1998/99 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament
HANSARD

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 24, 1999

Volume 16, Number 12

[ Page 13961 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

D. Jarvis: On behalf of my friend the member for Delta South, who can't be here today, I'd like to introduce two of his constituents who are visiting Victoria: Jane Marynowski and her son, Mark. Would the House please make them welcome.

D. Symons: It is my pleasure today to introduce a young man in the gallery. It's his first time coming here to see his Grosspa and what he does when he's in Victoria. I wonder if the House would make Nicholas Symons welcome.

Hon. J. Pullinger: It's my pleasure today to introduce some visitors from Italy as well as some friends from British Columbia. A number of us had a wonderful meeting with Professor Stefano Zamagni and Professor Vera Zamagni. Professor Stefano Zamagni is the dean of the faculty of economics at the University of Bologna, Italy, and the head of the Centre for the Study of Cooperative Economics at that same university. He's world renowned for his groundbreaking work on the civil economy and on the nature and comparative advantages of cooperative economic systems. Professor Vera Zamagni is a professor of economic history.

With them is John Restakis, who is the region manager of the Canadian Cooperative Association, B.C. region, as well as Dave Mowat, who's the CEO of VanCity Regional Development Corp., and Andrea Jarvis of VanCity. With them, as well, is somebody who's not at all known to this House: a former Minister of Forests in an NDP government and a very quiet and unassuming MLA in this Legislature, Bob Williams. Welcome back. Welcome to all of you.

Hon. H. Lali: We have the pleasure of a number of guests from the taxi industry joining us here in the galleries. They are Mohan Kang, Amarjit Gill, Manoj Kumar, Brian Moore, Danny Mucci and Mr. Claus. Would the House please make these visitors welcome.

L. Reid: I have three lovely guests in the gallery today. Charan Gill and Carl Boyce are dear friends of mine from Richmond. They're joined today by a lovely woman who lives in Victoria, Jane Noble. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

W. Hartley: Visiting us in the gallery today are Mr. Ian McManus, MP, and his wife and daughter, from New South Wales in Australia. Mr. McManus is a member of the Parliament of New South Wales. Would members please make them welcome.

Hon. P. Priddy: Joining us in the gallery today are the members of the teen tobacco team, which provides advice to the Minister of Health on the kinds of strategies that work for teens in terms of getting them either to not start smoking in the first place or to stop.

[1410]

Hon. S. Hammell: I'm very pleased to introduce two visitors who are in the gallery today. Dr. Ellen Kornegay, director of the office of the status of women in South Africa is in Canada to gather information about building capacity within the government to support social, political and economic equality for women in that country. Accompanying Dr. Kornegay is Barbara McCann, a gender equality specialist for the Canadian International Development Agency. Given that this government supports the only freestanding ministry for women's equality in the country, I'm sure they will find the time spent with the ministry helpful. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Wilson: In the gallery today are two key officials with the B.C. Treaty Commission. Commissioner Peter Lusztig is Canada's appointment to the B.C. Treaty Commission and has served with the commission since 1995. With him is Mr. Peter Colenbrander, who is the senior treaty process analyst for the B.C. Treaty Commission. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Today I have the honour to introduce four guests. They've joined us to celebrate the bicentenary of the birth of B.C.'s pioneer botanist David Douglas, which is tomorrow. William Young is a former B.C. chief forester and founder and past president of the David Douglas Society for western North America; he's now secretary-treasurer of the society and a member of the Forest History Association. James MacFarlane, a forestry consultant, is vice-president of the society; he was formerly a VP and chief forester at MacMillan Bloedel. Ralph Schmidt is also a member of the society and is a former director of research at the Ministry of Forests. Jeff Bates is a member of the society and president of the Forest History Association. Please join me in welcoming them to the House today and thanking them for their contributions to maintaining biodiversity in our valuable forests.

F. Randall: In the gallery this afternoon is Don McGill, who is the president of Teamsters Local 213 and also the president of the B.C. and Yukon Territory Building and Construction Trades Council. With him is Pete Aussem, a trustee of the Teamsters Local 213 pension plan. They are in Victoria holding a pension plan trustees' meeting. Would the House please make them welcome.

H. Giesbrecht: I'd like to introduce a young Skeena constituent to the House today: Michael Jensen, who's from Terrace. I know his parents well, and I know they're very pleased that he was one of the people chosen for the youth tobacco advisory team. Would the House please make him welcome.

Introduction of Bills

COMPANY ACT

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

[ Page 13962 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm pleased to introduce the new Company Act, which will govern how companies are created, dissolved, organized and managed. The current act last underwent a major revision in 1973. The outdated act adds to the cost of doing business in British Columbia and places British Columbia companies at a competitive disadvantage. The new act represents legislative reform that will facilitate commercial activity in the province, as well as improve efficiencies for companies and the corporate registry.

Preparations for the new act have been ongoing for several years. Last year a discussion draft was released for public comment. As a result of comments received and with a view to balancing the often conflicting interests expressed, a number of provisions in the discussion draft were subsequently revised. The new act will accommodate recent developments in corporate law, streamlining a number of commercial transactions, and resolve ambiguities and problems with the existing statute. Finally, it will reduce filing requirements and allow for increases in efficiency at the corporate registry.

Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1415]

FOOD SAFETY ACT

Hon. C. Evans: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Evans: This bill consolidates and updates the food safety regulations of existing legislation so that licensing, inspection and standard-setting are combined into just one statute which covers food at every level from the gate to the plate. As a consequence, the Meat Inspection Act and the Milk Industry Act will be repealed. British Columbia's food safety system is already among the best in the world, and this bill will maintain a strong role for government in setting food safety standards.

The legislation also affirms that the industry is responsible for ensuring that food is safe. This proposal enables government and industry to take a much more flexible approach to how food safety is regulated. There has been an increasing recognition that prescriptive standards in the current regulations are outdated, that they're onerous and that they're too inflexible. This legislation will enable government to set outcome-based standards that focus on the safety of the food and not on the specific methods to achieve it. Outcome-based regulations will provide industry with the flexibility to meet the food safety standards using modern technology and a variety of methods. Regulations to replace and update existing regulations will be developed after ongoing consultation.

In 1993 federal and provincial agriculture and health ministers undertook to develop a more integrated approach to food standards and inspection. The blueprint for the Canadian food inspection system was created. This bill enables British Columbia to meet its commitment to set food safety standards that are equivalent to all other provinces and to federal standards. This bill would be administered by the Minister of Health, who was assigned responsibility for provincial food safety in 1998. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food will assist by continuing to administer dairy farm licensing and inspection.

Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 83 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

MOVEMENT OF B.C. COMPANIES TO ALBERTA

Hon. I. Waddell: Did the hon. member say a moving van or a movie van? If it's a movie van, a billion dollars is coming here. That's pretty good. If it's a moving van, then the hon. member might want to pause and look at what's really happening here.

Yesterday the Minister of Finance announced -- with the support of the small business community -- measures to eliminate and reduce red tape. This is what the community wants. If the hon. member would move his mind back a little bit, he would remember that the Minister of Finance and the government introduced the best small business tax break in the country in the budget. Finally, if he'd look at the tourists that are coming into this province this summer, he might take a more positive attitude and, instead of talking about going to Alberta, try to encourage people to come here -- as they are going to do.

[1420]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

R. Neufeld: Well, the minister just doesn't seem to get it. The statistics speak for themselves. In the first five months of this year. . .

Interjections.

[ Page 13963 ]

R. Neufeld: . . .78 companies have left for Alberta. That's in comparison to only 13 in the same period one year ago. If this government is so friendly -- if all the things that the minister talks about are so friendly to small business -- can this minister explain to me again why there is a 300 percent increase in B.C. companies leaving for Alberta?

The Speaker: Minister of. . . .

Hon. I. Waddell: Hon. Speaker. . . .

The Speaker: Minister, the Chair needs to recognize the minister. The minister rises, and I say: "Small Business, Tourism and Culture minister."

Hon. I. Waddell: Sorry, hon. Speaker. In my eagerness to respond, I forgot that. I'll try and remember that.

I don't understand where the member is getting his information. Perhaps the member could tell us, because if he looks. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order, please.

Hon. I. Waddell: In the amalgamation of the phone companies -- B.C. Tel and Telus, from Alberta. . .tell us where they moved. Telus is coming to Vancouver for their head office. Ericsson Communications is coming here. The stock exchange. . . . I got a letter from Charlie Locke -- who runs the Fernie resort, the Lake Louise resort and the Fortress Mountain resort -- saying: "I'm coming to British Columbia. I approve of the policies of the government." So I just plead with the opposition to show some optimism and some faith in British Columbia. We're trying to bring in these policies. I believe they're working, and this economy is turning around.

OVERCROWDING IN PROVINCIAL JAILS
AND RELEASE OF HIGH-RISK OFFENDERS

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

G. Plant: . . .emergency capacity to hold them over the next two years. This comes on the heels of another example of a delay in the court system that has forced a stay of proceedings against a man convicted of indecent assault at trial. So I have a question for the Attorney General. Will he tell us how he is going to ensure that dangerous criminals are not released into our neighbourhoods and communities to relieve the overflow problem that exists in the province's prison system?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the hon. member knows well that the more dangerous and more serious offenders belong in the federal prisons in the first place. We have prisoners that serve two-years-less-a-day sentences, and some of them are released on parole and otherwise. . . . Very serious offenders belong in the federal prisons.

Secondly, we have a corrections facility coming up in Port Coquitlam which is already being built, and that would deal with some of those issues. The hon. member should know, as a lawyer of some experience, that it's important that we do some restorative justice at the other end of the spectrum. We have actually attempted to keep people out of jails and out of courts. Those that are less serious, low-risk offenders are actually being diverted away from the system into the communities. So the communities are powerful; they hold the offenders accountable. They're able to deal with those issues so that the backlogs are dealt with appropriately and Corrections are not overcrowded.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Richmond-Steveston.

G. Plant: I want to deal with one aspect of the province's inmate count, if you will. The Attorney General was quoted recently as having said that he is considering putting higher-risk offenders on the electronic monitoring program. But the fact is that the courts put high-risk criminals in jail to keep them out of our neighbourhoods and communities. So I want to ask the Attorney General this: will he assure us that he is not planning to bypass the will of the courts by placing higher-risk offenders in our communities under the electronic monitoring program?

[1425]

We will make changes to that program, but this hon. members needs to know that we in British Columbia make the largest number of applications for dangerous-offender designation in the entire country, based on our population. Over a quarter of the dangerous offenders currently serving jail time across the country come from British Columbia, because we take a very serious view of these kinds of issues. So I would ask the hon. member to actually look at our record and not pander to things that don't need to be pandered to.

GOVERNMENT INTENTIONS ON PERSONAL INCOME TAX CUT

Interjections.

R. Kasper: Listen up.

[ Page 13964 ]

R. Kasper: . . .is: given these targeted measures, I, as well as other British Columbians, want to know why the minister has not seen fit to implement the $1.2 billion in personal tax cuts recommended by the B.C. Business Summit and the opposition.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Come to order. The Chair will not recognize the minister until the House has come to order.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The whole aspect of managing the economy is serious business. Our government takes it very seriously. We don't go around making rash promises that simply can't be fulfilled. Let me just tell you. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Members, members.

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . .the tough choices we've made. We've made some very tough choices to do targeted tax cuts and, at the same time, improve health care and improve education. And it's working. We are protecting health care and education, and our targeted tax cuts are working. What we will not do is what the opposition has asked. Here's what their $1.2 billion tax cut would do. Fully 35 percent. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members. Come to order. The minister is just finishing up.

Interjections.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, this. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, minister. . . .

Hon. J. MacPhail: Sorry.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Members, come to order. Peace River North, Fort Langley-Aldergrove, come to order.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, this is the analysis that every British Columbian is doing. I gather they don't want it out, but I'll tell them what's actually going on. Their tax cut, the tax cut that they would wish. . . . Fully 50 percent of the benefit would go to 4 percent of the population. We will not do that. The 50 percent that have the lowest income would get one-thousandth of the benefit that those people would give to the top income tax people, and, hon. Speaker. . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. It's time to move on.

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . .we simply will not do that.

The Speaker: Minister, thank you.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We believe in a fair tax system for all British Columbians.

[1430]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

CONDUCT OF GOVERNMENT MEMBERS
OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members. Columbia River-Revelstoke, come to order.

M. de Jong: . . .hundreds of millions of mythical revenue dollars of optimism into the '96 budget, the government -- the NDP -- shut it down. They shut it down, Madam Speaker. What about the truth? Well, you can't ask the Premier, and you never get a straight answer from the Finance minister. You can't ask the NDP members, the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca and the other members that were part of the cover-up. So the question is for. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Skeena. . . .

M. de Jong: . . .the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. How could this cover-up take place, and what is the status of Public Accounts as a result of this shameful conduct on the part of the NDP members of that committee?

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Okanagan-Penticton, who is the Chair of the committee.

R. Thorpe: As the member knows, the government has the majority of members on the committee. I can confirm to this House that the member for Saanich North and the Islands put forward a motion to call Mr. Tom Gunton as a witness to the committee. The motion was defeated by all government members voting no, thus stopping Mr. Gunton's appearance before the committee.

In addition, I can advise that the government member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca put forward a motion of closure on the committee. All government members voted yes for the closure, causing the inquiry of the auditor general's report to

[ Page 13965 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

M. de Jong: At last, Madam Speaker -- to receive a response that is concise, to the point and that deals with the question. What a welcome departure from what we're usually forced to endure in this House.

But my supplemental. . . . I thought I heard the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee say that the NDP members of that committee weren't interested in finding out the truth. I thought I heard him say that they were interested in effecting a cover-up and that they didn't want to put questions to the one person. . .

The Speaker: Hon. member. . . .

M. de Jong: . . .that could provide the answer.

The Speaker: Hon. member. . . .

M. de Jong: That's what I thought I heard.

The Speaker: Hon. member, what's your. . . ?

M. de Jong: I wonder if that's a correct version of events.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members will come to order. The question was asked within the time, and I will allow a small, short reply.

But I must also add a piece of information for all members -- that is, while it is permissible to address a question to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, it is not permissible in the House for detailed canvassing of votes that have happened in the committee. I apologize to all for having allowed that to happen earlier.

In the current moment, I recognize the hon. member for Okanagan-Penticton.

R. Thorpe: I'd like to thank the member for that very thoughtful question. I'll take that on notice.

[1435]

Tabling Documents

Hon. I. Waddell: I rise to table two reports. The first is "Economic Impacts of the Leonardo da Vinci Exhibit for the Southern Vancouver Island Region" and the second one is "Royal B.C. Museum Visitor Study of the Leonard da Vinci Exhibit."

Reports from Committees

Motion approved.

Law Clerk:

"June 23, 1999. Hon. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report that the preamble to Bill No. Pr403 intituled Poulos Investments Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 1999, has been approved and the committee recommends that the bill proceed to second reading.

"All of which is respectfully submitted. Tim Stevenson, Chair."

T. Stevenson: By leave I move that the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Bill Pr403 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Ministerial Statement

BICENTENARY OF BIRTH OF DAVID DOUGLAS

David Douglas was a Scottish-born botanist and field naturalist who spent ten years exploring the west coast, including two trips to British Columbia. He identified and catalogued over 200 plant species in B.C. and the Pacific Northwest and introduced over 400 native western North American plant species to the world. Many of these plants were named after David Douglas, including the Douglas fir, which has great social, cultural and economic value to British Columbians.

Douglas was an observant and tough-minded person who travelled under primitive conditions by canoe and horseback, but mainly on foot, through icy rivers, long portages and freezing temperature to collect plants for the benefit of society. As an adventurer he ranks with his fellow countrymen, Alexander Mackenzie and Simon Fraser.

On the eve of the bicentenary of David Douglas's birth, I ask you to join me in recognizing the contribution that David Douglas has made to the social and economic fabric of British Columbia by exploring and cataloguing our forests, the contributions of British Columbians today who are working to maintain the biodiversity and sustainability of our forests, and the commitment of the Ministry of Forests, working to continue to develop and implement management practices that will sustain the social, cultural and economic environmental values of all our forest resources.

[ Page 13966 ]

G. Abbott: It's a pleasure to rise and join in the recognition of the David Douglas bicentenary. Douglas truly was a remarkable figure in this province's history. He compressed into a decade the accomplishments of a lifetime. Douglas came to Canada from London, at the age of 24, on a botanical expedition for the Royal Horticultural Society. Douglas's harvest of plants and seeds established a record for species introduced by an individual into Britain. At a time when some 92,000 species of plants were known the world over, Douglas sent to Britain about 7,000 species, many of them new and native to western Canada.

Douglas explored much of British Columbia, overcoming difficult challenges. On one of his journeys, he travelled up the Fraser to Fort George Canyon. His canoe was smashed on the rocks. His journal, botanical notes and all his specimens were lost, and Douglas was swept downstream in the icy flood and almost drowned.

[1440]

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply B; W. Hartley in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS
(continued)

G. Abbott: This afternoon the plan, as I've laid it out to the minister, is to have a few questions around stumpage and a few around the small business forest enterprise program. We'll then see what we have time for after that -- perhaps a few questions on FRBC near the end of our time here. There are a couple of miscellaneous issues that I'd like to pose to the minister, some of them further to other discussions we've had earlier in the estimates. If the minister doesn't have the appropriate staff here, he can just make a note of the questions and let me know the answers at the best time.

[1445]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I can provide that information in due course. I'll try to get it as soon as possible, but I suspect that the answer will be the same. We haven't taken decisions. Certainly routes would have to be reviewed. I am informed that no routes will be closed down this year, and it is our objective to keep every route open. Given that context, I will see if there's any additional information.

G. Abbott: Another unrelated issue, and one that I know nothing about. I'm looking for the minister to provide some information here. Apparently the Forest Service has run a conference centre at Mesachie Lake, I believe it is, near Lake Cowichan. We've received a letter of concern about its closure, or potential closure.

Could the minister advise the history of the conference centre and what plans there are in the ministry with respect to it?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We're in the process of closing the Mesachie Lake conference centre. We can give you the history of it, but it is simply a budget matter. We had to trim our budget somewhere, and we thought we could live without this one.

G. Abbott: Again an unrelated issue. This involves the first nation referrals that are expected from woodlot owners.

In the Shuswap area, woodlot owners have been advised -- at least their understanding is -- that they should consult with all four of the first nations bands which exist in the Shuswap area, even if their woodlot is not adjacent to all four -- and I guess they couldn't possibly be adjacent to all four. The woodlot operators are concerned with the volume of paperwork that appears to be expected of them for reasons of consultation and would like some clarification as to whether their obligation to consult extends only to the adjacent band or extends to all of the first nations bands in the Salmon Arm forest district.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, I will look into the exact details, but I think I can give you a general answer, which is good advice to them. Because we're dealing with area-based tenures, they're long-term tenures. They want to be sure that they don't end up in some kind of a wreck, meaning that their development is held up in the courts due to inadequate consultation.

[1450]

[ Page 13967 ]

I understand that it can be seen as onerous, but perhaps the results of some of the overview assessments may be able to be compiled in a way that indicates that there's negligible risk, which might relieve them of some of the responsibilities. So I will get some details on the requirements for consultation and forward them to you.

G. Abbott: A last question on this particular area. The suggestion from the ministry in the flow chart for first nations referrals that the woodlot operators are working with suggests that if a band has not responded to their letter within two weeks, they should contact the bands by phone, request meetings and ask to have a meeting with respect to the plans, etc. Again, there seems to be some concern about the obligation to do this. Further, I guess, in some cases the response that they're getting from the bands is: "That's 50 miles away from where we are. Why would we care?" Again, though, at this point the advice of the minister would be simply to err on the side of caution, even if it means that there may be a little bit of frustration around duplication or disinterest -- that it is best to err on the side of caution rather than otherwise.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think that's what a lawyer would advise, were they to consult with a legal adviser on it. But in the case where first nations have said, "Why would we care -- it's 50 miles away?" then that sounds to me like pretty good evidence that there isn't an interest that might be affected by the development. When that kind of feedback is generated, then I think the risk is much lower. But again, if they're advised to go through the steps, then I don't think the placement of a phone call or a copy of a letter is too onerous, given that it will minimize their risk, because it will be the woodlot owner whose development will be obstructed should there be a problem.

My comments were about the long term. Since these are long-term licences, they may wish to build their relationship with someone who, in the process, may be claiming rights to that Crown land in the area. So in the event that a claim was to be established in the future at any time, the owner of the long-term licence would be advised to build the relationships so as to not find themselves with neighbours with whom they haven't built up a positive relationship.

G. Abbott: I will pass along that advice from the minister to those who are concerned.

This gets us into the area of stumpage, though. It's the unique area of agricultural leases and the stumpage that is paid on those. I know that the minister has also received correspondence on this issue from, among others, Charles Butcher's Limousin ranch in Prince George. He's also written to me and is very concerned that the stumpage he pays on the wood from -- I think it says -- an agricultural lease has stayed up high.

[1455]

I guess the second part of the argument that Mr. Butcher makes is this: why should he pay for silviculture on an agricultural lease when he's taking the wood off, clearing the land and putting it into agricultural production?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm informed that there is no silviculture levy on agricultural leases.

With respect to the other comments, I see the $45 spread in '95. My own experience has been that there are times when you make good money, and you've got to log when you can do that. There are times in depressed markets when you just can't do it. The value of the resource, nevertheless, is an appraised value. They're evaluated by the same formula that all wood is evaluated. But I will admit that they are in a different market. When companies are limited by quota, then the private market is not going to pay a sufficient amount to put them into a profit position, so there are very slim margins in the examples you give me. I'm sure there are worse examples where the market is even less than $72. We are fixed into the stumpage system. If there is something untoward about the calculation of the cost side, we can look into that and would be happy to provide the details, if we haven't already looked into those. What happens is that you get the sawlog price from someone. They don't factor into that the wood they get for 25 cents. Quite often, when you take the wood that goes in on salvage prices, the average comes down, and it changes it quite considerably.

G. Abbott: We've had some discussion about stumpage issues -- I guess more in the context of how potentially reforming the stumpage system might be a part of future discussions in a process about reforming public policy in the forest area. The recent White Paper from the IWA offers some interesting observations with respect to stumpage and the stumpage system we have in B.C., and I want to get the minister's comments on some of those. For example, on page 43 of the document by Mr. Smyth there is a note that none of the other provinces -- he means other than British Columbia -- covered by the softwood lumber agreement uses a target-rate system. Alberta, Ontario, Quebec do not use target-rate systems; we're the only ones that do. I guess the question there is: why are we doing it differently than others?

The other point that the paper makes is particularly in context of Alberta's stumpage system, and I'll just quote from this study briefly:

"This quick cycle adjustment gives the Alberta industry a significant advantage over B.C. companies because it sets rates on a timely basis, while the time lag from the beginning of the quarterly adjustment period to the end of the quarterly stumpage rate effective period in British Columbia can be as long as five months. Given the sharp fluctuation in lumber prices during the 1990s, such an extended period can inflict severe damage on the B.C. industry."

[1500]

[ Page 13968 ]

That's two questions, I guess: why we have the target rate system when others don't, and a comment with respect to the observation made about the quick-cycle adjustment in the Alberta stumpage system.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I want to make a couple of clarifications on some things I've said. When we reviewed the record, some of my staff noticed a few things where we require some clarification.

First, I want to be clear that in this discussion, stumpage and the softwood lumber agreement are inextricably bound up together, as the member himself has pointed out. We don't want to affect our position, should we choose to renegotiate that agreement or should we choose not to renegotiate.

Second, a small correction. Earlier, when I talked about stumpage and taxes. . . . Stumpage is not a tax; it's the price charged for trees. I was using the term loosely to encapsulate everything. I just want to make sure that it's an important distinction, because my staff is aware of some distant recollection -- but nevertheless to be heeded -- that there are court cases over this issue. So I wanted to be very clear for the record.

With respect to your question, why set a target rate system, a target rate system was the result of negotiations with the Americans. In 1987, when we adopted the system, it was the system that we agreed to work by so that we wouldn't be arbitrarily lowering stumpage in areas and thereby creating a cross-subsidy across the province. That's why it's different. Our system was under much more scrutiny and needed a fix. Whether today it's adequate or not is another question, but we needed a fix that was able to forestall actions by the U.S. I think it's been only partially successful in that, but at least we can defend the system when queried by the Americans.

With respect to the quick-cycle, more rapid response to market, what Mr. Smyth doesn't say there is that industry has a decided advantage over competitors when it goes the other way. When prices go up and you're still paying on the quarter of lower prices, there's a decided advantage there. You know, you never hear about the upside of the cycle; you only hear about the downside. So I agree that a more rapid response makes it more immediately market-sensitive and under the right conditions it'll give an advantage, but the other side is equally true. There is an advantage gained when there's a lag in the rise of stumpage. I think we've gone through a period where we have benefited from that. So that's the simple explanation.

Further, though, I think I have to say that there would be. . . . Well, I'll just leave my comments at that for now.

G. Abbott: Thanks to the minister for that explanation.

Given that one of the apparent objectives of British Columbia possibly going into the next round of the softwood lumber agreement is to prove to the Americans that we have a market-sensitive stumpage system, will that particular and perhaps very important element in the big puzzle about public forest policy here in British Columbia. . . ? Will that advantage of the Alberta system, in terms of market sensitivity, therefore be an important consideration as B.C. prepares for the next round of the softwood lumber agreement?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In the view of the Americans they would like to see us tie the stumpage fees charged to the price of standing trees. They would like to see a competitive market for the standing trees, not any other derivative of the market.

[1505]

Another one of the useful suggestions that's made by Mr. Smyth -- this one's on page 45 -- is a suggestion from him around getting the right log to the right mill without suffering an undue penalty because of the current appraisal system. The suggestion he makes is this: "Moreover, the current appraisal points policy should be changed to encourage companies to transport logs past the sawmill closest to the harvesting site to a more distant mill that can manufacture higher value products from them. Such a policy will stimulate increased log trading between sawmills, including those of different companies." That's his suggestion with respect to changing the current appraisal points policy. Is the government giving any consideration to this particular suggestion?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Where we agree with Mr. Smyth is that we should try to get a higher-value log sorted out and bucked at the right place and not trucked as a sawlog and then turned into a peeler or a high-value product source. We agree with that. We're not sure that we agree with the vehicle. That'll have to be examined. See, he's given a specific vehicle, which is the point of appraisal, and so. . . . You know, we've come this way on the coast where we've made great advances. I think there are more advances to be made there, and so we tend to agree with the principle but not necessarily the mechanism.

Just backing up a bit to your previous question, the government offered industry a quick response on the cycling up and down of stumpage in '94, and it was rejected. It was on the menu of items to be prioritized in the go-round in '97, when we were talking about the action plan, and it was given very low priority and dropped at that time. But it was offered up as one of the ways in which we could modify the system. So it has been rejected by industry. Perhaps the next time around we can do it. But, as I say, all of the recommendations and all of the issues around the market, the softwood lumber agreement and the stumpage system. . . . All of the things that we need to do some redesign around have to be taken together. We can't just pick some elements. For every action he implies, there is a reaction somewhere else.

G. Abbott: I agree with that. It is a large and involved system -- therefore the importance of the public policy review that we will be seeing, I gather, in due course here in British Columbia.

I have one final point on the stumpage system here in B.C., from the Smyth report. I'm certain that this is one that the minister has had lots of discussion with staff about, and he's probably very well versed on it. I'll quote Mr. Smyth: "Because of the rapid development of higher value lumber products at the coast during the late 1980s and 1990s, there is a high probability that its stumpage target rate has also been grossly overstated by errors in the 1986 Statistics Canada index market basket." This is a suggestion that I've heard from Mr. Smyth on several occasions now, and he's embodied the suggestion in his paper. As I say, I'm sure the minister has walked through this a number of times with staff, and I'd be delighted to hear what the response to that is.

[ Page 13969 ]

Leave granted.

J. van Dongen: It's my pleasure today to introduce to the Legislature 50 grade 6 students from Yarrow Community School. They are accompanied by their teacher Mrs. Klassen and a number of parents. I ask the House to please make them feel welcome.

[1510]

G. Abbott: You never know.

I think we are due for an adjustment in stumpage effective July 1. Is it possible for the minister to provide me with some indication today of what we're likely to be looking at -- first on the coast and then in the interior -- with respect to a stumpage increase or decrease, any changes in the mean-value index or the target rate and that kind of thing? I appreciate that it's not July 1 yet, but if the minister has some information with respect to what we can expect to occur on July 1, I'd welcome it.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, as you know, we do some advance work in order to do it and to be prepared to make a determination. It hasn't been done yet, because the mean-value index has not been finally determined. I can give you an idea of what might be happening, and I want you to be sure that on July 1 the rates will be effective, as you know, for three months. The increase will happen July 1. Although the adjustment, as I say, hasn't been done, the average rates are expected to go up due to stronger lumber prices. As usual, some specific cutting permits will have larger or smaller increases. The rates are going up primarily because lumber prices have increased -- I guess, solely because lumber has increased.

On the coast, the target rate -- that is, the average rate -- increases approximately $2.05 per cubic metre. The base rate -- that is, the average sawlog rate -- increases $2.40 a cubic metre. Pulp logs remain at 25 cents a cubic metre. Japanese lumber, in Canadian dollars, is currently at $900 per thousand board feet, which is an increase of $170, or 23 percent, since June of last year. This increase is about $38 a cubic metre. So the price of lumber has gone up $38 a cubic metre.

In the interior, the interior target rate -- that is, the average rate -- increases $2.79 per cubic metre. The base rate -- again, the average sawlog rate -- increases $4.35 per cubic metre. Pulp logs remain at 25 cents a metre.

The U.S. lumber price on which this is based, in Canadian dollars, is currently $550 per thousand board feet, an increase of $150, or 36 percent, since June of last year. This increase is about $38 a cubic metre.

G. Abbott: I thank the minister for that detail. I appreciate that it's of a preliminary nature. But it gives us some idea of the magnitude of the problem, the magnitude of the stumpage increases that are likely to come.

Has the mean value index on the coast come out of the negative area which it's been in for some time -- mean value index being the average value index of all cutting permits? Has that improved on the coast as a result of a strengthening Japanese lumber market and, hopefully, other elements?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No, we simply haven't run the numbers yet. We don't know.

[1515]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As of May 31, 1999, the overdue accounts receivable was $62 million. This is the total amount that's owed and overdue, interest being charged on the overdue amounts and the actions being taken to collect the money, including establishing liens on assets, garnishees or whatever, to receive those. The overdue amount is normal and expected. For comparative purposes, the overdue amount at the end of May '98 was $120 million. So less than half is considered overdue. The auditor general states in his 96-97 report that, in general, government has built strong controls into the forest credit management system and that the ministry has an effective collection procedure.

G. Abbott: The minister said, when describing the $62 million, that it was owed and overdue. Does that mean that a portion of the $62 million is simply owing, as opposed to beyond. . . ? I don't know whether it's 90 days or 120 days or 30 days when the ministry considers an account overdue. Can we get a distinction between owed and overdue? Is the $62 million all overdue?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Okay. Owed and overdue are the same thing -- $62 million is overdue, and overdue is billed for over 28 days.

G. Abbott: Does that include the amount as part of the restructuring agreement at Skeena Cellulose that has been on the books for some time? The minister doesn't need to identify the companies, but I'm curious as to what the distribution is of the overdue amount.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There are about 60 accounts that account for 90 percent of the overdue, and about ten accounts -- some relatively large ones -- account for 50 percent. One of them is Skeena Cellulose under the economic plan, and that overdue amount is approximately $20 million.

G. Abbott: I want to move on, then, to the small business forest enterprise program. Let's begin by a review of what was termed, when it was announced, the small business 2000 project, the aim of which was to repackage the accumulated undercut from the previous small business forest enterprise program.

Could we get an update on that in terms of its volume of sales in relation to the objective, the success with which the ministry has been able to repackage and sell the accumulated undercut, and the success in terms of getting the product to remanners?

[1520]

[ Page 13970 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes. As of the date of the jobs and timber accord -- two years ago -- there were 2.1 million cubic metres. We had a three- or four-year plan to sell it; it's looking like a three-year plan. Last year we sold 0.9, so that's 900,000plus cubic metres. This year we intend to sell. . . . I have to correct myself. Two years ago we sold 0.6; last year we sold 0.9; this year we'll sell 0.6. If I'm correct, that adds up to 2.1.

G. Abbott: There may be excellent reasons for this, but it certainly would appear that the stated aim of the small business 2000 project of getting that undercut out to market over time has not come to fruition, unless the 0.6, 0.9 and 0.6 are supplemental to other small business sales. But I assume that's not the case. I assume that small business sales have been limited for some reason, and perhaps those can be outlined to me.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No, it is truly incremental, on top of the regular program. For example, last year we sold 11.44 million cubic metres, and that's 93 percent of target. And on top of that we sold the undercut, which is just about 915,000. So it is incremental.

G. Abbott: Thank you for that clarification. When we discussed this last year, I recall the minister saying that there certainly wasn't going to be any attempt to put eight million to ten million cubic metres of accumulated undercut on the market in any one year, because clearly that would pose some difficulties in terms of markets and process and everything else. So the numbers here reflect, probably over the period of a decade, the gradual drawing down of that undercut to this point.

[1525]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We made the commitment to deliver more wood, and we delivered it. The timber supply for the independent manufacturers segment of the small business program increased by almost 70 percent, to 4.4 million cubic metres.

I'll tell you how it's basically broken down. The bid proposal apportionment increased from 2.6 million to 3.6 million, so there's a million there. Then we accompanied it by TFL wood and put that into bid proposals. That was another 900, so that gives us the 4.4 million.

G. Abbott: The paper by Mr. Smyth from the IWA makes some comment about this and portrays the success of the program in less than glowing terms. I'll quote it:

"Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons the small business forest enterprise program has not been successful in its goal to create value-added jobs in the B.C. lumber industry. The 1,500 small businesses that make up the value-added sector are struggling to break even, and there has been no net increase in new jobs created. Value-added employment has remained steady for the past five years at approximately 13,000, or 13 percent of the total B.C. forest industry workforce."

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I have some figures. I'm not exactly sure of the time frame, but I can confirm that for you. It has been announced by the value-added industry association on the occasion of the opening at Forintek a couple of weeks ago.

I think Mr. Smyth is wrong. I think that the data now shows that there's been an increase of 3,000 jobs over the last several years in the value-added industry. There's been a steady growth of approximately 4 percent in the employment there. Those jobs have been created, and I don't think the program has been a failure. The industry associations are pleased and are using the wood.

Now, it hasn't all been brought on stream. As you know, it's been awarded over three years, and some of these sales go as long as ten years. It's going to take some time; some of the plants are still being built. So we disagree with him. There has been an investment of $51 million in capital investment since June 19, 1997 -- two years ago. We know that there have been 1,382 jobs created out of this program itself. There are other value-added industries that are benefiting from wood fibre transfer and other things, so the small business program accounts for 1,382 new jobs and protects -- by the way, the wood coming in protects jobs -- another 3,500 existing positions. These are the sums of the jobs that have been created and the investment from individual sales. We go back and check to make sure that people are creating the jobs that they undertook to create when they bid on the wood.

[1530]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The original estimate was $289 million, but it was revised on the heels of the stumpage adjustments and the market downturn to $202 million. And we ended the year at $210 million.

G. Abbott: And could the minister give a similar brief accounting of expenses for the program?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The expenditure forecast for the program for '98-99 was $142,590,000, and the actual expenditures came in at $142,070,000 -- so some $520,000 under.

G. Abbott: That's probably as close as we're ever going to get to balancing a budget in anything.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: A profit.

G. Abbott: Yeah, on the right side too. That's great.

Just one last question on the small business program. The forest action plan brought in the new way of calculating the sales value of small business sales. I think her name's Faye Street. She's from somewhere in the Kootenays. I know she writes to the minister, and she writes to me with concerns about the new method of calculating the sales.

As I recall, the former method was for the officials to look at the value of the sale, then go to, I think, two-thirds or three-quarters of that value as an upset figure. Then the expectation was that there would be bonus bids on top of that.

As I understand the system now, again officials calculate the estimated market value of it. The upset price is 100 percent

[ Page 13971 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: A calculation is made from other sales in the area and known information. We calculate what a probable selling rate would be. It's discounted 30 percent, and then that becomes the upset. So the upset is discounted 30 percent, and then the bonus bids are made on top of that.

G. Abbott: That is in comparison to the previous method of calculating it, which was, I thought, to go to two-thirds or three-quarters of the estimated value. Was it not? Again, perhaps we can get a brief description of the previous method of calculating this.

[1535]

G. Abbott: One question on the certification issue, I guess we had a bit of a discussion around this issue last year. We've moved on, by the way. There won't be any more small business forest enterprise program questions, at least from me. I don't know if the staff want to come and go; that's fine.

We had a good discussion of the various models of certification last year in estimates. Some parts of industry are pursuing the Forest Stewardship Council. Other companies continue to pursue CSA or ISO certification. Is there anything new to report with respect to the certification issue and the ministry's role with respect to it?

R. Thorpe: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Motion approved.

R. Thorpe: I am very pleased today to have 45 grades 6 and 7 students from West Bench Elementary School. They're accompanied today by many of their teachers and their parents. I would ask this House to give them a very loud welcome as they're visiting Victoria.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: About a year and a half ago I called industry and said that I saw a problem looming and that they'd better work together, because we needed to have a strategy to deal with certification. Industry formed a committee. We were there in a supportive role; we remain in a supportive role. Because it affects their markets, it has to be led by industry. We're quite prepared to provide information and support. We will do everything from hosting visiting teams that come to check out forest practices. . . . We support them in non-tariff barriers -- any issues there -- and general market access and standards.

We are not adopting any one system. It is, after all, the choice of the company that wants to market to choose the system. We provide technical information with respect to the standards. So as the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, when we meet, we look at criteria and indicators and provide this information and some research, as we can afford it, to be able to support industry's efforts.

G. Abbott: Hopefully, we'll be seeing some progress in that area. It is an important issue to the forest industry's future in British Columbia to work through those certification processes. I know it has been very frustrating for companies faced with the sometimes bewildering choices that are before them. I'm pleased that government is playing that role in attempting to expedite the certification process for companies in British Columbia.

I also have a couple of questions on expropriation and compensation issues. The most prominent issue in recent weeks, of course, has been the agreement between Macmillan Bloedel and the Ministry of Forests, or the government of British Columbia, around the valuation of M&B's claim for compensation due to the expropriation of land and cutting rights earlier this decade.

[1540]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The M&B settlement agreement only provides a model in the sense that it's a process of how to evaluate the value of the rights -- not whether we settle in land or cash. It's only a model in terms of how we do the evaluation.

There are a number of other claims we're discussing with Atco, Slocan, West Fraser, Interfor and some of the companies affected by the Nisga'a treaty.

G. Abbott: So there is one claim ongoing in the Kootenay area with the four licensees that the minister mentioned. Is that claim unrelated to any treaty issue? Is that independent of the treaty process? Second, is there an issue with TimberWest, respecting their claim?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The TimberWest negotiations are not about major parks. It's about a voluntary acquisition for goal 2 areas -- the small parks that have been created. So it's not an expropriation compensation; it's a voluntary agreement. We mentioned the Nisga'a licensees. That's the only one that is ongoing, because that's the only place we have a treaty.

G. Abbott: The first part of my question was whether the Kootenay claim involving the four licensees -- I believe it was -- that the minister mentioned. . . . That one is unrelated to any treaty. Is it a matter of cutting rights or land for the creation of parks as well?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There are only two claims that we're dealing with in the Kootenays. They are Atco and Slocan, and they're for parks only.

J. Reid: There has been great concern and great interest on Vancouver Island about the compensation package that is

[ Page 13972 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The outcome of the process will be a report written by David Perry, who is conducting the consultations.

[1545]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, the Perry commission, if you will, is not going to present all the written submissions. He's taking oral submissions from people, and he has a transcript of the oral submissions.

J. Reid: I suppose my question, then, is: with the opportunity that people have had for creative problem-solving here and for looking at the situation, will the forthcoming report compile any of those suggestions and be presented in such a way that those of us who can't attend these hearings will get a good sense of any alternative suggestions that were made by the public?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, the terms of reference that David Perry has are to report back on what he's heard. I have to assume that he will report those things that he hears.

J. Reid: Once the report has then come forward out of the public hearings, what would be the next stage in this process?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The report would form a part of the submission to cabinet for decisions. His report is an important part of the recommendations that would go forward to government, and then there would be some kind of an agreement-in-principle with the company on what the final deal would be.

J. Reid: Will there be any other opportunity for public input once that report goes forward? Will there be any other opportunities for the public to see the proposed final agreement and to have any input on that before a decision has been made?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There will be a complete report out on what the decision is. The opportunity for the public to comment. . . . Look, what we've put out here is a settlement agreement. It's been on the web site. It's been published. People have the information about the land management that would go on if some of these lands were to become company lands. So we've put the information out, and the comments should be based on the settlement agreement. People now have the opportunity to comment on the settlement agreement, and that input will be taken and be part of the considerations that government uses when it makes its decision.

J. Reid: Would the minister have a suggested time line that we are looking at for that decision to be made?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, we expect a report in mid-July from Perry. And then the final decision, according to the settlement agreement, has to be made by the end of October.

J. Reid: I would request clarification from the minister as to a consideration in this potential compensation package, and that is with the Crown land that is. . . . Again, it's proposed; it's potentially a part of this package. Is harvesting taking place on this Crown land at this time?

[1550]

J. Reid: Would the minister be able to inform me how many companies might be involved in this small business program and could be influenced by this decision?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If this settlement agreement goes through, MacMillan Bloedel will maintain its commitment to the small business program.

J. Reid: Considering the importance of the small business program to local mills, local trucking, local business, that's very good news; there was considerable concern about that. And so the costs to Macmillan Bloedel, then, I would anticipate -- and this wasn't really made clear. . . . For the small businesses to continue operating, for Macmillan Bloedel to agree to their presence in this program, is there then. . . ? I guess the concern of these businesses is, even though the suggestion is that they'll be allowed to stay operating, will that be ongoing? Is there any direction there given to Macmillan Bloedel so that these companies have any long-term assurance?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The agreement and commitment from MacMillan Bloedel is up to ten years.

G. Abbott: We've had a good discussion, in the debate earlier on the forest resources chapter of the Nisga'a agreement, about the process for determining compensation in that case, and I don't think we need to go into it now.

I just have a couple of questions on the future of Forest Renewal B.C., to wrap up these estimates. I can ask questions of a technical nature at the Select Standing Committee on Forests discussions, which are still ongoing, about the previous year's business plan for FRBC. But I want to ask a couple of questions. The government, presumably in concert with FRBC, made a decision to expend the reserves of FRBC over the next two business-plan years. Is the decision to expend those reserves reflective of anticipated changes in the mandate or delivery of Forest Renewal B.C. by this government two years hence?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No. The decision to use reserves was consistent with the long-term intention, which was that when there was less revenue, the reserves would be drawn down. There is no change in mandate for Forest Renewal. There is a refocusing of its priorities, but the mandate hasn't changed. It

[ Page 13973 ]

G. Abbott: I didn't catch the last sentence of that explanation. Part of the forest action plan would be a debate around the future of Forest Renewal. Did I catch that right?

[1555]

G. Abbott: In Doug Smyth's report, he makes some reference to issues about the provision of silviculture in this province. He suggests on page 35, for example: "The B.C. Ministry of Forests must encourage the industry to practise intensive silviculture by setting up a trust fund account system, which should be financed out of current stumpage payments." He goes on to say: "Chapter 9, which deals with the Alberta forest resource improvement program, will deal with that proposal in greater detail." Actually, he looks on that system with some favour in chapter 9.

Has the Ministry of Forests had an opportunity to evaluate the Alberta forest resource improvement program, which I understand is a dedicated or trust fund which licensees can draw on for silviculture purposes? Has the ministry evaluated that program and reviewed its application to British Columbia?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, we've had a look at it. We're well aware of it. It has some shortcomings. It's only there for those things that the industry feels it should do. Forest Renewal is all about having a broader say over what the revenues of the forest should be spent on. So it has a much more restrictive mandate.

Mr. Smyth suggests a trust fund that has on its board somebody from labour and a public interest person. We have a stakeholder board that governs the Forest Renewal funds, and it has a much broader representation from labour, communities, first nations and conservation groups. The notion of Forest Renewal is much broader than what is envisioned by Mr. Smyth -- or the Alberta people, for that matter. So it's quite a different concept. As I say, the mandate's much broader.

G. Abbott: In terms of this minister's and this government's expectations for the future of Forest Renewal in B.C., is it the expectation or the hope of this government that we will see, in the next five years of program delivery by FRBC, a far more streamlined delivery of that than we have seen in the first five years? Is that part of the program that this minister would like to see achieved?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Actually, significant streamlining has taken place. We've had a 40 percent reduction in the administrative costs, and we've had multi-year agreements in place now for. . . . That is the streamlining. There may be some consideration for existing regional structures to deal with the worker and community programs, so there may be some elements of further streamlining that may be achieved. Our objective is to streamline as much as possible, but I would say, substantially, that the biggest part of the streamlining has taken place.

G. Abbott: Has the ministry or FRBC completed its comparison of the relative cost, productivity, and so on of the delivery of silviculture programs -- a comparison between the coast region, particularly, and the interior?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No, it has not. We hope to have that work completed by the end of July.

G. Abbott: This is a matter that we discussed in last year's estimates. There was some hope of having that comparison, I think, last year. It's been a long time coming, and it is something that I would very much like to see. It's going to be difficult, for example, to approve, in good faith, last year's FRBC business plan when we still haven't seen those particular figures. I will look forward to receiving those as soon as possible, because I think they form an important element in decision-making for this organization. Does the minister wish to respond?

[1600]

G. Abbott: I'm not sure whether I got the comparison for '97-98. Is that something that's been provided to the select standing committee at this point? Actually, a nod would do -- if I can get an answer to that.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It hasn't, but we now have it, and it can be provided to you forthwith.

G. Abbott: Thank you, that would be appreciated.

That concludes my questions.

R. Thorpe: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

R. Thorpe: It's a real pleasure for me to have 44 students attending here today from Uplands Elementary School, together with Mr. Johnson, Ms. Long, other teachers and many parents. I would ask that this House please give these students, teachers and parents a very warm welcome to Victoria.

G. Abbott: I want to make a couple of closing comments here. I want to thank the minister and the minister's staff for answering the questions that I and my colleagues have posed to the minister and his staff over the past few days.

I do want to emphasize once again to the minister, as my parting advice here, that this minister has a unique oppor-

[ Page 13974 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'd like to make a couple of comments to wrap up. Since much of what we do is answer questions, we haven't had a chance to pull some themes out. But I've sort of reviewed the questions.

I'd like to comment first on how much of our debate really has focused on what we call the old forest economy. At this time, we're focusing on that in this debate. It's a bit unfortunate. Nevertheless, we're doing it at a time when government has acknowledged the forest industry's high costs, when government has worked diligently and hard with industry to reduce costs, when job losses appear to have bottomed out, when positive market forces have enabled industry to return to profitability, when the psychology of the industry is turning positive and when we are seeing the end of the B.C. discount.

I would have thought the debate questions might have focused less on where we have been and more on the fundamental structural, long-term issues. But we will get to that. Some of those issues constrain us in moving towards a new forest economy.

We get lots of questions about interprovincial stumpage comparisons that don't mean much, and I've got on the record why they don't mean much. But now what's really important is that we understand that across-the-board stumpage reductions have not been requested by industry and are not in the cards, because we're in arbitration under the softwood lumber agreement. But if any of the members opposite know how we might do this without another arbitration, then I'm always open and pleased to hear suggestions along those lines.

[1605]

A second theme that we heard was a lack of overall detail about positive suggestions; that's gone on for a while. I replied with a suggestion about the results-based code, saying that instead of just saying it, we are open to suggestions at any time for how we might move in this direction. So the invitation's there to get specific on what a results-based code might look like. We're going to push forward. We recognize the code as an important part of forest policy in British Columbia. We recognize the huge economic, social and environmental benefits that the code has brought to us. Did it cost too much? We said yes. Have we reduced the cost of the code? The answer is yes again. Is the government moving towards a performance-based code? Yes -- Bill 82, and we'll have a chance to debate that. We look forward to hearing the opposition's view of what a performance-based code might look like.

The final, third theme had to do with a reluctance on the part of the opposition to recognize that the government had a well-planned-out strategy that dealt with issues of forest communities and workers, with increased costs, with market access and with falloff in the Asian markets. In February '97 we formulated that strategy, and for over two years we've worked on it in conjunction with the industry.

So the strategy had three elements. The jobs and timber accord -- it's clear from the debate that opposition disagrees with that approach of setting forth some objectives. But this government has given its commitment to workers in communities. The second element was to address stumpage, and we worked on that carefully with industry. The stumpage benefits have been on a permanent basis -- $200 million a year for three years. The third element was to reduce code costs, which we've done.

While people continue to be critical of the accord, what they fail to acknowledge is that it was part of an overall strategy. The framework provided by the strategy created the discipline that joint government-industry work could be based on so that when markets turned around, we were better positioned for an overall lower-cost base. Our efforts didn't stop there. We developed the short-term forest action plan, the elements of which the opposition is familiar with. We had questions and answers on many of these, including the market-based pricing system for the small business program so that we could increase sales. We implemented changes to improve the industry's cost position, and we introduced a mill closure review process that will protect workers and stabilize communities.

But we have to turn to the long term. As we have alluded to here, we want to look at the values that the public has for the forest out there. The expectations they have will be around excellence in forest management and around access to tenure for communities and first nations by moving up the value chain away from 2-by-4s -- in other words, moving away from a volume-based to a value-based forest economy -- and by fostering competitive and profitable sectors. Of course, we have to deal with market access, tenure issues, timber pricing and performance-based regulation, which are all part of the long term-forest policy review. With that, I'd like to wrap up my part of the estimates.

G. Abbott: I kind of anticipated that we would have a nice peaceful and graceful exit from the Forests estimates, but I can't, in good faith, allow the minister -- after I made a gracious departure from the estimates -- to come back and take some whacks at the opposition for not asking the questions that he thought should be asked in the estimates. I think we probably should expect to keep the estimates going for the rest of the afternoon, because the minister will obviously want to respond to what I have to say here.

[1610]

If this government is not going to talk about the future, we've got to talk about the past. I'm afraid that's part of the deal here. As Forests critic, I have never -- nor do I know of

[ Page 13975 ]

We talked about the softwood lumber agreement and the critical importance of that. Again, I don't think the minister wanted to spend the time on that particular future element that we would have liked.

We did talk about the jobs and timber accord.

An Hon. Member: What jobs and timber accord?

G. Abbott: What jobs and timber accord? This is clearly something that the government would like to forget, and I don't blame them, because the jobs and timber accord has been a complete failure. The jobs and timber accord is based on the completely fatuous notion that a government can sit down and, in an accord or an edict, say that they are going to create more forest jobs in British Columbia. Of course in the case of the jobs and timber accord, they said back in '96 and again in '97 that they were going to create 21,000 direct new forest jobs in British Columbia and close to that number in indirect jobs. They said they were going to create roughly 41,000 jobs. What we've seen over the history of the accord -- and it's now three years and running -- is that just about as many jobs have been lost in the B.C. forest sector as the government anticipated they were going to create. It has been a complete and unmitigated disaster. I'm afraid that it's been a disaster because it was based on completely faulty premises.

[P. Calendino in the chair.]

This government never will create jobs by wishing the jobs to be created. Jobs will only be created in British Columbia because the investment community sees an opportunity to invest and to see a return on that investment, and consequently jobs are created. Without a return on investment, we won't see jobs created. The problem with this government is its reckless policy of continually adding regulatory and tax burdens on the B.C. forest industry over the past several years. By continually adding to the burden that faces the B.C. forest industry, what we have seen are cumulative losses to the B.C. forest industry of something like $1.7 billion over the past three years. In the industry, the expectation is for perhaps a 10 percent return on capital investment. For three years running now. . . . We have seen substantial losses year after year after year in the B.C. forest industry, and there is nothing in the jobs and timber accord that is going to change that.

[1615]

G. Abbott: I see that we are reaching some consensus that perhaps the Forests minister and I have adequately ventilated some of these issues. I just want to be sure that we leave on the right note. I wouldn't want anyone watching to think that we agreed with the assessment that was provided by the Forests minister at the end of these estimates. I think that important issues have been canvassed here and that we have made some constructive suggestions towards improving the forest policy framework in British Columbia. We need to bring our costs and our regulatory structure into line so that we can be competitive and so that our B.C. forest industry can be number one again.

Vote 34 approved.

Vote 35: fire suppression, $77,845,000 -- approved.

Vote 52: Forest Practices Board, $5,220,000 -- approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply B, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 81.

REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT ACT
(second reading)

Bill 81 is a key component of the new approach to the way regulation in this province is developed and delivered. The guiding principle of this approach, and hence of Bill 81, is that regulatory policy decisions should be fully informed and transparent. Regulation of economic activity is necessary for achieving a wide range of important social, economic and environmental objectives; and good regulation has wide public support. However, we must also be sure that regulation is necessary, that it is effective and fair, that it does not impose unnecessary costs on the private sector and that government accounts publicly for how it regulates.

Bill 81 reflects our commitment to these principles. It requires that government establish policies and procedures to promote informed and accountable decision-making through the preparation, use and publication of regulatory impact statements, or RISs. The RIS is intended to publicly demonstrate that regulatory policy decisions are taken in the context of good public policy analysis. This will be a powerful incentive to ensure comprehensive, high-quality analysis.

As set out in the policy that I tabled at first reading, RIS requirements include defining the objective and the consideration and documentation of alternative ways of achieving the objective, analysis of the implications and impacts of different options and of the approach to consultation. The RISs for significant decisions must be published when the decision is announced. They will be placed on our streamlining web site or linked to that web site by the originating ministry, in addition to being made available in more conventional ways.

The RIS specifically requires that the implications and costs for business be examined and considered, but the analysis and consultation are not restricted to business implications and cannot be so restricted. The RIS is intended to help get

[ Page 13976 ]

In other jurisdictions in Canada, governments have introduced similar programs for regulations made under their equivalent of our Regulations Act, but these programs do not apply to legislation or to administrative policy. We believe that that kind of approach misses significant regulatory policy decisions and would fall short of our goals to improve the regulatory system, to cut tape and to streamline government.

[1620]

At the same time, the government must be able to govern. The RIS policy is a tool for good decision-making. No one would want it to be used as a weapon to limit the jurisdiction of the province or of any other regulatory authority. For these reasons, a privative clause has been included to ensure that this policy cannot be used in the courts to fetter a legitimate use of decision-making authority.

The policy is intended to operate through accountability rather than through the courts. By being transparent, government is inviting the public to hold it accountable. We fully expect that the opposition, the press, the media and the public at large will be effective in ensuring that we live up to the commitment we are making with this legislation.

Bill 81 provides for the appointment of a Business Task Force on Regulatory Impact. That task force will advise on the act and its policies and procedures, as well as any on other regulatory policy matter.

A very critical role will be to provide advice on which regulatory issues require the publication of an RIS. It would dilute the impact of this initiative and needlessly slow down government decision-making if every minor regulatory policy change needed to be accompanied by a published regulatory impact statement. So the Business Task Force on Regulatory Impact will review annual regulatory plans prepared by ministries and other authorities and provide us with independent advice about which initiatives should be subject to the public RIS requirements.

In addition, they will continue the work that was started by the current Business Task Force in promoting regulatory reform, reducing the cost of doing business and cutting red tape. Bill 81 responds to strong recommendations from the Business Task Force, and it is without precedent. It is also a recommendation from the business summit, which our government is following through on today. I would like to give credit to the Business Task Force members for their contribution and efforts toward improving the regulatory climate in this province.

R. Thorpe: Only in British Columbia and only by the NDP. . . . Legislation has to be brought in to do what's right and, as my colleague said earlier, to do what's smart. Progressive, successful and growing economies across Canada do not need legislation, as the minister pointed out. Alberta doesn't have legislation in this area; they just do it because it's the right thing to do, it's the smart thing to do. They're doing it, and their economy is growing.

[1625]

Now we have the RIS. It sort of reminds me of Wendy's. People now are asking: "Where is the beef?" People are tired of these things being announced and announced -- and being only photo ops. This government has been incompetent in drawing up and working with regulations. It's been incompetent in consulting with others.

When this government first announced on March 26 what it then called the business lens. . . . I quote from that government announcement of March 26: ". . .the government will begin immediately to act in the spirit and intent of the new approach" -- great words. But what really happened since that point in time? As of June 24, 36 bills have been introduced in this House. I challenge this government to table the regulatory impact studies it has done. This minister said that they were going to live with the intent and the spirit, from March 26. That just has not happened to date. In the minister's very own Bill 80, which we'll be dealing with a little bit later -- the Liquor Statutes Amendment Act, 1999 -- there's no business lens, no regulatory impact studies. This government has to start to walk the talk. It's about credibility.

Of course, as we know, this government has no credibility with British Columbians today. A small business operator by the name of Barb Mowatt was quoted in the papers today on this. I'll quote, and I'm just going to have to change one of the words, because I think, hon. Speaker, that you would be a little bit concerned. So I'll just paraphrase here, but the intent is. . . . "I'll be the first one to call it a. . ." -- change the word to "mistake" -- "if it is." She went on to say: "I'm making sure there are no loopholes."

That is, everything is done in every ministry and every Crown corporation; that's what this government has alluded to British Columbians that it's going to do. British Columbians have had enough, and they're going to be watching. Of course, many of the task force members tried -- albeit unsuccessfully, but they did try -- to get a moratorium put on new regulations, pending the review of existing regulations. But the government's answer was a flat no.

The question is: who's going to champion this new approach within government? Is it going to be mandatory within each ministry? I don't have confidence that there's a person on that side of the House who is going to champion this and make sure that it's done in each and every ministry and Crown corporation in the province of British Columbia. Sooner or later they have to start walking the talk, or they'll just keep walking. I challenge the minister to table the implementation and the workplan with respect to the regulatory impact studies for the entire government, as well as the per-

[ Page 13977 ]

Bill 81 is very diluted. In fact, it's been watered down from the minister's original statement and comments to British Columbians. This bill leaves huge loopholes for this government to do -- as the Forests minister has become famous for -- whatever it wants, whenever it wants. People will be watching, and I give these words of caution to the minister: be careful how many times you announce this bill and these regulations and how many special Kodak moments you take throughout British Columbia, because you're going to remind British Columbians that you cannot walk the talk.

[1630]

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I recognize the minister to close.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Interesting remarks from the opposition. Of course, what the opposition failed to note is that this was a request from the business summit, another one of the recommendations that our government has met, along with many others, to reduce taxes and cut red tape. Certainly our government has moved much further than any other government in ensuring that an independent group of business people will oversee this and have that legislative authority.

This bill is innovative and without precedent. It will move our government forward a long way in ensuring that we cut the cost of doing business but maintain a high standard of regulations in this province. With that, I move second reading of Bill 81.

Motion approved.

Bill 81, Regulatory Impact Statement Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 71.

FINANCE AND CORPORATE RELATIONS
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999
(second reading)

The act includes amendments to various taxation statutes. The consumption tax statutes are amended to authorize a seller who has paid a penalty to the province for failure to collect tax on a sale to sue the purchaser to recover the tax due. A housekeeping amendment is being made to the appeal provisions of the consumption tax statutes, to allow the minister to make changes to the interest charges or change the nature of an assessment under appeal.

To provide certainty for business, amendments are made to the Motor Fuel Tax Act to clarify the equipment and purposes eligible for using coloured fuel. Additionally, the Motor Fuel Tax Act and the Social Service Tax Act are amended to provide explicit authority for exempting fuel brought into the province in the supply tank of a ship, plane or non-commercial motor vehicle.

The Land Title Act and the Taxation (Rural Area) Act are amended to clarify Crown ownership and simplify administration of forfeited properties and to modernize the processes for making rural property tax payments and applications for some rural property tax relief benefits.

The bill also makes a number of streamlining changes to the Financial Institutions Act to assist financial services industry compliance, reduce enforcement problems and contribute to the administrative efficiency of the superintendent of financial institutions and the Insurance Council of British Columbia. Those changes include the transfer of statutory disclosure requirements and exemptions to regulations under the act, in order to enable consolidation with other disclosure requirements and exemptions which have currently prescribed in the marketing of financial product regulation and in the insurance licensing exemption regulation. There's removal of the automatic stay of superintendent's orders where an appeal is filed with the Commercial Appeals Commission. Then there are several minor changes clarifying the role and responsibilities of the Insurance Council. Overall, these changes provide policy flexibility to deal with the rapidly changing needs of the financial marketplace without compromising the integrity of the public protection safeguards against misconduct or unlicensed activity.

Two minor amendments are made to the Mutual Fire Insurance Companies Act and the Pacific Coast Fishermen's Mutual Marine Insurance Company Act, 1945; they will eliminate outdated restrictions imposed upon mutual fire insurers and the Pacific Coast Fishermen's Mutual Marine Insurance Company respectively. The provisions to be repealed, which predate the passage of the Financial Institutions Act, are unnecessary, given that the Financial Institutions Act provides the necessary level of regulation.

[1635]

Bill 71 also includes amendments to the Purchasing Commission Act. That will give the commission the powers to acquire services on behalf of ministries and government institutions. These will enable the commission staff to enter into direct negotiations with bidders for public sector service contracts and to sign final contracts on behalf of client ministries and government institutions. Those amendments will streamline the process for bidders on government services, as they will provide consistency throughout the solicitation,

[ Page 13978 ]

The bill amends the Real Estate Act to clarify the authority for allowing interest on money held by a real estate agent to be paid to tenants of rental property, as required under the Residential Tenancy Act. That will enable more practical administration of real estate agents' trust accounts and institute improved protection for tenants of rental property.

Finally, the Society Act is amended to allow the registrar to approve electronic and other forms of voting as may be determined to be appropriate in the future. A further housekeeping amendment is made to the act to remove an unnecessary requirement for the registrar to issue a society a changed certificate of incorporation if the society changes its purpose. An amendment is also made to allow societies to amend their bylaws to permit directors to participate in directors' meetings by telephone or other communications medium if all directors present at the meeting in person or electronically can communicate with each other.

The amendments contained in this bill will enhance government efficiency and streamline the regulatory frameworks of various sectors in a number of important ways. More efficient government procedures and streamlined but effective regulation will ultimately contribute to a better environment for investment and economic development in the province.

G. Farrell-Collins: I believe that Bill 71 is primarily a housekeeping bill, and I believe that the minister's comments accurately reflect the content of the bill. We'll discuss them further in committee stage.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 71, Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes Amendment Act, 1999, 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. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 76.

HEALTH STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999
(second reading)

[1640]

Section 29 of the Interpretation Act currently states that the phrases "mentally disordered person," "mentally incompetent person," "mentally ill person," "mentally retarded person" or "insane person," wherever they appear in another act, all mean "mentally disordered person" as defined in section 1 of the Mental Health Act.

The phrase "mentally disordered person" appears in 25 other acts. If the amendments to the Mental Health Act are brought into force as enacted, then removal of the phrase "mentally disordered person" will result in the introduction of a large degree of legal uncertainty in the other acts and the loss of consistency across provincial statutes. Therefore section 29 of the Interpretation Act is being amended to ensure that "mentally disordered person" in all other statues means "person with a mental disorder," as defined in the Mental Health Act.

This bill also strengthens the protection of public health through a minor amendment to section 11 of the Health Act. Section 11 has authorized -- for many, many years, actually -- a medical health officer who's appointed under the act to order a person with a reportable communicable disease to comply with certain conditions, if the medical health officer believes that the person is likely to expose others to the disease wilfully, carelessly or because of inability to recognize the risk involved. If such an order is contravened, the medical health officer may, with the prior approval of the provincial health officer, charge the person by what is called laying an information. This results in the matter being brought before the courts.

Section 11 currently provides that only a medical health officer may lay an information. This section is being amended to allow assistant and deputy medical health officers, in addition to what is current -- the medical health officers -- the power to lay an information. This power will not be available to any person except a properly appointed medical health officer or deputy or assistant medical health officer.

This amendment addresses the occasional situation where it comes to light that a person with an infectious disease is not complying with an order. If the medical health officer is unavailable to lay an information for some reason, the health of the person and the public may be put at risk unnecessarily because of the delay in enforcing the order. Authorizing assistant and deputy medical health officers to lay charges will help to ensure that urgent public health concerns are addressed as quickly and efficiently as possible, while minimizing the potential for infringement of any individual liberty rights.

Bill 76 also continues this government's work on modernizing the regulation of health professions, by providing for the repeal of the Naturopaths Act and the Psychologists Act. This is being done at the request of the governing bodies of those professions. In the future, both professions will be regulated under the Health Professions Act, which is the umbrella statute that provides a consistent and comprehensive legislative framework for health professions to be self-regulating.

[ Page 13979 ]

Lastly, I think there is a piece in this about repealing obsolete legislation. As part of our continuing commitment to reduce red tape and streamline government operations, this bill repeals several very obsolete pieces of health legislation. A requirement in the Community Care Facility Act, dating back to 1974, which requires certain specific fire safety measures in smaller licensed facilities is being eliminated. Fire safety standards and regulations under the act have developed to the point where the broad statutory requirement in the act is, in most cases, redundant and adds an unnecessary expense to facility construction when adequate alternative safety measures exist. The regulations under the act will continue to ensure that adequate fire safety protection measures are required in all licensed facilities.

Parallel requirements in the Health Act and the Hospital Act, both originating prior to 1948, that all regulations made by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council under each act must be laid before or presented to the Legislative Assembly are removed. These are unnecessary requirements, because all regulations must now be filed with the registrar of regulations and published under the Regulations Act before they come into force. This ensures that wide public notice of regulations, which is the intent behind the requirement to present them to this House, is accomplished.

[1645]

The Hospital (Auxiliary) Act also originates prior to 1948 -- which means it originates prior to many people in this Legislature, or at least some significant number -- and is being repealed as obsolete. It provides for the establishment and administration of provincial auxiliary hospitals to provide care and treatment for persons who do not require acute care hospitalization but cannot be cared for properly at home. There are no facilities established under this act, and none are contemplated. Necessary services of this type are now provided under the authority of the Continuing Care Act and the Community Care Facility Act.

I am pleased to be able to present these amendments to the House. I move second reading of the bill.

C. Hansen: Certainly we don't have any difficulty with the provisions that are put forward in this piece of legislation. The Mental Health Act. . . . I think the amendments put forward by the opposition last year improved the bill -- certainly in the minds of those who have to deal with it on an ongoing basis. I find it very unfortunate, of course, that it has held up proclamation of that particular amendment last year. I hope, once this Bill 76 is passed and dealt with by this chamber, that we'll be able to get on with proclaiming those changes with full haste.

With regard to the changes to the Naturopaths Act and the Psychologists Act, certainly I concur with the minister that it is far more effective for government to be administering those professions under the Health Professions Act. I applaud the work that's been done by the naturopathic physicians and the psychologists in British Columbia to move towards a more modern system for self-regulation. I support that.

With regard to the Community Care Facility Act, the amendment that's being put forward is very minor. The only thing I wish is that we would be able to see a much more substantial overhaul of the Community Care Facility Act. It's certainly one piece of legislation that I think would serve the public much better if it were written and designed in a format that was more results-oriented, rather than prescriptive-based, as it is today. But we have no difficulty with the minor amendment that the minister is proposing. We'll certainly have more comments and questions when we get into committee stage on this.

Hon. P. Priddy: I thank the member for his comments. I move second reading of the Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1999.

Motion approved.

Bill 76, Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1999, 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 72, the Water Amendment Act, 1999.

WATER AMENDMENT ACT, 1999
(second reading)

Water and streams throughout the province are the property of the province. Persons who wish to divert and use this water for domestic, agricultural, industrial or other purposes can apply to the government for a water licence. Provided that the person complies with the terms of the licence and makes beneficial use of the water, their water rights continue indefinitely. Currently, about 42,000 water licences have been issued in British Columbia, for purposes such as power generation and irrigation. Almost half of these water licences are issued for domestic purposes, and yet these water users represent only a fraction of 1 percent of the total volume of water

[ Page 13980 ]

[1650]

It is not uncommon for applicants to have to wait considerable time for a licence or an amendment to their existing licence. This backlog is inconvenient for applicants and burdensome to staff, but more importantly, it impedes proper resource management and may frustrate timely economic development. Although quick licensing will be a more streamlined process, it will nonetheless include checks and balances that protect the environment and safeguard the rights of others. To implement the process, water management officials will evaluate the streams in their area and consult with interested parties to determine where quick licensing should apply. This will allow the ministry to fully account for local circumstances when determining where quick licensing is appropriate. Quick licensing will only apply to streams where water is abundant and to low-volume licences for domestic and agricultural purposes.

In addition to the careful determination of where and when quick licensing will apply, there are several other constraints to ensure that the process is used responsibly. For example, the addition of a new landowner's permission requirement by the regulation will ensure that landowners directly affected by a quick licence have no objection to the construction of the works. A provision that establishes quick licensing will not apply on sensitive streams, designated under the Fish Protection Act. If there are any concerns regarding an application or if the application does not contain all of the required information, there is a provision which redirects an application to the standard adjudication process.

The other amendments contained in this bill require all water licence holders to advise government whether they are using water in a manner specified within the licence.

Currently, an engineer must perform an investigation and file a written report on the use of water allocated under licences. Under the new system, a water licence holder will submit a beneficial use declaration when required to do so. This declaration will indicate whether the water has been beneficially used for the purposes authorized under the licence and whether the terms and conditions of the licence are being followed. It will serve as a simple means for monitoring or auditing ongoing beneficial use without imposing a significant burden on water licence holders.

Improved water use monitoring information will provide necessary data for licensing decisions and assist in meeting the expectations of the Fish Protection Act and the Forest Practices Code, both of which demand better knowledge of water use activities.

Hon. Speaker, I've summarized all of the provisions of this bill, and I now move second reading.

M. Coell: I'm pleased to hear the minister's detailed explanation of the changes, and I also thank her for her staff's briefing which was provided to members of the opposition. Indeed, these are minor amendments to the act, and in some respects it's unfortunate it can't be done through regulation rather than a change to the act, because I suspect it could have been done some years ago and been a benefit to people who use the services of the Water Act.

[1655]

Indeed, the backlog has been extensive. It's my hope, and the hope of the opposition, that this amendment will ease that backlog and allow people to apply for and receive licences in a timely fashion that will allow them to get on with their lives and their businesses.

Hon. C. McGregor: I appreciate the member's comments. I'm sure we'll have an opportunity to debate the specific provisions of the bill when we do committee stage.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 72, Water Amendment Act, 1999, 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 on Bill 86.

PARK AMENDMENT ACT, 1999
(second reading)

Throughout this bill our province is once again demonstrating its international leadership in the establishment of protected areas. We in British Columbia have every right to take pride in what this bill will achieve. Parks forever preserve a representation of B.C.'s unique ecosystems by protecting an exceptional diversity of fish, animals, plants and geographical wonders. To that end, this bill permanently protects more than 1.4 million hectares of new parkland and establishes 35 new parks for British Columbians to enjoy.

By creating the new parks included in this bill, we are also promoting sustainability in our economy. Investing in parks makes good economic sense. In fact, for every dollar spent on developing and maintaining provincial parks, $9 is generated in income to the province. Parks also benefit small businesses, encourage new investments in tourism and recreation, and help diversify local economies -- often in remote rural areas, where it's needed most. We want to strengthen and expand the economic spinoffs realized by communities located at the gateways of our provincial parks.

[ Page 13981 ]

In addition to protecting and preserving our natural legacy for future generations, parks also play an immediate and important role in the lives of British Columbians. Almost 90 percent of the people in this province have used parks, and 60 percent use them on a yearly basis. In 1998 there were more than 26 million visitors to the parks system. These numbers are truly impressive and are indicative of the importance the parks system plays in satisfying the public's need for outdoor recreation.

Most of the parks contained in this bill have been identified for protection by the innovative land use processes that B.C. has developed. These processes bring together, at the local level, various interests from across the land base. Creation of these new parks is an outstanding example of what can result when individual citizens, environmental groups, resource industries, unions, guide-outfitters and trappers, first nations and local governments are committed to the task of land use planning. The hard-working and dedicated people who have made these plans such a success deserve special recognition. Their efforts have ensured that many new parks will be protected through the provisions of this bill.

In fact, of the 35 new parks, 16 arose from the Fort Nelson and Fort St. John LRMPs, seven from the Bulkley and Kispiox LRMPs and another four from the Vanderhoof LRMP. The bill also establishes five new parks which were identified through the lower mainland protected area strategy.

[1700]

The Muskwa-Kechika is also home to an amazing abundance and diversity of wildlife: wolf, grizzly bear, elk, moose, mountain caribou, bison, mountain sheep and many other species that have become scarce or vanished altogether from other parts of this planet. It is the very essence of wild British Columbia.

The parks within the Muskwa-Kechika area also have tremendous cultural and heritage significance. Traditionally the land has been used by first nations for hunting, gathering and fishing. Its superb wildlife resources undoubtedly attracted aboriginal people to it for centuries, and it contains evidence of historic native trails and abandoned village and camping sites.

This bill also includes major additions to existing parks as a result of the land use planning process. Some examples include nearly 19,000 hectares that are added to Carp Lake Park north of Prince George as a result of the Prince George LRMP. This addition provides representation of the Nechako lowlands and protects important moose habitat. The area being added also includes the scenic and recreational values of Carp Hill as well as some significant glacial features.

More than 42,000 are added to Swan Lake-Kispiox River Park as a result of follow-up recommendations to the Kispiox LRMP. Protecting the upper Kispiox watershed will help maintain the integrity of the Kispiox River, which contains important spawning grounds for coho salmon and is renowned worldwide for steelhead fishing.

Nearly 5,000 hectares of the Cascade recreation area are being added to E.C. Manning Park east of Hope as a result of the lower mainland protected area strategy process. This area contains portions of both the historic Dewdney and Watcom trails as well as scenic Paradise Valley. In addition, we are also providing permanent legislative protection to 15 parks initially established by order-in-council.

This bill continues the process of replacing the written metes and bounds descriptions with legally mapped boundaries that are more accurate, understandable and practical to use. These maps are referenced in the schedules to the act and will be kept on file at the Crown land registry to ensure their accessibility. A set of maps has been provided to the office of the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly and to each party for their members' review.

This bill employs the new map description process for all but one of the 35 new parks. The bill also replaces the written metes and bounds descriptions for 22 existing parks. We have also incorporated corrections to the legal descriptions and area figures of some parks in the existing schedules. The changes to the legal descriptions are the result of improved surveys and a review of park boundaries since they were established.

This bill is yet another milestone in the preservation of our beautiful and diverse natural heritage. It will be a legacy passed on in undiminished splendour to future generations. It is with great pleasure that I move second reading.

M. Coell: I'm pleased to add a few remarks to the minister's comments. This indeed is a positive and good thing for British Columbia. I do feel somewhat déjà vu, as most of these have been announced before and have worked their way through the system to the point where they now become legal through the Park Act.

[1705]

But simply, this is good news for future generations, and I don't want to detract from that in any way. I think that all British Columbians are proud of the acquisitions, and I look forward to committee stage of the bill.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I want to add a few comments to second reading debate on Bill 86, Park Amendment Act, 1999.

[ Page 13982 ]

It is good news to have this bill introduced. I want to congratulate both the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks for the work that brought this forward and, more specifically, the many members of LRMPs around the province that did the hard work of getting to local and regional consensus on land use planning. I know this has not been easy. In my own community of Prince George, I know that people worked long and hard to get the right balance between land that should be used for industrial purposes, land that should be used intensively, land that required special considerations and land that should be set aside within park boundaries.

While, as the member opposite said, these parks have been announced before, I disagree with him that this is old news. The fact that these are now enshrined in legislation is what the members of those LRMPs are waiting for. They welcome the announcement that this government has accepted their recommendations on the land use planning in their regions, but I think they also really welcome and appreciate seeing their decisions enshrined now in legislation. This is very good news for the future of British Columbia for the preservation of these lands, and I think all members will support this bill.

Hon. M. Sihota: I happened to be in the chamber, and I thought I'd rise and contribute somewhat to this debate.

I want to join my colleague the Minister of Education in congratulating both the Minister of Environment and those that have been involved in this process. A lot of British Columbians have given a lot of their time to be involved in this process. For a lot of people it's a dream come true: a vision about the kind of British Columbia we should be building for our children, opportunities that we should be providing for future generations to recreate and steps that we're taking to protect wildlife. It truly is a defining piece of legislation for our government and for our political movement. We're immensely proud of the environment ethic that we value as a political movement.

[1710]

I think we've shown the rest of the world that this can be done -- that we can set aside this quantum of land for the use of future generations and that there's a better way to resolve land use conflict than pitting people one against the other, and to give communities, individuals and organizations within those communities the ability to resolve issues amongst themselves and tackle the thorny issues and challenges that land use planning represents.

I would hope that other jurisdictions will follow British Columbia's lead in doing this, so that we can see the realization of at least that minimum 12 percent dream in other parts of Canada and in other parts of the world. No doubt, we'll be quite willing to lend our little bit of expertise in allowing that to happen.

I really do think that this is something that all British Columbians should celebrate and should feel a passion about. I'm not going to get rhetorical. I've often given political speeches in the past in terms of differences between us and them on the opposite side of the House, and I think that point's been made. But I don't think that this bill should sort of zoom through without an acknowledgment of what this truly means, and I wanted to take this minute to make that simple acknowledgment. Thank you very much for providing me the opportunity, hon. Speaker.

Hon. A. Petter: I too would just like to say a very few words about this bill, because it is yet another step in an important initiative that was pioneered in the first term of this government to move forward in terms of land use planning, and within that land use planning to double the parks and wilderness area -- the protected area within this province. This bill brings us very close to the completion of that process, although I appreciate that there are other areas still to go.

As the previous speakers have indicated, this is an accomplishment that I think makes a tremendous difference not just for the present but for the future -- for future generations. I know that within my own community greater Victoria we have, through our own initiatives here in conjunction with provincial land use initiatives, more than doubled the amount of parkland within this community. That has made a tremendous difference in ensuring and securing the quality of life for residents of this community, whether it's through the Gowlland Tod Provincial Park, the Juan de Fuca Marine Trail or the most recently created Sooke Hills Wilderness Park, which is a regional park.

These park acquisitions and park designations ensure that the quality of life that British Columbians have come to enjoy will be protected and preserved for many generations to come. I too want to congratulate the Minister of Environment for having brought this legislation forward, for having taken another important step in the very important land use planning process that was initiated in the first term of this government and is now being seen through to completion.

I want to say that I am immensely proud to have been part of a government that has had the vision to undertake this initiative and to harness the resources within communities to take the load, to work out the conflicts and to come forward with the plans that are going to result in these many new parks and, by doing so, provide for future generations, create greater stability over the land base and ensure that the quality of life that we as British Columbians have enjoyed in the past will continue for our children and our children's children for many years into the future.

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I recognize the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks to close debate.

Hon. C. McGregor: I am pleased to have the opportunity to close debate at this time. I'd like to echo the remarks of some of my colleagues who have spoken before me about the

[ Page 13983 ]

I remember one of the first LRMP announcements that I attended. There was an environmentalist in the room who came up to me afterwards and said: "When you're retired, when you're sitting in your rocking chair at the end of your lifetime, you'll be able to look back and realize that you had at least some small part in creating a legacy that goes on for future tomorrows and for the young people who will be able to benefit from this decision." That was a very profound moment, one that was really brought close to my heart in remembering some of the efforts that have gone on across British Columbia through the land use planning process that led to creation of this parks system. Like others, I think that the greatest achievement is really what we're preserving for future generations, not just from a recreational or a scenic beauty point of view but also for our ecological diversity and the wildlife that's represented in British Columbia.

Having said that, hon. Speaker I now move second reading.

[1715]

Bill 86, Park Amendment Act, 1999, 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. D. Lovick: I call second reading of Bill 73.

PRIVATE POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1999
(second reading)

This bill is an excellent example of how we can work to improve the regulatory environment for business while enhancing protection for consumers -- in this case, the consumers of the services provided by private post-secondary institutions -- provided that we both work with the providers of those services and keep in mind the interests of those consumers. I think this bill is an excellent example of how, through that kind of effort and thanks to the consultations undertaken by the Private Post-Secondary Education Commission and others, we have achieved a result that will in fact greatly strengthen consumer protection, but do it in a way that is less burdensome to business than is the current regulatory regime.

The amendments that are proposed in this act will establish an industry-funded tuition assurance fund, a fund that will be administered by the Private Post-Secondary Education Commission. The commission, as members are likely aware, is responsible for the regulation of private post-secondary institutions in the province to ensure consumer protection for students. Those institutions are required to register with the commission. On registration, the institutions are currently required to provide the commission with security in the form of a bond, cash or a letter of credit. The purpose of that security, quite obviously, is to provide consumer protection in the unfortunate event that the institution closes or becomes bankrupt.

Currently the amount of security that is required is an amount equal to 75 percent of the prepaid tuition held by the institution. Because it's only 75 percent, it does not fully cover the loss should the institution in fact close its doors.

In addition to providing inadequate protection to students, this current regime has become problematic for the institutions themselves. The net asset value to obtain a bond has risen to three times the amount being underwritten. Also, fewer companies are offering this kind of bond, and bonding rates are increasing. For new institutions the bonding rate is now 10 percent. Posting a letter of credit or cash with the commission requires institutions to tie up significant amounts of money that could be used for operations. Currently the commission holds over $10 million in the form of cash or letters of credit on behalf of approximately 300 institutions. So right now the bonding requirement does not serve the interests of students fully and adequately, and at the same time, it imposes a significant burden upon the institutions that it covers.

The Private Post-Secondary Education Commission has been analyzing the problems with the current security requirements for some years -- indeed, since 1996. It established a task force composed of representatives from the private post-secondary education industry and staff from this ministry as well as from the Ministry of Attorney General. The task force reviewed various options to address the current problems and concluded that the best option was a tuition assurance fund with mandatory contributions from registered institutions.

[1720]

Payments to the tuition assurance fund by private post-secondary institutions will replace the current security requirements and remove the burden of having to satisfy those security requirements for most institutions. I say for most institutions because in order to address the issue of high-risk institutions, the executive director of the commission will have the authority to require a specific institution to provide security, in addition to making payments to the fund, where it is deemed necessary to do so in order to protect the interests of students. As well, there is authority for regulations requiring classes of institutions to provide security. For example, the regulations could require new or undercapitalized institutions to provide security in addition to making payments to the fund.

The establishment of the tuition assurance fund will improve consumer protection for students attending post-secondary institutions in the private sector. It will do so, quite simply, because it will ensure a 100 percent refund of tuition

[ Page 13984 ]

To ensure that the commission is able to substantiate claims made by students for tuition fee refunds, the existing authority for commission staff to enter a building used by an institution is expanded by these amendments to include a building that was used by the institution before it closed, provided that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the institution's records are in the building. In addition, the amendments give the executive director of the commission authority to request copies of an institution's records from a receiver or trustee in bankruptcy if the institution has closed, as well as from the institution itself. This is simply to ensure that the protections in place are in fact ones that can be exercised on behalf of students in respect of institutions that have closed their doors.

In order to ensure that the commission has the necessary resources to adequately audit compliance with the requirement to make payments into the tuition assurance fund, the amendments authorize the executive director to require an institution to pay the cost of a second compliance visit if one is required. The commission operates on a cost-recovery basis, and this will ensure that institutions that comply with the act do not end up paying for the additional cost of ensuring the compliance of those institutions that do not comply.

Finally, the amendments provide authority to enact regulations that will be necessary to implement the fund. This bill establishes the tuition assurance fund and gives the Private Post-Secondary Education Commission the necessary powers to administer the fund effectively. These amendments will address industry concerns about current security requirements, while at the same time improving consumer protection for students attending private post-secondary institutions.

In that way, it provides an example of how we can produce a win-win, streamlining and making simpler and more affordable security provisions and improving on the provisions that currently exist, while at the same time enhancing the benefit of those provisions for students. Students will now enjoy, through this fund, security that will cover 100 percent of their tuition payments, not 75 percent, and that will ensure that those payments are available to be paid in a timely way, without the delays and some of the complications that currently exist within the current regulatory regime.

In this way, it is another example of this government's commitment both to accessible and affordable education for students and to working with the business community to streamline regulations and provide a regulatory environment that is supportive of a competitive industry, one that can better meet the needs of consumers. Of course, an industry that meets the needs of consumers is one that has the faith of consumers, and in that way as well, this act will ensure that private post-secondary education institutions are well regarded and therefore that their credibility with consumers remains high.

For all of these reasons I am very pleased to speak in favour of second reading of this important piece of legislation.

[1725]

Currently all schools registered with the Private Post-Secondary Education Commission are required to have a bond in place to cover tuition fees held by that institution. This bond must be place prior to delivery of the product and must be in place for a period of one year. This obviously makes it very difficult for the institutions to balance good business practices with consumer protection. To tie up moneys for a full year obviously creates a hardship, particularly for newly formed institutions. To further aggravate the situation, institutions are having a more difficult time bonding themselves, as insurance companies get out of the business of bonding private post-secondary institutions.

The industry has been lobbying the government for years to resolve this bonding issue by creating a common fund. It was felt that this fund would have a less onerous effect on the institutions by relying on a pooling of funds. Unfortunately, Bill 73, which highlights the tuition assurance fund, has been created without the input of the industry. In fact, when I sent a copy to a number of these members for their input, it was the first time they had seen it. This is not the first time this government has gone ahead and introduced amendments to an act without consulting the stakeholders. Along with the introduction of the training accord, this government continues to show contempt for this industry and fails to include them in decision-making that will affect them.

So I wasn't surprised that in a news release of June 15, there was no mention of a niche that this very important industry fills. The news release implied that this fund was created solely for the protection of students, with no mention of the valuable service supplied by the private post-secondary schools. I think we are entering an era where there will be tremendous pressure placed on all public institutions, so we must be looking to the private sector to supply that specialized training. I would like to point out that not only is this fund good for consumer protection but it allows businesses to grow and prosper. Why would this government attempt to place so many obstacles in front of an industry that has a proven track record?

I would like to refer to "On Track," which is a survey that was done for the private post-secondary institutions. There are a number of findings that I'd like to deal with -- for example, finding training-related jobs. Over 78 percent of students who were unemployed before taking the program attained jobs in training-related fields upon graduation. About 20 percent of preprogram unemployed graduates found work while enrolled in the program. Over 91 percent of graduates thought the program provided them with the skills they expected to learn. About 81 percent of graduates said that they would take the same program again. Nine out of ten graduates entered private training programs for career-related reasons, and 73 percent of graduates said that their training was useful in securing employment, as opposed to 69 percent from the previous reporting period.

This compares very, very favourably with an outcome survey that was done for the colleges and institutes. In the case of college experiences, a large majority of recipients

[ Page 13985 ]

If the government had taken the time to consult with the industry, this is what they would have said. I have a number of responses here from members of the community. This is from the Center for Digital Imaging and Sound:

"I have one concern regarding section 27.4. This gives absolute power of disbursement to the Private Post-Secondary Education Commission. One of the issues for our industry is the interpretive nature of the general directives in designating tuition pay-outs. Where surety bonds have expert representatives who peruse pay-out calculations, this new fund would fall under the sole authority of PPSEC. We would like to see a third independent party or representative, appointed by BCCCA, who shares in that responsibility. If tuition funds are too generous or calculated in error, it would affect the overall costs of the tuition assurance fund which would be borne by the private schools."

[1730]

"The amount required to be paid by an institution is fair in relation to the risk assessment of that institution. If the same flat rate is used by all institutions, the bulk of the contributions flowing into the fund may be from institutions that are at very low risk of ever making a claim against the fund. This may result in the healthy institutions subsidizing the unhealthy institutions. Also, it may result in the healthy institutions' overall contributions to the fund being higher than that presently paid for security under the existing system. If the risk assessment is determined in a fair and competent manner and the rate applied according to risk, this system should function as planned. It is important that the fund never be used to support or encourage the expansion of the bureaucracy in the Private Post-Secondary Education Commission."

"The legislation was developed without consultation with the industry it affects. It is a real and deep concern to us that it has been introduced without thought given as to how the details will affect students and schools. This legislation gives exceptionally broad and complete authority for administration of the fund to the Private Post-Secondary Education Commission, which regulates the industry. What is of particular concern is that there appears to be no appeal process to an external body. The commission can review their own decisions, but there is no protection for a student or a school who wishes to have an objective review of the decision made."

"Should this bill pass in its current form, we wish to advocate for a strong voice on the part of both students and the schools in the development of the policies, procedures and administration of this fund. It needs to be clearly recognized that the commission is supported fully by our fees and that the fund will be built with our money. We must have a say in how it is administered."

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I recognize the Minister of Advanced Education to close debate.

Hon. A. Petter: I really lament the misinformation that the member opposite perpetuates in this Legislature. The fact is that this legislation is the product of years of consultation and engagement. The Private Post-Secondary Education Commission is itself representative of the industry, but beyond that, it engaged in further consultations with the industry over the course of a number of years -- including with the group representing private post-secondary educators -- extensively on this. We can debate this further in committee stage, but it's simply not the case that this is done without consultation.

I'm aware that one letter was written by an individual who was not aware of the consultation that had taken place. That letter has now, as I understand, been superseded by a further letter indicating that has now been corrected. I don't expect the member to have done further research, because the members opposite don't do research. In any event, this has been a product of extensive consultation; this has been a product of extensive input. The industry has been very, very insistent that we move forward as quickly as possible with this. I have plenty of letters I could read to that effect, but I won't take up the House's time at this time.

[1735]

With that I would once again move second reading of this legislation.

Motion approved.

Bill 73, Private Post-Secondary Education Amendment Act, 1999, 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. D. Lovick: I call second reading of Bill 79.

LAND RESERVE COMMISSION ACT
(second reading)

This bill merges the Agricultural Land Commission and the Forest Land Commission into a single land reserve commission. Currently, as you know, the agricultural land reserve system is administered by the Agricultural Land Commission and was established under the Agricultural Land Commission Act. Similarly, the forest land reserve system is administered by the Forest Land Commission, which is established under the Forest Land Reserve Act.

This bill takes the administrative provisions concerning the structure and the operations of the two commissions from

[ Page 13986 ]

This proposal begins to take those steps. We are merging that Agricultural Land Commission and the Forest Land Commission into a single land reserve commission. However -- and I want to make this clear -- the two reserves themselves remain separate, in fact and also in legislation. The new land reserve commission will be responsible for the administration of both the agricultural land reserve and the forest land reserve systems. The Agricultural Land Commission and the Forest Land Commission currently share some staff, and the commissioners are appointed to both commissions. This legislative change will increase the administrative efficiency and encourage more intensive and integrated use of both the agricultural land and forest land reserves. I hope it will promote agriforestry.

When the agricultural land reserve was created in 1973, as we all know, it was the first example of farmland preservation in Canada and one of the first in all of North America. Up to that time, land use planning was something that had been done only by local governments. Today we need to recognize the need for and the value of land use planning at all levels, and that includes the ALC, the ALR, the FLC, the FLR, the land use coordination office and regional and local governments. This proposal will put the agricultural and the forest land reserve systems under the administration of a single commission and facilitate those land use planning activities.

I've always been a big fan of both the agricultural land reserve and the forest land reserve, and perceive them as essentially zoning for doing the work of forestry and agriculture -- or zoning for jobs. They're about providing a stable land base for employment and wealth creation in the future. They are working land reserves; they are not parks or some kind of administrative place to place lands against some future day.

[1740]

Bringing the two commissions together, I hope, will facilitate that kind of work and see to it that all of the land is used productively all over British Columbia. This bill builds on and supports the amendments that we have just made to the Agricultural Land Commission Act through Bill 70. This way, we can provide certainty about the intended use of the land and increase economic development.

Hon. Speaker, as you know, the agrifood industry makes an enormous contribution to the provincial economy. We make $17 billion a year. I notice that you can get on the front page of the Vancouver Sun by simply contributing $1 billion a year, if your industry is sexy enough. The people who are actually in this room at this moment know that the hidden secret in this province is that the biggest job creator in the whole countryside is the business of agriculture. I very much appreciate those people who are actually interested enough in the subject.

I'm going to conclude by saying that this legislation is to facilitate doing the work that drives the economy that keeps the province going, so those little tiny industries that are just now coming of age can actually have a province in which to do their business.

B. Barisoff: I again can agree with the minister in the fact that agriculture really is probably the most important industry in British Columbia, probably the most important industry in the world.

I do have some reservations about what's taking place in this bill. The forest land reserve actually has about 100 applications per year, and they meet twice a month. The Agricultural Land Commission has anywhere between 600 and 800 applications, and they're meeting four or five times a month. My concern is the fact -- if we divide up the Forest Land Commission and divide up the Agricultural Land Commission -- of the workload upon commissioners that will have to take place.

Then, of course, the question is: can a single land reserve commission effectively manage both land reserves? I think that's a question that we'll have to go through in committee stage and just kind of look to the minister for some answers on.

Another concern voiced by many people is the danger that one reserve will take a higher priority than the other. That, to me, is a serious concern, particularly from the agricultural side of it -- that with only one reserve we're losing something there.

Presently the Agricultural Land Commission has five commissioners, as the minister has said. The Forest Land Commission has three commissioners. One person is currently acting as chair for the commission -- for both commissions, actually -- and the CEO is actually acting for both commissions. So I guess my question to the minister would be. . . . I'm wondering why we're bringing these two commissions together, because I don't think, from what I can see, that there's a substantial amount of cost savings in bringing these two commissions together, and don't see what the ultimate benefit would be. Again, my concern, when you're dividing these two up goes with the impact that it has on both commissions.

During the briefing for Bill 79 with the ministry staff, they stated that the primary purpose of this bill was to respond to Moura Quayle's recommendation for a more integrated approach to land resource management. One of the sub-recommendations for this area was to combine the Agricultural Land Commission and the Forest Land Commission and to broaden the commission's mandate, which this bill certainly does. It certainly goes in that direction.

However, in the Quayle report, there were two additional sub-recommendations for achieving integrated land management which are not addressed by Bill 79. They were not addressed in Bill 70 either, as I mentioned during second reading debate of that bill. One was to establish a B.C. lands trust with an umbrella trust for agriculture. The other recom-

[ Page 13987 ]

[1745]

Another issue that should be mentioned is the agricultural leases. At the briefing, the ministry staff stated that the agricultural lease issue will not be addressed by this bill, but must be addressed at some point in time. I'm just wondering why something like that, which is so important, isn't included in this bill somewhere. So if the ag lease issue is not going to be addressed, I'm concerned about where and when it's going to be addressed. There have been references to the bill as a first step towards the ag lease resolution, and I'm sure the minister will respond in his closing remarks to what's going to happen there.

I think, overall, my biggest concerns are that when we divide this up -- when we divide the Agricultural Land Commission and the Forest Land Commission up. . . . I guess I'll be waiting for the minister's responses, at least in committee stage, to convince me that, ultimately, there's not going to be a negative impact on agriculture. I guess that I speak from the agriculture side, and I'm sure the Forests critic would probably speak for the forest land reserve side. But I'm sure that I'll be waiting for the minister to give me a strong indication that this won't happen. I'm sure that a lot of the people out in the agriculture community will also be concerned to make sure that this doesn't happen. As I mentioned before, when I look at the overall cost savings, there doesn't seem to be substantial cost savings in the fact that we have five commissioners for the Agricultural Land Commission and three for the Forest Land Commission. I would suspect that, if the truth be known, we'll probably end up having, probably, eight commissioners in the end anyhow. They're working out of the same offices and whatever else, so I don't think there's a great economic saving, but I'm sure waiting to see what the positives are so that we can see what we can do with refining this bill.

M. Coell: I can't support this bill, and I'll give you a couple of reasons why. I think the Agricultural Land Commission has served this province very well since 1973. I think, if anything in fine-tuning, it needed to be strengthened. I see a potential here for weakening the priority of the Agricultural Land Commission and, in turn, agriculture in British Columbia.

I think that any combination of these two will have the direct impact of weakening the ability of the Agricultural Land Commission to do their job effectively. I would prefer to see a strengthening of this bill rather than combining it. . . . What I fear is the beginning of combinations and degrading of the Agricultural Land Commission. So I will not be supporting this in second reading.

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I recognize the Minister of Agriculture and Food to close debate.

[1750]

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 79, Land Reserve Commission Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. D. Lovick: I call second reading of Bill 56.

FOREST LAND RESERVE AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

This bill, the Forest Land Reserve Amendment Act, 1999, evidences an agreement struck among three ministers of the government and the Private Forest Landowners Association. This legislation adds a new part to the Forest Land Reserve Act to establish forest management objectives and to enable regulation of forest practices on lands to which the act applies. These amendments represent a significant step forward in regulating forest practices on private land in the forest land reserve and private managed forest lands in the agricultural land reserve . The amendments are also designed to attract other forest landowners to commit to long-term forestry on their lands.

While existing statutes may indirectly influence some aspects of forest management on private land, there is no current regulatory framework focused specifically on forest practices. The harvest from this land comprises about 10 percent of the total volume cut in British Columbia each year. In addition to economic and social aspects, private forest lands embrace important recreational, wildlife and fish values.

Private landowners told us during consultations that they supported the concept of protecting key public values on private land but that the manner and mechanisms presented by the Forest Practices Code did not recognize their private interests, so in 1995 the landowners established the Private Forest Landowners Association to address the establishment of regulations on their lands. The government and the association have worked together to develop the regulatory regime represented by these amendments.

The objectives of this collaborative approach were to develop results-oriented standards to protect fish habitat, water quality, soil conservation and critical wildlife habitat; to design a cost-effective administrative system; to recognize private property rights and a degree of freedom to manage; and to encourage investments in private land forestry.

This legislation requires that landowners comply with regulations regarding fish habitat, water quality, soil conserva-

[ Page 13988 ]

Bill 56 outlines the objects of the commission as protecting the integrity of the working forest land base through minimizing the impact of urban development and rural area settlement on forest reserve land, encouraging responsible forest management practices on private land and promoting conditions that favour investment in forest management on those private lands.

Some of the commission's new powers will allow it to audit landowner performance and report the findings publicly; issue stop-work orders, remediation orders and administrative penalties; approve variances from the standards when appropriate; inspect records and reports; enter private land when necessary; and appoint a peer advisory panel to consider and make recommendations on variance requests or contraventions.

The Private Forest Landowners Association will take an active role in promoting good forest management. It will promote its best management practices with the members and educate the membership about the importance of the performance standards. When requested, the association will participate in peer advisory panels about variances and contraventions. The association may conduct audits among its membership to determine whether the standards are being met and to provide advice and assistance where needed. All these functions will contribute to maximum compliance with the standards and thereby help keep administrative costs down.

Details about how the values identified in the bill will be protected will be in regulation. For each value, the regulation will outline the standards of forest practices against which the landowners' performance can be measured. Standards will be prescribed for water quality, fish habitat, soil quality, wildlife habitat and reforestation. Some of the standards are very specific as to method, and others dictate the outcome that must be achieved. This will allow the landowners freedom to manage while achieving the desired forest practice results.

[1755]

The bill also contains protection for landowners, including the ability to ask for review and appeal of decisions that affect them. In addition, all orders or decisions made under the act and regulations by an official, chief officer or the commission may be rescinded at any time up to the conclusion of the next stage for review, if new information becomes available and with the agreement of the person who is subject to the order or decision. This ensures that disputes are resolved and concluded at the earliest possible stage without having to go through a time-consuming and expensive review and appeal process unless this is absolutely warranted.

Working together, the government and the private landowners have designed a cooperative approach to encourage and require good forest stewardship. Over time, the standards will be assessed for their effectiveness in meeting the environmental objectives to which the act is addressed. I'm pleased to have taken part in this important initiative, working with the landowners to manage the forest to meet present needs and those of future generations.

G. Abbott: I just want to make a few comments on Bill 56. The issue of the application of provincial forest practices legislation to private forest land has been an issue since, I guess, 1994, when the Forest Practices Code was being proposed for introduction. Not surprisingly perhaps, the private forest landowners in British Columbia wanted nothing to do with the regulatory nightmare that we know as the Forest Practices Code. There was a lot of resistance to the idea of falling underneath that particular code.

One of the consequences of the controversy was the appointment of Dr. Gordon Baskerville to go out and look at the situation, hear from the public and report back. His suggestion was that a private forest lands code should be developed to deal in a simpler way with the situation on private land. There followed a long negotiation between the Private Forest Landowners Association and the government.

The product of those negotiations is Bill 56 and a related document which should be noted entitled "Forest Practices on Private Forest Land: Summary of Standards and Administration." The minister has explained a number of the details around how all of this works; I won't prolong it. I would note, however, that the forest practices on private forest land comprises about 20 pages in this document and are certainly in stark contrast to the approximately two metres of regulation which is contained in the Crown land Forest Practices Code that we have in British Columbia.

I think it should also be noted that this bill -- and the forest land reserve and forest practices regulations which are contained as the adjunct to this bill -- will apply only to managed forest lands which are contained within the forest land reserve. Other private land would not fall under the provisions of this code. What we have is a Forest Land Commission which will be enforcing the provisions -- the roughly 20 pages -- of this results-based code or body of regulation.

I'm pleased to note that the bill and the attached regulations are supported by the Private Forest Landowners Association. They have certainly worked long to get a code that they could live with, and they've also worked hard to get some incentives built in so that people would have good reason to come in.

[1800]

G. Abbott: I'm being very brief. It was the minister that was being verbose, and I'm just taking my opportunity. We had an opportunity earlier to. . . .

Interjection.

G. Abbott: Just ignore them?

[ Page 13989 ]

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Yes, just ignore the language that's. . . .

G. Abbott: I just ignore them. I think that's probably sage advice, given my temperament at this point and the fact that it is about one minute after six. So we will be supporting this bill, and I thank the members for their patience.

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I recognize the minister to close debate.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: With that, I move second reading now.

Motion approved.

Bill 56, Forest Land Reserve Amendment Act, 1999, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Speaker's Statement

At the close of question period today, the hon. member for Matsqui rose in his place and directed a question to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. While questions may be directed to the Chairperson of certain committees of the House, there are strict limitations on the nature of those questions and the answers that may be given. See Erskine May, twenty-first edition, at page 286 and especially at page 287; Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, sixth edition, at page 119; and Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, third edition, at page 108. Please see the Speaker's comments in this House earlier today.

The cumulative effect of these authorities indicates that questions may not be addressed to a committee Chairman to elicit detail of voting, motions or other internal committee proceedings, nor may questions be directed or answered which would have the tendency to interfere in the proceedings of the committee. In addition, neither questions nor answers should "suggest a particular subject for inquiry nor could the question deal with evidence before the Committee prior to such Committee reporting it to the House." That's from Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, third edition, page 108.

The answer given by the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee in this House today clearly does not conform to the guidelines. The answer quite improperly dealt with one or more motions which were alleged to have been made in the committee -- how particular members voted on these motions and the result of that voting.

I would ask all members to consider carefully the strict limitations applicable to questions to, and answers by, a private member.

Hon. D. Lovick moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:03 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1999: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada