Hansard -- Tuesday, October 7, 2003 a.m. -- Vol. 16, No. 10 (HTML)


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Second Reading of Bills		7201
	Forest and Range Practices Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 69)
	Hon. M. de Jong
	J. MacPhail
	R. Harris
	P. Bell
	Forests Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003 (Bill 44)
	Hon. M. de Jong
	J. MacPhail
	Judicial Compensation Act (Bill 41)
	Hon. G. Plant
	Administrative Tribunals Appointment and Administration Act (Bill 68)
	Hon. G. Plant
	J. Kwan

Hon. S. Hawkins: I call second reading of Bill 69. For the information of the members, that is the Forest and Range Practices Amendment Act, 2003.

Bill 69, introduced earlier this year, sets out the framework for an orderly transition from the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia to the Forest and Range Practices Amendment Act, 2003. This will enable forest and range operators and government to move smoothly towards the new regime.

When we introduced the Forest and Range Practices Act last year, we did so after what I think can fairly be characterized as an intense consultative exercise involving meetings with individuals, public meetings and on-line submissions. I am, again, grateful to all of those who participated in that process, including Prof. George Hoberg from the University of British Columbia. That consultation proved invaluable in the crafting of the final act.

We are endeavouring to continue that inclusive approach. Over the past year we have continued to consider comments from stakeholders and have sought to incorporate the results of those ongoing consultations and the results of pilot testing into the legislative regime. In addition, over the summer we did — I am pleased to say — establish a provincial-level Forest Practices Advisory Council, which is meeting presently and providing us with invaluable advice on the crafting of regulations that will support this act. In this way the bill upholds a key element of the results-based code — that is, a commitment to continuous improvement and consultation. By way of example, specifically in response to that input, this bill purports to clarify the roles and responsibilities of various agencies related to government's objectives. This kind of clarification will help promote the efficient working of the forest industry and government.

Hon. members in this chamber will recall that the results-based code is not just about reducing the pressures of non-productive paperwork. It is about, first and foremost, world-leading forest practices that are scientifically and environmentally based. To this end, this bill clarifies the designations and objectives for maintaining environmental standards on a range of values, including wildlife, water and visual quality.

This bill also contains provisions to deliver on government's commitment to the defined forest area management model by outlining requirements for timber supply area–wide forest health strategies. On the subject of forest health, this bill introduces a number of amendments that allow us to better manage for these issues. The members of this chamber from the interior and the north have seen, sadly, firsthand the impact of the mountain pine beetle epidemic, and they know only too well how important it is for government to be cognizant of forest health issues.

Again, by way of example, the bill clarifies the circumstances where someone may be required to prepare a proposal to control or dispose of a concern such as bark beetles. The bill also provides guidance about who is to pay for dealing with forest health emergencies. Specifically, if a licensee is required to carry out a measure other than harvesting, then Bill 69 provides government with the ability and the authority to pay for that measure. Also related to pine beetles, revisions to section 77 will enable the minister to stop the transportation of pine beetle–infested timber. That is an important measure designed to better protect the overall health of the public's forest.

Members will observe in the legislation proposed revisions to sections dealing with the Forest Practices Board. The board, while a product of the Forest Practices Code, will continue to do its work under the Forest and Range Practices Act. The board will continue to provide its invaluable service in acting as an independent public watchdog for sound forest practices. British Columbia's reputation for sustainable forestry is important to maintain not just among our own residents but to people around the world and certainly our customers around the world.

The amendments in this bill clarify various aspects of the work of the Forest Practices Board. Again, by way of example, the amendments define more clearly who is subject to the mandate of the Forest Practices Board. The amendments also allow the board to investigate non-compliance of a person who carries out a forest practice on behalf of an agreement holder, even where that holder is not subject to sanction. This way, I think it is fair to say that the amendments contained in this bill strengthen the role of the Forest Practices Board. The bill also contains numerous consequential amendments to other acts to reflect the movement to the Forest and Range Practices Act from the existing code.

In conclusion, Bill 69 is a key part of this government's commitment to implement a results-based regime for forest practices. Again, I want to underscore to the House that the key objectives of the Forest and Range Practices Act remain the same: a focus on results, not paperwork, and a focus on high environmental standards supported by tough compliance and enforcement. Those are my initial comments on Bill 69.

J. MacPhail: I feel a bit like I have a kinship today with the Liberals. I've lost my glasses; I'm blind. I have no idea where I'm going, and I'm confused as a result. I feel very much like a Liberal today. However, that won't stop me from…. Of course, I have nothing to work from anyway, because we're moving along at quite a little clip here in this Legislature. I understand why the government wants to work at a little clip here — so they can get to their real friends in Calgary and those big oil companies that will welcome them with open arms.

Well, clearly, I must say, as a result of this legislation, Bill 69, they're not really delivering for their friends in the forest company. I had the opportunity this summer and right up until last week to tour the province — let me see; on Vancouver Island, the lower mainland, the Kootenays, the interior and the north. I apologize; I did miss the Peace region — attending there. But I am sure that whatever forestry operations are there — and there are many — they would probably give the same feedback. That is that our forest sector is in absolute chaos.

Why is it in absolute chaos? Well, it's as a result of the legislation this government introduces that it is in absolute chaos. The forest companies, the forest workers and perhaps the communities who rely on forestry for their well-being all say the same thing. It's not one group saying, "Oh, everything is fine," and the rest saying: "It's hell." They're all saying it's confused, it's chaotic, and it's worse than it was two years ago. In fact, it's worse than it was 30 months ago, they say. I have no idea why they picked 30 months ago. Maybe there was some earthshaking event. Oh yes, that's right; there was. This Liberal government took over and said: "Trust us. We have all the answers."

Well, it turns out this government is introducing piece of legislation after piece of legislation, and none of it is working. It's in chaos in terms of what the legislative mandate is. It's in chaos inside the Ministry of Forests. It's in chaos inside the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. Of course, the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection are cowering under their desks, because they're afraid someone will ask them to do something, and they will have no ability to do it, given this new legislation. Cattlemen are unhappy; fishers are unhappy. Environmentalists and campers are unhappy. Forest companies, forest workers and forest-dependent communities are unhappy.

Why are they unhappy? Well, it's because this government continues to gut legislation and has no alternative, no working alternative, to replace it. Nobody knows what's going on out there. I will give a few examples of that in a minute.

What is this legislation — the Forest and Range Practices Amendment Act, Bill 69? It's a continuation of the gutting of the Forest Practices Code started by Bill 74. Now, Bill 74 was passed last fall. You may remember that we should have had a flow chart at the time. Actually, you would have needed one of those magic slates with lots of layers, because you needed to layer one bill over another and try to figure out: "Oops, if I lift that, what's erased? What actually does this all mean? How does it all work together?" Unfortunately, the government didn't provide that. They just kept on making change after change in chaos and confusion, staggering from one bill to another without bringing any stability or consistency to the forest sector, and this bill is a continuation of that.

It was supposed to be part of what the Premier called the year of forestry. In January of 2003 the Premier stood up and said: "It's the year of forestry." My gosh, did he misread 2003? Did he get it wrong? Now it's up to us in the Legislature to figure out why he got it wrong and what this province needs to do to undo the damage of the Premier or, if it is the year of forestry according to the Premier — God help us. I'm dreading 2004, I have to tell you, if this is the year of forestry. I'd say maybe we should call 2003 the year of living dangerously. That would be a good name for this year. Year of forestry is definitely a misnomer. Quite a year it's been.

Yes, there have been difficulties. No question about it. Forest fires that we discussed at length yesterday. The pine beetle infestation. Forest layoffs like this province has not seen since the 1980s. No matter how much this government will stand up and say it was that bad decade of the nineties that caused all the problems, they're wrong, and the industry itself will say they're wrong. The industry has not been in so much distress since the early 1980s, and that is exactly what they're saying, not me. The softwood lumber agreement is in a complete stalemate. Eighteen months after the expiry of the last agreement, it's a complete stalemate. Quite simply put, forestry in British Columbia is disastrous.

What relief do we have today in Bill 69, the Forest and Range Practices Amendment Act? What is this government doing? Well, we have regulatory change. We have new labels. We have more layoffs in the Ministry of Forests and in the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. Boy, Mr. Premier, that's some commitment in the year that's going to be the year of the forests. That's some real commitment to that sector. That's some real commitment to our most valuable public resource.

What we really see happening while the Premier and his government are away…. Here's what we really see while the Premier and his government fiddle with regulations — because that's all this bill is. It's fiddling with regulations, and we don't know what the regulations are, by the way — which, of course, is a complaint of the industry. They have no idea what the rules are. They have no idea who to go to in order to find out what the rules are, because everybody has been laid off, and the government doesn't know. So while they're fiddling with imaginary regulations, still to be revealed, here's what we actually see happening.

We see truck loggers being squeezed by the multinational forest companies to lower their rates. I remember the Minister of Forests standing up and saying: "Isn't it awful the way the 1990s gave special

treatment, contractual rights to loggers? That dastardly time." And they were going to change it. They were going to open it up and make it fair. Oh, they've made it fair, all right. The loggers now are being squeezed for 40 and 50 percent cuts in their wages. That's exactly what's happening. The multinational companies feel very fine to do that — very fine to treat the loggers like they're worth 40 percent less — because they have free run now with this government — the multinationals do.

I remember the Minister of Forests saying: "It's great that we have a few dozen loggers working in the northwest cutting down and exporting trees." "Would we — those of us who oppose that giveaway in the northwest corner of 35 percent of export of logs — not want those loggers working?" the Minister of Forests asked. Little did those loggers know that this Minister of Forests would be directly responsible for a 40 percent cut in those same loggers' wages. Meanwhile, when no mill workers were working because this government was allowing loggers to cut and export, this Minister of Forests was also working to make sure those loggers were poorly treated.

We see the corporate bosses lining up with their new list of concessions and the government standing idly by. We see mills closing and the logs being shipped down the road and out of the country, and this government stands idly by. We see a Premier so anxious to be seen as doing something — anything — that he's prepared to log our parks and throw open protected areas to industrial logging, and I predict…. I have a pretty good prediction record with this government. They don't like to admit to it, but I have a pretty good prediction record. I predict that this government will be logging parks — not with any justification, but they will be logging parks.

We see a government, this Liberal government, willing to risk international sanctions in pursuit of an ideological agenda. We see over 120 people about to be laid off in the Ministry of Forests. The office of the chief forester has been reduced by two-thirds, all in the name of results-based standards. This bill is what will bring those results-based standards about.

Sure would be nice to see some positive results. Sure would be nice for, let me see, anybody from the northwest to stand up and say how good it's going up in the northwest corner. How about the North Island? Let's stand up there. I know a good place to stand up. How about the Kootenays? Let's stand up there and see how good the forest sector's going. Prince George. I can hardly wait to hear how well things are going in Prince George.

I was just in Prince George last week. Turns out the people who came to talk to us about the well-being of Prince George thought it was going pretty lousy. You know who was also on that list? Just in case the minister of Prince George North didn't get a chance to read about it….

P. Bell: The minister of Prince George North? Do you know something that I don't know?

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. The member for Prince George North didn't have a chance to read it.

It's pretty devastating what's happening in the forest sector: profits in decline, far worse than they were two years ago; thousands fewer workers earning their living; and smaller communities in this province worried sick about the future of their own communities. This government is introducing Bill 69 changes to say: "Oh, we're going to make regulations easier. We're not going to tell you what the regulations are, and we're not going to tell you how they work, but that's what we're fiddling with right now." Sure would be nice if the workers and their families in Louis Creek knew what was in store for them.

I heard this Minister of Forests…. Now, I hope he was taken out of context. It was a voice clip, and it was his voice, but I sure hope he was taken out of context. He said how awful it is of those people who are seizing upon a disaster like a fire to criticize his government because the mill burned down. I can't believe that a Minister of Forests who's been in charge for 2½ years would reach that conclusion.

I'll tell you, the people of Barriere and Kamloops and Louis Creek who I talked to after he made those comments were horrified by what he said. It's his government that is doing nothing to Tolko Industries about the 650,000 cubic metres of annual allowable cut that they have specifically tied to that Louis Creek mill. It's his government that is doing nothing to insist that that mill, that company, keep that community — from whom they have garnered huge profits — whole. It's this government that's allowing a fully insured mill to run away and escape — and escape at the first opportunity — and leave destitute hundreds of workers, dozens of small businesses, families and three or four communities.

It's not because of the fire. It's got nothing to do with the fire. This same thing's going to happen all around this province as this government allows the forest companies to have their way with our publicly owned resource, our forests, and return nothing to the community. It's got nothing to do with the fire and everything to do with this Liberal government abandoning forest-dependent communities.

Shame on the Minister of Forests for somehow trying to weasel his way out of his own government's actions by deflecting blame. What he has done is create a huge rift, an irreconcilable rift, between his government and forest workers by his comments and his complete abandonment of those forest workers.

That's Louis Creek. It would sure be nice in this great year of forestry if workers up and down the coast knew if they would ever be going back to work. I guess it would sure be nice in this year of forestry if the mayors throughout British Columbia could say with some certainty that their communities would not only survive but perhaps even prosper. It would be nice if the small towns, the forest-dependent towns throughout

this province, could know whether there would be enough taxes coming into their communities that their hospitals could stay open, that the schools would be there to educate and support the smaller communities, and that retraining options are going to be there for the displaced.

But no, that's not what we're legislating here. That's not what this government is doing or what this Minister of Forests is doing. Instead, he's fiddling with some more regulations, and he hasn't even got his act together about the bill that allowed him to change regulations — the three, four or five bills that we passed earlier this spring. He hasn't even got around to putting those in place and bringing certainty, so we're reducing even more regulations, which will bring less certainty.

That's what we're doing. We have fewer professionals in the government ensuring certainty, ensuring that stewardship plans are in place, ensuring that companies are obeying the law.

What do these regulations mean for those who aren't in the forest sector and who will be affected by this? Well, we see habitat for endangered species like the spotted owl devastated by clearcut logging under this government. We see logs being shipped down the road and out of the country at a rate that this province has never seen before — the export of raw logs. Yes, the statistics are finally coming out. We now have the export statistics of raw logs that we can identify right with this government — no overlap, no ability to blame the past. It's under the watch of this government. Raw logs are being exported from British Columbia at an unprecedented rate since this Liberal government took over.

It's good news for the shipping industry, I guess. They're shipping the raw logs out. The only people being devastated by it are the mills that are closing and the towns that are dying as a result of this government's forest policy.

What does it mean for others who have to share the land, who actually have to share the forests? Well, we also heard from the Kootenay Livestock Association when we were in Cranbrook, and they're very nervous about the changes this government has already introduced that will harm their grazing and their rangeland.

Of course, this bill is called the Forest and Range Practices Amendment Act, 2003, so this bill should be assisting the cattlemen of this province. It doesn't. It doesn't at all, because what the cattlemen say…. They call themselves the cattlemen, but I must tell you that one of the strongest presenters was a cattlewoman. When I say cattlemen, I'm just showing respect for their name, but they're gender-neutral. I want to tell you that. There are some tough cookies, both men and women, who are cattlemen in this province.

When they appeared before us, they proposed the solutions that need to be put in place to protect their right to appropriate grazing land. Here's what they said. They said there should be compulsory grass seeding and weed control on cutblocks to increase forage for the cattle and the wild ungulates. I asked the question: well, who does that? Do the forest companies do that? They said: "Oh no, they're not required to do that now."

Silviculture has been turned over to the forest companies. That's what they mean by results-based. They're getting out of the business. This government's getting out of the business of contributing anything to our public resources. So silviculture, which is the planting of trees where there's been logging, is now the responsibility of the forest companies, and they're not going to do the seeding and the weed control.

They say this: "Adopt a speedier and more flexible method of allocating available grazing units to ranchers that have been forced to decrease their historical animal-unit months. At least one range unit with 3,000 animal-unit months is vacant in the valley this year, despite considerable government investment having been made in range improvement in the past." When I asked them what they meant by "in the past, " they said: "Oh, about three years ago, and nothing has been done since then."

Why can't there be a reallocation of the grazing units? Grazing units are the amount of land allocated per animal. It's allocated by the Ministry of Forests. Why can't they get that reallocated? Because there's nobody in the Ministry of Forests that can help them; the staff has been so cut to the bone.

There is a Ministry of Forests range division. Yes, there is. But they have suffered such huge staff cuts that there is no one left there to help the cattlemen get reallocation. Isn't that good news? Not only is the forest sector in chaos, so is the ranching sector, which is also directly controlled by this same legislation. I don't know who they're helping. I have no idea who they're helping, this Minister of Forests and this government. They're certainly doing nothing to help protect areas that should be protected. They're not helping the forest industry, which is in a virtual state of paralysis because of this government; they're not helping mill towns that may have lost their mills or are on the verge of losing their mills. They're not helping those towns or the workers. And who in the heck knows what's going on behind closed doors?

I'll tell you something, Mr. Speaker. Everyone should be worried about what goes on behind closed doors with this government. Everyone should be worried about what insiders have access to what with this government. The forestry sector is no exception.

How are the discussions going about the 20 percent takeback of annual allowable cut by this government? Who's coming before the government to ask for special deals on that? All the rumours are out there, but who would know from the public? Who from the public would know, because this government won't come clean on that. Instead we have a piece of legislation that fiddles while British Columbia burns. That's what we have.

I say shame on this Minister of Forests, and I can only hope and pray that this supposed year of the for-

ests will come to an end with no further damage to the industry, the families or the towns in this sector and that 2004 will see a government who actually cares about this sector and actually gets it that this legislation does nothing.

R. Harris: I'd like to start off with that it seems every time, looking back at the last time we were here, when we talk about forest policy, we get to listen to the Leader of the Opposition go on and on again about how this government is to blame for all the worries in the forest industry and that somehow, in the last 30 months, the industry is collapsing because of what's happened.

I think there isn't a single person who lives in rural communities who doesn't get the fact that the problems we have in the forest industry today are directly the result of what happened in the last decade, in the nineties. This industry went from the lowest-cost fibre producer in 1990 to the highest cost in North America, when you look at the province as a whole, and the highest cost in the world by 1999.

The Forest Practices Code, which the member is attempting to sort of say something about today, added $1 billion to the cost of this industry with absolutely no benefit. She talks about the fact that we're making changes today as a negative. The fact that her government completely ignored what was going on around the world, ignored the fact that dynamics were changing internationally — that's created whole new fibre suppliers in the world that have added new competition to this province — and just continued to go down a track of keeping your eyes closed with your head in the sand, that the world will somehow fix itself, was entirely the result of how that government treated this forest industry.

I've said this in the House before. You know, she likes to talk about workers and how somehow they protected workers, and the industry flourished under them. When I moved to the Queen Charlottes in 1972, I was a member of Local 171 of the IWA. It had almost 5,000 members in it; today it doesn't even exist. It doesn't even exist. I think it's amalgamated once, and now it's about to amalgamate again with another local.

The industry has been devastated. The industry has been ripped apart by a government that absolutely ignored it and imposed penalties, costs and hardship on it that made it completely uncompetitive. It is, in fact, the legacy of that government. The facts are that the census of 1996 to 2000 clearly demonstrated that the populations of rural communities were going, disappearing. That was before the election. By 1999 we became a have-not province. That was before the election. Those are the legacies of that government, and every time we stand up and talk about forestry, she wants to talk about it as if this industry flourished when they were in power. Somehow everything was perfect. The facts don't support any of that.

The facts are that the blame for the problems of this industry is directly tied to that decade, and we've finally got a government in this province that's dealing with it in a way that's absolutely not just essential but correct, and it's going to actually create some new opportunities. This is a government that just recently brought in variable upsets for small business programs. Because their government wouldn't deal with that, we have regions of this province where report after report after report show that it has low timber values. We need to find ways to make timber affordable for small businesses so that they can actually bid on this stuff, get it into the marketplace and put people to work. This government did that, not hers.

I'm curious when I listen to her talk about the 20 percent reallocation. In the same vein, she says: "This is the government that's making secret backroom deals with big corporations. This is the government that's actually taking and reallocating 20 percent of the fibre."

This fibre isn't going to big corporations. As a matter of fact, it's part of our process of moving this fibre back into a lot of smaller groups in terms of the forest industry. It's wood that's going to end up in first nations. I don't think that's a group — unless I've heard her wrong…. She seemed to imply that the groups getting this timber are all coming in back doors. I think first nations should be getting a portion of this timber. I'm surprised she doesn't agree with that.

That member over there, sitting there right now, is telling us that she thinks those groups shouldn't be entitled. She thinks communities and community forest licences shouldn't be entitled, small salvage operators shouldn't be entitled and small business operators that work in the timber sale program shouldn't be entitled. These are small community-based businesses. These are actually the businesses that, when we finally put fibre in their hands, are going to buy local, support local and hire local. It's a way of keeping those revenues very close to those communities. That's good news for this province. That's good news for communities like Terrace, Kitimat and Fort St. John. It's good for all rural communities. It's a method of keeping revenue from resources that are in your area working for you. She obviously doesn't like that.

I'm actually curious about what, in fact, she does want. She doesn't want those groups to have it. They're small and community based. She doesn't seem to want major licensees to have it. Maybe she doesn't want anyone to log. That wouldn't surprise me at all. She talks about log exports — how there are trees and trees leaving the northwest. I can remember an article after we brought in the OIC for the northwest, which actually put people to work. Ads run by the Sierra Club said that 128,000 loads of logs will leave the northwest every year. What a bunch of bunk! We wish we'd had that volume just being logged collectively.

That's the kind of direction that member wants to take us in. She wants to shut this industry down, and she's not going to be happy until there's not a single person working in this forest industry. There's no doubt in my mind about that. The history of their practices just continues to reinforce that.

In order to survive and thrive, this industry needs to diversify. That diversification only happens when we move the fibre into the hands of multiple user groups and provide opportunities for people to create new investment models. Value-added mills will start to grow and develop in communities right across the northwest as we start to put the right log in the right mill making the right product.

That's what we're doing as a government, and it's the right thing to do. This bill, which is an amendment and just continues to do the work of the Forest and Range Practices Act, is another tool by which we help to make this industry competitive again.

We are facing a wall of wood around the world. About a decade ago there were only about five or six different countries that supplied the Asian market. Today there are over 100. That's the competition we face. You can't stick your head in the sand and say it doesn't exist. You can't hope and wish it would go away. It's not gonna. It's here with us not just for today but for the long term.

The opening-up of the world to access to capital has created whole, new places for investment dollars to go. We're seeing a growth of industries around the world that we never saw before, in Russia and in China. It's that attraction of capital and how freely it can move that is providing us with significant challenges, and if we're going to get reinvestment in this province and in this industry, we have to change ourselves so we start to become a magnet for that. Part of that is making ourselves more competitive again, and this bill will do that for us. It is important what we're doing here.

I think that every time I come in here and listen to the Leader of the Opposition talk about forestry, the disconnect that she has for how it actually works out there is absolutely scary. If they had their way, we'd muddle along the way we're going. The industry would continue to shrink. More people would be out of work. Rural communities would continue to decline. You know what? That's not a path that I can live with or accept. I don't think any member in this House can either.

I applaud the Minister of Forests for all of the actions he's taken around trying to revitalize this industry, and it is going to work. The set of principles that we've put in place are going to help rural communities and this industry become competitive, attract investment and move us forward into what is, really, a new world. It's the right thing to do, and I am pleased to stand here to be able to support that.

P. Bell: My colleague from Vancouver-Hastings here challenged me to discuss my view of Prince George and what has gone on, and I would like to paint the accurate picture of Prince George. I can tell you that the actions of the Minister of Forests and this government have been exemplary in revitalizing the economy of Prince George.

There are today at least 145 people employed at Slocan Valemount as a direct result of the actions of this Minister of Forests. There is no question that the revitalization strategies he has employed have kept that mill operating. So what this member for Vancouver-Hastings is pointing to, I have no idea, and I'd love to hear her response on that. The Dunkley lumber mill south of Hixon is making a substantial investment in this province and in the structure of their mill. They are, in fact, doubling the size of their mill, and they are doing it for one reason and one reason only. That is because of the structure that this Minister of Forests has put in place around the policy reform in the province of British Columbia, and that will mean a whole bunch of new jobs as well.

I can go on. The Brink sawmill in Prince George is doubling — another 90 jobs there. It will become the largest value-added manufacturing plant in the province of British Columbia, if not western Canada, by the early part of next year. I'll paint another picture for you. The Netherlands Overseas Mills that closed under this member's government is reopening today under the new legislation provided for by this Minister of Forests.

This picture that she's representing is completely inaccurate. It bears no resemblance to what's actually going on in my end of the world. As far as I can tell, this member for Vancouver-Hastings can only find Prince George on a map at the best of times. Certainly, she doesn't know what the heartland is all about, so I am absolutely disappointed in the way she's representing it.

But there's more. There's the new Northwest Logs plant in Fort St. James that's under construction, manufacturing a product out of a little-used species. They've purchased the old Prince George wood preservers plant. They're upgrading that facility, and they're going to be manufacturing pressure-treated boards for various applications — again, more jobs in an industry as a direct result of making that incremental fibre available and moving to a more results-based orientation.

There's still more. Spruce Capital Homes in Prince George is reinvigorated and starting to grow again. Here's a facility that takes product from its mother ship — its owner, its sawmill — and actually produces prefabricated homes, trusses and all kinds of other value-added products. They're starting to build. They're starting to grow again. They're very excited about the future that's out in front of them.

You know the thing that's common to all of these ventures, Mr. Speaker? They're all family-owned operations. They're all operations that are taking the small players of the world, and we've given them a chance to grow their operations virtually — with the exception of Slocan Valemount, of course, a larger company. But the others — Dunkley Lumber, Brink, the Netherlands Overseas mill being reopened, Spruce Capital Homes, Northwest Logs — are all small players, and we've created an opportunity, the opportunity that this

member did not give to British Columbia — the entrepreneurial opportunity that you build a province with, that you build those success stories with. Without those stories our province would have continued to dwindle the way it did in the 1990s, going from an economic leader to being one of the have-not provinces in Canada — an absolutely disgusting scenario in my opinion.

There's more, though. Fort St. James's Canfor continues to grow, continues to put more lumber out. Canfor is expending a huge number of dollars in its Prince George sawmill, increasing capacity substantially because they see a future under the leadership of this minister and this government. They understand that the things we have put in place are meant to revitalize the industry. There are more people working in forestry today in Prince George and in the surrounding area of Prince George than there has been any time in the recent past and certainly under the leadership of this member's previous government.

You know, Mr. Speaker, Bill 69 is about listening, and it's about being responsible. This bill is actually about talking to industry, finding out what's good, reacting to the things that are not good and creating the things we need to move forward.

I want to talk about something very briefly, and that's this previous member's history about listening. They had an opportunity in the 1990s to start building something. They thought they could rebuild a shipbuilding industry that had fallen apart, an industry that once was a proud part of B.C. 's heritage. They thought they could build some ferries. But do you know what? They never actually bothered listening to industry. They went out to industry, and they said to them: "We think there's an opportunity to do something unique here. We think there's an opportunity to develop new technology. We want you to look at building aluminum fast ferries." Industry came back to them and said: "That's not possible. It's not economic. It doesn't make sense. We don't recommend that you go down that road." This member's government said: "We know better. We in government know better than industry."

So they went out and hired an expert. They hired an expert in shipbuilding, and they gave him the same message. They said: "We want you to build these aluminum fast ferries. We think there's a great opportunity. We think there's a whole new business structure that can be brought into place." The expert looked at it. He said: "You're wrong. It doesn't make sense. It can't be done. The technology's not there." What did they do? They fired him. They fired him because he disagreed with them. The expert that they hired…. They fired him. What did we end up with? A $450 million boondoggle, and we now know what the real value of them is after last year's auction.

This bill is about actually listening to the experts, reacting to the experts and providing them with the tools they need in order to move forward.

The previous government was all about process. They believed that if they told everyone exactly what they had to do, when they had to do it and how they had to do it, they'd get the right end result. We know that doesn't work. We know that's not the case. We've witnessed what happened with fast ferries, and we know what occurred there.

What this government is all about is about telling people what the result is that we want them to achieve. We believe if we specify that result, if we're clear about that result, the entrepreneurialism will take over and provide us with the right end result we need to get to. That is what this bill is all about and what this government's all about: unleashing the power of entrepreneurialism and letting them grow with it.

I am very pleased to stand in support of Bill 69. I believe this minister has definitely taken it in the appropriate direction. I think it is about being responsive to industry. I think it's about being responsive to workers. I think it's about being responsive to communities. That, after all, is what government is all about.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks, Mr. Speaker, and to the members who participated in the debate for their contribution. I always enjoy these exchanges, because though we frequently find a way to avoid focusing to any large degree on the specifics of what is in the bill, we do have a very good discussion about some broad overriding issues.

That, yet again, is what has taken place here today, and after our absence from the House for about four months, it is helpful to see that there are, by any reasonable analysis, two very distinct schools of thought represented in this House. A smaller school of thought that I think ignores the reality of what has been happening in the forest sector for at least the past decade…. I say that because governments come and go, and the statistics are there for all of us to utilize, to track what has been taking place.

The member for Skeena correctly provided this House with some information from his own past and his work in the Queen Charlottes and what has happened over the past ten or 15 years to employment in those areas — a dramatic, by any measure, decrease in employment opportunities. And he was there. He lived it; he experienced it. He was in those communities. The sad reality is that previous governments ignored that. They denied it was taking place. In fact, the worse it got, the more we heard about how many jobs were being created. There was almost this inverse relationship. The more jobs that were lost in that member's part of the province where he was working — where he calls home — the more the announcements rolled out about how many thousands of jobs were being created, and it was all a shell game.

I suppose I understand why that took place. It was easier to deny what was taking place. It was easier to avoid confronting some of the difficult issues. It was easier to avoid having to address some systemic and structural flaws that had evolved over time, some of them not attributable to any one government of any

one ideological bent — changes that were taking place around us, changes that were taking place with respect to the attitudes of British Columbians and yet changes that were profoundly impacting the forest sector in British Columbia. But it was, I suppose, easier to pretend that wasn't taking place and let the incremental slide continue. That's one school of thought that's represented in this House.

There is another school of thought — I think one more widely held by virtually every member of the government caucus — that said: "That's not good enough; we need to address the tough questions. We need to look at those structural problems. We need to look at the systemic issues that are preventing our forest-dependent communities from realizing their potential, that are preventing the kind of investment and reinvestment that you must have in order to have a revitalized forest sector." That lies at the heart of the overall forest revitalization package.

Hon. M. de Jong:. One of the members has, I think I heard, posed the question: "What about that reinvestment?" Well, if she'd been listening to the member for Prince George North, she would have heard about it. She would have heard about what's taking place at Dunkley, the doubling in size of that mill. She would have heard about what's taking place at Brink Forest Products. She would have heard about the reopening of the Netherlands Overseas Mills. I suppose it is convenient for that member to ignore those realities as she makes her case.

This is about creating those new opportunities. No one said addressing those structural issues that have led over the last decade to the demise of our forest sector was going to be easy.

Hon. M. de Jong: No one said it was going to be easy, and it has required contributions. It has required the involvement of stakeholders throughout the forest sector. Happily, the legislation that is before the House today is a product of that work.

It is an ongoing process. It is also about ensuring an orderly transition. Admittedly, the change that is captured by this legislation, the change from the overly prescriptive Forest Practices Code to the results-based Forest and Range Practices Act, is a significant change. Unlike previous governments who imposed a prescriptive regime instantaneously upon an unsuspecting forest sector and then, before embarking upon any meaningful discussion with them, discovered all of the issues and all of the problems — and after enacting it as law, spent the next four years trying to fix it — we have purposely decided and opted for a more orderly transition.

I know we will have a healthy discussion, as we always do during the course of these debates in the committee stage. In thanking the members for their contribution to this debate, I move second reading.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Bill 69, Forest and Range Practices Amendment Act, 2003, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I call second reading of Bill 44. For the information of members, that's the Forests Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move Bill 44 be read a second time now. Bill 44, introduced earlier this year, contains amendments relating specifically to timber supply analysis, forest roads, compliance and enforcement,

and some further streamlining provisions to the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia during the transitional period that that bill will remain in effect.

Bill 44 makes amendments to help deliver defined forest area management. That is a new model of forest management where government sets and enforces standards and licensees are collectively responsible for forest management activities across their representative timber supply areas. Under this management model, specified licensees and the B.C. timber sales office — which is in that sense a licensee in and of itself — will assume a collective responsibility for timber supply analysis and specified forest health activities within their timber supply areas.

The legislation provides a means to resolve differences between those jointly responsible for the timber supply analysis. The timber supply analysis data package and the approved analysis are required to be made publicly available for review and comment, and in this sense it is similar to the way timber supply analyses are carried out on tree farm licences.

The defined forest area management provisions will be brought into force next spring — again, with a view to providing for an orderly transition period. Drawing upon recent on-the-ground experience and findings, this bill improves the streamlining changes to the Forest Practices Code to clarify intent, facilitate changes to supporting regulations, and complement corresponding provisions in the Forest and Range Practices Act.

Bill 44 also amends the Forest Act road provisions to clarify who can hold a road permit and reflects the move to the Forest and Range Practices Act by bringing the language around construction and maintenance of forest roads into accord with that piece of legislation.

Finally, this legislation amends the Forest Act as well as the Range Act to strengthen their compliance and enforcement regimes and to harmonize them with those provisions contained in the Forest and Range Practices Act.

J. MacPhail: Well, let me give a different version of what this bill is about, because that was bureaucratese to hide what's really happening. It was not in any way misleading — never would I accuse the Minister of Forests of misleading the House — but it was in a language that nobody could understand.

Here's what it really means: they're putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. That's what this government is doing with this piece of legislation. When this government says the licensee will have to be in charge of the timber supply management plan and have to give the analysis to the chief forester, what it means is that the large forest companies will now be doing their own timber supply analysis and turning it over to the chief forester. That's what it means.

What does timber supply analysis mean, and why do we care about it? Well, timber supply analysis determines species, determines cutblock, determines the speed with which one has to replant and determines the conditions under which logging can take place. The timber supply analysis is about sustainability — about whether there will be any future for our forests and whether logging and intrusion into that publicly owned resource should be done, can be done, how it will be done, and what restoration and rehabilitation should be done. Now, instead of having the Forest Service do that, the licensees — read "forest companies" — will be doing that themselves.

Combine that with information we also gleaned earlier this year from the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management on who's providing research for the future of our forests to this government. It turns out not to be the Ministry of Forests that is doing its own research on sustainability anymore; it's the forest companies who have been contracted and paid to do that research.

Forest health research is now being contracted by this government to the forest companies. This is just a step down the road of abandonment by this government of any responsibility for our forests. This legislation is another little footprint, a pathetic little footprint, on the road to abandonment of any responsibility for our publicly owned resource and, therefore, abandonment of any sustainability of our publicly owned resource.

Who are these licensees going to report to? The chief forester. Actually, a very good office, except that the office may have lost two-thirds of its staff. I guess the chief forester's office now will just have to go, "Thank you very much, licensee," — i.e., forest company — "for your timber supply analysis. I trust you." The Minister of Sustainable Resource Management will go, "Thank you very much, licensee," — forest company — "for your research on forest health that we've contracted to you. I just have to accept that you're telling us the truth."

That's what this piece of legislation is all about — what the government likes to label as an innocuous little piece of legislation, and we shouldn't really worry ourselves about it. But you know, Mr. Speaker, we should worry ourselves. Another piece on the path that this government is clearing — clearcutting — to privatization of the forests and turnover of any responsibility, giving a free hand to the forest companies. For that reason, it should not pass.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for her participation in debate. I know that as we move through the 30 sections of this bill, we will focus on the specific issues, some of which have been raised in the second reading discussion.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Bill 44, Forests Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Plant: I move that Bill 41, the Judicial Compensation Act, be now read a second time.

An independent committee that makes recommendations on judicial compensation to the Legislature was determined to be constitutionally required to protect the financial security of judges and also, now, certain justices of the peace by a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in 1997. In fact, British Columbia's current judicial compensation process, which complies with the Supreme Court of Canada decision, has been in place for Provincial Court judges since 1994. These provisions are now found in the Provincial Court Act.

After the 2001 Judicial Compensation Committee, there was a request made of the committee members, of the judiciary, of government employees and of representatives from the Law Society and the Canadian Bar Association for their recommendations for ways that the current process might be improved. Judicial justices of the peace were also asked for their feedback on these recommendations once the 2002 Judicial Justice Compensation Committee process was completed.

The result of that initial consultation and subsequent consultation with the judiciary is manifest in the bill before us today. I want to summarize the things that the bill does in the interests of improving this important process. The bill moves all provisions related to judges and judicial justices of the peace compensation from the Provincial Court Act into the new act. Most of these provisions remain unchanged.

The bill allows for the appointment of two three-member commissions, one for the judges and one for the judicial justices of the peace, on or before March 1, 2004, for a period of three years and every three years thereafter. The bill allows for the replacement of a commission member if the need arises — for example, in the case of illness of one of the members. The bill allows for an individual appointed to one commission to be reappointed to a subsequent commission.

The bill requires a commission to report on all matters respecting the remuneration, allowances and benefits of judges or judicial justices of the peace for the fiscal year following and for each of the two subsequent years. The bill allows each commission six months from its appointment to make a preliminary report available to the Attorney General and the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court.

The bill allows the parties involved 14 days to submit an application to their respective commission to request clarification of a recommendation or recommendations or to request the commission review an item that may have been overlooked. The bill then allows the commission until September 30 to consider an application and respond with an addendum to its report if it thinks necessary. A final report is then submitted to the Attorney General.

The bill then requires that the Attorney General lay the reports of the two commissions before the Legislative Assembly within seven days of the start of the next legislative session. If the session ends before 28 days have elapsed, then the requirement is to lay the report within seven days of the start of the next session.

The bill then allows the Legislative Assembly 28 days to consider the reports. As is the case now, the Legislative Assembly can, by resolution, reject a recommendation and make a substitute for remuneration allowances and benefits.

If a commission's report is accepted by the Legislative Assembly, the bill allows the Attorney General and the Chief Judge, by mutual consent, to return to the appropriate commission for clarification of a recommendation for the purposes of implementing a report. One of the purposes of that provision is to ensure that something that requires clarification does not automatically trigger the need to appoint a new commission and start the process all over again.

The bill also updates sections dealing with vacation leave, sickness plan and disability benefit plan for Provincial Court judges and judicial justices of the peace. The general intention is to ensure that this important

process operates both with respect to Provincial Court judges and with respect to judicial justices of the peace in a way that is as effective and efficient as possible.

Hon. G. Plant: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 41, Judicial Compensation Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

This bill is a first in many ways. It is the first in a series of legislative changes that will reform and modernize British Columbia's system of administrative justice so that it remains strong, independent and fair and so that it continues to be accountable, affordable and accessible to the citizens of our province.

It is also the first time that British Columbia has undertaken a comprehensive, systemwide review of administrative justice. This bill marks the start of a series of legislative changes that will streamline and simplify the tribunal process and place British Columbia at the forefront of administrative justice reform in Canada.

Administrative tribunals are a vital part of our justice system. The decisions they make affect everyday life in profound ways. For many citizens, their only encounter with our system of justice is an encounter with an administrative tribunal.

Since British Columbia's first administrative tribunal, then called the Workmen's Compensation Board, was established in 1916, the jurisdiction, the importance, the caseloads and the variety of tribunals have grown immensely. They are today an essential component of our system of justice.

Like courts, administrative tribunals resolve disputes of vital importance to the people who participate in their proceedings. Administrative tribunals act as an affordable alternative to courts. They are intended to be less formal, less costly and more accessible. The administrative tribunals that are part of our system of justice in British Columbia help resolve disputes between employees and employers, tenants and landlords, citizens and their government — to name but a few. Administrative tribunals have developed, over time, specialized expertise in a variety of important areas of public policy: human rights, environmental protection, labour relations, job safety, social welfare, economic regulation and much, much more. In short, they are an essential part of our system of justice and our system of government.

This bill is specifically targeted to enhance the independence, efficiency and accountability of British Columbia's administrative tribunals. The reforms in this bill address tribunal appointments and tribunal governance — in other words, how tribunals are constituted and how they operate. Importantly, this bill does not change any laws that govern the rights of those who seek to have their disputes resolved by the tribunal.

As I've said before in this chamber when we had occasion to debate changes to the human rights machinery in British Columbia, the fact is that while this chamber often makes laws that create rights and responsibilities across a wide range of human activity, we also create the institutions through which those laws, those rights, become real in the lives of the people that we are elected to serve. So among our obligations, it seems to me, is the duty to ensure that these institutions are designed and administered so they, in fact, achieve the purposes they were and are intended to fulfil.

To properly fulfil their essential role in our system of civil justice, administrative tribunals must have qualified decision-makers who are free to make fair and impartial decisions. Administrative tribunals must also be given the legislative tools they require to operate efficiently and responsibly. The bill that is before the House today addresses these requirements. Let me speak first in somewhat more detail about the issues of appointments, reappointments and the principle of merit. Tribunals must have qualified decision-makers chosen for their skills, abilities and expertise. In some tribunals, decision-makers must be highly specialized and experienced in technical matters. In others, decision-makers need to represent the community and reflect our common societal values. In every case, the public must have confidence the tribunal members are properly qualified and have the requisite level of expertise to make the decisions that we expect them to make.

Administrative tribunals, as I've said, play a central role in the everyday life of many British Columbians, and so it's important, in my view, that their processes — including the processes for appointing tribunal members — should be accessible and transparent. People who are interested in serving on administrative tribunals should be able to find out how to apply for a position and should be able to get access to that information, and people who are, in fact, qualified for appointments should be given consideration for those appointments. In this respect, the public has a right to expect that tribunal members will be chosen on the basis of merit. We as government have an obligation to ensure the process for choosing tribunal members is fair, objective and open.

This bill squarely addresses these requirements by providing that all tribunal appointments be merit-based and that tribunal chairs have a role to play in selecting tribunal members. In addition, the bill will

encourage the development and the retention of expertise amongst tribunal members by eliminating obstacles to their reappointment or their cross-appointment to other tribunals. In other words, we want to encourage tribunal members to develop the expertise necessary to perform their functions and to have an interest in continuing to use that expertise over time, by allowing for the reappointment of tribunal members to the tribunal that they're now serving on or, in some cases, ensuring there is an opportunity for cross-appointment to other tribunals.

I believe these changes, taken together, will improve the quality of tribunal appointments and also will improve tribunal efficiency by encouraging the reappointment or cross-appointment of experienced tribunal members. In turn, that should result in better service to the members of our community who come to those tribunals for prompt, just and fair decisions.

Let me say something about term appointments and the principle of independence. Having established the principle of attracting and retaining qualified tribunal members, it is also essential, in my view, that once they are appointed, tribunal members be able to make impartial decisions in an atmosphere free from concerns about the terms of their appointments. This bill creates the conditions for independent decision-making by giving tribunal members tenure for fixed terms as opposed to tenure at pleasure. This legislation will end that time-honoured practice of at-pleasure appointments, because that is a practice which can create uncertainty for tribunal members and thereby potentially undermine their decision-making independence. Under this bill, tribunal chairs and members will now have the certainty of fixed-term appointments.

Let me say something about governance and the principle of accountability. Accountability is a key component of this bill. Administrative tribunals are part of the broader public sector, providing essential services to individuals and their families, businesses and communities. As such, administrative tribunals are accountable for their use of public resources, and in general they must comply with the administrative, financial and management policies, practices and regulations of government.

We must have strong, independent administrative tribunals whose members are and must remain at arm's length from the government. Independence is a critically important value. At the same time, the administrative justice system as a whole must operate efficiently and must be accountable for its use of scarce public resources and tax dollars. The task is to strike the right balance between these interrelated and yet sometimes competing concepts of independence in decision-making and public accountability to the wider community. I believe we have accomplished this in the bill that is before the House today.

In many tribunals, particularly the larger tribunals, the tribunal chair is already expected to play a leadership role. This bill will formalize…. It shares responsibility for the effective management and operation of the tribunal and, further, our government's new-era commitment for the responsible, accountable management of public resources and tax dollars. In addition to the legislative changes set out in the bill, I will be encouraging tribunal chairs and the ministers responsible for them to enter into operating agreements to detail the administrative requirements and the responsibilities necessary for ensuring the effective management and operation of every tribunal.

The Public Sector Employers Act. As a corollary to the amendments the bill makes with respect to tribunal appointments and governance, it also makes amendments to the Public Sector Employers Act. These amendments will bring administrative tribunals into the government's general scheme for the compensation of what are called "exempt employees." At the same time, the bill includes specific legislative provisions that will foster the independence of administrative tribunals and protect the security of tenure of tribunal members.

Let me now take a moment to explain how the bill works and how it will be applied to the 29 administrative tribunals that are affected by it. The main part of the bill, the first ten sections, sets out the principles and changes that I've just outlined regarding appointments and accountability. The remaining sections of the bill comprise consequential amendments to the enabling statutes for each of the 29 administrative tribunals affected by the act.

The first ten sections of the bill will act like a template. They will be incorporated either by reference into the enabling legislation of each tribunal or by express amendment to each tribunal's enabling statute. We need the flexibility of these two approaches to address the unique operating circumstances and conditions of some individual tribunals.

As I have said repeatedly throughout the administrative justice project, it is important to think of our administrative justice system as a system but also to recognize that in this area of public policy, as in nearly every other area of public policy I can think of, one-size solutions seldom, if ever, fit all. While the general policies that are set out in the bill are intended to apply to all tribunals, we have made exceptions and accommodations where these are required and where they are clearly in the public interest.

For example, the Deputy Minister of Finance has a role to play in the governance of the Financial Institutions Commission, and we have accommodated this role in establishing the appointments process and the accountabilities of that commission under the amendment set out in the bill.

I should say this: some tribunals are not affected by this legislation because they are being reviewed separately or because they are being, or have already been, consolidated or wound up as a result of the work of government known as the core services review. Some examples of this include the Private Post-Secondary Education Commission, the Motion Picture Appeal Board and the Commercial Appeals Commission.

Let me conclude by thanking all of those around the province who have helped in this vital reform. This initiative has been underway since the government took office in 2001. It's been subject to extensive research and consultation from members of the public, tribunal officers and staff and administrative justice experts within and all around government. All of the input has been invaluable and has been very much appreciated. I particularly want to thank the British Columbia Council of Administrative Tribunals, the Circle of Chairs, the Law Society of British Columbia and the B.C. branch of the CBA.

I believe we have widespread support for these initiatives in the administrative justice community, and I also believe this bill offers a principled, thoughtful and well-considered approach to the first of our administrative justice reforms.

Mr. Speaker: We're at second reading stage of Bill 68. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

J. Kwan: As the Attorney General has mentioned, Bill 68 is the outcome of a great deal of work out of the administrative justice project. There have been several documents, White Papers and discussion documents in the last couple of years on the topic, and it makes for a lot of reading. While the opposition supports the direction this bill takes, especially when it comes to independence and accountability, I have some significant concerns around inconsistencies that have already occurred, especially with the Agricultural Land Commission. Hopefully, once I identify these inconsistencies, the Attorney General can go back and work with the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management and make the necessary changes.

The Agricultural Land Commission is charged with upholding the public interest in regard to the agricultural land reserve. Up until legislative changes from 2002, the ALC was known as the Land Reserve Commission. This commission has broad discretionary powers over such matters as which land should be included in or exempted from the agricultural land reserve. It also has powers over decisions regarding the subdivision of land within the reserve. The commission is designed by legislation to operate within the principles of accountability and independence to ensure that the interest of the public is upheld.

In the spring of 2002 the government passed Bill 21, the Agricultural Land Commission Act. This piece of legislation combined and amended several acts and regulations dealing with the agricultural land reserve and the commission, significantly altering the operation, responsibilities and structure of the ALC. I had a significant debate with the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management at the time, but now those changes in the debate resurface with this bill.

At first glance of government press releases and backgrounders, one would assume that the changes made to the commission would increase independence and accountability. However, those words reflect the high degree of rhetoric present in any of the government's press releases. The terms "independence" and "accountability" are used in an understated manner, not accompanied by the relevant definitions. Upon examining the various materials produced by B.C.'s administrative justice project, the issues of independence and accountability become clearer. Furthermore, one grasps their importance and necessity.

The AJP's White Paper on balance describes the need for a balance between independence and accountability. In the report on independence and accountability, the authors state: "Government needs to foster an appropriate level of tribunal independence in deciding individual cases and to achieve an appropriate level of tribunal accountability in the performance of their statutory mandates."

With the changes made to the Agricultural Land Commission, it is clear that the government attempted to incorporate many of the AJP's recommendations into their restructuring effort. In several aspects the legislation introduced a clear vision for independence and accountability. However, the legislation failed to strike an even balance between two principles. As a result, the Land Reserve Commission has lost a great deal of independence in favour of political accountability.

This imbalance is especially disconcerting, considering the original mandate of the commission. Created in 1972 to protect agricultural land from urban encroachment in B.C., the agricultural land reserve has long been recognized by governments to be a compelling public interest. The reserve was established at a time when 50,000 hectares a year were being removed from the provincial land base, in which only 5 percent is suitable for agricultural activity. Since that time more than 4.7 million hectares of land have been placed into special management categories by the independent arm's-length Land Reserve Commission, now the Agricultural Land Commission.

At present more than 130 local municipalities and governments in B.C. have within their boundaries land that is part of the reserve. The Premier of the day, Dave Barrett, created the agricultural land reserve because he was concerned that prime Fraser Valley and Okanagan areas were under siege from urban speculators. On December 21, 1972, the minister responsible brought in an order-in-council which froze all agricultural land in the province from being sold for non-farming purposes. Thus, the agricultural land reserve was created, in Barrett's own words, to protect farmland "from getting buried beneath strip malls and subdivisions." For the most part, the commission's purpose, mandate and operations remained unchanged until 2002 and this government.

During the last election, the B.C. Liberal Party made a campaign commitment to ensure certainty of access to land for economic activity. Apparently, certainty of access requires government to interfere in independent decision-making. Under the Agricultural Land Commission Act passed in 2002, the purpose, role and functions of the Land Reserve Commission remain essentially the same under the new title, Agricultural Land

Commission. However, there were some significant changes to the structure, delegated authority and composition that weakened the commission when examined through the lens of the administrative justice White Paper.

The major concern I have now deals with the issue of delegated authority. Despite all the changes designed to increase public accountability, the 2002 amendments, including restructuring to the delegated authority that greatly reduced some of the commission's accountability, go against some of the AJP principles. Under section 26 of the Agricultural Land Commission Act, the commission gains the authority to delegate some of its powers to local governments or to other government bodies. The powers that can be delegated are the decision-making abilities around non-farm use and subdivision applications. In areas where authority has been delegated to another body, the commission will no longer review and decide those applications. However, these bodies must enter into an agreement with the commission and adhere to the prescribed procedures set out in the legislation and regulations.

In a letter to the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management during Bill 21's debate, Mark Haddock, a staff counsel for West Coast Environmental Law, expressed concern around the commission's new ability to delegate its authority. Haddock points out that the legislation allows the commission to delegate its authority to other agents of the government. His concern is that the authority over ALR decisions could be passed on to other agencies like the Oil and Gas Commission.

The mandate of the Oil and Gas Commission is to facilitate oil and gas development, which is potentially in conflict with the Agricultural Land Commission's mandate and purpose. Allowing this body to make decisions around non-farm uses in the reserve would be a direct contradiction to the original purpose of the commission. This development is a major strike at the commission's accountability. It is clear that the Oil and Gas Commission's mandate is in stark contrast to that of the ALC. As a result, a group of people with a separate interest — oil and gas development — can make decisions about the use and subdivision of land within the reserve.

Noting the purpose of the ALR as set out by its creators, allowing a separate body to make decisions erodes the accountability of the decision-making process. Critics have charged that this change was made to break down barriers in the oil and gas sector by an industry-friendly government. If this, in fact, is the case…

J. Kwan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll just finish my sentence, and I'll continue on debate after question period this afternoon.

The government has taken actions that go against the principles of public accountability in favour of political accountability in their agenda.

In addition to providing transcripts on the Internet, Hansard Services publishes transcripts in print and broadcasts Chamber debates on television.

	YEAS — 61

Falcon	Coell	L. Reid
Hawkins	Whittred	Cheema
Bruce	Santori	van Dongen
Barisoff	Roddick	Wilson
Masi	Lee	Murray
Plant	Bond	de Jong
Nebbeling	Stephens	Abbott
Coleman	Chong	Penner
Jarvis	Anderson	Harris
Nuraney	Brenzinger	Belsey
Bell	Long	Chutter
Mayencourt	Trumper	Bennett
R. Stewart	Hayer	Christensen
Krueger	McMahon	Bray
Les	Locke	Nijjar
Bhullar	Wong	Bloy
Suffredine	MacKay	Cobb
K. Stewart	Visser	Lekstrom
Brice	Sultan	Hamilton
Sahota	Hawes	Kerr
	Hunter

	NAYS — 3

Nettleton	MacPhail	Kwan

	YEAS — 59

Falcon	Coell	L. Reid

Hawkins	Whittred	Cheema
Bruce	Santori	Barisoff
Roddick	Wilson	Masi
Lee	Murray	Plant
Bond	de Jong	Nebbeling
Stephens	Abbott	Neufeld
Coleman	Chong	Penner
Jarvis	Anderson	Harris
Nuraney	Brenzinger	Belsey
Bell	Long	Chutter
Mayencourt	Trumper	Bennett
R. Stewart	Hayer	Christensen
Krueger	McMahon	Bray
Les	Locke	Nijjar
Wong	Bloy	Suffredine
MacKay	Cobb	K. Stewart
Visser	Lekstrom	Brice
Sultan	Hamilton	Sahota
Hawes		Hunter

	NAYS — 3

Nettleton	MacPhail	Kwan

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY