1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th 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)

MONDAY, JULY 4, 1994

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 17, Number 6

[ Page 12609 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, I rise to make an introduction on your behalf. In the gallery today are Mr. Romeo Crennel and his wife Rosemary, who are visiting Victoria for the first time. Mr. Crennel is an assistant coach with the National Football League's New England Patriots of Foxboro, Massachusetts. The Crennels were in Port Coquitlam to attend a wedding of childhood friend and former B.C. Lions football player Larry Watkins to Cathy Mitchell, daughter of another former pro football player with the Winnipeg Blue Bombers, Bill Mitchell, who, incidentally, is a former high school coach of mine. Mr.

Speaker, you were the best man at this most auspicious event, and it gives me great pleasure to ask on your behalf that all members join me in making these first-time visitors welcome to the chamber.

The Speaker: Thank you very much, hon. member.

The hon. member for Delta...Richmond-Steveston. You should get on your feet more often, hon. member, so I can remember who you are.

A. Warnke: Before any other statements are made, I would like to introduce, in the gallery, a longtime friend of mine -- we have known each other literally decades. He is also a groom of 50 hours. I would like the House to welcome Janice and Barry Kroening of Nanaimo.

Hon. D. Marzari: I'd like to introduce to the House my two sons, Robert and Daniel Straker, who are visiting here with their friends, Chris Peroni and Michael Farrara. Six hours ago they were standing ankle-deep in mud off the family cottage in the woods, and I thought it would be appropriate for this re-entry into society to stand knee-deep in question period. Would the House please welcome the kids.

Oral Questions

B.C. 21 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROJECTS

F. Gingell: As the Premier is aware, there have been many questions raised about the political manipulations of the B.C. 21 fund. Last week the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation accused the NDP of putting 94 percent of all B.C. 21 community grants into NDP ridings. Our own figures show that over 90 percent of all B.C. 21 construction capital has also gone into NDP ridings. Is the Premier comfortable with this glaring discrepancy, and how does he justify this blatant political pork-barrelling?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm not aware of that particular study, but it's wrong. It's wrong, and I'm quite prepared to get the detailed information on that. I can also say that it comes as a surprise to me, because just today the member for West Vancouver-Capilano announced the start of the Westview interchange -- it's finally being built.

An Hon. Member: Whose riding is that?

F. Gingell: The member for North Vancouver-Westview.

Mr. Speaker, the people of British Columbia might have been able to start to forgive the Premier if they had some sense that he had learned from his mistake and was now trying to do the right thing. The fact is that it's only getting worse. When the Island Highway, the ferry announcement and the Westview interchange are included, the percentage of money going to NDP ridings increases. Will the Premier do the right thing and throw off this shroud of hypocrisy that is the B.C. 21 fund and call an election so that the people of British Columbia can discuss the real issues of NDP pork-barrelling?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The Liberal opposition doesn't believe in financing capital projects. They don't believe in building the Westview interchange. They don't believe in building schools with borrowed money. Now they're standing up and saying: "We want more than we're getting." Hon. Speaker, I'll tell you what we'll bring back for a vote so we finally get a position out of this Liberal opposition. We'll bring back the B.C. 21 legislation and let them repent their mistake of voting against it last year.

D. Symons: My question is to the Minister of Employment and Investment. The minister has approved about $150 million for commuter rail, close to $300 million so far on the Island Highway and now, today, $33 million for the Westview interchange -- spend, spend, spend. Can the minister tell us how long it will take to pay off these debts with a 1-cent-per-litre gas tax and a $1.50-per-day car rental tax? How do you intend to pay for all of this, with a promise of no new taxes?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm glad the member has finally realized that we're making critical investments today to build the economy of the future in British Columbia. Fifty percent of the ferry fleet was built between 1962 and 1965. If we did nothing, then hundreds of millions of dollars worth of capital would be required within the next five years. Instead of that, we've got a rational, planned approach, with a vision for the future about ferry traffic which phases in capital spending over the next ten years.

In addition to that, critical traffic problems like the Mary Hill bypass, the Johnson-Mariner overpass and the Westview interchange.... those investments today mean the economy and the private sector will continue to create jobs in the future and will be able to maintain our quality of life that we so desire in the lower mainland. These integrated transportation investments are critical to our future.

[2:15]

The Speaker: The hon. member has a supplemental question?

D. Symons: I thank the minister for that answer. I simply ask him: will he release today the financial plan of how this is going to be paid for?

Hon. G. Clark: The member should know that in the Build BC Act which was passed in the House the government cannot borrow more money than it has the ability to pay off -- the interest and the principal. The 1-cent-a-litre gas tax and the $1.50-a-day car rental tax go to pay for the transportation infrastructure. In addition, when it comes to commuter rail and to the exciting ferry vision and ferry plan we have for the future, all of that will be self-financed with user-pay. I would think those members would support user-pay, because it allows us to

[ Page 12610 ]

get on with investments today without burdening the taxpayer in the future.

EXISTING PROVINCIAL PARKS AND LAND CLAIMS

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Premier. Last week the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs said the 23 new parks on Vancouver Island would be without prejudice to native land claims. Can the Premier tell us if our existing park system is also on the negotiating table? Is Strathcona Park, Carmanah Park or any other park in British Columbia on the negotiating table as part of aboriginal land claims?

Interjection.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I've just heard the name of a new park that's going to be added in the Leader of the Third Party's name: Jurassic Park.

Quite frankly, that fearfulness is unnecessary in British Columbia. We don't need to unnecessarily raise fears among British Columbians. We had a good discussion here during my estimates on the whole question of aboriginal land claims and on the settlement with the aboriginal people, which I believe very passionately will be in the best interests of aboriginal and non-aboriginal people.

The answer is no, we're not putting the existing parks on the table, nor has it been asked for them to be put on the table. They may be made available for aboriginal people to utilize the land, as they have for centuries, for the use and sustenance of the aboriginal community. I would hope that the hon. member would allow that treaty process to take place, and that he would show a leadership role....

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. Premier.

Hon. M. Harcourt: ...in diminishing the fear that British Columbians may feel about this process, rather than fuelling that fear.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: I'm reminded that in this chamber on April 20, 1989, the Premier moved an amendment to the debate on the Pacific Spirit Park to include the words "without prejudice." Will the Premier commit today that he will not negotiate our parks system on behalf of British Columbians as currency for aboriginal land claims settlements? Will the Premier commit that parks aren't on the table for land claims negotiations?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I think that this change of personality, this change of character, that's happening to the person who is hoping to become the leader of the Reform Party in this province -- and who was, in my opinion, a fair minister of aboriginal affairs and was trying to move British Columbia forward rather than backward -- is unfortunate. I would hope that this...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. M. Harcourt: ...is just an aberration of his character and personality we're seeing right now...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

Hon. M. Harcourt: ...with these kinds of fearful questions.

The Speaker: The answer, please.

Hon. M. Harcourt: To get to the point, Bud's Smith's misuse of the Pacific Spirit Park by trying to pull a cheap political stunt with a very good idea was one of the most shameful episodes in the history of this Legislature. And you know very well that that's all it was.

ELK VALLEY MINERS' RETRAINING PROGRAM

D. Jarvis: Last year the Minister of Mines introduced a training package worth over $50 million for the displaced Kootenay miners. It's now a year later and all her money has been spent. Almost everyone in the Elk Valley has a class 1 driver's licence, yet there are still no jobs. They're losing their savings, their homes and, unfortunately, their families. To the minister: how many new jobs did you create in the Elk Valley due to your training program?

Hon. A. Edwards: I'm not sure where the member gets the figure that $50 million went for.... I'm not sure where that figure comes from. I can assure the member that there are a lot more people in the Elk Valley who now have their class 1 driver's licence and are therefore more likely to get jobs than they were before. I can assure the member that there are a considerable number of people with Dogwood Certificates, which give them the opportunity to go ahead with apprenticeship training and to get the kind of trade qualifications that they need.

I assure the member over there that the Elk Valley people are looking to stay in the Elk Valley to create those jobs, and that doesn't happen overnight. So I would say that all of the efforts and all of the resources that were put into the Elk Valley are making a difference, and they're making a positive difference.

The Speaker: The member has a supplemental question.

D. Jarvis: Well, they all have their licences, but unfortunately, they have nowhere to go. They can't all be cab drivers.

Union pension funds, after being underfunded and drained by the lawyers, are down almost 50 percent. The judge who was supposed to make a ruling on this issue has taken an extended vacation before making his decision. Meanwhile, their UI is running out, and the banks are moving in. What has the Mines minister done to help the mineworkers in her own riding, other than to sit back and watch?

Hon. A. Edwards: I find it amazing that the member doesn't know that this government does not direct the courts as to what to do in private sector initiatives. I will tell the member, however, that I have met with former members of the Mine Workers who are affected by the situation as far as their pensions and severance and holiday pay are concerned. We will be doing what we can, but it is very limited. Again I remind the member that it is under the supervision of the court.

[ Page 12611 ]

COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE GRANTS

L. Hanson: I have a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Earlier this year this government cancelled the revenue-sharing program, which assisted municipalities and their infrastructure. It was replaced by the community infrastructure grants. The government seems to be reticent in announcing approval of these programs. There is some concern -- particularly in the northern parts of British Columbia and in the interior -- that because of the time constraints on completion of the program, they may not be able to do them within this time frame. What is the minister doing to alleviate those concerns?

Hon. D. Marzari: The $675 million that will be invested in infrastructure in this province is well on track. We are now waiting for final federal approval of the first list, which will spend a good, solid portion of those dollars.

I have to remind the member, too, that this province is not lax in its commitment to infrastructure. The conditional grants for sewer and water will continue unabated, as they have in the past number of years. Infrastructure money is not being replaced.... It is there, and it is solid, and the dollars are available for all of British Columbia.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

L. Hanson: After listening to the minister's answer, I'd like to give her a shovel and tell her to go up to Dawson Creek and try to put in a waterline in mid-December or January. In any case, I wasn't questioning the amount of the grants; I was asking the minister if she could give assurance to the municipalities that they will know in time to complete their projects before the weather stops them.

Hon. D. Marzari: I will give that commitment. The Minister of Employment and Investment and I are working very closely together to ensure that these grants flow to the communities that need them most. Those are the northern communities where freeze-up comes early. I can guarantee the member that the federal-provincial-municipal infrastructure program will be on time and on budget, and it will produce for our communities.

NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH HOLDING SOCIETY

K. Jones: On Thursday special prosecutor Ace Henderson revealed that $48,000 in management fees is owed to former NDP minister Dave Stupich. As Premier and leader of the New Democratic Party, will the Premier today call on Dave Stupich to renounce all claims on the money apparently owed him, and demand that this money be turned over to Nanaimo charities, where it rightfully belongs?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, the bell terminates question period. The hon. member's question was not in order. The hon. member knows that it does not fall under the responsibility of the minister.

Presenting Petitions

L. Hanson: I ask leave to table a petition.

Leave granted.

L. Hanson: It's a petition by fishermen -- independent businessmen -- and their crew members who do not want to be arbitrarily defined as employers and employees. They're asking the government not to put Bill 43 forward for the Lieutenant-Governor's signature.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, I'd like to announce that the Public Accounts Committee is meeting tomorrow at 8 a.m. I'm sure that may be different from what's published here.

F. Gingell: As always.

Hon. G. Clark: "As always," the member says, and after that question period, I hope we're here for a few more weeks, and they can meet many more times. [Applause.] I didn't get much applause from our side on that.

I call committee stage on Bill 40.

[2:30]

FOREST PRACTICES CODE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

The House in committee on Bill 40; M. Farnworth in the chair.

The Chair: The

preamble is dealt with at the end of the bill.

section 1.

Hon. A. Petter: I move the amendment to

section 1, which is in the possession of the Clerk.

[SECTION 1, in the proposed subsection (1)

(

a) by deleting the definition of "designated energy, mines and petroleum resources official" and substituting the following definition: "designated energy, mines and petroleum resources official" means a person employed in the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources who is designated by name or title to be a designated energy, mines and petroleum resources official by the minister of that ministry for the purpose of a provision of this Act or the regulations that is set out in the designation; ,

(

b) by deleting the definition of "designated environment official" and substituting the following definition: "designated environment official" means a person employed in the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks who is designated by name or title to be a designated environment official by the minister of that ministry for the purpose of a provision of this Act or the regulations that is set out in the designation; ,

(

c) by deleting the definition of "designated forest official" and substituting the following definition: "designated forest official" means a person employed in the Ministry of Forests who is designated by name or title to be a designated forest official by the minister of that ministry for the purpose of a provision of this Act or the regulations that is set out in the designation; ,

(

d) in the definition of "forest practice" by deleting paragraph (b)(i)(

B) and substituting the following:

(

B) for a commercial purpose under this Act or the regulations, or, and

[ Page 12612 ]

(

e) by deleting the definition of "senior official" and substituting the following definition:

"senior official" means

(

a) a district manager or regional manager,

(

b) a person employed in a senior position in the Ministry of Forests, who is designated by name or title to be a senior official for the purposes of this Act by the minister of that ministry,

(

c) a person employed in a senior position in the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, who is designated by name or title to be a senior official for the purposes of this Act by the minister of that ministry, and

(

d) a person employed in a senior position in the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, who is designated by name or title to be a senior official for the purposes of this Act by the minister of that ministry; .]

The Chair: Just for the information of the House, the amendments to

section 1 are considerable in number. There's (a), (b), (c), (

d) and (e), over two pages. We will take all the amendments together, and you can talk about all of them at the same time, just to make things easier for the House.

G. Wilson: On a point of order, I realize that

preambles are often done at the end of bills, however the

preamble to this act is very much a directive of the clauses that will be debated and passed in this act. It would be in the interests of getting this through in a relatively speedy way if we were to debate, discuss and pass the

preamble -- or not pass the

preamble, as the case may be -- at the beginning, rather than at the end. I'd like a ruling from the Chair on that.

The Chair: In large part, the

preamble is dependent on the content of the bill. That is why we will be dealing with the

preamble at the end of the bill. That is the ruling of the Chair.

On the amendment.

W. Hurd: I would welcome an explanation from the minister, since I haven't seen the amendments before the committee today. Could he provide a rationale for the changes with respect to "designated energy, mines and petroleum resources official" and "designated environment official"? Can he advise the committee whether these changes are housekeeping in nature or what the rationale might be for introducing such an array of amendments in what appears to be a routine definition

section of the bill?

Hon. A. Petter: I'd be happy to try to clarify. The amendments are certainly what I would term house-keeping. They are designed to make it clear that the designation of officials can take place

section by section, rather than designation of officials for the purposes of the entire act. That enables officials to be designated for specific purposes pertaining to particular sections of the act, rather than designating an official for the act as a whole. In that way, it helps clarify and specify the designation process.

W. Hurd: I understand the environment and forestry official, but could the minister briefly describe for the committee what he feels the role might be of an energy, mines and petroleum resources official? I am trying to envisage a scenario where that particular ministry would have any jurisdiction over this particular act or any aspect of forestry in the province.

Hon. A. Petter: Officials of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources have some responsibilities -- as we will see when we get to the act -- with respect to special use permits for resource development roads pertaining to mining. As we see when we get to those sections of the act, there is a role for officials of that ministry in respect of the approval of roads for mining development.

J. Tyabji: On the amendments, I note that the designated officials for the three separate ministries has changed. In the act, as it's written right now, it talks about designation by the minister of that ministry. That's being removed by the amendment. Who is doing the designating? Could the Minister of Environment, for example, make designations for the relevant person in the other two ministries?

Hon. A. Petter: If the member looks a little more closely at the wording, she will find the words "by the minister of that ministry" in each of the three sections.

Amendment approved.

section 1 as amended.

G. Wilson: There are a number of

definitions we would like to some clarification on. The first one -- and maybe we can take them in order -- is "backlog area," which "means an area (

a) from which the timber was harvested, damaged or destroyed before October 1, 1987, and (

b) that in the district manager's opinion is insufficiently stocked with healthy well spaced trees of a commercially acceptable species." I wonder if the minister might just tell us a little bit about the reason for the date of October 1, 1987. Second, why is latitude given with respect to the district manager's opinion, and why wouldn't it run more consistently with filed and accepted cutting plans or permits?

Hon. A. Petter: October 1, 1987, is the date that the then Bill 70 became effective, which imposed an obligation on licence holders with respect to reforestation responsibilities. The determination on backlog areas obviously requires some assessment by someone with expertise as to whether or not an area has been adequately restocked. As is elsewhere the case in this act, the district manager is the most senior official within the local areas to make that assessment and therefore is granted that responsibility under the definition

section of the act.

G. Wilson: I don't take issue with the fact that you want to have somebody who has some expertise, and we'll be raising that as we go through this bill with respect to the designation of people who will be empowered in this bill to make decisions on behalf of the government and, in some instances, in local regions. It goes on to suggest that the district manager should have an opinion that it's "insufficiently stocked with healthy well spaced trees." There is a wide variety of regions, and a wide variety of replanting has taken place in the province. I know my own best region best, and on the coast, it's generally a very fast-growing and healthy forest. But there are some

[ Page 12613 ]

areas in which restocking has clearly not gone as well as in others. Can the minister tell us, then, whether the matter of the backlog area is going to be determined largely by virtue of areas within the region, or is it going to be done on a case-by-case basis, by licence?

Hon. A. Petter: The process of determining backlog areas, I understand, is done on a site-specific basis throughout the provincial forest in each district. I understand that a set of correlated stocking standard guidelines is presently in use. Those standards assist the district manager in making the determination and in making the public aware of what the appropriate stocking standards are for each area.

G. Wilson: It's good to know that there will be a consistent set of standards.

The next item is with respect to the term "corduroyed trail." I profess some ignorance here. I phoned around to a number of people in the industry, and they also didn't know. It almost looks as though you're putting in a dress code for particular areas. Could you please tell us what's meant by that?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm told that it's a trail built in an area where, to get access, it's necessary to put down wood in order to go over what would otherwise be sensitive soils. Hence the term "corduroyed."

G. Wilson: As a matter of fact, I think I've even been across a few, now that you have explained what it is. I just didn't know what they were called.

In the definition of a designated forest official, there is no reference to the qualifications of that individual. I note that in the Forest Act, as it's now constituted, we are defining the people who have powers as officers, not officials. That is perhaps a subtle change. Maybe it's not significant, and you can tell us if that's not so. Secondly, it says that it's "a person who is designated by name or title by the deputy minister or a person authorized in writing by the deputy minister to exercise functions under the provisions of this Act." I wonder why it would not specifically set out somebody who has qualifications with respect to some form of post-secondary training in forestry.

I notice that all through the act, three ministries will be empowered to act on this: Forests; Environment; and Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. The concern we have here is that you may have a designated forest official who may be designated outside the line ministry and therefore, in the eyes of people in industry or in the community, who are dependent on these decisions, may not have the kind of specialized qualifications that would be needed. If the minister might point to somewhere in this bill to give us assurance that that won't occur, we'd be grateful.

Hon. A. Petter: First, just to clarify that, if the member takes a look at the amendment we just passed, the designation is now by the minister. Secondly, different officials may be designated with respect to different tasks, obviously. In the case of a protection-related task, a protection officer might be dealing with the particular specialties and requirements that go along with fire prevention, etc.

Throughout the Ministry of Forests and other ministries, as a matter of good administrative practice, officials are designated to certain roles because of their expertise, and they would again be designated to the respective tasks under this act. I don't think one can, in legislation, specify in detail what each and every official for each and every task would be required to have by way of expertise or title. But you can certainly have my assurance, simply as a matter of good administration, that the designated official will be one who has the appropriate expertise and status to carry out the function or determination required in the appropriate part of the statute that's at issue.

G. Wilson: Notwithstanding that the minister of the said ministry is going to be making the designation, this definition still does not preclude a designated forest official being designated out of the Ministry of Environment, does it?

Hon. A. Petter: Again, refer to the amended version in each section: "'designated forest official' means a person employed in the Ministry of Forests..."; "'designated environmental official' means a person employed in the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks...." So I think it does preclude reaching outside the ministry and the respective roles within that ministry.

G. Wilson: I would acknowledge, then, looking at the amendments that have just been provided us, that that does take care of that concern. I just had one other question, and it's with respect to the definition of a "dispersed disturbance." I don't see that defined in any other act, and I wonder if the minister might say what it is, given that the definition will be by regulation.

[2:45]

Hon. A. Petter: The member will be relieved to know that it is not a parliamentary term, although it might strike one as such. It's a term referring to the amount of disturbance that is permitted within the overall area to be reforested. Then there are certain consequences that flow in terms of having to reclaim or restore that disturbance. It's a term referring to the amount of disturbance within the overall area that's being designated for forestry activity.

G. Wilson: I'm assuming that the minister means the amount of disturbance to land -- that we're not dealing with visual impact and those kinds of issues; this is not an aesthetic kind of definition. We're talking about a site-specific disturbance with respect to soil and other kinds of general provisions, I would gather.

Hon. A. Petter: Yes.

D. Mitchell: One of the challenges in dealing with the

preamble last is that there are certain terms and expressions used in the

preamble that we can't deal with under the

definitions section. We'll have to go back to those when we get to the

preamble, I suppose.

Under the definition offered for "forest resources," I'd like to ask the minister a question. The definition of forest resources refers to "values associated with forests and range." I wonder whether the minister could help us understand what is contemplated by the term "values" here, because nowhere is it defined in the bill. Forest values obviously is an important concept here, but it can be interpreted in different ways by different people in the industry.

[ Page 12614 ]

Hon. A. Petter: Clearly, as we move toward a forest practice code that recognizes the many different values that people place upon the forest, it's important to recognize that those values form part of the resource. The example that I would offer -- the most obvious, I suppose -- is visual values. There are certain areas of the province in which the forest resource is important because of its visual or aesthetic value. Clearly, the Inside Passage would be an example of that, as well as areas visible from major arterial highways, particularly in heavily travelled tourist areas.

Within the umbrella of this code, requirements will be put in place to protect some of those values, which form a component of the resource. This definition simply recognizes that those values are related to and form part of the forest resource.

W. Hurd: I have just a few questions with respect to the definition section. In the definition of forest resources, this is the first time the term "biological diversity" appears in our discussion, and I'm sure it will appear again. I think it's important for me to invite the minister to comment on exactly what we're dealing with in terms of a definition for biological diversity. The minister will know that that term enjoys quite a bit of controversy in professional forestry circles and in botanical circles, and I think it's important at this point to get into the pages of Hansard a concise definition of exactly what the ministry means when it alludes to or refers to biological diversity.

Hon. A. Petter: I think members are aware that much of the research and studies that have been done on forest economies -- and ecosystems, for that matter -- in the past decade or so have noted that the strength and health of a forest depends upon the recognition and continuance of the diversity of species and plant life that exists within that forest. A forest's strength and health depends upon the very symbiotic interrelationship among diverse plant and animal life that exists. This recognizes that to have a healthy forest in the future requires recognition of and respect for that diversity.

Obviously, in some cases that diversity will necessarily be compromised, but the recognition that it is part of the resource and should be protected along with the resource is part of what is being recognized in this definition.

D. Mitchell: While we're dealing with the definition

section of the Forest Practices Code, there is some ambiguity in the

definitions, as I think the member for Surrey-White Rock was pointing out. I have a question of clarification about the definition of higher-level plan. This might be a technical concept, but I think it's important for those working in the working forest to know the difference between a higher-level plan and a lower-level plan. I also think it's very reasonable to expect that they should be consistent with each other.

The problem with that part of the bill seems to be that the whole principle for higher-level plans seems to reflect an increased uncertainty for the public as well as for licensees, because individual members of the cabinet, or even government employees, could be given virtually unilateral power usurping lower-level planning processes and approvals. The definition says that a higher-level plan can be declared such by the ministers or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Why is this necessary rather than clarifying the whole relationship between higher-level and lower-level plans?

Hon. A. Petter: It's sort of hard to clarify a relationship between something that hasn't existed heretofore. In the case of higher-level plans, we haven't had a statutory recognition of higher-level planning. Therefore the values that would normally be represented in higher-level plans have existed in a very informal way -- and perhaps in an inconsistent way -- in the decisions that are made day to day on the more site-specific operational plan. That creates instability.

This

section recognizes -- and when we get to the part dealing with higher-level plans, it will be further laid out -- that it's necessary and desirable for stability and for certainty to have a formalized higher-level planning process in which decisions that are made about land use at a regional level through LRMP processes can be given some legislative recognition.

For example, as the result of a land use decision flowing from an LRMP process or a regional land use planning process in which the decision is made to designate a component of the land base for commercial or intensive-use forestry, that decision is not made informally but can be formally recognized and given legislative status in a way that the industry and communities and others can depend upon, rather than having it implemented informally through the day-to-day discretionary powers that take place in the field.

So I would argue with the member's supposition that this creates instability; indeed, it does exactly the opposite. It recognizes and formalizes the existence of higher-level plans, and it gives much greater certainty to everyone about what those plans contain and how they are to be promulgated.

D. Mitchell: I don't want to belabour the point -- and as the minister indicates, we can deal with it later on -- but just for clarification, we're dealing with the definition for higher-level plans offered in the bill. Would the minister not agree that the definition here gives almost unlimited authority to cabinet or individual government employees to declare anything a higher-level plan, and that that could thereby unilaterally usurp the lower-level planning process and approvals that exist today?

Hon. A. Petter: It gives cabinet the power to designate what is a higher-level plan, and I think that's consistent with the notion of cabinet responsibility and establishing some level of certainty. It does not give that authority to lower-level officials. For that reason, it does clearly speak to the accountability of cabinet, which in our parliamentary system is what we should aspire to. It also speaks to cabinet's responsibility to articulate what higher-level plans are so that everyone -- officials and industry and communities and workers -- can proceed with certainty and knowledge as to what those planning requirements are.

W. Hurd: I was scribbling furiously as the minister was announcing his finding on biological diversity. It occurs to me that the definition offered is perhaps one of the reasons that there's such confusion about the issue. Most people assume it is an old-growth stand, which is an ecological unit, but in fact there is greater biological diversity in a clearcut in the interior. It's obvious that this is a term that we're going to struggle with throughout the bill. I certainly intend to raise it again when we get into the

preamble section, because it is a term that does carry a certain amount of controversy in environmental and botanical circles, as I mentioned. I pledge to reread

[ Page 12615 ]

Hansard and hang onto every syllable the minister offered in order to discern whether he has a better definition than any I've read so far.

I have just one other question with respect to forest practices as defined in this bill. I notice that there's no specific mention made of campsites, which are maintained by both the ministry and some licensees, although the term "recreation site" does appear later on in the definition section. Can the minister clarify why mention of a maintained campsite for public use would not be defined under forest practices in terms of this act, which then goes on to talk about any other activity on Crown land?

Hon. A. Petter: The reason is that campsites are not part of forest practices undertaken by licensees. Therefore, they are covered off as part of the recreation sites. They do not flow as part of the forest practice obligations of licensees and therefore are not defined as forest practice.

C. Serwa: Going back to the point that the opposition critic from Surrey-White Rock made with respect to his concerns about the definition of biological diversity, in his explanation the minister waxed eloquent on healthy forests and biological diversity being a necessary component of healthy forests. Perhaps the minister would indicate to me what his definition of a healthy forest is, given that he had used the term.

Hon. A. Petter: I will leave it to the experts to get to that level of definition.

I would point out that because we agree upon a term doesn't mean we agree upon its application. We agree that endangered species must be protected, but to some extent we leave it to expert opinion as to which is endangered. Obviously there are disagreements as to what form of biological diversity should be maintained. That's understandable and will be part of the ongoing discussion that takes place.

This act recognizes that biological diversity is a value of the forest that must be accounted for in forest planning and is a component of what constitutes a healthy forest. The nature of that diversity, how it contributes to a healthy forest and what kinds of forest types would be associated with what kind of diversity are questions that are best left, I would suggest, to officials with expertise to develop over time.

C. Serwa: The most commonly used definition of a healthy forest refers to the stand of timber in the forest. My concern is that the implication was that a healthy stand of timber really requires biological diversity, and it does not.

In New Zealand, for example, there is not the biological diversity that exists in this country. They have very healthy forest stands of their own mature forests and the hand-planted stands of radiata pine. The biological diversity is not there. That is the nature of the situation. The biological diversity that the minister refers to is non-existent in the monocultures in the Scandinavian countries as well. There they have very healthy forest stands and good forest production. I just wanted to make it absolutely clear that they are not necessarily hand in hand: biological diversity is an element in the forest itself.

Hon. A. Petter: The key underlying value that I hope everyone ascribes to is that of sustainability. It's obviously true in different forest types and in different kinds of forestry that there will be greater attention paid to maintaining existing biological diversity versus a different kind of biological diversity or biological diversity at all.

In Sweden, for example, looking to the longer term, I understand that there is a growing concern about monocultures and long-term forest health. There is a considerable body of work suggesting that for long-term sustainability, biological diversity is a very important value. That doesn't mean there are not forests that have undergone regeneration that have had less diversity or that have undergone significant change. I wouldn't disagree with that, but I also would draw the member's attention to the fact that much of the concern around the sustainability of forests has focused on the need to maintain diversity in order to promote regeneration that will withstand the test of time.

[3:00]

G. Wilson: I wonder if we could move to the definition

section and recreation. There does not appear on the surface to be much distinction between a "recreation feature" and a "recreation resource." It's quite clear that "site" and "trail" are defined within the Forest Act. They are things that are specific and tangible. You can go out and actually see them on-site. But a "recreation feature," meaning a "biological, physical, cultural or historic feature that has recreational significance..." -- and then it says -- "...or value...." It doesn't even have to have any value; it can be significant to somebody for some reason. Then it says that a recreation resource means "(

a) a recreation feature" -- which is defined above -- or "(

b) a scenic or wilderness feature or setting that has recreational significance or value...." This is pretty broadly defined, and I don't know that its current terminology is going to be very helpful unless the minister is prepared to tell us what the differences are and why that couldn't simply be carried forward with respect to a reference to the Forest Act and the existing recreation site and trail

definitions.

Hon. A. Petter: I think the intention here is to have a broader notion of what a recreation resource is so that it means all the aspects of the resource that lend themselves to recreation. A recreation feature, then, would speak to a particular physical or historic feature that has a particular significance. A waterfall, for example, or a particular aboriginal heritage site, might be such a feature. That feature would be a recreation resource, but the resource is a much broader notion that talks about the forest in all the ways that it supports recreational activity and use.

G. Wilson: That doesn't provide a lot of comfort to those who are looking for a well-defined and consistent direction in this code to be provided to senior ministry people and people who will be making decisions with respect to the forest practices and plans that are put in place. Quite clearly, what may appear to be of recreational significance in some areas will vary widely among people who have various different aesthetic and perhaps cultural backgrounds. I think that having those two

definitions, given the extent to which those

definitions will be used in the final analysis for a review of plans, causes concern among, ironically enough, those who have been lobbying us -- and obviously we get lobbies as well as the government does....

Interjection.

[ Page 12616 ]

G. Wilson: The Minister of Employment and Investment is asking if we do. Yes, indeed we do, even on such things as ferries and highways, strange as it may be -- especially on the Gibsons bypass, which we expect to see announced now that North Vancouver has been given its little lollipop. So we'd better see that.

Going back to this particular section, the wide latitude that's provided here does not seem to give comfort either to recreationalists, who say that it doesn't provide a clear definition as to what can be defended, or to people in the industry, who say that it gives too wide a definition. I think the minister needs to explain a bit about why it's set out the way that it is.

Hon. A. Petter: First, the definition certainly has similarities to the current definition in the Forest Act. I would just say that when you're dealing with a

definitions section, you're creating a lexicon. You're creating terms that will hopefully provide some measure of meaning and definition, but clearly, the definition

section is not going to set forth the policy under which recreation, for example, is carried out. For example, extensive work has been done within the recreation branch of my ministry on an inventory of recreational resources. There is a policy with respect to those resources, and it would be unfair, I suggest, to expect a definition

section that is trying to define a lexicon to establish a comprehensive or detailed policy. Clearly that's not what this

section is intended to do, and therefore it couldn't satisfy anyone who expects it to deliver in that way.

G. Wilson: Nevertheless, clearly this is a guideline by which we have to at least try to figure out the intent of the bill as it defines what is being put in place.

I wonder if I could just move to the amendments to the definition of "senior official." I understand that by adding those two additional sections, the amendments simply bring into reference, once again, the fact that the senior official must be appointed by the minister of that ministry and will only will be designated to act on those matters that would ordinarily fall within the terms of reference of that ministry. Could the minister confirm that that is correct?

Hon. A. Petter: That is correct.

W. Hurd: I have just a couple of brief questions with respect to the

definitions "cutblock" and "net area to be reforested." Those really quite interesting

definitions seem to imply a commitment by the Crown toward some sort of area-based security. I knew that couldn't be it, but my heart did soar when I read it. It seemed to indicate a commitment there that the Crown would recognize a cutblock as having an area of land attached to it, and indeed that a net area to be reforested meant a portion of an area under a silvicultural prescription. Having spent some time in estimates trying to pin the minister down on that specific issue of area-based security, I wonder if he can tell us whether these two terms, as they are defined in the Forest Practices Code, parallel in any way the actual Forest Act when it comes to dealing with these two particular

definitions? Or are they brand-new for purposes of this code?

Hon. A. Petter: My understanding -- and I have tried to verify it -- is that in the Forest Act there is no definition of either of those two terms. So it could hardly be an appropriation of those

definitions, because they don't exist. It is simply specifying here that when you get to the point of having an area to be cut, then obviously that area to be cut will form an area.

This is not suggesting in any way a shift towards area-based tenures where there are volume-based tenures, but simply recognizes that once you get to the point in planning of designating a cutblock, then yes, that cutblock will take place within an area, and that net area to be reforested will be an area within that cut area.

W. Hurd: I notice under the definition of "net area to be reforested" that a specific exemption is made of "an area of rock, wetland or other area that in its natural state is incapable of growing a stand of trees that meets the stocking requirements specified in the prescription...." I'm struck by the fact that the Premier, in making his land use announcement for Vancouver Island, advised that 81 percent of the Island would be available for timber harvesting.

I just wonder how that assessment of the resource availability on Vancouver Island meshes with the fact that a considerable amount of it would in fact be rock, wetland and other area that in its natural state wouldn't be capable of growing trees. I wonder if the minister might be able to advise us how much of the 81 percent available for harvesting on Vancouver Island wouldn't even apply to the definition of "net area to be reforested" under this particular section? Does he have any information that he can share with the committee on that?

Hon. A. Petter: I will go this one step beyond the scope of this act to answer the member's question, but I think we should hesitate in going any more. About 80 percent of the forest land reserve proposed for Vancouver Island is productive forest land. To flip it around, of the productive forest land on Vancouver Island, more than 91 percent is in the proposed forest land reserve. Obviously, within any forested area there will components of the forest land base that are not suitable for restocking, just as there will be within protected areas. There's no surprise in that.

W. Hurd: Just a couple of other additional clarifications on the definition

section are required. I'm interested in the terms "recreation feature" and "recreation resource." As the minister knows, in a later

section of the bill those particular

definitions provide a district manager with considerable latitude when it comes to achieving a special designation of forest land and, in essence, taking it out of production. Can the minister just clarify whether these two terms, "recreation feature" and "recreation resource," will in any way apply to that future

section with respect to the powers of the district manager in setting aside a special area, because of these two

definitions in this definition section?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm not clear, from the way the member has framed the question, as to exactly which power he's referring to. He could be more specific. Or perhaps it would be best to wait until we get to that section, and he could ask us at that point. There are many powers throughout this act that give officials discretion, and I don't want to presume the wrong section. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to wait until we get to the

section he has in mind.

[ Page 12617 ]

W. Hurd: "Recreation feature" specifically mentions a biological, physical, cultural or historic feature that has recreational significance or value. That definition would appear to empower a number of different ministry officials to take some specific action to protect a recreation feature. My question is a pretty brief, straightforward one. Is this the value, if I can use that term, that an official would use in order to make a special set-aside under future clauses of the bill? Obviously the definition has to be here for some specific purpose, and I wonder if the minister could clarify why these two

definitions of "recreation feature" and "recreation resource" are put in at this time under the definition section, if in fact they are divorced from what we are going to be dealing with in the future. Or are they just a stand-alone definition of a recreation feature?

Hon. A. Petter: Recreation features and other values are accommodated throughout the entire planning process. It's not a separate set-aside; it's a matter of integrating into planning a recognition of recreation features -- which very often will not be incompatible with logging, for example.

About a month or so ago I visited an area in North Island that's used for recreation that was recently logged. Part of the logging was done in a way that was sensitive to the recreation values. If you look at the current Forest Act, I would point out that the definition is much the same. Recreation resource means any biological, physical, cultural, historic, scenic or wilderness feature that has recreational significance or value, or any recreational facility. There is not much here that's different from what we have under the current Forest Act.

W. Hurd: I have one additional question with respect to the definition of unfenced grazing land -- which refers specifically to private land, I assume -- that is in the vicinity of Crown land but which is part of a grazing management unit. When we are trying to get at the

definitions here, the minister will be aware that considerable controversy exists with respect to how the code will apply to those private lands. This might not be the appropriate time to ask, but I'll ask anyway. I understand that private landowners will have the opportunity to correspond with the ministry with respect to how the code will apply to their lands.

I wonder if this particular definition would be subject to the same type of consideration, where the government has taken special care, obviously, to define unfenced grazing land in the Forest Practices Code and to clearly indicate that adjacent private land will be included in the Range Act for purposes of this particular code and how it will apply to private land.

[3:15]

Hon. A. Petter: As I mentioned earlier in response to questions from the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, the definition sections are creating a lexicon. The

definitions do not empower. When we get to sections that deal with powers with respect to grazing land, I would suggest that that would be the appropriate time to raise any concerns the member might have with respect to private land, drawing upon the definition that's provided to explain the

section we will then be attending to.

D. Mitchell: I seek some clarification about the very end of the definition section. I hope the minister will agree that at the very end, following "wildlife," the final term defined, are sections (2), (3), (4) and (5). These are separate sections under the

definitions section. The way the bill was printed it is not extremely clear. It looks like these are subsequent to the wildlife definition, but that's not the case. These are separate sections. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Petter: Separate subsections.

D. Mitchell: In that case, I would like to deal with a brief question about subsections (4) and (5), the last two subsections of the

definitions section. Under these subsections, the government is essentially exempt from the

Interpretation Act that binds the Crown to any government enactments. Also, the government is not bound by any penalties, fines or liabilities under the Forest Practices Code.

The reason this needs some explanation is that there is a concern that the forest resource managed by the Crown -- whether it be through the small business enterprise program or other Crown-owned and -managed resources -- is sometimes among the worst-managed timber in terms of values and practices. Yet this Forest Practices Code, Bill 40, seems to perpetuate a system whereby licensees are bound by the act, but the Crown isn't. Why would that be the case?

Hon. A. Petter: In fact, the opposite is true. Subsection (4) is designed to make it clear that the part of the

Interpretation Act that would otherwise exempt the Crown does not apply; therefore the Crown is bound and affected by this act in its use and development of land. It does the exact opposite of what your concern is. It's there to make it clear that the Crown is bound.

Subsection (5) simply preserves the status quo that administrative fines and penalties do not apply to the Crown -- it would be the Crown paying itself, in a sense -- but that the Crown is bound by the act. The small business program, for example, must meet the requirements of the act, and that's what subsection (4) is designed to do. It makes it clear that the Crown is bound by the requirements of the code.

R. Neufeld: I had a question on that

section too, so I will deal with subsection (5) first. In the small business program, government officials set out all the logging plans and everything that's going to take place. If you look at any of those sections, you will find that the people who are responsible for a private company can be fined. Why would we not do the same thing to our people? We're setting two totally different things apart. I know there's no sense in fining the government and just paying yourself, but I would think that people who are responsible for the small business program should be just as responsible as someone who's working for a private company.

Hon. A. Petter: As I said, the situation in the past in terms of forest management was that while the Crown is bound, it would be meaningless to suggest that the Crown pay itself a fine. Certainly government officials are expected, through the course of their employment, to observe the requirements of the act. Obviously, if they were to not do so, there would be consequences. What this does is simply recognize and preserve the status quo in general, but it makes it clear that the Crown is bound by the act.

[ Page 12618 ]

R. Neufeld: I appreciate what the minister is saying, but I don't agree with him that you're just paying a fine to yourself. I'm saying that the people who are responsible for setting out the logging plans and all the plans associated with the small business program should be just as responsible as anyone else in the industry who's setting out the same plans. The minister is saying that as long as you work for government, you're exempt, and there could be some repercussions. It would be interesting to hear what kinds of repercussions there could be against someone. That would be a little different.

We can argue those sections as we get to them -- sections 117, 119 and 147. Maybe it will make a little more sense then, rather than dealing with it now.

We have

definitions of soil disturbance, bladed trail, excavated trail and dispersed disturbance, and it goes on and on. I'm quite familiar with corduroyed trail; there's an awful lot of it in the north, not just in my constituency. One description that should be in here -- and I haven't been able to find it in either the draft regulations or the standards; maybe I missed it -- is something that is an integral part of logging in the north: ice bridges. What kinds of standards are we going to have on ice bridges crossing major rivers or streams? They're common.

I know they're not common on the Island, and I hope this Forest Practices Code is going to apply to more than just the Island. And then there's ice roads. I can't find either of those mentioned anywhere, yet they are significant parts of the logging industry. Maybe the minister could explain to me why we don't mention them anywhere in the Forest Practices Code.

Hon. A. Petter: I frankly don't know the answer, and I'd be happy to follow up with staff and find out what provision is intended with respect to ice roads and ice bridges, and where that would be factored in. I'm not aware of the intention of the ministry officials who have knowledge in that area. Rather than pretend that I do, I'll get back to the member and let him know what's being intended.

R. Neufeld: Just for the minister's information while we're dealing with that: I raised questions about ice bridges with both the Ministers of Energy and Forests a year or so ago. In the past there were different practices and different rules for whether you were in Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, or in Forests. I know it's of significant importance, probably more so around the Fort Nelson area than anyplace, because ice bridges are a large part of it. I would really like to see us deal with it so those people know what they're facing and what they should be doing, because it's not going to be long before they're doing this.

C. Serwa: I'm not certain that it belongs in this particular section, but standing on the order paper is an amendment under my name. The reason for the amendment is that the industry has expressed concern that nowhere in the code is there any reference to maintaining commercial timber supply as a goal of government. Resource-dependent communities are very concerned about that as well. There is a great deal of uncertainty in the province. There is the reality of a timber shortfall, or falldown.

The Chair: Hon. member, before I let you continue, could you advise the Chair whether you are talking about

section 1 or

section 1.1.

C. Serwa:

Section 1.

The Chair: Thank you.

C. Serwa: There is concern about that. There are concerns, as I have indicated, with respect to native land claims. This is the amendment that I have put forward:

[SECTION 1, by adding the following subsection:

(6) The objects of this Code are: (

a) to maximize long-term employment and employment income to British Columbians from our forests; and, (

b) to enhance the stability of community life in the forested regions of the province. It is recognized that sustaining timber supply levels for commercial harvest is a major consideration in meeting these objects.]

Nowhere in the code, apparently, does it emphasize this particular aspect. It seems appropriate, as early as possible in the Forest Practices Code, to enunciate that as one of the prime goals of the whole exercise.

The Chair: Thank you, hon. member. The Chair has considered your amendment. Unfortunately, it is out of order, as it contravenes paragraph 698 of Beauchesne, in particular subsection (1). This particular

section we're dealing with is a

definitions section, and the scope of your amendment is to add objectives, which is beyond the scope of the section. Therefore, unfortunately, it's out of order.

W. Hurd: I have one last comment with respect to subsection (5), as alluded to earlier, which specifically exempts the government from the most onerous penalties under the Forest Practices Code. I find it ironic that the ministry has talked at length about deterrence -- the $1 million fines and the court action, which offers the government at least some sort of club to use against licensees.

But again, with respect to subsection (5), I would welcome a clarification. In my

interpretation, it basically exempts the government from the more serious penalties under the code. I wonder whether that implies that the ministry will be stepping up the number of audits on land managed under the small business forest enterprise program. As we've alluded to in the chamber before, the largest portion of the harvest in the province is managed by the minister under that particular program. Clearly, if the club that appears for licensees elsewhere in this act isn't going to be used, I'd settle for an assurance from the minister that more stringent auditing is going to have to be done.

One would assume that would be the least the Crown could commit to, in light of the fact that the

definitions

section is a rather sweeping

section that does apply to a significant portion of the annual allowable harvest in British Columbia.

Hon. A. Petter: Clearly the member must be aware that the position of ministry staff is very different from that of a licence holder -- in terms of the benefits, for example. Ministry staff cannot profit in the same way that a licence holder can. The incentives and disincentives are very different.

But I think the member makes a good point when he points out that for the first time, under this code, an

[ Page 12619 ]

independent agency -- the Forest Practices Board -- will be initiating audits. Those audits certainly will include, to whatever extent the board determines desirable, the small business program. I expect that would mean that the small business program will come under at least as great scrutiny as other licensees do. I should also point out that increased staff is being allocated for the small business program, as we discussed in estimates, in order to ensure that the resources are there. Of course, internal government reports on the performance of the small business program are done in-house by the ministry itself and can be made available to the opposition member and the public.

So the incentives and disincentives are necessarily somewhat different. Under this code, as we'll see when we get to the relevant sections, there is more accountability and scrutiny for the conduct of government officials than has ever taken place in the past. And, I'm happy to say, the resources are there to ensure that government officials will be able to perform the job they have desired to perform for many years.

Section 1 as amended approved.

section 2.

C. Serwa: Hon. Chair, I have an amendment standing under my name on the order paper, to create a subsection (1.1). The purpose of this amendment is that.... It is unclear how the code will be read in conjunction with the Forest Act. This amendment guarantees that it will not be used indirectly to deprive anyone of rights to compensation they currently enjoy under the Forest Act. The amendment proposed by myself is:

[SECTION 1.1, by adding the following section:

Compensation 1.1 Nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to remove or reduce the government's obligation to pay compensation for loss of timber or cutting rights to a landowner or to the holder of a licence or other tenure under the Forest Act.]

Hon. A. Petter: The issue of compensation is dealt with elsewhere in this act. I suggest that if the addition to a

section is beyond the scope of the section, then this inclusion of a wholly new

section is certainly beyond the scope of a

section that doesn't currently exist and should more appropriately be dealt with when we reach the issue of compensation later in the act.

The Chair: Hon. member, if the amendment is dealt with later in the act -- which it is -- then your amendment is out of order.

[3:30]

C. Serwa: Then probably I will bring up this amendment again under the later portion of the act. I was not familiar with that, so that's what I will do.

The Chair: That would be appropriate, hon. member.

W. Hurd: With respect to

section 2(1), I suppose I can now try and engage the minister in a discussion about the decision that the government has made with respect to private land and the Forest Practices Code. It's important, for the record, for the minister to clarify exactly what latitude is being offered to private landowners with respect to the implementation of the code.

It's my understanding that before the regulations come into force of law, the ministry is soliciting opinions and advice from private landowners as to how they feel the code should apply to their lands. Is that a correct assessment of the public policy initiative the government has undertaken with respect to this section? Perhaps the minister could just clarify that, because the only reference made -- about the commitment of the government to allow for a period of adjustment and for the solicitation of opinions from private landowners with respect to this

section and others in the Forest Practices Code -- has been in the media and at the press conferences.

Hon. A. Petter: I want to distinguish two issues; one is dealt with in this

section and one is dealt with elsewhere in the act. This

section deals with private land that is contained within a tree farm licence or a woodlot licence area. It does not deal with the larger issue of private land or, for example, privately managed forest land, which is dealt with later in this act and also in other legislation that's before the House.

What is provided for in this

section is clarification with respect to the obligation of tree farm licence holders and woodlot licence holders that the licence requirements they undertake apply with respect to the private land as well as to the Crown land within their licences. My understanding is that that has been the case through current licence documents, and this

section recognizes it as such.

W. Hurd: I'm somewhat reassured by that explanation, but I am still troubled by the reference to forage production and grazing by livestock and wildlife. Is the reference here only to Crown land, or are we again dealing with private land?

As I alluded to earlier, it did show up in the

definitions section, when we dealt with the definition of unfenced grazing land. Reference was made then to a component of private land. In

section 2(1)(b), which refers to forage production and grazing, can the minister advise us whether there is a component of private land to be managed as well? Or is the only reference to private land in this

section to that which exists in conjunction with a tree farm licence or woodlot licence?

Hon. A. Petter: The only case in which private land might be affected by (1)(

b) would be in the unlikely event that some private grazing land was contained within a tree farm licence or a woodlot. It is not contemplated that that would have much application to private land. I don't know of much private land, if any, within tree farm licences or woodlot land -- private or otherwise -- that's devoted to grazing. The answer is that it is not expected to have any significant application to private land.

W. Hurd: This question, I suppose, would refer more to land holdings on Vancouver Island that are privately held and attached to tree farm licences. Can the minister advise us whether the application now for protecting recreation, scenery and wilderness values, and the other values mentioned, represents a change to the responsibilities that currently exist under the Forest Act for tree farm licences?

For example, I wasn't aware that in respect to private land attached to a tree farm licence, you now have to file a plan for the protection of recreation, scenery and wilderness values. Clearly we're encumbering the private

[ Page 12620 ]

land attached to a management unit on Vancouver Island particularly, where a number of licensees have rolled their private holdings into a management unit in conjunction with a tree farm licence. What I see in this

section is quite a dramatic additional planning burden for the component of private land that is adjacent to a tree farm licence but that for planning purposes is one harvesting unit. I wonder if the minister could advise us whether I'm correct in the assumption that the private land component attached to a TFL will now be subject to quite a dramatic change of responsibilities with respect to studies that may have been done for the Crown land component. I assume they will now have to be done for.... Or is it the case that traditionally all the planning has been done for the entire unit, and this represents no significant additional burden?

Hon. A. Petter: The latter. The current practice is for planning to take place over the entire area -- both the private and public land components of the tree farm licence. Those requirements are contained within current contractual documents. The only change here is that it's now recognized in legislation. In terms of on-the-ground practices and planning requirements, there is no conceptual change planned for tree farms licences -- either the private or public land components. They'll continue to do so, and the legislation now recognizes that fact.

W. Hurd: Just to further clarify, then, did the recreation, scenery and wilderness requirements previously exist in the private land component? I'm aware that the entire planning function related to forest harvesting and cutblock planning, etc., would have applied, but this recreation, scenery and wilderness component for private land is somewhat unfamiliar to me. If the minister advises that that's been the requirement all along, I'd be happy with it.

Hon. A. Petter: I can advise you what I'm advised: the practice through current contract documents is that the planning incorporates recreational inventories, for example, on private land in the same way that it does on public land if that land is part of the tree farm licence.

Section 2 approved.

The Chair: On

section 3, the member for Nelson-Creston.

C. Evans: Hon. Chair, I was standing as fast as I could while you asked for the vote. Would you like to declare that the vote was a little hasty, or would you like me to sit down and forget my question?

Interjections.

The Chair: On

section 3, the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi.

Interjections.

D. Mitchell: Hon. Chair, if the committee wishes to go back to

section 2 for the member for Nelson-Creston, I'd be willing to defer to him. My question is on

section 3.

The Chair: We have already passed

section 2; we're on

section 3.

D. Mitchell: I can only suggest to the member that he might want to be diligent, because I think the issues come up in the bill later on a number of different occasions.

Section 3 deals with resource management zones and objectives. I have a question for the minister dealing with

section 3(2): "Before establishing a resource management zone, the chief forester must...." It states the responsibilities of the chief forester. The concern here -- and I think it has been expressed by a number of operators within the forest-product business and within the working forests of British Columbia -- is that there's no prescribed time limit on the chief forester for the required approvals -- of the Minister of Environment, in particular. In other words, under the definition of a resource management zone, a licensee could be subject to rules and regulations that are indefinite.

Where a licensee or an operator has made a significant investment of time and money, should there not be a prescribed time limit for the approval of these resource management zones?

Hon. A. Petter: I have two points in response. The first is: if the member looks at some of the further amendments that I have put in the possession of the Clerk, he'll find that some of the sections are clarified; they make it clear that the requirement is to adhere to the plan at the time it was approved. To some extent I think those amendments speak to the concern he's raising. This will, in a sense, grandparent the plans that were approved according to the requirements at the time. So I would draw his attention to those further amendments, which we'll be getting to very shortly.

With that in mind, I move the amendment to

section 3 that is in the possession of the Clerk.

[SECTION 3, by deleting the proposed subsection (2).]

On the amendment.

G. Wilson: When we have at least some semblance of accountability to the chief forester with respect to the approval of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks within the proposed resource management zone that is being set up, I think the minister needs to explain why, at the eleventh hour, we would entertain an amendment that deletes that obligation. It was obligatory, because it said that the chief forester "must" obtain the approval of Environment, Lands and Parks.

All through this act there are obligatory requirements with respect to local management of a series of different facets of logging practice and management of logging in particular areas that companies are going to have to abide by. What is strange in this amendment is that in the one

section where there is some reasonable amount of accountability to the government, at the eleventh hour the minister entertains an amendment deleting it. If the minister could explain why that is so, we could move on.

Hon. A. Petter: First, I have been asked to clarify that the amendment in this case is to delete subsection (2). The reason is that if one looks at the section, the responsibility for establishing the resource management zones under subsection 3(1) lies with cabinet -- the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks would be a member of cabinet, obviously, and would participate in that decision -- or, alternatively with three ministers, one of whom is that minister. Therefore it was deemed superfluous and unnecessary to have a separate specific requirement, given that the decision of cabinet would reflect the input and

[ Page 12621 ]

voice of that minister, beyond that already specified in subsection (1).

G. Wilson: Presumably the minister is suggesting that ministers in cabinet are going to be aware of every detail, or they are going to have their staff aware of every detail, before the establishment of these resource management zones. That is impractical; I don't think that is going to happen. My guess is that one lead ministry will be assigned; it will be the Ministry of Forests, or possibly Environment. Notwithstanding that, it goes on to say "if land within the proposed resource management zone is subject to an interest issued or granted under the Land Act" -- which has been removed.

That is a significant amendment. It is more than just a question of three ministers getting together for coffee around a cabinet table saying: "Yeah, let's do it." Presumably, some data is provided here that gives some scientific support for, or removal of, approval in this instance. I don't think that the explanation from the minister is enough. It has to be more than just ministers getting together and deciding yea or nay on this question, particularly if there is already a governance under the Land Act which provides at least some comfort with respect to interest that may be issued.

[3:45]

Hon. A. Petter: Contrary to the member's suggestion, there is every expectation that all members of cabinet -- certainly the Ministers of Environment, Lands and Parks and the Minister of Forests -- will have a direct interest in decisions to designate resource management zones. The input of those ministries will be reflected in whatever decision is made, either by cabinet or by the three ministers -- the third minister being the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. To say that there has to be further requirement does seem redundant, frankly.

If the cabinet system is to work, it must work as a collegial system with input from respective ministries. When cabinet has made a decision, if the system is working -- and without disclosing any secrets, in this government I can that say it is -- that decision involves full and substantive input from the respective ministers. It's a matter of not creating further hurdles for the chief forester that require the chief forester to go back and consult further, based on a decision which already involved consultation with that ministry and minister.

G. Wilson: With respect to the minister, as it is suggested here, "interest" is not a question of interest by a minister. As it is defined in the Land Act, interest is a reference to land that includes a right to or stake in the land. There's a legal definition of interest issued or granted under the Land Act, which is quite different from anything a minister may or may not have in a particular decision. We're not talking about whether he's interested in the decision.

If this is a legal question that has been removed, I would argue that given that we're talking about resource management zones -- and let's not forget that we're talking about those issued under Crown land in a provincial forest and private land in a tree farm licence or woodlot licence.... Given that we're dealing with private land, an interest issued under the Land Act is a significant question.

Now you're saying that you've removed the one area we had here where there would be reference back to the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks under the Land Act, so that there would be an opportunity for some kind of interaction on that decision, and you've given complete discretion to the government.

Hon. A. Petter: I have two points. I really think the member is making mountains out of molehills here. The process that will lead to resource management zone designation will involve input in regional planning processes, such as the kinds that take place around land and resource management plans or CORE-type plans, in which ministries -- certainly the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Forests -- are integrally involved and the public has a tremendous say. Secondly, interests may be affected under the Forest Act as well, but there's no separate requirement that the Minister of Forests be consulted subsequent to cabinet making its decision.

When cabinet makes its decision, I can assure the member that at least in a cabinet system that is working -- not in one that is perhaps out of control, and maybe the member's experience with the previous opposition caucus has given him a distorted view of how collegiality is supposed to work -- the various interests, be they under the Land Act, the Forest Act or whatever, will all be weighed and considered by cabinet -- in this case, following public input.

Therefore the concern that there needs to be some subsequent consultation process with a particular minister is really redundant and puts an unnecessary obstacle in the way of the chief forester. Cabinet must and will take account of those interests when it makes its decision, and those interests will have been fully articulated and considered in the public processes that precede that decision.

G. Wilson: Just one more question on that. It really begs the question -- and we'll deal with it in

section 4 -- about why you didn't take it out of

section 4. In fact, the amendment to

section 4 alters it in an even different manner. I don't accept that. I think the problem we're having with the minister here is that it's very much a matter of: "Trust us. We're going to have something like CORE." We know that wasn't controversial. Certainly on Vancouver Island, there was no controversy around CORE at all. Or they're saying that once the community has had its input, somehow the cabinet ministers are going to be able to evenly weigh all the potential interests, and we're going to now remove the reference which includes a right to or a stake in that land under the Land Act, to provide....

The minister is shaking his head. That's what "interest issued or granted" means under the Land Act. I've got the Land Act in front me, and the

section is clear. So you're removing that reference and saying: "Trust the ministers. We're going to get together and decide what is or isn't in the best interests on private land where there is a woodlot or a licence to harvest."

Hon. A. Petter: Finally, the Land Act and all its requirements will continue to apply. They will continue to protect whatever parties have interests protected under the Land Act. All this has to do with is what processes one goes through to ensure that those interests are taken into account when decision-making takes place. The subsequent requirement, after cabinet has made a decision, to consult the Minister of Environment suggests that that interest need not be taken into account by cabinet prior to the decision. That is not our intent; our intent is the opposite. These and other interests must be factored in and taken into account by cabinet prior to its making its

[ Page 12622 ]

decision. The removal of this subsection helps to strengthen that resolve and commitment.

D. Mitchell: Just before we move on from

section 3, dealing with these resource management zones, maybe the minister could give us an example of what is really contemplated under this

section where resource management zones can be designated. The minister will understand why there's concern.

An Hon. Member: On the amendment.

D. Mitchell: Well, the amendment deals with the principle of the section. But if the minister chooses to dispose of the amendment first before I deal with that question, I'd be happy to do that, hon. Chair.

J. Tyabji: We can either deal with it now or under

section 4, but I note that subsection (2) of

section 4 is almost identical to this one, and it has been left in. If the minister is arguing that deleting this subsection actually strengthens subsection (1), why would he have one set of rules for this

section and a different set for

section 4? I don't actually disagree with the minister's reading that deleting it and taking away the protections under the Land Act is somehow in the best interest of the public. However, he has kept it in the next section.

Hon. A. Petter: I think we should deal with it there. The answer is that in the subsequent section, the decision doesn't flow from cabinet; it flows from a different decision-making authority and it's therefore appropriate to involve a cabinet minister, because that minister or designated official would not necessarily have been involved -- as would be the case in this section.

W. Hurd: The minister will be aware that the chief forester has a special function under the Forest Act to set the annual allowable harvest. Since we're struggling with the definition of a resource management zone, I wonder whether the ability of the chief forester to adjust the size of the zone would affect a determination of the annual allowable harvest under the Forest Act. Clearly, if that were to be the case, that would speak directly to the amendment, because under the proposed subsection (2), approval would have to be obtained from the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks.

My question, I suppose, relates directly to the special function the chief forester has under the Forest Act to determine an annual allowable harvest for a timber supply area in the province. Would his ability to do that be compromised in any way when varying the boundaries of a resource management zone, thereby affecting the annual allowable harvest, by having to seek the approval of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks before doing that?

I'm concerned, because as the minister well knows and has articulated in the past, under the Forest Act the chief forester occupies a separate and distinct function, much like the Attorney General, in the sense that he sets annual allowable harvests allegedly free of interference from cabinet.

Hon. A. Petter: I think we're straying fairly far from the amendment, and even from the section. As the member is aware, the power of the chief forester to determine annual allowable cuts is under the Forest Act -- I believe it's in

section 7 -- and the chief forester takes account of numerous considerations. Objectives of resource management zones may be one of thoseconsiderations, but this does not have any direct relationship. Certainly you'd have to be pretty creative to see a direct relationship with subsection (2) in particular, which is designed to eliminate a redundancy that I referred to earlier.

Amendment approved on division.

section 3 as amended.

D. Mitchell: Because the bill offers no definition of what a resource management zone is, and because it's not extremely clear what is being contemplated here -- not to me, anyway.... The minister will know that there's a lot of concern in the province about the protected areas strategy and the new forest land reserve that's been introduced in legislation in this House. In my constituency, there's concern about the spotted owl conservation areas. There are so many different areas being proposed to govern different land use decisions.

I wonder if the minister could tell us -- as an example, perhaps -- how much of the working forest of British Columbia is, in his opinion, likely to come under these resource management zones. Is this likely to be an exception, or is most of the working forest ultimately going to be designated a resource management zone under this act?

Hon. A. Petter: To answer the last part of the member's question, the intention is to both secure and better define the commercial forest of the province through resource management zones. The intention is that most, if not all, of the commercial forest will be designated under resource management zones through this process.

Resource management zoning -- in combination with the forest land reserve legislation, which we'll be discussing shortly, I hope -- allows us to deliver on a commitment this government made that land use planning will result in greater stability and certainty -- not only with respect to protected areas but with respect to areas that are available for resource extraction and resource management.

So, following a CORE process, one might utilize the resource management zone to designate on Vancouver Island, for example, a zone for high intensive forestry with greater commitment to silviculture, commercial thinning and other techniques to maximize timber production values. The resource management zone will give us a legislative tool to provide the stability and certainty about the objectives that can be pursued with respect to components of the commercial forest.

The intention is, subsequent to land use planning exercises, that when the commercial forest has been defined and contained within a forest land reserve, then, over time, the resource management zones would define virtually all of that commercial forest. This would provide the kind of stability and certainty that forest-based communities, workers and companies have been looking for, so they can make the investments and engage in the kinds of practices that will maximize employment and the economic values that flow from those forests.

D. Mitchell: Just one further point of clarification. The minister has said something quite significant: most of the working forests of British Columbia are likely going to be designated as a resource management zone under this

[ Page 12623 ]

section of the act. What would happen if the provincial protected areas strategy, a CORE process, a local land use planning process dealing with an endangered species like the spotted owl, the forest land reserve, or any other legislated or non-legislated land use process were to conflict with the requirements under this

section dealing with resource management zones? What would take precedence? Would the resource management zone, as defined under

section 3 of the Forest Practices Code, take precedence over any other process that's currently out there confusing the public and those working in the forest industry? Why do we need yet another tool? I think the minister has indicated why he thinks we need it, but what would take precedence?

Hon. A. Petter: I don't think it's a matter of taking precedence. It's a matter of providing a logical progression and the tools necessary to give stability following that progression.

The CORE process is there to come to some resolution on land use. Then, following from that, the forest land reserve legislation, which we'll discuss shortly, is there to define what the commercial forest is and to include it within a forest land reserve. Then we have resource management zones under the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act, which will enable us to define within that commercial forest the various objectives that can be pursued by companies, in order to given them some sense of stability as to what uses are appropriate.

There are provisions in the act for making changes involving public process -- absolutely. But the idea here is to achieve certainty, not to contemplate more changes: to move towards a consensus around land use in the largest sense through CORE; to develop a working forest or commercial forest through the forest land reserve legislation; and, within the working forest, to then provide a definition of the components of the commercial forest and how those components will be managed, so that industry and communities can have stability and make the appropriate investment decisions flowing from that.

[4:00]

These are the building blocks to achieve the kind of certainty that for decades forest-based communities and forest companies have been crying out for. Because there haven't been higher-level plans, land use processes or these kinds of tools, governments would not have been able to deliver even if they had the political will to carry through these processes. We are carrying through these processes, and now we will have the tools available to deliver on that certainty.

W. Hurd: I've listened carefully to the explanation the minister has offered for the definition of resource management zone, but I'm not detecting any additional security at all. The legislation clearly indicates that the chief forester, by written order, may establish an area of land as a resource management zone, and may vary the boundaries of the zone or cancel it altogether.

Further, under subsection (b), it says: "...if the Lieutenant Governor in Council has not issued directions to the chief forester with respect to an area, in accordance with directions approved by the ministers." That indicates that cabinet has some sort of potential role in ordering the chief forester to otherwise change or vary a resource management zone. Keep in mind that these resource management zones refer not only to public land but also to the private land within a tree farm licence.

I suspect that this is a considerable additional burden or insecurity for an area of private land for which the licensee might be tempted to issue some sort of enhanced management plan which the minister alluded to. This

section would almost dissuade a licensee who has a component of public land and private land from coming forward with an enhanced forest management regime, keeping in mind that the chief forester may, at the direction of cabinet, vary or change the boundaries of the zone or cancel it altogether.

The minister is shaking his head, but I can't see where the additional security exists when such a decision by the chief forester could have the effect of reducing the annual allowable harvest as clearly as if the chief forester decided to do it, based on the normal variables that are at his disposal. We need much further clarification on the term "resource management zone" and, in particular, on the ability of the chief forester to vary the boundaries of the zone without appearing to reference any other decision than some sort of directive from cabinet.

Hon. A. Petter: I don't know where the member has been the last couple of years, but in all my conversations with forest communities, one of the common complaints has to do with achieving some stability regarding the commercial forest and the commercial forest base. One of the common complaints is that while parks, for example, are established through a legislative mechanism -- and there can be variation, because we live in a parliamentary democracy, hon. member.... One of the features of a parliamentary democracy is that you can't bind a subsequent parliament. And governments do have the flexibility to make changes, and that's recognized.

Many people in forest-based communities have asked us to give them the security that when designations and decisions are made, they are encased in the same kind of legislative base and carry with them the same kind of political weight as, for example, designations for parks on the land base. Just as parks can be created through legislation by cabinet order, and varied, now resource management zones will be designated in a similar way and can be varied. But don't minimize the significance of that, hon. member. The designation by cabinet under legislation carries considerable weight.

Once cabinet has made such a designation, it will be very difficult to make alterations. There are provisions in which the chief forester must seek public input -- where the public interest is significantly affected, for example -- and cabinet will bear a political burden in making a change.

Through the resource management zone we have effectively provided an analogous mechanism to park designation for the commercial forest. That is exactly what forest-based communities have been asking for and what the member has sometimes mouthed -- but, I am afraid, not fully understanding what he has been mouthing -- as his own position. So I am confused that he now stands up and says this is somehow not significant or will contribute to instability. It is the very thing that forest-based communities have been looking for to achieve certainty over the commercial forest for the future.

W. Hurd: Under subsections 3(1)(

a) and (

b) there is no reference made to public input or involvement. Correct me if I'm wrong -- and I'm sure the minister will -- but this

section empowers the chief forester to vary or cancel a zone altogether. We can establish that. Under subsection (

b) it also provides the opportunity for cabinet to issue directions to the chief forester with respect to an area. One

[ Page 12624 ]

would assume that cabinet could then direct the chief forester to vary or alter the boundaries of the zone or cancel it altogether. Clearly there is a role for cabinet here to make the determination to direct the chief forester to vary the zone or cancel it. The minister cloaks that in additional security for forest-dependent communities. He talks about the evils of the past sympathetic administration, but clearly there's an opportunity for cabinet to direct the chief forester to do just that. I can't understand how the minister could stand and suggest that that represents additional security for forest-dependent communities in the province.

Hon. A. Petter: What the member apparently doesn't understand is that there are now no resource management zones whatsoever; there is no framework for stability now. Forest-based communities have said that they would like a legislative framework through which cabinet can designate areas of the commercial forest and define what future use is intended for those areas so investment and other decisions can be made with respect to the commercial forest. That's exactly what this legislation does: it empowers cabinet to direct the chief forester to establish such zones.

Yes, there is the power to vary them, but as I say with respect to parkland, once created, the disincentives to vary and the political price for doing so will be relatively high. If the member would attend to subsection (5), he would see: "Before establishing, varying or cancelling a resource management zone or objective in a way that significantly affects the public, the chief forester must provide for review and comment in accordance with the regulations." An element of public accountability is built into this.

I guess the member falls into that category of people who decry the good because of some pious hope for something that they claim is the best. The best is often the enemy of the good, I would suggest to the hon. member. This is a major step forward in terms of providing and securing the forest land base that's going to be available for commercial forestry. It provides the same kind of legislative base for the commercial forest as is provided for parkland, for example.

W. Hurd: Having no wish to belabour the point, still one further comment is invited. This particular

section applies to Crown land in a provincial forest and private land in a tree farm licence or woodlot licence, so we're dealing with a fairly specific area of forest land. As the minister well knows, woodlot owners and licensees will periodically come forward to the ministry with an enhanced management plan for that particular unit -- an idea to increase the growth and yields over time. What this

section tells me is that having filed those plans with the ministry -- at considerable public expense -- there's a provision in here now for the zone to be varied or cancelled altogether.

While I'm somewhat mollified by subsection (5), which is again in the

section that allows for public input, what's going to happen is that licensees and woodlot owners may be dissuaded from coming forward with those enhanced management plans because of the ability of the chief forester to alter, vary or cancel the zone under the direction of cabinet. I realize that we're probably stretching debate on this

section further than it needs to go. I'm sure the minister is utterly convinced that despite the ability of the chief forester to alter this resource management zone, more security exists than I can read into the section. We'll hope that his

interpretation is somehow correct.

G. Wilson: Just for the record and so the minister doesn't go off on a tangent, the Alliance members have no hesitation in saying that we need to establish a working forest and working zones, and we need to look to put some kind of land regulation that provides for that in place. In fact, I've been saying that since 1987. What we're looking at in this particular

section is how that's going to be implemented and what that's going to do to existing plans for existing companies that have tenure and may find themselves under a new resource management zone.

I have two questions on this amended section. Subsection (8) says: "The establishment, variance or cancellation of a resource management zone or objective takes effect...." It gives a maximum time line of six months. It says it may be "by the regulations and in accordance with the regulations, at an earlier time specified...." So we've got a maximum of six months, but it could actually be earlier than that. We notice also that subsection (5) says there is going to be a provision for review before establishing this; the minister just commented on that.

The concern that we're having and certainly that I'm hearing from people in the industry is the question of terminating plans, establishing new plans and the speed with which that's going to be required. If they find themselves under this new designation and see that there is a designation within six months, notwithstanding that it may have been delayed by some kind of public review process.... I wonder if the minister can address two questions. Firstly, is there a provision for either an appeal for a longer time or some way of holding back that designation? I don't see where that might be.

Secondly, can the minister tell us exactly what kind of public review is envisaged under subsection (5)? Is there another

section of the act that this would directly refer to?

Hon. A. Petter: With respect to the last question, I understand there are regulations governing the kind of public input. The initial resource management zone designation would be a product of the kind of process that's taken place on Vancouver Island or is taking place in other parts of this province around land and resource management plans, which involve extensive public input. Variation or revision regulations will provide that there must be gazetted notices provided to district offices and opportunities for public input around those. Presumably, if there was a high level of public interest, then more substantive input than that could be accommodated.

With respect to the first question the member asked, it's important to make a distinction. When we get to

part 3, I think the member will find that while the resource management zone designation may change and take effect after six months, that does not affect the operational plan currently in force.

Under amendments I have placed in the possession of the Clerk, the operational plan need not change until the next operational plan becomes due -- not the current plan. In a sense, the higher-level plan changes within a six-month period, and then the current operational plan will come to its natural conclusion. The next operational plan will then have to conform to that change in the resource management zone. So you shouldn't assume that a change in the resource management zone automatically triggers a change in the operational plan. That change in

[ Page 12625 ]

the operational plan only comes about when the operational plan naturally comes up for renewal and would be amended in any event.

G. Wilson: If the minister could just clarify, were those changes in the amendments that were tabled today? I haven't had a chance to read through all of those.

Hon. A. Petter: The answer is yes.

C. Serwa: In going through this

section 3, there is not very much there to provide any sense of comfort on the part of the licensee, the holder of tenure. And there's very little requirement in here to encourage the government to be fully accountable.

I was proposing an amendment on this section:

[SECTION 3, by adding the following subsection:

(10) A person who believes that he has suffered loss in value of land, timber or cutting rights by virtue of the operation of sections 3, 4, 5 or 6 of this Act, other than loss which is not compensatable under the terms of the Forest Act, may apply to the Minister for compensation equal to the fair market value of the compensatable loss, and such compensation, subject to judicial review, must be paid within one year of the loss being claimed.]

It is apparent that there is a potential for downsizing with the establishment of these forest management zones. There's certainly an industry concern with either the loss of cutting rights or volume, or restrictions being placed which will cost the industry a great deal of capital.

[4:15]

The Chair: Hon. member, the Chair has reviewed your proposed amendment and has trouble with it on two accounts.

The first is that it would probably be better as a stand-alone section. However, that is enough of a grey area that the Chair would accept that amendment. The second area in which the Chair has a problem with the amendment -- it's the area the Chair will not allow the amendment to proceed in -- is that it has a potential to seek to impose a charge upon Treasury. On

section 698 in Beauchesne, subsection (7), that is clearly not permissible. As a further reference, the Chair would cite the Journals of this House of June 17, 1969, on page 1172. Hon. member, the amendment is out of order.

W. Hurd: Before we leave this section, because it does have implications for private land holders in the province, it's my understanding that a transition period has been announced by the ministry for input from government with respect to how the regulations that accompany the act will apply to private land. I wonder if the minister could clarify exactly what he expects tree farm licence holders, who have private lands attached to their working or management units, to do over the next six months. Are they to liaise with the ministry to provide some input or a framework as to how these regulations should apply? Perhaps the minister could clarify that for the committee at this time.

Hon. A. Petter: Harking back to the earlier distinction I made, I think the provision the member may be thinking of is

section 216, which deals with the inclusion of private managed forest land. This

section deals only with private land that is contained within woodlot or tree farm licences and is currently governed by the requirements of the Forest Act through contractual arrangements.

In respect of this private land, the consultation process already engaged in is applicable. Therefore there is no subsequent consultation process. The further consultation process that I think the member is alluding to has to do with the inclusion of further private lands -- in particular, private managed forest lands. I'd be happy to discuss what that process will be when we reach

section

Section 3 as amended approved.

section 4.

Hon. A. Petter: I move the amendment to

section 4, which is in possession of the Clerk. That amendment amends the proposed subsection (2) by adding "or a person authorized by that minister" after the words "obtain the approval of the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks."

On the amendment.

G. Wilson: The obvious question on the amendment is why in the previous section, given that both of them are involved in similar types of processes, we delete the

section that makes it a mandatory requirement and then in this

section we actually beef it up by saying that it can be a person authorized by the minister, which is what this effectively does. The minister was alluding to that earlier. Perhaps he could explain it again.

Hon. A. Petter: The question goes both to the amendment and the

section it's amending, but I'm happy to deal with it under the amendment.

The answer has to do with the fact that the decision that is being made here is not made by cabinet. The Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks would have been involved, and his officials, through that minister, would have had input. It's a decision being made by the district manager and a Ministry of Forests official. Therefore it's appropriate that consultation take place and agreement be sought from the appropriate minister or designated official from the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, given that the prior decision to proceed would not necessarily have involved that minister or his official.

G. Wilson: I'm not sure that this is a weighty enough point to spend a lot of time on, but I would argue exactly the same argument that we were unsuccessful in convincing this minister with under

section 3.

In this instance, however, there is a provision whereby a protection on the basis of "an interest issued or granted under the Land Act" is covered by virtue of the fact that there is mandatory approval by the minister or, as the amendment suggests, and speaking to the amendment, "a person authorized by that minister." That begs the question. I think I just heard the minister say that the person authorized has to be an official as defined under this act. What I'm hearing the minister say is that it will have to be somebody from within the ministry that the minister represents.

But if not, maybe we could flesh that out a little bit, because clearly there's a legal implication here with respect to an interest issued under the Land Act.

Hon. A. Petter: It would be a person authorized by the minister to speak on the minister's behalf and therefore be reflective of the policy and position of the Minister of

[ Page 12626 ]

Environment, Lands and Parks and that of his or her ministry. It does not specify that it need be an official, but I think in the normal course of events it would be an official.

W. Hurd: Many of the issues raised with respect to

section 3 certainly apply here. I wonder if the minister could briefly clarify for the committee his definition or the ministry's definition of landscape unit, as it applies to this planning process. Are we referring to areas where the timber needs to remain in an unharvested state because of protection of visual scapes or some other type of value that the ministries of both Forests and Environment may want to protect? Could the minister offer us an explanation of the term "landscape unit"?

Hon. A. Petter: I think, just as a matter of procedure, hon. Chair, that it would be more appropriate to pass the amendment first and then come to this question, which speaks more generally to the

section as a whole.

Amendment approved.

section 4 as amended.

Hon. A. Petter: The notion of landscape units provides for another kind of strategic planning at a level which would be geographically somewhat smaller than the resource management zone, one more likely to approximate, say, watershed areas and logical planning areas. This

section will provide for strategic planning within those smaller areas and will assist the public and the ministry in better defining the appropriate plans for those smaller units, which will in turn be contained within the larger resource management zones and have to be consistent with the objectives of those resource management zones.

W. Hurd: Again it's important to emphasize that we're talking about provincial forest land in addition to private land that may be attached in a tree farm licence or woodlot licence. Clearly the establishment of a landscape zone would have the effect of potentially alienating some timber allocations or timber-harvesting rights.

The minister will be aware -- and I know his ministry has received input -- that both sections 3 and 4 do have what is interpreted to be widespread significance in terms of expropriation, or the taking away of rights to private land. It was alluded to earlier in the debate by the member for Okanagan West, and I think it needs to be reiterated here. I know the ministry has received feedback from licensees that in fact both these sections represent a form of potential expropriation without levels of compensation.

Again I point out that the district manager not only establishes and sets the objectives for the landscape unit but may vary or cancel it. These directives apply not only to the public land within the TFL but also on private land as well. I know the minister has received substantive input on this with respect to sections 3 and 4. Again, I would welcome his assurance, if he can offer it, that subsection (4) will not alienate the rights of private land owners by enabling the district manager to come into that private land component and say that we are going to establish a landscape unit for purposes of this value.

It will be subject to approval by the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, and after a six-month period there appears to be no window of defined time attached to this designation. The district manager could stick land into a landscape unit, and there it could sit for an indefinite period of time. I know the minister has received considerable input on this issue, and it needs to be discussed in some detail at this time.

Hon. A. Petter: What we are talking about here is providing a framework in which licence holders with respect to public and private land within tree farm licences or within Crown forest lands can achieve much greater certainty. The establishment of a landscape unit will enable the ministry to articulate far more clearly what the specific management requirements are in order to maximize the use of the resource within the landscape unit. In resource-management zones that are designated for intensive forest use, that may mean that road construction will be prescribed that facilitates more intensive forest activity.

Presumably roads would be active for longer periods of time, perhaps in order to enable more intensive silvicultural activities. In respect of certain community watersheds, it may mean landscape units in which some requirements are put in place to protect the water quality and other values.

The creation of a landscape unit doesn't presuppose that it will increase or decrease harvesting rights. What it does presuppose is that the ministry will have to be up front, explicit and clear about the requirements for licence holders and others to be able to rely upon a set of plans that right now do not exist but will exist as a result of this code. In that way the code will instil certainty.

It will give prior notice and enable much greater accountability through to the public and to licence holders to be aware of, to debate and to participate in the formulation of appropriate planning standards for particular zones that in some cases will increase opportunities for more intensive timber harvesting. In other cases it will ensure that timber harvesting doesn't compromise other values, thereby gaining greater security for what timber harvesting does occur.

W. Hurd: I know that

interpretation the minister has offered is not shared by others who have tree farm licences in the province and who now find themselves unable to divorce the private land from the public land, unless they simply turn in the licence. I know that the minister has received input with respect to the current rules of expropriation under the Forest Act and the fact that in their view this particular provision, especially subsection (4), does provide for expropriation without compensation. I accept the minister's explanation that that isn't necessarily the intent, but under this

section there is a possibility for land in the private component of a TFL to be alienated from being harvested without a definition or a time frame for dealing with the special landscape unit. It's fair to say that the district manager may or may not have all the variables at his disposal in making that determination. As a matter of precaution, he may declare an area to be a special landscape unit for the purposes of retaining future options down the road.

[4:30]

I again advise the minister that there is a lot of concern out there among licensees about the impacts this has on expropriation, and I am certain that those individuals will be looking at the pages of Hansard with interest in order to be satisfied in their own minds that we aren't alienating or encumbering private land without any reference to expropriation. I guess what I would settle for is an assurance from the minister that this

section will in no

[ Page 12627 ]

way impede or restrict the expropriation provisions that currently exist in the Forest Act in this province.

Hon. A. Petter: I'm a little confused by the member's question. Right now, hon. member, members of the Forests ministry and others who are responsible for various components of planning -- within tree farm licences, for example, or within other forestry units -- make decisions all the time about how best to protect the appropriate values. Those decisions are not very often explicit, because there is no legislative requirement that they be made explicit.

By creating a landscape unit in a legislative provision for landscape units, we have a requirement that those management provisions have to be made explicit, through this process, rather than being imposed implicitly by officials. That can only provide greater security to licence holders and others who want to know up front what the rules are -- let the sun shine in. That is exactly what this does. So there isn't an alteration, except one that illuminates what has previously taken place in a less illuminated environment. Therefore, in my view, the question of expropriation and compensation is really not relevant or germane.

W. Hurd: I have one further clarification and one further observation. Clearly, as the minister has acknowledged, a landscape unit can be for a whole range of values. It could be the protection of a watershed, for example, or an environmental initiative in totality. It's not related to harvesting or limits on harvesting at all, when we deal with the annual allowable harvest calculations. I think it's clearly evident that the landscape unit has the potential of affecting or reducing the amount of harvest on private land. There should be some reference to compensation in this

section of the bill.

I will ask the minister again: is he completely satisfied, and can he assure the committee, that the current rules under the Forest Act with respect to compensation for the alienation of timber-cutting rights on private land are in no way going to be encumbered by this particular section? That's a pretty simple question. Do the rights that licensees have under the Forest Act still exist? Will the designation of a landscape unit under the Forest Practices Code have any impact on their rights under the Forest Act?

Hon. A. Petter: Currently, when one imposes a management regime under the Forest Act -- presumably through a contractual arrangement, as was done in the Tsitika or Nahmint -- there is no provision for compensation as a result of the economic consequences that licence holders may feel they have experienced as a result of that management regime, just as I assume the government would not expect compensation if we provided opportunities for greater timber harvesting as a result of a management regime, which may well be the case in intensive-use areas. That doesn't change here.

All that is happening is that instead of the management plans being imposed informally -- or through contract in places such as the Tsitika or the Nahmint on Vancouver Island, which did not facilitate certainty and did not provide for accountability, they will now be promulgated in resource management zones or landscape units, depending on the size of the area, and they will be available in a much more public and accountable way. The rules of compensation do not change. Currently there is no compensation for companies that are required to adhere to management plans, and thank goodness for that.

There will be no compensation under this, because good management is part of the Crown's responsibility; it is certainly not something that should be compensable to forest companies.

W. Hurd: Just one further clarification under

section 4(6), which states: "Before establishing,