2000 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 36th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes
only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, MAY 9, 2000
Morning Sitting
Volume 19, Number 11
[ Page 15409 ]
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
Prayers.
Hon. D. Lovick: I call Committee of Supply. In this chamber, we will continue the debates of the estimates of the Ministry of Forests, and in the other chamber, we are debating the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.
[1005]
The House in Committee of Supply B; T. Stevenson in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS
(continued)
On vote 34: ministry operations, $297,814,000 (continued).
G. Abbott: Just so the minister understands what we have in mind today, my colleague from Kamloops-North Thompson has a couple of follow-up questions from his questions on salvage yesterday. Then I have a few questions out of the auditor general's report, particularly around silviculture and FRBC, then a couple of follow-up questions from the Wouters report about FRBC and then a couple of issues on miscellaneous forest issues, and we're complete.
All good things must come to an end, they say. Although I see the eyes of the minister and his staff imploring me to keep it going for just one more day, I'm happy to see it wound up. We do need to get on with other business. Perhaps the member for Kamloops-North Thompson wants to complete his questions.
K. Krueger: Just picking up where we left off yesterday, with a couple of quick points on salvage logging. I really appreciate the commitments the minister made yesterday. As I've been working on this project, as I mentioned, I'm told that there are about 100 jobs that have spun out of this 10,000 cubic metres. I'm told that we could easily find 30,000 cubic metres in the North Thompson Valley each year and presumably a couple of hundred more jobs. It struck me how, in order to be competitive with our international competitors -- for example, in Europe, where they seem to know almost every tree by name -- we have to make sure to make maximum use of this part of the resource as well.
I have a letter from a major licensee that I have been trying to get interested. The ones up in the northern part of the valley are very much onside, as I mentioned yesterday. But this licensee wrote me, and I'll just briefly touch on what they say in the letter:
"The main potential exists with small patches or single trees that exist along old roads and trails. By definition, these dead trees should be classified as 'endemic' because they die of natural causes such as root rot. We successfully logged about 3,500 cubic metres of this type of wood in the Kamloops district approximately five years ago, and because it was endemic, the grade 3 -- dry sawlog -- was not charged against our quota. Furthermore, because the volume was so scattered, no SPs were required, so the administration was next to nothing. What made this work was the simplicity of the admin and the trust from using a local logger."
[1010]
Then they go on to say:
And they quit their involvement in the program."The reason our proposal stopped five years ago was that the Kamloops MOF changed the scaling rule so that the dry sawlog got charged to our quota. As you can imagine, it costs more to log this, while bringing an inferior product to the sawmill. Therefore there is no incentive to use valuable log quota for this type of work."
I wonder if the minister could have a look at ensuring that licensees don't have that problem, so that they continue to be just as accepting of salvage wood in other areas as Weyerhaeuser and Slocan have been in the North Thompson.
Hon. J. Doyle: I thank the hon. member for the question. He is referring to Weyerhaeuser in the Slocan. But I must remind the member that anything that is brought out has to be added to the cut in that area.
K. Krueger: Well, that was the point that we covered yesterday. The minister had agreed to have a hard look at that question of whether salvage logs that are brought out really should attack anybody's annual allowable cut, including the entire provincial AAC. It's waste-wood if it's left there, and it will be left there if major licensees know that it will attack their quotas or if, for example, the small business program is going to suffer, because that volume will have to come out of their quota.
What I'm asking the minister to confirm for individual licensees is what he said he'd look into yesterday for the province as a whole -- and that is, excluding salvage volume from AAC and from individual licensee quotas. Will the minister consider that?
Hon. J. Doyle: We don't specifically know the items in total or in detail that the member is asking about. I'd be happy to look at it, but at the same time I'd have to add to what I said last time. If it contributes to the cut, it must count against the cut. I'd be happy to get more specifics from the member and see what we can do, if at all possible.
K. Krueger: Then I just have a couple more housekeeping items essentially, although they're big handicaps to these small operators, as I mentioned. A number of them have got off welfare because of this program. They have some difficulties coming up with the damage deposits for each little site they get approval for. It would be helpful if the ministry would accept a letter of credit from a bank as a one-time kind of standing deposit system for an individual salvage logger, as long as they maintain good performance, rather than requiring them to come up with a cash deposit for each little job that they take on. Is that something the minister would consider?
Hon. J. Doyle: We're currently looking at how we work this item on damage
deposits, and we'll get back to the member when we get something resolved. Now,
whether or not these individuals
[ Page 15410 ]
G. Abbott: The next two sections, section 24 and section 25 -- silviculture and other FRBC issues -- obviously kind of roll together here in terms of application of both MOF and FRBC to these issues. Let me just introduce some of the recommendations contained in the auditor general's report on silviculture with this question.
Obviously there are different silviculture treatments involved in broader silviculture in British Columbia -- spacing, pruning, fertilization, brushing and so on. There's considerable debate in the forestry community about the varying efficacy of these different types of silviculture treatment.
[1015]
The dominant responsibility for silviculture certainly rests now with FRBC. I guess the small business program might be the exception. Does the ministry -- or ministry staff, more precisely -- do ongoing analysis of the effectiveness of the various silviculture treatments that are available in the province?
Hon. J. Doyle: Yes, we do, and we do ongoing analysis on this.
G. Abbott: Has the ministry involved itself in the debate around the efficacy of the differing silviculture treatments to the extent that they have formed some conclusions about which is the most cost-effective way of improving growth and yield in the province?
Hon. J. Doyle: This is done on a site-by-site basis, working with our professional staff in the field.
G. Abbott: Further to that, I will refer the minister now to the auditor general's report on Forest Renewal B.C., including the latter portion of his report entitled "The Silviculture Programs." On page 125 there is a recommendation from the auditor general with respect to the issue that we have just been discussing. It reads: "A strategy similar to that identified as being required by the forest sector strategy committee in 1995 should be developed by integrating existing documents and should be used as a basis to guide strategic requirements for incremental silviculture activities. Development of this strategy should be a coordinated initiative by the Ministry of Forests, Forest Renewal B.C. and the industry."
I think that is an appeal to try to bring together all of the knowledge we have around incremental silviculture and, out of that, base a strategy that presumably will maximize growth and yield potential in our forests. What is the ministry's response to that recommendation?
Hon. J. Doyle: The ministry has developed a silviculture investment strategy, and we're going to be working on this over the next two years.
G. Abbott: Is that strategy a public document at this point? Can I access it on the Net, or is it still held in confidence?
Hon. J. Doyle: FRBC did release an initial document on this, and that is available.
[1020]
G. Abbott: Am I to understand, though, that there is additional documentation that is in the hands of the Ministry of Forests?
Hon. J. Doyle: At this time, we're
G. Abbott: Will there be a release of that document? Is there a target for completion and release of the strategy?
Hon. J. Doyle: As individual parts of this are completed, they will be released at that time. It will be worked on over the next two years. As different parts are put to bed, that will be released.
G. Abbott: I will take the minister to page 139 of the auditor general's
report and to page 140. The recommendation on page 140 follows a section
entitled, appropriately: "Growth and yield information is inadequate."
Now, we've had some considerable discussions through these estimates about
annual allowable cut and some debate around whether the annual allowable cut
can, over a period of years or decades, be increased to perhaps 100 million
cubic metres, as COFI has suggested we should set out as a goal. I'm presuming
-- because I think that the minister is, as I am, commonsensical on this point
-- that unless one takes a moral position that fewer trees should be cut
In his recommendation on page 140, I think the auditor general is going to this point: "Forest Renewal B.C. should ensure that strategic-level enhanced forestry research needs are addressed in its planning of research programs. In addition, it should work with the Forest Productivity Council to identify growth and yield information needs and provide the funding needed to ensure that such information is being adequately collected for managed stands."
My reading of this is that in its way, it's another call for better information around the sustainable management of our forests. What is the ministry's response to this recommendation?
Hon. J. Doyle: The member had said in the lead-up to his question as to
whether we should cut more or fewer trees
Interjection.
Hon. J. Doyle: TIPSY -- that is right.
We do work with the Forest Productivity Council. FRBC has a structure in place to see what we can do to get more productivity out of the forest-growing lands in the province.
G. Abbott: I'm taking from that response that the ministry has embraced that and that we are working with the Forest Productivity Council to achieve that goal.
[ Page 15411 ]
The next recommendation I'll refer the minister to is on page 164. This is the auditor general's discussion of New Forest Opportunities. The second paragraph of the auditor general's analysis reads:
The recommendation from the auditor general, pursuant to that discussion on page 164, is that: "Forest Renewal B.C. should provide clearer direction as to the level of costs it is willing to accept to meet its social objectives." Has the ministry developed a response to that recommendation?"At the time of our field review in the region, the agency was only several months old and had little work underway. A number of bids had been received, which some proponents told us were 30 to 50 percent higher than historical levels. This evidently was expected, at least initially, as contractors factored in the additional risk associated with using New Forest Opportunities. New Forest Opportunities management told us that its average costs were 14 to 15 percent higher than expected after approximately three months of fieldwork."
[1025]
Hon. J. Doyle: New Forest Opportunities is the responsibility of FRBC; it's under review by FRBC. They've taken action, and hopefully there has been the reduction in costs of 14 to 15 percent that was identified in the report that you just read from, member.
G. Abbott: Last year we had a very spirited debate around some aspects of New Forest Opportunities. Of course, the most contentious aspect of New Forest Opportunities is its hiring system, the so-called HCL or Highway Constructors model, which is involved in the hiring and placing of individuals employed in silviculture. The other controversial aspect of the HCL, obviously, is the obligation of employees to unionize in order to obtain employment.
As I've noted, we had a vigorous debate on that both at the select standing committee level and in estimates. I don't propose, this late in Forests estimates, to revive that debate again. Everyone, I think, is familiar with the arguments. We're certainly committed on this side of the House to getting rid of the HCL model should we be fortunate enough to be elected to government. The minister may want to comment on that. But I think there are some problems that don't need to be there. There are some costs that don't need to be there, and obviously there are some restrictions on employees and on contractors which I don't think need to be there either.
To their credit, the New Forest Opportunities folks have been -- I guess within their range of authority -- attempting to resolve some of those issues, so I'll give them credit for that. But I still think that what we have here is an obvious example of where we are not delivering a program as effectively and efficiently as we should. Now, the minister may want to comment on that. Apart from that, I'm happy to go on to page 169. Perhaps the minister does wish to respond.
Hon. J. Doyle: There was a survey done of forest workers in this program, and 80 percent plus of the workers were very happy with the program. If the member doesn't have a copy of that survey, I'd be happy to give one to him.
G. Abbott: On page 169 the auditor general has a look at quality assurance. As I understand it, that is effectively the follow-up inspection work that is done by the Ministry of Forests on contractors who are undertaking silviculture contracts through Forest Renewal B.C. The recommendation that's contained on page 169 is: "Forest Renewal B.C. should assess the level of assurance it needs and ensure that the Ministry of Forests' quality assurance review process has the resources to meet that requirement."
The auditor general does note that the historical level of quality-assurance inspection is about 10 percent of work conducted, so I presume the review is around that figure as opposed to whether it's being delivered appropriately. Perhaps the minister can comment on the recommendation and comment on the analysis provided here by the auditor general.
Hon. J. Doyle: Hon. Chair, on this one item on page 169 -- quality assurance.
This has been the normal practice of the ministry over the years -- that they
would do
[1030]
G. Abbott: Has the review, then, been completed? Did it find that the level of quality assurance to date has generally been acceptable?
Hon. J. Doyle: The ministry has not done a formal review of this, but what the field surveys stated was that the 10 percent threshold is fine.
R. Coleman: My questions relate to Forest Renewal as well, relative to the auditor general's report. When Forest Renewal was started, there was a plan that was passed by the Legislature. The Legislature passed this direction for Forest Renewal B.C. Basically it had a number of goals. The goals were that the money would be used to renew the land and keep the forests healthy, to invest in the forest lands that generate much of the province's wealth, to ensure sustainable use and enjoyment of the province's forests, to ensure the continued availability of good forest jobs and to ensure the long-term stability of communities that rely on the forest.
This was to be achieved by collecting an estimated $2 billion over the next five years from increased stumpage rates; dedicating this investment to the forests, the people who work in the forests and their communities; creating new partnerships of government, industry, workers, first nations, communities and environmentalists to manage this reinvestment in the forests; and developing policies to complement and enhance the investments in the forests.
The plan had five principles. The five principles as stated are that -- this was Forest Renewal as debated in the Legislature when Forest Renewal came into place -- first, they would be permanent. The investments will be used to sustain the public forests for the long term. The second was that it would be independent. No money would go into general government revenues. Third, it would be equitable. Investments would be distributed fairly throughout the province. They would be effective. All partners would take part in making decisions as to where the dollars were invested, and they would be accountable. The government will bear responsibility to the public and the taxpayers.
There are a number of issues that I'd like the minister to address today. First of all, it is my understanding that there are 300 employees in the Ministry of Forests that are paid for by Forest Renewal. Going back to the principles as debated in
[ Page 15412 ]
this Legislature, which was the argument that was given for Forest Renewal
and its operations as passed by this Legislature
The second point here is "independent," and no money will go to general revenue. In the debates of this Legislature the minister at the time, the Premier at the time and the members of the caucus on the government's side at the time stated clearly that that would never happen. I'd like the minister to comment on the 300 employees of the Ministry of Forests that are presently being paid for by Forest Renewal B.C.
[1035]
Hon. J. Doyle: The member asks a good question. I remember well,
approximately four years ago, that there was some talk or rumours around this
building of government possibly taking up to $400 million for other uses that
government would see they had a need for. I remember that when I heard that
rumour around
As far as the 300 people in the Ministry of Forests that are paid by FRBC, FRBC didn't feel that they should go out and hire people if there were people in place. In this case, the 300 Ministry of Forests employees are used as a delivery agency by FRBC. Instead of going out and building a new building and hiring new employees, why not use what is in place and what works well with professional staff in the Ministry of Forests?
R. Coleman: There are 300 employees in the Ministry of Forests being paid for by Forest Renewal B.C. The argument about the $400 million being taken from somewhere else was another movie at a different time. We might both agree on that. But the reality is that Forest Renewal B.C. was set up, and its guiding point was independence -- no money going to government revenues.
How does the minister justify the argument of independence, when 300 employees in the Ministry of Forests are being paid by Forest Renewal B.C. rather than being paid for by Forest Renewal and working for Forest Renewal? You've lost the independence. You have this interrelationship within Forest Renewal B.C. that goes away from the guiding principles that this corporation was set up on to begin with.
Hon. J. Doyle: Further to the member's question, this money does not go to general revenue. There's a contract that FRBC has with ministry staff who are in place to do work. If they didn't use the Ministry of Forests staff, they'd be hiring outside people to do it. There's a lot of expertise in ministry staff. They use Ministry of Forests staff to deliver this program that they want to do.
R. Coleman: It is general revenue; it's replacing general revenue. The 300 employees, whether they be on contract or otherwise, are in the Ministry of Forests and not at FRBC. The independence is gone, and they are being paid for. Whether it be contract or whatever, it's still 300 employees coming out of the public payroll one way or the other. What does it cost us to have those 300 employees? How much is Forest Renewal paying for those 300 employees annually?
Hon. J. Doyle: It's 210 employees, and it's roughly $14 million for this year. But again I emphasize that they're doing contract work for FRBC.
[1040]
R. Coleman: I don't think there's any point in splitting hairs. Whether you like to believe it or not, FRBC has broken all the rules that were laid out for it by this Legislature when it came into inception in 1994, because it has broken its own guiding principles.
One other question before I conclude -- one final question. I'd like the minister to comment on the comment to the auditor general that FRBC spent $1.3 billion before it had a business plan in the forests -- $1.3 billion without measurements, without a way of deciding where the money was spent or whether it actually met the permanent investment or the regional equity measurements relative to it. But $1.3 billion without a business plan -- I'm wondering what the minister thinks of that.
Hon. J. Doyle: I would have to disagree with the member across the floor. The allegation that he makes is not true. Actually, industry asked us to deliver this program on behalf of FRBC. Industry is paying an additional stumpage; they feel that they should have a lot of say as to how that money is expended. Industry asked that this portion of the program be delivered this way.
R. Coleman: I can't think of a single forest company that I've met within the last two years that has told me that it would have spent $1.3 billion without a business plan, without measurements in place.
In the debates in the Forests Committee and the debates with the auditor
general, your own officials at FRBC have stated that they're now getting to
measurements for FRBC five years after its inception. I don't think that's
acceptable, and I don't know why we would dance around this. The reality is that
$1.3 billion was spent -- no measurements, no sustainable business plan, nothing
to deal with it. Three years ago it was brought to the attention of FRBC in the
debates in the Forests Committee. Two years ago it was brought to the attention
of FRBC; a year ago it was brought to the attention of FRBC. I'd like to know
why the minister
Hon. J. Doyle: I was answering the question to do with the employees and the
contract work that FRBC has asked
I'd just like to read out, for the member's information, work that FRBC has done since it was set up in 1994. There's
[ Page 15413 ]
311,000 hectares of forest land treated to improve timber growth and quality; 12 million cubic metres of second-growth timber added to British Columbia's potential future timber harvest; 150 environmentally damaged watersheds restored; 25,500 workers receiving skills upgrading to improve their employability, including 2,700 workers learning specialized value-added skills; 4,500 jobs created on average per year for British Columbia's forest workers, totalling 22,500 person-years of employment; and 4,000 jobs created through community economic diversification that started or expanded 600 new forest businesses in 74 communities across our province.R. Coleman: I guess it's not going to be my day to get an answer to the question that I asked the Minister of Forests, so we can just move on.
There are still 300 employees of the Ministry of Forests that are paid for by FRBC. FRBC spent $1.3 billion without measurements and without a business plan. Everybody knows that. The auditor general has commented on it. The Forests Committee has discussed it -- and your own officials at FRBC.
But the most frustrating part is that the five principles that FRBC was
founded on have not been adhered to -- those principles of permanence of
investment, independence and no money going to government. Equitable investments
that are measured across the province by regions, which are not there in an
equitable manner
[1045]
Then there's the accountability -- the accountability of public funds collected as superstumpage from forest companies across the province, which were spent without a business plan and without measurements. There's no accountability, no effectiveness, no equity across the province and no independence of government, and finally, there's no permanence on all the investments. That's my concern with FRBC. That concern is that for three or four years now, in that one committee, we have continuously told FRBC to reach those levels of accountability before they spend money. And they don't achieve it.
My final question would be: $1.3 billion without a business plan, no
measurements, money being spent in government
Hon. J. Doyle: Clearly the member opposite and I disagree. We know the opposition voted against FRBC when it was set up. By and large, when the FRBC business plan for this year -- the $301 million program -- was announced, it was generally very well received in the province by all people that make access to those moneys. And for every year that FRBC has been in place, there's been a business plan released, and it has been debated in the select standing committee. I feel, hon. member -- we disagree on this -- that FRBC has been a success, and it has carried out its mandate that it was given in 1994.
G. Abbott: I just want to wind up the FRBC discussion with one recommendation that comes from the Wouters report, page 89. But the minister is right; the opposition did vote against the FRBC legislation. They voted against it based on the apprehension that it would become a politicized, wasteful tool of the NDP government, and that is precisely what has happened over time. We have seen a level of waste and politicization which is absolutely unacceptable to any public or private agency in this country. I don't see how -- in light of the report of the auditor general, particularly on this -- anyone can claim that the first five years have somehow been a success.
Now, the minister's right. We're going to disagree on this, and we'll disagree on it all day. And odds are that when we get to have an election in the province somewhere between a month from now and 12 months from now, we'll probably disagree then. That's fair enough. The people can state their preference -- whether they're accepting of the level of waste and politicization that we have seen with this particular agency.
I do want the ministry's response to the one recommendation on page 89 of the Wouters report, and that is: "No MLAs or public servants should serve on the board of Forest Renewal B.C." What's the minister's response to that?
Hon. J. Doyle: The recommendation that the member refers to on page 89 of the
Wouters report
G. Abbott: A couple of miscellaneous issues here, and I guess these sort of spill over into both FRBC and ministry areas -- but primarily the ministry. The plywood industry in British Columbia has, for some time, taken the position that the stumpage system in British Columbia doesn't adequately reflect the nature and concerns of the plywood industry. I know that plywood is a big factor in the minister's riding, so undoubtedly he is aware of some of the arguments around this. Does the ministry continue to give consideration to some of the arguments that have been advanced by the plywood industry?
[1050]
Hon. J. Doyle: I'm very familiar with what the member mentions because of the plywood mill in Golden and the concerns they've had over the years. But what the ministry is doing at the present time is looking at the broader issue to do with stumpage and some of the recommendations that are in the Wouters report.
G. Abbott: This is another issue, and while I think it is a provincewide issue, it is an issue that was raised to me -- just yesterday, actually -- by a contractor in the minister's riding. The contractor in question has this concern, and I'll try to introduce it in as straightforward and dispassionate a way as I can. His concern is that in Revelstoke the Columbia forest district is allowing everyone from around the province to submit tenders on road and bridge work in the Revelstoke
[ Page 15414 ]
district. He says: "Fine, if everybody was going to do that, that would be fine. Because then it's a level playing field." His concern is that others can come in and bid on Revelstoke work, but he is excluded from similar consideration in some other districts in the province that take the position that there is some kind of local preference.
Now, I have no idea what the administrative arrangements are around that issue. But I do know that the minister probably knows the gentleman involved as well as I do and is apt to feel the force of his arguments at some point anyway. Is the minister aware of whether there are consistent arrangements across the province around the contracting out of roadwork and bridgework?
Hon. J. Doyle: The question regarding a contractor alleging that Revelstoke
companies have to compete against other companies across the province for
roadworks in that area but that they can't do the reverse and compete on other
jobs in other parts of the province
G. Abbott: I'm delighted to hear that, because obviously it is very simply an issue of fairness to ensure that contractors have an equal shot at this work. Of course, contractors always complain that there's not enough work anyway, and I'm sure that's true in a lot of instances. I thought, in this case, that the contractor had a particularly forceful argument, in that there wasn't consistency in the application of administrative procedures around contracting. I am pleased to hear that the minister is going to resolve that. I encourage him to resolve it with all speed so that in the year 2000 contracting season we do have even application of rules across the province.
I think we need to wind up these estimates. I do want to thank the minister and his staff for their many answers over the course of these long estimates. I think we have some views in common that we've identified. We also have, I think, some important differences in the way we would advance forest public policy on this side of the House and on the government side of the House.
I think we can all agree that we do have, and will continue to have, a great forest industry in the province. It is still our primary source of jobs in the province, and I think with proper tending it can continue to be our greatest source of jobs in the future. Certainly the forest industry is a primary source of new investment capital in this province. It is our primary export from the province, and that's certainly going to be the case for the foreseeable future.
Forestry continues to be the number one source of government revenues as well. A lot of the health, education and social services that we have in this province are very much a part of the contribution that the forest industry makes to British Columbia.
[1055]
We do have a number of strategic advantages, I think, for the future. Looking ahead to the twenty-first century and the role that forestry can play in British Columbia, we have a very substantial land base and a climate that's well suited to the production of trees. We can, I hope -- as we have discussed on a number of occasions in these estimates -- develop strategies to see us maximize that resource.
We have a great strategic location in terms of the opportunity to develop further trade with the largest economy in the world immediately to our south. Of course, sitting on the Pacific Rim as we do, we obviously have some opportunities to, hopefully, restore, rebuild and indeed build new trading relationships with nations around the Pacific area.
As well, we have a skilled, productive and educated workforce in British Columbia, and that certainly is a big part of our strength. Why, then, have we been struggling in this industry? And why have we seen very substantial losses in three of the last four years? Well, I think there's a number of items that have come into play here, and we've talked about many of them through the course of estimates. We've talked about the tax and regulatory overload, which I think continues to plague the industry in British Columbia. We've seen over time a doubling of fibre costs. In many respects, particularly when we get into declining prices -- a declining price cycle -- our industry is quickly rendered uncompetitive. We are, as documents have noted, one of the high-cost producers in the world, and as a consequence we're one of the first out of the marketplace when markets go sour.
Does the profit in 1999 mean we've turned a corner? No, it doesn't. That profit recovery was based on American softwood lumber prices. It wasn't based on substantial cost-structure reforms. Those, I think, still need the minister's attention. I think that high prices have masked, and continue to mask, a need for regulatory reform, and I think that Peter Pearse's remarks, which we talked about early in the estimates, were right on the mark. We need to get away from the idea that the good returns in early 1999 were reflective of the fact that we had somehow completed all the regulatory changes we needed. We haven't. Indeed, I think that the high prices have in some ways enticed this government to add some new costs. Again, we've talked about landscape unit costs and identified wildlife costs -- some of the things that I think can again hurt this industry in terms of costs and in terms of fibre availability.
This industry won't grow because Victoria issues a decree or an edict that says it must grow, as they did in the jobs and timber accord; rather, we need to redevelop a favourable investment climate in British Columbia. We need to once again give investors a sense that their investment is welcome and that we don't see profit as a dirty word; it's something that's necessary to sustain investment and to sustain jobs in this province.
There are just a number of priorities. We do need to protect and enhance B.C.'s access to the American softwood lumber market. We obviously need fair and honourable resolution of aboriginal claims, as we have discussed through these estimates. I believe we've got a big job in reforming and depoliticizing Forest Renewal B.C. to make it just as efficient and effective as it can possibly be as a delivery model. We need to -- and this is very important -- establish and protect a working forest where planting timber and the production and extraction of timber are the dominant objectives. And I think we've got to pursue this with the same vigour and zeal with which we pursued the strategy of 12 percent parks and protected areas. I guess that among the most important things we need to do is develop a results-based and incentive-based Forests Practices Code where, again, responsibility and accountability are put back into the hands of professional foresters and licensees, and then measure those results with third-party audits and international certification.
[ Page 15415 ]
There are a number of exciting things happening in the forest industry in British Columbia. More exciting things need to be happening, and I think that if we can open up the energy, the thought and the vigour of the private sector and indeed of the Ministry of Forests itself, we can turn the corner with this forest industry. We can make the forest industry in British Columbia number one in the world again. With those remarks, I thank the minister and the staff for their persistence through this process.
[1100]
Hon. J. Doyle: I'd just like to say, before I sum up, that the estimates this year are approximately 20 hours shorter than what the estimates were last year. I'd like to make a few comments to conclude the estimates of the Ministry of Forests. In summary, the member for Shuswap and I canvassed many issues with respect to FRBC -- the state of the industry, the current practice of forestry in British Columbia and the options for future change in forest policy -- during the course of the estimates debate.
I believe that the member opposite and I share a number of common views about the forest industry. I'll list some items that I think we generally agree on: the forest industry has a strong potential for growth; the forest industry must continue to evolve to remain competitive in an increasingly competitive international market for forest products; the government must continue to strive to reduce costs and red tape for the industry; the government must continue to develop systems that will allow foresters to exercise their professional responsibility as stewards of the forests, rather than depending on burdensome regulations; the government must explore ways to make our stumpage system more reflective of market conditions; and we must diligently work with the federal government and the industry to establish a new trade relationship with the United States to replace the softwood lumber accord that's in place today.
At this time I would like to thank the many, many staff that work for the Ministry of Forests -- not just the members who attended estimates in this House but the 4,500 ministry people that work throughout the province -- for the very professional job that they do, the many hours that they put in and the professional attitude and the dedication that they have to their work.
The member opposite and I disagree, however, on the best way to achieve some of the goals, in the degree to which we must seek to protect our place in the marketplace. And that is by increasingly demanding that forest products be more competitive and harvested in an environmentally responsible way.
The last point is that I firmly believe that while we can have a competitive forest industry and while we may make some of the world's finest forest products, it will be in vain, for our customers are unwilling to buy British Columbia products due to their concerns about how we manage our forests.
Those points aside, I believe that we've had a constructive discussion, and I would like to thank the member for Shuswap and other members across the floor for their contributions to the estimates debate. Also there are certain items, letters and other information that I said I would send to the hon. member or other hon. members; those will be sent over to the members as soon as they're ready.
Vote 34 approved.
Vote 35: fire suppression, $76,808,000 -- approved.
Vote 54: Forest Practices Board, $5,151,000 -- approved.
[1105]
Hon. J. Doyle: Hon. Chair, I move 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. A. Petter: I move committee on Bill 8.
MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2000
The House in committee on Bill 8; T. Stevenson in the chair.
Sections 1 to 20 inclusive approved.
On section 21.
G. Plant: The provision before us is an amendment to the offence provision of the Heritage Conservation Act. The Heritage Conservation Act, in its present form, was fairly dramatically and comprehensively revised in, I think, 1994. I actually went back a few minutes ago and looked at some of the debate that took place then. At the time that the act was amended, there was an offence provision put into it. The act has a variety of other remedial provisions that give the minister certain powers and provides for injunctive relief and other things. The offence provision, as it was enacted in 1993-94, had no limitation period in it, so as I understand the way the law works here, the ordinary six-month rule from the Offence Act would have been the rule that applied.
The government, by this amendment, is seeking to introduce two new provisions
into the Heritage Conservation Act which would extend the limitation period. The
way it's written is that it will extend the time limit for laying an information
respecting an offence under this act or the regulations to two years -- the next
words are important -- "after the facts on which the information is based
first came to the knowledge of
[1110]
We had a six-month rule. The rule was that the time limit for laying an information was six months after the acts or omissions in question occurred, and now we're extending that. We're extending it not just to two years after the action occurred but rather to two years after the alleged offence comes to the knowledge of a police officer.
What you could have, conceivably, is someone committing some sort of act or omission which would constitute an offence under the act, and then years and years could go by -- decades, perhaps, could have gone by -- while the alleged offence was as yet undiscovered by any public official. Then at
[ Page 15416 ]
some point, perhaps decades after the offending act occurs, a peace officer or some official from the ministry discovers that this has occurred. At that point a two-year time limit arises for laying an information. So it's not just a change from a six-month limitation period to a two-year limitation period. It's really a change from a six-month limitation period to something like an infinite limitation period in terms of acts and omissions that remain undiscovered.
My first question, in order to assess the wisdom or otherwise of this proposal by the government, is to ask the minister -- whoever it is that is going to be responsible, the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture: can he indicate the number of charges that have been laid under the Heritage Conservation Act since the 1994 amendments?
Hon. I. Waddell: Yes, I'll answer the questions, as I have responsibility for the Heritage Conservation Act. The list of cases I have goes back for 30 years. So I don't have exactly the cases from that last amendment.
Over the last 30 years, there were 18 investigations. In 11 of them, the statute had expired before charges could be laid. In two of them, charges were recommended, but the statute had expired. And one was dismissed on delay of trial date; two were stayed. One of the two stays was due to the Statute of Limitations. There has been one successful conviction: removal of a mummified body from a burial cave. That's one conviction in 30 years.
There are some problems with the statute with respect to the time period. And
what the hon. member said in his introduction to the question was correct. There
is no limitation period here. Therefore I think the Summary Convictions Act
would apply -- one of the acts -- which is six months. We're putting in two
years, and it's two years from the date when the offence is known, not two years
from when it occurred. We think that would unnecessarily
I'm informed that it may take a very long time before the offence is
[D. Zirnhelt in the chair.]
G. Plant: I appreciate the answer of the minister. My recollection is that an offence, the nature of which is subject to the provision we have in front of us, can occur on public land and on private property. So it could conceivably be something that some heritage site that's defaced or desecrated on Crown land but also someone's private property. Am I right?
[1115]
Hon. I. Waddell: The member is correct. On public land, like gravesites and
other sites that have been desecrated, and also on private land
G. Plant: I wonder if I may impose on the minister for another bit of factual context. The question is: how many heritage sites are there in British Columbia that could conceivably be the subject of some sort of act that would constitute an offence? And I seem to remember reading somewhere 20,000 -- maybe more than that. Does the minister have a figure for how many sites are thought to exist across the province, recognizing that not all of these sites may yet be identified or known?
Hon. I. Waddell: There are about 21,000 sites in the province. With reference to the preface of the hon. member's question, very seldom do we go after a private owner. The way the system works is, in fact, that we work with private owners to try and alleviate any problems. So far, that's been pretty successful over the 30 years. We've tried to work within the confines of practicality and reasonableness. But we do feel that we need the extended time, and we do feel that we need to put it on this kind of basis. We figure that if we had to prosecute a case, we would continue to lose cases on the basis of limitations.
G. Plant: It occurs to me that any reading of what's intended by this provision would be of interest to the land-owning community -- the businesses in British Columbia who acquire, buy and sell land. They may be, in some cases, acquiring ownership of or a leasehold interest over large parcels of land that have heritage sites on them, where there may be questions now about the expanded range of time within which an offence can be prosecuted.
This seems to me, therefore, to be the kind of provision that the government would have taken out for some kind of consultative process that would have applied the business lens and all of those fine things we hear talked about from time to time in government press releases.
Can the minister indicate what sort of public consultation process was undertaken here and whether the business lens -- is that what it's called? -- was applied to this provision? Or was this something that was essentially created in-house?
Hon. I. Waddell: The measure wasn't brought in to try to target private land. That seems to be working fine, in terms of dealing with the difficulties in private land. On the larger issue of private land and what's in our land title system, I have initiated some discussions with the real estate bar on the whole notion of how heritage sites are registered on title. That's a bigger question, an important question that we should face in the province and haven't. I've initiated some discussions on that, and I'll keep the member informed as to where that goes.
With reference to this specific section and the private bar, I don't think we've had those consultations. But we don't think that's particularly necessary, in that we see the prosecutions applying the act more to desecrations on public matters.
[1120]
G. Plant: I take it that the answer to my earlier question is no -- that is, neither the business lens process nor public
[ Page 15417 ]
consultation was undertaken here. I understand the minister, from a policy perspective, expressing a preference, if you will, for saying that the quasi-criminal process is intended to apply to public lands and that they have other ways of working with the issue on private lands.
I suppose, as a matter of the exercise of ministerial discretion and so on, that may or may not work. The problem, of course, is that we're being asked to change the law; there's nothing in the offence itself that is limited to public lands. That's a point the minister has already made clear. So while the minister makes certain statements about how he sees the act operating, the truth is that the minister could be replaced tomorrow by another minister who had quite a different approach. We could be faced with criminal prosecutions occurring in respect of acts that have taken place on private lands.
I think the minister will understand that when you expand the limitation period this way, there's a range of implications for private landowners. I remember -- sorry to personalize this -- that ten years ago I had the opportunity one summer to spend the weekend in Clayoquot Sound and in fact to wander around Meares Island. As the minister may know, there was a sawmill on Meares Island in the last decade of the nineteenth century -- a fact which I always thought was interesting, given that Meares Island was usually considered by the public to be a pristine wilderness.
What remains of that sawmill even yet on Meares Island made me think that all across the province people have wandered, invested, built, constructed, demolished and abandoned activity in relation to the land -- which may have had an impact on heritage conservation sites. Heck, I mean, the Sutton Lumber and Trading Co. sawmill remains themselves may be a heritage site which ought not to be defaced or desecrated.
If those acts had occurred decades and decades ago, then someone who may want
to acquire the land on which the old mill site exists is going to have to
question: "Well, am I going to have Environment officials or peace officers
coming onto the property, poking around and seeing whether something exists that
was defaced ten years before I became an owner? Then am I going to get caught up
in a criminal prosecution, where someone's got to find out who it was -- maybe
it was the previous owner of the land -- that was caught up in this? Then maybe
they're going to be
Once the private bar realizes this, then the whole business of land conveyancing is going to start to change. People are going to require indemnities, and they're going to require covenants with respect to prior acts on the land. It does seem to me that when you move beyond the very clear certainty afforded by a six-month maximum limitation period to a two-year discoverability limitation period, the government is conceivably opening up a large can of worms.
I invite the minister to strike a balance between the admitted need to ensure that the act works, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the need to ensure that it does so without unreasonably affecting the other legitimate interests of private land owners -- and, frankly, the public who use the public lands of the province.
Hon. I. Waddell: Look, we're not after the private property owner who
inadvertently alters his site. There haven't been prosecutions there, and there
won't be. We're after someone who purposely alters his site, and from the date
that we know that the act has happened
[1125]
One could make a technical legal argument that -- maybe with the six-month period as well -- you could have it based on the test that the government's applying here, because there's no definition of the test in the six-month period. You could argue in court that we're applying the same test as in the six-month period, if that comes up.
We're not, I would argue, fundamentally changing the matter here, in that we've got the balance. We need the two-year period as the extension, and the way things are working out is not to go after the private owner. But we're going after people who are purposely desecrating these sites. We need the two-year period to get some successful prosecutions, or else we lose them on what I would term basically a technicality.
With reference to the private bar and to the difficulties with the heritage property on title, I undertake to discuss some of those matters with the private bar. I think that's a bigger issue that hasn't been discussed, and it needs to be discussed. I will do that and keep the hon. member informed.
B. Penner: I take exception to the minister's comments that most private land owners are satisfied with their dealings involving the ministry and that the legislation is not aimed at private land owners. That's simply not borne out by the evidence and the experience of many British Columbians -- unfortunately, an increasing number of British Columbians. I regularly receive correspondence from a couple by the name of Gary and Fran Hackett, who I think are familiar to the heritage branch. They are people who have owned property in Vancouver since the 1950s. Only recently were they told that in fact their property is considered to be a heritage site. That is having an adverse impact on their ability to redevelop their property, which they have owned for over 40 years. Now they are caught up in a horrible problem not of their own making.
Closer to Chilliwack, I've been contacted by a farmer by the name of Melvin Vander-Hoek, who purchased property -- approximately 80 acres -- just prior to the end of December 1999. The title of certificate from land titles mentions nothing about the Heritage Conversation Act. It turns out that the branch has known about an archaeological site at that property for more than 30 years, but they have not bothered to register it on the title. There was no warning to Melvin Vander-Hoek or his wife when they purchased the property. Now they are caught up in a situation where they cannot utilize that property as they had intended in their business plan for their farming operation. That's having a dire consequence on people in that family and on others in British Columbia.
The Heritage Conservation Act has contained a provision for many, many years allowing the government of British Columbia to register any property that they feel to be of archaeological or heritage value on the land titles system. The province has dropped the ball and has not done that. I think
[ Page 15418 ]
the province bears a lot of responsibility. I'm quite upset here today to find that the government is coming to us, asking essentially for a blank cheque and an indefinite period for which they can prosecute people for things they are not guilty of. They had no way of finding out whether or not the property they were acquiring was considered to be of heritage value by the provincial government.
I wrote to Malcolm McAvity, the director of land titles, earlier this year to ask how many notations in the land titles system recognize any properties of a heritage conservation value. In a letter to me dated March 20, 2000, Mr. McAvity advises me that there are exactly two filings under section 32 of the Heritage Conservation Act. Just a few minutes ago we had the minister tell us there were more than 21,000 sites that the heritage branch considers to be of archaeological or heritage value, yet they've only bothered to register two of those with land titles.
In British Columbia we have a Torrens system. People are supposed to be able to rely on the land titles registry to be the definitive answer to whether or not there are other interests vested in that land. This is supposed to be a warning mechanism for purchasers, and that has not been the case. Many people are receiving rude awakenings and unhappy surprises, and I fear that in years to come there'll be many more.
[1130]
I received a letter from Farm Credit Corporation. They are the people who helped finance Melvin Vander-Hoek's acquisition of the 80 acres near Agassiz. I want to quote from this letter dated March 14, 2000, addressed to the assistant deputy minister in this ministry. It states as follows:
My point in all of this is the increased uncertainty, and my concern with section 21 in this bill is that it will increase the amount of uncertainty out there for private investors and property owners in British Columbia. When will it come to an end? When will property owners know the true extent of their liability?"On yet another level this situation poses significant concern to the Farm Credit Corporation in that it has become apparent that we, as a mortgage lender, may have significant contingent liability of which we are unaware. Because of the province's practice not to register their archaeological heritage sites at the land titles offices, there has been no due diligence process in place for vendors, purchasers, realtors, lenders or lawyers to confirm the existence of the province's heritage interests. This is of major importance in light of the fact that we've been advised that there are in excess of 20,000 such sites across the province."
You know, I purchased a house a couple of years ago. It could be that I'm sitting on something considered to be a heritage site. At the time I acquired the property, I checked with land titles, and there was nothing registered. But that is little solace to me if in fact the practice of the province is to not register these heritage sites with the land titles system. I look forward to the minister's response.
Hon. I. Waddell: Let me respond to that. First of all, in neither of the cases that the hon. member mentioned was there any entertainment of prosecution. They're not really relevant to this particular amendment. With reference to this amendment. I want to comment about some of the points the member made, because they're good points.
Secondly, there's not a blank cheque here with this amendment. In the statute it's two years after the time the offence is known.
Interjection.
Hon. I. Waddell: Well, that's what it says in the statute, and that's pretty clear.
I want to just say something about the other matter that he referred to, and that is the general problem of registration. I share that problem.
I could be personal for a bit too, if I might -- and not with Clayoquot Sound. I had to write the bar exams again. I think I have the record; I wrote them in 1969 and 1994 -- 25 years apart. It was amazing.
Interjection.
Hon. I. Waddell: No. Like the Scotsman I am, I didn't pay my dues, and I had to write them again.
Interjection.
Hon. I. Waddell: Well, in any case, while I was writing them and studying for them, I can tell the hon. member that on the real estate part, we as lawyers all learn that we have this Torrens system -- which is, I think, the finest system of land registration there is -- in which everything on the title is registered at the land registry office, and you go on that. There's a little note in my Law Society notes which says that while there may be other acts that might apply and that you should have a look at, one of them is a little act that says "heritage."
In fact, the hon. member is right. There is a lot of heritage property potential in the province -- heritage sites. There needs to be a look at the policy of registration and what's happening. Does it need to be registered on every site? What's going to happen with that? A lot of times the department doesn't know where the sites are, and it just comes to light. I'm doing that; I recognize that. I'm particularly worried about the Vander-Hoek case. I think it's a good example, and it disturbs me. I've asked the real estate bar to work with me on this, and I will keep the hon. member informed.
I will say that the department's been very fair in the way it's worked with private owners, and over the years it has worked things out. This is a very tough act; I've already said that. The act was applied to private land. It wasn't enacted by this government; it was enacted by a previous Social Credit government years ago. I think it's a good act, but it's tough. It's tough on private owners because it puts a lot of onus on them, and they may not have the resources to deal with it. So that's a problem, and we have to deal with it.
But this particular amendment just deals with helping Crown counsel to get a fair prosecution and to set a period of two years instead of six months. They lose cases on technicalities there. I think it's the right balance, and I ask the hon. members to pass it.
[1135]
G. Plant: Well, I want to say that while in some respects the minister's observation about relevance may be technically correct, if you look at it from the larger context -- the real world, the world outside the esoterica of what lawyers like to talk about -- the things are connected. The situation brought to the floor of the House by my colleague from Chilliwack indicates that in the world of private land owners, there are
[ Page 15419 ]
some real problems presented for certainty of commerce by the provisions of the Heritage Conservation Act. What I think these amendments will do is add to that uncertainty. One of the things that limitation periods do, when they are properly drafted, is create certainty. They draw balance. They create a balance between the need to ensure that an offence against the law is prosecuted, on the one hand and, on the other hand, the need to ensure that people are not left hanging with uncertainty for decades and decades about the possibility that something they have done may give rise to a criminal charge -- or, in this case, hanging with uncertainty about the possibility that something that somebody else did on their land years and years ago may be the subject of a criminal charge though they were not even the owners of the land then.
I think the minister made the best possible argument against his own amendment when he talked about how big this province is. We know that there are at least 21,000 heritage sites. My guess is that that number is probably only a percentage of what could be argued to be the real heritage inventory in the province. I think all of us, on both sides of the House, are committed to ensuring that heritage sites are protected from desecration and that those who commit acts of desecration are in fact prosecuted with the full rigour of the law. We share that public policy objective.
Where we disagree, I think, is on the extent to which the government, the state, should have the power in terms which are practically open-ended to bring a charge for matters that may have occurred years and years ago and yet which, because of the size of the province, have not come to the attention of officials until very recently.
I recognize what the minister says about the problems they've had in prosecuting claims or charges under the act. I listened to the statistical evidence that the minister brought forward. It struck me that among other things, there weren't all that many charges. What also struck me was that there are obviously some cases where a six-month limitation period is too restrictive. It strikes the balance in the wrong place.
I think the way to fix this in the best of the spirit of compromise, if you will, is to replace the two-years-after-the-facts-are-known provision, which is before us in the form of section 21 of this bill, with a limitation period that is two years -- fixed. That is, what I propose is that the time limit for laying an information respecting an offence under this act be extended from the current six-month limitation period to two years. That gives the government -- its officials -- 18 more months within which to operate to discover facts that might constitute an offence and to prosecute them. I think that when we're looking at what are, after all, provincial regulatory offences, two years is a reasonable period in any event.
[1140]
What I propose is an amendment, and the amendment is specifically to delete section 21 of Bill 8 and replace it with the following:
[Section 36 is amended by adding the following subsection:
(6) The time limit for laying an information respecting an offence under this Act or the regulations is 2 years after the acts or omissions alleged to constitute the offence occurred.]
On the amendment.
G. Plant: That goes some distance down the road that the government wants
to go here. It takes the six-month limitation period and enlarges it to two
years, but it ensures that we don't create unnecessary uncertainty -- which I
think would be contrary to the public interest. For no other reason
I respond to the minister's invitation by asking him to agree to the amendment with which I have earlier provided him a copy. If he has particular wording changes to correct my use of the English language, I'd certainly be happy to hear them. But it's the substance of the point that I want him to consider and respond to.
Hon. I. Waddell: I thank the hon. member for giving me a copy of his notice of motion and for his genuine concerns about this matter. I just disagree that the amendment doesn't add to the uncertainty. I say that the amendment is necessary in order to get a fair period in which to consider prosecutions. And that is after the facts -- two years after the knowledge that the incident has occurred. We need that for the prosecution.
I regretfully cannot accept the member's amendment. But I will work with the private bar with reference to the bigger question that the member for Chilliwack raised with respect to heritage values generally being reflected on land title and that whole larger issue.
I don't know if my hon. colleague has
Hon. A. Petter: Just a brief observation, hon. Chair, in support of the balance that I think the minister has tried to strike between what I acknowledge are some difficult competing interests. But it seems to me that what one doesn't want to do is encourage a sort of lottery system, or a system in which those who might knowingly or willingly engage in damage to heritage sites do so in a way that seeks to run out the clock. I'm sure the member doesn't want a situation -- for example, the desecration of a gravesite or someone trying to do damage to a gravesite -- in which those who would do that kind of damage simply seek out remote sites that are unlikely to be discovered for a period of time, in the hopes of escaping consequences that the member, in his statement, acknowledged should be visited upon such an individual. I think the amendment that the member has proposed would encourage that kind of running out the clock.
The minister, I think, has tried to effect a balance by making the two years attached to public knowledge. It is a balance, but I think it is one that guards against the danger that I've illustrated -- of individuals essentially trying to escape consequences by engaging in activity that's unlikely to be discovered within that two-year time frame.
G. Plant: The Attorney General speaks in opposition to the amendment. I think it's important, since he chose to do that, that I respond by making some observations which would not have applied to the minister responsible for the bill, because he and I were first elected in 1996.
[1145]
The Attorney General who has just spoken was in fact a member of the government that gave us the six-month limitation period back in 1994. I assume that the government, as a
[ Page 15420 ]
government, gave anxious, careful and deliberate consideration to this issue back in 1994. After conducting, no doubt, an extensive study and engaging in widespread public consultation -- as I'm sure they must have done back in 1994 -- they considered that it was important to have a six-month limitation period. That that's where the balance should be struck.
When we're talking about the prospect of people running out the clock, as the Attorney General says, I would have thought that with a six-month limitation period that would be a far more acute risk. So what my amendment does is that it in fact actually goes 18 months further down the road to accommodate the point that the minister has made and says, in effect, that two years becomes the window.
What I think the Attorney General has to do is to stand up and meet the
case about why the six-month limitation period that his government introduced
in 1994 is so egregiously wrong that it has to be replaced by the current
limitation period. One of the ways you do that, I think -- with respect -- is
that you explain both the nature of the problem that's arisen
I agree with the minister's fundamental point, Attorney General's point that you have to be alert to the risk that someone will "run out the clock." Of course, that exists across every regulatory offence that exists in the laws of British Columbia. Maybe what we should be doing is having a debate about amending the Offence Act of British Columbia to extend the six-month limitation period in that act to two years. But no, we're only having it in this context of this bill.
I think, leaving aside the temptation to become overtly partisan here, that the real matter is that the government has not done what it has to do to make the case in support of its proposal to change the law in the way it seeks to change the law. I think that what our amendment does is acknowledge that there is some force to some of what the government says. But there is not the evidence to support opening up the limitation period in the way that this provision seeks to do. So I ask again for the government to consider the amendment and support it.
Hon. I. Waddell: Let me give an example of a case that occurred after 1991, in 1996 in the Comox area, where a site was damaged during house construction. The branch comes in, stops the construction, convinces the owners and works with the owner to hire an archeologist to mitigate damage.
R. Neufeld: The owner had to pay for it.
Hon. I. Waddell: Well, that -- unfortunate under the statute
Interjection.
Hon. I. Waddell: Well, often -- in most cases -- they've tried to work out
Interjections
Hon. I. Waddell: All I know is what I've seen. They've managed to work with
the private owners with a tough act. But in the Comox case they made an
agreement with the owner. Then additional damage was done, so they asked the
RCMP to look at prosecutions -- as they have to do under the act. It takes
Crown counsel a number of months to make the recommendations. About five
months later, the Crown counsel's report
Interjections.
Hon. I. Waddell: That's why we need the 24 months in the act. I guess we just agree to disagree that we need it, on the test that we've advanced in the statute. The member is free to propose an amendment and have a vote on the amendment.
[1150]
G. Plant: I think we are about to have a vote on the amendment. But let me just tell you that the minister's very helpful remarks have given me one more reason to vote for the amendment. Earlier, as I recall, we were all told to feel quite assured about the situation of private land owners, because private land owners weren't dealt with under the criminal process.
Yet as I understand it, the case that the minister has now placed before us to argue in support of extending the limitation period is an example of a housing project, which presumably was not being done on vacant Crown land, but rather was being undertaken on someone's private property. So the very risk that I earlier thought was a risk here -- a risk that these provisions will affect private land owners, which the minister earlier tried to talk his way out of -- I now find is in fact the very first example that occurs to the minister as an example of why we need this limitation period that he's talking about.
In any event, as I heard the facts, the incident in question would be more than covered by a two-year limitation period, which is the proposed limitation period in our amendment, which I would be happy to move to resolution on, one way or the other, by a vote at any time now.
Hon. I. Waddell: I don't want to prolong the debate, but that's not exactly
what I said at the beginning. I said the act does apply. It's a tough act, and
it does apply to private and public. I said that we hadn't been going out to
do prosecutions on private land -- only when there was quite flagrant misuse
or abuse of the heritage system. I don't want the member to misinterpret my
remarks. I think he's making a bit of a mountain out of a molehill here. I
think that this will be covered, that the amendments can
Interjection.
Hon. I. Waddell: Well, I think he is making a mountain out of a molehill.
I think what the hon. member raised with reference to the bigger point, about the registration on title, is something that's worth looking at further, and I undertook to do it.
[ Page 15421 ]
[T. Stevenson in the chair.]
Amendment negatived on the following division:
| YEAS -- 35 | ||
| Whittred | Hansen | C. Clark |
| Campbell | Farrell-Collins | de Jong |
| Plant | Abbott | L. Reid |
| Neufeld | Coell | Chong |
| Sanders | Jarvis | Anderson |
| Nettleton | Penner | Weisgerber |
| Dalton | McKinnon | Masi |
| Roddick | J. Wilson | Barisoff |
| van Dongen | Symons | Thorpe |
| Krueger | J. Reid | Stephens |
| Coleman | Hawkins | Hogg |
| Nebbeling | Weisbeck | |
| NAYS -- 35 | ||
| Evans | Doyle | McGregor |
| Sawicki | Kwan | Lali |
| Hammell | Pullinger | Bowbrick |
| Brewin | Boone | Orcherton |
| Calendino | Zirnhelt | Randall |
| Robertson | Cashore | Conroy |
| Smallwood | Miller | MacPhail |
| Dosanjh | Petter | Lovick |
| Priddy | Ramsey | G. Wilson |
| Farnworth | Waddell | Gillespie |
| Streifel | Walsh | Kasper |
| Goodacre | Janssen | |
The Chair: Thank you members. I will make the tiebreaking vote in opposition -- opposed -- in order to maintain the status quo and to continue the debate. The motion is opposed; it fails.
[1200]
Section 21 approved on division.
Hon. I. Waddell: I move that the committee now rise and continue at the next session -- that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Hon. I. Waddell: I move the House now adjourn.
Interjections.
Hon. I. Waddell: Can't we do that?
An Hon. Member: You've got to report.
T. Stevenson: Hon. Speaker, Committee B rises, reports progress and asks leave to sit again -- if you can hear me.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members, could we have some order, please. When shall the
Hon. D. Lovick: The question, Mr. Chairman, is: when shall the committee sit again? The answer is: next sitting.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. D. Lovick: With that, I move that the House be adjourned.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12:03 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.
The committee met at 10:12 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
(continued)
On vote 41: ministry operations, $36,744,000 (continued).
T. Nebbeling: We finished yesterday in fairly lengthy debate on the counterpetition issue -- how the role of the smaller groups in communities is giving excellent opportunities to pursue opposition of an issue. I don't think that we are going to get much further than what we have already been saying. I will continue with looking at the Islands Trust.
However, before we do that my colleague from Parksville-Qualicum would like to ask a question pertaining to an issue in her riding.
J. Reid: My question has to do with the approval for regional districts to grant business licences. It's my understanding that the regional district of Nanaimo has made that request. I'm interested in the process and whether there is an opportunity in that process for public input.
[1015]
Hon. C. McGregor: I've been given to understand by staff that it is, as the member made reference to, a bylaw power that they have to apply to the ministry to be approved. And once that application comes forward, what we would do is review their application from the perspective of what type of public process they have initiated and involved broadly -- the business community, citizens at large and so on -- to make sure that there'd been broad consultation prior to having taken the resolution to seek that power.
The other issue that we would want to investigate is their capacity to take on that issue. In other words, do they have the staff, the resources, the ability and the interest? Obviously, if
[ Page 15422 ]
they've passed a resolution, they must clearly have an interest. But do they have a capacity internal to their government organization in order to take on that power?
J. Reid: My concern here is that they have made the application for these powers. To my understanding, there hasn't been any process -- public process -- or input. I've been receiving that in my office, and people have been wanting to know where they're going to go with that. As I understand it, this is a request that the ministry is sitting with and has been for some time. Then the question is: at what part in this process is the ministry, and at what stage are we at? And what should we expect? When the ministry asks the regional district what public process there has been, if there hasn't been, are there suggestions or requirements? Or is it a matter that it goes back to the regional district for public input process, etc., and comes back to the ministry?
Hon. C. McGregor: We don't know the actual specifics of this request from this regional district, but we'd be happy to get that detail for the member. We'll try and get it for later today. Broadly, I would say that if the member describes a lack of process on the part of the regional district, it would be my assumption that our direction back to the regional district would be through a letter or in a conversation to suggest that they would indeed have to go through that broader public consultation prior to us considering their application further. That's a general view. I would like to follow up with the specifics of this particular application, and we could provide the details to the member later today.
J. Reid: So there is the assurance that the ministry requires that public process. I'll be able to take back that as part of the regional district, there is a place for the public input that the ministry will definitely require from the regional district. That's great. I look forward to the following information.
Hon. C. McGregor: I'll just confirm that the answer is yes.
T. Nebbeling: As I alluded to, I would like to move on now to the Islands Trust -- what I think is after Bill 88. The second, more important issue that I would like to focus on during this series of estimates is primarily the uncertainty of how the Islands Trust today is fulfilling its mandate and also the uncertainty between the trustees and the trust council in their role.
As I said in my introduction, there was a study done recently. I don't know if that was on behalf of the Islands Trust or if the study was done by Municipal Affairs, but the conclusion that was maybe encapsulated best and presented to the public was that the status quo stinks.
[1020]
The third problem with the Islands Trust, then, is with the status quo. It doesn't really know where it's going or how it should go forward. As a consequence, there seems to be a lot of independent actions on various islands, which are not necessarily in the mandate of the trust or are actually within the guidelines set out in the past in conjunction with Municipal Affairs for how trustees interpret their powers and how they act on the interpretation of their powers.
What I'm trying to say is that there is a lot of discontent on the islands over actions of the Islands Trust. I think we have to find some answers to find a way to deal with these concerns that citizens express. Ultimately, the role of the Islands Trust is to work within a mandate of protect and preserve, but certainly not at a cost where the people affected by the decisions are clearly not happy. The documentation I've been receiving over the last six to eight months -- or maybe even longer -- has been fierce and vigorous, expressing concerns about some of the actions that have been taking place on various islands. I talk about Bowen Island, I talk about Gabriola, and I talk about Vancouver Island water property owners who have concern about certain bylaws that the Islands Trust has tried to pass. I will canvass all of them.
In an article -- I think it was in the Times Colonist recently, on March 8
[1025]
Hon. C. McGregor: I would agree with the member that it certainly has been
a matter of some interest and discussion amongst residents of the Islands
Trust -- their local governance structures and
The member makes reference, then, to the report that was developed by Diana Butler. I don't know. Does the member have a copy of the report? We would be happy to give you a copy of her report. It's quite comprehensive, and I'm just working from the executive summary, in terms of looking at her recommendations. As the member points out, there were a number of references as to why it doesn't work, although I would say that the comment that "the status quo stinks" was not the comment of the consultant but in fact of one of the citizens who was interviewed as part of her report.
Having said that, I just want to assure the member that I have a great deal of interest in this topic. I've come to no conclusions as to what the next steps need to be. I've met with the trust, and we've had a beginning conversation about what might flow from this report and what next steps are required. I'd be very interested in involving the critic or any other members from opposition who have interest in this topic to give us input on how they think we should design a process for the next steps. It will be very important that there be broad involvement in designing a strategy or an approach to how we look at this question of governance within the trust.
T. Nebbeling: I appreciate her correction that "the status quo stinks" is indeed from an individual. She heard that statement, and she made that clear -- there on the island.
The problem I have, of course, is that this whole debate about the trust and the need for some change has been going
[ Page 15423 ]
on for a number of years now. One of the problems I hear when I talk to islanders is that they get the impression that often what is done is going through the mills but that the trustees themselves, who are all representing individual little fiefdoms, are really not so hot on considering new steps, new ways of doing business that would incorporate the communities in a more consultative and empowering way.
What I hear is that this discussion is going on far too long. Because it has been going on far too long and more disgruntlement is being developed, more and more people are now saying: "Let's do away with the Islands Trust altogether." Why not empower local people on the islands through new stages? On Bowen Island we found a way by creating the first municipality within the trust. Why should there be trustees separately elected, who basically walk to their own drums and are not necessarily in tune with what the council feels the direction of the trust should be? Why not start off by bringing it back to a local level, rather than have the group that has to a certain extent been responsible for the mayhem -- if I can use that word -- in how the trust is working still being in charge, finding the new direction?
I want to point out to the minister -- and I don't know if she has seen this article -- that the article finishes with a statement of Mr. David Essig, who I truly believe means the very best. "You know, the Liberal caucus loves the idea of the trust becoming legislatively independent." And then it quotes my name and the name of Murray Coell, who is also involved in issues on the Islands Trust because of his riding.
What we have said to Mr. David Essig -- and I have checked this with Mr. Coell -- is that in no way, shape or form have we endorsed any change of legislative direction or any direction towards a preferred form of legislative control. We certainly -- strongly, I should say -- support the idea that there's going to be some serious thinking as to what the role of the Islands Trust should be on the islands, in context of the Islands Trust. That's as far as our support for a review has gone. I think it's important that that is our record, because we have not endorsed in any way, shape or form the legislative independence of the Islands Trust.
[1030]
Like I say, is there any consideration at this time? This is an issue that
must be discussed by staff. This has been going on far too long to say:
"Well, we've just taken this study, and now we sit back to see further
I think that's part of the problem, because the Islands Trust interprets its mandate definitely differently in certain instances than I get in the interpretation heard from the Municipal Affairs end. I will, during this process, come back with a couple of cases where there clearly was a different direction given by Municipal Affairs or by the Municipal Act -- I shouldn't make it personal about the Municipal Act -- where the Islands Trust went a different direction than another direction, because they felt the Islands Trust Act allowed them to do that.
Is there any consideration given
Hon. C. McGregor: I'll begin by reviewing some of the remarks the member made about a desire on the part of citizens for a more consultative, empowering process. I would agree that that's largely the view that many citizens across the province have. It isn't unique to the Islands Trust, but perhaps it's unique in the sense that we're in the midst of this review, and it gives us an opportunity to provide citizens with an important role in this conversation and in decision-making around the governance of the trust.
The member will have an opportunity to review the report at some length; we'll provide it to him, as I said. That report puts forward a number of possible options around governance models. The member's suggestion that the trust would act as a largely independent government agency is one of the options described in the report.
Again, no decision has been taken yet on what kind of model we might decide to move to as a result of this report. We want to have a very comprehensive and transparent process with the public, with members of the trust and with members of government, because there is indeed very much a provincial interest in this matter. I don't see this as being a process that only the trust would participate in. It must have a much broader involvement, including provincial government involvement. I've invited the member opposite and other representatives. Perhaps the member for Saanich North and the Islands, because he has particular interest in this, is someone who would also want to give us some input and advice about which models we consider and what kind of process we develop in terms of moving forward with consideration of these models.
[1035]
I just point out to the member that while it might appear that it has been a very lengthy process to get to this point, the report itself was drafted only over a period of several months, from about February to March. It is very comprehensive in nature. I think Diana Butler did a superb job of really trying to suss out all the potential options that could be considered.
Will it take time to move the next steps forward? Absolutely, it will. But I would argue that the appropriate process of consultation is what will either make or break this kind of decision-making. We have to make sure we proceed in a way that acknowledges the importance of a broad base of consultation before making decisions.
T. Nebbeling: First of all, when I talked about a direction of more independent control through a regional board approach, I was actually quoting Mr. David Essig. It was not a suggestion by me.
The minister said that the whole consultative process is not just the group of islands or the Islands Trust, but that it will involve other parties. There was a restructuring workshop recently on Denman Island. How many people from Municipal Affairs were actually part of that workshop?
Hon. C. McGregor: We're not intimately familiar with that workshop, but we can get the answer and get back to the member.
[ Page 15424 ]
T. Nebbeling: I made that point because of the minister saying: "No,
no, this whole review done with the ministry doesn't work in isolation."
I think, if there are any workshops where, especially in the initial stages
Hon. C. McGregor: I think it's important to put this in the context of what role Municipal Affairs should play in the day-to-day operations of any local government and, in this case, the Islands Trust, which has a particular mandate that's somewhat similar to local government, although not parallel. It would be inappropriate for this ministry to involve itself in the day-to-day decision-making and the business of a local government or the Islands Trust.
There might be hundreds of workshops or meetings that go on, on a weekly, monthly or yearly basis within the trust, and we do not intend to supervise those. However, having said that, in terms of the broader issue of governance, of course we fully intend to be involved in that. That process will be separate and apart from the other work and business that a trust does.
T. Nebbeling: Well, I'm disappointed to hear that. If we are seriously looking at restructuring the Islands Trust and its mandate, its acts or how the implementation of its mandate will be exercised, then it is still part of a body that is directed by the Municipal Act.
[1040]
For the Minister of Municipal Affairs, being aware of the concerns that are
out there about how the act is operating today, to say: "Well, we take
distance. We're not going to get involved there. We look at
The Islands Trust has recognized that it's on the wrong path. When I've talked to the chair of the Islands Trust, that is clearly the message that he has gotten from many different groups -- that they have to come up with something new. But it still has to be within the mandate, whatever it's going to be. For example -- I might as well put it on the record -- to think that the Islands Trust would have the power of a regional district is, to me, absurd. It is absurd because that regional district needs the reasons for regional districts. The six reasons that regional boards are in place do not apply to the mandate of the Islands Trust. So to me, it makes no sense to even see that as an option.
I see an option comparable with the ALR, for example, as more of a workable solution. That's something that will no doubt come up during the whole discussion. I think it is very important that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs is involved right from the beginning so that, like I said earlier on, we're not going to create a wrong base from which the Islands Trusts thinks it's developing its new direction but still with that mandate.
There was another point the minister made a little earlier in response to a statement I made about maybe a direction where the islands, with the guidelines set by Municipal Affairs and with the mandate in mind, work independently without this conclave that comes together once in a while -- quarterly, I think -- and decides how it can circumvent the wishes of certain citizens. I put it strongly like that, because I have been in a meeting like that once, and I was quite appalled at some of the statements that were expressed by trustees on issues. Everything that is sacred within the Municipal Act was basically violated as a principle, because it was the Islands Trust's mandate to protect and preserve -- and to hell with the rules and regulations. I am concerned that empowerment is not truly on a local level.
When the minister responded to my statement about empowerment, she said: "That is the objective we have for the province as a whole." There's a serious difference between local elected councils and their empowerment, compared to the Islands Trust empowerment. The Islands Trust has trustees representing independent islands. There are 13 islands, I believe, in the trust. Each and every one is represented by two trustees who come to speak for their island.
In the best of all worlds, it would be great if these trustees could indeed sometimes forget that they are not just to represent their island but that they represent the whole of the trust. Their decisions should be based on the whole of the trust. Unfortunately, that is not often the case. There's a lot of nepotism, in a sense: "Listen, I'm here for Bowen Island. I'm going to do what I want to see happen on Bowen Island. If that is not compatible with other areas, that's too bad."
There is a difference in the empowerment of a trust trustee. They do not represent the good of the trust as a whole. They represent their own island, where a local council is elected on a local level by people who have local interest in that council. I wanted to point out that difference. We have had that discussion on empowerment of local governments, and I do not want to see the trust being incorporated in the same thought process that we apply to local governments.
Having said that, if the minister can agree to this, I want to spend more time on the trust, obviously, but my colleague from Okanagan-Penticton needs to ask some questions on an issue. He's not available this afternoon. Can we stop with the Islands Trust for now and then come back later on?
[1045]
Hon. C. McGregor: That's fine.
R. Thorpe: First of all, I want to be very, very clear that the minister's office had set up a briefing for me last week on May 4. Unfortunately, I had to cancel that because of some pressures that I had to attend to back home. I want to acknowledge that, and I want to thank the minister and the staff for arranging that.
I must ask a few questions about irrigation districts. Eventually I'm going to get to Naramata irrigation district, and you're well aware of that. I'm more concerned -- and
[ Page 15425 ]
have been since the Naramata irrigation district situation -- about the overall management of irrigation districts in the province. My first question is: how many irrigation districts are there in the province today? Secondly, how many of those are managed independently, and how many are being managed by some ministry of the government of British Columbia today?
Hon. C. McGregor: There are 273 improvement districts in the province. That's the number we believe it is; we could be off by one or two. A lot of those would be irrigation districts, but oftentimes they offer other services like fire protection and other types of services. None of them are managed by the government; they are all managed by the trustees of the districts.
R. Thorpe: I appreciate the minister's answer there; I accept that there could be one or two, plus or minus, directionally.
I am a little bit concerned, though, because I've been led to believe, for instance, that the Sage Mesa irrigation district is under the supervision of the province of British Columbia. Is the minister saying that she doesn't believe that to be so? Or perhaps they just don't have that information.
Hon. C. McGregor: We have no knowledge of that, but we will check into it.
R. Thorpe: I appreciate the minister checking into that and advising me in due course. She might look in the direction of the Ministry of Environment having some involvement with that irrigation district.
As we know, the issue at Naramata has been a longstanding issue. It's been very difficult on the residents of Naramata; it's caused some division. Some would argue that that division can be repaired; others will argue that division within that community cannot be repaired.
On April 10, I tabled a petition in the House where some 622 concerned citizens of Naramata had asked for a public inquiry with respect to this whole situation. My letter was addressed to the Premier. I have since heard back from the Premier's Office that he has redirected that to the minister's office. I'm just wondering if the minister can advise, through the Chair to myself and, in turn, the residents of Naramata: does the ministry have any intention of conducting or asking for a public inquiry with respect to the Naramata issues?
[1050]
Hon. C. McGregor: Let me begin by stating that this has been a longstanding, complex and very difficult issue for all of the residents in the Naramata area, and I don't want to underplay that in any way. It's been difficult also for the regional district. There have been numerous reviews of this decision. Not all residents are happy, nor will they ever be happy in some cases, with the process that's been used or the conclusions that we're coming to.
Having said that, I think there have been a number of opportunities for the public to come before the regional district to offer their perspective on issues. There have been public meetings. The RDOs have actually done two mail surveys as well to get the input from members of the irrigation district and the ratepayers. They've had annual meetings, through which those ratepayers have had an opportunity to participate in directions and decisions. The regional district has in fact recently accepted the province's offer of dollars toward the final arbitrated settlement, as a result of the arbitration case.
I would like to acknowledge, as well, that the member opposite has been part of this solution and has worked with us and with the community. I acknowledge that he's had a very positive role in trying to resolve these questions. I know he appreciates how difficult these issues are. Having said that, I think we are moving towards resolution on this issue; it is not likely that we will engage in any public inquiry.
R. Thorpe: I just want to be clear here, because obviously people in Naramata and the regional district -- and quite frankly, at this point in time, people throughout irrigation districts in British Columbia -- are watching what's going on here. When the minister says -- I believe I heard it correctly -- it's not likely that there will be a public inquiry, does that mean that there is a possibility that a public inquiry will take place?
Hon. C. McGregor: There are some unresolved matters as a result of some court actions that may have implications at some future date, so I don't want to totally close the door, but I'm certainly not considering it at this time.
R. Thorpe: Just to highlight the division and the concerns in the community
[1055]
At the same time, the Naramata Ratepayers Association is registering a number of concerns. As the MLA for this area, it's my responsibility to bring forward those concerns. They now have in excess of 50 percent of the community -- I think it's 442 members of the community -- as members of their association.
On April 12 my office hand-delivered to the minister a copy of a letter received from Bruce Johnston, the secretary of the Naramata Ratepayers Association, outlining a number of concerns that they had. I think, quite frankly, that what's driving most of the residents of Naramata is a sense that the processes have been democratic and their voices have been heard on a timely basis. I sincerely believe that's what their concerns are.
They've raised a number of questions on how the decision and how their voice was heard or how it wasn't heard -- how it was heard fairly or unfairly. Has the minister had the opportunity to go through this letter that is dated April 4, which I passed along on April 12? Have you had the opportunity to address some of those concerns? I look forward to the minister's response to that.
Hon. C. McGregor: We are in the process of completing a very detailed response to all the questions that were addressed in the letter that the member provided to me. We'll
[ Page 15426 ]
be happy to make sure the member opposite receives a copy of that detailed response. It shouldn't be too much longer in its preparation.
R. Thorpe: Could we agree on a kind of time frame? Is it going to be within the next week? Is that a reasonable time frame in which to expect a response? Once again, what we're talking about here is the impact on people, feeling that they are either part of a democratic process or not part of a democratic process, and all the stresses -- not even to consider the financial ramifications on many people in this community. It's a community made up of many seniors, orchardists who, as most members of this House know, have had difficult years. And of course, there are young families who are struggling.
I appreciate very much the minister's comments that they're working on it and that they're working on it in a reasonable time frame. But could we get a commitment that that letter would be done, say, no later than a week from today? Is that a reasonable and fair request?
Hon. C. McGregor: I think it's important to emphasize again that I understand this is a very important issue for the local community. I want to turn my mind completely to the questions and answer them as fully and carefully as we can -- to provide the kind of information the community would like to have. I acknowledge that there are still concerns. We would like to try and be a part of that solution. It's probably unlikely that we can manage it within a week, but let me give the member my assurances that we will do it within two weeks.
[1100]
R. Thorpe: Well, I guess I should have asked for three weeks; I would have got a week. But seriously, thank you very much, to the minister, for that commitment.
The other thing that I would like to do
The second thing that I'd like to say in this regard is that in the past, ministers have visited Naramata on this issue. Senior staff have visited Naramata, and that's very much appreciated. This is a very emotional issue, and again, I would extend to the minister and her deputy that if they would like to come to the community again, I'd be pleased to work with them on that issue. I know some of those meetings get fairly emotional. The attendance is excellent. But I think, for the most part, people are looking for a positive solution. I would extend that offer to the minister.
The one other area I'd like to just ask a couple of questions on is with
respect to irrigation districts generally throughout the province. Do
directors of irrigation districts
Hon. C. McGregor: We're not aware of any regulation that would prohibit them from having any insurance as directors. Our understanding is that most of them do have insurance.
R. Thorpe: Could I just ask the minister, through her officials, to double-check that, because that issue has just been raised in the last few days with me, and I didn't know the answer. If we could ask the minister's staff to check and let me know as quickly as possible on that, that would be greatly appreciated.
With respect to the Naramata issues, I just want to conclude here that I
have a commitment from the minister that we'll have a detailed response to
these issues within the next two weeks, and I remain committed to not only
working with the ministry and the staff of the ministry, the residents of
Naramata
T. Nebbeling: What I would like to do is start visiting some issues that have developed over the last year or two years and see where some of these issues have been leading or if they have been concluded.
The first one I would like to speak about is the natural area protection
tax incentive program that was introduced about a year ago by the Islands
Trust. At the time this came out, we had a fair amount of correspondence
coming from the Islands Trust, not only in soliciting support for the idea --
for this tax incentive -- but also, from time to time, little notices of how
many people had joined the team to fight for this particular principle. I was
really surprised to see the name of the leader of the B.C. Liberal Party on
that list, and the critic at the time -- the member from Richmond north,
south, middle
[1105]
I met with the trust, and I did not get any of the answers that I asked for -- that was quite a while ago, of course -- so I would like to take the opportunity now to ask these questions and see where it stands. But before we do that, maybe the minister can first of all tell me whether this particular natural area protection strategy is still on track. Or has it been abandoned, as I have not heard anything for quite a long time?
Hon. C. McGregor: No, the matter has not fallen off our plate, as it were, and I'd ask the member to stay tuned, because I'll have much more detail to give him within the next week or two.
T. Nebbeling: That's fine, and I will not press too hard, but there are, however, a couple of issues that I would like to hear, and they have to do with certain principles related to this issue.
First of all, what the Islands Trust proposed to put in place -- and obviously they have been working on it,
[ Page 15427 ]
although I haven't heard of it -- is to remove some tax burden from certain properties within the trust and heave this tax burden over to other tax authorities -- be it provincial tax, the property tax base, the school tax base or other taxes.
My first question is that -- as this is a one-sided story, as far as the
taxation is concerned, because one tax authority says: "I want to relieve
a burden on me; let's make it tax-neutral and put that tax burden onto another
segment of the British Columbia population." How does the ministry ensure
that indeed there is support from the other side -- the side that will have to
absorb the tax burden? And how does the minister secure that cooperative
spirit in going on that route? In a sense, what we see happening
Hon. C. McGregor: These are very interesting questions, and I'd be most delighted to discuss them in some detail, should they be considered as a part of our legislative package.
T. Nebbeling: I don't think I cannot ask questions of this nature when there is no indication that this is part of the legislative package. I mean, the minister may know something, but there's certainly nothing on the order paper to indicate that. I feel I should have an answer to that question.
Hon. C. McGregor: Let me assure the member that it will be a part of our legislative package.
T. Nebbeling: I would like to have an answer from the Chair, then, if this restricts me asking questions on hypothetical components of the package that are not to be made public. I don't understand, because in theory I can't ask any questions if that's the case, because we can always say: "Well, it is part of the legislative package." Then two weeks from now we have to decide that suddenly we are to pull it back.
The Chair: Member, debate in estimates, as you would know, has to be strictly relevant to the administrative duties of the office of the minister whose estimates are before the House. Questions of a hypothetical nature are out of order. Questions pertaining to legislation, the need for legislation or legislation that would be currently before the House are out of order.
If that helps guide the member, I am pleased to offer the advice. It's standing order 61 on page 138 in the book, if the member would prefer to refer to that.
[1110]
T. Nebbeling: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will not argue with the Chair; I am
not supposed to. But there's nothing hypothetical about the financial
arrangement that I just explained to the minister as being part of the
consideration given by the Islands Trust. They have in writing indicated that
the savings that they want to achieve for their property owners, who are
willing to give up land for a period of time to go into a reserve status and
not be available for development
So I'm not talking about anything hypothetical. I'm talking about the presentation made by the Islands Trust with written documentation stipulating how the minister should write legislation to reflect not only the objective but at the same time also the tools to leave that burden tax-neutral for the provincial government. I'm not talking about anything hypothetical. I am referring to a letter from the Islands Trust.
I still would like to see that question answered. The statement by the
Islands Trust is as follows, just to give you an idea that I'm not in any way,
shape or form talking about a hypothetical situation: "Tax reduction to
general, provincial, schools, Sunshine Coast regional district
I'm asking the minister if this is still under consideration, to have the funds that are saved by property owners in the Islands Trust, based on a presentation made by the Islands Trust -- that these funds will be heaved over to $1.5 million in property tax values in the province of British Columbia.
The Chair: I would just offer this comment on the member's question to me. Future policy is also out of order. The need for legislation or legislative change is also out of order, member.
T. Nebbeling: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Can the minister tell me if she supports the initiative taken by the Islands Trust to see tax dollars removed from the Islands Trust portfolio base and transferred to the general provincial tax value base, consisting of $1.5 million property tax values?
Hon. C. McGregor: As the former Minister of Environment, I am very interested in the protection of unique ecosystems around the province on the basis of their biodiversity and the natural beauty they might have. I understand completely that the residents of the islands and the Islands Trust are very interested, particularly in islands where there is a great deal of private property and difficulty in acquisition, in taking steps that are necessary in order to preserve that natural environment and natural beauty. It has benefit not only to the Islands Trust itself, but it has benefits to the ecology of our region and of our province; it preserves in perpetuity some unique features of British Columbia. Beyond its ecological significance, it also has value as a tourist destination. All of these are reasons why the province is always interested in working with agencies and groups around the province on preservation measures.
So, having said that, I also support in principle some initiatives that have been talked about broadly in the context of the principle of tax shift, in other words, the shifting of taxes -- it's usually described as moving taxes -- from ecologically friendly initiatives or equipment and so on to less ecologically friendly items. There's been an enormous amount of writing done on this concept. There's been a policy paper initiated by the province. There's been widespread public involvement, a number of hearings held around the province -- open meetings with the public to talk about this question in that sense.
But I find that I am unable to talk specifically about the nature of the Islands Trust request, because it will be addressed legislatively.
T. Nebbeling: Well, at least the minister has given me some indication that there have been ongoing discussions on
[ Page 15428 ]
this issue between the ministry and the Islands Trust. I'm certainly interested to know from the minister where these so-called open meetings to discuss these principles took place, because if there were public meetings, I've never seen notices of any of them. Maybe, first of all, the minister can tell me in what communities these open meetings were held, discussing this specific approach.
[1115]
Hon. C. McGregor: The concept of tax shift was led by my colleague in the Ministry of Finance. There were a number of meetings held around the province; I know one of them was in Kamloops. I'm not sure where else they were, but perhaps you'd like to ask my colleague.
T. Nebbeling: Just to clarify, the discussions were about tax shifts in general and were not necessarily specific on the approaches with this particular initiative taken by the Islands Trust. During these discussions that were held in Kamloops, for example -- or wherever else -- was there particular mention made of how the Islands Trust is pursuing this tax incentive for giving up development on properties for a period of time?
Hon. C. McGregor: The tax shift paper that was circulated to the public included a wide variety of examples. I don't know if it made specific reference to any particular initiative that exists or might exist in the province of British Columbia. The member would have to look at the policy paper to determine that.
T. Nebbeling: I appreciate the last comment that I should look at the policy paper, because I can only do that if they're made available. I do not know all the initiatives that are taken by all the various ministries in regard to public presentations. If the minister feels that I should be aware of these points, then hopefully she can direct staff that from now on, whenever there are any initiatives taken, they should make the critic aware -- whoever the critic is. That would be helpful.
The reason I asked this question about the context of these public meetings
discussing tax shifts and whether indeed there was a specific mention of the
Islands Trust desire to go this route
Hon. C. McGregor: I'll give the member my assurance that all that information will become available as a part of the legislative discussion.
[1120]
T. Nebbeling: I appreciate that statement of the minister. There's another point that I want to raise, however, in the context of this incentive. That has more to do with the general mode of operations of the Islands Trust. But still, the question is motivated by the fact that there is this attempt to heave the tax burden from the Islands Trust onto the province. If there's justification for that move -- after consultation, obviously -- it must be based on the fact that the mandate of the Islands Trust is not just for the trust itself, not just for the population of the trust. It is for all British Columbians, I believe.
When the minister mentioned tourist opportunities and a better way for tourism to flourish or develop, I have a problem with that statement. That problem is based on the fact that often the trustees, in their bylaws per island, have a rather restrictive approach to allowing non-islanders to be on the islands. It is not B.C. Ferry access I'm talking about; I'm talking about accommodation. There are islands where it is virtually impossible to get a permit to start a bed-and-breakfast, because the trustees do not like that idea.
On Galiano, for example, there is within the bylaws a statement that public
campgrounds are not a permitted use of any of the lands. That, to me, is an
outrageous thing. If we as British Columbians are paying for the maintenance
of the islands, if we help find financial mechanisms to preserve land to
accommodate the mandate and at the same time allow trustees to have the
privilege of denying the financial contributors to have the benefit of the use
of these lands by an overnight camping trip, for example
To have bylaws reflecting that attitude of restriction justifies my saying that I think that before we do anything on these islands to alleviate financial pressure or find more ways of financing properties to be under the mandate of preserve and protect, we have to look at that part as well. Has the minister given any thought to that particular problem?
Hon. C. McGregor: I think the member rightly draws our attention back to the mandate of the trust, which is not just to represent the interests of the residents but also, broadly, British Columbians -- that their mandate is clearly a benefit more broadly to all British Columbians, not just for the residents of that area. In fact, that speaks to the broader mandate that the province has made a very strong commitment to, in terms of creation of parks around the province but also in the islands.
There is a large provincial campsite on Galiano Island and on others. It's why we've engaged in a partnership with the federal government through the Pacific Marine Heritage trust in order to acquire additional parcels, in order to deliver not only on the mandate for Islands Trust but for all British Columbians as it relates to preservation and protection, but also to ensure that there is access to the public for recreational opportunities, for the opportunity to do camping, as the member describes, and for other access into our provincial lands, because that is a principle that we adhere to in the creation of provincial parks.
T. Nebbeling: To avoid confusion, having provincial park status on a piece of land does not automatically mean that it accommodates camping activities. Am I right in that?
Hon. C. McGregor: On Galiano there is camping, but not every provincial park has camping opportunities. Some of them are marine parks and have mooring facilities, and that's the nature of the access the public has to them. Others are daytime operations as opposed to campground. Some of them are protected areas that have restrictions on the basis of certain
[ Page 15429 ]
ecological features, and so on. It does depend on the park in question. Those values are managed by the parks branch. There's a great deal of public involvement in terms of setting those objectives for park management.
[1125]
T. Nebbeling: One of the sections in the Galiano bylaw -- and I have it right in front of me -- prohibits commercial campgrounds. I wasn't going to make it a point until the minister said that this whole drive toward the preservation of more land will accommodate more tourist opportunities. My point is clearly that if the minister believes that, then we should have some parallel legislation one of these days coming forward that will show how the trust, within its mandate, has to also accommodate certain things that are to the benefit of all British Columbians.
The number of letters I've received over the last couple of years from
private property owners who wanted to start something that was of a tourism
nature
Then I'd like to go into, again, how certain rules that apply to any form of local government should apply and do apply, I believe, to island trustees, where certain rules are violated and only because of very serious counteraction sometimes get stopped. I have got a couple of examples that I want to bring to the attention of the minister and see what has happened -- as, you know, were done after the fact -- because the issues that I bring to the table will clearly be known by ministry staff.
Hon. C. McGregor: I think the member speaks to the principle of trying to achieve the right balance in terms of decision-making and the mandate -- of the Islands Trust in this case, but, I would argue, in the case of any decision that a local government takes. The question of balance is something that, in the case of Islands Trust, they have to take into consideration when they make their decisions. They have a preserve-and-protect mandate at the same time as they want to continue to allow certain types of activity to occur on their islands, to enjoin the kind of tourism opportunities the member describes.
These are very difficult decisions that the Islands Trust makes. They're very difficult decisions that local governments make every day on the basis of trying to achieve that balance. In the case of the Islands Trust, they're trying to achieve a balance between preserve-and-protect and the other interests of their community. I appreciate that the member acknowledges that, and I want him to know that I am also aware that that's a difficult balance. It's something we have to work to try and achieve.
T. Nebbeling: The word "balance" should be "modus operandi." Unfortunately, from the caseloads that I've seen over the last months -- or the last two years -- I think that balance is often not there. Sad to say, it has never been recognized or acknowledged as a problem, although from time to time certain parties that were affected by that lack of balance in decision-making by trustees have not really been heard, because the trust is all-powerful. The minister, no doubt, has seen many, many cases.
Without going into it right now, in the whole situation on Galiano Island
with the last election, there is no way that anybody can say there was a
balanced approach. I'm not saying that. The people that have approached the
Ministry of Municipal Affairs -- maybe we should talk a little bit about this
-- for assistance in getting at least, like the minister said, a balance in
the decisions made by the trustees
[1130]
Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, I am well aware of the situation as it occurred on Galiano Island. The staff monitored that issue very closely. It was a local decision taken by a locally elected council.
T. Nebbeling: Trustees.
Hon. C. McGregor: Perhaps it was the trustees, as the member says. Nonetheless, it's very difficult for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the minister, in reviewing decisions -- despite the fact that some residents would like us to do so, no matter which government we're talking about -- to overrule or to interfere in a decision that's appropriately taken at the local level. I'm sure the member shares the view of the autonomous nature of local governments and that the provincial government should not, unless there is a significant provincial interest, try and engage in overruling those decisions. As a general principle, I'm sure the member would want to put himself on the record as supporting that autonomous view of local government.
T. Nebbeling: Well, let's put a couple of things on the record. Yesterday the minister went on record saying that the Municipal Act is a document that will be acted upon at the request of parties who feel that something has not been done in accordance with the Municipal Act. That's on record.
The minister received, in December of last year, a letter with six or seven points about the infractions that happened during the last municipal election, or the trustees election, on Galiano Island in regards to registration and balloting: how the ballots were handled, how the ballots were disposed of, how the ballots were counted -- all things that are in the act. As the minister went on record, we act when we get complaints.
I'm asking the minister now what action was taken in regards to the written request by a citizen of Galiano Island with specific problems -- and I just named them for you -- about these violations of the Municipal Act, according to the claimant. I'm not taking sides here, but when the minister goes on record as saying: "Well, I'm sure the member wants to go on record for agreeing that the autonomy of a jurisdiction
[ Page 15430 ]
has to be sacrosanct and protected at all costs
[1135]
Hon. C. McGregor: In the case of Galiano there were some residents who alleged certain violations of the Election Act. They took those matters to court. The court ruled on the questions put before them. In fact, the decision of the judge in the case was to alter some of the results by disallowing some of the ballots. But the end result remained the same; the end result of the election was upheld. That is consistent with the information I gave the member yesterday about the appropriate way in which residents would attempt to have issues of impropriety under the act addressed. I certainly hope the member did not suggest that my remarks earlier indicated that I would support a decision of any government which violated the law. I didn't say that, and I hope the member didn't imply that.
T. Nebbeling: There is no indication whatsoever that I was trying to say that was my thought. I was just asking the minister whether she agrees that if indeed there are infractions in one form of government, then the next level of government may well have to intercede to make sure that we do not just turn blind eyes to situations that are violating the Municipal Act.
The reason I asked the minister the question in the way I did was based on the fact that the minister told us yesterday, while we were discussing Bill 88, that the act gets acted upon only when there are complaints. I just used this particular one as an illustration to say: "Well, here are complaints."
I know there was a court case, and changes were made. After the court case was decided, the complainant still tried to find answers to certain questions that she or he didn't feel were properly addressed. That complainant wrote to the minister. I'm asking what the response has been from the minister to the complainant. I believe it was a candidate for trusteeship -- a defeated candidate. Has there been a response made to that member?
Hon. C. McGregor: If the member will give us a copy of the name of the individual we're making reference to, then we'll be happy to provide details of the specific response.
[1140]
T. Nebbeling: Still on the island. I know this is a sensitive issue for the
minister, as the authority of another form of government should not be
undermined or interfered with. As the minister is most likely aware, the issue
on the properties that formerly were lands owned by MacMillan Bloedel
M. Coell: They're still forestry land.
T. Nebbeling: They're still forestry land? Okay.
These properties were bought up by a number of people. In reaction to the strong opposition of the trustees -- or maybe more than trustees; the people on Galiano -- to seeing these lands being harvested, MacMillan Bloedel at that time offered the land up for sale. The trustees did not take MacMillan Bloedel up on the offer, and the next step was that these properties were privately sold. They were sold as 20-acre parcels, and on the premise of 20-acre parcels, these properties were purchased.
Is the minister at all aware of the details that led to the sale of these lands and of any commitments that were made through various ministries -- subject to fulfilling certain conditions, of course -- on the new purchases of these lands?
Hon. C. McGregor: As the member indicated, this issue does have a long history. I've just had the history resummarized for me. It is a history based on decisions taken by the courts. It has had some unfortunate implications for property purchasers as a result of those court decisions, but unfortunately, that is the state of the matter.
T. Nebbeling: I think that is an easy way of dealing with matter -- that it
was a decision by the court. It was an appeal to the courts by the trustees to
revoke some of the conditions that were in place to accommodate the
residential use of these lots. For the minister just to say that that was the
decision and that the trustees were found in the right
The people who purchased these lands were doing this after negotiations with the provincial government. They had discussions with the Ministry of Highways, for example. The Ministry of Highways insisted that in order for them to develop these lots, there had to be public access to these parcels. While that road had to be constructed to provide access to these parcels, at the same time the Ministry of Transportation and Highways said: "But while you're doing that, we would really like you to extend that road and go all the way to the point." That's a public park.
The property owners of these new parcels were asked as part of the
subdivision approval to build a $1.5 million road, and they did. They spent
that money over and above
[1145]
When the trustees then appealed some of the decisions that led to the
approval of the subdivision and these people being able to occupy
[ Page 15431 ]
I don't think the minister can say: "Well, there was a court case, and
because of that, everything went sour for these people." I would like to
know if the minister was aware of these elements. Let's face it: we are
talking about the power of trustees pertaining to the power on their own
jurisdiction, their own island. We have that repeated 13 times on other
islands. But how that power from time to time can be used not to the benefit
of the mandate to preserve and protect but to the detriment of the people who
live and own property on these islands
The Chair: Minister, minding the time.
Hon. C. McGregor: Thank you for the reminder, hon. Chair.
I appreciate that this is a very complex issue and that it has many ramifications -- not just the ones that the member made note of, but others. It has been extremely complex. I'm not trying to pretend for a moment that it's been an easy decision for anyone to take, but circumstances have evolved as a result of a number of actions and court decisions. I'm not in a position to overrule the rulings of the B.C. court system.
T. Nebbeling: Well, if we look deeper into the case, maybe there have been some opportunities for the ministry to interject and have an impact on the decision, especially when the trustees then, as the next step to further their power -- and, I believe, misuse of power -- decided that these parcels were not 20 acres any longer but that the minimum size, if you wanted to build, had to be 50 acres. Is the minister aware of that?
Hon. C. McGregor: We are not aware that that happened. We know of no capacity that would allow them to change it from 20 acres to 50 acres.
The Chair: Member, minding the time.
T. Nebbeling: I don't mind going into recess now and continue this, because I have a fair amount of questions on this particular subject before I go to other examples.
Hon. C. McGregor: I move that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:49 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 2000: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada