other one has to do with sub-subsection 43.2(4)(c), which talks about land other than Crown land proposed for inclusion in the community forest agreement area, and the area is in a reserve as defined in the Indian Act or on private lands, and so on. Then, under subsection (5), it says that a community forest agreement must be entered into only with a band as defined in the Indian Act, a municipality, a regional district, or. . . . Then it sets out the societies and so on.

I guess my question here to the minister is. . . . My guess is that we are going to run into some rather complicated jurisdictional questions with respect to what constitutes "community," if we're talking about first nations involvement in land that is outside of land that would be defined as section 91 lands, band lands, under the Canadian Constitution Act -- if

[ Page 10283 ]

we're talking about community forest licences being prescribed outside that land without treaty. Secondly, I would say that we're going to run into some rather complicated legal questions with respect to the authority the Crown would have over any lands that may be entered into under such an agreement.

I wonder what the minister's thinking is about this. Clearly, there are very different jurisdictional requirements on those lands. The fact that you've defined first nations or band lands presumes somehow there will be some statutory authority over them if they're defined as a community forest.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The way we would deal with complicated jurisdictional matters is through a contractual arrangement. We have these arrangements now with private land that is pertinent to a woodlot licence, for example. Many bands have put them up. Where there is a problem and they aren't living up to their contract with the Crown, then we can refuse to renew. So we have the discretion at renewal to ensure that if there is a jurisdictional matter, it is sorted out so that the general intent of the tenure is being fulfilled.

G. Wilson: So in other words, you deal with it primarily as a harvest agreement, much as you would now under the existing Forest Act. There won't be any kind of jurisdictional change by virtue of its definition or its distinctiveness with respect to the community forest designation. It would actually be treated much as you would now with respect to a joint venture agreement on harvest. Is that right?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It would be the tenure agreement which would govern what they do. If there is some problem with them delivering or carrying out the management according to what's in the tenure agreement, then we can withhold the tenure or not renew it. As I say, I don't think there's a problem, provided the Crown retains the right to renew the licence.

G. Wilson: That was the question as to how that was going to happen if in fact there was some agreement that involved one of any of sub-subsections (5)(c)(i), (ii), (iii) or (iv). Presumably, once these community forests are in place, there has to be some kind of legislative legitimacy to what it is they're planning to do. Otherwise, it becomes little more than just an exercise in semantics, really. The regional manager or district manager will still be very much in charge of what is and is not harvested.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The easy answer is that there will be a tenure agreement -- a community forest agreement -- and under that there will be a management plan that's agreed to. So the management plan will govern the details of operations.

G. Wilson: That management plan will be agreed to through the normal course of applications -- through a district manager or through the regional office. Is that right? It wouldn't be managed through the community authority, whatever that ends up being.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It would basically be the same as for tree farm licences or woodlot licences: by agreement between the proponent, the owner of the licence, whether it's (i), (ii), (iii) or (iv), and the ministry -- the district manager or the regional manager.

[8:30]

Section 5, section 43.2 approved.

On section 5, section 43.3.

R. Neufeld: Just a quick question on sub-subsections (c)(i) and (ii). Sub-subsection (c)(i) talks about the exclusive right to harvest timber. The second one gives the holder the right to "harvest, manage and charge fees for botanical forest products" -- and that's explained -- "and other prescribed products." Could the minister just briefly explain what other prescribed products would be harvestable?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The reason this is here is to capture some items that might come forth in the application process. We wanted to make it possible for somebody to prescribe some other product. I'll venture one here: it might be a recreation experience. They might want to charge for the trails. That one has been talked about. I don't know whether this is the place where we'd capture it, but someone might come up with something. . . . The other example we came up with here is cedar boughs; they might just want to harvest cedar boughs.

G. Wilson: Could the minister, just for the record, explain why the probationary term is five years and why the long term is 25 to 99 years? Why were those years come up with?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The committee advised us that they thought it might take five years. A shorter time period wouldn't do it; we might need the full five years to get the community forest tenure up and running and to assess whether it was successful. That's why the five years. There was quite a bit of debate around the 25-to-99-years. There was some suggestion that they wanted this in perpetuity. We have chosen something that's virtual perpetuity: renewed every ten years after the probationary period -- ten years for 99. This is a very long-term tenure. That was what the community advisory group asked for. They wanted that sense of permanency for the long term.

G. Wilson: Could we jump, then, to section 43.3(g), which is with respect to one of the things the holder is required to do. In exchange for the rights to harvest, manage, charge fees and so on, they are required, "in accordance with the community forest agreement, to (i) carry out audits and make and submit reports concerning the holder's performance under the agreement. . . ." I'm assuming that those audits are performance audits; that's what's intended. It doesn't specify what kinds of audits we're talking about here, but that's an assumption on my part. Is that true?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Your assumption of performance audits is correct.

Section 5, section 43.3 approved.

On section 5, section 43.4.

G. Wilson: Just a quick question with respect to section 43.4(4). It says: "During the 6 month period following the ninth anniversary of a long-term community forest agreement. . . ." The minister was just referring to the ten years for 99. I just wonder, when it talks about the six-month period following the ninth anniversary. . . . They talk about the need for this agreement to be renewed. It strikes me that that's a pretty short period of time to be doing all that will be required in order to determine whether or not this application is to be renewed for another ten years. Is the minister confident that there will be staff available with an ability to make the evalua-

[ Page 10284 ]

tion that's necessary within a very short period of time, given the length of time it takes now to try and get cut plans in place?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Six months is normal; that's what we have now for tree farm licences. Sometimes there's a need for an extension. We thought it was long enough. In effect, people have got the full ten years of the time period to think about it. They should be thinking about it before the nine years gets there. It's just to have some kind of time line in there that's long enough to do the work. We're renewing tenures all the time, and the vast majority of them come in within the six-month time period.

Section 5, section 43.4 approved.

On section 5, section 43.5.

G. Wilson: This is probably one of the more interesting aspects. My guess -- and it's just an assumption on my part -- would be that these pilot agreements for community forests are going to be kind of like the first wave of what's going to come forward, because this is a fairly new system of tenure. I wonder if the minister might comment a little bit with respect to these pilot agreements. It talks about the length of time -- it cannot exceed five years -- but there doesn't seem to be any opportunity within this section for these pilot agreements to be moved into a longer term or into intermediate licences in the interim. If these pilot agreements prove successful, if this is in fact the way to start to amend tenure and if it becomes something that is desirable, where is the opportunity for the government to convert these? The next question is: can they be done without going back through the original process of application?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: On your last question -- yes, they can. If you look at section 43.5(4), it says that this section "applies to a community forest pilot agreement as if the pilot agreement is a probationary community forest agreement." The pilots will be treated as a probationary agreement, so they have all the renewal provisions provided for where it reads "probationary agreement." The pilots will be treated as probationary agreements.

G. Wilson: Then they're really isn't a lot of difference between a probationary agreement and a pilot agreement. Is that what the minister is saying? It's pretty much the same sort of thing. If you get the green light on one, that gives you some guarantees.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That's correct. During this pilot period those probationary agreements -- at the end of that probationary period -- can roll into longer-term tenures. The two are interchangeable, and as I said earlier, the reason we have two definitions here -- the pilot and the probationary agreement -- is that when the pilot period ends, then the act won't have to be amended. We would then start with probationary agreements, and all the other provisions apply.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

On section 7.

G. Abbott: I want to explore a little bit what the intent of this section is. Here we've moved from community forest to woodlot. There seems to be. . . . At least, I'm curious as to what the intention is here. Is there some sort of miniature version of appurtenance being suggested here? What is the reason for tying the woodlot, in this case, to a timber-processing facility? I'm not sure what the public policy purpose is here.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As you know, as the act stands now, woodlot owners cannot own a timber-processing facility. What this does is take away that prohibition. That's all it does.

G. Wilson: I think generally that this is something that should be widely supported. I just wonder why -- if the minister would just comment on section 46.1(4). . . . It's not clear to me, when they talk about the "corporation that owns or leases, a timber processing facility. . .if the production capacity of the facility is less than the prescribed production capacity and the holder of the licence. . . ." With respect to that last section, I'm assuming it's not intended that these woodlots then can become a sort of surrogate supply for larger entries. In other words, if the person. . . . We're talking about small woodlots now, we're talking about local mills, we're talking about single ownership. We're not talking about somebody entering into a broader agreement with respect to local mill operators who may want to get access to a particular supply of fibre. I'm hoping that's what I'm hearing, because if that's the case then I would strongly support it.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The language in subsection (4) basically says that you can own a facility, and you can be a family corporation or whatever. Whoever holds the woodlot -- it might be a family farm corporation that holds the woodlot -- can hold a timber-processing facility, provided the capacity of that facility isn't huge. In other words, we're talking about small mills that approximate the production from a woodlot. Actually, refining that will be done through the regulations and through further consultations with the woodlot association, in all probability. The idea is small scale, and the mills would be of such a size as could process the yield from a woodlot but not much more. They might be able to swap some trees. A large corporation wouldn't be able to hold a woodlot. "Corporation" is simply here to capture the fact that a small woodlot business might be incorporated.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

On section 9.

G. Abbott: Is the intention of having that 10,000-cubic-metre cut-off point that below that, presumably, the 500 cubic metres that would be lost is too insignificant to control? Or is there some other reason why the 10,000 figure was arrived at?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That volume is relatively insignificant, in terms of going through processing, but it is a significant amount that would affect a small licence. If you're only a 10,000-cubic-metre licence-holder, this is a significant amount to you and would be a considerable hardship.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

G. Wilson: I read the little section on the left-hand page as to what's being proposed here with respect to this section, but in reading the act and then going back and consulting with some people in the industry, I'm now more confused

[ Page 10285 ]

than I was before I started to look into this. I wonder if the minister might outline what his thinking is in terms of what section 56.1 actually does in terms of disposition of allowable-cut reduction.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The simple explanation of why this provision is here is that in the agreement under the jobs and timber accord, the argument was put forward that if there is a job maintenance and creation plan that was acceptable, there should not be the automatic takeback. As you know, the automatic takeback of 5 percent was put in the act to provide for further opportunities for small business wood and woodlot programs and perhaps some other opportunities for diversification in the industry. What this does is allow, upon the discretion and assessment of whether the government's objectives are met, people to retain that 5 percent.

G. Wilson: So, put another way, if there has been a reduction, and the company can come and argue that they have a job creation plan, the government can then override that reduction and replace that amount that has been reduced. In other words, they can increase the annual allowable cut on the basis of a job creation plan. Is that right?

[8:45]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, that's correct, provided that subsection (5)(b) is adhered to -- that it's consistent with the government's social and economic objectives for the area affected.

G. Wilson: That was my next question, and the minister obviously has his finger on that section, so let's deal with it. What this section says is that the chief forester, through the annual allowable cut reductions, will establish what the maximum harvest should be. A company can come along and argue that they have a job creation plan, and the government then would increase the amount that they would harvest back to the amount reduced. I think that's what the minister has agreed to. And then the minister is saying, in the bill, that provided that "the increase is consistent with the. . .social and economic objectives" -- and here's the key; this is where I'd like to focus -- "for the area affected by the agreement. . . ." What does "for the area affected by the agreement" mean? Does that mean the mid-coast, for example? What does that mean?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, it might be the area affected by the agreement; it might not be the area within the tenure if it's a tree farm licence or the operating areas of the forest licence. But it might be the nearest town where there are some facilities, or towns in the general region. This is a very broad provision that exists in the act, and it's going to be the provision that's used for assessing whether or not the objectives are met.

G. Wilson: But the area affected by the agreement could also mean the province as a whole. If we're talking about going in and being able to recoup that 5 percent, it may well be that the area of harvest is outside of any area of major settlement. The area processed -- certainly where the predominant jobs are going to be created, because harvesting isn't going to take too many jobs -- may well be outside the area of harvest. In a way, this is an opportunity for companies to go beyond what the chief forester said is an annual allowable cut. Is that not right?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There is no relationship here to the chief forester's determinations. It's just a question of how you allocate the 5 percent. All we're ensuring here is that he said that the wood is there, but he doesn't need the 5 percent takeback to meet his objectives. So the intent here is that, provided the wood is there, it can be reallocated. It just reverses the takeback provision. The takeback provision stays. There is a job plan submitted, and then a decision is made to leave it there, provided they meet the objectives. But I don't think your definition of the area affected by the agreement being broader than the region or the locale in which the licence has been awarded in the first place is really relevant. In theory, I suppose it is possible that we look at the provincial objectives -- that's all licences, but they're usually expressed in terms of local employment or regional diversity or regional stability.

G. Wilson: My last question on this, then. . . . It's interesting, the language here. Under subsection (4), the discretion is with the minister. Under subsection (5), the minister loses discretion: "The minister must" -- if that's the way it works. And then under subsection (6), again, the discretion rests with the minister: "The minister may reduce the allowable annual cut of an agreement that was subject to an increase. . . ." Then it goes on to add: "if it's not compliant with the job creation plan approved under subsection (4)." I guess my question is: how and when is that measured? That's surely not going to be measured before the harvest is completed. So how are you going to measure that job creation plan? Presumably the only way to measure it is after the fact, in which case is there some way to penalize those who have offended the agreement?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The job creation plan will have been proposed, and if. . . . Then they will operate it for a while, and if it looks like they aren't meeting the job creation plan, the power is there to go back and take the 5 percent.

G. Wilson: So that 5 percent, then, would come from some other allocation. Realistically, I don't think the ministry has the staff, frankly, to go in and to administer every one of these little job creation plans. They aren't going to be able to go out and find out the facts as to whether or not a job was actually created. Good Lord, look at just the last year, at the number of jobs that were supposed to be created that didn't materialize. All of that can happen after the fact. So the 5 percent is then presumably a future reclaim? Is there some way to go after this person or this company in a future allocation? How does one deal with that agreement if they breach it?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm having trouble understanding the point, but let me be clear: every small business licence that's out there has to produce what they said they were going to produce in the licence. So we do this now -- all of section 21 sales.

An Hon. Member: After the fact.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yeah, after the fact. You watch their performance. After the fact -- that's right.

G. Abbott: Just so we're clear here, this provision in section 10 would only come into play where a major licensee has sold its interest to another and the 5 percent takeback comes into effect. Are there any other circumstances where it would come into play?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No other circumstances.

[ Page 10286 ]

G. Abbott: I think that's clear enough, that it's only in certain circumstances and only in certain areas where this provision comes into play. In second reading discussion, I stated our concerns around the usefulness of job creation plans and agreements and so on, and I won't belabour that now. We certainly intend to vote against this section, on division, but we won't extend the debate on this.

Section 10 approved on division.

Sections 11 to 13 inclusive approved.

On section 14.

G. Abbott: Could the minister briefly advise how the rent will be determined?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This section is here so that we can enter into an agreement with the community forest tenure holder as to what type of rent they want, because it is much broader than just stumpage on trees, for example.

Sections 14 and 15 approved.

On section 16.

G. Abbott: Could the minister briefly advise what role, if any, the accord advocate will have with respect to this section -- subsection (c) particularly?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We would intend that -- as we develop policy here -- he would be involved. He works both for industry and government, so he could advise on the policy. We would leave it in policy so that it's flexible; but there's no statutory role for him here.

Section 16 approved.

On section 17.

G. Wilson: I'm curious -- and I should probably know, but I don't -- so I'm really seeking some clarification. Section 17, section 151.2(2) says: "A regulation made under subsection (1) may, for a period the Lieutenant Governor in Council specifies in the regulation, amend a provision of (a) this Act, (b) the Forest Practices Code. . .regulations made under either Act or (d) an enactment that amends this Act or the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act." I'm not certain from a public policy perspective how sensible it is to have regulations that effectively amend the act. Amendments to the act are brought in by bills such as this one, a forest statutes amendment act. That's how you amend an act -- not through regulations that the minister may bring down. I'm not even sure if that's on. I'd like to hear from the minister.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's fairly common. We did this recently with the Municipal Act. We did it with the Forest Practices Code. It's common, when you're bringing in something new, to allow the government to remedy problems that are discovered during, in this case, the pilot agreement process, so that they can continue to function. There may be unforeseen things that we need to do to bring it into effect, but it's clearly a transitional regulation-making power.

G. Wilson: Well, I'm not going to belabour the point, but I know that this government is used to making decisions and then going and amending acts retroactively to make their decisions legal and viable. I don't think it's necessarily a sensible way to practise public policy; it's certainly not a good way to legislate.

The section essentially sunsets on August 31, 2001. It says that this section is repealed, and any regulations made under it are also repealed. Now, regulations that then amend an act. . . . Does that mean that the amended portion of the act as covered in the regulation is then repealed? And what does the act say at that point?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This gives us time to amend the act in a way that better reflects more what provisions we need. Just to give you an example: under the code, we used this very successfully. My understanding is that industry liked those provisions. We advised the Community Forest Advisory Committee about this type of provision, and they agreed that it should be in here.

G. Wilson: You know, this committee that you keep referring to isn't running the province. With all due respect to them, they are not running the Forests ministry, nor are they running the forest industry or the province.

An Hon. Member: Well, they may be.

G. Wilson: They might like to think they are, but I don't think that's a good idea. The point is -- and the minister didn't answer my question -- that if by regulation you can amend an act, that means that it doesn't come before this chamber for any further debate. You simply bring in a regulation that amends an act. There is no debate, there is no discussion, and there is no vote. You have just by regulation decided that you're amending the act, and it sunsets on August 31, 2001. What does that do to the act?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Any provision that is amended by regulation would be taken out with this sunsetting, and we will then have to, if we want something to be saved in those provisions, amend the act through the normal process to make a permanent change to the act and subsequent regulations.

G. Wilson: I'm not going to take any further time in debate, but I would certainly reserve my right as a member to check this out and come back to this chamber. I am definitely uncertain about its wisdom, because it means that now we have complete authority in the hands of the minister to amend the law, which I find unbelievable. I mean, you don't even have to come before this chamber. The next thing you know, we'll just simply by regulation have an act that dissolves parliament. Then, what the heck, we don't need to be here. So I find that quite amazing, and I reserve my right to raise this matter at some point, and I say so on the record tonight.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: With respect to the concern of the member, it is a transitional provision. It's there so that you don't have to reconvene the Legislature to deal with a minor problem in giving effect to the legislation. As I said, it is a transitional provision. It is to bring it into being. It has to be consistent with the rest of the legislation; it's not a wide-open provision.

[9:00]

G. Wilson: My last comment on this, with respect to the minister, is that when we're amending the law, we want to

[ Page 10287 ]

bring it back to this chamber, because that's how the people of British Columbia have an opportunity to keep this government accountable. That's what we're here for: to amend the law, not to allow the minister to have complete discretion with respect to regulation that amends acts. Whether it is transitional or not, it affects the law through to the year 2001, and I find this a quite abnormal and undesirable way to proceed.

Section 17 approved on division.

Sections 18 to 29 inclusive approved.

On section 30.

R. Neufeld: Just briefly, this section has to do with burning permits and fire prevention. I notice, in looking at the act, that sections 30 through 35 all deal with burning permits and those kinds of issues to a certain degree. Maybe just for my clarification, before I get any further into it, the minister could explain to me the need to remove burning permit as it now stands. What was the reasoning behind this? Why are we doing it?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The basic reason is to reduce the time-consuming burden on the applicant, the permittee and the Forest Service. This is basically a simplified system. You'll phone up and give your district lot, and they'll give you a burning permit number and tell you about the provisions in the permit. That's what we envisaged.

R. Neufeld: Well, I appreciate that, and that does speed things up. I just wonder why that wouldn't be in here -- that all you have to do is phone the forest office and you'll get a burning permit number. What you've done is remove "burning permit" consistently through the act with no explanation for why you've done it. How does a person who is not familiar with forestry -- for instance, where I live -- now go about just burning some slash on their property or something like that? Now they just phone and they'll get a number, and away they go, and that's all there is to it. No one comes out and checks; there's no one from the forest office that will have a look and see. How do you tie responsibility to that person who is going to set that fire if there's no burning permit with the requirements issued on it?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Let me try this. What was in the permit before we will now put into the regulations. All somebody has to do is comply with the regulations, and they will be allowed to burn.

R. Neufeld: Okay. Then carry on to subsection (2), where a person actually doesn't need a permit. It lists for cooking or warmth or ceremonial purposes. I guess that's camping out in the wilderness. What changed there? You removed it totally. Does that just mean that you no longer describe that and it's an acceptable manner of doing things? What happened with that section?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Currently the provisions are in both the act and the regulations. We're putting everything into regulation. If you have a certain kind of fire and you want to know what's required, you look up the regulation, and you comply. You're in compliance if you follow the regulation.

R. Neufeld: I'll get off this very quickly. What I see in the act now, as in legislation. . . . Will that exact wording be in regulation? Is that what the minister is just telling me? All you're doing is moving it from the legalese into the regulation. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, that's correct.

Sections 30 to 41 inclusive approved.

On section 42.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move the amendment to section 42 that's in possession of the Clerk.

[SECTION 42, by deleting section 42 and substituting the following:

42 Section 136 of the Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 1997, S.B.C. 1997, c. 48, is amended

(a) in the part enacting section 246 (1) of the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act by striking out "the date this section comes into force" and substituting "June 15, 1998",

(b) in the part enacting section 246 of the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act by repealing subsections (2) and (3) and substituting the following:

(2) A logging plan continues to be a requirement for an area if

(a) before June 15, 1998

(i) a silviculture prescription is submitted for the approval of the district manager or is approved by the district manager or, in the case of a silviculture prescription that must be prepared by the district manager, the silviculture prescription is signed and sealed by a registered professional forester or is given effect by the district manager, or

(ii) the district manager exempts a person from the requirement for a silviculture prescription for the area, and

(b) the law in effect immediately before June 15, 1998 requires a logging plan.

(3) The law as it was immediately before June 15, 1998 with respect to logging plans, including, without limitation, the law respecting offences and administrative remedies related to logging plans, continues to apply to a logging plan referred to in subsection (1) or (2), except that

(a) the provisions set out in sections 106 to 119 of the Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 1997, apply when brought into force,

(b) a regulation made pursuant to the provisions referred to in paragraph (a) or under the authority of a regulation making power referred to in section 128 or 129 of the Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 1997, applies, and

(c) an enactment that is made to apply explicitly or by necessary implication, applies. , and

(c) in the part enacting section 247 of the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act by repealing section 247 and substituting the following:

Silviculture prescriptions and road layout and designs continued

247 If, before June 15, 1998,

(a) a silviculture prescription is submitted for the approval of the district manager or is approved by the district manager,

[ Page 10288 ]

(b) in the case of a silviculture prescription that must be prepared by the district manager, the silviculture prescription is signed and sealed by a registered professional forester or is given effect by the district manager, or

(c) a road layout and design is prepared by a person who is required to prepare it or is approved by the district manager,

the law respecting the content of a silviculture prescription and a road layout and design, as it was immediately before June 15, 1998, continues to apply to that silviculture prescription or road layout and design, and to an amendment to that silviculture prescription or road layout and design.]

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The amendment makes minor corrections to the transitional provisions of Bill 47, last year's amendment act. These provisions in Bill 47 are needed for the code-streamlining regulations which were recently brought into effect.

G. Abbott: To speak briefly to the amendment, we support it as a commonsensical way to deal with a minor dilemma around making the provisions in this act not provide extra work for licensees and others to meet the terms of Bill 47.

Amendment approved.

Section 42 as amended approved.

Sections 43 to 47 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move the committee rise, report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 34, Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 1998, reported complete with amendment.

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

Hon. J. MacPhail: With leave now, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 34, Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 1998, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 37.

MUSKWA-KECHIKA MANAGEMENT AREA ACT
(second reading)

Hon. C. McGregor: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

It certainly is my great pleasure to speak to the broad general purpose of this bill, because it deals with an area of huge ecological significance in the northeastern part of British Columbia -- that area known as the Muskwa-Kechika.

Early last fall the Premier and I joined with local residents of the area and had a tour of the Muskwa-Kechika when we were considering the protection of this important area. I had the opportunity to view, for the very first time, 4.4 million hectares of unspoiled wilderness. It was absolutely, stunningly unforgettable. It's an experience that I will treasure for the rest of my life. It's one of the reasons that I enjoy so much the portfolio that I have the opportunity to serve British Columbians in. In fact, I really envy some of my colleagues who represent that region of the province, because it truly is magnificent.

This bill is now being brought forward by this government to ensure that these outstanding environmental and resource values are protected and sustained for years to come. It's certainly no exaggeration to describe the Muskwa-Kechika as the Serengeti of the North. At 4.5 million hectares it's the size of the province of Nova Scotia, and it's one of the last large, intact, predator-prey ecosystems south of the 60th parallel. It is certainly home to an amazing degree of biodiversity: wolf, grizzly bear, elk, moose, mountain caribou, bison, mountain sheep and many other species that have become scarce or have vanished altogether on some parts of our planet. It features mature and old-growth forests, spectacular geographical formations, lakes, rivers and streams, waterfalls and hot springs and rolling subalpine and alpine areas that go on for miles and miles. It is the very essence of wild British Columbia.

The Muskwa-Kechika, however, is more than this, because it contains considerable oil and gas reserves and valuable mineral deposits. Careful exploration and development will have major social and economic benefits for all British Columbians. That's why more than 3 million hectares of the Muskwa-Kechika area are in what are called special management zones, where resource development will be allowed to continue. The remainder of the area has been set aside as a protected area.

The Muskwa-Kechika beyond this has tremendous cultural and heritage significance as well. Traditionally and for hundreds of years the land has been used by first nations for hunting, gathering and fishing. Its superb wildlife resources have undoubtedly attracted aboriginal people to it for centuries, and it contains evidence of past use such as native trails and abandoned villages and camping sites. Evidence following contact includes the remains of a Hudson's Bay trading post, a historic commercial fisheries site, a native village -- abandoned after World War II -- native pack trails and an old wagon trail.

The land use designation for the Muskwa-Kechika is also an excellent example of what can result when British Columbians work together on a model for land use planning. In this respect the bill reflects the sincere dedication and enthusiasm of the residents of both Fort St. John and Fort Nelson, including many diverse interests: environmental groups, the resource sector, unions, guide outfitters, trappers, first nations and of course local government. These efforts have worked together to create a truly innovative package of protected areas and special management zones for the Muskwa-Kechika area, which is reflected in this act.

The Muskwa-Kechika management area was originally designated in 1997 by an order-in-council under the Environment and Land Use Act. At that time, the Premier promised northern British Columbians that he would demonstrate this government's commitment to this area and to realize their planning recommendations by establishing a separate act for this unique area.

[ Page 10289 ]

[9:15]

The act has really four major components. First, it establishes the Muskwa-Kechika management plan, which provides the planning table's direction to natural resource management in the area. All management activities in the Muskwa-Kechika, for both development and protection, must be consistent with this locally developed management plan. The new act also provides for public review and amendment to the management plan, to ensure that it keeps pace with the social objectives and improved information as it becomes available.

The next component of the new act ensures that planning must occur prior to certain activities so that industrial and recreational development is orderly, efficient and integrated with other uses. Plans are approved at the field level -- in some cases, jointly between government agencies -- to ensure that all planning is integrated and complementary.

The third component of the act is the establishment of an advisory board to provide a public oversight role for the Muskwa-Kechika and to make recommendations for expenditures from the special trust fund established in the act.

The trust fund is, of course, the fourth component of the new act. The trust fund is established to assist with planning and research in the Muskwa-Kechika and will receive an annual appropriation of $2 million from government. In addition, the trust fund will be able to annually match up to $400,000 of private sector donations, which will be tax-deductible to donors.

In conclusion, let me say how pleased I am to put forward this act today. It demonstrates our government's commitment to northern British Columbia and to the importance of the ecological and environmental values we all hold dear, and it creates a heritage for our children and our grandchildren to come. Importantly, it maintains the balance, the sustainability, message and goal that we have as British Columbians to ensure that we are managing our resources in such a manner that we can continue to enjoy them for years to come.

Hon. Speaker, I now move second reading.

J. Cashore: It's a real privilege to rise following the minister and to say how much I appreciate the work that the minister and the Premier have done in order to make it possible to have this act in the House at this time, facilitating something that is going to be a legacy for British Columbia for a very, very long time. I think all of us would like to think that in a thousand years from now, the effect of this act will still be felt.

While it's true that the items that get the attention in the B.C. Legislature are those that are controversial -- where there's a great deal of disagreement and that cause a lot of heat to be generated in this chamber -- I think that this is the type of legislation that also exemplifies the very important work that needs to be done here, which often gets very little attention.

It's a great privilege to be appointed the first chair of this new board. I would like to think that my experience as former Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks and Minister of Aboriginal Affairs has enabled me to do that job. I also want at this point to recognize the members for Peace River North and Peace River South, who throughout the process of the LRMP provided very supportive input into that process, recognizing the value of building consensus wherever we can possibly do that and seeking to have a kind of approach to land use planning that fully serves the future as we enter the new millennium.

There are very exciting features with regard to the powers of this advisory board and the fact that this is a made-in-the-Peace-country approach to ensuring future sustainability. And so the advisory board, while it will advise government, will also have the administration of the Muskwa-Kechika trust fund, to which the minister just referred a few moments ago. Those expenditures will be controlled by the board to ensure the integrity of those resources, both in terms of the ecological support so that we can see a continuation of the predator-prey relationships in the Serengeti of the North, as it has been referred to, but also in terms of the timely development of resources that are so important to job creation and the economy of the province.

We are pioneering the way, led by people from the north, who enable that to happen. Out of 17 board members, 14 will be from the north, making it very clear that it's very much a northern reality. Also on that board are those who represent mining interests and oil and gas interests, who do not reside in that area but who have a great deal of responsibility for what happens in the economy of the area. The board will bring together northerners, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, rural and urban, those with environmental perspectives and those with industrial perspectives. They will share a mutual concern, and they will make recommendations to government that will ensure that the essence of the LRMP process will be carried out.

We recently had a meeting in Victoria; it had to be here in Victoria, because I was not able to leave, being a member of this Legislature. But 100 percent of the board members attended that meeting, which was an orientation meeting. At that time, it became very clear that there's a very deep commitment and a very significant range of talent on the part of every one of those members, which will be brought to bear in fulfilling not only this legislation but the deliberations that have gone on for over five years.

With the passage of this bill, we will have the capability to ensure that the management of a unique area is the most advanced in the world. Truly, hon. Speaker, this is a world-class example of land use planning, which it is the responsibility of the board -- and indeed of all of us -- to show as an example to the rest of the world that it is possible to have an approach that is inclusive and that ensures ecological sustenance. With that in mind, there will be definite efforts on the part of the board to engage the world community as we proceed with our deliberations. What better time to be engaging the world community than as we are on the threshold of the millennium?

Northerners will have access to the board, because the board will operate in an open and transparent manner, and it will be true to the vision of the recommendations. The bill essentially lays out a partnership between government agencies in the north and the board and is mutually supportive. The area will be managed on a day-to-day basis by the statutory decision-makers but very much on the basis of the advice of the board. The expenditures from the trust fund will be controlled by the board to ensure that the approvals and permits for industry are exercised in a timely way while ensuring ecological integrity.

The board will also fund research and will be involved in developing mechanisms to attract funds from the private sector, as the minister mentioned. Government will match those

[ Page 10290 ]

funds, and that will enable further work to be done. So we will have an ethic of partnerships which involve research, academic institutions, first nations and private individuals.

Most important is the provision that any expansion of commercial recreation will be deferred until there is a master plan in place that will ensure that any such activity is orderly and that it is within the ecological capability of the area to support. Therefore we will be preserving unique natural features and large wildlife -- the grizzlies, the wolverines, the black bear, the ungulates. The predator-prey relationships that exist in that area are really very much a big part of what this is all about.

I want to assure you that I and all of the board members are very committed to this grand experiment, which is the envy of the world. I think that the names of this minister and the Premier will go down as very significant with regard to the leadership that they have shown in enabling this to happen. I believe that the fact that I am going to be spending personal time there this summer with my wife, along with Bob and Mary Peart, as part of our holiday -- something we'd planned long before I ever knew that I might even be appointed chair of the board -- indicates that it's a place where I very much want to spent as much time as possible.

An Hon. Member: No expense account.

J. Cashore: Yes, hon. member, I'm doing that at my own expense. That won't be coming out of any of those funds we've been referring to.

In conclusion, I want to say, as I've often said before as we've looked at the work that our government has done with regard to protection of representative ecosystems, that in all the history of British Columbia and in all the history of North America -- and when I say "in all that history," I'm talking about a history that was impacted by the incursion of Europeans during the time of first contact -- we are the last generation in the history of the world to have the opportunity to do it right, to make these kinds of decisions. Were it not for the people of the north, this decision would never have been made. Thank you very much.

R. Neufeld: I rise to speak in favour of Bill 37, the Muskwa-Kechika Management Area Act. It's an area that I am very pleased to hear that some members from Vancouver are actually going to take part in seeing, in experiencing. It was also interesting to listen to the minister speak about her and the Premier's trip into the Muskwa-Kechika area and how much she appreciated it. We in the north have known for a long time how great an area this is. We have known for as long as I can remember, simply because that's my back yard; that's a back yard that belonged to northerners, the people that elected me, who I come to this House to represent.

I would like to put on the record that I am very proud of the individuals in the Fort Nelson LRMP process. They took four years -- almost five years -- out of their lives to sit at numerous meetings of all different sectors, talking about how they would set aside and manage and keep this area for future generations, but also not lose all the resource values that are in it. Those resource values are actually taking place now in the form of hunting, guiding, fishing, wilderness travel -- all those kinds of things that sometimes we in the north take for granted. I know that the people who sat on that board for the LRMP process out of Fort Nelson actually did the bulk of the work in setting up what we see before us today as a process that should be gone through.

There was also the Fort St. John LRMP process, where other individuals sat through all the same meetings in different parts. . . . In fact, they even travelled into the area at different times to have their meetings, and I'm sure that at times they wondered why they were spending so much time sitting around trying to decide what to do. I commend them for all the time they put into it -- gratis, other than that their expenses were paid. Without their hard work and dedication, wanting to see this area remain as it is for future generations, we wouldn't be here today.

I want to go back a number of Environment ministers -- prior to the present Environment minister -- and also put on the record that at times I had great difficulty in restraining that individual from coming forward with a bill such as this long before the process had been completed. To that person's credit, he did listen to me -- and listened to I don't know how many others. But he obviously left it for the fullness of time so that people could discuss the issues that had to be discussed to make this a reality.

[9:30]

All of us realize that when you're talking about an area that's 4.4 million hectares or 10 million acres -- the size of Nova Scotia, one-third of my constituency in land mass -- it's a huge undertaking. This is no simple, easy process. For the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, who will be heading the management team -- those people who will be making decisions in the future -- that's going to be a difficult process. I know most of the people who sit on that board, and I commend them for putting themselves forward to deal with issues that we're going to try to deal with in a huge area. Probably many people in British Columbia or Canada, let alone overseas in Europe, just can't understand the vastness of the area and all the things that we have within it.

We should also remember that this is an area that people from the north have given to the world as an area that is representative of a huge number of different species of wildlife, of mountains and rivers, lakes, streams -- you name it; it's there in all its majestic glory. It's an area that is better than four times the size of the Tatshenshini. If I remember correctly, the Tatshenshini is approximately one million hectares, so this is just over four times as large.

I want to say that had this same kind of process been used in creating Tatshenshini park, instead of someone deciding, almost unbeknownst to many people. . . . Had this government decided to do this same process in creating the Tatshenshini park, I think there would have been much less animosity than there is around the creation of that park. Not to diminish that park or that protected area, but I think that this process of using local individuals, people who have actually spent time in the area -- not someone from somewhere else who has never spent time there, but people who know. . . . People like Ross Peck, who has spent most of his life in that area, or Wayne Sawchuck, another individual who has spent most of his life in that area. . . . I can name guide and outfitter after guide and outfitter. I know that when I started working as a very young person, I worked with some of those people who now have guiding territories in there. That's what they worked for all winter long, to be able to make enough money -- it was almost like farming -- so they could go into the mountains through the summer and take people in for hunting excursions, fishing or just looking at the scenery. Today we see much more in the line of individuals coming from Europe and actually from the rest of the province just to come and look at this wonderful portion of British Columbia.

Having lived in Fort Nelson for a long time and travelled in the Muskwa-Kechika a certain amount -- of course, not the

[ Page 10291 ]

whole area, but I've flown over much of the Muskwa-Kechika on many different occasions -- I remember clearly. . . . Maybe I should just put this on the record. There are people in this House who will recognize the name Paul Watson. Paul Watson visited Fort Nelson in the late seventies or early eighties, if I remember correctly, when there was a wolf kill program going on in the specific area that we're now setting aside, because there were far too many predators and the ungulate population was decreasing dramatically. That, coupled with range burning over the years, has created what we have there today. With all the ungulates and the vast majority of the animals that live there, the habitat is certainly a lot more acceptable to them, and they can produce more. But I remember Paul Watson coming to Fort Nelson -- again, a southerner who came to Fort Nelson to tell people that we shouldn't be doing a wolf kill program for any reason. The antics that went on in Fort Nelson were absolutely amazing. It's a part of my life that I can tell you I will never forget.

So being able to stand in this House in 1998 and speak about the same area is -- I don't want to use the word "historic" -- rather moving for me. At one point in time, I was arguing that we had to have that wolf kill program if we were going to be able to keep up the wildlife that we enjoy today in that area. I can remember very clearly -- and I'll be very brief, Madam Speaker, as I know there are other people who want to speak -- that part of that program was taking place in the Kechika watershed.

Mr. Watson -- and you've got to envision this; an area the size of Nova Scotia, 4.4 million hectares -- went up to the Kechika River Valley and set up a camp 100 yards from one of the lodges along the Alaska Highway. The process of hunting the wolves. . . . It wasn't as though they were going to go in and annihilate all the wolves; I think they were taking 100 or something wolves out of the whole area. As a news reporter for the southern media, he was going to chase these Jet Ranger helicopters out of that area, and all he had to do it with was snowshoes. You have to remember that this is in the middle of the winter. It's 30 or 40 below zero, and Mr. Watson goes up there, and he's camping and going to stop the hunting of these wolves by aircraft and helicopters.

It was quite comical to watch. Actually, it wasn't comical. To be honest, it was degrading to the people of the north to watch the major media: BCTV and CBC. I remember the two people who are the anchors quite well. BCTV still has that person working and describing the news. They came up there in their helicopters from Fort Nelson, showing Mr. Watson and his group in this camp where they were really toughing it out, how they were really going to stop this wolf kill program. Then they went back to Fort Nelson and went to their hotels and sent their tape back south. Mr. Watson walked from his campsite over to the lodge and sat down with the lodge owner and had a coffee and sat around and read a book all day. So it was quite an interesting process to actually be on the ground, to know what was happening at that time. The stories went around the world about how terrible British Columbians were, especially those in the northeast. It's rather apropos that I'm standing here today talking in support of a bill that will set aside that huge area for future people to come to.

I hope that this will now expedite issues that people have been trying to get going in that area, like back-country recreation processes. The minister has a number of applications on her desk and has had for a while. I understand it takes awhile, but maybe now we can get on with looking at how we can process some of those and start showing a little bit more of what British Columbia has to offer to the rest of the world. I'm always a bit nervous about that. I was a bit nervous about too many people from the south coming north to find out what we've got. Often the decisions are made in the south by southerners for northern people. This bill is an indication that decisions actually will be made by northerners for northerners, and for all of British Columbia. I think that's to be commended on the part of the government of the day. With those few short words, I will take my place.

J. Sawicki: I too am very proud to rise in this House and speak in favour of this bill. While we are just a few days past national Parks Day, I think it's also very significant -- and no one's going to quibble about being a couple of days late -- that we can all agree as British Columbians that this piece of legislation and what it represents is truly something that all British Columbians. . . . Whether they live in the rural or the urban areas -- and whether they perhaps have lived in rural areas in the past or perhaps may live in urban areas in the future -- I want to emphasize that it is something of which all of us can be truly proud.

I am not going to repeat what previous speakers have talked about. But I think it's really significant that the minister has described the very significant ecological values of the Muskwa-Kechika that we are currently discussing in this piece of legislation. Equally eloquent, the hon. member for Peace River North has stressed how important it is that local communities that rely on this resource base for their economies as well as their lifestyles are front and centre in the decision that we have come to. It is also very significant that the hon. member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, who has the very enviable task of chairing this advisory board, also spoke about the structure that we are trying to put in place to ensure that we implement this tremendously important consensus that has been reached. Hon. Speaker, far from repeating what each of the three previous speakers have said, I will only say that if you combine all of those speeches and, hopefully, the few words that I will add, it really demonstrates the significance of the piece of legislation that is before us. Truly the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

One of the most significant days since I came to this House was the day on which this was announced by the Premier at the longhouse at UBC last October. As I stood there, with a long background -- but certainly not as long as many others -- in these kinds of land use issues and looked around at the people that were gathered there, it really came home to me just how significant a consensus decision we have reached here.

Not only were there representatives from the resource industries -- many of whom have tenures in the Muskwa-Kechika -- and from the Kaska Dene and, as can be expected, the environmental community, but there were two people there that held my attention throughout the entire announcement. I want to mention them tonight. They are Dr. Bert Brink and Dr. Ian McTaggart-Cowan, truly the fathers of conservation ethics in this province. I looked at these two men who have spent their entire careers talking about conservation, which is quite different from preservation -- conservation biology, conservation ethics, conservation thinking. I looked at those two gentlemen and hoped. . . . Of course, I've talked to them since, and I know that this announcement was a tremendously important moment in their lives. I am so thankful that all of us collectively have been able to try to put in this legislation what people like Dr. Brink and Dr. Ian McTaggart-Cowan have worked for their entire lives.

It has been mentioned that, of course, the advisory board that this legislation sets up will not have an easy task, even though it has embodied within this legislation the commit-

[ Page 10292 ]

ment of dollars to ensure that these plans can be implemented. While I commend the hon. member for Coquitlam-Maillardville on his appointment, I also know that it is a very difficult job that he has ahead of him, but it's an eminently sensible and urgent one.

[9:45]

I want share with you, hon. Speaker, and the members the analogy that I have used for what we are trying to do with this legislation in the Muskwa-Kechika. I developed this analogy because I have actually spoken on several occasions about this tremendous decision that we have taken at places like Rotary Clubs, small business communities and other community groups. It's very difficult to get across -- beyond using the superlatives of what an incredibly unique ecosystem exists up there -- why this legislation is so different and signals such a different way of thinking. I use the example of pieces of a puzzle, because land use issues are pieces of a puzzle. Quite frankly, as anyone who has tried to put together pieces of a puzzle knows, there's enormous frustration as these pieces lie all over the table, seemingly unrelated, and yet we know in our hearts that they're supposed to fit together to describe a picture. We know the big picture is there, but we don't often see it. In land use issues, we too often end up looking for our own little piece of the puzzle and ignoring the fact that there are other pieces with which we must integrate our own piece.

This legislation tries to do that. Rather than arbitrarily trying to hammer the pieces together -- as we know that we have done in British Columbia many times with land use issues, with predictable results: frayed edges and frayed tempers and a rather distorted picture -- the Muskwa-Kechika legislation before us tries to take the opposite approach. It tries to begin with the picture intact. In other words, the LRMP consensus, the plans that this legislation envisions, the structure that we are putting in place are actually designed for the pieces to fit together. While they may be separated for a short period of time, whether it's oil and gas or mining, back-country recreation or wildlife interests. . . .

We can leave this House, hopefully, having voted for this legislation, with full confidence that those pieces will in fact fit together. In that way, I am very proud that this House is now considering this legislation. Hopefully, it will be a model for a different way of managing land use issues. I only want to add my congratulations to the minister, to the Premier, to all of the members of the LRMP process that worked so hard, as the member opposite has said, and to extend my best wishes to the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville and the advisory board, whose job it will be to help us implement this incredibly important picture that, hopefully, will be there for all time.

J. Weisgerber: I too want to take a few minutes to talk about this very important piece of legislation. The Muskwa-Kechika is not in my constituency, but as my friend from Peace River North suggested, it's in my back yard and in the back yard of my constituents as well. We certainly feel a sense of ownership through use and through our appreciation for that unique part of not only British Columbia but the world.

I don't think we can say enough about the good work that has been done by both the Fort Nelson and the Fort St. John LRMP tables. It's very easy for us as government, and easier perhaps for those of us on this side of the House, to take an hour or two hours or a couple of days or a week to involve ourselves in these activities at the conclusion. It was a far greater challenge for those people who truly did pioneer a new way of dealing with land use issues without any guarantees and certainly without any great confidence, I expect, that their work would be as well received as it's been. I won't apologize at all for recognizing the work that they did.

By coincidence, I was in Chetwynd the day the Premier made his announcement. He made his way from Fort Nelson to Chetwynd, and we wound up at a function -- a community dinner -- put on by the Northern Forest Products Association that night. The Premier's staff brought along a number of glossy backdrop items, and he spelled out again for the primarily forest-related audience the decision that had been made. He did a very good job of it. When I spoke afterwards, I suggested at that time that I felt we simply had to go beyond an announcement, beyond the normal glossy brochure, and that we needed legislation which would implement the intent of those four or five years of hard work by those LRMP tables.

Certainly, at first blush, I can say: "Hey, I'm pleased to be here today, talking about that legislation which I first envisioned and raised with the Premier on the day that this agreement was first announced." I suspect that in the LRMP process, well before my blinding flash of insight, they had been talking about legislation and the need for legislation. Nonetheless, it's an important part of the process.

The area we are talking about is indeed incredibly large, but I think it's important for us to understand that we are not talking about a park the size of Nova Scotia. Let us not fool ourselves into believing that we have set aside 4.5 million hectares, or 10 million acres, of parkland in British Columbia, because that is not it. That is not the intent of those recommendations, it's not the intent of the legislation and it's not the intent of the process. But I have a feeling that we are quickly talking ourselves into believing that we have just set aside a park the size of Nova Scotia. It will be an enormous disservice to the region and to this province if that idea is allowed to build and is encouraged by those who want to make a political statement to a certain constituency in this province.

The fact of the matter is that we have about 1.2 million hectares -- still an enormous area of parkland -- set aside and surrounded by about 3.2 million hectares of protected special management area, not protected management area. I want to commend the government for finding a sensible way of dealing with that 12 percent nonsense that Madam Brundtland came out with a decade or so ago and which everybody fell on the altar of. It simply didn't make any sense then, and it doesn't make any sense now. If indeed we want to pretend, through this process, that we've now achieved Madam Brundtland's vision of the future, then let us do so and put it to rest and get on with building a province that can sustain an economy as well as an environment.

Let me also say, with respect to my friend's comments about the Tatshenshini, that had we gone through a process like this, we would have come up with a decision that I believe would have protected the critically important areas in the Tatshenshini and left the resource industries in this province much more able to function and create jobs than they are able to do in the existing situation.

One of the reasons that this process -- this agreement, this designation -- has received such wide support in the region is that it does allow, even in the parkland areas, for the continued traditional uses not only by aboriginal people but by natives to the area, aboriginal and non-aboriginal. It allows for hunting, guiding, trapping, fishing, wilderness tourism, etc., and that's as it should be. I think those issues, being important to local residents, are reflected in the advisory board. I want to give credit not only to the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, who is dedicating himself to chairing this committee, but also to Ross Peck, who is a longtime

[ Page 10293 ]

friend. He is vice-chairman and is very well qualified, and he is a very dedicated outfitter who has a real environmental commitment and a long-term vision for that part of the world.

Madam Speaker, I don't want to spend a long time, but I do want to talk about the three elements that were first announced in the OIC of December 11, 1997. At that time, the cabinet talked about -- appropriately, I think -- a protected resource management zone of 1.2 million hectares and a special resource management zone of 3.2 million hectares, making up the 4.4 million hectares. What has been left out of this debate, and what I fear is left out of this legislation, is the reference to the enhanced resource development zone. My understanding of the long debate that went on with the LRMP processes was: "Look, let's identify some areas that we must set aside and protect in parkland status. Let's surround that with a special resource management zone, where resources can be extracted, but under careful management and supervision. The trade-off for that is to set aside some areas that aren't environmentally significant for enhanced resource development." Now, I've sat in the chamber and listened to all of the debate, and I've yet to hear anybody talk about the enhanced resource development zone. I don't see it in the bill.

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: The member for Burnaby-Willingdon says it's not in the bill, and she makes my point precisely. When I talked to the Premier about the need for legislation, it was because I feared exactly that. The compromise, the trade-off, that the community reached in suggesting that there are areas where there should be enhanced or intensive resource extraction has been left out of the bill. It's left out by the Minister of Energy and Mines, left out by the Minister of Environment -- left out everywhere. What I want to know -- and what I intend to find out tonight -- is how we're going to move away from the norm in the enhanced resource development zones.

I can understand how we're going to curtail resource extraction in the special resource management zone. I understand that there is a norm, and there will be more management, more control, in the special management zone.

I want to know the role of the advisory council, the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville and Ross Peck and others in overseeing this enhanced resource development zone. Because if there isn't that trade-off. . . .

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: The member for North Vancouver-Seymour says it will never be done, and sadly, I fear that he's correct. Sadly, I fear that the LRMP tables that spent four or five years working out this compromise will see their intent only partially implemented -- the parts that meet, the needs that stroke, the tyranny of the majority in southern British Columbia -- and it will fail to deal with the needs of people in northern British Columbia.

So as we go through this bill, particularly at committee stage, I am going to be looking for an explanation from the minister as to how the issue dealt with in the OIC of December 11 -- order-in-council 1367, precisely. . . . For the benefit of those people who might be looking through it, on page 21 of OIC 1367, there is a reference to enhanced resource development zones. I would very much like to know what happened between the drafting of this OIC and the drafting of this legislation, which we're all here apparently not only prepared but keen to support. Before I'm able to do that, I need -- and I expect a number of us need -- to have an answer as to what's happened to those enhanced resource development zones.

[10:00]

I want to know how you move from the norm to more intensive resource use and extraction. If you need a regulation to curtail activity, it seems to me that you must also need a mirror reflection of legislation in order to move to enhanced resource development -- development beyond the norm. So with that, Madam Speaker, I'll take my place and eagerly await committee stage of the bill.

M. Coell: I'd just like to make a few observations and comments on the Muskwa-Kechika Management Area Act, which we're debating this evening. But it doesn't sound like there's much debate; it sounds like there is agreement within these walls on the appropriateness of this bill. Sometimes it's not the people in this chamber who make the decisions that count, but obviously the Muskwa-Kechika has spoken to all of us and has enabled us to make the right decision.

I would like, first off, to add my thanks to the people of the north who have, I think, shown us how a very large area can be protected and enhanced while still providing jobs and opportunities for British Columbians. I think that's tremendously important. It also gives us an opportunity to see, through the eyes of the people of northern British Columbia, how species protection can be enhanced. We talk a lot in Canada and in this province about endangered species legislation and how to deal with the preservation and conservation of species in this province. This is a perfect example of something that will work, and many future generations of wildlife will be enhanced by this act. That's something that many other areas in this country, and probably in North America, can benefit from.

Most important, I think, is the opportunity that the people of the north have given us -- the urbanites, who sometimes think we have all the answers to wildlife management and resource extraction and job creation -- through the many people who toiled many hours, days and years to come to agreement on this bill and this management area act. I thank them, because I think they have helped all of British Columbia understand what can happen when we listen to one another and especially when we listen to the voices of the people of the north.

I look forward to the committee stage of this bill and at this point take my seat.

Hon. C. McGregor: It's certainly my pleasure to wrap up what I would consider to be a very. . . .

An Hon. Member: A love-in.

Hon. C. McGregor: Yeah, it might be described as a love-in.

I tend to agree with the comments of the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville. He said that it's our tendency to always talk about the points on which we don't agree. We spend a great deal of time and the energy of the people in this room and around the province. . . . The media reports on all the conflict that we often experience in this chamber and outside of it. It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to listen to all of my colleagues from all sides of the House and recognize that each one of them has addressed the very momentous occasion that this legislation celebrates. I'd like to thank each of them for their remarks from a variety of perspectives.

[ Page 10294 ]

As others have before me, I think another mention of the importance of the people of the north. . . . As one member pointed out, it's easy for those of us who have been involved in the process for only a short period of time to feel some degree of satisfaction with the outcome. But it is in fact the work of those people in Fort Nelson and Fort St. John, who really slogged it out on the ground every day and worked to get the kinds of compromises. . . .

As the member for Peace River South notes, the need to balance the questions of protection with those of enhanced resource activity. . . . The member will know, as was mentioned in first reading, that we have every intention of ensuring that the plan that was developed in northern British Columbia not only encompasses the protected areas and special management areas covered in this act but extends further, to continue to deliver on those further objectives related to resource extraction and intensive activity around those questions. All of us in this House recognize that while today we may be celebrating this act, which preserves for all time one of the most unique environments in the world, we also depend very much on the resources of our province to give us the kind of economic activity that keeps our society going. All of that is, of course, without question.

I don't want to belabour this debate. I think we've had a good opportunity to air concerns and issues. I look forward to moving forward to committee stage and addressing specific questions from all members. I now move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 37, Muskwa-Kechika Management Area Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

MUSKWA-KECHIKA MANAGEMENT AREA ACT

The House in committee on Bill 37; W. Hartley in the chair.

On section 1.

M. Coell: Hon. Chair, the makeup of this bill seems to come in parts, not sections. I wonder if you could clarify for me how you intend to deal with it. Are we going to deal with parts 1 through 5?

The Chair: The number just before the word "definitions" refers to section 1.

M. Coell: Thank you for that clarification.

On the term "advisory board" in the act, I'd like the minister to clarify how that board will be appointed now and how people will be either deleted from or appointed to the board.

Hon. C. McGregor: I'd like to begin by clarifying that the current board is not duly constituted until such time as this bill has been completely passed and enacted. Nonetheless, we have sought applications from a variety of interest groups, representing the many interests that sat through the land use planning process, including local government, the resource sector and so on. We invited applications from many of those groups. They nominate, and the Premier selects. At this point in time we're recommending a three-year term, but we will be developing regulation through which the details of board appointment would be established.

R. Neufeld: Just quickly -- I understand that the bill has to go through. The people that are there now, today, are the ones that will be there once we pass the bill. Is that correct? There are no planned changes, are there?

Hon. C. McGregor: That is correct. They will be as they are recommended by the Premier.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

J. Weisgerber: I want to raise again the issue of the enhanced resource development zones covered in OIC 1367. It appears that this section, with the reference to that particular OIC, would be the most appropriate time to raise it. The difficulty I have is that while the OIC makes a reference to an enhanced resource development zone, it really provides very little by way of description in the order-in-council as to what an enhanced development zone means, how it's going to be implemented, how it's going to be managed and how special regulations that one would assume would facilitate development are going to be implemented.

I'm, of course, further confounded by the fact that there isn't even a reference in the legislation to this issue of enhanced resource development, and I'm hoping that at this point the minister can provide me -- but more importantly, the people who make a living in the northeastern part of British Columbia -- with a description of how her government intends to implement a key element in this whole undertaking. I believe that if the LRMP tables had thought that the government would ignore that crucial element of their recommendation, they would have never gone ahead with an agreement, a sign-off, on this deal. I want to know how the government is going to manage. . .and whether or not perhaps the advisory council is going to have a role in that. We have on the advisory committee representatives from the gas and oil industry, the mining industry, the forest industry, etc. Is the advisory council going to have the same kind of control over enhanced resource extraction as it has over preservation and protection?

Hon. C. McGregor: All of the objectives from the LRMP process, whether they are environmental or economic, will form a part of the regulation that would be developed. And there will be, as we've described before, word for word -- not an "i" undotted or a "t" uncrossed -- in terms of the goals and objectives that were set by the Fort Nelson and Fort St. John LRMP process. That includes, of course, intense resource extraction. I would like to advise the member that it's not the correct terminology to describe the board as one which controls or permits development; rather, it has the role of advising, because, of course, the same line ministry responsibilities in Forests, in Energy and Mines and in Environment. . . . Line ministries that have responsibilities for permitting will continue to permit that activity. But, of course, it is all subject to the objectives that have been laid out through the management plan and the LRMP process, which will be enshrined in regulation. Clearly the intention is to deliver on all of those goals, whether they are environmental or economic.

[10:15]

J. Weisgerber: My difficulty is that we've heard a lot from the government, from the Premier, from the minister and from various members on the government side about the protected areas -- and they're important; I don't mean to

[ Page 10295 ]

detract from them -- and about the special management zones. We've heard a lot of talk about how resource extraction is going to be permitted but access will be limited. Roads will be taken out after they are no longer needed, and pipelines will be re-landscaped, if those happen to take place. We've heard a lot from the government, proudly and appropriately, about how they are going to manage two of the three zones. But I haven't heard a word -- not one word -- from this government about how they're going to implement this enhanced resource extraction zone. So I want to hear from the minister the same kind of vision as we heard about protecting ungulates and predator populations and the Serengeti of the North. That's all good stuff, and I think it's important; I like it. Now I want to hear the flip side. I want to hear just how good we can make enhanced resource extraction sound to British Columbia, because it's important that we understand that this deal had some give-and-take. That's why there was the buy-in by all of the stakeholders. It's a huge disservice that we've come this far in this debate without hearing a word about that. I want to hear some specifics about how you move resource extraction to an accelerated position from where it is today. That's what I'd like to know about.

Hon. C. McGregor: I'll take the time, if I can, to review some of the efforts the government has made on the question of resource extraction. But I think that first and foremost, we have to understand the purpose of the act that is before us today. It is the Muskwa-Kechika Management Area Act, so it is an act which describes how we will manage the protected area and the special management zones around it. While it does not describe the intensive economic activity that the member is making reference to, as I indicated to him earlier, that was clearly the work of the LRMP. Those matters will be listed in great detail, word for word, from the LRMP table to ensure that those objectives which mean that there will be additional resource extraction will go forward and proceed. In fact, the management board will do a semi-annual review to ensure that government is meeting the objectives in every one of the zones -- not just the special management zone, not just the protected areas, but also the enhanced resource extraction.

I think it's important for the member to understand that I am responsible for managing the environment and parks. I am not the minister responsible for economic development activity. Nonetheless, I know that the member is aware of two pieces of legislation that have been introduced in the House this session: the Mining Rights Amendment Act and the Oil and Gas Commission Act -- both of which are designed to enhance our strategies and our work in northern British Columbia and in other parts of the province, particularly in the mining sector, and to give us the kinds of processes through which we can gain the efficiencies necessary to move forward with resource extraction activity.

If the member wishes to engage in an additional discussion on measures related to mining or forestry or oil and gas, I would advise him to take that up with the appropriate minister.

J. Weisgerber: I'm not going to allow myself to be provoked with that kind of comment from a minister, knowing full well that the ministry estimates for everybody are completed. I'm going to pass on that and try to get to the heart of this.

If the government can't find the gumption to put into legislation what it put into an order-in-council, one would think that it would at least have the decency to have tabled a companion piece of legislation which would have dealt with this issue at the same time. It was in a big rush to get this legislation forward. If in fact this proposal, this agreement, has three parts and if the minister is responsible for only two. . . . I would argue that if the minister is going to suggest that her responsibility is only for the environment, parks, etc., then perhaps the legislation she tabled shouldn't have even dealt with the special management zones. That's not in the minister's purview. That is the managed extraction of resources in a special zone. One could have easily argued that some other minister should have brought in the sections dealing with the special management zones.

Quite honestly, I'm not prepared to simply accept from the minister the notion that I should go and talk to some other minister in some venue that doesn't exist before next spring. So I'm going to try again. I'd like to hear from the minister -- or any other minister, including the Minister of Employment and Investment, who's in the House -- the vision for this special resource management zone, just as I've heard the vision, which I think is a fine one, for the other management zones. I just want to hear your vision for the third zone, and not some lofty, airy-fairy "We're going to do good work" stuff. I'd like to know how you move into intensive resource management without the legislation, which the minister apparently wants to shrug off. If the minister, or any other minister, wants to give me some insight, I'd be happy. I'm going to be reluctant to leave this issue without some sense of the direction that the government's going in.

Hon. C. McGregor: I think the member's final comment is where I want to begin -- that's up to government to decide where it wants to go on these questions. No, hon. member, I would say it is up to the Fort Nelson and Fort St. John tables to determine those objectives, and indeed they did.

As I have indicated to you on several occasions now, we will be implementing the recommendations that were adopted by the LRMP process, which includes intensive resource extraction activities. Those objectives that are listed in the LRMP will be provided in the regulation word for word. If the member would like a copy of the LRMPs to read the objectives for himself, I'd be happy to provide those. Or if the member would like to take my word that I'll provide him with a copy of the regulation once it's developed, I would take it upon myself to do that as well. I would also tell the member that there are many opportunities to speak with ministers, not only during estimates.

J. Weisgerber: I'm certainly prepared to take the minister's word that she will provide me with material; I have no reason to doubt that she would. But the fact of the matter is that this issue is the culmination of a four- or five-year process, from the perspective of the people who sat on that LRMP, and so far they haven't heard anything -- maybe they've heard more than I have -- about this whole process for resource extraction.

I just want to know what the vision is for the government. I want to hear some of the same kinds of things as I've heard about your protection plans. So far I haven't heard any. So I will keep asking the question, I guess, until somebody rules me out of order or I get an answer. I think that's a fair question. I don't think I'm being at all unfair to the government. We've got several capable ministers -- ministers who have a good insight into the vision of this government for what it is they want to achieve. It's not important for me; it's important for the people who put five years of their lives into this to know how their plan is going to be implemented.

Hon. C. McGregor: I think that the vision the member speaks of is very apparent from the documents that were

[ Page 10296 ]

created as a result of the long-standing LRMP process that has been led by this government but that really developed in the communities. Frankly, that vision is one of balance.

There are objectives developed by the LRMP tables for every zone, and those zones speak to the kind of balance that the people of northern British Columbia wanted to achieve. In some areas the objectives are related to wildlife enhancement, and those objectives will continue. In some zones and areas the values that have been listed in the objectives include oil and gas extraction, and those will be delivered on. In some areas, the zones deal with other questions related to viewscapes -- commercial back-country recreational opportunities. Those, as well, will be delivered on through the processes of the line ministries delivering on the goals and objectives listed in the LRMP documents, as a result of the process, and by the overseeing role of the advisory board, as well, who will review on a semi-annual basis our progress on achieving all of those objectives.

I think I've been fairly clear. All of the objectives of the LRMP will be delivered on, including those of intensive resource extraction and greater economic activity.

J. Weisgerber: One thing about beating your head against the wall: it feels really nice when you quit. I think I'm going to find out just how nice that feels. It's pretty obvious to me that I'm not going to get an answer to this issue. But let me say, on behalf of the people who I believe expected more, that I and many people in the north will be disappointed at the lack of specificity in this legislation with respect to this important element of the agreement. So, having made my point and having perhaps entertained some of the members opposite, I will allow this to move forward. But I can assure members of this House that I will come back, even if I have to wait until next year, to the relevant ministers to find out how this government intends to follow through on its contract with the people of northern British Columbia with respect to this agreement in its entirety.

R. Neufeld: I was interested in the questions that the member for Peace River South asked, and I was a bit taken aback by one of the responses from the minister when she said that she wasn't responsible for the economy. That's quite a broad statement, because as the lead ministry in this, she is responsible for the economy that's going to happen in the Muskwa-Kechika area in the special management zones. So I think that as a minister, you do have some responsibility. Although the Minister of Energy and Mines and the Minister of Forests are mentioned in the bill, really, I'd like to put on the record that you are responsible for the economy to a certain degree, because without a good environment we don't have a good economy. Obviously, there are some responsibilities that you will be responsible for.

[10:30]

I very clearly remember the meeting in Fort Nelson. I was there when the minister and the Premier met with the Fort Nelson LRMP process -- when the mayor of Fort Nelson indicated that they would be happy with the agreement only if all the t's were crossed exactly as they had done it and all the i's were dotted, and, in fact, that if there was a misspelled word, it was to remain misspelled. That's how clear they were on how serious they were about the bill actually reflecting exactly what came out of those five years of consultations.

As I understand it, and maybe the minister can clarify it for me, the LRMP tables in both Fort St. John and Fort Nelson have had the opportunity to go through this piece of legislation at length and look at it. That's what I've been told. I'd like the minister to put it on the record and confirm that. Did either of those tables or anyone on either of those tables indicate that there was anything in this bill that they hadn't requested, other than the small amendment which the minister will later put forward?

Hon. C. McGregor: The member is right in saying that we consulted extensively with all members, or most of the members -- certainly the vast majority -- on the LRMP table. They then all had the opportunity to look at the act in some detail. In fact, they were very satisfied with the scope and detail in the act. The mayor of Fort St. John made very complimentary comments about the structure of the bill and the detail that it represented.

R. Neufeld: With that, I can take comfort in what I had taken comfort in before: the tables were comfortable with the legislation. Can I maybe just ask the minister what process she will use in developing the regulations that will go along with this bill? Will they actually be given to both tables in the same way that you did with the legislation, so they can pursue the regulation and feel comfortable that it's really encapsulating what they wanted encapsulated in the regulations? Is that something that the minister intends to do?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, we do intend to continue consultation with the current members of the LRMP tables in looking at those regulations, and also with the advisory board, now that it's been appointed, and then extensively with first nations in the area, some of whom are represented on the board and others of whom who are not.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

M. Coell: I wonder if the minister -- and she may not wish to comment, because she's had another bill, Bill 50, come forward, which changes Crown lands from within her ministry to outside her ministry. . . . I sense that there could be a problem, and if the minister could clarify. . . . The planning and management of Crown land and natural resources must be in accordance with the management plan. How does the change to her ministry affect changes that could be made in this particular act?

Hon. C. McGregor: The amendments that have been tabled in this House will have the effect of delegating the authority to another agency in government, the -- I can never remember what it's called -- B.C. Assets and Land Corporation. They will have the authority to act in delegation on behalf of this minister, but the responsibility still lies with this minister and this ministry. Any decisions that are taken by that agency would have to be consistent with this management plan.

Sections 4 to 9 inclusive approved.

On section 10.

R. Neufeld: Just for clarification purposes, the trust fund that's established. . . . Maybe the minister could tell me what kind of dollars we're looking at from the ministry or from government -- the Minister of Finance or whoever it's coming from. I understand how it's broken out here, but could she

[ Page 10297 ]

give the amounts and the term of those amounts that will be given to that fund? Does all of it have to be spent before anything else is put into it, or are we going to have an ongoing fund that they can build up a little bit over time, to deal with some things that may require a little more money than would be given on a yearly basis?

Hon. C. McGregor: Actually, those questions related to the amount in the trust fund and where it's appropriated are under section 18, "Appropriation," so the member might want to ask those questions again at that time. I could answer the question broadly by saying that the commitment is $2 million annually, and then there is a $400,000 provision that can be matched on the basis of private sector donations.

Sections 10 to 12 inclusive approved.

On section 13.

M. Coell: This section on payments into the trust. . . . I would welcome the minister's comments on moneys that could come out of the trust. If the government decided that they wished to take their money out of the trust and put it in general revenue, as has been done with health care facilities in the last year, what kind of guarantee is there that once the money is put in here, it stays in here and can't be retrieved? Is there any assurance that can be given on that?

Hon. C. McGregor: Section 18 sets out government's commitment on an annual basis, so that makes clear what government will put in. The purposes of and expenditure from the fund is under section 12, which lists all of the potential ways in which dollars coming out of the fund can be spent. There is another section -- I can't recall the number -- that speaks to the advisory committee making recommendations to the minister on how those project dollars are spent. But clearly, it can only be spent if it's meeting one of the purposes listed in section 12.

M. Coell: The minister is -- I don't wish to put words in her mouth -- guaranteeing that this money, once it's there, cannot be extracted by government and put back into general revenue if they decide that instead of $2 million, they only need $1 million in that fund. What I'm looking for is some guarantee that moneys that go in here from government aren't taken out for reasons other than what is here.

Hon. C. McGregor: I think the act clearly describes how money can be taken out, so I don't know how the member can suggest that it could be taken out in a different way. It lists how it can be taken out, and I don't know how to answer the member's question in a different way that will give him the assurances he seems to feel he needs.

Let me say this. Section 18, I believe, makes it possible for government to review by May 2002 -- five years after its initial commitment -- whether it wishes to continue to make that annual appropriation of $2 million. So obviously, government is putting in writing its commitment to that for five years and saying that at that point in time, those expenditures will be reviewed.

Finally, I would note that section 12(4) describes the powers of the trustee to spend money. I think it spells out government's commitment to deliver on those goals and objectives that have been set by the advisory committee and also reflects the items that are listed in section 12.

Sections 13 to 23 inclusive approved.

Schedule approved.

On the preamble.

Hon. C. McGregor: I move the amendment to the preamble in the possession of the Clerk:

[PREAMBLE, in the proposed second paragraph by adding "trapping," after "hunting,".]

Amendment approved.

Preamble as amended approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. McGregor: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 37, Muskwa-Kechika Management Area Act, reported complete with amendment.

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

Hon. J. MacPhail: By leave now, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 37, Muskwa-Kechika Management Area Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 31.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1998
(second reading)

Hon. J. Kwan: I move that Bill 31, intituled Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 1998, be now read for a second time.

The Speaker: If you wish to speak to it, hon. minister, then you proceed now.

Hon. J. Kwan: I'm pleased to be able to present Bill 31 for second reading. This legislation is a major step forward in the multi-year Municipal Act reform process that will establish a new legislative foundation for local government. We have been working closely with the Union of B.C. Municipalities to modernize local government legislation, and Bill 31 is the result of those efforts.

This legislation will enshrine in provincial legislation, for the first time, recognition of local government as an independent, responsible and accountable order of government within its jurisdiction. It will empower local governments with broader, more flexible corporate powers than they currently enjoy and provide greater autonomy for decision-making at the local level in many areas.

Under this legislation, local governments will have more flexibility to undertake public-private partnership agree-

[ Page 10298 ]

ments. This will support local economic development. We have also built in safeguards to balance this new authority with accountability measures to encourage openness around these agreements.

I want to emphasize that this legislation is one piece of the broader Municipal Act reform initiative, developed in cooperation with the UBCM. We will continue to consult on further legislation reform for the 1999 session. Through this initiative, we're moving the Municipal Act into the twenty-first century and providing the framework for a true partnership between the provincial and local levels of government.

My goal is to ensure that local governments have the powers and responsibilities they need to govern their communities effectively, with the accountability and responsibility that that entails. We have to let local governments make decisions on issues such as public-private partnerships and be accountable to their constituents for their decisions. I'm proud of this work that we have done with the president of the UBCM and his local government colleagues on this legislation, and we will continue to work in partnership with local government as we proceed with the Municipal Act reform over the next few years.

L. Reid: I'm pleased to rise this evening and address Bill 31. In fact, I'm cautiously optimistic that this document will indeed be a viable tool by the year 2000. Incremental ad hockery, which is where we are in terms of this bill being stage 1 of a three-part legislative reform package, is problematic. We're not truly clear, today, what these changes will look like, or whether or not there will be unintended consequences of this legislation once part 1, 1998, part 2, 1999, and part 3, in the year 2000, actually come together to form a viable package.

[10:45]

Certainly the difference today between the B.C. Liberal community charter and this one is that ours is a complete package. Ours empowers local government in a straightforward, simple manner, which is what local government has asked for in terms of empowerment. They truly believe that they can be effective, accountable and responsible as an order of government. I'm not convinced yet that this new bill -- which is, again, part 1 of a three-part package -- will not confound more than it clarifies. The decision reached on that will not be known to us for upwards of three years.

There are some areas today that make good sense for local governments, particularly around public-private partnerships. They are interested in having a more clearly defined discussion surrounding that. I was delighted to read the information that came forward that looks at how the consultation process regarding public-private partnerships was formed on behalf of the government. It was intriguing to me when I read the request for proposals and the information that was gathered, because I believe that in some respects, these issues have been addressed. I will take this opportunity to thank the individuals who formed part of the working group around the public-private partnership discussion, because I believe that finally some people who are expert in their fields were asked to come forward and share their expertise. I think that's good thing.

The ministry was interested in and found a consultant to assist in the review of partnerships between local governments and the private sector -- public-private partnerships, or P3s. It looked at including municipalities and regional districts. I'll make some comments later on this evening in terms of what I believe needs to happen around restructuring regional government interaction with the province. Certainly it looks at the role that private companies, private investors, can play in delivering service within communities across this province. All of these things are to the good.

I spoke earlier of unintended consequences. The ongoing discussion of what P3s look like in 1998 will, I trust, not be fundamentally different in 1999 or the year 2000. But given the incremental ad hockery of this approach, it's difficult to get a clear picture, and it will confound individuals across the province until the outcomes are known. That is something that will not be with us for close to three years. So the issues that I would hope to canvass with this minister as we lead into the committee stage of this debate will certainly be around the disposition of assets. What happens today when we talk about sewer or water projects? Who are the full partners? Who are the managing partners, if you will? Who has dollars invested in each of those projects? I still believe that it will be the responsibility of local government to seek permission from the province to require disposal of those assets that have other dollars invested.

I trust that a number of issues will continue to be clarified through this approach, not the least of which is the fine revenue that has been an ongoing discussion item between mayors and councils and this Ministry of Municipal Affairs over the last number of years. If this is about empowerment, empowerment also has a price tag. They need some dollars at their disposal to do some things that they believe are in the best interests of their communities.

I would support the intention of refining this Municipal Act, but I am concerned that there are accountabilities and perhaps responsibilities around a variety of decisions that may place the municipal government and the province in the passenger seat as opposed to the driver's seat -- particularly around aboriginal land claims. Those issues are hugely complex, not well understood, and will confound municipal governments in terms of how they react based on their new responsibilities. They will now find themselves to be independent and responsible orders of government. Those intentions are valid, but the complexity of the problem is enormous and is, frankly, not particularly well understood.

There are a number of issues that we can continue to canvass. One of the most interesting aspects of the debate, as we pose some questions during committee stage, will be regarding the SFU researcher and professor -- I believe it was Kennedy Stewart and Patrick Smith -- who were given a grant by this ministry basically to explore the ward system. And now the same ministry would distance itself from that report. That's intriguing to me. I wonder, as the minister closes debate, or during committee stage, if we will now coincidentally see a move to neighbourhood municipal elections, a change from municipal elections at large. That was a report commissioned by government, and it will be interesting to see how it plays out as we move through the committee process.

In terms of the protocol agreement between local governments and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, it is my understanding that that is to be reviewed after three years. The date of signing was September 1996. As we move through this ongoing legislative review, I'd be intrigued as to whether or not there will be a decision that somehow changes or modifies this protocol agreement on September 1999.

My understanding of the 1999 legislative package. . . . It's my understanding that we'll be looking at broad service powers in terms of water, sewer and recreation issues and broad regulatory powers in terms of business regulation and licensing, financing and accountability. I trust some new

[ Page 10299 ]

mechanisms will be in place. What happens in in-camera sessions of municipal government? And, hopefully, some discussions regarding conflict of interest. . . . That, I believe, will be the legislative package for 1999. If the minister has different information, I trust that she will bring that to bear in her closing remarks.

I will take a moment to thank the British Columbians who have offered their services to be part of the working committees, whether they be councillors or mayors or experts in the field of public-private partnerships. Those individuals have given generously of their time and talent, and I, for one, thank them on behalf of the official opposition. If indeed this is about community empowerment, it's only appropriate to ensure that the people who this most dramatically impacts actually have some commentary that's heard by government as we move forward with these discussions.

I hope and trust that this bill will fairly meet its objectives, as stated by the minister. I have great concerns about the unintended consequences of this legislation, in that, again, it's been presented on an ad hoc basis. I trust we can continue to make some gains as we move forward. There certainly seems to be some agreement around the four broad areas that have been canvassed in this year's legislative review, and certainly the minister touched on the purposes and principles of the act, to allow for independent, accountable, responsible government.

We touched a little bit on broad powers and on how important it is to actually allow local government the mechanisms to do the job, to do the things they believe to be important. I support that contention. Again, I spoke earlier of the public-private-partnership discussion and how valid that is, if indeed we are going to ensure that communities have at their disposal the resources they need to do their jobs and deliver services to their constituents, whether it be a new recreational facility, an ice rink, a new water treatment plant. Those kinds of services are vital to the life and livelihood of communities, and it would make good sense that those decisions are reached at the local level. Again, I applaud that section, and I look forward to seeing the kinks worked out of it as we move through the process.

The final section -- the local government officers. . . . It's been my understanding that the functions will be maintained, whether that be the corporate or the financial administration aspects of local government. Indeed, those functions may now be found within a single entity, functioning as a part of a municipal organization. In some smaller municipalities and regional districts, that's all to the good, because there seems to be lots of opportunity for fewer individuals to be directly involved and still to deliver the same level of service. Indeed, I believe it's important that the same level of service or an increased level of service be available. I would very much like to see local government continue to focus on the customer -- the taxpayer at the local level.

I would very much like at some point to see municipal government come to grips with the consumer as the customer, as someone who should receive the highest level of service when they interact with government. It's a wish that I hold near and dear. I think that in our constituencies many of us do, when it comes to ensuring that we deliver a reasonable product. A reasonable product should be a timely, efficient approach to the problems facing our constituents.

I want to come back to the discussion I raised earlier around regional districts. I would commit to the record that I believe there is some dysfunction today. We need to look at whether or not we're going to empower our rural directors with the same legal status as municipal councils. There seems to be some strain in the relationships between municipal governments and regional districts and rural directors. If this is a discussion that needs to evolve, to be massaged more readily around the interrelationships between municipalities and regional districts, I would certainly be prepared to continue to have that discussion. It seems to me that there are still many opportunities where. . . . In fact, there are missed opportunities, where indeed what could be viable in terms of a community decision is often protracted, because there seem to be difficulties in even having those levels of government reach some kind of conclusion.

I would, again, support the public-private-partnership discussion. I do believe that municipalities require some efficiencies around decision-making and that their contact with the provincial government in the past has only extended those discussions, which in fact have had a dear cost for many municipalities and their partners, if you will, in terms of reaching speedy decisions which are less costly when you're at the negotiating table -- as most folks will certainly be aware.

In terms of the bill, we will be cautiously optimistic as we proceed through what is the first part of a three-year legislative review. We will continue to listen very carefully and work directly with councillors and mayors across the province. In my role as critic, I have certainly had the opportunity to visit each of the regional groups, if you will, who are part of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. We will continue to do that, in terms of keeping the lines of communication open. I'm always delighted when I receive some positive response to the B.C. Liberal community charter. I think there are some good discussions that will continue to evolve, and I look forward to committee stage of this bill.

V. Anderson: I rise to speak on the Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 1998, and acknowledge that it's a step in the right direction. We have long looked forward to it coming to completion. It's unfortunate that it's going to take another three years at minimum to bring it to reality, to fully understand it.

It's interesting that it was on July 12, 1995, that the Leader of the Official Opposition brought in Bill M222, Community Charter -- a private member's bill -- which outlined a total process in one package, which was received very favourably for comment and discussion not only in British Columbia but across Canada. This move to enable municipalities to have more freedom of action to be able to take on more independent responsibility is one that the municipal associations right across Canada have been working collectively on, and some of the provinces in Canada have already moved ahead of us in this direction over the last number of years.

In talking about this and in trying to be simple in explaining it to people in the community, it seems to me that one way of describing it has been that under the present situation, if a municipality wants to do anything different that they haven't been doing in the past -- like having a tree bylaw -- they have to come to the government and get permission, like a small child coming to their parent to get permission to go visit their friend.

In a sense, as I thought about that analogy, this present bill has in it the kind of idea that now the child has a string on them, and the string is kind of elastic. They can go as far as they like, but the government hasn't let go of the string and can pull them in at any time. That's one of the concerns about the bill: how much freedom it actually is going to give to

[ Page 10300 ]

municipalities. How much accountability is it going to leave with them, and more particularly, how much freedom and accountability is it going to give the citizens of municipalities, in conjunction with their elected members, to make their own decisions? These are concerns that will have to be discussed as we go through this and as we see the implications of the details of the bill.

My colleague has also mentioned the relationship between regional councils and municipal councils, which has to be examined in more detail, and also the relationship between other actions in which this government is engaged and the health councils -- the whole new health council system. How does that relate to municipal government? It's dealing with the same people, the same circumstances, the same community. How do the Building Code and the condo legislation deal with municipal decisions and buildings and developments within communities? How does the educational system tie in? How does the parks system tie in? How do the social services, tie in?

All of these are issues that need to be discussed, and the relationships between the provincial government and the municipal government are important. In the past, one was totally dependent upon the other. The municipal was totally dependent upon the whims of the provincial. That's been very clear, because each time we've changed Municipal Affairs ministers, there has been a new attitude, a new process, and often a completely different direction taken.

[11:00]

So as we come today to this process, what we're looking for is not only some flexibility but some security -- some assurance that when things are established, they will stay that way, and they won't be changed the next time a new minister takes over or a new government comes into being. It's that kind of continuity which is important; it's that opportunity for local citizens, with their local elected officials, to try and make decisions for themselves.

We have a concern about this government. The local elected citizens have been working through their school boards for education, and this government decides that it can do better: they can ignore the school boards, and they can set up a process of negotiating with the teachers without the school boards. On one hand, the government seems to be saying: "Yes, we recognize the independence and the accountability of local citizens in local elected bodies." On the other hand, they seem to be demonstrating just the opposite reality. So it is that uncertainty and that conflict which come into the situation.

I would like to express a word of appreciation to the present minister, who has some municipal experience herself and who stepped into this position relatively recently and has in a very short time moved quickly, limited, I presume, only by the complexities of the government she represents.

In supporting with caution this motion being brought forward. . . . It has been brought into being because of the work of the municipal representatives across the province. We appreciate their concern, we appreciate their anxiety, we appreciate their contribution, and we would like to support this in every way possible.

G. Wilson: Bill 31 is a very important piece of legislation, because what it starts us on the road toward is an amendment to the Municipal Act which provides for a very substantial and significant change in the manner in which municipal governments and regional districts will have statutory and legislative authority to act. What Bill 31 does, in a nutshell, is start the transfer of significant powers to the municipalities -- which they do not currently enjoy.

While I served as an elected member at the municipal level, I can tell you that there were many times that I felt the frustration of not being able to sit at the board table and make decisions because I believed that those decisions were in the best interests of the people who elected me at that level. Rather, we had to do it by a rather cumbersome process of bylaws and public hearings and amendments -- have them go off to the Minister of Municipal Affairs to be vetted and reviewed and considered and then passed back to local government. As somebody who was an elected member of local government, I really felt burdened by the fact that I didn't have the power and authority to make those decisions, to be able to move forward and do what needed to be done.

As a member of the executive of the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities, as somebody who has been a longtime participant and attendee at the UBCM, I'm well aware of the feelings that local politicians have with respect to a greater transfer of power and the provision of greater authority to municipal government. This goes a long way to doing that. For example, expropriation and compensation powers are very significant. Special municipal powers relating to property acquisition and disposal are very significant powers in this bill. It has very specific powers with respect to expenditures. It allows for the establishment of municipal forest reserves -- again, new powers. Disposal of land and the question of payment for improvements to land. . . . All of those powers now start to be provided to the municipal governments.

But there's a problem, and the problem is this: municipal governments are not defined within the Constitution Act of Canada as a level of government. Municipal governments are a creature of the provincial assembly. That's what they are; that's what the Municipal Act has made them. Notwithstanding the amendments that are included in Bill 31, that's what they remain. So, hon. Speaker, if we're going to now start to give sweeping powers to municipal governments, for them to be able to govern at the local level, then the people who need to be fully, properly and completely briefed on what those new powers are going to be and what it's going to mean -- in terms of the cost of government, in terms of the new taxation regimes, in terms of the new land processes -- are the very people who will be affected by this act, and that is the people who live within the municipalities and regional districts of British Columbia.

We have today a huge debate emerging around the establishment of a Nisga'a first government. We are told that this treaty that is signed between the people in the Nass Valley and British Columbia and the government of Canada needs to go to a provincial referendum, because it provides tremendous powers and the establishment of a new order or third order of government. Well, let me tell you, the amendments and changes contained in this act are far more profoundly affecting on all British Columbians than what you're going to see in that treaty coming out of the Nass. What happens in the treaty in the Nass is going to affect only Nisga'a. What is going to happen when this passes -- and its companion legislation, ad infinitum, presumably, but certainly over the next three years -- is that it's going to affect every single British Columbian.

I defy anybody in this chamber to tell me that British Columbians understand what the 114 pages of text in this amendment mean to them -- to their property, to their taxes,

[ Page 10301 ]

to their rights as citizens -- and what the change in municipal authority means. Where has the responsibility been to take to the people of British Columbia the changes that are in this act?

I know that the municipalities have, through the UBCM, been in full consultation for a long time with this government; I'm well aware of that. I don't necessarily find everything that is in here offensive. In fact, some of what is in here is, I think, going to provide necessary powers to the municipalities in order for them to enter into new partnerships -- private partnerships -- in order for us to be able to afford many of the things that municipalities cannot afford right now. I think there are some measures in here that provide for streamlining of services.

What really concerns me about Bill 31 -- all 114 pages of it -- is that it profoundly changes the powers associated with a level of government that is not constitutionally defined but rather is a creature of this Legislative Assembly. I don't believe the people of British Columbia have a clue, frankly, about what's included in this document. I find it just a little bit odd that there is a huge protest about the establishment of a Nisga'a government which has powers that are essentially less direct than these by a margin. . . . We need to be marching into a provincial referendum on the question, some would argue, because all British Columbians better know every single line, syllable and word of it. Yet on Bill 31, which is a profound piece of legislation in terms of its impact on and change to every single municipality and regional district, there's not even a whisper of a need to go out into a broader level of consultation with the people of the province so that they know what's in it. I find that just a little odd.

The second reason that this is important is that it commences to place powers into municipal government that were not there by the design of the act that created them, and that very definitely changes the relationship between municipal and regional district governments and this chamber -- the government of the province of British Columbia. I think we'd better be very, very careful before we embark upon this process. When we make those changes statutorily, it's going to provide to the municipalities enabling, empowering legislation with a great deal of flexibility. This bill recognizes that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council must have flexibility to provide for a different set of circumstances and needs for each of the municipalities, as they vary, because some are in the interior and some are on the coast, some are large regional districts, and some are small, and some are small municipalities and others are large urban centres and so on. When all of those flexibilities are in place, the powers that we are transferring now to locally elected municipal officers have to be in some way provided with some checks in order to provide a balance that the people of British Columbia might feel safe about, content about.

Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. In my own regional district, Sunshine Coast, they just had a referendum to raise $11-point-something million to put a new recreational facility in place -- a referendum that was counted regionwide for the first time ever. Normally, each area had a right to vote to opt in or out, and each regional district area would say yea or nay by virtue of their vote. But this was counted regionwide. There were a whole bunch of property owners who did not have the opportunity to cast a ballot, and yet they will be taxed. Now, we've heard in this chamber about taxation without representation and about how offensive that is -- how outrageous it is that we have anybody in a position of authority that would impose tax on property without giving the property owner the right (a) to be informed and (b) to somehow have an opportunity to vote.

If we look at the section of this act that deals primarily with the notion of expenditures -- the raising and expenditure of money, and the reporting of remuneration and expenditure -- we see that expanded powers have been given. I don't want to comment one way or the other on the outcome of the referendum -- it was 51 percent. I'm not going to comment on whether that's good or bad, right or wrong; the local government is going to have make up its mind on what it plans to do. But in area A, Pender Harbour, we had 90 percent -- well, 89-point-something percent -- vote against it. They are opposed to it but are now bound by that referendum, and most of their properties are going to be hit with a $48-per-$100,000 tax on property. Many of the properties are in excess of $300,000 or $400,000 in value. And they are mad; they're really angry about it. There are people down in area F who voted against it; they're also going to bound by it. They're also angry. What do they do, when their anger is there because they believe, rightly or wrongly, that somehow the local government has overstepped its authority, its bounds? It has done what they don't believe is fair, just or right. What do they do? They appeal. To where? The senior level of government -- to the inspector of municipalities, if they believe there has been a breach of the law, or directly to the minister or even directly to this chamber. Why? The government at the municipal level is a creature of this government; it is not empowered through the Constitution Act of Canada.

That distinction is an important one to make, let me tell you. It is an important distinction to make, because if we are going to start now to transfer legislative powers and authorities to municipal governments without putting in appropriate checks and balances, we are going to be doing some serious disservice to the people of British Columbia. When we go through this text, we had better go through it in some detail. You know what? I don't have the confidence that we're going to do that. Here we stand at a quarter past 11 at night, looking at a bill of some 114 pages, giving it second reading in the middle of July, when the sentiment in the building is certainly that it is getting to be time to wrap up this session. I'm hoping that we will spend as much time going through this in detail as we've spent on other bills. But I doubt it; I seriously doubt it. Yet it will have a profound effect.

Is this good or bad legislation? That entirely depends upon your point of view on a whole host of areas, and there are a number of areas where I think we are going to have to spend some serious time reviewing this. It may not happen solely in the committee stage of this bill. It's going to happen over time as we start to move toward implementation and as we see its effects. But there are some areas where I think we really have to spend some time.

[11:15]

One is in the special expenditure powers that this provides to municipalities, because the municipalities' only source of revenue is through the tax base that is going to support them, which is the taxpayer of British Columbia. We as a senior level of government must be extremely careful about how we transfer that power to those people. The second is the transfer of powers with respect to property acquisition and disposal of property, especially the provision in this act that talks about the disposal of public property into private hands. There is some concern about the language in this bill, and we need to be careful about that. We shouldn't, I don't think, take it at face value, because this has been argued for so strenuously by people who were elected at the local level -- local politicians who are saying: "Give me more power. I need more power." Because local politicians say they need more

[ Page 10302 ]

power, it doesn't mean that we at this level of government, given that they are a creature of this level of government, need to accede to that request.

I know, when I was at that level of government, how tempting it was to say: "Look, get off my back, senior level of government. You don't know what's good for my community. I'm on the front line here; I'm the one that has to put up with all of the people who come knocking on my door because they know where I live. We know what's best for the people here. Victoria, get out of our way. Let us do our own thing." But it's important for us, when we go through this legislation, to weigh it and measure it in balance, because that's what we are supposed to be doing in this chamber. We are supposed to be looking at the balanced presentation of material. This is the beginning of a major, major change in the levels of power assigned to municipal government in British Columbia.

I know that there are those that would argue -- and I believe that it has, in fact, been the position of the Leader of the Official Opposition -- that there be constitutional amendments that entrench municipal governments as a third order of government on the national level. That's a big debate, and it's one I'm not going to get into tonight. But certainly, if that were done and there were a constitutional amendment to constitutionally empower municipal governments, the charter, as it has been written and distributed, makes a lot more sense. Then you have the constitutional authority to act; there are no blurred lines between where the levels of government are municipally and provincially. It makes a lot more sense to do it that way, but that isn't what's been done here. I caution government that you can't simply, by the wave of a wand or the drafting of a bill, come in and put legislation in place that will lock us into litigative nightmares on the question of property acquisition and disposal -- especially public property going into private hands.

I also caution that when we're talking about road closures, and the establishment of those as public assets and public parks and so on, we have to be extremely careful about how we proceed on that, because there are many, many areas in which communities. . . . Official community plans in particular and other kinds of development opportunities are going to be foreclosed by municipal governments, who will decide that they are going to simply act on that in advance of land use development that they may deem undesirable as a council and yet which may be extremely desirable to communities themselves.

There are many aspects of this very big bill that need to be addressed in some detail, and frankly, I think that the process by which the government has embarked on this is faulty. What should have happened? The Municipal Act should have been amended in its entirety. There should have been much broader discussion with respect to how we are going to establish municipal government in relation to the province. And we have to look at that statutorily first: make the amendments to the Municipal Act, bring those municipal amendments into this chamber and dedicate a session of this Legislative Assembly to making those amendments law. That would have been a responsible and appropriate way to proceed -- to have had all of those amendments go out to the municipal governments, to the UBCM, to the people of British Columbia, so that there could be full, broad public consultation on how this process is going to happen.

My guess is that if we pass this bill -- and it will get passed, because the majority in this chamber are in favour of it -- by the time we bring in the second act, we'll be amending this act. That's what is going to happen, and we're going to end up with a hodgepodge of amendments. The Municipal Act is now being amended in perpetuity because we have never, ever asked, addressed and solved the primary question: what should the relationship be between the municipal and the provincial levels of government in terms of their legislative and statutory authority? And do we want to deal with that through the process of constitutional amendment, which may be dealt with through the Canadian Federation of Municipalities, the CFM?

That would have been the proper way to go, but we're not going that route. Instead, we're going this route, and my guess is that this is going to be great grist for the lawyers who make great money by sitting on retainership in every municipality. They're going to be sitting there working this through and deciding all of those points that are now going to have to be decided through some kind of litigative process, mediation or arbitration. There is language in here that is contradictory and conflicting, and I believe that it is going to cause more problems than it may solve.

Those are my comments on this. I certainly believe that the Municipal Act needs amendment and that we need to clarify those lines. I think there should be authority provided to municipalities, but not before there has been an opportunity for British Columbians to fully understand its implication. I do find it passing strange that there could be such little attention to the very, very significant changes being provided for in this act, when there is such a hue and cry about an amendment coming forward to an order of government that will affect only Nisga'a people and not the rest of British Columbia. I find that quite contradictory and somewhat puzzling.

With that, I'll conclude my comments on Bill 31. I look forward to committee stage, and I hope that in committee stage we can spend some time clarifying some of the points that I've outlined in my comments today.

Hon. J. Kwan: I was thinking back to all the different comments that members were making, thinking back to when I was appointed Minister of Municipal Affairs. I think that it was day two after I was appointed that there was a symposium held in Richmond to meet with the local government leaders about the Municipal Act changes. It was at this symposium where the example was put forward about the changes that we need to bring forward in the Municipal Act. The example that was used was about the renovation of a house -- not a leaky house but just simply the renovation of a house. The question was posed to local governments as to whether or not they wanted to proceed with the Municipal Act changes by way of renovating a house room by room, knowing that while you do the renovation the house may well get messier before it gets better and becomes more livable, in some instances.

Another way of doing it is to simply vacate everybody, have the entire house renovated and then move back in. It was indeed the local government leaders' point of view that they wanted to make the renovations on a room-by-room basis, and that is precisely what we're doing. We're going through this huge task that was put forward by the Premier in the fall of 1996 to the president of the UBCM, saying that we need to do this work, and it is your challenge to get the work done in short order, efficiently and quickly. Taking on that challenge, the president moved forward with the Municipal Act changes that have been tabled today.

With that, hon. Speaker, we now have this very substantive piece of legislation. It is indeed the first time in the history of British Columbia and of Canada that we have recognized

[ Page 10303 ]

local government as an independent, accountable level of government within its jurisdiction. There is no doubt that there may well be amendments that need to be made down the road as we fine-tune some of these pieces. We will embark on this exercise to really make the changes that are necessary, to get rid of the cumbersome -- bureaucratic, quite frankly -- procedures that were in place before, to allow for that flexibility and accountability to local governments and for them to move forward.

The question was asked about next phases in terms of what might be done. In the upcoming phases of the reform initiative, we will focus on areas such as broad service and regulatory powers, finance and accountability measures. The members mentioned accountability. There is no doubt that there is a need to ensure that accountability measures are in place. This fall we will have a local community forum on issues of accountability. All members of the House and indeed members of the public are encouraged to come forward. Staff are actually working on getting this forum underway. We will no doubt deal with a whole number of issues, such as in-camera items and conflict of interest. I'm sure that some electoral and non-electoral issues of local government accountability may well come up. It may well deal with the report from Kennedy Stewart and Patrick Smith out of SFU, where they have actually identified some issues of local government accountability for our consideration. I'm looking forward to hearing from the public, with their thoughts about local government accountability, as we move forward in bringing legislation for the 1999 legislative calendar.

With that, hon. Speaker, I'd like to move second reading of Bill 31.

Motion approved.

Bill 31, Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 1998, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I call second reading of Bill 39.

PUBLIC EDUCATION COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT ACT
(second reading)

Hon. P. Ramsey: I move that Bill 39 be read for a second time.

This act mandates, by law, the historic agreement recently reached with the British Columbia Teachers Federation. This agreement brings with it an additional $200 million in new funding for our schools; $150 million alone is for new teachers, librarians, counsellors and English-as-a-second-language specialists. This is on top of the unprecedented investments in education that this government has announced this year -- a $105 million increase to core funding, increasing yet again the highest per-student funding in this country that students in British Columbia enjoy; on top of a $338 million capital program to reduce the number of portables in our province and bring down that number by half over the next five years; on top of an unprecedented investment in technology for our students through a $123 million investment over six years, linking all 1,700 public schools to the provincial learning network.

This is a good agreement. This is an agreement that our children want to see, to help improve their learning. It's what parents expect when they talk about improvements to our education system. It's an agreement that teachers have strongly supported. It all adds up to better learning for British Columbia students. Now, I know that not everyone shares that view. Since I introduced this bill into the House on June 25, some members of the media and the opposition have been rather critical of the steps that government had to take to ensure stability in our school system when school begins again this September.

I want to address some of the statements, some of the fearmongering, that we've heard from this Liberal opposition and that I assume we're going to hear in the next few hours of debate in this chamber. We need to get it on the record, right out front. The Liberals have claimed that this deal is good for teachers but not for students. I find that incredible. It is beyond me -- as Minister of Education, as a former teacher, as a parent -- how anyone can believe that more money, more teachers and smaller classes aren't in our children's best interests. This agreement brings lower provincial class sizes to every school, for kindergarten-to-grade-3 classes. It will give our children more support and more attention in their early years of schooling, when they need it most.

[11:30]

Lower class size means that it will be easier to meet the goal of ensuring that every child in our public school system should be able to read and write by the time they complete grade 3. That's what this bill is about. It's about better learning for children in our schools. The basic skills that they learn in those initial years are the key to their future success in school and in life. Without those skills, our children will be disadvantaged even before they leave elementary school. For the first time, we can say to parents that whether your child is going to school in Nakusp or Saanich, Fort St. James or Campbell River, he or she will be in a class of the same size and will have the same access to the specialists that help make in-class learning valuable.

What other criticisms have been thrown at us? Well, we've heard lots about this deal not being "flexible" enough. There are maximum class sizes now in our province, and that is a limit on flexibility. If people don't want a limit on class sizes and want ultimate flexibility, let them stand up and say so. But I do not think that's what the opposition really means. Let's be clear here: what this agreement does is lower the maximum class size and set a standard for classes throughout British Columbia in kindergarten-to-grade-3. After the first month of enrolment, once enrolments have been confirmed at the end of September, schools will once again be able to accommodate students who leave or arrive during the school year -- just as they do now.

Another issue that has been raised, sometimes in some rather strange ways, is busing. To hear the Liberals talk about it, a student attending a Vancouver school could see his brother or sister bused to Cache Creek while he attends a school next to his home. Let's talk about busing. Busing is a fact of life for many students in many schools and school districts across British Columbia. Ideally, of course, people want to have their children attend school as close as possible to their home. But students have been bused long before this agreement, and they're going to be bused long after it expires. We are going to be working with districts and with teachers -- and teachers have agreed to this -- to make sure that no students -- none -- are bused outside their communities because of this agreement.

The third concern I keep hearing -- I heard it a lot in estimates, and I suspect we're going to hear a lot about it in

[ Page 10304 ]

this chamber in the coming days -- is about government's willingness and ability to pay for this agreement. I want to repeat what was said in estimates; I'm sure it will be repeated in this chamber: government is totally committed to paying the full costs of the improvements to education negotiated in this agreement. It is part of a long-term commitment to improving public education in British Columbia. We have said that we want to bring class size down in kindergarten-to-grade-3 even below that which this contract specifies. The ultimate goal is to bring the average class size to 18 over the next five years.

Now, I've heard nervousness about school districts' ability to interpret this agreement and to get their staff in place for the start of the school year. This deal is workable; we're committed to making it work. I know the teachers are committed to making it work, and I trust and expect that school districts will do everything they can do to make it work. Because time is of the essence, I will be bringing districts together this summer for planning sessions to run through possible issues and the solutions to them. Those are some of the concerns we've heard; I'm sure we'll hear lots more about them.

Finally, I think we're going to hear a fair bit about the process by which this agreement was reached. Some are going to say it was a backroom deal done behind closed doors. I guess we'll have to remind them once -- and again and again -- that government was asked to step in because the parties were miles apart, and they remain miles apart. We wish it weren't so, but had we not stepped in, havoc would have reigned this fall. Instead, thanks to this legislation, we will have stability.

Still others are going to condemn us for introducing this legislation to ensure stability in the system. I said when I introduced it that this was not a step that we took gladly; we were reluctant to take this step. But those who wish to assert that the certainty of a teachers strike or a lockout facing children this fall. . . . They simply want to rewrite the history of bargaining in this province over the last year.

Let's get back to the issues that are actually in this agreement. It is my belief -- and it's a belief that I think parents and teachers around this province share -- that smaller classes are good for our children. They make sense; they mean more quality time and attention; they make it easier for kids to learn the basic reading and writing skills they need. If the opposition opposes smaller class sizes, I urge them to get up and say so. If they don't think that smaller class sizes are better for education, let them enter this debate and say so. We are going to be funding this agreement; we're committed to the smaller class sizes negotiated in it. We view it as part of a long-term investment in education.

Ideally, it would have been nice to see trustees reach this agreement without government intervention. It would have been nice to see teachers and trustees shaking hands at the end of bargaining. but that simply wasn't on. The two parties were, and remain, miles apart. It simply wasn't possible. I don't believe it would have been fair for parents and students to live under the uncertainty, wondering if teachers are going to be locked out or on a picket line when students return to school in September. I do hope that as the Liberals and the opposition get up to debate that, they give us their views on how to ensure stability and avoid what was almost inevitable this fall. You know, it is a privilege of opposition to oppose, and I'm sure that the opposition will be loud and enjoy their privilege to oppose this act to the fullest. That is one of the privileges that you share on that side of the House. But as government, we are not going to risk this agreement on the hope that the two parties would put aside their longstanding disagreements and reach a better agreement for our kids.

This agreement will provide 1,200 more teachers in British Columbia's classrooms. It will provide an investment of $150 million in kindergarten-to-grade-3 teachers, counsellors, librarians, ESL teachers. It will add more than 450 teachers to B.C. schools just this fall.

Interjection.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I heard somebody over there ask about building classrooms. We've committed to a $370 million building project to add 1,000 more classrooms to our province over the next five years. This is a good agreement for our children. It is what our kids deserve; it is what parents say they want. Teachers support it. It adds up to better learning for British Columbia's children. I urge all members of this chamber to vote in favour of Bill 39.

A. Sanders: Over the last few months this government has announced a number of initiatives that collectively mark one of the most significant uses of education as a political tool for government that we have seen in this province in the last 20 years. It culminates in Bill 39.

Let's dissect Bill 39 -- the sordid history about where it's come from and the building blocks on which it's been built -- and look at the precedent and antecedent pieces that have gone into the construction of this bill. It started very soon after we came back to the House this session, with the Premier and this minister announcing a $105 million lift to the education funding system. As we see now with the Minister of Education, it was compounded by a lot of bragging and backslapping and high-fiving and all this kind of action by the Premier and the minister. How soon they forget that it was this minister and that Premier, who sits across from me, who cut funding to education -- $400 per student from 1991 to 1998. How can you take credit? How can you sit there and take credit for something that you took away in the first place?

How does an individual in cabinet spin the disingenuous yarn that education will be better off, when school trustees, administrators and teachers all know that deficits will result or the status quo will result, but nothing more, from that first little piece of what went into building the Bill 39 equation -- the so-called $105 million lift? When we did the estimates not very long ago, we found out that that injection of cash was primarily what I would call a facelift to make the school system look one year younger, rather than the age it is. It did not address in any way, shape or form the seven years of chronic furrowing and underfunding that had been created by this NDP government in the years before they had the charge of education.

The minister will disagree and say one of his lines such as: "Per-pupil funding is higher in British Columbia than it is in all of the other provinces." I will remind him that 95 percent of a district's operating funds is salaries and that we have the highest wages in Canada. It is misleading to tell British Columbians that we get more service for our children; we just pay more for what we get.

Then there is the other part of that prelude to Bill 39, where the minister said all this nonsense about how there were going to be 400 brand-new classroom teachers and 300 brand-new teaching aides hired. Then, when we were in the estimates, we found out that not a single trustee, not a single secretary-treasurer, not a single superintendent, not anyone

[ Page 10305 ]

who had anything to do with the financial workings of the school districts could find those figures or individuals. Then, when we did have the estimates, we found that the minister and his spin doctors had advertised that these figures were as if they were brand-new hires. They were actually the staff that would have been hired anyway to facilitate the teaching of the 8,000 new kids we had in British Columbia.

They weren't new teachers; they were the teachers we were going to hire anyway, in the same way as the year before when we had 11,000 or 12,000 new kids. We hired the concomitant teachers and teaching aides to look after those children. It was basically one of those situations where we were getting a message spun by the minister and the Premier that really had no existence in reality other than that they were the people we would hire in the first place.

Why were those promises made? I think that if we all look at it seriously, we can tell. It was for political purposes. Really, this is a government that had to have the opportunity to make outrageous promises in education over this session. I don't expect them to keep a fraction of their promises. They're there to be made for the purposes of setting up a pre-election platform so that someone somewhere might say at some point: "Did the NDP actually do something for education?" Someone will remember, in one of their backyard brain cells, that there were actually some announcements in 1998 suggesting that there might have been something done for education, for kids in this province.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

We know from past history that it's useless to hold the Premier to anything he says when he's running for office. I maintain that Bill 39 and the promises therein are going to be more of that pre-electioneering fodder that he hopes people will remember. In fact, it won't be based on any kind of reality that we understand.

Education never gets lucky unless it's pre-election time or setting up the planks for what the Premier wants next time around. That first announcement, that $105 million so-called lift which was basically a status quo circumstance, wasn't enough. The Premier and the minister had to go further. What we found was that a couple of weeks later, the Premier and the Minister of Education made some more outrageous announcements to their so-called education commitments.

[11:45]

These announcements had to be for political purposes, because if they weren't, the Premier would have let this poor minister over here, who hardly ever gets to make any of his own announcements. . . . He would have actually let that minister make an announcement. Most of the time we see the minister kind of standing there, this sort of tall person behind the Premier shadowing over top of him, saying nothing. He just kind of stands there like a prop, and the Premier gets to run the show.

We all know that announcements are the Premier's favourite part of the job, and we know that they have to be surrounded by fanfare. A lot of the time the fanfare is there to fix a problem that the NDP created in the first place. We do have a Premier right now who is getting a really hard ride in this province, and he's pretty hungry for some good announcements. Education is always an area where the Premier would like to take over announcements, if they are good. I'm not really sure why this summer -- whether it was pressure at home or pressure at the polls, a need to divert attention away from the economic instability and horrible circumstances here in British Columbia, whether it was a bite from the social democrats who said to the Premier over the last couple of months: "Where did that NDP government go, which used to believe in public education and support it. . . ?" What we found, basically, is that we've had a number of announcements in education made by a Premier hungry for recognition of any kind. What we have to do when we look at Bill 39 is really ascertain whether there are any true commitments at all in that bill or whether it's basically just another bill of smoke and mirrors.

After the original $105 million lift, there was, of course, the portable announcement -- again, the nonsense announcement. It's nonsense about reducing the number of portables by 50 percent in the next five years, because this government already made that announcement. They made it in 1991. Since they made it, they've increased the number of portables by 95 percent in this province. Give me a break. If I'm to be led to believe something, then show me something that's the truth, and 95 percent more portables in this province since the announcement was made -- by a lot of the same members in that time. . . . What it's done is go exactly the opposite way.

I went to that announcement; it was made in Richmond. It was made in a school district where one in four kids goes to class in a portable every day. It was made in a portable in Richmond -- a portable that was dragged onto the playing field of a brand-new school, dragged into that school ground before the school even opened. That's the way we do business in British Columbia when it involves kids and education. That portable was already needed. It had to be on the school grounds, and we hadn't even opened the school.

We've got new schools, school expansion and major renovations -- and none of these are going to touch the chronic underfunding in school capital that this government has gotten us into in the last seven years. It will not in any circumstance budge the rising tide in the population or in any way stem the rigid class-size needs that are going to result in absolutely huge necessities for capital construction in British Columbia. This government needs to recognize that the rest of British Columbia is not stupid. They know that in the next five years there's going to be a whole lot more. . . . There's going to be a big whack of portables in this province, and this government has done nothing about that. They're going to be here, they're going to be on the school grounds, and there will be nothing to suggest in any way, shape or form that portable numbers are cut by 50 percent in the next five years.

Let's look at Vancouver alone. They will need something like 70 or 80 new classrooms in September just to deal with the rigid class-size language in kindergarten-to-grade-3. When the news people go out in Victoria, Vancouver and Richmond, portables will be sprouting like mushrooms on the lawns and the fields of the schools in the lower mainland. I look forward to it, because it's going to be the first sign that that side of the House doesn't have a clue what they're talking about.

We're going to find in areas like Richmond, for example, that 70 more portables are needed in one community that has the largest number of portables in the entire province. In one community, which has a quarter of all the portables in the province, we're going to need 70 new classrooms in September 1998 and to try and figure out where those teachers -- those ESL and special education teachers -- are going to sit with their classrooms. You know what? There isn't one classroom for them to go to in Richmond. We would need to build a new classroom onto every single school in Richmond to accommodate the numbers in Bill 39 that this government has suggested are the necessary numbers for ESL and special ed.

[ Page 10306 ]

In terms of the highly specialized positions that come in Bill 39, we have to hire 44 ESL-trained personnel, and with the hiring standards, we will not be able to hire those teachers, because they don't exist for even one school district. We're going to be in a circumstance where we're going to have to lower our expectations. We're going to have no dollars for the supplies for them. Bill 39 does not provide for one piece of paper -- not one piece -- for the 44 ESL teachers and 17 special ed teachers in Richmond, one of 60 districts. In this agreement, this Bill 39, there's no money for them to buy one piece of paper for those classes that they will teach. Not only do they not have a classroom to go to, but they don't have the money for any supplies either. It's recommended or suggested by most boards that around $10,000 is needed for supplies for each special education teacher, and that doesn't include office space. This government knows so little about education that it hasn't even figured that out. It's absolutely shameful!

So what are we going to have? We have a government that says: "In five years we're going to get rid of 50 percent of the portables." We're going to have in Richmond, for example, somewhere around 70 portables that are going to have to be dragged onto those fields, in addition to the portables they have there -- at a cost of $50,000 each. Add a cost of $20,000 to hook up and to get in space and to move; add a cost of $15,000 a year for light, custodial services, heat and maintenance -- and this government, in Bill 39, has not even thought about those costs. If you want to take that over 60 districts, you get a pretty good idea of how bad this bill is and how amateurish it is. Whoever developed it -- the people from the Premier's Office -- should be ashamed of themselves, because they're going to put this education system back 100 years.

What we've got is a teacher agreement without one penny for government to cover all of those things and portables that will be growing like weeds on the lawns and fields of school yards. We've got a minister who doesn't even get it; he doesn't understand that. He still stands up here and spouts the kind of rhetoric that the Premier gave him written in crayon on a piece of paper. He tells us this stuff as if it's the gospel, as if it came off the mountain. It's absolutely embarrassing that a man with the intellect of this minister stands up here and says the kind of stuff he does in this House.

There will be at least 30 percent more portables in school yards in the next five years based on Bill 39 alone. I estimate that there will be at least 4,018 portables, minimum, in British Columbia school yards in five years, at the time when this minister and this Premier have said there will be 50 percent fewer than there are now. It's absolute nonsense. What we've got is political motivation that's led to a series of announcements culminating in Bill 39. It's 100 percent politically motivated, and zero percent anything else.

Hon. Chair, I know that this is the truth, so much so that I will provide for you -- in this House tonight, at five to 12 -- the election platform for this government in the next election campaign. What they're going to say to the communities of B.C. is the following: "We're going to provide, for kindergarten to grade 3, 18 kids per class; for grades 4 to 7, 25 children per class; and for high school, we're going to apply a minimum square footage that will translate into around 25 kids per class." That's what this government is going to say in the next election. They won't be able to pay for it, but they are going to say it. I know it, and I'm waiting to see it come out.

What we have found is that all of this stuff the government has put out wasn't enough. There wasn't enough good feedback; they wanted to make it absolutely outrageous. First of all, there was a $105 million photo opportunity for the Premier. Then there was the portable extravaganza: "We'll get rid of all those bad portables." Then there was the knockout punch: the BCTF agreement. The BCTF agreement, as far as I'm concerned, is nothing more than a SCUD missile to the school boards, and Bill 39 is the delivery mechanism that gets it there.

Two months ago we saw the Premier and this minister join with the BCTF to announce an unprecedented three-year agreement.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Historic.

A. Sanders: The minister tonight uses the word "historic." There's no question that it was unprecedented. It was unprecedented, because the employers -- the elected boards who represent the communities, the families and the children who go to school in those communities -- didn't have the foggiest idea, weren't privy to the information, arrived and found out that they had made an agreement. They heard about it an hour before it was announced in the press. The press corps arrived in Victoria before most of the people from the school boards did. This was definitely an unprecedented agreement; there's no question about it. It was unprecedented, because one half of the bargaining team -- a whole organization, if you will, one half of an entire marriage -- was informed by the media that they had reached a bargain.

They reached a bargain that they had never made. Congratulations! It's unprecedented -- an NDP first.

This minister was the pusher of the agreement. He was the pusher in the media. He was the one who pushed it in the House prior to it ever coming out. He was the one who pushed it into my kids' school backpacks, in a glossy agreement that came home from school and arrived at my door, before it was even agreed upon or voted on. He and the Premier were the ones who pushed it with the teachers and the trustees. They were the pushers who arranged a marriage without trust, without the confidence that's necessary for any agreement.

What did we have as a result of that? We had 55 out of 60 school boards say: "Absolutely no. We refuse to enter into this arranged marriage, pushed by this minister." What did the teachers say? First of all, there are 44,000 teachers and only 25,000 voted -- something that the minister likes to forget about, whenever he's asked. What we find is that the negotiating team for the BCTF, which had worked for an agreement over the last 18 months. . . . They voted against this agreement. They voted against what would become Bill 39, but they were told that they weren't allowed to go into schools and inform their members about why they chose to vote against it. Even though they did it and they were there and they were privy to the information, they were told that they were not to go into schools and inform their members about why they should vote against this agreement.

What we have is somewhere around 50 percent of the teachers who actually did vote, and the 50 percent who voted, voted overwhelmingly. What about the other people? Why did they not go and vote if this was such a good agreement? Could it be that they were told to stay away? Could it be that they were told that they weren't allowed to vote if they voted no? I got some letters from some of the B.C. Teachers Federation unions in the local areas, and that's what people were told in the agreements that I read: "If you don't like it, stay away; don't vote." And that's exactly what we saw. So when the minister is talking about what a good agreement this is, recognize that the school trustees voted overwhelmingly against

[ Page 10307 ]

it, and only 50 percent of the teachers even bothered to go and vote -- and probably the others decided that rather than face the wrath of their unions, they would stay away.

What we're finding in Bill 39 is that what is good for kids, teachers, parents and trustees must be what's good for the Premier's Office. That's the only criterion that we judge education on in this province: is it good for the Premier's Office? If it is, it must be good for kids and parents and all the rest of those people. If you can't say that that's political, then nothing in this world is.

The minister mentioned that some would disagree, because the agreement was force-fed. In some cases, maybe it's okay for government to be a control freak. I'm not the one to judge that. But what's the cost of force-feeding an agreement? The cost, first of all, is $8 million in wasted money over the last number of years for the organization called BCPSEA, the British Columbia Public Schools Employers Association and all the people who work there and their infrastructure and the buildings they work in. All that money was wasted, because this government came in and took over.

[12:00]

What else didn't happen? There were 105 items on the bargaining table, and those were incredibly important to the trustees. Those 105 items were junked. They were gone. What has happened with those 105 items is that they have been rolled over. What we find when they have been rolled over is that after four years of wasted lives, of people seconded to talk about the 105 items on the bargaining table, this province is not one step further ahead, because all of those items have been rolled over in the collective agreement. That's not right. We owe more to the parents and the students in this province than to roll over 105 items that were of critical importance to parents and kids.

What is the cost of an NDP-induced euthanasia of the school boards as a credible partner in the bargaining process and in the running of our schools? The big cost is the lack of resolution, the shelving, the deep-sixing, the ignoring of 105 issues that are left undone. Let's look at what some of those issues are. One of the issues that's important to me is something called posting and filling. It's a very bland, benign kind of term, but what it means is how many teachers it is okay to have in a grade 1 classroom. Is it okay to have ten? Fifteen? Most people would probably say one, especially if their child was in that classroom. We don't have a resolution of the posting and filling issue about how many teachers can teach a grade 1 classroom in a school district. We don't have any resolution. In fact, we've got the opposite of something that school boards were looking for, called flexibility in classroom -- something where you could adjust the size of a classroom in order to prevent bussing out of neighbourhood schools.

We don't have anything about qualifications versus seniority for the hiring of new teachers. We don't have anything at all in terms of amalgamated decisions between boards and teachers on the basis for hiring teachers. In fact, what some of the districts have said is that these evaluations are so complex and cumbersome that few teachers ever receive a less than satisfactory report when they are critiqued on their teaching ability.

We've got issues that have to do with the extended day. This government is the one that wanted to bring in the extended day. What they've done, by not bringing in the extended day, is that they've left all of that stuff undone, so school districts have no idea where they are sitting. We've got teacher supervision criteria that have been frozen from 1990 to 1998 in school districts that have now grown and have buses and all this extra stuff. Who is going to supervise those kids who get on the bus has not been settled. We've got a very serious problem. None of this has been settled with the implementation of a rigid agreement that is not even funded beyond the first year. The memorandum of understanding only funds this agreement for the first year, and it could result quite easily in huge deficits in school districts with costs that are not matched or taken care of by the government.

What about the other unions? We've got costs associated with Bill 39 that have to do with laid-off CUPE staff. These will follow this arranged marriage that has no limits or boundaries and that can influence people like the support staff. Because of the language in Bill 39, we could have reductions in custodial service, administrative jobs and clerical staff, with increased workload, increased stress load and no ability to alter that until the legal limits of safety are approached. We've got the cost of the disappointment of a whole lot of people who care -- of a promise made without a promise to keep the promise. The agreement's virtue will be one of this minister's greatest inventions. The announcement of this agreement was made, when it was done in estimates, on the anniversary of the Bre-X circumstance. I think there is some irony that we announced the teachers' agreement in the same week as the anniversary of Bre-X. Those are the things we didn't get when we looked at the agreement. As far as what we didn't get, there is no buried mistrust against the agreement; my mistrust is right out on the surface.

With that, let's look at what we did get. We got a promised $150 million, although it's not guaranteed beyond year 1. So when the Finance minister brings in a budget next year, this whole funding part could be nixed. This $150 million will also be there to try and replace the $200 million that the NDP have sucked out of public education in the last 7 years. We've got 1,200 teachers that the Minister of Education says will be hired, and these will be hired to replace the 1,470 teachers that weren't hired and that would have been hired under the old student-teacher ratio regime of the Socreds. If we still had them, we would be better off in the education area than with the NDP.

We've got smaller classes in K to 3, even though there isn't a single classroom in a whole lot of districts for those kids to go to. We've got smaller, fixed classes, but we don't have the flexibility for schools to actually keep kids in their neighbourhood school. The minister talks about fearmongering about buses. I'd like to point him to an article of July 5, 1998, "Families Torn Apart By New Deal," where a parent from Revelstoke, who has three kids, has just found out that her kid in kindergarten is not going to the school that her older kids are going to, because of the teachers agreement-in-committee. So welcome to the real world, hon. minister. Start reading the letters to the editor; they are going to start coming towards you as September approaches. I hope you've a good answer for parents like Barbra Skates, who lives in Revelstoke.

What we really have is a three-year agreement with teachers that the government wanted to have in order to get the rest of the public sector employees to settle. We've got what this Premier has called a historic agreement, and tonight the minister has parroted what the Premier has said -- a historic agreement, a highlight in his career. Well, we all know that the Premier likes to make historic agreements and acknowledge the highlights in his career. He has used that phraseology five times since I've looked at what the political circumstances were in B.C. The first one that I remember within the time frame that I'm aware of was Bonneville.

[ Page 10308 ]

Interjection.

A. Sanders: Hon. Chair, the House Leader has just mentioned that the green light has gone on. I can't see that far; I haven't got my glasses on. I wish to move my amendment, and then I will continue on.

My amendment is:

[That this House declines to give second reading to Bill (No. 39), the Public Education Collective Agreement Act, for the reason that the government has underestimated and inadequately funded the total cost of

(a) the 'Agreement in Committee'

(b) the existing collective agreements

(c) the capital construction arising from (a) and (b) and as a result will undermine British Columbians' confidence in the public school system.]

Deputy Speaker: The hon. member tables an amendment.

On the amendment.

A. Sanders: At this point I move adjournment of the debate on the amendment.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:10 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright � 1998: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada