Hansard -- Volume 19, Number 11 -- Tuesday, May 9, 2000

2000 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MAY 9, 2000

Morning Sitting

Volume 19, Number 11

[ Page 15409 ]

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Hon. D. Lovick: I call Committee of Supply. In this chamber, we will continue

the debates of the estimates of the Ministry of Forests, and in the other

chamber, we are debating the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

[1005]

The House in Committee of Supply B; T. Stevenson in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

(continued)

On vote 34: ministry operations, $297,814,000 (continued).

G. Abbott: Just so the minister understands what we have in mind today, my

colleague from Kamloops-North Thompson has a couple of follow-up questions from

his questions on salvage yesterday. Then I have a few questions out of the

auditor general's report, particularly around silviculture and FRBC, then a

couple of follow-up questions from the Wouters report about FRBC and then a

couple of issues on miscellaneous forest issues, and we're complete.

All good things must come to an end, they say. Although I see the eyes of the

minister and his staff imploring me to keep it going for just one more day, I'm

happy to see it wound up. We do need to get on with other business. Perhaps the

member for Kamloops-North Thompson wants to complete his questions.

K. Krueger: Just picking up where we left off yesterday, with a couple of

quick points on salvage logging. I really appreciate the commitments the

minister made yesterday. As I've been working on this project, as I mentioned,

I'm told that there are about 100 jobs that have spun out of this 10,000 cubic

metres. I'm told that we could easily find 30,000 cubic metres in the North

Thompson Valley each year and presumably a couple of hundred more jobs. It

struck me how, in order to be competitive with our international competitors --

for example, in Europe, where they seem to know almost every tree by name -- we

have to make sure to make maximum use of this part of the resource as well.

I have a letter from a major licensee that I have been trying to get

interested. The ones up in the northern part of the valley are very much onside,

as I mentioned yesterday. But this licensee wrote me, and I'll just briefly

touch on what they say in the letter:

"The main potential exists with small patches or single trees that

exist along old roads and trails. By definition, these dead trees should be

classified as 'endemic' because they die of natural causes such as root rot.

We successfully logged about 3,500 cubic metres of this type of wood in the

Kamloops district approximately five years ago, and because it was endemic,

the grade 3 -- dry sawlog -- was not charged against our quota. Furthermore,

because the volume was so scattered, no SPs were required, so the

administration was next to nothing. What made this work was the simplicity of

the admin and the trust from using a local logger."

[1010]

Then they go on to say:

"The reason our proposal stopped five years ago was that the Kamloops

MOF changed the scaling rule so that the dry sawlog got charged to our quota.

As you can imagine, it costs more to log this, while bringing an inferior

product to the sawmill. Therefore there is no incentive to use valuable log

quota for this type of work."

And they quit their involvement in the program.

I wonder if the minister could have a look at ensuring that licensees don't

have that problem, so that they continue to be just as accepting of salvage wood

in other areas as Weyerhaeuser and Slocan have been in the North Thompson.

Hon. J. Doyle: I thank the hon. member for the question. He is referring to

Weyerhaeuser in the Slocan. But I must remind the member that anything that is

brought out has to be added to the cut in that area.

K. Krueger: Well, that was the point that we covered yesterday. The minister

had agreed to have a hard look at that question of whether salvage logs that are

brought out really should attack anybody's annual allowable cut, including the

entire provincial AAC. It's waste-wood if it's left there, and it will be left

there if major licensees know that it will attack their quotas or if, for

example, the small business program is going to suffer, because that volume will

have to come out of their quota.

What I'm asking the minister to confirm for individual licensees is what he

said he'd look into yesterday for the province as a whole -- and that is,

excluding salvage volume from AAC and from individual licensee quotas. Will the

minister consider that?

Hon. J. Doyle: We don't specifically know the items in total or in detail

that the member is asking about. I'd be happy to look at it, but at the same

time I'd have to add to what I said last time. If it contributes to the cut, it

must count against the cut. I'd be happy to get more specifics from the member

and see what we can do, if at all possible.

K. Krueger: Then I just have a couple more housekeeping items essentially,

although they're big handicaps to these small operators, as I mentioned. A

number of them have got off welfare because of this program. They have some

difficulties coming up with the damage deposits for each little site they get

approval for. It would be helpful if the ministry would accept a letter of

credit from a bank as a one-time kind of standing deposit system for an

individual salvage logger, as long as they maintain good performance, rather

than requiring them to come up with a cash deposit for each little job that they

take on. Is that something the minister would consider?

Hon. J. Doyle: We're currently looking at how we work this item on damage

deposits, and we'll get back to the member when we get something resolved. Now,

whether or not these individuals . . . . If anyone in the province,

including the people you're referring to, was on welfare, whether or not they

could get a letter from the bank . . . . Maybe you could get a

letter based on the fact that, say, there's a certain product somewhere in the

tenure or the land out there, where they could get some . . . . The

bank might say: "Based on the fact that you've got so much wood that you're

going to haul out of the bush, we'll give you a letter of credit."

[ Page 15410 ]

G. Abbott: The next two sections,

section 24 and

section 25 -- silviculture

and other FRBC issues -- obviously kind of roll together here in terms of

application of both MOF and FRBC to these issues. Let me just introduce some of

the recommendations contained in the auditor general's report on silviculture

with this question.

Obviously there are different silviculture treatments involved in broader

silviculture in British Columbia -- spacing, pruning, fertilization, brushing

and so on. There's considerable debate in the forestry community about the

varying efficacy of these different types of silviculture treatment.

[1015]

The dominant responsibility for silviculture certainly rests now with FRBC. I

guess the small business program might be the exception. Does the ministry -- or

ministry staff, more precisely -- do ongoing analysis of the effectiveness of

the various silviculture treatments that are available in the province?

Hon. J. Doyle: Yes, we do, and we do ongoing analysis on this.

G. Abbott: Has the ministry involved itself in the debate around the efficacy

of the differing silviculture treatments to the extent that they have formed

some conclusions about which is the most cost-effective way of improving growth

and yield in the province?

Hon. J. Doyle: This is done on a site-by-site basis, working with our

professional staff in the field.

G. Abbott: Further to that, I will refer the minister now to the auditor

general's report on Forest Renewal B.C., including the latter portion of his

report entitled "The Silviculture Programs." On page 125 there is a

recommendation from the auditor general with respect to the issue that we have

just been discussing. It reads: "A strategy similar to that identified as

being required by the forest sector strategy committee in 1995 should be

developed by integrating existing documents and should be used as a basis to

guide strategic requirements for incremental silviculture activities.

Development of this strategy should be a coordinated initiative by the Ministry

of Forests, Forest Renewal B.C. and the industry."

I think that is an appeal to try to bring together all of the knowledge we

have around incremental silviculture and, out of that, base a strategy that

presumably will maximize growth and yield potential in our forests. What is the

ministry's response to that recommendation?

Hon. J. Doyle: The ministry has developed a silviculture investment strategy,

and we're going to be working on this over the next two years.

G. Abbott: Is that strategy a public document at this point? Can I access it

on the Net, or is it still held in confidence?

Hon. J. Doyle: FRBC did release an initial document on this, and that is

available.

[1020]

G. Abbott: Am I to understand, though, that there is additional documentation

that is in the hands of the Ministry of Forests?

Hon. J. Doyle: At this time, we're . . . . It is an ongoing work

at this present time.

G. Abbott: Will there be a release of that document? Is there a target for

completion and release of the strategy?

Hon. J. Doyle: As individual parts of this are completed, they will be

released at that time. It will be worked on over the next two years. As

different parts are put to bed, that will be released.

G. Abbott: I will take the minister to page 139 of the auditor general's

report and to page 140. The recommendation on page 140 follows a

section

entitled, appropriately: "Growth and yield information is inadequate."

Now, we've had some considerable discussions through these estimates about

annual allowable cut and some debate around whether the annual allowable cut

can, over a period of years or decades, be increased to perhaps 100 million

cubic metres, as COFI has suggested we should set out as a goal. I'm presuming

-- because I think that the minister is, as I am, commonsensical on this point

-- that unless one takes a moral position that fewer trees should be cut .

. . . Presumably, if we can, through innovative forest practices,

enhanced silviculture, a regime of tools . . . . I see the

Environment minister shaking her head, which is always a bad sign here. But

perhaps that was just a tiny slip on her part. Unless we take the moral position

that the harvest should be constrained, presumably we want to maximize the land

base and the resource that we have available in British Columbia.

In his recommendation on page 140, I think the auditor general is going to

this point: "Forest Renewal B.C. should ensure that strategic-level

enhanced forestry research needs are addressed in its planning of research

programs. In addition, it should work with the Forest Productivity Council to

identify growth and yield information needs and provide the funding needed to

ensure that such information is being adequately collected for managed

stands."

My reading of this is that in its way, it's another call for better

information around the sustainable management of our forests. What is the

ministry's response to this recommendation?

Hon. J. Doyle: The member had said in the lead-up to his question as to

whether we should cut more or fewer trees . . . . Of course we all

agree that hopefully we can cut more trees, but we should always be looking at

what is sustainable. The growth in yield is a different analysis than I know the

chief forester used six, seven or eight years ago. They used a different way of

counting the trees than they do today. I just forget the VDYP. I forget the

other method that they used.

Interjection.

Hon. J. Doyle: TIPSY -- that is right.

We do work with the Forest Productivity Council. FRBC has a structure in

place to see what we can do to get more productivity out of the forest-growing

lands in the province.

G. Abbott: I'm taking from that response that the ministry has embraced that

and that we are working with the Forest Productivity Council to achieve that

goal.

[ Page 15411 ]

The next recommendation I'll refer the minister to is on page 164. This is

the auditor general's discussion of New Forest Opportunities. The second

paragraph of the auditor general's analysis reads:

"At the time of our field review in the region, the agency was only

several months old and had little work underway. A number of bids had been

received, which some proponents told us were 30 to 50 percent higher than

historical levels. This evidently was expected, at least initially, as

contractors factored in the additional risk associated with using New Forest

Opportunities. New Forest Opportunities management told us that its average

costs were 14 to 15 percent higher than expected after approximately three

months of fieldwork."

The recommendation from the auditor general, pursuant to that discussion on page

164, is that: "Forest Renewal B.C. should provide clearer direction as to

the level of costs it is willing to accept to meet its social objectives."

Has the ministry developed a response to that recommendation?

[1025]

Hon. J. Doyle: New Forest Opportunities is the responsibility of FRBC; it's

under review by FRBC. They've taken action, and hopefully there has been the

reduction in costs of 14 to 15 percent that was identified in the report that

you just read from, member.

G. Abbott: Last year we had a very spirited debate around some aspects of New

Forest Opportunities. Of course, the most contentious aspect of New Forest

Opportunities is its hiring system, the so-called HCL or Highway Constructors

model, which is involved in the hiring and placing of individuals employed in

silviculture. The other controversial aspect of the HCL, obviously, is the

obligation of employees to unionize in order to obtain employment.

As I've noted, we had a vigorous debate on that both at the select standing

committee level and in estimates. I don't propose, this late in Forests

estimates, to revive that debate again. Everyone, I think, is familiar with the

arguments. We're certainly committed on this side of the House to getting rid of

the HCL model should we be fortunate enough to be elected to government. The

minister may want to comment on that. But I think there are some problems that

don't need to be there. There are some costs that don't need to be there, and

obviously there are some restrictions on employees and on contractors which I

don't think need to be there either.

To their credit, the New Forest Opportunities folks have been -- I guess

within their range of authority -- attempting to resolve some of those issues,

so I'll give them credit for that. But I still think that what we have here is

an obvious example of where we are not delivering a program as effectively and

efficiently as we should. Now, the minister may want to comment on that. Apart

from that, I'm happy to go on to page 169. Perhaps the minister does wish to

respond.

Hon. J. Doyle: There was a survey done of forest workers in this program, and

80 percent plus of the workers were very happy with the program. If the member

doesn't have a copy of that survey, I'd be happy to give one to him.

G. Abbott: On page 169 the auditor general has a look at quality assurance.

As I understand it, that is effectively the follow-up inspection work that is

done by the Ministry of Forests on contractors who are undertaking silviculture

contracts through Forest Renewal B.C. The recommendation that's contained on

page 169 is: "Forest Renewal B.C. should assess the level of assurance it

needs and ensure that the Ministry of Forests' quality assurance review process

has the resources to meet that requirement."

The auditor general does note that the historical level of quality-assurance

inspection is about 10 percent of work conducted, so I presume the review is

around that figure as opposed to whether it's being delivered appropriately.

Perhaps the minister can comment on the recommendation and comment on the

analysis provided here by the auditor general.

Hon. J. Doyle: Hon. Chair, on this one item on page 169 -- quality assurance.

This has been the normal practice of the ministry over the years -- that they

would do . . . . So 10 percent has been the threshold level that

they've done over the years. It hasn't changed, and it seems to be an acceptable

threshold for the ministry.

[1030]

G. Abbott: Has the review, then, been completed? Did it find that the level

of quality assurance to date has generally been acceptable?

Hon. J. Doyle: The ministry has not done a formal review of this, but what

the field surveys stated was that the 10 percent threshold is fine.

R. Coleman: My questions relate to Forest Renewal as well, relative to the

auditor general's report. When Forest Renewal was started, there was a plan that

was passed by the Legislature. The Legislature passed this direction for Forest

Renewal B.C. Basically it had a number of goals. The goals were that the money

would be used to renew the land and keep the forests healthy, to invest in the

forest lands that generate much of the province's wealth, to ensure sustainable

use and enjoyment of the province's forests, to ensure the continued

availability of good forest jobs and to ensure the long-term stability of

communities that rely on the forest.

This was to be achieved by collecting an estimated $2 billion over the next

five years from increased stumpage rates; dedicating this investment to the

forests, the people who work in the forests and their communities; creating new

partnerships of government, industry, workers, first nations, communities and

environmentalists to manage this reinvestment in the forests; and developing

policies to complement and enhance the investments in the forests.

The plan had five principles. The five principles as stated are that -- this

was Forest Renewal as debated in the Legislature when Forest Renewal came into

place -- first, they would be permanent. The investments will be used to sustain

the public forests for the long term. The second was that it would be

independent. No money would go into general government revenues. Third, it would

be equitable. Investments would be distributed fairly throughout the province.

They would be effective. All partners would take

part in making decisions as to

where the dollars were invested, and they would be accountable. The government

will bear responsibility to the public and the taxpayers.

There are a number of issues that I'd like the minister to address today.

First of all, it is my understanding that there are 300 employees in the

Ministry of Forests that are paid for by Forest Renewal. Going back to the

principles as debated in

[ Page 15412 ]

this Legislature, which was the argument that was given for Forest Renewal

and its operations as passed by this Legislature . . . . How do they

justify 300 employees of the Ministry of Forests being paid for by the $2

billion that has been collected in revenues from stumpage over that five-year

period -- being paid to people in the Ministry of Forests rather than to meet

the sustainable goals that are outlined in the plan?

The second point here is "independent," and no money will go to

general revenue. In the debates of this Legislature the minister at the time,

the Premier at the time and the members of the caucus on the government's side

at the time stated clearly that that would never happen. I'd like the minister

to comment on the 300 employees of the Ministry of Forests that are presently

being paid for by Forest Renewal B.C.

[1035]

Hon. J. Doyle: The member asks a good question. I remember well,

approximately four years ago, that there was some talk or rumours around this

building of government possibly taking up to $400 million for other uses that

government would see they had a need for. I remember that when I heard that

rumour around . . . . I write a column on a regular basis as the MLA

for Columbia River-Revelstoke, and I wrote a column right away to say that that

should not be done and that those moneys belong to the generation today and to

our children. I remember that the Leader of the Opposition stood up in this

House and quoted from the column that I wrote as the MLA for Columbia River-Revelstoke

-- that this FRBC was set up. There was agreement by industry and many, many

people in the province that there was need for it. So I agree with you on the

need for these moneys to stay separate.

As far as the 300 people in the Ministry of Forests that are paid by FRBC,

FRBC didn't feel that they should go out and hire people if there were people in

place. In this case, the 300 Ministry of Forests employees are used as a

delivery agency by FRBC. Instead of going out and building a new building and

hiring new employees, why not use what is in place and what works well with

professional staff in the Ministry of Forests?

R. Coleman: There are 300 employees in the Ministry of Forests being paid for

by Forest Renewal B.C. The argument about the $400 million being taken from

somewhere else was another movie at a different time. We might both agree on

that. But the reality is that Forest Renewal B.C. was set up, and its guiding

point was independence -- no money going to government revenues.

How does the minister justify the argument of independence, when 300

employees in the Ministry of Forests are being paid by Forest Renewal B.C.

rather than being paid for by Forest Renewal and working for Forest Renewal?

You've lost the independence. You have this interrelationship within Forest

Renewal B.C. that goes away from the guiding principles that this corporation

was set up on to begin with.

Hon. J. Doyle: Further to the member's question, this money does not go to

general revenue. There's a contract that FRBC has with ministry staff who are in

place to do work. If they didn't use the Ministry of Forests staff, they'd be

hiring outside people to do it. There's a lot of expertise in ministry staff.

They use Ministry of Forests staff to deliver this program that they want to do.

R. Coleman: It is general revenue; it's replacing general revenue. The 300

employees, whether they be on contract or otherwise, are in the Ministry of

Forests and not at FRBC. The independence is gone, and they are being paid for.

Whether it be contract or whatever, it's still 300 employees coming out of the

public payroll one way or the other. What does it cost us to have those 300

employees? How much is Forest Renewal paying for those 300 employees annually?

Hon. J. Doyle: It's 210 employees, and it's roughly $14 million for this

year. But again I emphasize that they're doing contract work for FRBC.

[1040]

R. Coleman: I don't think there's any point in splitting hairs. Whether you

like to believe it or not, FRBC has broken all the rules that were laid out for

it by this Legislature when it came into inception in 1994, because it has

broken its own guiding principles.

One other question before I conclude -- one final question. I'd like the

minister to comment on the comment to the auditor general that FRBC spent $1.3

billion before it had a business plan in the forests -- $1.3 billion without

measurements, without a way of deciding where the money was spent or whether it

actually met the permanent investment or the regional equity measurements

relative to it. But $1.3 billion without a business plan -- I'm wondering what

the minister thinks of that.

Hon. J. Doyle: I would have to disagree with the member across the floor. The

allegation that he makes is not true. Actually, industry asked us to deliver

this program on behalf of FRBC. Industry is paying an additional stumpage; they

feel that they should have a lot of say as to how that money is expended.

Industry asked that this portion of the program be delivered this way.

R. Coleman: I can't think of a single forest company that I've met within the

last two years that has told me that it would have spent $1.3 billion without a

business plan, without measurements in place.

In the debates in the Forests Committee and the debates with the auditor

general, your own officials at FRBC have stated that they're now getting to

measurements for FRBC five years after its inception. I don't think that's

acceptable, and I don't know why we would dance around this. The reality is that

$1.3 billion was spent -- no measurements, no sustainable business plan, nothing

to deal with it. Three years ago it was brought to the attention of FRBC in the

debates in the Forests Committee. Two years ago it was brought to the attention

of FRBC; a year ago it was brought to the attention of FRBC. I'd like to know

why the minister . . . . I'd like to have the minister comment on

the fact that the first 1.3 billion FRBC dollars that were spent, were spent

without measurements and without a proper business plan.

Hon. J. Doyle: I was answering the question to do with the employees and the

contract work that FRBC has asked . . . . And the industry had asked

-- I had asked the member to ask the industry -- the Ministry of Forests to do

the contract work for them.

I'd just like to read out, for the member's information, work that FRBC has

done since it was set up in 1994. There's

[ Page 15413 ]

311,000 hectares of forest land treated to improve timber growth and quality; 12

million cubic metres of second-growth timber added to British Columbia's

potential future timber harvest; 150 environmentally damaged watersheds

restored; 25,500 workers receiving skills upgrading to improve their

employability, including 2,700 workers learning specialized value-added skills;

4,500 jobs created on average per year for British Columbia's forest workers,

totalling 22,500 person-years of employment; and 4,000 jobs created through

community economic diversification that started or expanded 600 new forest

businesses in 74 communities across our province.

R. Coleman: I guess it's not going to be my day to get an answer to the

question that I asked the Minister of Forests, so we can just move on.

There are still 300 employees of the Ministry of Forests that are paid for by

FRBC. FRBC spent $1.3 billion without measurements and without a business plan.

Everybody knows that. The auditor general has commented on it. The Forests

Committee has discussed it -- and your own officials at FRBC.

But the most frustrating

part is that the five principles that FRBC was

founded on have not been adhered to -- those principles of permanence of

investment, independence and no money going to government. Equitable investments

that are measured across the province by regions, which are not there in an

equitable manner . . . . That has also been discussed at the

committee. That they're effective . . . . Well, how can you measure

effectiveness when you don't even have measurements in the system until you

finally come out with a strategic plan in the year 2000, after putting a company

on the ground in 1994?

[1045]

Then there's the accountability -- the accountability of public funds

collected as superstumpage from forest companies across the province, which were

spent without a business plan and without measurements. There's no

accountability, no effectiveness, no equity across the province and no

independence of government, and finally, there's no permanence on all the

investments. That's my concern with FRBC. That concern is that for three or four

years now, in that one committee, we have continuously told FRBC to reach those

levels of accountability before they spend money. And they don't achieve it.

My final question would be: $1.3 billion without a business plan, no

measurements, money being spent in government . . . . How does the

ministry justify the fact that this Crown corporation has not met its guiding

principles as outlined in the original legislation?

Hon. J. Doyle: Clearly the member opposite and I disagree. We know the

opposition voted against FRBC when it was set up. By and large, when the FRBC

business plan for this year -- the $301 million program -- was announced, it was

generally very well received in the province by all people that make access to

those moneys. And for every year that FRBC has been in place, there's been a

business plan released, and it has been debated in the select standing

committee. I feel, hon. member -- we disagree on this -- that FRBC has been a

success, and it has carried out its mandate that it was given in 1994.

G. Abbott: I just want to wind up the FRBC discussion with one recommendation

that comes from the Wouters report, page 89. But the minister is right; the

opposition did vote against the FRBC legislation. They voted against it based on

the apprehension that it would become a politicized, wasteful tool of the NDP

government, and that is precisely what has happened over time. We have seen a

level of waste and politicization which is absolutely unacceptable to any public

or private agency in this country. I don't see how -- in light of the report of

the auditor general, particularly on this -- anyone can claim that the first

five years have somehow been a success.

Now, the minister's right. We're going to disagree on this, and we'll

disagree on it all day. And odds are that when we get to have an election in the

province somewhere between a month from now and 12 months from now, we'll

probably disagree then. That's fair enough. The people can state their

preference -- whether they're accepting of the level of waste and politicization

that we have seen with this particular agency.

I do want the ministry's response to the one recommendation on page 89 of the

Wouters report, and that is: "No MLAs or public servants should serve on

the board of Forest Renewal B.C." What's the minister's response to that?

Hon. J. Doyle: The recommendation that the member refers to on page 89 of the

Wouters report . . . . The fact that the Minister of Environment,

the Minister of Forests, the Deputy Minister of Forests and a caucus member from

the government party sit on the board of FRBC is something that I'm looking at

seriously. I feel that the FRBC board does a very, very good job. There's a good

cross-section of our province sitting on the board. They work very, very hard.

Actually, I'm hoping to go to my first FRBC meeting since I became minister,

later on this week. I'm looking very seriously at the recommendation of Mr.

Wouters.

G. Abbott: A couple of miscellaneous issues here, and I guess these sort of

spill over into both FRBC and ministry areas -- but primarily the ministry. The

plywood industry in British Columbia has, for some time, taken the position that

the stumpage system in British Columbia doesn't adequately reflect the nature

and concerns of the plywood industry. I know that plywood is a big factor in the

minister's riding, so undoubtedly he is aware of some of the arguments around

this. Does the ministry continue to give consideration to some of the arguments

that have been advanced by the plywood industry?

[1050]

Hon. J. Doyle: I'm very familiar with what the member mentions because of the

plywood mill in Golden and the concerns they've had over the years. But what the

ministry is doing at the present time is looking at the broader issue to do with

stumpage and some of the recommendations that are in the Wouters report.

G. Abbott: This is another issue, and while I think it is a provincewide

issue, it is an issue that was raised to me -- just yesterday, actually -- by a

contractor in the minister's riding. The contractor in question has this

concern, and I'll try to introduce it in as straightforward and dispassionate a

way as I can. His concern is that in Revelstoke the Columbia forest district is

allowing everyone from around the province to submit tenders on road and bridge

work in the Revelstoke

[ Page 15414 ]

district. He says: "Fine, if everybody was going to do that, that would

be fine. Because then it's a level playing field." His concern is that

others can come in and bid on Revelstoke work, but he is excluded from similar

consideration in some other districts in the province that take the position

that there is some kind of local preference.

Now, I have no idea what the administrative arrangements are around that

issue. But I do know that the minister probably knows the gentleman involved as

well as I do and is apt to feel the force of his arguments at some point anyway.

Is the minister aware of whether there are consistent arrangements across the

province around the contracting out of roadwork and bridgework?

Hon. J. Doyle: The question regarding a contractor alleging that Revelstoke

companies have to compete against other companies across the province for

roadworks in that area but that they can't do the reverse and compete on other

jobs in other parts of the province . . . . We are looking at that

very issue to make sure that there is a standard system across the province. You

either can bid across the province or, by and large, by community or forest

district.

G. Abbott: I'm delighted to hear that, because obviously it is very simply an

issue of fairness to ensure that contractors have an equal shot at this work. Of

course, contractors always complain that there's not enough work anyway, and I'm

sure that's true in a lot of instances. I thought, in this case, that the

contractor had a particularly forceful argument, in that there wasn't

consistency in the application of administrative procedures around contracting.

I am pleased to hear that the minister is going to resolve that. I encourage him

to resolve it with all speed so that in the year 2000 contracting season we do

have even application of rules across the province.

I think we need to wind up these estimates. I do want to thank the minister

and his staff for their many answers over the course of these long estimates. I

think we have some views in common that we've identified. We also have, I think,

some important differences in the way we would advance forest public policy on

this side of the House and on the government side of the House.

I think we can all agree that we do have, and will continue to have, a great

forest industry in the province. It is still our primary source of jobs in the

province, and I think with proper tending it can continue to be our greatest

source of jobs in the future. Certainly the forest industry is a primary source

of new investment capital in this province. It is our primary export from the

province, and that's certainly going to be the case for the foreseeable future.

Forestry continues to be the number one source of government revenues as

well. A lot of the health, education and social services that we have in this

province are very much a part of the contribution that the forest industry makes

to British Columbia.

[1055]

We do have a number of strategic advantages, I think, for the future. Looking

ahead to the twenty-first century and the role that forestry can play in British

Columbia, we have a very substantial land base and a climate that's well suited

to the production of trees. We can, I hope -- as we have discussed on a number

of occasions in these estimates -- develop strategies to see us maximize that

resource.

We have a great strategic location in terms of the opportunity to develop

further trade with the largest economy in the world immediately to our south. Of

course, sitting on the Pacific Rim as we do, we obviously have some

opportunities to, hopefully, restore, rebuild and indeed build new trading

relationships with nations around the Pacific area.

As well, we have a skilled, productive and educated workforce in British

Columbia, and that certainly is a big part of our strength. Why, then, have we

been struggling in this industry? And why have we seen very substantial losses

in three of the last four years? Well, I think there's a number of items that

have come into play here, and we've talked about many of them through the course

of estimates. We've talked about the tax and regulatory overload, which I think

continues to plague the industry in British Columbia. We've seen over time a

doubling of fibre costs. In many respects, particularly when we get into

declining prices -- a declining price cycle -- our industry is quickly rendered

uncompetitive. We are, as documents have noted, one of the high-cost producers

in the world, and as a consequence we're one of the first out of the marketplace

when markets go sour.

Does the profit in 1999 mean we've turned a corner? No, it doesn't. That

profit recovery was based on American softwood lumber prices. It wasn't based on

substantial cost-structure reforms. Those, I think, still need the minister's

attention. I think that high prices have masked, and continue to mask, a need

for regulatory reform, and I think that Peter Pearse's remarks, which we talked

about early in the estimates, were right on the mark. We need to get away from

the idea that the good returns in early 1999 were reflective of the fact that we

had somehow completed all the regulatory changes we needed. We haven't. Indeed,

I think that the high prices have in some ways enticed this government to add

some new costs. Again, we've talked about landscape unit costs and identified

wildlife costs -- some of the things that I think can again hurt this industry

in terms of costs and in terms of fibre availability.

This industry won't grow because Victoria issues a decree or an edict that

says it must grow, as they did in the jobs and timber accord; rather, we need to

redevelop a favourable investment climate in British Columbia. We need to once

again give investors a sense that their investment is welcome and that we don't

see profit as a dirty word; it's something that's necessary to sustain

investment and to sustain jobs in this province.

There are just a number of priorities. We do need to protect and enhance

B.C.'s access to the American softwood lumber market. We obviously need fair and

honourable resolution of aboriginal claims, as we have discussed through these

estimates. I believe we've got a big job in reforming and depoliticizing Forest

Renewal B.C. to make it just as efficient and effective as it can possibly be as

a delivery model. We need to -- and this is very important -- establish and

protect a working forest where planting timber and the production and extraction

of timber are the dominant objectives. And I think we've got to pursue this with

the same vigour and zeal with which we pursued the strategy of 12 percent parks

and protected areas. I guess that among the most important things we need to do

is develop a results-based and incentive-based Forests Practices Code where,

again, responsibility and accountability are put back into the hands of

professional foresters and licensees, and then measure those results with

third-party audits and international certification.

[ Page 15415 ]

There are a number of exciting things happening in the forest industry in

British Columbia. More exciting things need to be happening, and I think that if

we can open up the energy, the thought and the vigour of the private sector and

indeed of the Ministry of Forests itself, we can turn the corner with this

forest industry. We can make the forest industry in British Columbia number one

in the world again. With those remarks, I thank the minister and the staff for

their persistence through this process.

[1100]

Hon. J. Doyle: I'd just like to say, before I sum up, that the estimates this

year are approximately 20 hours shorter than what the estimates were last year.

I'd like to make a few comments to conclude the estimates of the Ministry of

Forests. In

summary, the member for Shuswap and I canvassed many issues with

respect to FRBC -- the state of the industry, the current practice of forestry

in British Columbia and the options for future change in forest policy -- during

the course of the estimates debate.

I believe that the member opposite and I share a number of common views about

the forest industry. I'll list some items that I think we generally agree on:

the forest industry has a strong potential for growth; the forest industry must

continue to evolve to remain competitive in an increasingly competitive

international market for forest products; the government must continue to strive

to reduce costs and red tape for the industry; the government must continue to

develop systems that will allow foresters to exercise their professional

responsibility as stewards of the forests, rather than depending on burdensome

regulations; the government must explore ways to make our stumpage system more

reflective of market conditions; and we must diligently work with the federal

government and the industry to establish a new trade relationship with the

United States to replace the softwood lumber accord that's in place today.

At this time I would like to thank the many, many staff that work for the

Ministry of Forests -- not just the members who attended estimates in this House

but the 4,500 ministry people that work throughout the province -- for the very

professional job that they do, the many hours that they put in and the

professional attitude and the dedication that they have to their work.

The member opposite and I disagree, however, on the best way to achieve some

of the goals, in the degree to which we must seek to protect our place in the

marketplace. And that is by increasingly demanding that forest products be more

competitive and harvested in an environmentally responsible way.

The last point is that I firmly believe that while we can have a competitive

forest industry and while we may make some of the world's finest forest

products, it will be in vain, for our customers are unwilling to buy British

Columbia products due to their concerns about how we manage our forests.

Those points aside, I believe that we've had a constructive discussion, and I

would like to thank the member for Shuswap and other members across the floor

for their contributions to the estimates debate. Also there are certain items,

letters and other information that I said I would send to the hon. member or

other hon. members; those will be sent over to the members as soon as they're

ready.

Vote 34 approved.

Vote 35: fire suppression, $76,808,000 -- approved.

Vote 54: Forest Practices Board, $5,151,000 -- approved.

[1105]

Hon. J. Doyle: Hon. Chair, I move the committee rise, report resolutions and

ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

again.

Hon. A. Petter: I move committee on Bill 8.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2000

The House in committee on Bill 8; T. Stevenson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 20 inclusive approved.

section 21.

G. Plant: The provision before us is an amendment to the offence provision of

the Heritage Conservation Act. The Heritage Conservation Act, in its present

form, was fairly dramatically and comprehensively revised in, I think, 1994. I

actually went back a few minutes ago and looked at some of the debate that took

place then. At the time that the act was amended, there was an offence provision

put into it. The act has a variety of other remedial provisions that give the

minister certain powers and provides for injunctive relief and other things. The

offence provision, as it was enacted in 1993-94, had no limitation period in it,

so as I understand the way the law works here, the ordinary six-month rule from

the Offence Act would have been the rule that applied.

The government, by this amendment, is seeking to introduce two new provisions

into the Heritage Conservation Act which would extend the limitation period. The

way it's written is that it will extend the time limit for laying an information

respecting an offence under this act or the regulations to two years -- the next

words are important -- "after the facts on which the information is based

first came to the knowledge of . . . . " Then there are a

variety of officials, including peace officers and designated officials,

enumerated in the provision.

[1110]

We had a six-month rule. The rule was that the time limit for laying an

information was six months after the acts or omissions in question occurred, and

now we're extending that. We're extending it not just to two years after the

action occurred but rather to two years after the alleged offence comes to the

knowledge of a police officer.

What you could have, conceivably, is someone committing some sort of act or

omission which would constitute an offence under the act, and then years and

years could go by -- decades, perhaps, could have gone by -- while the alleged

offence was as yet undiscovered by any public official. Then at

[ Page 15416 ]

some point, perhaps decades after the offending act occurs, a peace officer

or some official from the ministry discovers that this has occurred. At that

point a two-year time limit arises for laying an information. So it's not just a

change from a six-month limitation period to a two-year limitation period. It's

really a change from a six-month limitation period to something like an infinite

limitation period in terms of acts and omissions that remain undiscovered.

My first question, in order to assess the wisdom or otherwise of this

proposal by the government, is to ask the minister -- whoever it is that is

going to be responsible, the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture:

can he indicate the number of charges that have been laid under the Heritage

Conservation Act since the 1994 amendments?

Hon. I. Waddell: Yes, I'll answer the questions, as I have responsibility for

the Heritage Conservation Act. The list of cases I have goes back for 30 years.

So I don't have exactly the cases from that last amendment.

Over the last 30 years, there were 18 investigations. In 11 of them, the

statute had expired before charges could be laid. In two of them, charges were

recommended, but the statute had expired. And one was dismissed on delay of

trial date; two were stayed. One of the two stays was due to the Statute of

Limitations. There has been one successful conviction: removal of a mummified

body from a burial cave. That's one conviction in 30 years.

There are some problems with the statute with respect to the time period. And

what the hon. member said in his introduction to the question was correct. There

is no limitation period here. Therefore I think the

Summary Convictions Act

would apply -- one of the acts -- which is six months. We're putting in two

years, and it's two years from the date when the offence is known, not two years

from when it occurred. We think that would unnecessarily . . . . It

would be too much of a restriction. And if the hon. member wants to know, I'll

tell him why.

I'm informed that it may take a very long time before the offence is . .

. . The unauthorized alteration to a heritage site or heritage property,

which would give rise to a possible charge . . . . It would take too

long to discover it. The reasons for that include . . . . We have a

big province, and a lot of it is often covered by water or covered by snow; some

of the sites are very remote. Sometimes there's reluctance for a person to come

forward with information. Sometimes there's an inability of the general public

to recognize the site damage. That takes some time. And sometimes their efforts

are concealed. So it has to do with the nature of the sites and the nature of

the province, and that's why we want the period to run from the time that the

incident is recognized rather than from the time that it occurred.

[D. Zirnhelt in the chair.]

G. Plant: I appreciate the answer of the minister. My recollection is that an

offence, the nature of which is subject to the provision we have in front of us,

can occur on public land and on private property. So it could conceivably be

something that some heritage site that's defaced or desecrated on Crown land but

also someone's private property. Am I right?

[1115]

Hon. I. Waddell: The member is correct. On public land, like gravesites and

other sites that have been desecrated, and also on private land . . . .

It's a tough statute; we all know that. It's going back 30 years.

G. Plant: I wonder if I may impose on the minister for another bit of factual

context. The question is: how many heritage sites are there in British Columbia

that could conceivably be the subject of some sort of act that would constitute

an offence? And I seem to remember reading somewhere 20,000 -- maybe more than

that. Does the minister have a figure for how many sites are thought to exist

across the province, recognizing that not all of these sites may yet be

identified or known?

Hon. I. Waddell: There are about 21,000 sites in the province. With reference

to the preface of the hon. member's question, very seldom do we go after a

private owner. The way the system works is, in fact, that we work with private

owners to try and alleviate any problems. So far, that's been pretty successful

over the 30 years. We've tried to work within the confines of practicality and

reasonableness. But we do feel that we need the extended time, and we do feel

that we need to put it on this kind of basis. We figure that if we had to

prosecute a case, we would continue to lose cases on the basis of limitations.

G. Plant: It occurs to me that any reading of what's intended by this

provision would be of interest to the land-owning community -- the businesses in

British Columbia who acquire, buy and sell land. They may be, in some cases,

acquiring ownership of or a leasehold interest over large parcels of land that

have heritage sites on them, where there may be questions now about the expanded

range of time within which an offence can be prosecuted.

This seems to me, therefore, to be the kind of provision that the government

would have taken out for some kind of consultative process that would have

applied the business lens and all of those fine things we hear talked about from

time to time in government press releases.

Can the minister indicate what sort of public consultation process was

undertaken here and whether the business lens -- is that what it's called? --

was applied to this provision? Or was this something that was essentially

created in-house?

Hon. I. Waddell: The measure wasn't brought in to try to target private land.

That seems to be working fine, in terms of dealing with the difficulties in

private land. On the larger issue of private land and what's in our land title

system, I have initiated some discussions with the real estate bar on the whole

notion of how heritage sites are registered on title. That's a bigger question,

an important question that we should face in the province and haven't. I've

initiated some discussions on that, and I'll keep the member informed as to

where that goes.

With reference to this specific

section and the private bar, I don't think

we've had those consultations. But we don't think that's particularly necessary,

in that we see the prosecutions applying the act more to desecrations on public

matters.

[1120]

G. Plant: I take it that the answer to my earlier question is no -- that is,

neither the business lens process nor public

[ Page 15417 ]

consultation was undertaken here. I understand the minister, from a policy

perspective, expressing a preference, if you will, for saying that the

quasi-criminal process is intended to apply to public lands and that they have

other ways of working with the issue on private lands.

I suppose, as a matter of the exercise of ministerial discretion and so on,

that may or may not work. The problem, of course, is that we're being asked to

change the law; there's nothing in the offence itself that is limited to public

lands. That's a point the minister has already made clear. So while the minister

makes certain statements about how he sees the act operating, the truth is that

the minister could be replaced tomorrow by another minister who had quite a

different approach. We could be faced with criminal prosecutions occurring in

respect of acts that have taken place on private lands.

I think the minister will understand that when you expand the limitation

period this way, there's a range of implications for private landowners. I

remember -- sorry to personalize this -- that ten years ago I had the

opportunity one summer to spend the weekend in Clayoquot Sound and in fact to

wander around Meares Island. As the minister may know, there was a sawmill on

Meares Island in the last decade of the nineteenth century -- a fact which I

always thought was interesting, given that Meares Island was usually considered

by the public to be a pristine wilderness.

What remains of that sawmill even yet on Meares Island made me think that all

across the province people have wandered, invested, built, constructed,

demolished and abandoned activity in relation to the land -- which may have had

an impact on heritage conservation sites. Heck, I mean, the Sutton Lumber and

Trading Co. sawmill remains themselves may be a heritage site which ought not to

be defaced or desecrated.

If those acts had occurred decades and decades ago, then someone who may want

to acquire the land on which the old mill site exists is going to have to

question: "Well, am I going to have Environment officials or peace officers

coming onto the property, poking around and seeing whether something exists that

was defaced ten years before I became an owner? Then am I going to get caught up

in a criminal prosecution, where someone's got to find out who it was -- maybe

it was the previous owner of the land -- that was caught up in this? Then maybe

they're going to be . . . . "

Once the private bar realizes this, then the whole business of land

conveyancing is going to start to change. People are going to require

indemnities, and they're going to require covenants with respect to prior acts

on the land. It does seem to me that when you move beyond the very clear

certainty afforded by a six-month maximum limitation period to a two-year

discoverability limitation period, the government is conceivably opening up a

large can of worms.

I invite the minister to strike a balance between the admitted need to ensure

that the act works, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the need to ensure

that it does so without unreasonably affecting the other legitimate interests of

private land owners -- and, frankly, the public who use the public lands of the

province.

Hon. I. Waddell: Look, we're not after the private property owner who

inadvertently alters his site. There haven't been prosecutions there, and there

won't be. We're after someone who purposely alters his site, and from the date

that we know that the act has happened . . . . You could be dealing

at some point with someone who will delay and then alters the site. Six months

is up, and you can't prosecute. We need that extra period to find out the extent

of the alterations in a province that's as large as British Columbia and as

difficult to reach as some of these sites are. I could say that to the hon.

member.

[1125]

One could make a technical legal argument that -- maybe with the six-month

period as well -- you could have it based on the test that the government's

applying here, because there's no definition of the test in the six-month

period. You could argue in court that we're applying the same test as in the

six-month period, if that comes up.

We're not, I would argue, fundamentally changing the matter here, in that

we've got the balance. We need the two-year period as the extension, and the way

things are working out is not to go after the private owner. But we're going

after people who are purposely desecrating these sites. We need the two-year

period to get some successful prosecutions, or else we lose them on what I would

term basically a technicality.

With reference to the private bar and to the difficulties with the heritage

property on title, I undertake to discuss some of those matters with the private

bar. I think that's a bigger issue that hasn't been discussed, and it needs to

be discussed. I will do that and keep the hon. member informed.

B. Penner: I take exception to the minister's comments that most private land

owners are satisfied with their dealings involving the ministry and that the

legislation is not aimed at private land owners. That's simply not borne out by

the evidence and the experience of many British Columbians -- unfortunately, an

increasing number of British Columbians. I regularly receive correspondence from

a couple by the name of Gary and Fran Hackett, who I think are familiar to the

heritage branch. They are people who have owned property in Vancouver since the

1950s. Only recently were they told that in fact their property is considered to

be a heritage site. That is having an adverse impact on their ability to

redevelop their property, which they have owned for over 40 years. Now they are

caught up in a horrible problem not of their own making.

Closer to Chilliwack, I've been contacted by a farmer by the name of Melvin

Vander-Hoek, who purchased property -- approximately 80 acres -- just prior to

the end of December 1999. The title of certificate from land titles mentions

nothing about the Heritage Conversation Act. It turns out that the branch has

known about an archaeological site at that property for more than 30 years, but

they have not bothered to register it on the title. There was no warning to

Melvin Vander-Hoek or his wife when they purchased the property. Now they are

caught up in a situation where they cannot utilize that property as they had

intended in their business plan for their farming operation. That's having a

dire consequence on people in that family and on others in British Columbia.

The Heritage Conservation Act has contained a provision for many, many years

allowing the government of British Columbia to register any property that they

feel to be of archaeological or heritage value on the land titles system. The

province has dropped the ball and has not done that. I think

[ Page 15418 ]

the province bears a lot of responsibility. I'm quite upset here today to

find that the government is coming to us, asking essentially for a blank cheque

and an indefinite period for which they can prosecute people for things they are

not guilty of. They had no way of finding out whether or not the property they

were acquiring was considered to be of heritage value by the provincial

government.

I wrote to Malcolm McAvity, the director of land titles, earlier this year to

ask how many notations in the land titles system recognize any properties of a

heritage conservation value. In a letter to me dated March 20, 2000, Mr. McAvity

advises me that there are exactly two filings under

section 32 of the Heritage

Conservation Act. Just a few minutes ago we had the minister tell us there were

more than 21,000 sites that the heritage branch considers to be of

archaeological or heritage value, yet they've only bothered to register two of

those with land titles.

In British Columbia we have a Torrens system. People are supposed to be able

to rely on the land titles registry to be the definitive answer to whether or

not there are other interests vested in that land. This is supposed to be a

warning mechanism for purchasers, and that has not been the case. Many people

are receiving rude awakenings and unhappy surprises, and I fear that in years to

come there'll be many more.

[1130]

I received a letter from Farm Credit Corporation. They are the people who

helped finance Melvin Vander-Hoek's acquisition of the 80 acres near Agassiz. I

want to quote from this letter dated March 14, 2000, addressed to the assistant

deputy minister in this ministry. It states as follows:

"On yet another level this situation poses significant concern to the

Farm Credit Corporation in that it has become apparent that we, as a mortgage

lender, may have significant contingent liability of which we are unaware.

Because of the province's practice not to register their archaeological

heritage sites at the land titles offices, there has been no due diligence

process in place for vendors, purchasers, realtors, lenders or lawyers to

confirm the existence of the province's heritage interests. This is of major

importance in light of the fact that we've been advised that there are in

excess of 20,000 such sites across the province."

My point in all of this is the increased uncertainty, and my concern with

section 21 in this bill is that it will increase the amount of uncertainty out

there for private investors and property owners in British Columbia. When will

it come to an end? When will property owners know the true extent of their

liability?

You know, I purchased a house a couple of years ago. It could be that I'm

sitting on something considered to be a heritage site. At the time I acquired

the property, I checked with land titles, and there was nothing registered. But

that is little solace to me if in fact the practice of the province is to not

register these heritage sites with the land titles system. I look forward to the

minister's response.

Hon. I. Waddell: Let me respond to that. First of all, in neither of the

cases that the hon. member mentioned was there any entertainment of prosecution.

They're not really relevant to this particular amendment. With reference to this

amendment. I want to comment about some of the points the member made, because

they're good points.

Secondly, there's not a blank cheque here with this amendment. In the statute

it's two years after the time the offence is known.

Interjection.

Hon. I. Waddell: Well, that's what it says in the statute, and that's pretty

clear.

I want to just say something about the other matter that he referred to, and

that is the general problem of registration. I share that problem.

I could be personal for a bit too, if I might -- and not with Clayoquot

Sound. I had to write the bar exams again. I think I have the record; I wrote

them in 1969 and 1994 -- 25 years apart. It was amazing.

Interjection.

Hon. I. Waddell: No. Like the Scotsman I am, I didn't pay my dues, and I had

to write them again.

Interjection.

Hon. I. Waddell: Well, in any case, while I was writing them and studying for

them, I can tell the hon. member that on the real estate part, we as lawyers all

learn that we have this Torrens system -- which is, I think, the finest system

of land registration there is -- in which everything on the title is registered

at the land registry office, and you go on that. There's a little note in my Law

Society notes which says that while there may be other acts that might apply and

that you should have a look at, one of them is a little act that says

"heritage."

In fact, the hon. member is right. There is a lot of heritage property

potential in the province -- heritage sites. There needs to be a look at the

policy of registration and what's happening. Does it need to be registered on

every site? What's going to happen with that? A lot of times the department

doesn't know where the sites are, and it just comes to light. I'm doing that; I

recognize that. I'm particularly worried about the Vander-Hoek case. I think

it's a good example, and it disturbs me. I've asked the real estate bar to work

with me on this, and I will keep the hon. member informed.

I will say that the department's been very fair in the way it's worked with

private owners, and over the years it has worked things out. This is a very

tough act; I've already said that. The act was applied to private land. It

wasn't enacted by this government; it was enacted by a previous Social Credit

government years ago. I think it's a good act, but it's tough. It's tough on

private owners because it puts a lot of onus on them, and they may not have the

resources to deal with it. So that's a problem, and we have to deal with it.

But this particular amendment just deals with helping Crown counsel to get a

fair prosecution and to set a period of two years instead of six months. They

lose cases on technicalities there. I think it's the right balance, and I ask

the hon. members to pass it.

[1135]

G. Plant: Well, I want to say that while in some respects the minister's

observation about relevance may be technically correct, if you look at it from

the larger context -- the real world, the world outside the esoterica of what

lawyers like to talk about -- the things are connected. The situation brought to

the floor of the House by my colleague from Chilliwack indicates that in the

world of private land owners, there are

[ Page 15419 ]

some real problems presented for certainty of commerce by the provisions of

the Heritage Conservation Act. What I think these amendments will do is add to

that uncertainty. One of the things that limitation periods do, when they are

properly drafted, is create certainty. They draw balance. They create a balance

between the need to ensure that an offence against the law is prosecuted, on the

one hand and, on the other hand, the need to ensure that people are not left

hanging with uncertainty for decades and decades about the possibility that

something they have done may give rise to a criminal charge -- or, in this case,

hanging with uncertainty about the possibility that something that somebody else

did on their land years and years ago may be the subject of a criminal charge

though they were not even the owners of the land then.

I think the minister made the best possible argument against his own

amendment when he talked about how big this province is. We know that there are

at least 21,000 heritage sites. My guess is that that number is probably only a

percentage of what could be argued to be the real heritage inventory in the

province. I think all of us, on both sides of the House, are committed to

ensuring that heritage sites are protected from desecration and that those who

commit acts of desecration are in fact prosecuted with the full rigour of the

law. We share that public policy objective.

Where we disagree, I think, is on the extent to which the government, the

state, should have the power in terms which are practically open-ended to bring

a charge for matters that may have occurred years and years ago and yet which,

because of the size of the province, have not come to the attention of officials

until very recently.

I recognize what the minister says about the problems they've had in

prosecuting claims or charges under the act. I listened to the statistical

evidence that the minister brought forward. It struck me that among other

things, there weren't all that many charges. What also struck me was that there

are obviously some cases where a six-month limitation period is too restrictive.

It strikes the balance in the wrong place.

I think the way to fix this in the best of the spirit of compromise, if you

will, is to replace the two-years-after-the-facts-are-known provision, which is

before us in the form of

section 21 of this bill, with a limitation period that

is two years -- fixed. That is, what I propose is that the time limit for laying

an information respecting an offence under this act be extended from the current

six-month limitation period to two years. That gives the government -- its

officials -- 18 more months within which to operate to discover facts that might

constitute an offence and to prosecute them. I think that when we're looking at

what are, after all, provincial regulatory offences, two years is a reasonable

period in any event.

[1140]

What I propose is an amendment, and the amendment is specifically to delete

section 21 of Bill 8 and replace it with the following:

[Section 36 is amended by adding the following subsection:

(6) The time limit for laying an information respecting an offence under

this Act or the regulations is 2 years after the acts or omissions alleged to

constitute the offence occurred.]

On the amendment.

G. Plant: That goes some distance down the road that the government wants

to go here. It takes the six-month limitation period and enlarges it to two

years, but it ensures that we don't create unnecessary uncertainty -- which I

think would be contrary to the public interest. For no other reason . . .

. When the government is proceeding to make a significant change in the

law and has done so without, as I understand it, doing a regulatory impact

statement, without applying the business lens, without undertaking public

consultation, then we ought to be very careful to give the government what it

wants.

I respond to the minister's invitation by asking him to agree to the

amendment with which I have earlier provided him a copy. If he has particular

happy to hear them. But it's the substance of the point that I want him to

consider and respond to.

Hon. I. Waddell: I thank the hon. member for giving me a copy of his notice

of motion and for his genuine concerns about this matter. I just disagree that

the amendment doesn't add to the uncertainty. I say that the amendment is

necessary in order to get a fair period in which to consider prosecutions. And

that is after the facts -- two years after the knowledge that the incident has

occurred. We need that for the prosecution.

I regretfully cannot accept the member's amendment. But I will work with

the private bar with reference to the bigger question that the member for

Chilliwack raised with respect to heritage values generally being reflected on

land title and that whole larger issue.

I don't know if my hon. colleague has . . . .

Hon. A. Petter: Just a brief observation, hon. Chair, in support of the

balance that I think the minister has tried to strike between what I

acknowledge are some difficult competing interests. But it seems to me that

what one doesn't want to do is encourage a sort of lottery system, or a system

in which those who might knowingly or willingly engage in damage to heritage

sites do so in a way that seeks to run out the clock. I'm sure the member

doesn't want a situation -- for example, the desecration of a gravesite or

someone trying to do damage to a gravesite -- in which those who would do that

kind of damage simply seek out remote sites that are unlikely to be discovered

for a period of time, in the hopes of escaping consequences that the member,

in his statement, acknowledged should be visited upon such an individual. I

think the amendment that the member has proposed would encourage that kind of

running out the clock.

The minister, I think, has tried to effect a balance by making the two

years attached to public knowledge. It is a balance, but I think it is one

that guards against the danger that I've illustrated -- of individuals

essentially trying to escape consequences by engaging in activity that's

unlikely to be discovered within that two-year time frame.

G. Plant: The Attorney General speaks in opposition to the amendment. I

think it's important, since he chose to do that, that I respond by making some

observations which would not have applied to the minister responsible for the

bill, because he and I were first elected in 1996.

[1145]

The Attorney General who has just spoken was in fact a member of the

government that gave us the six-month limitation period back in 1994. I assume

that the government, as a

[ Page 15420 ]

government, gave anxious, careful and deliberate consideration to this

issue back in 1994. After conducting, no doubt, an extensive study and

engaging in widespread public consultation -- as I'm sure they must have done

back in 1994 -- they considered that it was important to have a six-month

limitation period. That that's where the balance should be struck.

When we're talking about the prospect of people running out the clock, as

the Attorney General says, I would have thought that with a six-month

limitation period that would be a far more acute risk. So what my amendment

does is that it in fact actually goes 18 months further down the road to

accommodate the point that the minister has made and says, in effect, that two

years becomes the window.

What I think the Attorney General has to do is to stand up and meet the

case about why the six-month limitation period that his government introduced

in 1994 is so egregiously wrong that it has to be replaced by the current

limitation period. One of the ways you do that, I think -- with respect -- is

that you explain both the nature of the problem that's arisen . . . .

The Minister of Small Business has done that, in terms of the statistical

stuff. But then you also talk about the way in which you have considered the

impact by use of the various procedures that this government has created, like

the business lens or the regulatory impact procedures. You talked about the

public consultation that has been undertaken, and yet none of that has been

done here. The government hasn't even taken this out to the public. They've

put it in a little Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, hoping that it would

basically pass unnoticed.

I agree with the minister's fundamental point, Attorney General's point

that you have to be alert to the risk that someone will "run out the

clock." Of course, that exists across every regulatory offence that

exists in the laws of British Columbia. Maybe what we should be doing is

having a debate about amending the Offence Act of British Columbia to extend

the six-month limitation period in that act to two years. But no, we're only

having it in this context of this bill.

I think, leaving aside the temptation to become overtly partisan here, that

the real matter is that the government has not done what it has to do to make

the case in support of its proposal to change the law in the way it seeks to

change the law. I think that what our amendment does is acknowledge that there

is some force to some of what the government says. But there is not the

evidence to support opening up the limitation period in the way that this

provision seeks to do. So I ask again for the government to consider the

amendment and support it.

Hon. I. Waddell: Let me give an example of a case that occurred after 1991,

in 1996 in the Comox area, where a site was damaged during house construction.

The branch comes in, stops the construction, convinces the owners and works

with the owner to hire an archeologist to mitigate damage.

R. Neufeld: The owner had to pay for it.

Hon. I. Waddell: Well, that -- unfortunate under the statute . . . .

The member says the owner has to pay. The statute's a tough statute. But the

branch works with the owner, and they work out . . . .

Interjection.

Hon. I. Waddell: Well, often -- in most cases -- they've tried to work out .

. . . They've worked out . . . .

Interjections

Hon. I. Waddell: All I know is what I've seen. They've managed to work with

the private owners with a tough act. But in the Comox case they made an

agreement with the owner. Then additional damage was done, so they asked the

RCMP to look at prosecutions -- as they have to do under the act. It takes

Crown counsel a number of months to make the recommendations. About five

months later, the Crown counsel's report . . . . Crown counsel

looked at the RCMP report and said: "It's a little scanty. We need a

little bit further report -- better evidence and a little bit better

investigation." They go to do that. Then the six-month period expires,

and that's it.

Interjections.

Hon. I. Waddell: That's why we need the 24 months in the act. I guess we

just agree to disagree that we need it, on the test that we've advanced in the

statute. The member is free to propose an amendment and have a vote on the

amendment.

[1150]

G. Plant: I think we are about to have a vote on the amendment. But let me

just tell you that the minister's very helpful remarks have given me one more

reason to vote for the amendment. Earlier, as I recall, we were all told to

feel quite assured about the situation of private land owners, because private

land owners weren't dealt with under the criminal process.

Yet as I understand it, the case that the minister has now placed before us

to argue in support of extending the limitation period is an example of a

housing project, which presumably was not being done on vacant Crown land, but

rather was being undertaken on someone's private property. So the very risk

that I earlier thought was a risk here -- a risk that these provisions will

affect private land owners, which the minister earlier tried to talk his way

out of -- I now find is in fact the very first example that occurs to the

minister as an example of why we need this limitation period that he's talking

about.

In any event, as I heard the facts, the incident in question would be more

than covered by a two-year limitation period, which is the proposed limitation

period in our amendment, which I would be happy to move to resolution on, one

way or the other, by a vote at any time now.

Hon. I. Waddell: I don't want to prolong the debate, but that's not exactly

what I said at the beginning. I said the act does apply. It's a tough act, and

it does apply to private and public. I said that we hadn't been going out to

do prosecutions on private land -- only when there was quite flagrant misuse

or abuse of the heritage system. I don't want the member to misinterpret my

remarks. I think he's making a bit of a mountain out of a molehill here. I

think that this will be covered, that the amendments can . . . .

Interjection.

Hon. I. Waddell: Well, I think he is making a mountain out of a molehill.

I think what the hon. member raised with reference to the bigger point,

about the registration on title, is something that's worth looking at further,

and I undertook to do it.

[ Page 15421 ]

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS -- 35

Whittred

Hansen

C. Clark

Campbell

Farrell-Collins

de Jong

Plant

Abbott

L. Reid

Neufeld

Coell

Chong

Sanders

Jarvis

Anderson

Nettleton

Penner

Weisgerber

Dalton

McKinnon

Masi

Roddick

J. Wilson

Barisoff

van Dongen

Symons

Thorpe

Krueger

J. Reid

Stephens

Coleman

Hawkins

Hogg

Nebbeling

Weisbeck

NAYS -- 35

Evans

Doyle

McGregor

Sawicki

Kwan

Lali

Hammell

Pullinger

Bowbrick

Brewin

Boone

Orcherton

Calendino

Zirnhelt

Randall

Robertson

Cashore

Conroy

Smallwood

Miller

MacPhail

Dosanjh

Petter

Lovick

Priddy

Ramsey

G. Wilson

Farnworth

Waddell

Gillespie

Streifel

Walsh

Kasper

Goodacre

Janssen

The Chair: Thank you members. I will make the tiebreaking vote in opposition -- opposed -- in

order to maintain the status quo and to continue the debate. The motion is

opposed; it fails.

[1200]

Section 21 approved on division.

Hon. I. Waddell: I move that the committee now rise and continue at the

next session -- that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit

again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Hon. I. Waddell: I move the House now adjourn.

Interjections.

Hon. I. Waddell: Can't we do that?

An Hon. Member: You've got to report.

T. Stevenson: Hon. Speaker, Committee B rises, reports progress and asks

leave to sit again -- if you can hear me.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, could we have some order, please. When shall the .

. . ?

Hon. D. Lovick: The question, Mr. Chairman, is: when shall the committee

sit again? The answer is: next sitting.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit

again.

Hon. D. Lovick: With that, I move that the House be adjourned.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:03 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.

The committee met at 10:12 a.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

(continued)

On vote 41: ministry operations, $36,744,000 (continued).

T. Nebbeling: We finished yesterday in fairly lengthy debate on the

counterpetition issue -- how the role of the smaller groups in communities is

giving excellent opportunities to pursue opposition of an issue. I don't think

that we are going to get much further than what we have already been saying. I

will continue with looking at the Islands Trust.

However, before we do that my colleague from Parksville-Qualicum would like

to ask a question pertaining to an issue in her riding.

J. Reid: My question has to do with the approval for regional districts to

grant business licences. It's my understanding that the regional district of

Nanaimo has made that request. I'm interested in the process and whether there

is an opportunity in that process for public input.

[1015]

Hon. C. McGregor: I've been given to understand by staff that it is, as the

member made reference to, a bylaw power that they have to apply to the

ministry to be approved. And once that application comes forward, what we

would do is review their application from the perspective of what type of

public process they have initiated and involved broadly -- the business

community, citizens at large and so on -- to make sure that there'd been broad

consultation prior to having taken the resolution to seek that power.

The other issue that we would want to investigate is their capacity to take

on that issue. In other words, do they have the staff, the resources, the

ability and the interest? Obviously, if

[ Page 15422 ]

they've passed a resolution, they must clearly have an interest. But do

they have a capacity internal to their government organization in order to

take on that power?

J. Reid: My concern here is that they have made the application for these

powers. To my understanding, there hasn't been any process -- public process

-- or input. I've been receiving that in my office, and people have been

wanting to know where they're going to go with that. As I understand it, this

is a request that the ministry is sitting with and has been for some time.

Then the question is: at what

part in this process is the ministry, and at

what stage are we at? And what should we expect? When the ministry asks the

regional district what public process there has been, if there hasn't been,

are there suggestions or requirements? Or is it a matter that it goes back to

the regional district for public input process, etc., and comes back to the

ministry?

Hon. C. McGregor: We don't know the actual specifics of this request from

this regional district, but we'd be happy to get that detail for the member.

We'll try and get it for later today. Broadly, I would say that if the member

describes a lack of process on the part of the regional district, it would be

my assumption that our direction back to the regional district would be

through a letter or in a conversation to suggest that they would indeed have

to go through that broader public consultation prior to us considering their

application further. That's a general view. I would like to follow up with the

specifics of this particular application, and we could provide the details to

the member later today.

J. Reid: So there is the assurance that the ministry requires that public

process. I'll be able to take back that as part of the regional district,

there is a place for the public input that the ministry will definitely

require from the regional district. That's great. I look forward to the

following information.

Hon. C. McGregor: I'll just confirm that the answer is yes.

T. Nebbeling: As I alluded to, I would like to move on now to the Islands

Trust -- what I think is after Bill 88. The second, more important issue that

I would like to focus on during this series of estimates is primarily the

uncertainty of how the Islands Trust today is fulfilling its mandate and also

the uncertainty between the trustees and the trust council in their role.

As I said in my introduction, there was a study done recently. I don't know

if that was on behalf of the Islands Trust or if the study was done by

Municipal Affairs, but the conclusion that was maybe encapsulated best and

presented to the public was that the status quo stinks.

[1020]

The third problem with the Islands Trust, then, is with the status quo. It

doesn't really know where it's going or how it should go forward. As a

consequence, there seems to be a lot of independent actions on various

islands, which are not necessarily in the mandate of the trust or are actually

within the guidelines set out in the past in conjunction with Municipal

Affairs for how trustees interpret their powers and how they act on the

interpretation of their powers.

What I'm trying to say is that there is a lot of discontent on the islands

over actions of the Islands Trust. I think we have to find some answers to

find a way to deal with these concerns that citizens express. Ultimately, the

role of the Islands Trust is to work within a mandate of protect and preserve,

but certainly not at a cost where the people affected by the decisions are

clearly not happy. The documentation I've been receiving over the last six to

eight months -- or maybe even longer -- has been fierce and vigorous,

expressing concerns about some of the actions that have been taking place on

various islands. I talk about Bowen Island, I talk about Gabriola, and I talk

about Vancouver Island water property owners who have concern about certain

bylaws that the Islands Trust has tried to pass. I will canvass all of them.

In an

article -- I think it was in the Times Colonist recently, on March 8 .

. . . In an interview with the trust chair, Mr. David Essig, there were

a couple of points raised that were made as a consequence of an

article about

a study that I alluded to before. The trust chair basically said that it is

time to look at how we move forward, and here are some ways we can do that. I

would like to talk and spend some time with the minister and staff on some of

the suggestions made in this report, which clearly is focused on trying to get

out of the status quo situation we're in today. There has been some talk --

maybe more than talk -- or some preference expressed by the Islands Trust for

a new status, more like a regional district. I would like to hear whether the

Minister of Municipal Affairs is, at this point, having any talks on that

particular direction for the Islands Trust. Maybe she can enlighten us.

[1025]

Hon. C. McGregor: I would agree with the member that it certainly has been

a matter of some interest and discussion amongst residents of the Islands

Trust -- their local governance structures and . . . . The mandate

of the trust to preserve and protect has been pursued for a number of years.

There is a broad level of dissatisfaction in some quarters about how to best

achieve that goal.

The member makes reference, then, to the report that was developed by Diana

Butler. I don't know. Does the member have a copy of the report? We would be

happy to give you a copy of her report. It's quite comprehensive, and I'm just

working from the executive

summary, in terms of looking at her

recommendations. As the member points out, there were a number of references

as to why it doesn't work, although I would say that the comment that

"the status quo stinks" was not the comment of the consultant but in

fact of one of the citizens who was interviewed as part of her report.

Having said that, I just want to assure the member that I have a great deal

of interest in this topic. I've come to no conclusions as to what the next

steps need to be. I've met with the trust, and we've had a beginning

conversation about what might flow from this report and what next steps are

required. I'd be very interested in involving the critic or any other members

from opposition who have interest in this topic to give us input on how they

think we should design a process for the next steps. It will be very important

that there be broad involvement in designing a strategy or an approach to how

we look at this question of governance within the trust.

T. Nebbeling: I appreciate her correction that "the status quo

stinks" is indeed from an individual. She heard that statement, and she

made that clear -- there on the island.

The problem I have, of course, is that this whole debate about the trust

and the need for some change has been going

[ Page 15423 ]

on for a number of years now. One of the problems I hear when I talk to

islanders is that they get the impression that often what is done is going

through the mills but that the trustees themselves, who are all representing

individual little fiefdoms, are really not so hot on considering new steps,

new ways of doing business that would incorporate the communities in a more

consultative and empowering way.

What I hear is that this discussion is going on far too long. Because it

has been going on far too long and more disgruntlement is being developed,

more and more people are now saying: "Let's do away with the Islands

Trust altogether." Why not empower local people on the islands through

new stages? On Bowen Island we found a way by creating the first municipality

within the trust. Why should there be trustees separately elected, who

basically walk to their own drums and are not necessarily in tune with what

the council feels the direction of the trust should be? Why not start off by

bringing it back to a local level, rather than have the group that has to a

certain extent been responsible for the mayhem -- if I can use that word -- in

how the trust is working still being in charge, finding the new direction?

I want to point out to the minister -- and I don't know if she has seen

this

article -- that the

article finishes with a statement of Mr. David Essig,

who I truly believe means the very best. "You know, the Liberal caucus

loves the idea of the trust becoming legislatively independent." And then

it quotes my name and the name of Murray Coell, who is also involved in issues

on the Islands Trust because of his riding.

What we have said to Mr. David Essig -- and I have checked this with Mr.

Coell -- is that in no way, shape or form have we endorsed any change of

legislative direction or any direction towards a preferred form of legislative

control. We certainly -- strongly, I should say -- support the idea that

there's going to be some serious thinking as to what the role of the Islands

Trust should be on the islands, in context of the Islands Trust. That's as far

as our support for a review has gone. I think it's important that that is our

record, because we have not endorsed in any way, shape or form the legislative

independence of the Islands Trust.

[1030]

Like I say, is there any consideration at this time? This is an issue that

must be discussed by staff. This has been going on far too long to say:

"Well, we've just taken this study, and now we sit back to see further .

. . . " It goes beyond the study. Is there any consideration given

for a new system where decisions are made on local level, rather than the

Islands Trust dictating how issues are developed over the years? That issues

development, I think, has gone beyond the mandate, but that's not here or

there in my argument. My argument is: should Municipal Affairs be able to set

up a set of terms under which islands that today are within the Islands Trust

operate independently and are accountable to Municipal Affairs, actually,

rather than to an Islands Trust that works fairly independently from Municipal

Affairs?

I think that's part of the problem, because the Islands Trust interprets

its mandate definitely differently in certain instances than I get in the

interpretation heard from the Municipal Affairs end. I will, during this

process, come back with a couple of cases where there clearly was a different

direction given by Municipal Affairs or by the Municipal Act -- I shouldn't

make it personal about the Municipal Act -- where the Islands Trust went a

different direction than another direction, because they felt the Islands

Trust Act allowed them to do that.

Is there any consideration given . . . ? Is there any talk

about making the islands more independent and letting locals decide, within

the terms that are set out by Municipal Affairs, how to operate?

Hon. C. McGregor: I'll begin by reviewing some of the remarks the member

made about a desire on the part of citizens for a more consultative,

empowering process. I would agree that that's largely the view that many

citizens across the province have. It isn't unique to the Islands Trust, but

perhaps it's unique in the sense that we're in the midst of this review, and

it gives us an opportunity to provide citizens with an important role in this

conversation and in decision-making around the governance of the trust.

The member will have an opportunity to review the report at some length;

we'll provide it to him, as I said. That report puts forward a number of

possible options around governance models. The member's suggestion that the

trust would act as a largely independent government agency is one of the

options described in the report.

Again, no decision has been taken yet on what kind of model we might decide

to move to as a result of this report. We want to have a very comprehensive

and transparent process with the public, with members of the trust and with

members of government, because there is indeed very much a provincial interest

in this matter. I don't see this as being a process that only the trust would

participate in. It must have a much broader involvement, including provincial

government involvement. I've invited the member opposite and other

representatives. Perhaps the member for Saanich North and the Islands, because

he has particular interest in this, is someone who would also want to give us

some input and advice about which models we consider and what kind of process

we develop in terms of moving forward with consideration of these models.

[1035]

I just point out to the member that while it might appear that it has been

a very lengthy process to get to this point, the report itself was drafted

only over a period of several months, from about February to March. It is very

comprehensive in nature. I think Diana Butler did a superb job of really

trying to suss out all the potential options that could be considered.

Will it take time to move the next steps forward? Absolutely, it will. But

I would argue that the appropriate process of consultation is what will either

make or break this kind of decision-making. We have to make sure we proceed in

a way that acknowledges the importance of a broad base of consultation before

making decisions.

T. Nebbeling: First of all, when I talked about a direction of more

independent control through a regional board approach, I was actually quoting

Mr. David Essig. It was not a suggestion by me.

The minister said that the whole consultative process is not just the group

of islands or the Islands Trust, but that it will involve other parties. There

was a restructuring workshop recently on Denman Island. How many people from

Municipal Affairs were actually part of that workshop?

Hon. C. McGregor: We're not intimately familiar with that workshop, but we

can get the answer and get back to the member.

[ Page 15424 ]

T. Nebbeling: I made that point because of the minister saying: "No,

no, this whole review done with the ministry doesn't work in isolation."

I think, if there are any workshops where, especially in the initial stages .

. . . Traditionally, in workshops you start setting a foundation from

which you then build up. Ultimately, you come out with a product that will

then be presented. I think it is very important that the process of building

the foundation of the new direction not be done in isolation and not be done

just by the trust. The fact that staff -- the deputies -- are not aware if

anybody participated or who did participate . . . . You know, it's

a bit of a concern to me that the trust may still be on its own path. I would

like to caution the minister that right from the beginning -- when indeed a

restructuring workforce is being created -- it should include Municipal

Affairs to make sure that it doesn't become something that has gone too far to

stop, as far as setting a new direction.

Hon. C. McGregor: I think it's important to put this in the context of what

role Municipal Affairs should play in the day-to-day operations of any local

government and, in this case, the Islands Trust, which has a particular

mandate that's somewhat similar to local government, although not parallel. It

would be inappropriate for this ministry to involve itself in the day-to-day

decision-making and the business of a local government or the Islands Trust.

There might be hundreds of workshops or meetings that go on, on a weekly,

monthly or yearly basis within the trust, and we do not intend to supervise

those. However, having said that, in terms of the broader issue of governance,

of course we fully intend to be involved in that. That process will be

separate and apart from the other work and business that a trust does.

T. Nebbeling: Well, I'm disappointed to hear that. If we are seriously

looking at restructuring the Islands Trust and its mandate, its acts or how

the implementation of its mandate will be exercised, then it is still part of

a body that is directed by the Municipal Act.

[1040]

For the Minister of Municipal Affairs, being aware of the concerns that are

out there about how the act is operating today, to say: "Well, we take

distance. We're not going to get involved there. We look at . . . . "

I think what I hear is actually: "We will jump in at the end when they

have put something together, and we will look at it and then decide if this is

what we think is the direction or not." That's what I hear. I'm not

saying that's what you're saying, but that's the message I'm getting. I think

that is the first mistake in the process.

The Islands Trust has recognized that it's on the wrong path. When I've

talked to the chair of the Islands Trust, that is clearly the message that he

has gotten from many different groups -- that they have to come up with

something new. But it still has to be within the mandate, whatever it's going

to be. For example -- I might as well put it on the record -- to think that

the Islands Trust would have the power of a regional district is, to me,

absurd. It is absurd because that regional district needs the reasons for

regional districts. The six reasons that regional boards are in place do not

apply to the mandate of the Islands Trust. So to me, it makes no sense to even

see that as an option.

I see an option comparable with the ALR, for example, as more of a workable

solution. That's something that will no doubt come up during the whole

discussion. I think it is very important that the Ministry of Municipal

Affairs is involved right from the beginning so that, like I said earlier on,

we're not going to create a wrong base from which the Islands Trusts thinks

it's developing its new direction but still with that mandate.

There was another point the minister made a little earlier in response to a

statement I made about maybe a direction where the islands, with the

guidelines set by Municipal Affairs and with the mandate in mind, work

independently without this conclave that comes together once in a while --

quarterly, I think -- and decides how it can circumvent the wishes of certain

citizens. I put it strongly like that, because I have been in a meeting like

that once, and I was quite appalled at some of the statements that were

expressed by trustees on issues. Everything that is sacred within the

Municipal Act was basically violated as a principle, because it was the

Islands Trust's mandate to protect and preserve -- and to hell with the rules

and regulations. I am concerned that empowerment is not truly on a local

level.

When the minister responded to my statement about empowerment, she said:

"That is the objective we have for the province as a whole." There's

a serious difference between local elected councils and their empowerment,

compared to the Islands Trust empowerment. The Islands Trust has trustees

representing independent islands. There are 13 islands, I believe, in the

trust. Each and every one is represented by two trustees who come to speak for

their island.

In the best of all worlds, it would be great if these trustees could indeed

sometimes forget that they are not just to represent their island but that

they represent the whole of the trust. Their decisions should be based on the

whole of the trust. Unfortunately, that is not often the case. There's a lot

of nepotism, in a sense: "Listen, I'm here for Bowen Island. I'm going to

do what I want to see happen on Bowen Island. If that is not compatible with

other areas, that's too bad."

There is a difference in the empowerment of a trust trustee. They do not

represent the good of the trust as a whole. They represent their own island,

where a local council is elected on a local level by people who have local

interest in that council. I wanted to point out that difference. We have had

that discussion on empowerment of local governments, and I do not want to see

the trust being incorporated in the same thought process that we apply to

local governments.

Having said that, if the minister can agree to this, I want to spend more

time on the trust, obviously, but my colleague from Okanagan-Penticton needs

to ask some questions on an issue. He's not available this afternoon. Can we

stop with the Islands Trust for now and then come back later on?

[1045]

Hon. C. McGregor: That's fine.

R. Thorpe: First of all, I want to be very, very clear that the minister's

office had set up a briefing for me last week on May 4. Unfortunately, I had

to cancel that because of some pressures that I had to attend to back home. I

want to acknowledge that, and I want to thank the minister and the staff for

arranging that.

I must ask a few questions about irrigation districts. Eventually I'm going

to get to Naramata irrigation district, and you're well aware of that. I'm

more concerned -- and

[ Page 15425 ]

have been since the Naramata irrigation district situation -- about the

overall management of irrigation districts in the province. My first question

is: how many irrigation districts are there in the province today? Secondly,

how many of those are managed independently, and how many are being managed by

some ministry of the government of British Columbia today?

Hon. C. McGregor: There are 273 improvement districts in the province.

That's the number we believe it is; we could be off by one or two. A lot of

those would be irrigation districts, but oftentimes they offer other services

like fire protection and other types of services. None of them are managed by

the government; they are all managed by the trustees of the districts.

R. Thorpe: I appreciate the minister's answer there; I accept that there

could be one or two, plus or minus, directionally.

I am a little bit concerned, though, because I've been led to believe, for

instance, that the Sage Mesa irrigation district is under the supervision of

the province of British Columbia. Is the minister saying that she doesn't

believe that to be so? Or perhaps they just don't have that information.

Hon. C. McGregor: We have no knowledge of that, but we will check into it.

R. Thorpe: I appreciate the minister checking into that and advising me in

due course. She might look in the direction of the Ministry of Environment

having some involvement with that irrigation district.

As we know, the issue at Naramata has been a longstanding issue. It's been

very difficult on the residents of Naramata; it's caused some division. Some

would argue that that division can be repaired; others will argue that

division within that community cannot be repaired.

On April 10, I tabled a petition in the House where some 622 concerned

citizens of Naramata had asked for a public inquiry with respect to this whole

situation. My letter was addressed to the Premier. I have since heard back

from the Premier's Office that he has redirected that to the minister's

office. I'm just wondering if the minister can advise, through the Chair to

myself and, in turn, the residents of Naramata: does the ministry have any

intention of conducting or asking for a public inquiry with respect to the

Naramata issues?

[1050]

Hon. C. McGregor: Let me begin by stating that this has been a

longstanding, complex and very difficult issue for all of the residents in the

Naramata area, and I don't want to underplay that in any way. It's been

difficult also for the regional district. There have been numerous reviews of

this decision. Not all residents are happy, nor will they ever be happy in

some cases, with the process that's been used or the conclusions that we're

coming to.

Having said that, I think there have been a number of opportunities for the

public to come before the regional district to offer their perspective on

issues. There have been public meetings. The RDOs have actually done two mail

surveys as well to get the input from members of the irrigation district and

the ratepayers. They've had annual meetings, through which those ratepayers

have had an opportunity to participate in directions and decisions. The

regional district has in fact recently accepted the province's offer of

dollars toward the final arbitrated settlement, as a result of the arbitration

case.

I would like to acknowledge, as well, that the member opposite has been

part of this solution and has worked with us and with the community. I

acknowledge that he's had a very positive role in trying to resolve these

questions. I know he appreciates how difficult these issues are. Having said

that, I think we are moving towards resolution on this issue; it is not likely

that we will engage in any public inquiry.

R. Thorpe: I just want to be clear here, because obviously people in

Naramata and the regional district -- and quite frankly, at this point in

time, people throughout irrigation districts in British Columbia -- are

watching what's going on here. When the minister says -- I believe I heard it

correctly -- it's not likely that there will be a public inquiry, does that

mean that there is a possibility that a public inquiry will take place?

Hon. C. McGregor: There are some unresolved matters as a result of some

court actions that may have implications at some future date, so I don't want

to totally close the door, but I'm certainly not considering it at this time.

R. Thorpe: Just to highlight the division and the concerns in the community .

. . . As I'm sure the minister and staff know, the regional district

formed a Naramata Water Advisory Committee to have a better connection with

the Naramata community. To bring the minister and senior staff up to date on

what has gone on there, three of those committee members -- namely, Peter

Simonsen; Jake van Westen; and the chairman, Don Munro -- have all recently

resigned, feeling the pressure, the stress and the division of their

community.

[1055]

At the same time, the Naramata Ratepayers Association is registering a

number of concerns. As the MLA for this area, it's my responsibility to bring

forward those concerns. They now have in excess of 50 percent of the community

-- I think it's 442 members of the community -- as members of their

association.

On April 12 my office hand-delivered to the minister a copy of a letter

received from Bruce Johnston, the secretary of the Naramata Ratepayers

Association, outlining a number of concerns that they had. I think, quite

frankly, that what's driving most of the residents of Naramata is a sense that

the processes have been democratic and their voices have been heard on a

timely basis. I sincerely believe that's what their concerns are.

They've raised a number of questions on how the decision and how their

voice was heard or how it wasn't heard -- how it was heard fairly or unfairly.

Has the minister had the opportunity to go through this letter that is dated

April 4, which I passed along on April 12? Have you had the opportunity to

address some of those concerns? I look forward to the minister's response to

that.

Hon. C. McGregor: We are in the process of completing a very detailed

response to all the questions that were addressed in the letter that the

member provided to me. We'll

[ Page 15426 ]

be happy to make sure the member opposite receives a copy of that detailed

response. It shouldn't be too much longer in its preparation.

R. Thorpe: Could we agree on a kind of time frame? Is it going to be within

the next week? Is that a reasonable time frame in which to expect a response?

Once again, what we're talking about here is the impact on people, feeling

that they are either part of a democratic process or not part of a democratic

process, and all the stresses -- not even to consider the financial

ramifications on many people in this community. It's a community made up of

many seniors, orchardists who, as most members of this House know, have had

difficult years. And of course, there are young families who are struggling.

I appreciate very much the minister's comments that they're working on it

and that they're working on it in a reasonable time frame. But could we get a

commitment that that letter would be done, say, no later than a week from

today? Is that a reasonable and fair request?

Hon. C. McGregor: I think it's important to emphasize again that I

understand this is a very important issue for the local community. I want to

turn my mind completely to the questions and answer them as fully and

carefully as we can -- to provide the kind of information the community would

like to have. I acknowledge that there are still concerns. We would like to

try and be a part of that solution. It's probably unlikely that we can manage

it within a week, but let me give the member my assurances that we will do it

within two weeks.

[1100]

R. Thorpe: Well, I guess I should have asked for three weeks; I would have

got a week. But seriously, thank you very much, to the minister, for that

commitment.

The other thing that I would like to do . . . . Again, I want

to be clear on the record. As the minister mentioned, hon. Chair, I have

attempted to work with the government and with previous ministers on this

issue, and I remain committed to working with the ministry, the officials of

the ministry and the minister to attempt to ensure that the residents of

Naramata receive fair and equitable democratic treatment on this issue. So I

want the minister to know that that commitment from my side is still there.

The second thing that I'd like to say in this regard is that in the past,

ministers have visited Naramata on this issue. Senior staff have visited

Naramata, and that's very much appreciated. This is a very emotional issue,

and again, I would extend to the minister and her deputy that if they would

like to come to the community again, I'd be pleased to work with them on that

issue. I know some of those meetings get fairly emotional. The attendance is

excellent. But I think, for the most part, people are looking for a positive

solution. I would extend that offer to the minister.

The one other area I'd like to just ask a couple of questions on is with

respect to irrigation districts generally throughout the province. Do

directors of irrigation districts . . . ? Is there any legislation

or regulation that prevents them from having directors' insurance throughout

the province?

Hon. C. McGregor: We're not aware of any regulation that would prohibit

them from having any insurance as directors. Our understanding is that most of

them do have insurance.

R. Thorpe: Could I just ask the minister, through her officials, to

double-check that, because that issue has just been raised in the last few

days with me, and I didn't know the answer. If we could ask the minister's

staff to check and let me know as quickly as possible on that, that would be

greatly appreciated.

With respect to the Naramata issues, I just want to conclude here that I

have a commitment from the minister that we'll have a detailed response to

these issues within the next two weeks, and I remain committed to not only

working with the ministry and the staff of the ministry, the residents of

Naramata . . . . You know, we must also make sure that . . .

. The regional district, which received the football that certainly had

some issues attached to it, has worked diligently through this. They haven't

received a lot of praise, but it's not a situation where, I think, one would

get very much praise, so we have to recognize that them. I know they are

willing to continue to work with the ministry and the minister to try to find

a fair and equitable solution to this. I thank the minister for her

commitments.

T. Nebbeling: What I would like to do is start visiting some issues that

have developed over the last year or two years and see where some of these

issues have been leading or if they have been concluded.

The first one I would like to speak about is the natural area protection

tax incentive program that was introduced about a year ago by the Islands

Trust. At the time this came out, we had a fair amount of correspondence

coming from the Islands Trust, not only in soliciting support for the idea --

for this tax incentive -- but also, from time to time, little notices of how

many people had joined the team to fight for this particular principle. I was

really surprised to see the name of the leader of the B.C. Liberal Party on

that list, and the critic at the time -- the member from Richmond north,

south, middle . . . . As I took the critic role over, we looked at

this issue and concluded that in order to support this type of initiative by

the trust, there were a number of questions that had to be answered.

[1105]

I met with the trust, and I did not get any of the answers that I asked for

-- that was quite a while ago, of course -- so I would like to take the

opportunity now to ask these questions and see where it stands. But before we

do that, maybe the minister can first of all tell me whether this particular

natural area protection strategy is still on track. Or has it been abandoned,

as I have not heard anything for quite a long time?

Hon. C. McGregor: No, the matter has not fallen off our plate, as it were,

and I'd ask the member to stay tuned, because I'll have much more detail to

give him within the next week or two.

T. Nebbeling: That's fine, and I will not press too hard, but there are,

however, a couple of issues that I would like to hear, and they have to do

with certain principles related to this issue.

First of all, what the Islands Trust proposed to put in place -- and

obviously they have been working on it,

[ Page 15427 ]

although I haven't heard of it -- is to remove some tax burden from certain

properties within the trust and heave this tax burden over to other tax

authorities -- be it provincial tax, the property tax base, the school tax

base or other taxes.

My first question is that -- as this is a one-sided story, as far as the

taxation is concerned, because one tax authority says: "I want to relieve

a burden on me; let's make it tax-neutral and put that tax burden onto another

segment of the British Columbia population." How does the ministry ensure

that indeed there is support from the other side -- the side that will have to

absorb the tax burden? And how does the minister secure that cooperative

spirit in going on that route? In a sense, what we see happening . . . .

We discussed taxation without representation yesterday, and here again is

taxation without representation, if you take one tax burden from one group and

do not allow another group that has to take the burden on to have a say in

that. Can the minister give me some background on that point?

Hon. C. McGregor: These are very interesting questions, and I'd be most

delighted to discuss them in some detail, should they be considered as a part

of our legislative package.

T. Nebbeling: I don't think I cannot ask questions of this nature when

there is no indication that this is part of the legislative package. I mean,

the minister may know something, but there's certainly nothing on the order

paper to indicate that. I feel I should have an answer to that question.

Hon. C. McGregor: Let me assure the member that it will be a part of our

legislative package.

T. Nebbeling: I would like to have an answer from the Chair, then, if this

restricts me asking questions on hypothetical components of the package that

are not to be made public. I don't understand, because in theory I can't ask

any questions if that's the case, because we can always say: "Well, it is

part of the legislative package." Then two weeks from now we have to

decide that suddenly we are to pull it back.

The Chair: Member, debate in estimates, as you would know, has to be

strictly relevant to the administrative duties of the office of the minister

whose estimates are before the House. Questions of a hypothetical nature are

out of order. Questions pertaining to legislation, the need for legislation or

legislation that would be currently before the House are out of order.

If that helps guide the member, I am pleased to offer the advice. It's

standing order 61 on page 138 in the book, if the member would prefer to refer

to that.

[1110]

T. Nebbeling: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will not argue with the Chair; I am

not supposed to. But there's nothing hypothetical about the financial

arrangement that I just explained to the minister as being part of the

consideration given by the Islands Trust. They have in writing indicated that

the savings that they want to achieve for their property owners, who are

willing to give up land for a period of time to go into a reserve status and

not be available for development . . . . That shift of tax burden

will go to these various parties that I called before.

So I'm not talking about anything hypothetical. I'm talking about the

presentation made by the Islands Trust with written documentation stipulating

how the minister should write legislation to reflect not only the objective

but at the same time a