2003 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 37th Parliament
HANSARD

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2003

Afternoon Sitting

 [ Page 7247 ]

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2003

           The House met at 2:03 p.m.

           Prayers.

Introductions by Members

           Mr. Speaker: Visiting today in the gallery are three young men from Switzerland, who have been spending the late summer and early autumn visiting Victoria. They are all pursuing university studies in Switzerland and are looking forward to the unique experience of witnessing question period under the Westminster parliamentary system. Please welcome Matias Kaufman, Ralph Stam and Roman Schamdeck.

[1405]

Statements
(Standing Order 25b)

TOURISM IN BURNABY

           R. Lee: I would like to take this opportunity to talk about an outstanding tourism initiative that is being driven by Burnaby's business community and the hospitality industry. I understand that the Burnaby Board of Trade is working with the local hotel industry to rally support for the formation of a new agency that will promote Burnaby's excellent tourism and recreational destinations. The timing for this idea couldn't be better with two major sporting events on the horizon — the 2009 World Police and Fire Games and the 2010 Olympics.

           Parks in Burnaby are among some of the most beautiful in the province, and our heritage homes and gardens have to be seen to be believed. Our community's love for the arts, dance, theatre and music is second to none. These wonderful attributes should not be kept a secret. It is time to spread the word that Burnaby is ready to welcome the world.

           The board of trade and a number of hotel representatives are proposing a local 2 percent hotel room tax to fund a tourism promotion agency that they would like to call Tourism Burnaby. It's believed that this agency can generate an additional $3 million in tourism business for the city each year. This proposal for a hotel tax has already received the endorsement of the city council, the board of trade and an overwhelming majority of the hotel owners within the city.

           I'm sure we can all agree that tourism equals jobs and economic growth for all British Columbians. I would like the business and hotel owners in Burnaby to know that I fully support their efforts to bring our community to the forefront of B.C.'s tourism market.

MINING INDUSTRY IN B.C.

           R. Sultan: I wish to talk about the mining industry. If we simply project the trend of the last dozen years, much of what remains of B.C.'s gold and metal mining will be gone. Coal and aggregate are in better shape but also under pressure. While market prices dictate much of what happens, an even bigger factor is government policy. Some say that for 30 years B.C. mining policy fluctuated between indifference and hostility. The NDP was particularly clever at writing new lyrics to that old song, Fifty Ways to Leave your Province. Under the leadership of Premier Gordon Campbell, this province is trying to change that tune.

           In May, Energy and Mines Minister Neufeld asked a group of 15 private members to study this situation and bring forward recommendations. A considerable block of MLAs surrendered their summer break for this assignment. We visited 35 mining locations, received written briefs from some 80 organizations and citizens, and talked with several hundred miners, mayors and first nations. We went out and asked them what to do, and they told us.

           Mining sustains the heartlands. Mining produces good, community-supporting jobs, and a mine's life is long. At $89,000, mining pays more than any other resource sector. Mining has a great potential to generate an even larger chunk of government revenue. Mining in B.C. has a magnificent cluster of geoscientists, financiers, engineers, entrepreneurs, lawyers and environmental technicians who tend to be focused globally, not in their own back yard. With few exceptions, they would prefer to work at home. The task force is committed to making that happen.

STREET PEOPLE IN VANCOUVER

           L. Mayencourt: Today the city of Vancouver is experiencing vibrant growth. We can see it everywhere, from residential and commercial construction to the coming Olympics, and even the tourists and shoppers on Robson Street. People are moving into the city from around this province, the rest of Canada and indeed from around the world. Vancouver is truly a world-class destination.

           But there is another kind of migrant coming to our city. Vancouver is becoming a magnet for squatters and urban campers looking for a free campsite, a free ride and a free pass from the authorities. Dozens and dozens of people are squatting at Creekside Park beside Science World, harassing and even assaulting passing commuters and residents for coming too close to their campsite. Urban campers in Nelson Park discard used needles, pile up mounds of garbage and scare the parents of school children at Lord Roberts Annex, an elementary school in my riding.

[1410]

           What are the residents of the downtown core and the West End saying? A petition signed by 3,800 people says that squatters and aggressive panhandlers are compromising their quality of life. They're sick and tired of being harassed and robbed of their sense of safety and security. What do the squatters have to say? They say they have nowhere to live, yet I know that outreach workers approach the camps and implore people to come to shelters and out of the cold and out of the parks.

           Our province has been committed to helping those who are truly in need. That is demonstrated by our

[ Page 7248 ]

budget for affordable housing, which has risen from $112 million in 2001 to $153 million this year — a 36 percent increase that I am very proud about. In Vancouver alone we have 20,000 units of affordable housing. Since our government has come to office, we've built over a thousand new units in the city of Vancouver alone and a thousand in other regions of the province. Regardless of the housing situation, we know that the current situation is unsafe and untenable. It is time for the squatters, the park board and the city to respect the wishes of the citizens of Vancouver. It is time to remove the squatters.

           Mr. Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

B.C. ECONOMY AND
INCOME ASSISTANCE REGULATIONS

           J. Kwan: B.C. has the worst economy in the country. Today there are more unemployed British Columbians than ever before — more than 200,000 people without work. In May of 2001 the unemployment rate in B.C. was 6.8 percent. It is now 8.5 percent.

           Read the papers, and it is clear the jobs that are open require highly trained people. Despite that, communities across B.C. are bracing for thousands of the most vulnerable and poor British Columbians to be kicked off income assistance.

           Will the Minister of Human Resources simply tell this House how many people his officials told him would lose their income assistance when he decided to bring in the two-year rule?

           Hon. M. Coell: B.C. has created almost 100,000 jobs since we took office. My ministry will be spending $300 million on training and employment programs. My ministry has 10,000 jobs today available for people on income assistance. The 10,000 jobs that our contractors have are waiting.

           This province suffered for ten years under the NDP. It suffered where jobs and people left this province. This government believes that people can work, and this government believes that people will work. That's why we're spending $300 million on job creation. That's why this government has put 20,000 people back to work, who were on income assistance.

           There was a time when the socialists in this province thought that success was the number of people on welfare. This government believes in people and believes that people will find work, and we're doing that every day.

           Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question.

           J. Kwan: With all due respect, what a bunch of baloney. The minister knows exactly how many people will be kicked off income assistance. He was given that information before he made the decision to implement these draconian changes. The opposition has the minister's briefing note, obtained through FOI, where those numbers were given. But guess what. They were severed from public view.

           Let me read the note for the minister: "This initiative is expected to affect blank number of people in 2004 and 2005 and blank number of people the year after." He knows the answer. He's been given the answer. Would the minister fill in the blanks? How many people are going to lose income assistance this year and next year?

[1415]

           Hon. M. Coell: Only the socialists believe that people fail. This government believes that people will succeed. My socialist friends don't understand success. They don't understand people wanting to do better, wanting to find jobs — tens of thousands of jobs. Tens of thousands of jobs are available for people on income assistance. They want them, and we're helping them to work — unlike the socialist government, whose success was to have more people on welfare, bigger rolls, and not to worry about them.

           Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a further supplementary.

           J. Kwan: You know that this government and this minister are running when he starts to call people names — people who actually care about British Columbians and what happens to them.

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please, hon. members. Let us hear the question.

           J. Kwan: With the new two-year rule, the minister plans to cut $168 million from income assistance next year. The minister won't admit it, but that's over 27,000 people left with no support in an economy that has no jobs. We can see the impact of the government's failed economic plan on the people. More British Columbians are now sleeping on the streets, food banks are overloaded, and a study released yesterday said hunger is on the rise in B.C.

           Can the minister tell municipalities how they are supposed to cope with the explosion of homelessness that's coming, when over 27,000 people get kicked off income assistance next year and are forced onto the streets because this government simply doesn't care?

           Hon. M. Coell: Again, I don't understand why the…. Well, I do understand why there are two members of the opposition: because they couldn't run this province. They're afraid of people succeeding; they always have been. People in British Columbia want to succeed. They've got a government that's helping them succeed.

           There are 80,000 fewer people on income assistance. They're moving to employment, they're contributing,

[ Page 7249 ]

and they're fulfilling their potential. But my socialist friends don't understand. Success and moving ahead in this province means getting a job, and that's why we're spending $300 million on jobs, and that's why people are getting jobs. They've got a government that understands the economy, a government that understands people, and they've rejected the socialist ideas of the opposition.

GOVERNMENT POSITION ON GAMING

           J. MacPhail: Let's take a different look at how this government views this province. Since taking office, this government has doubled the number of slot machines, and the Lottery Corporation is forecasting an increase in revenues to almost $1 billion by the end of this government's mandate. Last week the Solicitor General announced a special lottery deal with the Vancouver Canucks. Then this week the Attorney General said that lotteries are "a desperately dishonest way for governments to raise revenues." Does the Solicitor General agree with the Attorney General?

           Hon. R. Coleman: The beauty of a strong political party is the ability to have divergent views within caucus.

           To the member opposite: if the member would check the record, we actually will have fewer casinos in British Columbia when we're done with the B.C. Lottery Corporation than we do today. We will actually have repositioned the market because we gave the mandate to a corporation without political influence to go and do the job on behalf of British Columbians. If it bothers the member that they increase their profitability so we can put more money into health care and education, that's really too bad.

[1420]

           If the Lottery Corporation wishes to pick a product line like the Vancouver Canucks and negotiate a business deal — arm's length from government — that's successful for British Columbians, they should be doing that for the benefit of the corporation. I will tell this House today that the initial lottery is sold out. Basically, another pool is being created that will go on the market on October 14, because British Columbians have responded to the Canucks lottery, in support of both the team and the province for health care and education.

           Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.

           J. MacPhail: So the Solicitor General thinks the Attorney General is wrong. That's exactly what he said. He takes pride in more than doubling the number of slot machines. He takes pride in taking more in gaming revenue than ever contemplated. That's why they're in Calgary, actually — to learn how a government can succeed on the backs of lotteries and gaming, because that's what that minister is doing.

           The Solicitor General compares the special deal with the Canucks as being a simple marketing agreement. He takes great pride that more and more people are spending money on gaming. I wonder what the Premier thinks of that. Harley-Davidson and Wheel of Fortune were paid a fee for the use of the products. According to the Solicitor General, that's all the Canucks are too.

           Let me point out just a few differences for him. Maybe this is why the Attorney General disagrees so much with lotteries. First, since 1996, Orca Bay, the owner of the Canucks, has contributed almost $20,000 to the Liberal election machine. Second, the Premier and other members of the cabinet have been showered by Orca Bay management with luxury skybox seats for hockey games that are completely out of reach for average British Columbians. What are the results of these generous donations?

           Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please, hon. member. Would you please put your question now. Now. Please put your question.

           J. MacPhail: The result is that there will be tens of millions of dollars going to a Seattle billionaire.

           Again, to the Solicitor General, why is the Attorney General wrong? Stand up and clarify directly why the Attorney General is wrong and why this is not a subsidy to a billionaire and millionaire players.

           Hon. R. Coleman: I'm not aware of this luxury suite that this member talks about. I do know that there is a press box where people are invited from time to time, but I'd hardly call that luxurious.

           To the member opposite, the fact of the matter is this: in January of 2001 we identified what the capacity of gaming was in the province, and we are working to that capacity. We've given that capacity to the Lottery Corporation…

           Interjection.

           Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

           Hon. R. Coleman: …to do their business on behalf of British Columbians. They're actually managing this company properly. They're actually doing the job that British Columbians would expect of them — the board of directors and the staff at the Lottery Corporation. I will tell you point blank, hon. member, that they're doing that job well. They're doing it by repositioning the market.

           I want the member opposite to know one other thing…

           Interjection.

           Mr. Speaker: Order.

           Hon. R. Coleman: …something that she always seems to not realize, and that is this: the incidence of

[ Page 7250 ]

problem gambling where an adult makes a choice in a legal gaming establishment is lower than the incidence of gaming anywhere else. The highest incidence is in things like illegal gaming and Internet gaming, and those are the things we fight to stamp out. We're the only organization in the province, on every ticket and everything we do, that gives notice to people of how they can get help if they have a problem with gaming, because we're also responsible to the taxpayers in how we run this company.

           J. MacPhail: Lying during the election…. Is that what you just said?

           Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order! Order! Order! Order!

           Will the Leader of the Opposition please retract her last statement. It's unparliamentary.

           J. MacPhail: I will retract my question. I didn't hear an answer, but I'll retract my question, Mr. Speaker.

           Mr. Speaker: It isn't what I asked, hon. member. The reference was made to somebody lying, and we don't tolerate that language in this House. Will you please retract it.

           J. MacPhail: I'll retract it inside the House. Yes.

           Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

[1425]

LOGGING IN ELK CREEK AREA

           B. Penner: That was a tough act to follow, but I'll try.

           My question is for the Minister of Forests. Last week I spent a good part of a day hiking near Elk Creek just east of Chilliwack. I wanted to get a firsthand look at recent logging activity that has attracted considerable local interest. I went along with local Forest Service officials. Some of my constituents are concerned that old-growth trees will be cut down and wonder if the decision to allow logging was somehow made at the political level.

           Can the minister please explain how this decision to log about 5 percent of the Elk Creek area was made and describe what, if anything, is being done to ensure that a balanced approach is being taken to managing this forest for the benefit of everyone?

           Hon. M. de Jong: In fact, there was a decision made back in July following the usual local processes by which access by the licensee, Cattermole Timber, to an area around Elk Creek was approved. It's about 110 hectares. The licensee has access to 40 percent of that area.

           That 110 hectares represents about 5 percent of the overall area. There are about 100 or so ancient trees in the area that the licensee is precluded from logging. The area had been logged previously in the early part of the last century. The licensee is precluded from logging those 100 or so ancient trees.

           The district manager made the decision. That decision is available in his 68-page report, and I commend it to all those people who, as the member has said, are interested in the decision and what has followed.

RETROACTIVITY OF RENT INCREASES

           J. Bray: My question is to the Solicitor General. My riding consists of over 68 percent of renters, and therefore issues relating to the landlord tenancy act are very important.

           One of the suggested provisions from Bill 70 in the Residential Tenancy Act passed in 2002 allowed landlords to backdate rental increases….

           Interjection.

           J. Bray: Would the member of the opposition please like to listen to an MLA doing their job, for a change?

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Let us hear the question.

           J. Bray: Landlords to backdate their rental increases for up to three years….

           Interjections.

           J. Bray: This section has caused my…

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

           J. Bray: …community some concern. My question to the Solicitor General is: can he confirm whether or not this provision in Bill 70 is still in place?

           Hon. R. Coleman: Bill 70 has not been enacted as yet because our regulations are under draft. We've actually been working with stakeholders across the province in the last number of months. I can tell you, member, coming out of those consultations with both landlord and tenant groups, both of them felt that retroactivity wasn't necessary to the functioning of this act. We will be making the recommendation that retroactivity be removed.

           [End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

           Hon. G. Plant: I rise to table reports. I have the report of the B.C. Treaty Commission, the annual report for 2002 entitled The Changing Landscape.

           Interjection.

[ Page 7251 ]

           Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

           Hon. G. Plant: I rise to table the annual report of the office for children and youth for the period September 30, 2002 to March 31, 2003. I also rise to table the annual report of the public guardian and trustee of British Columbia for the year 2002-03.

Orders of the Day

           Hon. R. Coleman: I call committee stage of Bill 44.

[1430]

Committee of the Whole House

FORESTS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2003

           The committee met at 2:32 p.m.

           The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 44; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

           Section 1 approved.

           On section 2.

           J. MacPhail: Section 2 of the Forests Statutes Amendment Act — Bill 44, the bill we're debating now — forms a package of almost ten pieces of legislation around changes in forestry that this government has introduced. This particular section introduces the DFAM process, the defined forest area management process for timber supply review. Can the minister please explain the defined forest area management process?

           Hon. M. de Jong: In very general terms, what we are dealing with is a process by which the various licensees in a timber supply area will work together to obtain the data required that ultimately makes its way to the chief forester's office, where the chief forester makes determinations around questions like annual allowable cuts. So it is a process. The shift is one in which the licensees themselves play a much larger role in the collation and collection of that data than they have heretofore.

           J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. Maybe I was out. Did the minister introduce his staff?

           Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks. Gary Townsend on my left and Richard Grieve on my right, and, through the Chair to the member, thank you for asking.

           J. MacPhail: Is anyone from the chief forester's office here?

           Hon. M. de Jong: Yes.

           J. MacPhail: I'd like to know who did this previous to the introduction of this process.

           Hon. M. de Jong: There would have been contributions from staff at the branch or district level, the regional level and, ultimately, the chief forester's office located in Victoria.

           J. MacPhail: So what used to be done by the Forest Service is now going to be done by the forest companies. Is that correct?

           Hon. M. de Jong: In part.

           J. MacPhail: And is that privatization?

[1435]

           Hon. M. de Jong: No, I'm not sure I would characterize it as privatization. There is no doubt, however, that in the data collection process, we will be relying to a greater extent on the combined and coordinated efforts of the licensees.

           I should say this, as we head into this discussion: what is being proposed here is precisely what has taken place for, I think, 30 or 40 years with respect to tree farm licences, where the data is provided by the licensee. The difference, and one of the reasons — I presume one of the reasons — that same process did not follow automatically with respect to the timber supply areas, is because there was more than one licensee involved. And the nature of the licences were different — some being replaceable, some being non-replaceable. So the objective at the end of the day is to end up with a process that mirrors, within the timber supply areas, what takes place and has taken place for years and years within the tree farm licence areas.

           J. MacPhail: Well, there's a huge difference between a forest licence and a TFL, as the minister well knows. The work that was done in this area before was carried out by the Forest Service. What has happened to the size of the chief forester's office this fiscal year and next fiscal year?

           Hon. M. de Jong: The numbers I have compare 2001-02 with what we anticipate there will be in 2004-05. In 2001-02 there were 19 timber supply analysts working within that office. There will be 15 in '04-05.

           J. MacPhail: And the overall chief forester's office?

           Hon. M. de Jong: I don't think this helps the member, but I'll give the number. For the chief forester's office itself, that number was seven FTEs and goes to 3.5, but that's not, I think, what the member is referring to. I suspect she is asking about those people involved in the timber supply analysis process overall.

           J. MacPhail: Well, it's a combination of both. The chief forester has half the staff that he did before. The chief forester is still a "he" — it's still Larry Pederson, I assume. So it's a combination of both that's important here. Maybe the minister could explain to me how this isn't putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.

[ Page 7252 ]

           Hon. M. de Jong: The chief forester is still setting the standards that must be complied with in terms of the collection of the data, and ultimately, once that data is collated and forwarded, there is a threshold test that the licensees must pass. It will either be accepted or be rejected for failing to comply with those requirements. Thereafter it is the chief forester who makes the ultimate determinations around things like annual allowable cut, and I have heard the comparison made by the member previously. Again, if that is so, then with respect to tree farm licences, that analogy would have applied for many years past.

[1440]

           J. MacPhail: No, I'm sorry. There is a difference between the management of a TFL and a forest licence. There is a historical difference and an outcome difference. We don't have time to go into it right now, mainly because…. Also, my preparation for this is not here with me. There is a difference.

           Anyway, I just put that on the record. If the minister is somehow suggesting that the fact the forest companies are now in charge of the timber supply area — all of the information, all of the collection of information — and at the same time the chief forester's office has been cut substantially, then — great — let him live with it. Absolutely.

           Sections 2 and 3 approved.

           On section 4.

           J. MacPhail: This section is being added. It's entitled "Misrepresentation prohibited" and says: "A person must not represent that the person is authorized to perform a scale under this Part if not so authorized." What problem is being solved here?

           Hon. M. de Jong: There has been a longstanding desire or obligation on the part of the Crown to be in a position to ensure that people aren't passing themselves off as scalers. The member, I am certain, knows that scalers within our forest management system have historically performed a pretty vital function in deciding what charges will be levied against particular stands of timber, so ensuring that the people assigning those values are actually accredited to do so is very important. There is a desire to ensure that it is an offence to pass oneself off as an accredited scaler when that is not the case.

           The specific provision, I am advised, is a harmonizing provision to ensure that the Forest Act wording is consistent with that which exists in the Forest and Range Practices Act.

           J. MacPhail: What's the penalty if one does fake being a scaler? And are these private…? These are licensee scalers, I assume?

           Hon. M. de Jong: Yes. It captures private scalers, people employed by a private agency. The penalty provision is set out in section 163. That section is dealt with in section 14 of this bill and lists the fine as a maximum of $50,000 or imprisonment of up to six months.

           Sections 4 to 19 inclusive approved.

           On section 20.

           J. MacPhail: What is the purpose of section 20, particularly section 20(b)?

[1445]

           Hon. M. de Jong: This is the mechanism by which the district manager signs off on a licensee having fulfilled their silviculture obligations, which do not end at the planting of the trees but can extend for upwards of eight, nine, ten or 11 years, until the stand has reached a certain point where the district manager is satisfied that it is, to use the terminology, "free to grow" — absent any additional work on the part of the licensee. That can trigger, depending on the nature of the licence, the release of certain deposits. The specific provision we're dealing with here is to bring the language of the Forest Practices Code in line with the Forest and Range Practices Act for that remaining duration when the Forest Practices Code will be in effect.

           J. MacPhail: Is this prescriptive?

           Hon. M. de Jong: I guess it depends on one's definition of what is prescriptive. A "free-growing stand" is a defined term under the Forest and Range Practices Act. To quote from that act, it means: "A stand of healthy trees of a commercially valuable species, the growth of which is not impeded by competition from plants, shrubs or other trees." Broadly speaking, that is the test that must be satisfied before a district manager could declare an area free to grow.

           J. MacPhail: The reason why I ask whether it's prescriptive or not is because there are three negatives in this. I assume it's imposing an obligation on the district manager to determine, through a prescription, whether the licensee has achieved something. That was why I asked my question about this being prescriptive. It does appear to be prescriptive to me.

           Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I'm not quarrelling with the analysis of how the section is laid out.

           Sections 20 to 22 inclusive approved.

           On section 23.

           J. MacPhail: Could the minister please explain the purpose of this section?

[1450]

           Hon. M. de Jong: To the member, I'm glad she asked, because I actually knew the answer. It is the

[ Page 7253 ]

new subsection (2) that is significant here. It specifies circumstances in which the Forest Practices Board will be able to investigate a contravention by someone acting on behalf of a licensee in circumstances where that licensee has actually been found to have displayed due diligence. It is something of an expansion of the powers of the Forest Practices Board to look beyond the licensee themselves in circumstances where that licensee has been duly diligent.

           Sections 23 to 28 inclusive approved.

           On section 29.

           J. MacPhail: Section 29 amends section 30 of the Range Act. It's about making regulations to remedy any transitional difficulties. Why is this necessary?

           Hon. M. de Jong: It's a fair question, but I think it is a section 30 question.

           J. MacPhail: Sorry, maybe I'm misreading the bill. Section 29 amends section 49. Is the typing different for section 30? I don't care what section it's under. It looks like….

           Hon. M. de Jong: The amendment we're dealing with in section 29 is equivalent to the addition of section 151(7) and (8) of the Forest Act. What it ensures is that there will be a consistent framework for administrative penalties between the Forest Act, the Forest and Range Practices Act and the Range Act. That is something of an attempt to ensure consistency of language.

           The other part of the member's question related to regulations pertaining to transitional issues that might arise. I can answer that, but I do think that part of her question then related to section 30.

           J. MacPhail: That's fine. Those are my questions.

           I need five minutes to go get my stuff on Bill 69, please.

           Sections 29 to 31 inclusive approved.

           Title approved.

           Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

           Motion approved.

           The committee rose at 2:54 p.m.

           The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

           Bill 44, Forests Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

           Hon. S. Hawkins: I call committee stage of Bill 69. For the information of members, that's the Forest and Range Practices Amendment Act, 2003.

Committee of the Whole House

FOREST AND RANGE PRACTICES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

           The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 69; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

           The committee met at 2:55 p.m.

           The Chair: Members, we will have a five-minute recess.

           The committee recessed from 2:55 to 3:04 p.m.

           [J. Weisbeck in the chair.]

           Hon. M. de Jong: As we start off, with me on my right, from the Forest Service, is Richard Grieve; on my left, Ralph Archibald; and behind me, Tim Ebata from the Forest Service as well.

           On section 1.

[1505]

           J. MacPhail: I was trying to figure out how I was going to approach the discussion of this legislation. Let me just begin by saying that there are issues that can be explored very thoroughly in the definitions clause, which is the one we're under — section 1 — right now. I think I will explore some issues there, but I am going to save most of my comments and most of my questions for other sections. Frankly, I think if I go down the particular track I need to have explained, we could spend all day on section 1.

           It seems to me that the government is taking a huge tactical shift in this legislation, the Forest and Range Practices Amendment Act, 2003 — Bill 69. I think it's the ninth — it could be the tenth — piece of legislation that this Liberal government has introduced since 2001 changing the way forestry is carried out in British Columbia. One of the concerns that the government seemed…. I have to confess, Mr. Chair, that it is extremely confusing to annotate, to compile and to consolidate the legislation this government has brought in dealing with forestry.

           What I do know, clearly, is that this is a substantial change in the way the government is now going to legislate forestry. To me, the government is reintroducing prescription into forestry practices. This legislation is rife with mandatory and compulsory provisions to replace their previous pieces of legislation that set out objectives and what the minister called results-based activity. The legislation that previously set objectives to promote a results-based forestry practice in this province is now, with this legislation, being replaced with provisions that are prescriptive and compulsory.

[ Page 7254 ]

           Let me ask just a couple of questions under section 1, but I'll be pursuing this further and in more detail further on in the legislation. In fact, I will be referring to debate verbatim that the minister and I had on this very concept just earlier this year.

           Here's what section 1(b) does. It repeals the definition of "forest development unit," and it says that the forest development unit will be defined in regulation. The definition in the current act of a forest development unit — which was passed less than a year ago, November 2002 — defines a forest development unit as "an area identified in a forest stewardship plan within which the holder of the plan proposes to harvest timber or construct a road." That was pretty straightforward, and the minister explained how forest stewardship plans were going to be results-based, defined by the company.

           Now we're changing that and moving it into regulation. Why?

           Hon. M. de Jong: I think there are two issues that the member has raised in her comments. One is the broader philosophical discussion around where on that continuum between results-based and prescription we find ourselves. It won't surprise her to know that I take a slightly different view of that than she does, but I suspect we will canvass that at length both here and in some of the other sections, as the member indicated.

[1510]

           In the particular instance, however, the definition of forest development unit is being repealed because of its inclusion in section 3(3) of the act itself, which lays out the specific definition. So its requirement to be contained in section 1 of the act doesn't exist.

           J. MacPhail: That's 3(3) of what? I'm sorry, the minister is going to have to be very specific here, because this is about the third layer of changes he's bringing in.

           Hon. M. de Jong: The self-contained definition of forest development unit is found at 3(1)(d) of the Forest and Range Practices Act.

           J. MacPhail: Okay. So I have to go back to the old act. You're talking about the act that we dealt with last sitting, Bill 74. Okay. We actually don't have enough staff to compile or consolidate or annotate the legislation — and neither does the public — so the minister has a distinct advantage there, just to note.

           I'll ask one other question on this that relates to my saying that the minister is now prescribing as opposed to setting objectives and allowing for outcomes to be results-based. If the minister looks at the definition of "objectives set by government" in Bill 69…. I'll just read it. They're repealing the old definition of objectives set by government, which was done just several months ago, and they're now replacing it with this section, "objectives set by government:" "'…objectives set by government' means (a) objectives prescribed under section 149 (1), or (b) objectives established or continued under sections 3 to 5 of the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act by a person or persons under those sections."

           Then if you actually go to the changes that the bill introduces to section 149 of the Forest and Range Practices Act, it's contained in section 55 of this bill. It says that section 149.1(b) says the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations "…prescribing the circumstances in which the discretion conferred in the authorization may be exercised." That's just one example where what used to be "objectives" — and the minister and I had a lengthy discussion under one of the previous bills about why the government was moving to objectives because he wanted to have results-based rather than prescriptive outcomes…. Now we're moving to what the legislation clearly describes as prescriptive mechanisms. Why?

[1515]

           Hon. M. de Jong: Maybe I'll do this in two parts. I'm not sure it'll change the member's mind. The relevant connection between subsection (d) in section 1 that the member has focused on is with section 54 of the bill, which actually enumerates (1)(a) through (k), the specifics around the regulations that can be made. I don't know that that's going to change the member's mind, but I agree with her.

           We had a fairly lengthy discussion in our last debate on this subject around the wisdom of doing this and what it might ultimately look like. My recollection at that time is that I thought I had alluded to the fact that there would be greater particularity around the specific values that would be the subject of those regulations. As I recall, the member articulated some concern around the absence of those enumerated values in the legislation.

           Our next step is the amendment that gives rise to the amended section 149, which lays out those values in specifics.

           J. MacPhail: We'll get to that. I'll be able to quote your words back…. I have the discussion here exactly.

           The minister actually makes my point. I'm not sure he wanted to. The old section 149 said this, in defining "objectives set by government" — and by old, I mean months old, baby old…. This was the government's original legislation describing objectives, which was last November, and it said, under section 149: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations respecting objectives set by government, including but not limited to regulations." The new legislation today says: " The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing objectives in relation to one or more of the following subjects…."

           The minister can't get off the hook. He spent hours discussing how the old prescriptive ways — and prescriptive is a derivative of prescribing — were what caused all the problems in the forest industry, and we were going to go to a results-based code. Did the minister get it wrong, and now he's admitting that he's wrong? You've got to help me here.

           Hon. M. de Jong: The intention is the same, and that is to ensure that the objectives are there for agen-

[ Page 7255 ]

cies, licensees, people practising in the woods to know what it is that is expected of them. It is, I am told, a term of drafting. When that is to happen by regulation, the usual terminology would be to prescribe those objectives.

           The member will, if she wishes, choose to read into that term what she wishes. I will, however, emphasize reading the section in its entirety and emphasize that what we are seeking to achieve here is the establishment of the objectives and regulations that lay out the objectives that licensees must meet in respect of the ten or so areas listed in the section.

[1520]

           J. MacPhail: Sorry, I don't accept that it's just a drafting mechanism. I don't accept that at all. How could the minister have gotten it so wrong in the eight previous times he tried to change the code and the way things are done in this province? This government is moving back to a prescriptive Forest Practices Code. It's clear here. It's not drafting. It's a substantial change. I'm just trying to figure out why here.

           Let me just ask another question, then. Let's refer to section 149 again of the Forest and Range Practices Act. It's now being amended by the amendment act that we're discussing right now. Not only are there changes to say that there will be more prescription through this legislation, but it's also declaring the supremacy of the Forest Practices Code.

           I just want to refer this to the minister. It says section 149.1(2) is added, and it says this: "The Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection may not establish an objective referred to in subsection (1) (a) (i) or (ii) for an area unless the objective is consistent with the objectives set by government that pertain to the area." It seems to me that once again the Forest Practices Code reigns supreme. Am I wrong?

[1525]

           Hon. M. de Jong: I apologize to the member for the delay.

           The regime that is being established here is, first of all, the greater particularization of values as it relates to section 149. But then with respect to sub (2) of that section and 149.1, what is being anticipated is the possibility that objectives as they relate to that section may run afoul of objectives set out within something like a higher-use land planning process. To the extent that that could occur, the objectives of the latter — the higher-level plan — take priority.

           In both cases, as it relates to Sustainable Resource Management or the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection, who maintains a role within the Forest Practices Code, in the event of an inconsistency it is the objectives as set out in that higher-level plan that would take priority.

           J. MacPhail: Yeah, well, I think we're saying the same thing. In rank order, the Forest Practices Code prevails now, because you look on…. I'm not going to section 56. Well, actually, I'm going to refer to section 56. It gives priority when dealing with a community watershed and dealing with lakeshore management zones, etc., etc. The changes say that the objectives contained in the Forest Practices Code, listed in the Forest Practices Code, prevail. That's new.

           What's happened? Let me just ask this. Maybe we can actually tell this…. The minister can say why the changes came about in describing real problems. We had the Forest and Range Practices Act passed just a little over six months ago. These changes have been introduced….

           What have we done? What's changed since the introduction of this bill? What problems are we trying to resolve that the minister found out about in the last six months?

           Hon. M. de Jong: Is the change the member is referring to that which is contained within section 149.1 — or what will be 149.1?

           J. MacPhail: No, it's the change…. Just a second here, Mr. Chair. I have to find my…. It's the change that will be contained in the sub (2) of 149, 150, 150.1 and 150.2. Subclause (2): The minister "may not specify an objective referred to in subsection (1) (b) for an area unless the objective is consistent with the objectives set by the government that pertain to the area."

           That to me is what has been added to say that the Forest Practices Code now prevails, is supreme.

[1530]

           Hon. M. de Jong: Here's what the intention of the section is. I may be misunderstanding. It's my fault that the member's question…. The code, as it were, sets objectives with respect to these various issues that are listed here. If there is an inconsistency with respect to a particular area, if there is an inconsistency with respect to the objectives that are set pursuant to the code, which is (2)(a), and objectives that might exist with respect to something like a higher-level plan, it is, pursuant to this section, the objectives from the higher-level plan that would take precedence.

           Interjection.

           Hon. M. de Jong: Then I have misunderstood. I'm not trying to be troublesome with the member.

           J. MacPhail: No, but this is a change; this is an addition. This is a change from the Forest and…. We're actually agreeing. The higher-level plan is contained in the Forest Practices Code. So this is a change; this is an addition. This is an admission that in ranking of priorities in determining forestry practices, the Forest Practices Code prevails, is supreme. That's how I read this.

           Why? What was brought to the minister's attention in the last six months that required him to specify that the Forest Practices Code is supreme?

           Hon. M. de Jong: I do apologize to the member. The rationale here for what we have before us today is

[ Page 7256 ]

to simply make the hierarchy abundantly clear — clearer than it was. That was something that, in the intervening time, we received comment about, and there was a desire and a willingness to make the hierarchy of priorities clearer than it was.

           Section 1 approved.

           On section 2.

           J. MacPhail: Section 2 amends section 5 of the Forest and Range Practices Act. What it does is…. If I could, I interpret this to mean to actually add prescription once again. Subsection (1)(b) before just said that the forest stewardship plan must "specify intended results or strategies." Now we have in subsection (1)(b) that a forest stewardship plan must "specify intended results or strategies, each in relation to (i) objectives set by government, and (ii) other objectives that are established under this Act or the regulations and that pertain to all or part of the area subject to the plan…." This is adding work; this is adding detail. There's no question about it.

[1535]

           The amendment adds greater clarity. There's no question about that. It adds greater clarity to what must be included in a forest stewardship plan. The clarity takes place both in relation to the objectives set by government in legislation, by the regulations and the ministerial order. So this bill is adding stuff that needs to be done, and it's making things clearer.

           In the original legislation, Bill 74, there was no connection between results and strategies and the objectives. Nowhere in the legislation could you find the two that would come together, so section 5 corrects that. But doesn't it again sort of confirm my belief that these amendments are going to greater prescription now rather than results-based? I mean, I heard members, I heard the minister and I heard the government caucus MLAs say over and over again that that disastrous decade of decline in forestry was because it was too prescriptive.

           Now, here we are six months later adding work, rewriting the code, making it clear that the forest industry and forestry practices have to meet legislatively prescribed standards. What was the consultation? What was the feedback that the minister heard in the last six months that led the minister to now add greater clarity through more work and more prescription and through the tying of results and strategies to objectives?

           Hon. M. de Jong: I agree with the member to this extent: the section does provide greater specificity. I think I disagree, though, with the suggestion that somehow the model has been abandoned, because what we have said is that the obligation will be to meet certain…. Within the forest stewardship plan, they will have to set intended results and strategies for achieving those results, and we are saying that those results must be consistent with the objectives set by government. I think I have always said that government would set those objectives.

           Does that mean there is an additional legislative instrument — be it the statute, a section of the statute and/or a regulation — that the licensee who is preparing a forest stewardship plan must consult? I guess it does. They will certainly have to ensure that their forest stewardship plan is consistent with those objectives as set out by government.

           I don't think it follows, and it is not intended to follow, that that represents a retreat to a more prescriptive approach. Well, that is, in part, my response to the member.

[1540]

           J. MacPhail: Well, what I do know here is that there is greater clarity that requires more work to be done. So let me ask this: who pointed out to the minister that greater clarity was needed in the stewardship plan?

           Hon. M. de Jong: In the time that has passed, the discussions and consultations have been ongoing. It has been a theme of those discussions that the various stakeholders who are going to be subject to this legislation — the licensees, the ranchers and the various other practitioners on the land base — have emphasized they want to be clear and they want government to be clear about where the link is. What are their obligations? What are the objectives they need to meet? Where do they derive from, and how is that tied in specifically to the legislative structure that they must abide by?

           That ultimately is what has given rise to the inclusion in the bill we have before us, recognizing, of course, that — lest I be accused of misleading anyone here — the bill was tabled in the spring. It would be unfair of me to suggest that this is here before us because of something that happened last week. It was actually tabled in the House some time ago.

           J. MacPhail: What did professional foresters say to you?

           Hon. M. de Jong: None of us can recall getting a specific submission from the Association of B.C. Professional Foresters. On an individual basis, I am advised it was a matter of great concern to them — and their belief, generally speaking, that a model of this sort requires that there be clearly enunciated objectives for their members to work towards in the preparation of things like the forest stewardship plans.

[1545]

           J. MacPhail: And that's exactly the feedback I got as well — more detail. Now, no matter how we like to dress it up, more detail is more prescription, more prescribing. I mean, at some point we're going to have to actually confess that that's the direction we're moving into. I'll have more questions on exactly the same topic as this on section 7.

           Sections 2 to 6 inclusive approved.

[ Page 7257 ]

           On section 7.

           J. MacPhail: Section 7 deals with changes to woodlot licences — how one goes about getting approval for woodlot licence plans. This section amends section 13 of the original act, the Forest and Range Practices Act. Now we have exactly the same thing for woodlot licensees — that they must give detail that explains the connection between intended results and strategies and each objective set by government. So now woodlot licensees have to take every objective set by government and give details about intended results or strategies to achieve that objective. What feedback did the minister have from woodlot licensees to justify this change?

           Hon. M. de Jong: Actually, in the case of the woodlot owners, it has been fairly extensive. Brian McNaughton and the association, in fact…. Their AGM is coming up, I think, either this week or next week in Abbotsford, and there are a number of issues on the agenda. I don't actually know that this is one of them, because when I met with them last week, they professed to be content with what they had seen with respect to the content and the requirements for their plans.

           They have some other issues as it relates to the expansion of their program, but I think it would be fair for me to relay to the House and the member that they seemed…. My recollection is that they expressed to me a degree of contentment with what is here in this bill.

           J. MacPhail: Yes. Maybe the minister misunderstood my point. I wanted to know what consultation from Bill 74 to the changes now being enacted in Bill 69 around woodlot licensees — i.e., the additional requirement of details matching results and strategies to objectives…. What feedback did the minister have from woodlot licensees to make this change in Bill 69?

           I'm pleased to hear that they're content. They're going to have more work to do, so I'm pleased to hear that they're content.

           Hon. M. de Jong: Forgive me if I inadvertently misled the member. The discussions that would have been relevant to the presentation of this legislation actually occurred earlier in the spring this year, when the B.C. woodlot federation was fully engaged with the ministry. That is what led to its inclusion in the package that was tabled. I guess it was in May. Again, the conversation was not that dissimilar — a desire on the part of that body to be able to say to its membership: "There will be a clear enunciation of the objectives that you must perform to, which you must manage to and address in your preparatory planning documents."

           Sections 7 and 8 approved.

           On section 9.

[1550]

           J. MacPhail: Section 9 of this act amends section 16 of the original Forest and Range Practices Act. The current act that was passed about 11 months ago states simply that the minister must approve a forest stewardship plan or amendment to a plan if (a) the plan or amendment conforms to this act, the regulations and standards; and (b) the minister considers that the forest stewardship plans, results or strategies are likely to achieve the objectives set by government or the woodlot licence plan's results or strategies are likely to achieve the objectives set by government other than those referred to in section 13(3).

           The substantive change now that was made to the language that I just read under this section is, rather than simply "likely to achieve," the plan "must" now be consistent with the objectives of the government and those provisions set out in the act in section 5 and repeated in section 41. So this is now mandatory. We've moved to mandatory requirements. Why?

           Hon. M. de Jong: I'm not sure it's a lot more complicated in this instance than this. I am advised that the phraseology "likely to achieve the objectives" was thought to be problematic. It signalled a lack of clarity, and just about everyone was looking for language that would be clearer. It was determined that "consistent with the objectives" trumped "likely to achieve the objectives" in terms of the clarity we were looking for. There seemed to be pretty universal agreement that the original language contained in section 16 wasn't as clear as it could or should have been.

           J. MacPhail: Let me read the explanatory note on this. It says that this amendment to section 16 "provides separately for forest stewardship plans and woodlot licence plans to more precisely require that the plans reflect the relevant content requirements and to enable the minister to require the information described in section 16(2.1)." To me, that was a giveaway that more precision requires more prescription.

           Hon. M. de Jong: I'm detecting a theme to the….

           Interjection.

           Hon. M. de Jong: I know the member did, which assisted me greatly in detecting it.

           There is an attempt here to improve on the precision of the language. If the member thinks that translates into greater prescription, so be it. I'm not sure I agree. But it was certainly the case that we wanted, after discussions, to be more precise.

[1555]

           J. MacPhail: Let me ask this, then. In the six months between the introduction and passage of the original Forest and Range Practices Act, and then the introduction of Bill 69 amendments to that act, what happened to convince the minister that unless it's law, which it now is…? What suspicions did he have that industry wouldn't follow the standards that were so highly touted by those who suggested that it was okay to turn over the management of our forests to the companies?

[ Page 7258 ]

           Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I will concede this to the member. Part of the objective here, insofar as dealing with the language that existed and the language that is there now, is to ensure that through this approval process and through any kind of an enforcement mechanism, the operators were in the best position possible to understand what their obligations were, and the Crown was in the best position possible to ensure that those obligations were being met and that they could discharge their duties. And the test for that was clearer than the original language provided for.

           [G. Trumper in the chair.]

           Sections 9 to 11 inclusive approved.

           On section 12.

           J. MacPhail: Section 12 of this current act amends section 20 of the original act, and the section is titled "Minor amendments to forest stewardship and woodlot licence plans." What this does now is add compulsory language to what was six months ago permissive language. Let me just say the current act — I want to make sure I get this right — reads this way:

           "20 (1) Despite section 16, and unless required by the regulations, an approval is not required to amend a forest stewardship plan or a woodlot licence plan if its holder determines that the proposed amendment (a) otherwise conforms to this Act, the regulations and the standards, and (b) does not materially affect the likelihood of achieving the applicable objectives set by government or the intended results specified in the plan."

That was the original act. Now the new act repeals that section and replaces it with this:

           "(1) Despite section 16, except in prescribed circumstances, an approval is not required to amend a forest stewardship plan or a woodlot licence plan if its holder determines that (a) the proposed amendment (i) conforms to section 5, for an amendment to a forest stewardship plan, or to section 13, for an amendment to a woodlot licence plan, and (ii) does not materially change the intended results or strategies specified in the plan, or (b) the proposed amendment conforms to prescribed requirements."

           We're tightening up on changes that can be made to forest stewardship plans. I remember the minister lauding flexibility. This is certainly lessening the flexibility, adding more prescription.

[1600]

           Madam Chair, I want to go on record that I in no way disagree with this direction, but it is probably coming as a surprise to many government caucus members.

           Hon. M. de Jong: Actually, in this particular case I'm not sure I disagree with the member. Sub (b) is the new section here, and it clearly contemplates the possibility that in exercising some of that flexibility we talked about previously, there may be additional requirements that the licensee would have to meet. So in this case, I think the member's characterization is one that I can buy.

           Sections 12 to 14 inclusive approved.

           On section 15.

           J. MacPhail: Section 15 of the bill we are now debating amends section 26 of the original act. Section 26 is entitled "Control of insects, disease, etc." The new section, I think, is more properly entitled "Control of insects, diseases, animals or abiotic factors." I'm interested in section 26(2) of the new legislation. This requires the minister to compel the development of a forest health strategy within tenures held by companies and for the cost of that forest health plan to be shared by the government.

           As I read it, there is going to be increased use of pesticides to control pests, and the government will then incur some cost. Who gives out the pesticide permit?

           Hon. M. de Jong: First of all, I disagree to this extent: nothing I have found in this section contemplates a greater use of pesticides. With respect to the actual question, the approving agency remains Water, Land and Air Protection pursuant, I think, to the Pesticide Control Act.

[1605]

           J. MacPhail: I'm reading this section. The old section 26 has been repealed completely, and the new one adds: "Section 26(2) If the minister determines that on a forested area on Crown land that is subject to (a) a forest…there are insects, diseases, animals or abiotic factors that are causing damage…." There will then be a requirement for a proposal to dispose of the insects, diseases, animals or abiotic factors. Is that in the old act?

           Hon. M. de Jong: The language that begins "insects, diseases, animals or abiotic factors that are causing damage to the forest" is in the previous manifestation of the bill. There are two differences. We have broken out private land and Crown land as between sub (1) and sub (2). In sub (2), which deals with Crown land, we have, through sub-subsections (a) through (c), defined the various licence arrangements that could exist between an individual and the Crown.

           J. MacPhail: The old act said that the group could propose reasonable measures, and now this act requires a proposal that conforms to subsection (3) to control or dispose of…. Subsection (3) is now pretty specific, pretty prescriptive, and so that's new. I read it as new, anyway. I don't find anything in the legislation that is as prescriptive as this section now.

           Why is more required now?

           Hon. M. de Jong: It is certainly a change in drafting. There are two points I think I would make. One relates to subsection (2). It is not a directive of the minister or the Crown. It is discretionary by virtue of the use of the word "may." Secondly, if we go down to

[ Page 7259 ]

subsection (3), the language that the member correctly referred to in the original piece of legislation is captured in sub-subsection (b), and that is that the proposal must contain or specify reasonable measures to be carried out. I don't think the intention here is to go beyond the test that was contained in the original legislation.

           J. MacPhail: But "may" has been replaced with "must" in the legislation. I can't find a "must" in the old proposal. It's now mandatory, so what is the minister achieving here? What problem is he correcting?

[1610]

           Hon. M. de Jong: To the member, the section in its entirety certainly does lay out in greater detail the process that would follow in a case where, on either Crown land or private forest land, an insect, disease or problem were to arise. What I was referring to on the discretionary side of things was in subsection (2). The Crown then has the option to require the proposal. Once the Crown has exercised that option, then certain things become mandatory.

           I do note that in subsection (3), as part of the proposal, the licensee or the owner of the property is given discretion to state the time frame, for example, within which the measures are to be completed, but the member is correct. Once that triggering event has occurred and the Crown has exercised the option to require the proposal, a number of things must then follow.

           J. MacPhail: What alternatives to pesticide use are contemplated?

           Hon. M. de Jong: Alternatives to pesticide application would be harvesting, fall and burn, or fall and peel. Sometimes there are salvageable values that can be retrieved, but it certainly contemplates things well beyond the use of pesticides. On some of these pests, the use of pesticides simply doesn't work. We discovered that with respect to the pine beetle. By virtue of its incubation period under the bark, there's just no point in even using a pesticide.

           J. MacPhail: What forest health problems, other than pine beetle, will be contemplated under this section?

           Hon. M. de Jong: I'm advised that generally speaking, a section like this would have application to bark beetle, whether it's spruce or pine.

           I'll pose the question about the inclusion of the term "animals" in the section. I am advised that at times, something like a porcupine — if it were in a particular area — could do damage in a private-land setting where there are adjacent properties, but it is generally an instrument that would be used with respect to bark beetles.

[1615]

           Section 15 approved.

           On section 16.

           J. MacPhail: We're still dealing with the issue of forest health and control of insects, diseases, animals or abiotic factors. This section adds a new requirement under section 27, forest health emergency, that requires the government to pay certain expenses incurred by holders of agreements when ordered by the minister to carry out measures to address forest health emergencies.

           I'll read this new section into the record: "If an order made by the minister under this section requires the holder of an agreement under the Forest Act or the timber sales manager to carry out a measure other than timber harvesting, then to the extent provided in the regulations, the expenses of the measure are to be paid by the government." I just heard the minister say that pesticide management may not work. So does this mean…?

           What expenses will the government be picking up?

           Hon. M. de Jong: Again, I am advised that we are, by and large, talking about a situation that would arise in a pest infestation of one of the types of beetles. As a general rule, if the licensee were ordered to harvest and there were recoverable values, the government doesn't have a rule. If, on the other hand, a licensee was ordered into an area and there was no recoverable value and there was an order to fall and burn the timber, then the Crown, by virtue of this section, is incurring a liability to cover the costs associated with that.

           J. MacPhail: What has the government budgeted for this?

           Hon. M. de Jong: It is a new tool, and I can tell the member that at the moment our ability to utilize that tool is constrained by the fact that we have not budgeted specific funds.

           J. MacPhail: Well, if the minister hasn't budgeted specific funds this year, is there…? I was at the Union of B.C. Municipalities convention where the Premier announced he was going to set up a committee to examine solutions to the pine beetle infestation and that he would do whatever was necessary when they reported back.

           Will this be a budget-planning item for '03-04?

           Hon. M. de Jong: Use of the instrument will obviously be dependent upon resources being identified to devote to the particular task. The member is correct when she alludes to the magnitude of the problem and the desire on the government's part to ensure that whatever tools are required are available. She is also correct in pointing out that the use of those tools comes at a cost.

           J. MacPhail: If the government allows a licensee to log infested trees and the government pays for that logging, who then owns the logged trees?

[ Page 7260 ]

[1620]

           Hon. M. de Jong: In the circumstance that I think the member is describing, the government wouldn't pay for the logging. If there are recoverable values there, the licensee would proceed as per the regular course. The issue arises when the government says to a licensee, "Chop down those trees and burn them," and there is no recoverable value for the licensee.

           Section 16 approved.

           On section 17.

           J. MacPhail: Section 17 goes on to talk about costs of forest health strategy. Section 27.4 is new. It says:

           "The government and (a) all holders of replaceable forest licences, and (b) all holders of agreements under the Forest Act that are in a category or subcategory of agreements that is prescribed for the purposes of this section, which licences or agreements grant rights to harvest Crown timber in a timber supply area, are jointly responsible for the reasonable costs incurred jointly by the timber sales manager and the holders referred to in section 27.2 (1)."

           In this particular case the timber supply manager is a public servant — an employee of the Forest Service, as I understand it. Given that, there will be joint responsibility between the company and the government. Does "joint" mean equal?

           Hon. M. de Jong: This gets back, in part, to the discussion we had previously about defined forest area management. Just to slightly correct the member, it is the timber sales manager which is that person who has responsibility in a particular area for the timber sales program. For the purpose of this discussion, the timber sales program is one of the licensees within a timber sales area, so when we talk about apportioning the costs for some of these matters, they will be apportioned in a way that is consistent with the various licensees' holdings or entitlements within that timber supply area as a percentage of the AAC. Within a timber supply area, the timber sales program has certain entitlements, a certain percentage of that AAC, so they will share in the costs, as any other licensee would.

           Sections 17 to 53 inclusive approved.

           On section 54.

           J. MacPhail: Madam Chair, I just have to find the section I'm dealing with here, if I might.

           Hon. M. de Jong: Madam Chair, with your indulgence, I wonder if we might just take three minutes.

           The Chair: If the committee agrees, we'll recess until 4:30.

           The committee recessed from 4:24 p.m. to 4:31 p.m.

           [G. Trumper in the chair.]

           On section 54 (continued).

           J. MacPhail: Section 54 of the amendment act deals with changes to section 149 of the original act. We've had a little bit of discussion on that, but I want to pursue it more.

           The previous section 149 was pretty broad. It said:

           "Objectives set by government. The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations respecting objectives set by government, including but not limited to regulations (a) authorizing the minister to establish objectives set by government in relation to specified subject matter, or (b) respecting procedures and criteria that are to be followed by the minister when establishing objectives set by government."

           The new section 149 says, "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing objectives in relation to one or more of the following subjects," and then actually now lists the subjects that were not there before. I note the new list is almost an exact duplicate of the forest stewardship plan list that's contained in section 5(2) of the bill, that it's the same list of items that forest stewardship plans must contain. But there's a difference — one difference. The new section 149 setting out objectives includes recreation resources, but forest stewardship plans don't include the requirement to address recreation resources. Why the difference?

           Hon. M. de Jong: The member is correct in pointing out what would be a discrepancy except for what I will alert the House to. In fact, the provisions of 5(2) — the list the member referred to — have been repealed by this legislation and are replaced by a statutory cross-reference to this section. So the forest stewardship plan now incorporates the criteria set out in 149(1).

[1635]

           While the member is confirming that fact, I will tell her that the route by which that occurs is section 2 of the bill we are dealing with today. Section 2(b) repeals 2(a) and incorporates the objectives referred to — objectives being something of a defined term pursuant to 1(b) — and that incorporates section 149. So the thing that ties it all together in this bill is section 1(d)(a), which refers specifically to section 149(1).

           J. MacPhail: So in section 5 now, the only term that we can rely on for the list is "Objectives set by government," and when one looks at the definition of objectives set by government, it refers to section 149. Is that it?

           Hon. M. de Jong: That is correct.

           J. MacPhail: When will there be a complete act, which has all of the work that the minister and I have so diligently done over the course of the last year and a half, published? When will it be published?

           Hon. M. de Jong: I am advised that following passage and proclamation of this bill, a consolidation will take place fairly immediately thereafter.

[ Page 7261 ]

           J. MacPhail: Okay. We've already explored a little bit the concept that the government is moving to ask for greater detail from licensees and enforced stewardship plans and in woodlot licence plans. I think it's safe to say that the minister has acknowledged that greater detail will be required, and I have defined that greater detail as the government moving to being more prescriptive in the code as opposed to results-based — moving in that direction.

           What I want to explore with the minister now under this section — this section that talks about objectives set by government — is how it all comes together in terms of what the licensees have to provide, to whom they answer and who in the government signs off if there's contradiction or confusion.

[1640]

           The minister and I had a substantial discussion about this on November 18 and 19 of last year. This was a debate around the objectives set by government. I'm going to read back a little bit of that debate only for this. I want to ask the minister what has changed since November 18 and 19. I was asking the minister about who sets the objectives, and that's what I want to discuss again, given these changes.

           I had asked the question: who sets the objectives?

           The minister: "I think the second part of the member's original question, which I didn't answer" — some things never change — "related to the process. That process is now contained within the ambit of the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management."

           Me: "Okay. In plain English just tell the House how this section, this definition, is going to be applied. Who's in charge? What does it mean?"

           The minister: "The member will know that this relates to the establishment of higher-level plans, as is presently contemplated. That process won't change. The ministry that has responsibility for the establishment of those higher-level land use plans is now, and has been for some time, the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management."

           Me: "…the government has removed much of the prescription under the Forest Practices Code. They take great pride in that, absolutely great pride, and then say it's going to be a results-based code. But the objectives set by government will determine what the results are that the companies, the stakeholders, have to comply with. Or am I wrong?"

           Minister: "…she is correct that the forest stewardship plans must be consistent with general land use objectives."

           Me: "The minister has said that the objectives set by government will be under the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. He's not here to answer the questions. We have the objectives being set by government, meaning objectives established under sections 3 to 5 of the Forest Practices Code by a person or persons authorized under those sections. I'm just trying to figure out what it is the government wants to achieve. Where would we turn? Where would an ordinary citizen turn to find out what are the objectives around soil, let's say, that the government is setting?"

           The minister: "The member will know that pursuant to a process actually initiated by her government, there are a series of higher-level land use plans that either have been set or are in the process of being set. The objective — and I don't know that this is particularly or should be at all mysterious — is that harvest activity and, specifically, stewardship plans should be formulated in a way that is consistent with the objectives that emerge out of that land use planning process. It's not much more complicated than that."

           Me: "Couldn't agree more, except that: what's the status of land use planning in this province? Is the minister committed to completing the land use process before proclaiming this code?"

           I'm almost finished.

           The minister: "In fact, that land use planning process is ongoing. This act, and we will come to the relevant sections…. This bill makes provision for the establishment of interim objectives in those areas where the planning process has not been completed, but the member will know that the process is ongoing via the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management."

           Me: "Let me just give you an example. Here we have a situation where the key to the application of the whole new act is the term 'objectives set by government.' I'm told by the minister the objectives will flow from a land use plan. I couldn't agree more. What's the state of land use planning in this province? The minister says it's ongoing. Well, no, it isn't, actually. The government has completely reversed at least two land use plans that were agreed upon and is now deliberating at the cabinet table about what those land use plans will be."

[1645]

           That was a discussion the minister and I had about how this stuff, this act, applies in land use planning. At that time I took it to mean, because the minister was on the basis of a results-based code, that whatever happened in the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management in land use planning prevailed. But now it looks like — and this is where I need help…. I need to ask the minister where we are going on this. It now looks like this act, the Forest Practices Code, will prevail in land use planning. Who is the final approver of land use planning now, given that — it seems to me — this particular section gives superiority, primacy, to the Forest Practices Code over the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management and the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection?

           Hon. M. de Jong: I'll try to answer the member's question this way, and there may be other questions that flow from that. A licensee will prepare a forest stewardship plan, and we've established that the plan must be consistent with the objectives as set out pursuant to this section and the regulations that may flow from that.

           In addition, that forest stewardship plan will need to be consistent with any objectives that are contained within a higher-level plan. To the extent that there is an inconsistency, the objectives as set out in that higher-

[ Page 7262 ]

level strategic plan will take priority. Pursuant to the statute, responsibility for administering that priority falls, in the case of the higher-level plan, with the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. There's my first kick at it anyway.

           J. MacPhail: Could the minister name the statute for the record?

           Hon. M. de Jong: The authority that derives to the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management exists and derives from the Forest Practices Code.

           J. MacPhail: Okay. So it is the Forest Practices Code that will guide and then mandate higher-level land use plans or that will prevail if there's inconsistency.

           Let's take a practical example now. Land use planning is ongoing. What's happening out there with land use planning in terms of the real and practical application of the Forest Practices Code now?

           Hon. M. de Jong: Hopefully, I'm answering the member's question. There are certainly areas in the province where higher-level strategic land use plans are not yet in place, although the hope, expectation and objective is for that to change in fairly short order.

[1650]

           In areas where that is in fact the case, however, the objective set out in section 149 would operate as the default objective. They would operate exclusively there in the absence of those higher-level strategic objectives. I'm not sure I've answered the question.

           J. MacPhail: Well, I assume the government is going to have higher-level plans, that the government hasn't abandoned land use planning completely. It seems to me that with this legislation, in order for a forest company now to complete its forest stewardship plan, it has to have some idea about what the higher-level plans are, or else it's going to have to redo them. Now, what the minister did say in the last debate was that he would set interim objectives. Has that happened?

           Hon. M. de Jong: If we accept as a fact that there are parts of the province where there are not yet higher-level plans in place and accept as a fact that it is government's objective to remedy that situation and complete the land use planning process, it is conceivable that in an area like that, a forest stewardship plan could be prepared in advance of the completion of that land use planning process consistent with these objectives but thereafter find itself in one way, shape or form inconsistent with the objectives set out in that higher-level plan. In those circumstances, that would trigger the need for an amendment for which there are procedures set out elsewhere in the legislation. But the basic premise that the member has identified is, in fact, correct.

           J. MacPhail: Well, this is all going to come to a big crunch, because in April 2004 this is all going to be in force and effect, by the Liberal government's own deadline. I mean, the train is coming down the track. We're six months away from not only having everybody know about this, not only having every ministry understanding what their contribution is to this, but then companies themselves having to abide by this law.

           Now, the change here is the addition that the government can now prescribe objectives. With the government now saying they can prescribe objectives, I'm unaware of any interim objectives being set. So does this mean that in the very near future, companies will have new prescribed objectives for which they have been unaware prior to now?

[1655]

           Hon. M. de Jong: It's a fair question. What I can advise the member is that over the course of the past number of months, work has been taking place around finalization of the regulations that are contemplated in this section. That has involved oversight by the public advisory council that was established, stakeholders.

           The intention there is to have those regulations ready for enactment in December, in a month and a half or so. There is then a period of time within which people will have to familiarize themselves with those regulations. But in addition to that — and the member identifies the intention around ultimate proclamation date — the legislation contemplates from December a two-year transition period, during which time licensees will have the option of submitting to the regime contained in the Forest and Range Practices Act or continuing along under the Forest Practices Code. So that transitional period exists for two years from December, during which time they'll have the option and the ability to make that transition in a way that makes sense operationally.

           J. MacPhail: Well, the crunch is coming. It's coming as of December. Very specifically, where forest stewardship plans mesh with land use planning — higher-level plans — who prescribes the objectives for forest stewardship plans? Is it the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management, or is it the Minister of Forests, pursuant to the Forest Practices Code?

[1700]

           Let me put another thought on record so the minister can contemplate this. It's a continuation of the same line of questioning, so just for time's sake, let me put this to him. I want now to also bring in Bill 75, the Forest Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002, which was passed last year as well. In section 6 of that act, it said it replaces the existing provisions to enable a single minister to establish and administer resource management zones, sensitive areas and objectives for resource management zones and sensitive areas. That's what section 6 of the Forest Statutes Amendment Act said.

           Then last year this Minister of Forests said: "What is done and what is being done very purposely is to reduce the decision-making process from three ministers to one, and that minister and ministry is the Ministry of Sustainability Resource Management." Then the Minis-

[ Page 7263 ]

ter of Forests later said that the approval of forest stewardship plans was the lone responsibility of the Minister of Forests, and that's being confirmed today.

           The reason why this becomes even more important is because the addition to section 149 of the act that we're dealing with today adds prescription, the ability to prescribe objectives by this government now, so it becomes even more key about who's in charge. Who's on first, basically? Who's going to be doing the prescribing? If it's the Minister of Forests, then I would assume that the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management is out of play. If he isn't out of play, then who's in charge? If he is in play, does he have an opportunity to determine whether the forest stewardship plan meshes with the objectives set in the land use plan?

           Let's be clear. We're often talking about exactly the same tracts of land. In fact, we are talking about the same tracts of land.

[1705]

           Hon. M. de Jong: Hopefully, again, I've captured the essence of the question.

           It seems to me that what can fairly be said is that in the section we are dealing with, the legislation contemplates the possibility that there could be an inconsistency between the objectives set out here or in a forest stewardship plan and the objectives contained in a higher-level plan. We know what happens if that is found to be the case.

           The question is: who determines whether there is an inconsistency? I think the answer to that is it becomes apparent at the time the plan is accepted and that becomes a function. The determination of whether there is that inconsistency would flow from the Ministry of Forests.

           J. MacPhail: In the absence of a complete land use plan and where there are interim objectives set, then will the forest stewardship plan be given final approval by the Ministry of Forests, given that it seems to me that this act now has primacy amongst legislation?

           Hon. M. de Jong: Dealing with the circumstance that I think we're involved with here, if there is not a higher-level strategic plan in place, then I guess it follows that we wouldn't find ourselves in a situation where there is an inconsistency between the forest stewardship plan and that higher-level plan. In those circumstances, assuming the forest stewardship plan that has been presented meets all of the requirements including addressing the objectives set out here and the regulations that flow from it, it would flow through the approval process. It would then exist in a world where a forest stewardship plan existed in the absence of the yet-to-be-completed higher-level strategic plan.

           J. MacPhail: I'm trying to figure out — and we're getting there — where companies and woodlot licensees can take comfort that the deal is done. In the absence of a land use plan the minister will approve forest stewardship plans. Will that be final approval, or is there a possibility those stewardship plans can be changed once the final land use plan is approved? There are higher-level plans that have not been completed substantially, covering substantial tracts, so this isn't hypothetical. Come January of this year it will be a reality.

           Hon. M. de Jong: The member is right; it's not a hypothetical. In fact, there are sections within the Forest and Range Practices Act that contemplate the need to make amendments, so that mechanism exists. I will tell the member candidly that it is my hope and my belief that we can do this in a way that doesn't require wholesale changes, but as I acknowledged earlier, until such time as that higher-level strategic planning is complete across the province, we do need to contemplate the possibility that it will be necessary to change a forest stewardship plan.

[1710]

           J. MacPhail: So will the minister be putting in place clear, direct instructions to licensees and to the public about what ministry they should be going to, to look at objectives and talk about these matters and determine who is the decision-maker? Will the ministry be publishing guidelines?

           Hon. M. de Jong: I think the question was from the perspective of a licensee. How do you acquire the certainty that you're looking for?

           It probably isn't an issue in situations in areas of the province where that higher-level strategic planning has been completed. You'd look to the plan and then conform with the other requirements. It's probably more of an issue in those parts of the province where that process hasn't been completed. You would look to the regulations. You would look to the objectives set out under the act.

           There are two realities or, certainly, one reality. It is the one we've already talked about. That is the possibility that you may file, and have approved, a forest stewardship plan that meets all of those objectives. At the completion of the higher-level strategic land use planning process, an inconsistency is identified and would require amendment. That is one potential reality. That will be something a licensee will have to consider particularly over, I would say, the next eight months and, I suppose, particularly over the first three months that the act is in force.

           It may lead some of them to decide that in that particular area of the province, they will rely upon the previous Forest Practices Code regime, as opposed to the regime provided for here. They may simply take the approach that says: "I'm not going rely upon this until that lingering question around the higher-level strategic plan has been resolved."

[1715]

           [J. Weisbeck in the chair.]

           Section 54 approved.

[ Page 7264 ]

           On section 55.

           J. MacPhail: I have questions that overlap into section 56 too.

           One question. Sections 55 and 56 give regulatory powers to the Ministry of Forests, to the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, and to the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management — regulatory powers with regard to ungulate winter range, community watersheds, stream and lakeshore management. We've already discussed my view that this is moving to more prescriptive regulation, but of interest — which we've also discussed a little bit — is the prohibition of the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection and the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management to establish, through regulation, objectives unless those objectives are "consistent with the objectives set by government."

           I'm taking from the debate we've had so far that the objectives set by government pursuant to this act are done by the Minister of Forests. What's happened that this needs to be clarified, that this prohibition by those two ministries needs to be added? Has something occurred inside government that's given rise to this prohibition?

           Hon. M. de Jong: The best way I can describe the section we're dealing with here, section 55, is that it is, for those various departments of government, on the one hand enabling. It contemplates the issuance of an order or a regulation, but it once again confirms that from whichever agency of government that order or regulation derives, it must be consistent, first of all, with the higher-level strategic plan and the regulations contained herein.

           Sections 55 to 116 inclusive approved.

           Title approved.

           Hon. M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

           Motion approved.

           The committee rose at 5:18 p.m.

           The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[1720-1725]

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

           Third reading of Bill 69 approved on the following division:

           Bill 69, Forest and Range Practices Amendment Act, 2003, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

           Hon. G. Plant: I call committee stage debate on Bill 37.

Committee of the Whole House

SKILLS DEVELOPMENT AND LABOUR
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2003
(continued)

           The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 37; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

           The committee met at 5:29 p.m.

           On section 15 (continued).

[1730]

           J. Kwan: Section 15 repeals section 64(b.1) of the amendment of the Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2002, which repeals this section: "establishing conditions that must be met before a person may employ a child under 15 years of age and establishing different conditions for different industries or classes of industries." Sub (b.2): "delegating authority to the director to impose on the basis of prescribed criteria conditions of employment in relation to children under 15 years of age." And sub (b.3): "prohibiting the employment of children under 12 years of age, providing for exceptions to the prohibition in respect of children employed in a prescribed industry and prescribing an industry for that purpose…."

           This has, in my view, direct impact with respect to children and their employment in the workforce. Why is the government repealing the section that actually in legislation calls on the government to set out conditions?

           Hon. G. Bruce: It's because these provisions, (a) and (b), provide greater authority to cabinet to bring in the regulations, which applies back to section 9.

[ Page 7265 ]

           J. Kwan: What I heard yesterday in debate from the minister, though, is that he says nothing has changed, everything is the same, and conditions will be in place. This provision actually calls on the government — if the government did not repeal it — to set out those conditions in legislation here.

           It's consistent with government's point of view that they are going to bring in conditions, so he claims. So why would you repeal this section? What are the ramifications, then, by repealing this section for children who are now going to be 12 to 15 entering the workforce?

           Hon. G. Bruce: The sections being repealed do not provide for government to bring in the regulations, and that's why we have changed that so it is there in the new section as written.

           J. Kwan: The section that's being repealed reads as follows: "(b.1) establishing conditions that must be met before a person may employ a child under 15 years of age and establishing different conditions for different industries or classes of industries; (b.2) delegating authority to the director to impose, on the basis of prescribed criteria, conditions of employment in relation to children under 15 years of age…."

           In legislation it actually says that conditions must be set out. So how is that not requiring the government to set out conditions, and why would the government…? Is this not weakening the government's authority to set out conditions relative to child labour in B.C.?

           Hon. G. Bruce: In the sections you allude to, what we've done is add much greater strength to allow for government to bring in those regulations. That's what we're doing with section 14. It is a strengthening.

           I believe those that drafted this didn't feel what was in place — although it sounds good and looks good — would do the job that was necessary, that we're looking to do, and so have strengthened that by first of all repealing sections 4 and 64 and bringing in the new section which gives us greater strength to do what we intend to do.

           J. Kwan: With all due respect to the minister, I would disagree with the minister, because section 14 talks about government bringing in regulations. We already debated this yesterday with respect to the issue of regulations — the draft of which I asked the minister whether or not would be made public. He said no.

           I asked whether or not consultation would be done before the regulations are done, and he said no. So nobody would actually get to see it. With the stroke of a pen, changes will be made, and nobody would actually get to see it. Then people have to go, after the fact, and look for the order-in-council to see what changes have been made. That doesn't strengthen, in my view, protection for children with respect to child labour.

[1735]

           Here you have a prescribed clause in the legislation that says the government is to establish these conditions. It actually enshrines it in law to say that conditions must be set.

           I fail to understand this minister's logic and in fact this entire notion under section 9, where this minister claims that by lowering the threshold, by bringing forward child labour legislation that is now the worst in the country, it's somehow better protection for children. I fail to see that logic. It's a mystery to me; it's a mystery to the opposition. It seems to only make sense to this minister. To that end, Mr. Chair, the opposition will be voting against this section on division.

           Section 15 approved on division.

           On section 16.

           J. Kwan: Section 16 changes some wording, although it's interesting. As an example, it recognizes psychologists as diagnosticians in the mental stress provision. I'm just curious about it. Why the addition of psychologists specifically? Why not psychiatrists? Why not medical personnel, medical practitioners, to perhaps broaden the net? I'm not sure what the purpose of this change is. Could the minister please advise?

           Hon. G. Bruce: I'd just like to introduce two members of staff that are with WCB, Susan Furlong and Pam Cohen, who are here to give me a hand to be able to answer the questions that you pose.

           This actually broadens the number of people that can be brought in for these types of issues. A psychiatrist is considered a physician, so in that aspect psychiatrists are part of this already.

           Interjection.

           The Chair: Through the Chair, please. Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

           J. Kwan: Sorry. I was trying to expedite the discussion. What about counsellors? I'm just curious. If the idea is to broaden the categories of people who could provide support in this regard, then perhaps broader terminologies as opposed to specific professions would make sense. I just don't understand.

           Hon. G. Bruce: It's because it has to be somebody that is recognized, if I've got this correct, under the American Psychiatric Association's diagnostic and statistical manual. That's a mouthful for a guy like me. Counsellors are not. What we've done is made sure those that can broaden the reach still fit the definition, as is allowed. That's why these changes were made.

           Section 16 approved.

           On section 17.

           The Chair: Section 17, I believe, has an amendment. Minister of Labour, would you like to present that amendment.

[ Page 7266 ]

           Hon. G. Bruce: I move the amendment to section 17 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 17 (d), in the proposed section 17 (3) (d) of the Workers Compensation Act by striking out "$879.11" and substituting "$889.32".]

           On the amendment.

           J. Kwan: If I could get a copy of the orders of the day, I can see the amendment. Then I'll begin the discussion relative to section 17. Just to facilitate the discussion, while I quickly look at this, could the minister please advise what the significant change is in terms of the amendment to the bill that's being introduced?

           Hon. G. Bruce: What this amendment does…. The bill was introduced in July, and there are adjustments made for minimum amounts that are payable. Because we are now some five or six months later, we're adjusting that amount to reflect what it is, which is an upward.

           Amendment approved.

           On section 17 as amended.

[1740]

           J. Kwan: Section 17 deals with, I think, important changes — ones that the opposition agrees with — and is relative to the Workers Compensation Act. The amendment ensures that surviving partners, including those without children, are entitled to lifetime benefits. Under the existing WCB regulations, survivors under 40 without children receive a one-time lump sum, which I believe is about $41,800, when a partner dies. Those who are older or under 40 with children receive a monthly benefit for the rest of their lives.

           Bill 37 here proposes to base the compensation on a portion of the monthly benefit the deceased worker would have received for a permanent total disability. With the percentage increasing according to the survivor's age, the maximum compensation is 60 percent. Surviving partners up to 20 years of age will receive 30 percent of what the deceased worker would have received, and the amount increases by 1 percent for each year of age. Surviving partners of 50 and over will receive the maximum of 60 percent, and this section also, as I understand it, increases the age at which benefits paid for dependent children end to 19 years old from 18 for children not attending school and to 25 from 21 for children in school.

           The changes also ensure that a separated spouse who was financially dependent on the worker at the time of death would receive compensation in accordance with a court order or support agreement, even if the worker had not been in compliance. It allows, further, surviving dependents to keep half of their Canada Pension Plan survivor benefits instead of losing that 100 percent, and it clarifies that a surviving partner keeps his or her own Canada Pension Plan retirement benefit rather than having it deducted from the WCB benefits.

           This change is a positive one, and it's long overdue. I'm glad to see it here in this bill, and the opposition supports that. Could the minister, though, advise: how was the cut-off date chosen? How many people are being affected? How much would it cost to include the survivors if it were to go retroactive?

           Hon. G. Bruce: The reason the June 30, 2002, date in retroactivity was considered was that it was the date that Bill 49, which changed the overall aspect of benefits to WCB, came into effect. We thought it was appropriate — albeit this was another piece coming in later — that it be still tied, really, to the benefits side. Those changes being made, then coming into force on June 30, 2002…. Those people that found themselves in difficulty going forward, even though this piece hadn't been passed, should receive those benefits.

           J. Kwan: How much would it cost the government to include those survivors, and how many people would be affected? Does the minister know?

           Hon. G. Bruce: Excuse me. Just for clarification, are you speaking about those from the date of June 30, 2002, to now?

           Interjection.

           Hon. G. Bruce: Retroactively, like all the way back to the beginning?

           Interjection.

           The Chair: Member, would you address the Chair, please.

           Hon. G. Bruce: It would be in the neighbourhood of $152 million to $192 million.

           J. Kwan: How many families would that be, approximately?

           Hon. G. Bruce: There would be 5,100 beneficiaries.

[1745]

           J. Kwan: I'd just like to simply say that I understand, particularly from the survivors who have lobbied long and hard for this change…. Now that the changes are here, albeit too late, it would not benefit them, and I think it's a big disappointment for those people who worked hard for the change. It is good that the change is here for future claimants or families, if you will, from June on, but my heart does go out to people who struggled long and hard to earn this recognition.

           I want to ask the minister this question. The youth who becomes injured in the workplace, where no previous income or wage rate has been set — what kind of disability benefits would this youth receive under this provision, or would this youth be eligible to receive benefits under this provision?

           Hon. G. Bruce: A couple of points. In respect to this section and as an addendum to your comments just

[ Page 7267 ]

prior to this question, I would like to point out that we would all love to be able to go way back. This recommendation actually came out of the royal commission that was sponsored — I think it cost about $7 million — by the government of which you were part, and then these changes weren't dealt with. I want to make sure we understand the full scope of what we're talking about here.

           In regard to your question, I'm not sure I heard it clearly. What we're talking about here in this instance is survivors of fatalities, of people killed in the workplace. What was it specifically you were looking for — benefits for young people?

           J. Kwan: Benefits for a young person, a youth who's been injured or perhaps killed on the job, before the rate had been established…. Would the person be eligible for benefits, or the family?

           Hon. G. Bruce: I don't think it pertains to this section at all, or at least not as I'm understanding your question. Anybody in the workforce is covered by workers compensation, so I'm at a little bit of a loss there.

           J. Kwan: Perhaps I can just put this on the record, and I could ask the minister to have his staff respond to me in correspondence at a later time.

           Here's the issue I want to raise. Let's use an example. A student might have come from out of province to B.C. for a summer job and got a job with, let's say, a subcontractor in the district of Delta doing garbage cleanup. It's actually a real case. What had happened in this instance was the youth had slipped and got his feet caught under the dump truck when he was loading. The youth got $1.52 and two broken feet and was dumped from the job — was not able to complete the job — and did not get any support from WCB. The youth needed a lot of further medical treatment.

           The question becomes: what kind of benefits or compensation would this youth get? To take it one step further, if the young person was killed on the job, would the family in that instance be eligible for any benefits?

           I am noting the time, so I would appreciate it if I could get a response from the minister, perhaps through his staff in writing at a later time. Then we can move on.

           Section 17 as amended approved on division.

           On section 18.

[1750]

           J. Kwan: I want to make a quick comment on section 18, which also relates to section 19. The Business Council of B.C. has stated that the cost to the compensation system should be at least break-even because of a proposed cap on the inflation indexing formula used to calculate benefits. Sections 18 and 19 eliminate the alternate indexing factor and use a different formula. I'm wondering why that is and what the effect for the survivors of this inflation cap is for calculating the benefits. Once again, I could get that in writing from the minister, from his staff, as well.

           Hon. G. Bruce: I think I can answer that. This is a continuum, if you like, of the legislation that was in Bill 48, where we changed the benefit section. This just reflects what is currently in effect, so that all things are consistent. I'd be happy to get a more detailed response to you from staff.

           Sections 18 to 22 inclusive approved.

           On section 23.

           The Chair: Section 23 has an amendment.

           Hon. G. Bruce: I move the amendment to section 23 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 23, in the proposed section 35.2 (2), (5), (6) and (7) by deleting "Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2003" and substituting "Skills Development and Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2003".]

           Amendment approved.

           Section 23 as amended approved.

           On section 24.

           J. Kwan: Section 24, just to raise a quick concern. The Law Society of B.C. is concerned about this section, which adds a new provision allowing lay advocates. This could, of course, simply be an issue with respect to the profession. I am curious, though: why this change? Does the minister feel that it's adequate for people without, perhaps, the adequate training to be able to do the work?

           Hon. G. Bruce: As the member may know or not, lay advocates have always been available to represent workers and employers for WCB, for a number of years. What this amendment does is actually ensure that lay advocacy can continue to provide assistance to WCB parties. We're trying to make the entire workers compensation system much more friendly, if you want to put it that way, in all of how it undertakes its business and also in how it treats and deals with folks that find themselves injured and having to go through the system.

           There is a code of conduct that will be established for lay advocates. What this does is try to take away, hopefully once and for all, the friction that has been there between the Law Society and whether or not lay advocates ought to be able to assist people. It's our view that with what's put in place and what the practice has been to date, this is a valuable way for people to be able to get the type of assistance they need in what can be very difficult times.

           J. Kwan: I'd like to just bring forth some concluding remarks. Instead of this labour legislation — legislation

[ Page 7268 ]

that opts to relax the rules on child labour — the government could have put into place a system to protect children who are wanting to work, a system that meets the requirements in the UN convention on the rights of the child. The government could have accepted the amendments the opposition put forward yesterday, amendments that would have at least brought child legislation in line with Ralph Klein's right-wing agenda in Alberta and other provinces in this country.

           That could have been one thing that this bill could have accomplished for children, but for some reason there was no interest on the part of this B.C. Liberal government to provide those protections for children aged 12 to 15. The minister instead likes to talk a lot about the role of parents.

           I just want to be clear on the record here that we in the NDP opposition agree with the minister that parental involvement is important and that parents, like every other group in society, are very diverse. Some parents will think a few hours of work a week will be an excellent experience for their 12-to-15-year old. Some parents will tell their children that they have a lifetime of work ahead of them and to focus on school instead. Some parents, perhaps parents under tremendous economic pressures or with language barriers, are not well-informed about the workplace. Finally, the sad exception is those parents or guardians who are irresponsible or even unscrupulous and might approve employment that to a reasonable, fair-minded third party would put their children in harm's way.

           We would not have a Minister of Children and Family Development if all parents were equally equipped to care for and make decisions for their children. That is why having an objective third party, such as the employment standards branch, is a critical part of the check and balance in the system. The minister now says — and this was news to just about everyone, perhaps even his staff and cabinet colleagues — that he is considering addressing all these concerns by regulation. Well, that is certainly an improvement, and all the groups and individual British Columbians who have been working so hard fighting this government's total deregulation of child labour should pat themselves on the back for the impact they have clearly had on the minister.

[1755]

           The minister knows very well that regulations can be changed with the stroke of a pen without any public input or any kind of open, transparent process that this B.C. Liberal government says it is committed to.

           The protection for children needs to be spelled out in specific legislation that's subject to public scrutiny and debate. The removal of the protection for children from the Employment Standards Act and in some rare but — let's be clear — not unheard of cases from the protection against unscrupulous parents or guardians is a regressive and deeply troubling development.

           That's why so many people have contacted us, the opposition, about this bill. That is why there is a vigil on October 15 sponsored by the Anglican Church. This is why the minister himself and all of the government MLAs continue to receive letters, e-mails and faxes imploring this government to pull back these changes and in the face of this minister's obstinate refusal to listen. That is why my colleague will be voting against this bill on third reading.

           These are my closing remarks. I know it's not necessarily in the context of the section we're discussing, but I wanted to just finish off debate with these closing remarks.

           Hon. G. Bruce: Just very briefly to bring this whole thing into context, there are 159,000 young people between the ages of 12 and 15. On average, for the past three years and probably beyond that there were 300 permits issued by the director of employment standards, so there were literally thousands of young people who were given no protection in the workplace and who, with the legislation we're bringing forward today, will now have some protection.

           Sections 24 to 28 inclusive approved.

           Title approved.

           Hon. G. Bruce: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

           Motion approved.

           The committee rose at 5:57 p.m.

           The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

           Bill 37, Skills Development and Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, reported complete with amendments.

Third Reading of Bills

           Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as read?

           Hon. G. Bruce: By leave of the House, now, Mr. Speaker.

           Leave granted.

[1800]

           Third reading of Bill 37 approved on the following division:

[ Page 7269 ]

           Bill 37, Skills Development and Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, read a third time and passed.

           Hon. G. Plant: I move that the House do stand recessed until 6:45 p.m.

           Motion approved.

           Mr. Speaker: The House is recessed until 6:45.

           The House recessed from 6:04 p.m. to 6:45 p.m.

           [Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

           Hon. R. Coleman: I call committee stage of Bill 49.

Committee of the Whole House

PENSION STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

           The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 49; G. Trumper in the chair.

           The committee met at 6:46 p.m.

           Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

           On section 5.

           Hon. S. Santori: I move the amendment standing on the order paper.

           [SECTION 5, by deleting the proposed section 5.]

           The Chair: Shall section 5 pass?

           Some Hon. Members: Nay.

           The Chair: The section is defeated.

           Section 5 negatived.

           Sections 6 to 34 inclusive approved.

           Title approved.

           Hon. S. Santori: I move that the bill pass with amendment.

           The Chair: The motion is that the committee rise and report completion of the bill with amendment.

           Motion approved.

           The committee rose at 6:49 p.m.

           The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

           Bill 49, Pension Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, reported complete with amendment.

Third Reading of Bills

           Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as read?

           Hon. S. Santori: By leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

[1850]

           Leave granted.

           Bill 49, Pension Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, read a third time and passed.

           Hon. R. Coleman: I call second reading of Bill 57.

Second Reading of Bills

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ACT

           Hon. J. Murray: I move the bill be now read a second time.

           The bill titled the Environmental Management Act will implement a new service model for environmental management in the province. The new model is the result of extensive consultation and a complete review of the existing legislation, which includes the Waste Management Act and the Environment Management Act.

           The Waste Management Act is the main environmental protection and management statute in British Columbia. It regulates industrial and municipal waste discharge, pollution, air quality and contaminated site remediation as well as other general matters. The 20-year-old act does not adequately use results-based and risk-based systems. It does not include modern-day tools for environmental management. It results in inconsistent decision-making, and it fails to adequately address remediation of contaminated sites.

           The Environment Management Act is another environmental protection and management statute in British Columbia. It provides the power to correct detrimental environmental impacts and to handle environmental emergencies. It also established the conservation officer service and the Environmental Appeal Board. This act, however, is also over 20 years old and does not include modern environmental management tools. The Waste Management Act and the Environment Management Act both address issues of environmental management.

[ Page 7270 ]

           The new act will combine the two acts to provide a more organized and well-written single piece of legislation. In addition to this consolidation, the act introduces seven new components that achieve the following major objectives. It will regulate the discharge of waste under a risk- and results-based system. It will adopt new regulatory tools. It will centralize statutory decision-making authority for greater consistency from region to region. It will improve the contaminated-sites regime.

           The primary objective of the new act is the shift to a more risk- and results-based system of regulating waste discharges. This system will eliminate the need for site-specific permits for most waste discharges. At present, site-specific permits to discharge waste are required for a large number of businesses that pose little or no risk to the environment. The new act will eliminate the need for site-specific permits for low- to medium-risk activities, as long as they follow a code of practice.

           Only high-risk activities will continue to need permits. Activities that are in the lowest category of risk will not need any ministry approval but will continue to be subject to a prohibition against causing pollution. Examples of high-risk sites include pulp mills, the particle and waferboard industry and the smelting and refining industry.

           Examples of medium-risk businesses that will be required to follow a provincewide sector-specific code of practice include the fish products processing industry, the plastic products industry and the structural concrete industry. Examples of low-risk businesses that will not require regulatory approval to discharge waste include sand and gravel pits, the soft drink industry, dog kennels and car washes.

[1855]

           The new act will also eliminate the need for redundant hazardous waste storage permits. The storage of hazardous waste currently requires a site-specific permit with conditions that duplicate those set by regulation. The new act will eliminate the need for site-specific hazardous waste storage permits and instead only require ministry approval for those who wish to store such waste in a manner that deviates from the regulation.

           The second objective of the act is to add modern regulatory tools. These are area-based management, economic instruments and administrative penalties. Area-based management will address the problem caused by the cumulative impact of many sources of pollution in a specific geographical area. The new act will provide a planning process that can establish objectives and outcomes in areas where the minister believes the cumulative impacts of discharges are causing pollution. A director will be required to consider the plan in issuing or amending any orders or authorizations regarding waste discharges in that area.

           The act will also enable the use of economic instruments as incentives for positive environmental performance. Economic instruments use financial incentives to promote positive environmental behaviour. The new act will enable modified fee structures to allow differential fees based on environmental performance, discharge trading systems to allow the issuance and trading of discharge rights and credits, contracts to allow relief from selected regulatory requirements in exchange for positive environmental behaviour, and industry-led certification systems to acknowledge companies that demonstrate exemplary environmental performance.

           In addition to positive incentives to encourage performance, the new act will also introduce an administrative penalty program to increase compliance. Reliance on criminal prosecutions to ensure compliance with requirements and enforcements of violations limits the ministry's ability to swiftly prosecute and deter violations. The administrative penalty regime will permit the timely levying of monetary fines for certain offences, as well as the opportunity to negotiate alternative non-monetary penalties, such as being required to clean up environmentally impacted areas.

           The third objective of the act is to centralize decision-making authority. Concerns have been expressed that the current legislation provides direct decision-making authority to numerous managers, which at times has resulted in inconsistent decisions. While the minister or director can establish general policy guidelines for decision-makers, these cannot be used currently to direct the outcome in a particular case or to impose conditions on the exercise of the decision-maker's authority. The new act will therefore shift the formal statutory decision-making powers from managers to directors, who are designated by the minister as directors under the act. Directors may delegate functions to managers under appropriate terms and conditions. This will result in greater consistency and accountability in decision-making.

           Finally, the act will implement the first round of amendments to improve the regulation of contaminated sites. The contaminated-site remediation regime is complex and expensive and is perceived as imposing unfair liability on private parties.

           The new act includes the following changes to the provisions regulating contaminated sites to address these concerns. It changes the definition of contaminated sites so that the assessment of contamination may be based on either risk-based criteria or numerical standards. It provides certainty to investors that once a site has been cleaned up to current standards, it will not be subject to further cleanup requirements solely because the standards change in the future.

           It eliminates conditional certificates of compliance so that all sites that have been remediated to acceptable levels will receive certificates of compliance. It provides a roster of qualified professionals to oversee the investigation and remediation of sites, and it clarifies regulation-making powers and the exercise of those powers.

           This legislation comprises phase 1 of a longer-term review and further legislative changes that will be proposed for spring 2004.

           I move second reading.

[ Page 7271 ]

[1900]

           J. Kwan: Bill 57, the Environmental Management Act, amalgamates and amends both the Waste Management Act and the current Environment Management Act and introduces a number of new concepts into the government's role in protecting the environment. Perhaps it is of interest only to linguists that the new act replaces the word "environment" with the word "environmental" in the title — a noun being replaced by an adjective. To those who pay attention to such detail and to the importance of language as a means of communicating ideas and direction, this bill emphasizes management, whereas the current act places the emphasis on the environment. But then this bill is not being sponsored by the minister of the environment either.

           This bill defines pollution as the presence in the environment of substance or contaminants that substantially alter or impair the usefulness of the environment, just as the previous legislation did. It does not speak to detrimental environmental impact, as other statutes do. It does not speak to the damage that pollutants do to the ability to support life, but to their usefulness. This is a theme we have seen throughout the tenure of this government — definitions precluding action.

           We see in this bill a new definition of hazardous waste. This would, one would think, provide some direction, some firm definition of just what this government considers to be a hazardous pollutant — one that presumably threatens the ability of the environment to support life and one that would be subject to the most stringent controls by government. But what do we see? This is what the bill says under hazardous waste: "It has the prescribed meaning." You wonder what that means. This simply does not provide for a definition in the bill. There is no definition in the bill, a law the minister claims will protect us and the environment from dangerous pollutants. As to just what the minister thinks is dangerous, it may be members of her own cabinet; it may be the direction of this Premier.

           The bill goes on to state in a number of sections things you can and cannot do with hazardous waste, but nowhere do we actually define hazardous waste. The bill speaks to prescribed industries and how they may or may not do things that pollute. But nowhere do we see what a prescribed industry is.

           The bill introduces a tiered system of oversight and compliance on industry. It says if you're threatening the ability of the environment to support life, you need a permit. But if you're just making the environment unfriendly to supporting life, you only need a code of practice approved, not by cabinet — open or not — but by the minister. We know this minister's poor record, quite frankly, on protecting the environment. As long as you just say you're being a little bit unfriendly to the environment, then it's okay, because the ministry doesn't have the staff to check up on you anyway. But do let us know if you screw up and start being unfriendly or threatening to the environment.

           Let's be clear. This bill, like the acts it replaces, is not about eliminating pollution or making the environment better. This bill is about allowing industry to pollute. As we saw in the definition of pollution, this is not a good thing. Pollution impairs and alters our environment. The change is in how the government and the ministry responsible for protecting our environment are going to do that. In fact, approximately 80 percent of existing waste management permits will be eliminated by the requirements of Bill 57.

[1905]

           This government and the minister are introducing into the area of environmental protection the concept of risk management. Those familiar with government will know that there is a risk management branch, and they will know that this branch resides in the Ministry of Finance. It does so because when it comes to risk and its management, government activity has traditionally been limited to the investment and borrowing of public funds. Government risk management manages money, not people, and there are whole professions of accountants, auditors, financial planners and the like to ensure that risk is properly measured and accounted for. It doesn't exist in the Ministry of Health because government shouldn't be in business of risk-managing our health. It doesn't exist in the Ministry of Education because our children's future is not something we want to risk. But now, when it comes to protecting ourselves from the harmful by-products of economic development, it is, according to this government and this minister, okay to take a risk or two.

           With this bill, only the most high-risk industries will be required to have a permit that will allow them to pollute our environment. Medium-risk industries will simply have a code of practice that will allow them to pollute our environment. The so-called low-risk industries will not need a permit or a code of practice at all to pollute our environment.

           Under the current system, industries need a permit to pollute our environment, and the role of this ministry is to ensure that the conditions of that permit are met. When they are not there, there are consequences. There is an objective standard against which compliance can be measured, but now, with the exception of the biggest polluters, there is no readily available objective standard. There is a code of practice — by definition a subjective standard — and there is no standard at all for the majority of polluters.

           We all know how proud this government is of its cuts to the public service. It claims more can be done by fewer workers, that we will all benefit from this and that there will be no costs. Yet the reality is that when it comes to protecting our health and the health of our environment, we don't benefit from taking more risk. We don't benefit from less government oversight.

           We heard today in question period just how much this government has come to depend on gambling. It is such a shame that this mentality has infected those who are charged with the responsibility for protecting us from pollutants. Many others will stand in this House and say less regulation is a good thing. We just heard the Minister of Labour saying that less regulation for child labour is a good thing. Apparently, when

[ Page 7272 ]

we called the vote on it, all the government members agreed.

           The minister of the environment said her ministry's effort should be focused on those things that pose the greatest threat. I wonder how the government caucus would feel if the Solicitor General took that view when it came to allocating resources to policing or penitentiaries. No one is opposed to the most effective and efficient use of public resources, but effectiveness and efficiency are not the same thing as risk management. When the risk is to human health and the health of the environment we all depend upon, the elimination of risk, not its management, should be watchwords for the government.

           The current Waste Management Act is accompanied by some 35 regulations covering everything from municipal sewage to aquaculture, to placer mining, to beehive burners. All of these activities pollute, and right now all need a permit to do so. When this bill is passed, all these activities will still pollute. The question is: will this government, will this minister, still care?

           Every industry in our province pollutes. The amount of pollution produced and its disposal is regulated. It is regulated because that pollution poses a threat to our health and to our well-being. It is regulated because it is in the public interest to do so.

           Much of what is in this bill is lifted directly from the Waste Management Act and the Environment Management Act. Nothing changed. But the significant changes, relatively few that they are, are critical to how we manage the footprint we leave on the environment as we go through our daily lives. I don't think this is a trivial activity for government, nor do I think it is one that the government can or should ignore.

[1910]

           Love Canal, Britannia Mines, Three Mile Island, Walkerton, boil advisories, smog alerts, even the minister's own internal report with respect to the pine beetle infestation — these are situations that have consequences as a result of unregulated or improperly regulated industry activities. These are the risks that this government thinks can be managed.

           If I actually thought that the motivation for these changes to how we regulate pollution in our province was truly motivated by a desire to do things better and not simply cheaper, if the motivation was to improve our environment and not simply manage the damage we inflict on it, if I knew that there had been no cuts to the ministry's ability to monitor and enforce this law, then I would have nothing more to say than to congratulate the minister for a job well done.

           Unfortunately, that is not the case. Unfortunately, the motivation is to get the government out of the way of industry, and by doing so, this government is accepting a level of risk that I think is dangerous. Industry never has been and indeed is not capable of acting in the public interest. That is the job of the government — our responsibility.

           This bill shirks the responsibility, tries to duck the accountability that rightfully belongs to government and is needed by government. For those reasons the opposition…. I will not be supporting this bill.

           M. Hunter: I think I'd like to change the tone a little bit, because I know the opposition speaker started with a semantic analysis of the title of this bill and ended up by telling us — and I quote her: "Industry is not capable of acting in the public interest." I think those kind of Malthusian sentiments are pretty ancient history, and I want to change the tone, as I say.

           There's no question that this bill is of tremendous importance to the people of British Columbia, because everyone in this province agrees that environmental management or environment management is vital. We know, of course, starting from tonight, if we didn't know before, that it can also be controversial.

           Let's look at the positives in this bill. It, without question, introduces significant change, but I think that the change is substantive and positive. The fact that this bill modernizes a 20-year-old statute in and of itself is an important feature of the bill. The fact that it introduces modern techniques into environmental management is a substantive and important change and a positive one.

           The bill redefines the responsibilities and accountabilities of citizens and government — citizens including industry, which was just alleged not capable of acting in the public interest. What an insult to the industrial sector in this province and people who invest in jobs for British Columbians. This bill focuses scarce taxpayer resources where they can be used best — to protect our environment, to protect it to the best effect rather than just piling bureaucracy where it's not needed.

           You know, it's almost a cliché to say that the prevention of pollution and environmental management are a key role of a modern government. They are. Everyone will agree that the methods we use to manage our environment are critical. They are. I support this bill because it brings our environmental management system in this province in line with the realities of life in the twenty-first century.

           For example, I would suggest that storm water runoff, which is a huge issue in many communities in this province, wasn't a concern back when the current laws were drafted. Smokestack industries have not exactly disappeared from this province, and I trust they never will, but there are many activities that affect the environment in other ways — activities that I don't think were contemplated in an earlier time.

[1915]

           This bill provides us with tools to bring us up to date in managing the new realities of our economy and our environment and, importantly, allows us to keep pace with changes that will inevitably occur in the future.

           This is a complex bill, so I just want to highlight what in my view are the key elements of it. I've got three points I want to focus on. The first is that the bill rebalances the responsibility amongst government and stakeholders. Secondly, I want to talk about the intro-

[ Page 7273 ]

duction of the concept of risk management into environmental management. Thirdly, I want to talk about how this bill starts to encourage us in the cleanup of contaminated sites. Let me deal with each of those in turn, if I may.

           The rebalancing of responsibilities amongst governments, citizens and industry is an important concept, and I support the approach that this bill takes to governmental responsibility. Under this new approach, public resources in government are to be focused on audit and monitoring of a new method of compliance. Now, we've already heard a critic, and other critics, I'm sure, will say that government is abandoning its responsibilities. I beg to differ. I think we are just going to exercise those responsibilities in a different way to reflect the current era we live in and the current problems we face.

           The fact that we're introducing a new methodology and rebalancing responsibility should not come as a surprise. It's a methodology, and changes in methodology have been introduced in many, many areas.

           I'm familiar with one, and I've spoken about this in other debates on the same subject. I spent much of my career in the food processing business, and I can tell you that when the federal government changed the methodology of how we inspected how fish products — food products — were manufactured, there was the same kind of outcry, "Oh, we've got to have a government inspector in every freezer and on every canning line and every filleting line in fish plants throughout this country" — 1,200 of them from Newfoundland and Labrador to British Columbia.

           The industry made that transition in cooperation with the government of Canada, and today we have a fish production and processing system which in fact, I would submit, is safer than it was before, because we introduced a new methodology, and the investors and the processors of food products in this country took their responsibilities seriously. They planned it out and worked with government to find a system of compliance and inspection that was cheaper and more effective.

           I think that's the kind of methodology this bill introduces to the whole issue of environmental management in British Columbia. It is a change, no question, and change is always difficult. It's a change in approach, but we have to wrestle with change, and I think this bill represents good change.

           I want to talk about the concept of risk management. In a sense, risk management is closely allied with the rebalancing principle, and in fact the rebalancing principle probably can only exist if you make the leap into a new method of defining risk management. I support the idea and the methodology of identifying risks and focusing our attention as legislators and as government on problem situations. Focusing taxpayers' resources where they are needed and can do the most good, to me, is a commonsense approach, provided that the standards we are setting are appropriate standards. In this bill, as I read it, I don't think there are any suggestions that standards with respect to environmental management are changing. How we create those standards and police them clearly are, and they are functions of how we decide to manage risk.

           I think we have to be honest with ourselves and say that not every activity that human beings undertake or every development they wish to put forward or any industry that arises imposes the same risks to the environment. That's very clearly not the case, and I don't think I need to give obvious examples to the members of this House to prove the point. The risk to humans, to the ecology, is not standard across every activity.

           Under the provisions of this bill, as a reflection of that reality, we see that high-risk businesses will continue to require site-specific permits to operate, because they are recognized as high risk to our environment, to humans and to the ecology in general. Industrial sites, such as pulp mills, mines and smelters, will continue to require the same kind of permitting system we have today.

[1920]

           Other activities which are to be classified as less risky are going to be treated differently. Personally, I think this is smart environmental management and, again, another reason why I'm going to support it.

           The bill also, in terms of risk management analysis, looks at cumulative impacts and area impacts as part of the risk assessment process. To me, this is another example of where this bill moves us into an era of common sense. It's not that low-risk actions go unmanaged, although some critics will tell us this is what this bill does. Low-risk activities will be monitored and audited, and low-risk activities will be subject to codes of practice to be worked on by government and industry and interested parties. Contrary to what the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant said, these codes of practice are objective; they are not subjective. Let's be clear about the facts as we debate this bill.

           Thirdly, I want to talk about contaminated sites, because this is an important part of the Environmental Management Act that we are looking at. I'll bet there are many people in this province who bemoan the fact that good real estate goes undeveloped. So-called brownfield sites exist because under current contaminated-site rules, liability for cleanup falls on people who had nothing to do with the pollution. Even in cases where redevelopment does not involve disturbing the site or in cases where scientific evidence shows there is no risk to human health through redevelopment, current law militates against such redevelopment. This bill starts to change those processes, so we can start to see the redevelopment of former gas stations that blot the landscape in many of our communities.

           Some will say this bill is deregulation or self-regulation. I say it's not deregulation. I say that self-regulation is not altogether bad, if it's done in a way that this bill contemplates — putting the onus for certain activities and responsibilities for environmental protection on industry and people. It's been done in other areas, and it can be done in environmental management. I think people who say this is deregulation are wrong. I think self-regulation is not inappropriate.

[ Page 7274 ]

The bill is all about updating and modernizing, the focusing of our resources — our public resources, our sacred trust — in a way that will improve environmental management, not minimize it.

           No one who was barred from polluting before will be allowed to pollute after this bill passes this Legislature, and if an activity poses no risk, let's ask almost a rhetorical question: why do we have to regulate it in the way we do today? I don't think we do, and I believe this bill is an important first step in the process of improving our environmental protection systems and is worthy of support by all members in this House.

           J. Bray: I rise to support Bill 57, the Environmental Management Act. I rise for several reasons.

           In my riding here in Victoria the environment is always one of the most constant issues I discuss with my constituents, and so any issues that deal with the environment are certainly things that my constituents want me to be involved with. Also, as a member of the Select Standing Committee on Finance — I'm now in the process of completing my third tour around the province on that committee — we have heard time and time again the effects of the previous Waste Management Act and the Environment Management Act with respect to how the economies of various communities tried to move forward and some of the bureaucratic roadblocks they ran into. I wanted to speak to this bill from those two perspectives.

[1925]

           I have to digress for a moment, because the opposition once again brought up the mantra of big industry being the great evil one of our society. My colleague from Nanaimo made a valuable point, but I want to carry it further. Industry isn't somebody or something from another planet; industry is people. They're people who work in our communities; they're people who are trying to make this province go. They are unionized workers who work for industry. They are non-unionized workers who work for industry. They are people who are managers in communities around this province, raising their families, trying to help their communities, trying to provide economic wealth for this province to provide for the services we rely on.

           Industry isn't somewhere else. It is people; it is British Columbians. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker — and I pass this on to the member opposite — that as I travel around the province, I don't hear people saying: "Please allow us to pollute. We want to pollute. We want to damage the environment. That's why I get up every morning. I work in a pulp mill, and all I can think about is how I can pollute." Or: "I work in a manufacturing plant, and all I think about is polluting." Or: "I work in a mine, and all I think about is tailings and how I can pollute."

           That's not what these people say. This is not what these workers say, because they live in those communities. They actually live in that environment. It's not somewhere else.

           Interjection.

           J. Bray: Well, the opposition says it's the star chamber that's somewhere else that deals with this. It's people in British Columbia who run businesses. It's people in British Columbia, in their communities. I can tell you that it's not industry people that the member of the opposition thinks exist in another province, who talk to me on the Finance Committee or in my office; it's people who work in those communities.

           I find it very insulting that anybody who works for a company that does mining or manufacturing, or city staff that work in municipal waste and other departments somehow have a hidden agenda. I think it's the old, tired mantra that only government cares about the public, that only government can protect the public. Yet I think the people who have the most invested in protecting the environment, those who have the most invested in managing the environment are the people of British Columbia, the people who work in industry, the people who work on the land, the people who work in our communities. That is what we've heard.

           For three years one of the complaints has been the illogic of some of the rules — not that the rules stop us from doing things and that's why we don't like them, not because we don't like the fact that there's environmental management issues, but that they're so conflicting, so confusing, that they impede our ability to move forward in our community to ensure we have investment and that we can support our families.

           I commend the minister on Bill 57, because it achieves a number of things. First of all, it does not give free hand to anybody at all. In fact, my colleague from Nanaimo, as well as the minister, has clearly laid out that it simply changes the way in which we manage issues around environmental management.

           Interjection.

           Mr. Speaker: Order. Victoria–Beacon Hill has the floor.

           J. Bray: It brings back what people have been saying to government for the past 15 years but only this government has listened to, and that is some balance, some logic and some common sense in the way in which we work to protect our environment and deal with the realities of industry.

           In my community we do have some manufacturing and some issues with shipbuilding, and certainly the Department of National Defence, but what my constituents want to ensure is that the safeguards are in place. They want environmental protection, but they also want communities in and around the province that have been struggling to be able to actually move forward, because my constituents are concerned about small communities. Where government is impeding them unnecessarily in doing things, they want to see that rectified.

           Bill 57, first of all, I think, restores some balance. Sure, they're conflicting issues, but it brings balance to the way in which government is involved and leads on the issue of environmental management.

[ Page 7275 ]

           One of the areas I think addresses a lot of the concerns that I certainly heard on the Select Standing Committee on Finance was the area of individual permitting and the sometimes confusing roles that you got from different directors on the same site, the same area. You had conflicting opinions. It became very difficult to actually understand what it was that the ministry was asking for.

[1930]

           By bringing in area management so you are actually managing an area based on all sorts of factors — not just pipe-end or smokestack-end but the entire area around an area management plan — you actually have a more comprehensive view of any impacts on the environment that the particular activity can hold. That actually improves knowledge, it improves your management, and it ensures that ministry officials have a better sense of what's happening on the land base. In fact, not only does it further compliance issues, it actually….

           Interjection.

           Mr. Speaker: Please, order. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant was listened to without interruption. Please extend the same courtesy to the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill.

           J. Bray: Area management, I believe, is one of the most….

           Interjection.

           Mr. Speaker: Order.

           J. Bray: I really feel this addresses one of the most common themes I heard as a member of the Select Standing Committee on Finance, which wasn't to weaken environmental standards but to make them consistent, make them logical and use the new environmental science that now exists. Twenty, 25 or 30 years ago you didn't see a lot of graduates with environmental science degrees and environmental knowledge. That was usually something they took up as an interest based on a bachelor of science degree.

           Well, you now have people who study environmental management, environmental stewardship, and so you have people with very comprehensive knowledge and skills, who have the skills to in fact work in this area and provide better management on impacts on the environment. By simplifying this decision-making process and taking in a more comprehensive view for area management, I think what we'll see is better environmental standards and protection, but also allow those that are working out in our communities to try and improve the economies to be able to make faster decisions and better decisions, which is an improvement for the economy.

           Another area, though, that my constituents talk about is a sense that when we have someone who does transgress the current or new regulations, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of retribution or a penalty. I note that in section 10 the minister has moved forward strongly to say that for those that actually transgress regulations, there are going to be stronger penalties and much more progressive penalties so that we ensure that we are not….

           Interjection.

           J. Bray: The opposition member would have it that every industry is bad and everybody who works in industry is bad. "All industry is bad, and we don't want jobs" — and all the other things that we heard all through the nineties and saw the consequences. We say that most people in this province want to protect the environment. Most workers that work in industry do want to protect the environment. It's to ensure that when people do transgress the regulations, in fact, the state comes down hard to send that signal not only to that particular industry but to all industries that we take it very seriously.

           It is not just a ticket off the corner of somebody's desk. In fact, the new act, Bill 57, will make it very clear that if you choose not to participate in the regulations of this province, you're going to pay a penalty, and that's the kind of compliance people want. They want the penalties where they're necessary, but they want regulations and the system to be logical.

           Now, another area that this bill addresses, and I think in a very progressive way, is around contaminated sites. This is another issue that is very big in my particular community, because I have a lot of the harbour lands here, and a lot of those are brownfields. In fact, you can look out the Legislature windows and actually see land that's just empty. I know that the former government certainly was happy with that, because no development was a good thing with that government, but in our city it's become a problem. There is some valuable land that could be developed for all sorts of things including low-cost housing, day care centres and any number of other uses, but they couldn't get on there because the regulations and the costs were so prohibitive.

           In fact, the land I referred to over in the docklands right across the harbour from the Legislature…. A prospective proponent who had a very exciting residential commercial development that would have meant jobs, would have meant housing options, would have helped to revitalize the downtown area and the Vic West area, actually made an offer to purchase the land. They understood at the time what the environmental remediation costs were going to be and factored that into their business plan, because people actually have to have business plans to make things work. They were prepared to go forward. The city was excited. The community of Vic West was very excited.

           Then, under the former regime, all of a sudden, magically, the rug was pulled out from under them. The regulations changed, and the costs went up tenfold. That company couldn't afford that. It was absolutely beyond their ability or any company's ability to deal with that.

[ Page 7276 ]

           Guess what happens. Nine years later, that land sits vacant. It's not used for anything. It's a waste of valuable area and redevelopment. Instead, people go out and develop and cut down trees in other parts of the capital region because they can't develop already existing lands.

[1935]

           The regulations here make common sense for how we deal with contaminated sites. It actually looks at the science. It actually looks at the impacts. It actually uses the knowledge that people have in environmental management and environmental science to make sound commonsense decisions. Where there's a risk, then those costs have to be taken into account. The fact that something might have had a drop of oil on it 25 years ago does not render it nondevelopable for five, seven, eight years.

           On the Finance Committee we heard a story of an individual who had purchased a site that was a former gas station. This family was just a couple and had invested most of their life savings into this particular purchase. They have spent the past decade trying to actually get out of this now. Every time they said, "Have we met the standards for mediation?" a new interpretation came along, to the point where they were having to dig a tunnel, supposedly, under the highway to the other side. They couldn't move. This family couldn't spend money in their community, couldn't develop, couldn't get out of it because the rules kept changing — not because there was any risk, but because it simply had been a gas station.

           The changes that are brought in with Bill 57 will ensure that risk is dealt with, but that where there isn't a significant risk, people can actually get on with investment. People can actually get on with reusing these brownfields, especially in urban areas that prevent the redevelopment in areas that we want to keep pristine, because we can reuse the urban areas that were industrial and light industrial in a commonsense fashion. I can assure you that residents of Victoria would like to see some of these areas developed, but they also want to make sure the environment is protected. I believe the minister has accomplished that in Bill 57, and I am very excited about that.

           The other issue that I find interesting is that the opposition member talked about the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection and her record. Well, I want to just suggest that the minister's record has been exemplary from day one, and I want to use a local example, if I may. When the member opposite was in government for those ten wonderful years, there was an issue around the capital regional district's waste management plan. There were some issues around it, and the former government did nothing with it — just slid it off the desk, let it go without any study, any improvements — and it's an issue…

           Interjection.

           Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Will the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant please try to get herself under control. Do your best.

           J. Bray: …that was of some concern to residents and was certainly topical. The former government and the former ministers — I think they had 436 different ministers in the environment in their ten years — did nothing with it. Our current minister has actually looked at science, consulted with the municipalities, consulted with the regional district and has actually set in, based on science, real results — results that will protect the environment, results that are based on common sense. That was something the NDP had ten years to deal with and never touched.

           I can certainly attest that, on behalf of my constituents, the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection has done an exemplary job. In fact, unlike the members of the opposition who felt the more regulations they had, the more effective they were, this minister ensures that we're effective by common sense, we're effective by results, we're effective based on science and we're effective…

           Interjection.

           Mr. Speaker: Order.

           J. Bray: …based on using the new talent that's coming out of our universities.

           I'm pleased to support Bill 57. I will certainly be working with the minister to ensure that the regulations meet the expectations of my constituents, but this bill does. I think it's good that we usher in a new era of balance, of common sense and of science when we're dealing with the environment, and I hope that the member opposite of the NDP is taking notes on how it's done.

           R. Sultan: It gives me great pleasure to make some comments on Bill 57, the Environmental Management Act, a bill that I support and I endorse strongly. I think the minister has taken a very careful process to bring this bill along and has done her best to explain what, in fact, are some radically new ideas for the management of the environment.

[1940]

           This bill is particularly important to my constituents in West Vancouver–Capilano because we know intrinsically — we feel, ourselves, personally — how important the environment is to all of us who live on the North Shore. Recently we did some polling just to try and bracket where the environment stood in comparison with other issues such as the economy, health care and education, and I was not surprised to find out that the environment is right up there along with those other more obvious issues. Even in a riding such as my own, where perhaps some would think that economic issues would tend to predominate, that is not really the case.

           The principle underlying this bill does deserve some comment and further thought. In my mind, the big shift — the new idea being implemented in Bill 57 — is management by results and not by the frequency with which tickets are handed out for transgressions. I

[ Page 7277 ]

can remember, years ago, a speaker from New York City explaining the radical idea in that city that they should not measure the effectiveness of their sanitation department by the number of trucks that were on the road in a particular week but rather by whether or not the streets were clean.

           What a radical idea. In those days it struck me as being that. It's not so radical now. Certainly, it would be one of the underlying thoughts in this bill. Just to use another example: not measuring whether a particular point on a meter-reading is in compliance with a rule defined in some manual but measuring instead whether the environment is pristine or degraded over some broader, relevant area. Surely, that's the much more important measure.

           The operating philosophy under the old way had inspectors running around handing out tickets. The new philosophy has inspectors measuring, from time to time, the condition of the environment; expecting organizations to achieve that; and imposing upon them the obligation and responsibility to do so and, to some degree, to police themselves.

           This raises all sorts of questions — very obvious and justified questions. Who in the organization is going to do that? How are these organizations going to achieve a degree of discipline and impose upon themselves that pursuit? This is the second big idea, as I read and as I listen to the minister explain the legislation. The big idea is that it defines a new category of what I would call implementers of the legislation.

           Part 4, division 2, refers to "approved professionals" — a new concept. In section 42, we see that the director "may designate classes of persons who are qualified to perform activities that under the regulations or a protocol may be or are required to be performed by a qualified professional." The director may establish a roster of such persons. The director may change the roster from time to time and can add or remove names from the roster. The director may suspend qualified professionals from the roster if he or she determines this professional hasn't been doing the job.

           Under this act, I think it's reasonable to assume we're going to see the creation of new self-administering colleges of expertise offering these services to organizations, particularly those organizations that are not large enough, don't care to create that expertise in-house or, alternatively, tap into established colleges of expertise — for example, the Association of Professional Engineers, an organization I happen to belong to, so I'll declare my selfish interest here — or registered professional biologists or registered professional hydrologists or registered professional something or other, depending on the environmental issue at hand.

           As we enter this new world of self-administering colleges, having devolved to them the obligation to ensure the quality of our environment on behalf of the act and the minister and the organizations being governed, we should be aware of further implications inherent in setting up any self-administering college of proclaimed professionals or experts. In my experience, colleges by their very nature create separate fiefdoms. Colleges like to create rules for themselves for becoming a member and defining exclusions that can, in the extreme, become as difficult as the rule-making approach this whole act hopefully will replace.

[1945]

           Certainly, existing colleges will watch closely to see if they have new turf to command. New colleges may spring up, seeing the potential for some new market they can dominate. There's ample potential here for turf wars.

           In conclusion, I would just observe that by devolving obligations and responsibility and putting new focus on results instead of government bureaucratic process, we shouldn't kid ourselves and think we're going to completely escape the fallacy of rules. Those in the professions, including the profession in which I happen to be licensed, will watch the evolution of this legislation closely, will be developing their own internal rules of conduct and will watch how it all plays out with keen self-interest.

           Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection closes debate.

           Hon. J. Murray: About two years ago I had the privilege of working with the ministry staff and executives and entertaining the question: how can we do a better job with our environmental management in British Columbia?

           We asked the questions. How could we shift from the conflicts that some industry members and my ministry staff have, which absorb our time and effort, towards a constructive partnership to the public interest goals that we all share? How could we bring best practices from other jurisdictions and adopt them in British Columbia? How can we maintain and even improve standards and do things differently? How can we reduce the time-consuming processes that provide minimal or no benefit to the environment but tie up businesses endlessly and frustrate them? How can we place government resources and attention where they will be the most effective so that overall we do a far better job of protecting and improving the environment? How can we enable private sector resources to focus on environmental protection and cleanup rather than being tied up in litigation as it is in some cases with contaminated sites? How can we create incentives for businesses to do an excellent job and recognize those businesses? There are more and more each year that have very effective environmental management regimes.

           I had the privilege of addressing those questions with my staff and executives about two years ago. There was extensive consultation. The result of that work is Bill 57, and I am very, very proud to be bringing it before the House for second reading.

[1950]

           Second reading of Bill 57 approved on the following division:

[ Page 7278 ]

           Bill 57, Environmental Management Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

           Hon. R. Coleman: I call second reading of Bill 53.

[1955]

INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT ACT

           Hon. J. Murray: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

           This bill, entitled the Integrated Pest Management Act, will repeal and replace the current Pesticide Control Act. The Pesticide Control Act was introduced in 1977 to regulate the sale, use and handling of pesticides. The act requires government approvals for all pesticide uses on public lands and on private land used for forestry, transportation, public utilities or pipelines. The current act also provides for the licensing of pest management service companies and vendors, and certification of persons who commercially apply pesticides.

           Improvements to the current regulatory regime are required because integrated pest management, an approach that ensures pesticides are used efficiently and only when necessary, is not encouraged under the current act. Fines are low for many serious offences, and the compliance regime is outdated. Most large-scale uses of pesticides involve a costly, time-consuming process for approval of pest management plans. The current system for approving pesticide use is not based upon the degree of risk to human health or the environment. The process to amend the standards set by regulation takes too long and is not responsive.

           The new act will solve these problems through the achievement of three major objectives. First, it will shift to a risk-based and results-based system focused on integrated pest management. Integrated pest management requires that pesticides only be used once all options have been considered. The goal of requiring integrated pest management is to reduce our reliance on such substances and, over time, reduce their use. The second objective achieved will be to greatly enhance compliance and enforcement measures. Third, the new act will enhance and reallocate regulation-making power between the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the minister and the administrator.

           To accomplish the first objective of moving to a risk- and results-based system, the current requirement for ministry approval of all pesticide uses covered by the act will be amended. Routine pesticide use will be able to proceed without a permit, provided the user has developed a pesticide use plan that incorporates integrated pest management and has submitted a notification document of the intended use of the pesticides to the administrator. The public must be consulted on this plan, and pesticide users must consider concerns that arise and ensure that the environment and human health are protected. Pesticide use must be carried out strictly in accordance with the notification and standards set by the administrator. Non-routine and high-concern pesticide uses will still require approval by permit. These include the use of higher-risk pesticides, the use of pesticides for predator control, the use of pesticides for which no ministry standards have been set and the aerial application of pesticides over residential areas.

           To accomplish the second objective of enhancing compliance measures and enforcement powers, the new act does several things. It increases penalties for offences under the act from the current first offence maximum of $2,000 to a first offence maximum of $200,000 for individuals, with maximum fines reaching up to $800,000 for subsequent corporate offences. It adds additional sentencing options to enable the sentencing court to make orders other than fines and imprisonment. It gives the administrator the power to require a pesticide user to employ a qualified monitor to assess site conditions or monitor compliance with the act. It introduces an administrative penalty regime to reduce reliance on criminal prosecutions.

[2000]

           To accomplish the third objective of increasing regulatory flexibility, the new act reallocates regulation-making power between the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the minister and the administrator. The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is given the power to make regulations under the new act concerning conflicts with municipal bylaws and to make regulations regarding administrative penalties. The minister is given the power to make regulations regarding such things as establishing classes of pesticides, requirements for consultation and notification before pesticide use, and requirements for records and monitoring. The administrator is given the power to make regulations that include creating standards for pesticide use, assigning pesticides to the classes established by the minister and specifying how the various requirements of the minister's regulations must be carried out, such as how pest management plans must be developed, how public consultation must be conducted and how records must be maintained.

[ Page 7279 ]

           The act will come into effect by order-in-council when the regulations have been finalized and approved.

           Hon. Speaker, I move second reading.

           J. Kwan: It is interesting to note in this bill, Bill 53, the Integrated Pest Management Act…. When you look at the explanatory notes, what jumped out at me were the clauses that talked about the elimination of the requirement for ministry approval of a pest management plan in favour of a notice and confirmation scheme under which the person who wants to use pesticides in accordance with a pest management plan is responsible for having a pest management plan prepared in accordance with the regulations, etc.

           It sounds to me like it's another way of calling no regulation. It seems to be the trend that this government and particularly this minister have adopted when it comes to environmental protection. Self-regulation, no regulation, reduced regulation and minimized regulation all seem to be good things for this government. Somehow that will protect the environment. It's like saying that putting the fox in the henhouse would somehow be a good thing.

           Then you go further on to look at the explanatory notes. It goes on to say: "…provides for a category of persons known as 'qualified monitors' who will perform required professional services for pesticide users and will reduce the monitoring required of government." It's interesting to note that the premise in which…. On environmental protection, it seems that the goal here is not about how to better protect the environment but rather how to reduce the work for the government. Therefore, perhaps it's driven by a fiscal agenda as opposed to an environmental agenda. It's interesting to note that this is in the explanatory notes in the bill itself.

           The opposition, of course, will be canvassing the minister about many of these issues in this bill when we get to committee stage. We'll not only be probing the issues I've raised, of course — the notion of enforcement. The other trend this government has now illustrated is that somehow if they say they increase the penalties, things will be better. It seems to me the ministers of government who brought forward bills that say the penalties are increased and intensified and it's better, with the exception that…. They forgot to note that the enforcement side of things is not there. Ministry staff has been gutted. There's nobody out there doing the enforcement, but somehow the protection will magically be in place. Well, the opposition will probe these questions with the minister, amongst many in this bill, when we get to committee stage. It'll be interesting to find out what exactly her thoughts are, how she will be ensuring that the environment will be protected.

           Motion approved.

           Hon. J. Murray: 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 53, Integrated Pest Management Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

           Hon. R. Coleman: I call second reading of Bill 56.

[2005]

FLOOD HAZARD STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

           Hon. J. Murray: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

           The amendments contained in this bill will enable an improved approach to flood hazard management in this province. The legislation will establish more efficient, cost-effective and locally responsible means of ensuring flood protection. These amendments to the Dike Maintenance Act and certain sections of the Drainage, Ditch and Dike Act; the Land Title Act; and the Local Government Act will accomplish a number of important objectives.

           Changes to the Dike Maintenance Act will focus the involvement of the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection on higher-risk situations relating to dike maintenance and flood hazard management within the context of monitoring the overall reliability of the system of dikes in the province. The direct involvement of the ministry in approving local bylaws respecting floodplain development and subdivision development applications in flood-prone areas will be eliminated through changes to the Land Title Act. This will relieve administrative burden and additional development costs.

           In place of performing this approval function, the ministry will set voluntary guidelines for local governments and provide informational tools and expertise to assist local governments to meet the provincewide guidelines. New regulation-making authorities under the Environmental Management Act will enable the creation of mandatory, self-reporting mechanisms, if necessary.

           The amendments to the Drainage, Ditch and Dike Act will facilitate the transfer of the few remaining diking districts in the province to local governments. These districts are the remnants of a system established early in the last century, and they're inefficient and underresourced. The transfer of these functions to local governments will resolve these problems and will promote the consistent application of standards for dike maintenance.

           The transfer of the diking authorities to local governments will be facilitated by providing tools such as flood hazard maps, data on the location of dikes using global positioning systems, guidebooks, training and ministry expertise. Resources for local government study grants will be provided by the Ministry of Community,

[ Page 7280 ]

Aboriginal and Women's Services, and eligibility for infrastructure grants will be maintained.

           The amendments to the Land Title Act and the Local Government Act will make possible increased local government control and accountability over land use decisions associated with floodplain development. The new guidelines-based framework will provide communities and developers with increased flexibility and allow the province to focus its resources on the areas of greatest importance to public safety and the environment.

           This new approach to flood hazard management has been developed in consultation with local governments, the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, diking authorities, flood hazard professionals, consultants and academics, and an ad hoc committee consisting of members of this House representing constituencies around this province that include areas that are subject to flooding.

           The new management framework that will be enabled by this bill will increase responsiveness to flood hazard management issues through greater local responsibility and control, while making the best possible use of available resources at the provincial level. The new approach supports this government's objective of revitalizing the economy by addressing the problems of red tape, rigidity and overregulation. It gives local governments greater control over local land use decisions, while incorporating a standards-based framework that will safeguard public safety and promote the implementation of consistent flood protection measures across the province.

           J. Kwan: I just have some brief comments with Bill 56, the Flood Hazard Statutes Amendment Act, 2003. It is interesting to note that under section 19 of the bill, it actually deals with the delegated authority — downloading, if you will — of the designating of floodplains to local governments. The minister says that somehow that's a good thing, and maybe it is a good thing. The important issue, of course, is about offloading responsibility, what kinds of resources are being provided to local governments to take on this responsibility, and the impacts on them.

           As we go through the many changes that the Liberal government has brought forward — and it is impacting the municipalities on the ground — in spite of the promise from the Liberal government, from this Premier and from the government bench that they would not offload onto local governments, we see it everywhere we go. We see it in virtually every situation.

[2010]

           We know, as a matter of fact, that on the issue around homelessness, a lot of the problems that municipalities are now faced with are a direct result of and certainly related to the provincial government cuts in funding, the provincial government's elimination of some 1,000 units of affordable housing — one of the first acts when they came into office. That's another off-loading impacting the municipal community on the ground.

           There are many examples as such. In fact, I know the city of Vancouver actually did at least a preliminary review of what the impacts are as a result of the many cuts from this government and its off-loading impacts onto the local community.

           In this bill, when it deals with floodplains, we have yet another situation where that responsibility is being off-loaded to the local government. What are the cost implications for the local governments? The minister says that the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services will be ensuring that there will be resources there. It remains to be seen.

           The opposition will be probing these questions during committee stage to see exactly what kinds of resources are being provided to the local governments, so that the true notion of ensuring that municipalities have the tools that they need to do their work without having to take away scarce resources that they now have…. How would that be accomplished, and how will this government and this minister ensure that off-loading is not going to be in place for local governments with respect to this bill?

           Motion approved.

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

           Bill 56, Flood Hazard Statutes 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. R. Coleman moved adjournment of the House.

           Motion approved.

           Mr. Speaker: The House is adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

           The House adjourned at 8:12 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2003: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
ISSN: 1499-2175