British Columbia Hansard — Wednesday, October 8, 2003

H1008pm-12

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

4th Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Wednesday, October 8, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Volume 16, Number 12 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Honourable Iona Campagnolo 4TH SESSION, 37TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Claude Richmond EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council................................................................................. .........................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations.............................................................................. ..................... Hon.

Greg Halsey-Brandt Deputy Premier and Minister of Education ....................................................................................... ..................................Hon. Christy Clark Minister of Advanced Education................................................................................................. ...........................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.................................................................................... ..............................Hon.

John van Dongen Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations.............................................................. .................... Hon. Geoff Plant Minister of Children and Family Development.................................................................................... ..............................Hon. Gordon Hogg Minister of State for Early Childhood Development.............................................................................. .................................Hon.

Linda Reid Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services......................................................................... .................. Hon. George Abbott Minister of State for Community Charter........................................................................................ .................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Minister of State for Women's Equality ......................................................................................... .................................... Hon.

Lynn Stephens Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Minister of State for Deregulation ............................................................................................. ............................................ Hon. Kevin Falcon Minister of Energy and Mines................................................................................................... ....................................... Hon.

Richard Neufeld Minister of Finance ............................................................................................................ ....................................................... Hon. Gary Collins Minister of Forests ............................................................................................................ .................................................. Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Health Planning .................................................................................................... ............................................ Hon.

Sindi Hawkins Minister of Health Services.................................................................................................... ................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Minister of State for Mental Health ............................................................................................ ...................................Hon. Gulzar S. Cheema Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care ............................................................................. Hon.

Katherine Whittred Minister of Human Resources.................................................................................................... ............................................Hon. Murray Coell Minister of Management Services................................................................................................ .........................................Hon. Sandy Santori Minister of Provincial Revenue................................................................................................. ................................................Hon.

Bill Barisoff Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Skills Development and Labour...................................................................................... .............................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Minister of Sustainable Resource Management.................................................................................... ..................................Hon.

Stan Hagen Minister of Transportation..................................................................................................... .................................................... Hon. Judith Reid Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection..................................................................................... ....................................Hon. Joyce Murray LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................. ..............................................................

John Weisbeck Leader of the Opposition ....................................................................................................... ...........................................................Joy MacPhail Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ........................................................................................... .............................................. Harold Long Clerk of the Legislative Assembly .............................................................................................. .........................................E.

George MacMinn Clerk Assistant ................................................................................................................ ................................................................... Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk .................................................................................................. ........................................................ Ian D. Izard Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees........................................................................................ ............................................Craig H.

James Clerk Assistant/Committee Clerk................................................................................................ ............................................ Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms ............................................................................................................... .........................................................A.A. Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ..................................................................................................... ........................................

Anthony Dambrauskas Legislative Librarian.......................................................................................................... ............................................................. Joan A. Barton Legislative Comptroller ........................................................................................................ .................................................................Peter Bray Published by British Columbia Hansard Services, and printed under the authority of the Speaker by the Queen's Printer, Victoria.

Rates: single issue, $2.85; per calendar year, mailed daily, $298. GST extra. Agent: Crown Publications Inc., 521 Fort St., Victoria, B.C. V8W 1E7. Telephone: (250) 386-4636. Fax: 386-0221. www.leg.bc.ca Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.

Party Standings: Liberal 75; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 2. ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ....................................................................... Shuswap Anderson, Val J. (L) .............................................................Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)............................................. Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Pat (L).........................................................................Prince George North Belsey, Bill (L).................................................................................

North Coast Bennett, Bill (L) ........................................................................... East Kootenay Bhullar, Tony (Ind. L) ................................................................. Surrey-Newton Bloy, Harry (L).................................................................................. Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).........................................Prince George–Mount Robson Bray, Jeff (L)......................................................................Victoria–Beacon H ill Brenzinger, Elayne (L) ...............................................................

Surrey-Whalley Brice, Susan (L) ............................................................................Saanich South Bruce, Hon. Graham P. (L)................................................ Cowichan-Ladysmith Campbell, Hon. Gordon (L)............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Cheema, Hon. Gulzar S. (L) ..........................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Chong, Ida (L)................................................................ Oak Bay–Gordon Head Christensen, Tom (L) .............................................................

Okanagan-Vernon Chutter, Dave (L) ........................................................................... Yale-L illooet Clark, Hon. Christy (L) ..................................................Port Moody–Westwood Cobb, Walt (L) ............................................................................. Cariboo South Coell, Hon. Murray (L) ........................................ Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L) .............................................. Fort Langley–Aldergrove Collins, Hon.

Gary (L).........................................................Vancouver-Fairview de Jong, Hon. Michael (L)....................................... Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) .......................................................... Surrey-Cloverdale Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ................................................................... Comox Valley Halsey-Brandt, Hon. Greg (L) ..................................................Richmond Centre Hamilton, Arnie (L)............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin Hansen, Hon.

Colin (L) .....................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Harris, Roger (L)......................................................................................Skeena Hawes, Randy (L) ............................................................ Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Hon. Sindi (L).......................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ................................................................... Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Hon. Gordon (L) ........................................................

Surrey–White Rock Hunter, Mike (L) ...................................................................................Nanaimo Jarvis, Daniel (L)...................................................... North Vancouver–Seymour Johnston, Ken (L)............................................................ Vancouver-Fraserview Kerr, Brian J. (L).............................................................. Malahat–Juan de Fuca Krueger, Kevin (L).................................................

Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ...............................Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lee, Richard T. (L).......................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L)................................................................. Peace River South Les, John (L) .......................................................................... Ch illiwack-Sumas Locke, Brenda (L) ...........................................................

Surrey–Green Timbers Long, Harold (L) ...................................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast MacKay, Dennis (L)....................................................... Bulkley Valley–Stikine McMahon, Wendy (L).............................................Columbia River–Revelstoke MacPhail, Joy (NDP) ..........................................................

Vancouver-Hastings Manhas, Karn (L) .............................................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Masi, Reni (L) ...................................................................................Delta North Mayencourt, Lorne (L) ..........................................................Vancouver-Burrard Murray, Hon. Joyce (L) ........................................................... New Westminster Nebbeling, Hon. Ted (L) .......................................... West Vancouver–Garibaldi Nettleton, Paul (Ind. L)..................................................Prince George–Omineca Neufeld, Hon.

Richard (L)...................................................... Peace River North Nijjar, Rob (L)...................................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Nuraney, John (L) ...............................................................Burnaby-W illingdon Orr, Sheila (L) ...........................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L)....................................................................... Ch illiwack-Kent Plant, Hon. Geoff (L) ......................................................... Richmond-Steveston Reid, Hon.

Judith (L)............................................................Nanaimo-Parksv ille Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................... Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L) ................................................................ Kamloops Roddick, Valerie (L)..........................................................................Delta South Sahota, Patty (L).....................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Santori, Hon. Sandy (L)..............................................West Kootenay–Boundary Stephens, Hon.

Lynn (L) ........................................................................ Langley Stewart, Ken (L)...................................................... Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Stewart, Richard (L) ...................................................... Coquitlam-Maillardville Suffredine, Blair F. (L) ................................................................Nelson-Creston Sultan, Ralph (L)....................................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Thorpe, Hon.

Rick (L) ..........................................................Okanagan-Westside Trumper, Gillian (L)................................................................Alberni-Qualicum van Dongen, Hon. John (L) ................................................Abbotsford-Clayburn Visser, Rod (L).................................................................................North Island Weisbeck, John (L).........................................................Kelowna–Lake Country Whittred, Hon.

Katherine (L) ...................................North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wilson, John (L)........................................................................... Cariboo North Wong, Patrick (L)............................................................Vancouver-Kensington LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn....................................................... Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman ..............................................Hon.

Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum.......................................................................G illian Trumper Bulkley Valley–Stikine ..............................................................Dennis MacKay Burnaby North..............................................................................Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds............................................................................Patty Sahota Burnaby-Willingdon......................................................................

John Nuraney Burquitlam ........................................................................................ Harry Bloy Cariboo North ..................................................................................John Wilson Cariboo South .................................................................................... Walt Cobb Chilliwack-Kent ............................................................................. Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas .................................................................................

John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke....................................................Wendy McMahon Comox Valley .......................................................................... Hon. Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville .............................................................Richard Stewart Cowichan-Ladysmith .......................................................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Delta North.......................................................................................... Reni Masi Delta South................................................................................

Valerie Roddick East Kootenay .................................................................................. Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin...................................................................Arnie Hamilton Fort Langley–Aldergrove ..................................................... Hon. Rich Coleman Kamloops ....................................................................... Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson ........................................................Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country...............................................................

John Weisbeck Kelowna-Mission ................................................................ Hon. Sindi Hawkins Langley ............................................................................... Hon. Lynn Stephens Malahat–Juan de Fuca .....................................................................Brian J. Kerr Maple Ridge–Mission ................................................................... Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows .............................................................Ken Stewart Nanaimo..........................................................................................

Mike Hunter Nanaimo-Parksville ...................................................................Hon. Judith Reid Nelson-Creston.......................................................................Blair F. Suffredine New Westminster ..................................................................Hon. Joyce Murray North Coast ........................................................................................Bill Belsey North Island........................................................................................Rod Visser North Vancouver–Lonsdale.......................................... Hon.

Katherine Wh ittred North Vancouver–Seymour .............................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head .......................................................................Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon .................................................................... Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside.................................................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Peace River North .............................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South .......................................................................

Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley ....................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.................................................... Karn Manhas Port Moody–Westwood......................................................... Hon. Christy Clark Powell River–Sunshine Coast.......................................................... Harold Long Prince George North................................................................................Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson................................................Hon.

Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................Paul Nettleton Richmond Centre......................................................... Hon. Greg Halsey-Brandt Richmond East .......................................................................... Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ................................................................ Hon. Geoff Plant Saanich North and the Islands ............................................... Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South...................................................................................

Susan Brice Shuswap .............................................................................. Hon. George Abbott Skeena.............................................................................................Roger Harris Surrey-Cloverdale ................................................................. Hon. Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Brenda Locke Surrey-Newton ............................................................................... Tony Bhullar Surrey–Panorama Ridge................................................. Hon.

Gulzar S. Cheema Surrey-Tynehead .......................................................................... Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley ...................................................................... Elayne Brenzinger Surrey–White Rock ...............................................................Hon. Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard................................................................. Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview............................................................... Hon.

Gary Co llins Vancouver-Fraserview ...................................................................Ken Johnston Vancouver-Hastings .......................................................................Joy MacPhail Vancouver-Kensington...................................................................Patrick Wong Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Rob Nijjar Vancouver-Langara....................................................................Val J.

Anderson Vancouver–Mount Pleasant............................................Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ................................................... Hon. Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena............................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill.............................................................................Jeff Bray Victoria-Hillside.................................................................................. Sheila Orr West Kootenay–Boundary.................................................... Hon.

Sandy Santori West Vancouver–Capilano ..............................................................Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi ................................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Yale-Lillooet .................................................................................. Dave Chutter

CONTENTS Wednesday, October 8, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members....................................................................................................... .............................................. 7247 Statements (Standing Order 25 B).............................................................................................................................. .............. 7247 Tourism in Burnaby R. Lee Mining industry in B.C. R. Sultan Street people in Vancouver L.

Mayencourt Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ......................................................... 7248 B.C. economy and income assistance regulations J. Kwan Hon. M. Coell Government position on gaming J. MacPhail Hon. R. Coleman Logging in Elk Creek area B. Penner Hon. M. de Jong Retroactivity of rent increases J. Bray Hon. R.

Coleman Tabling Documents .............................................................................................................. .................................................... 7250 B.C.

Treaty Commission, annual report, 2002, The Changing Landscape Office for children and youth, annual report, September 30, 2002-March 31, 2003 Public guardian and trustee of British Columbia, annual report, 2002-03 Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 7251 Forests Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003 (Bill 44) J. MacPhail Hon.

M. de Jong Report and Third Reading of Bills .............................................................................................. ........................................... 7253 Forests Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003 (Bill 44) Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 7253 Forest and Range Practices Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 69) Hon. M. de Jong J.

MacPhail Report and Third Reading of Bills .............................................................................................. ........................................... 7264 Forest and Range Practices Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 69) Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 7264 Skills Development and Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 37) (continued) J. Kwan Hon. G.

Bruce Reporting of Bills............................................................................................................. ......................................................... 7268 Skills Development and Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 37)

Third Reading of Bills......................................................................................................... ..................................................... 7268 Skills Development and Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 37) Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 7269 Pension Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 49) Hon. S.

Santori Reporting of Bills............................................................................................................. ......................................................... 7269 Pension Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 49) Third Reading of Bills......................................................................................................... ..................................................... 7269 Pension Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 49) Second Reading of Bills ........................................................................................................ ................................................... 7269 Environmental Management Act (Bill 57) Hon.

J. Murray J. Kwan M. Hunter J. Bray R. Sultan Integrated Pest Management Act (Bill 53) Hon. J. Murray J. Kwan Flood Hazard Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 56) Hon. J. Murray J. Kwan

7247 WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2003 The House met at 2:03 p.m. Prayers. Introductions by Members Mr. Speaker: Visiting today in the gallery are three young men from Switzerland, who have been spending the late summer and early autumn visiting Victoria. They are all pursuing university studies in Switzerland and are looking forward to the unique experience of witnessing question period under the Westminster parliamentary system. Please welcome Matias Kauf- man, Ralph Stam and Roman Schamdeck. [1405] Statements (Standing Order 25

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

Parks in Burnaby are among some of the most beautiful in the province, and our heritage homes and g a r d e n s h a v e t o b e s e e n t o b e b e l i e v e d . O u r c o m m u - nity's love for the arts, dance, theatre and music is sec- ond to none. These wonderful attributes should not be kept a secret. It is time to spread the word that Burnaby is ready to welcome the world. The board of trade and a number of hotel represen- tatives are proposing a local 2 percent hotel room tax to fund a tourism promotion agency that they would like to call Tourism Burnaby.

It's believed that this agency can generate an additional $3 million in tourism busi- ness for the city each year. This proposal for a hotel tax has already received the endorsement of the city coun- cil, the board of trade and an overwhelming majority of the hotel owners within the city. I'm sure we can all agree that tourism equals jobs and economic growth for all British Columbians. I would like the business and hotel owners in Burnaby to know that I fully support their efforts to bring our community to the forefront of B.C.'s tourism market. MINING INDUSTRY IN B.C. R.

Sultan: I wish to talk about the mining industry. If we simply project the trend of the last dozen years, much of what remains of B.C.'s gold and metal mining will be gone. Coal and aggregate are in better shape but also under pressure. While market prices dictate m u c h o f w h a t h a p p e n s , a n e v e n b i g g e r f a c t o r i s g o v - ernment policy. Some say that for 30 years B.C. mining policy fluctuated between indifference and hostility. The NDP was particularly clever at writing new lyrics to that old song, Fifty Ways to Leave your Province .

Un- der the leadership of Premier Gordon Campbell, this province is trying to change that tune. In May, Energy and Mines Minister Neufeld asked a group of 15 private members to study this situation and bring forward recommendations. A considerable block of MLAs surrendered their summer break for this assignment. We visited 35 mining locations, re- ceived written briefs from some 80 organizations and citizens, and talked with several hundred miners, mayors and first nations. We went out and asked them what to do, and they told us. Mining sustains the heartlands.

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

Mayencourt: Today the city of Vancouver is experi- encing vibrant growth. We can see it everywhere, from residential and commercial construction to the coming Olympics, and even the tourists and shoppers on Robson Street. People are moving into the city from around this province, the rest of Canada and indeed from around the world. Vancouver is truly a world-class destination. But there is another kind of migrant coming to our city. Vancouver is becoming a magnet for squatters and urban campers looking for a free campsite, a free ride and a free pass from the authorities.

Dozens and doz- ens of people are squatting at Creekside Park beside Science World, harassing and even assaulting passing commuters and residents for coming too close to their campsite. Urban campers in Nelson Park discard used needles, pile up mounds of garbage and scare the par- ents of school children at Lord Roberts Annex, an ele- mentary school in my riding. [1410] What are the residents of the downtown core and the West End saying? A petition signed by 3,800 people says that squatters and aggressive panhandlers are compro- mising their quality of life.

They're sick and tired of being harassed and robbed of their sense of safety and security. What do the squatters have to say? They say they have nowhere to live, yet I know that outreach workers ap- proach the camps and implore people to come to shelters and out of the cold and out of the parks. Our province has been committed to helping those who are truly in need. That is demonstrated by our

7248 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2003 budget for affordable housing, which has risen from $112 million in 2001 to $153 million this year — a 36 percent increase that I am very proud about. In Van- couver alone we have 20,000 units of affordable hous- ing. Since our government has come to office, we've built over a thousand new units in the city of Vancou- ver alone and a thousand in other regions of the prov- ince. Regardless of the housing situation, we know that the current situation is unsafe and untenable.

It is time for the squatters, the park board and the city to respect the wishes of the citizens of Vancouver. It is time to remove the squatters. Mr. Speaker: That concludes members' statements. Oral Questions B.C. ECONOMY AND INCOME ASSISTANCE REGULATIONS J. Kwan: B.C. has the worst economy in the coun- try. Today there are more unemployed British Colum- bians than ever before — more than 200,000 people without work. In May of 2001 the unemployment rate in B.C. was 6.8 percent. It is now 8.5 percent. Read the papers, and it is clear the jobs that are open require highly trained people.

Despite that, com- munities across B.C. are bracing for thousands of the most vulnerable and poor British Columbians to be kicked off income assistance. Will the Minister of Human Resources simply tell this House how many people his officials told him would lose their income assistance when he decided to bring in the two-year rule? Hon. M. Coell: B.C. has created almost 100,000 jobs since we took office. My ministry will be spending $300 million on training and employment programs. My ministry has 10,000 jobs today available for people on income assistance. The 10,000 jobs that our contractors have are waiting.

This province suffered for ten years under the NDP. It suffered where jobs and people left this prov- ince. This government believes that people can work, and this government believes that people will work. That's why we're spending $300 million on job creation. That's why this government has put 20,000 people back to work, who were on income assistance. There was a time when the socialists in this prov- ince thought that success was the number of people on welfare. This government believes in people and be- lieves that people will find work, and we're doing that every day. Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question. J. Kwan: With all due respect, what a bunch of ba- loney. The minister knows exactly how many people will be kicked off income assistance. He was given that information before he made the decision to implement these draconian changes. The opposition has the minis- ter's briefing note, obtained through FOI, where those numbers were given. But guess what. They were sev- ered from public view.

Let me read the note for the minister: "This initia- t i v e i s e x p e c t e d t o a f f e c t b l a n k n u m b e r o f p e o p l e i n 2004 and 2005 and blank number of people the year after." He knows the answer. He's been given the an- swer. Would the minister fill in the blanks? How many people are going to lose income assistance this year and next year? [1415] Hon. M. Coell: Only the socialists believe that peo- ple fail. This government believes that people will suc- ceed. My socialist friends don't understand success.

They don't understand people wanting to do better, wanting to find jobs — tens of thousands of jobs. Tens of thousands of jobs are available for people on income assistance. They want them, and we're helping them to work — unlike the socialist government, whose success was to have more people on welfare, bigger rolls, and not to worry about them. Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a further supplementary. J. Kwan: You know that this government and this minister are running when he starts to call people names — people who actually care about British Columbians and what happens to them.

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

Can the minister tell municipalities how they are supposed to cope with the explosion of homelessness that's coming, when over 27,000 people get kicked off income assistance next year and are forced onto the streets because this government simply doesn't care? Hon. M. Coell: Again, I don't understand why the…. Well, I do understand why there are two mem- bers of the opposition: because they couldn't run this province. They're afraid of people succeeding; they always have been. People in British Columbia want to succeed. They've got a government that's helping them succeed.

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

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7249 and they're fulfilling their potential. But my socialist friends don't understand. Success and moving ahead in this province means getting a job, and that's why we're spending $300 million on jobs, and that's why people are getting jobs. They've got a government that under- stands the economy, a government that understands people, and they've rejected the socialist ideas of the opposition. GOVERNMENT POSITION ON GAMING J. MacPhail: Let's take a different look at how this government views this province.

Since taking office, this government has doubled the number of slot ma- chines, and the Lottery Corporation is forecasting an increase in revenues to almost $1 billion by the end of this government's mandate. Last week the Solicitor General announced a special lottery deal with the Van- couver Canucks. Then this week the Attorney General said that lotteries are "a desperately dishonest way for governments to raise revenues." Does the Solicitor General agree with the Attorney General? Hon. R. Coleman: The beauty of a strong political party is the ability to have divergent views within cau- cus.

To the member opposite: if the member would check the record, we actually will have fewer casinos in British Columbia when we're done with the B.C. Lot- tery Corporation than we do today. We will actually have repositioned the market because we gave the mandate to a corporation without political influence to go and do the job on behalf of British Columbians.

If it bothers the member that they increase their profitabil- ity so we can put more money into health care and education, that's really too bad. [1420] If the Lottery Corporation wishes to pick a product line like the Vancouver Canucks and negotiate a busi- ness deal — arm's length from government — that's successful for British Columbians, they should be do- ing that for the benefit of the corporation. I will tell this House today that the initial lottery is sold out.

Basi- cally, another pool is being created that will go on the market on October 14, because British Columbians have responded to the Canucks lottery, in support of both the team and the province for health care and education. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question. J. MacPhail: So the Solicitor General thinks the At- torney General is wrong. That's exactly what he said. He takes pride in more than doubling the number of slot machines. He takes pride in taking more in gaming revenue than ever contemplated.

That's why they're in Calgary, actually — to learn how a government can succeed on the backs of lotteries and gaming, because that's what that minister is doing. The Solicitor General compares the special deal with the Canucks as being a simple marketing agree- ment. He takes great pride that more and more people are spending money on gaming. I wonder what the Premier thinks of that. Harley-Davidson and Wheel of Fortune were paid a fee for the use of the products. Ac- cording to the Solicitor General, that's all the Canucks are too. Let me point out just a few differences for him.

Maybe this is why the Attorney General disagrees so much with lotteries. First, since 1996, Orca Bay, the owner of the Canucks, has contributed almost $20,000 to the Liberal election machine. Second, the Premier and other members of the cabinet have been showered by Orca Bay management with luxury skybox seats for hockey games that are completely out of reach for av- erage British Columbians. What are the results of these generous donations? Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please, hon. member. Would you please put your question now. Now. Please put your question. J.

MacPhail: The result is that there will be tens of millions of dollars going to a Seattle billionaire. Again, to the Solicitor General, why is the Attorney General wrong? Stand up and clarify directly why the Attorney General is wrong and why this is not a sub- sidy to a billionaire and millionaire players. Hon. R. Coleman: I'm not aware of this luxury suite that this member talks about. I do know that there is a press box where people are invited from time to time, but I'd hardly call that luxurious.

To the member opposite, the fact of the matter is this: in January of 2001 we identified what the capacity of gaming was in the province, and we are working to that capacity. We've given that capacity to the Lottery Corporation… Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. R. Coleman: …to do their business on behalf of British Columbians. They're actually managing this company properly. They're actually doing the job that British Columbians would expect of them — the board of directors and the staff at the Lottery Corporation. I will tell you point blank, hon. member, that they're doing that job well.

They're doing it by repositioning the market. I want the member opposite to know one other thing… Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. R. Coleman: …something that she always seems to not realize, and that is this: the incidence of

7250 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2003 problem gambling where an adult makes a choice in a legal gaming establishment is lower than the incidence of gaming anywhere else. The highest incidence is in things like illegal gaming and Internet gaming, and those are the things we fight to stamp out. We're the only organization in the province, on every ticket and everything we do, that gives notice to people of how they can get help if they have a problem with gaming, because we're also responsible to the taxpayers in how we run this company. J. MacPhail: Lying during the election….

Is that what you just said? Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order! Order! Order! Order! Will the Leader of the Opposition please retract her last statement. It's unparliamentary. J. MacPhail: I will retract my question. I didn't hear an answer, but I'll retract my question, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: It isn't what I asked, hon. member. The reference was made to somebody lying, and we don't tolerate that language in this House. Will you please retract it. J. MacPhail: I'll retract it inside the House. Yes. Mr. Speaker: Thank you. [1425] LOGGING IN ELK CREEK AREA B. Penner: That was a tough act to follow, but I'll try.

My question is for the Minister of Forests. Last week I spent a good part of a day hiking near Elk C r e e k j u s t e a s t o f C h i l l i w a c k . I w a n t e d t o g e t a f i r s t - hand look at recent logging activity that has attracted considerable local interest. I went along with local For- est Service officials. Some of my constituents are con- cerned that old-growth trees will be cut down and wonder if the decision to allow logging was somehow made at the political level.

Can the minister please explain how this decision to log about 5 percent of the Elk Creek area was made and describe what, if anything, is being done to ensure that a balanced approach is being taken to managing this forest for the benefit of everyone? Hon. M. de Jong: In fact, there was a decision made back in July following the usual local processes by which access by the licensee, Cattermole Timber, to an area around Elk Creek was approved. It's about 110 hectares. The licensee has access to 40 percent of that area. That 110 hectares represents about 5 percent of the overall area.

There are about 100 or so ancient trees in the area that the licensee is precluded from logging. The area had been logged previously in the early part of the last century. The licensee is precluded from log- ging those 100 or so ancient trees. The district manager made the decision. That deci- sion is available in his 68-page report, and I commend it to all those people who, as the member has said, are interested in the decision and what has followed. RETROACTIVITY OF RENT INCREASES J. Bray: My question is to the Solicitor General.

My riding consists of over 68 percent of renters, and there- fore issues relating to the landlord tenancy act are very important. One of the suggested provisions from Bill 70 in the Residential Tenancy Act passed in 2002 allowed land- lords to backdate rental increases…. Interjection. J. Bray: Would the member of the opposition please like to listen to an MLA doing their job, for a change? Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Let us hear the question. J. Bray: Landlords to backdate their rental increases for up to three years…. Interjections. J. Bray: This

section has caused my… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. J. Bray: …community some concern. My question to the Solicitor General is: can he confirm whether or not this provision in Bill 70 is still in place? Hon. R. Coleman: Bill 70 has not been enacted as yet because our regulations are under draft. We've ac- tually been working with stakeholders across the prov- ince in the last number of months. I can tell you, mem- ber, coming out of those consultations with both land- lord and tenant groups, both of them felt that retroac- tivity wasn't necessary to the functioning of this act.

We will be making the recommendation that retroactivity be removed. [End of question period.] Tabling Documents Hon. G. Plant: I rise to table reports. I have the re- port of the B.C. Treaty Commission, the annual report for 2002 entitled The Changing Landscape. Interjection.

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7251 Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. G. Plant: I rise to table the annual report of the office for children and youth for the period Sep- tember 30, 2002 to March 31, 2003. I also rise to table the annual report of the public guardian and trustee of British Columbia for the year 2002-03. Orders of the Day Hon. R. Coleman: I call committee stage of Bill 44. [1430] Committee of the Whole House FORESTS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2003 The committee met at 2:32 p.m. The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 44; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

Section 1 approved. On

section 2. J. MacPhail:

Section 2 of the Forests Statutes Amendment Act — Bill 44, the bill we're debating now — forms a package of almost ten pieces of legislation around changes in forestry that this government has introduced. This particular

section introduces the DFAM process, the defined forest area management process for timber supply review. Can the minister please explain the defined forest area management process? Hon. M. de Jong: In very general terms, what we are dealing with is a process by which the various li- censees in a timber supply area will work together to obtain the data required that ultimately makes its way to the chief forester's office, where the chief forester makes determinations around questions like annual allowable cuts. So it is a process.

The shift is one in which the licensees themselves play a much larger role in the collation and collection of that data than they have heretofore. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. Maybe I was out. Did the minister introduce his staff? Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks. Gary Townsend on my left and Richard Grieve on my right, and, through the Chair to the member, thank you for asking. J. MacPhail: Is anyone from the chief forester's of- fice here? Hon. M. de Jong: Yes. J. MacPhail: I'd like to know who did this previous to the introduction of this process. Hon.

M. de Jong: There would have been contribu- tions from staff at the branch or district level, the re- gional level and, ultimately, the chief forester's office located in Victoria. J. MacPhail: So what used to be done by the Forest Service is now going to be done by the forest compa- nies. Is that correct? Hon. M. de Jong: In part. J. MacPhail: And is that privatization? [1435] Hon. M. de Jong: No, I'm not sure I would charac- terize it as privatization.

There is no doubt, however, that in the data collection process, we will be relying to a greater extent on the combined and coordinated ef- forts of the licensees. I should say this, as we head into this discussion: what is being proposed here is precisely what has taken place for, I think, 30 or 40 years with respect to tree farm licences, where the data is provided by the licensee. The difference, and one of the reasons — I presume one of the reasons — t h a t s a m e p r o c e s s d i d not follow automatically with respect to the timber supply areas, is because there was more than one licen- see involved.

And the nature of the licences were dif- ferent — some being replaceable, some being non- replaceable. So the objective at the end of the day is to end up with a process that mirrors, within the timber supply areas, what takes place and has taken place for years and years within the tree farm licence areas. J. MacPhail: Well, there's a huge difference be- tween a forest licence and a TFL, as the minister well knows. The work that was done in this area before was carried out by the Forest Service. What has happened to the size of the chief forester's office this fiscal year and next fiscal year? Hon.

M. de Jong: The numbers I have compare 2001-02 with what we anticipate there will be in 2004- 05. In 2001-02 there were 19 timber supply analysts working within that office. There will be 15 in '04-05. J. MacPhail: And the overall chief forester's office? Hon. M. de Jong: I don't think this helps the mem- ber, but I'll give the number. For the chief forester's o f f i c e i t s e l f , t h a t n u m b e r w a s s e v e n F T E s a n d g o e s t o 3.5, but that's not, I think, what the member is referring to. I suspect she is asking about those people involved in the timber supply analysis process overall. J.

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

7252 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2003 Hon. M. de Jong: The chief forester is still setting the standards that must be complied with in terms of the collection of the data, and ultimately, once that data is collated and forwarded, there is a threshold test that the licensees must pass. It will either be accepted or be rejected for failing to comply with those requirements. Thereafter it is the chief forester who makes the ulti- mate determinations around things like annual allow- able cut, and I have heard the comparison made by the member previously.

Again, if that is so, then with re- spect to tree farm licences, that analogy would have applied for many years past. [1440] J. MacPhail: No, I'm sorry. There is a difference between the management of a TFL and a forest licence. There is a historical difference and an outcome differ- ence. We don't have time to go into it right now, mainly because…. Also, my preparation for this is not here with me. There is a difference. Anyway, I just put that on the record.

If the minis- ter is somehow suggesting that the fact the forest com- panies are now in charge of the timber supply area — all of the information, all of the collection of informa- tion — and at the same time the chief forester's office has been cut substantially, then — great — let him live with it. Absolutely. Sections 2 and 3 approved. On

section 4. J. MacPhail: This

section is being added. It's enti- tled "Misrepresentation prohibited" and says: "A per- son must not represent that the person is authorized to perform a scale under this

Part if not so authorized." What problem is being solved here? Hon. M. de Jong: There has been a longstanding desire or obligation on the part of the Crown to be in a position to ensure that people aren't passing them- selves off as scalers. The member, I am certain, knows that scalers within our forest management system have historically performed a pretty vital function in decid- ing what charges will be levied against particular stands of timber, so ensuring that the people assigning those values are actually accredited to do so is very i m p o r t a n t .

T h e r e i s a d e s i r e t o e n s u r e t h a t i t i s a n o f - fence to pass oneself off as an accredited scaler when that is not the case. The specific provision, I am advised, is a harmoniz- ing provision to ensure that the Forest Act wording is consistent with that which exists in the Forest and Range Practices Act. J. MacPhail: What's the penalty if one does fake being a scaler? And are these private…? These are li- censee scalers, I assume? Hon. M. de Jong: Yes. It captures private scalers, people employed by a private agency. The penalty provision is set out in

section 163. That

section is dealt with in

section 14 of this bill and lists the fine as a maximum of $50,000 or imprisonment of up to six months. Sections 4 to 19 inclusive approved. On

section 20. J. MacPhail: What is the purpose of

section 20, par- ticularly

section 20(b)? [1445] Hon. M. de Jong: This is the mechanism by which the district manager signs off on a licensee having ful- filled their silviculture obligations, which do not end at the planting of the trees but can extend for upwards of eight, nine, ten or 11 years, until the stand has reached a certain point where the district manager is satisfied that it is, to use the terminology, "free to grow" — ab- sent any additional work on the part of the licensee. That can trigger, depending on the nature of the li- cence, the release of certain deposits.

The specific pro- vision we're dealing with here is to bring the language of the Forest Practices Code in line with the Forest and Range Practices Act for that remaining duration when the Forest Practices Code will be in effect. J. MacPhail: Is this prescriptive? Hon. M. de Jong: I guess it depends on one's defini- tion of what is prescriptive. A "free-growing stand" is a defined term under the Forest and Range Practices Act.

To quote from that act, it means: "A stand of healthy trees of a commercially valuable species, the growth of which is not impeded by competition from plants, shrubs or other trees." Broadly speaking, that is the test that must be satisfied before a district manager could declare an area free to grow. J. MacPhail: The reason why I ask whether it's pre- scriptive or not is because there are three negatives in this. I assume it's imposing an obligation on the district manager to determine, through a prescription, whether the licensee has achieved something.

That was why I asked my question about this being prescriptive. It does appear to be prescriptive to me. Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I'm not quarrelling with the analysis of how the

section is laid out. Sections 20 to 22 inclusive approved. On

section 23. J. MacPhail: Could the minister please explain the purpose of this section? [1450] Hon. M. de Jong: To the member, I'm glad she asked, because I actually knew the answer. It is the

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7253 new subsection (2) that is significant here. It specifies circumstances in which the Forest Practices Board will be able to investigate a contravention by someone act- ing on behalf of a licensee in circumstances where that licensee has actually been found to have displayed due diligence. It is something of an expansion of the powers of the Forest Practices Board to look beyond the licen- see themselves in circumstances where that licensee has been duly diligent. Sections 23 to 28 inclusive approved. On

section 29. J. MacPhail:

Section 29 amends

section 30 of the Range Act. It's about making regulations to remedy any transitional difficulties. Why is this necessary? Hon. M. de Jong: It's a fair question, but I think it is a

section 30 question. J. MacPhail: Sorry, maybe I'm misreading the bill.

Section 29 amends

section 49. Is the typing different for

section 30? I don't care what

section it's under. It looks like…. Hon. M. de Jong: The amendment we're dealing with in

section 29 is equivalent to the addition of sec- tion 151(7) and (8) of the Forest Act. What it ensures is that there will be a consistent framework for adminis- trative penalties between the Forest Act, the Forest and Range Practices Act and the Range Act. That is some- thing of an attempt to ensure consistency of language. The other part of the member's question related to regulations pertaining to transitional issues that might arise. I can answer that, but I do think that part of her question then related to

section 30. J. MacPhail: That's fine. Those are my questions. I need five minutes to go get my stuff on Bill 69, please. Sections 29 to 31 inclusive approved. Title approved. Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment. Motion approved. The committee rose at 2:54 p.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. Report and Third Reading of Bills Bill 44, Forests Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed. Hon. S. Hawkins: I call committee stage of Bill 69.

For the information of members, that's the Forest and Range Practices Amendment Act, 2003. Committee of the Whole House FOREST AND RANGE PRACTICES AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 69; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 2:55 p.m. The Chair: M e m b e r s , w e w i l l h a v e a f i v e - m i n u t e recess. The committee recessed from 2:55 to 3:04 p.m. [J. Weisbeck in the chair.] Hon. M. de Jong: A s we s t a r t o f f , wi t h m e o n m y right, from the Forest Service, is Richard Grieve; on my left, Ralph Archibald; and behind me, Tim Ebata from the Forest Service as well. On

section 1. [1505] J. MacPhail: I was trying to figure out how I was going to approach the discussion of this legislation. Let me just begin by saying that there are issues that can be explored very thoroughly in the

definitions clause, which is the one we're under —

section 1 — right now. I think I will explore some issues there, but I am going to save most of my comments and most of my ques- tions for other sections. Frankly, I think if I go down the particular track I need to have explained, we could spend all day on

section 1. It seems to me that the government is taking a huge tactical shift in this legislation, the Forest and Range Practices Amendment Act, 2003 — Bill 69. I think it's the ninth — it could be the tenth — piece of legislation that this Liberal government has introduced since 2001 changing the way forestry is carried out in British Co- lumbia. One of the concerns that the government s e e m e d … . I h a v e t o c o n f e s s , M r . C h a i r , t h a t i t i s e x - tremely confusing to annotate, to compile and to con- solidate the legislation this government has brought in dealing with forestry.

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

7254 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2003 Let me ask just a couple of questions under

section 1, but I'll be pursuing this further and in more detail further on in the legislation. In fact, I will be referring to debate verbatim that the minister and I had on this very concept just earlier this year. Here's what

section 1(

b) does. It repeals the defini- tion of "forest development unit," and it says that the forest development unit will be defined in regulation. The definition in the current act of a forest develop- ment unit — which was passed less than a year ago, November 2002 — defines a forest development unit as "an area identified in a forest stewardship plan within which the holder of the plan proposes to harvest tim- ber or construct a road." That was pretty straightfor- ward, and the minister explained how forest steward- ship plans were going to be results-based, defined by the company.

Now we're changing that and moving it into regu- lation. Why? Hon. M. de Jong: I think there are two issues that the member has raised in her comments. One is the broader philosophical discussion around where on that continuum between results-based and prescription we find ourselves.

It won't surprise her to know that I take a slightly different view of that than she does, but I suspect we will canvass that at length both here and in some of the other sections, as the member indicated. [1510] In the particular instance, however, the definition of forest development unit is being repealed because of its inclusion in

section 3(3) of the act itself, which lays out the specific definition. So its requirement to be con- tained in

section 1 of the act doesn't exist. J. MacPhail: That's 3(3) of what? I'm sorry, the min- ister is going to have to be very specific here, because this is about the third layer of changes he's bringing in. Hon. M. de Jong: The self-contained definition of forest development unit is found at 3(1)(

d) of the Forest and Range Practices Act. J. MacPhail: Okay. So I have to go back to the old act. You're talking about the act that we dealt with last sitting, Bill 74. Okay. We actually don't have enough staff to compile or consolidate or annotate the legisla- tion — and neither does the public — so the minister has a distinct advantage there, just to note. I'll ask one other question on this that relates to my saying that the minister is now prescribing as opposed to setting objectives and allowing for outcomes to be results-based.

If the minister looks at the definition of "objectives set by government" in Bill 69…. I'll just read it. They're repealing the old definition of objectives set by government, which was done just several months ago, and they're now replacing it with this section, "ob- jectives set by government:" "'…objectives set by gov- ernment' means (

a) objectives prescribed under

section 149 (1), or (

b) objectives established or continued under sections 3 to 5 of the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act by a person or persons under those sec- tions." Then if you actually go to the changes that the bill introduces to

section 149 of the Forest and Range Practices Act, it's contained in

section 55 of this bill. It says that sec- tion 149.1(

b) says the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations "…prescribing the circumstances in which the discretion conferred in the authorization may be exercised." That's just one example where what used to be "objectives" — and the minister and I had a lengthy discussion under one of the previous bills about why the government was moving to objectives because he wanted to have results-based rather than prescriptive outcomes…. Now we're moving to what the legislation clearly de- scribes as prescriptive mechanisms. Why? [1515] Hon. M. de Jong: Maybe I'll do this in two parts. I'm not sure it'll change the member's mind. The rele- vant connection between subsection (

d) in

section 1 that the member has focused on is with

section 54 of the bill, which actually enumerates (1)(

a) through (k), the specifics around the regulations that can be made. I don't know that that's going to change the member's mind, but I agree with her. We had a fairly lengthy discussion in our last debate on this subject around the wisdom of doing this and what it might ultimately look like. My recollection at that time is that I thought I had alluded to the fact that there would be greater particularity around the specific values that would be the subject of those regulations. As I recall, the member articulated some concern around the absence of those enumerated values in the legislation. Our next step is the amendment that gives rise to the amended

section 149, which lays out those values in specifics. J. MacPhail: We'll get to that. I'll be able to quote your words back…. I have the discussion here exactly. The minister actually makes my point. I'm not sure he wanted to. The old

section 149 said this, in defining "objectives set by government" — and by old, I mean months old, baby old…. This was the government's original legislation describing objectives, which was last November, and it said, under

section 149: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations respecting objectives set by government, including but not limited to regulations." The new legislation today says: " The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing objectives in relation to one or more of the following subjects…." The minister can't get off the hook. He spent hours discussing how the old prescriptive ways — and pre- scriptive is a derivative of prescribing — were what caused all the problems in the forest industry, and we were going to go to a results-based code.

Did the minister get it wrong, and now he's admitting that he's wrong? You've got to help me here. Hon. M. de Jong: The intention is the same, and that is to ensure that the objectives are there for agen-

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7255 cies, licensees, people practising in the woods to know what it is that is expected of them. It is, I am told, a term of drafting. When that is to happen by regulation, the usual terminology would be to prescribe those ob- jectives. The member will, if she wishes, choose to read into that term what she wishes. I will, however, emphasize reading the

section in its entirety and emphasize that what we are seeking to achieve here is the establish- ment of the objectives and regulations that lay out the objectives that licensees must meet in respect of the ten or so areas listed in the section. [1520] J. MacPhail: S o r r y , I d o n ' t a c c e p t t h a t i t ' s j u s t a drafting mechanism. I don't accept that at all. How could the minister have gotten it so wrong in the eight previous times he tried to change the code and the way things are done in this province? This government is moving back to a prescriptive Forest Practices Code. It's clear here.

It's not drafting. It's a substantial change. I'm just trying to figure out why here. Let me just ask another question, then. Let's refer to

section 149 again of the Forest and Range Practices Act. It's now being amended by the amendment act that we're discussing right now. Not only are there changes to say that there will be more prescription through this legislation, but it's also declaring the supremacy of the Forest Practices Code. I just want to refer this to the minister. It says sec- tion 149.1(2) is added, and it says this: "The Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection may not establish an objective referred to in subsection (1) (a) (

i) or (ii) for an area unless the objective is consistent with the objec- tives set by government that pertain to the area." It seems to me that once again the Forest Practices Code reigns supreme. Am I wrong? [1525] Hon. M. de Jong: I apologize to the member for the delay. The regime that is being established here is, first of all, the greater particularization of values as it relates to

section 149. But then with respect to sub (2) of that sec- tion and 149.1, what is being anticipated is the possibil- ity that objectives as they relate to that

section may run afoul of objectives set out within something like a higher-use land planning process. To the extent that that could occur, the objectives of the latter — the higher-level plan — take priority. In both cases, as it relates to Sustainable Resource Management or the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection, who maintains a role within the Forest Practices Code, in the event of an inconsistency it is the objectives as set out in that higher-level plan that would take priority. J. MacPhail: Yeah, well, I think we're saying the same thing. In rank order, the Forest Practices Code prevails now, because you look on…. I'm not going to

section 56. Well, actually, I'm going to refer to

section 56. It gives priority when dealing with a community watershed and dealing with lakeshore management zones, etc., etc. The changes say that the objectives con- tained in the Forest Practices Code, listed in the Forest Practices Code, prevail. That's new. What's happened? Let me just ask this. Maybe we can actually tell this…. The minister can say why the changes came about in describing real problems. We had the Forest and Range Practices Act passed just a little over six months ago. These changes have been introduced…. What have we done? What's changed since the in- troduction of this bill?

What problems are we trying to resolve that the minister found out about in the last six months? Hon. M. de Jong: Is the change the member is re- ferring to that which is contained within

section 149.1 — or what will be 149.1? J. MacPhail: N o , i t ' s t h e c h a n g e … . J u s t a s e c o n d here, Mr. Chair. I have to find my…. It's the change that will be contained in the sub (2) of 149, 150, 150.1 and 150.2. Subclause (2): The minister "may not specify an objective referred to in subsection (1) (

b) for an area unless the objective is consistent with the objectives set by the government that pertain to the area." That to me is what has been added to say that the Forest Practices Code now prevails, is supreme. [1530] Hon. M. de Jong: Here's what the intention of the

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

I'm not trying to be troublesome with the member. J. MacPhail: No, but this is a change; this is an ad- dition. This is a change from the Forest and…. We're actually agreeing. The higher-level plan is contained in the Forest Practices Code. So this is a change; this is an addition. This is an admission that in ranking of priori- ties in determining forestry practices, the Forest Prac- tices Code prevails, is supreme. That's how I read this. Why? What was brought to the minister's attention in the last six months that required him to specify that the Forest Practices Code is supreme? Hon.

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

7256 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2003 to simply make the hierarchy abundantly clear — clearer than it was. That was something that, in the intervening time, we received comment about, and there was a desire and a willingness to make the hier- archy of priorities clearer than it was.

Section 1 approved. On

section 2. J. MacPhail:

Section 2 amends

section 5 of the For- est and Range Practices Act. What it does is…. If I could, I interpret this to mean to actually add prescrip- tion once again. Subsection (1)(

b) before just said that the forest stewardship plan must "specify intended results or strategies." Now we have in subsection (1)(

b) that a forest stewardship plan must "specify intended results or strategies, each in relation to (

i) objectives set by government, and (ii) other objectives that are estab- lished under this Act or the regulations and that per- tain to all or part of the area subject to the plan…." This is adding work; this is adding detail. There's no ques- tion about it. [1535] The amendment adds greater clarity. There's no question about that. It adds greater clarity to what must be included in a forest stewardship plan. The clarity takes place both in relation to the objectives set by government in legislation, by the regulations and the ministerial order.

So this bill is adding stuff that needs to be done, and it's making things clearer. In the original legislation, Bill 74, there was no con- nection between results and strategies and the objec- tives. Nowhere in the legislation could you find the two that would come together, so

section 5 corrects that. But doesn't it again sort of confirm my belief that these amendments are going to greater prescription now rather than results-based? I mean, I heard mem- bers, I heard the minister and I heard the government caucus MLAs say over and over again that that disas- trous decade of decline in forestry was because it was too prescriptive. Now, here we are six months later adding work, rewriting the code, making it clear that the forest in- dustry and forestry practices have to meet legislatively prescribed standards. What was the consultation?

What was the feedback that the minister heard in the last six months that led the minister to now add greater clarity through more work and more prescription and through the tying of results and strategies to objec- tives? Hon. M. de Jong: I agree with the member to this extent: the

section does provide greater specificity. I think I disagree, though, with the suggestion that somehow the model has been abandoned, because what we have said is that the obligation will be to meet certain…. Within the forest stewardship plan, they will have to set intended results and strategies for achieving those results, and we are saying that those results must be consistent with the objectives set by government. I think I have always said that government would set those objectives. Does that mean there is an additional legislative instrument — be it the statute, a

section of the statute and/or a regulation — that the licensee who is prepar- ing a forest stewardship plan must consult? I guess it does. They will certainly have to ensure that their for- est stewardship plan is consistent with those objectives as set out by government. I don't think it follows, and it is not intended to follow, that that represents a retreat to a more prescrip- tive approach. Well, that is, in part, my response to the member. [1540] J. MacPhail: Well, what I do know here is that there is greater clarity that requires more work to be done.

So let me ask this: who pointed out to the minister that greater clarity was needed in the stewardship plan? Hon. M. de Jong: In the time that has passed, the discussions and consultations have been ongoing. It has been a theme of those discussions that the various stakeholders who are going to be subject to this legisla- tion — the licensees, the ranchers and the various other practitioners on the land base — have emphasized they want to be clear and they want government to be clear about where the link is. What are their obligations? What are the objectives they need to meet?

Where do they derive from, and how is that tied in specifically to the legislative structure that they must abide by? That ultimately is what has given rise to the inclu- sion in the bill we have before us, recognizing, of course, that — lest I be accused of misleading anyone here — the bill was tabled in the spring. It would be u n f a i r o f m e t o s u g g e s t t h a t t h i s i s h e r e b e f o r e u s b e - cause of something that happened last week. It was actually tabled in the House some time ago. J. MacPhail: What did professional foresters say to you? Hon.

M. de Jong: None of us can recall getting a specific submission from the Association of B.C. Pro- fessional Foresters. On an individual basis, I am ad- vised it was a matter of great concern to them — and their belief, generally speaking, that a model of this sort requires that there be clearly enunciated objectives for their members to work towards in the preparation of things like the forest stewardship plans. [1545] J. MacPhail: And that's exactly the feedback I got as well — more detail. Now, no matter how we like to dress it up, more detail is more prescription, more pre- scribing.

I mean, at some point we're going to have to actually confess that that's the direction we're moving into. I'll have more questions on exactly the same topic as this on

section 7. Sections 2 to 6 inclusive approved.

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7257 On

section 7. J. MacPhail:

Section 7 deals with changes to woodlot licences — how one goes about getting approval for woodlot licence plans. This

section amends

section 13 of the original act, the Forest and Range Practices Act. Now we have exactly the same thing for woodlot licensees — that they must give detail that explains the connection between intended results and strategies and each objec- tive set by government. So now woodlot licensees have to take every objective set by government and give de- tails about intended results or strategies to achieve that objective. What feedback did the minister have from woodlot licensees to justify this change? Hon. M. de Jong: Actually, in the case of the woodlot owners, it has been fairly extensive.

Brian McNaughton and the association, in fact…. Their AGM is coming up, I think, either this week or next week in Abbotsford, and there are a number of issues on the agenda. I don't actu- ally know that this is one of them, because when I met with them last week, they professed to be content with what they had seen with respect to the content and the requirements for their plans. They have some other issues as it relates to the ex- pansion of their program, but I think it would be fair for me to relay to the House and the member that they seemed….

My recollection is that they expressed to me a degree of contentment with what is here in this bill. J. MacPhail: Yes. Maybe the minister misunder- stood my point. I wanted to know what consultation from Bill 74 to the changes now being enacted in Bill 69 around woodlot licensees — i.e., the additional re- quirement of details matching results and strategies to objectives…. What feedback did the minister have from woodlot licensees to make this change in Bill 69? I'm pleased to hear that they're content. They're going to have more work to do, so I'm pleased to hear that they're content. Hon.

M. de Jong: Forgive me if I inadvertently mis- led the member. The discussions that would have been relevant to the presentation of this legislation actually occurred earlier in the spring this year, when the B.C. woodlot federation was fully engaged with the minis- try. That is what led to its inclusion in the package that was tabled. I guess it was in May.

Again, the conversa- tion was not that dissimilar — a desire on the part of t h a t b o d y t o b e a b l e t o s a y t o i t s m e m b e r s h i p : " T h e r e will be a clear enunciation of the objectives that you must perform to, which you must manage to and ad- dress in your preparatory planning documents." Sections 7 and 8 approved. On

section 9. [1550] J. MacPhail:

Section 9 of this act amends

section 16 of the original Forest and Range Practices Act. The cur- rent act that was passed about 11 months ago states simply that the minister must approve a forest stew- ardship plan or amendment to a plan if (

a) the plan or amendment conforms to this act, the regulations and standards; and (

b) the minister considers that the forest stewardship plans, results or strategies are likely to achieve the objectives set by government or the wood- lot licence plan's results or strategies are likely to achieve the objectives set by government other than those referred to in

section 13(3). The substantive change now that was made to the language that I just read under this

section is, rather than simply "likely to achieve," the plan "must" now be consistent with the objectives of the government and those provisions set out in the act in

section 5 and re- peated in

section 41. So this is now mandatory. We've moved to mandatory requirements. Why? Hon. M. de Jong: I'm not sure it's a lot more com- plicated in this instance than this. I am advised that the phraseology "likely to achieve the objectives" was thought to be problematic. It signalled a lack of clarity, and just about everyone was looking for language that would be clearer. It was determined that "consistent with the objectives" trumped "likely to achieve the ob- jectives" in terms of the clarity we were looking for. There seemed to be pretty universal agreement that the original language contained in

section 16 wasn't as clear as it could or should have been. J. MacPhail: Let me read the explanatory note on this. It says that this amendment to

section 16 "pro- vides separately for forest stewardship plans and woodlot licence plans to more precisely require that the plans reflect the relevant content requirements and to enable the minister to require the information de- scribed in

section 16(2.1)." To me, that was a giveaway that more precision requires more prescription. Hon. M. de Jong: I'm detecting a theme to the…. Interjection. Hon. M. de Jong: I know the member did, which assisted me greatly in detecting it. There is an attempt here to improve on the preci- sion of the language. If the member thinks that trans- lates into greater prescription, so be it. I'm not sure I agree. But it was certainly the case that we wanted, after discussions, to be more precise. [1555] J. MacPhail: Let me ask this, then.

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

7258 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2003 Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I will concede this to the member. Part of the objective here, insofar as dealing with the language that existed and the language that is there now, is to ensure that through this approval process and through any kind of an enforcement mechanism, the operators were in the best position possible to understand what their obligations were, and the Crown was in the best position possible to en- sure that those obligations were being met and that they could discharge their duties.

And the test for that was clearer than the original language provided for. [G. Trumper in the chair.] Sections 9 to 11 inclusive approved. On

section 12. J. MacPhail:

Section 12 of this current act amends

section 20 of the original act, and the

section is titled "Minor amendments to forest stewardship and wood- lot licence plans." What this does now is add compul- sory language to what was six months ago permissive language. Let me just say the current act — I want to make sure I get this right — reads this way: "20

(1) Despite

section 16, and unless required by the regulations, an approval is not required to amend a forest stewardship plan or a woodlot licence plan if its holder determines that the proposed amendment (

a) otherwise conforms to this Act, the regulations and the standards, and (

b) does not materially affect the likelihood of achieving the applicable objectives set by government or the intended results specified in the plan." That was the original act. Now the new act repeals that

section and replaces it with this: "

(1) Despite

section 16, except in prescribed circumstances, an approval is not required to amend a forest stewardship plan or a woodlot licence plan if its holder determines that (

a) the proposed amendment (

i) conforms to

section 5, for an amendment to a forest stewardship plan, or to

section 13, for an amendment to a woodlot licence plan, and (ii) does not materially change the intended results or strategies specified in the plan, or (

b) the proposed amendment conforms to prescribed requirements." We're tightening up on changes that can be made to forest stewardship plans. I remember the minister lauding flexibility. This is certainly lessening the flexi- bility, adding more prescription. [1600] M a d a m C h a i r , I w a n t t o g o o n r e c o r d t h a t I i n n o way disagree with this direction, but it is probably coming as a surprise to many government caucus members. Hon. M. de Jong: Actually, in this particular case I'm not sure I disagree with the member. Sub (

b) is the new

section here, and it clearly contemplates the possi- bility that in exercising some of that flexibility we talked about previously, there may be additional re- quirements that the licensee would have to meet. So in this case, I think the member's characterization is one that I can buy. Sections 12 to 14 inclusive approved. On

section 15. J. MacPhail:

Section 15 of the bill we are now de- bating amends

section 26 of the original act.

Section 26 is entitled "Control of insects, disease, etc." The new section, I think, is more properly entitled "Control of insects, diseases, animals or abiotic factors." I'm inter- ested in

section 26(2) of the new legislation. This re- quires the minister to compel the development of a forest health strategy within tenures held by companies and for the cost of that forest health plan to be shared by the government. As I read it, there is going to be increased use of pesticides to control pests, and the government will then incur some cost. Who gives out the pesticide per- mit? Hon. M. de Jong: First of all, I disagree to this ex- tent: nothing I have found in this

section contemplates a greater use of pesticides. With respect to the actual question, the approving agency remains Water, Land and Air Protection pursuant, I think, to the Pesticide Control Act. [1605] J. MacPhail: I'm reading this section. The old sec- tion 26 has been repealed completely, and the new one adds: "Section 26(2) If the minister determines that on a forested area on Crown land that is subject to (

a) a for- est…there are insects, diseases, animals or abiotic fac- tors that are causing damage…." There will then be a requirement for a proposal to dispose of the insects, diseases, animals or abiotic factors. Is that in the old act? Hon. M. de Jong: The language that begins "insects, diseases, animals or abiotic factors that are causing damage to the forest" is in the previous manifestation of the bill. There are two differences. We have broken out private land and Crown land as between sub (1) and sub (2). In sub (2), which deals with Crown land, we have, through sub-subsections (

a) through (c), de- fined the various licence arrangements that could exist between an individual and the Crown. J. MacPhail: The old act said that the group could propose reasonable measures, and now this act re- quires a proposal that conforms to subsection (3) to control or dispose of…. Subsection (3) is now pretty specific, pretty prescriptive, and so that's new. I read it as new, anyway. I don't find anything in the legislation that is as prescriptive as this

section now. Why is more required now? Hon. M. de Jong: It is certainly a change in draft- ing. There are two points I think I would make. One relates to subsection (2). It is not a directive of the min- ister or the Crown. It is discretionary by virtue of the use of the word "may." Secondly, if we go down to

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7259 subsection (3), the language that the member correctly referred to in the original piece of legislation is cap- tured in sub-subsection (b), and that is that the pro- posal must contain or specify reasonable measures to be carried out. I don't think the intention here is to go beyond the test that was contained in the original legis- lation. J. MacPhail: But "may" has been replaced with "must" in the legislation. I can't find a "must" in the old proposal. It's now mandatory, so what is the minister achieving here? What problem is he correcting? [1610] Hon. M. de Jong: To the member, the

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

I do note that in subsection (3), as part of the pro- posal, the licensee or the owner of the property is given discretion to state the time frame, for example, within which the measures are to be completed, but the mem- ber is correct. Once that triggering event has occurred and the Crown has exercised the option to require the proposal, a number of things must then follow. J. MacPhail: What alternatives to pesticide use are contemplated? Hon. M. de Jong: Alternatives to pesticide applica- tion would be harvesting, fall and burn, or fall and peel.

Sometimes there are salvageable values that can be retrieved, but it certainly contemplates things well beyond the use of pesticides. On some of these pests, the use of pesticides simply doesn't work. We discov- ered that with respect to the pine beetle. By virtue of its incubation period under the bark, there's just no point in even using a pesticide. J. MacPhail: What forest health problems, other than pine beetle, will be contemplated under this sec- tion? Hon. M. de Jong: I'm advised that generally speak- ing, a

section like this would have application to bark beetle, whether it's spruce or pine. I'll pose the question about the inclusion of the term "animals" in the section. I am advised that at times, something like a porcupine — if it were in a particular area — could do damage in a private-land setting where there are adjacent properties, but it is generally an instrument that would be used with respect to bark beetles. [1615]

Section 15 approved. On

section 16. J. MacPhail: We're still dealing with the issue of forest health and control of insects, diseases, animals or abiotic factors. This

section adds a new requirement under

section 27, forest health emergency, that requires the government to pay certain expenses incurred by holders of agreements when ordered by the minister to carry out measures to address forest health emergen- cies. I'll read this new

section into the record: "If an or- der made by the minister under this

section requires the holder of an agreement under the Forest Act or the timber sales manager to carry out a measure other than timber harvesting, then to the extent provided in the regulations, the expenses of the measure are to be paid by the government." I just heard the minister say that pesticide management may not work. So does this mean…? What expenses will the government be picking up? Hon. M. de Jong: Again, I am advised that we are, by and large, talking about a situation that would arise in a pest infestation of one of the types of beetles.

As a general rule, if the licensee were ordered to harvest and there were recoverable values, the government doesn't have a rule. If, on the other hand, a licensee was or- dered into an area and there was no recoverable value and there was an order to fall and burn the timber, then the Crown, by virtue of this section, is incurring a liability to cover the costs associated with that. J. MacPhail: What has the government budgeted for this? Hon.

M. de Jong: It is a new tool, and I can tell the member that at the moment our ability to utilize that tool is constrained by the fact that we have not budg- eted specific funds. J. MacPhail: Well, if the minister hasn't budgeted specific funds this year, is there…? I was at the Union of B.C. Municipalities convention where the Premier announced he was going to set up a committee to ex- amine solutions to the pine beetle infestation and that he would do whatever was necessary when they re- ported back. Will this be a budget-planning item for '03-04? Hon.

M. de Jong: Use of the instrument will obvi- ously be dependent upon resources being identified to devote to the particular task. The member is correct when she alludes to the magnitude of the problem and the desire on the government's part to ensure that whatever tools are required are available. She is also correct in pointing out that the use of those tools comes at a cost. J. MacPhail: If the government allows a licensee to log infested trees and the government pays for that logging, who then owns the logged trees?

7260 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2003 [1620] Hon. M. de Jong: In the circumstance that I think the member is describing, the government wouldn't pay for the logging. If there are recoverable values there, the licensee would proceed as per the regular course. The issue arises when the government says to a licensee, "Chop down those trees and burn them," and there is no recoverable value for the li- censee.

Section 16 approved. On

section 17. J. MacPhail:

Section 17 goes on to talk about costs of forest health strategy.

Section 27.4 is new. It says: "The government and (

a) all holders of replaceable forest licences, and (

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

section 27.2 (1)." In this particular case the timber supply manager is a public servant — an employee of the Forest Service, as I understand it. Given that, there will be joint re- sponsibility between the company and the govern- ment. Does "joint" mean equal? Hon. M. de Jong: This gets back, in part, to the discussion we had previously about defined forest area management. Just to slightly correct the member, it is the timber sales manager which is that person who has responsibility in a particular area for the timber sales program.

For the purpose of this discus- sion, the timber sales program is one of the licensees within a timber sales area, so when we talk about ap- portioning the costs for some of these matters, they will be apportioned in a way that is consistent with the various licensees' holdings or entitlements within that timber supply area as a percentage of the AAC. Within a timber supply area, the timber sales program has certain entitlements, a certain percentage of that AAC, so they will share in the costs, as any other li- censee would. Sections 17 to 53 inclusive approved. On

section 54. J. MacPhail: M a d a m C h a i r , I j u s t h a v e t o f i n d t h e

section I'm dealing with here, if I might. Hon. M. de Jong: Madam Chair, with your indul- gence, I wonder if we might just take three minutes. The Chair: If the committee agrees, we'll recess until 4:30. The committee recessed from 4:24 p.m. to 4:31 p.m. [G. Trumper in the chair.] On

section 54 (continued). J. MacPhail:

Section 54 of the amendment act deals with changes to

section 149 of the original act. We've had a little bit of discussion on that, but I want to pur- sue it more. The previous

section 149 was pretty broad. It said: "Objectives set by government. The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations respecting objectives set by government, including but not limited to regulations (

a) authorizing the minister to establish objectives set by government in relation to specified subject matter, or (

b) respecting procedures and criteria that are to be followed by the minister when establishing objectives set by government." The new

section 149 says, "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing objectives in relation to one or more of the following subjects," and then actually now lists the subjects that were not there before. I note the new list is almost an exact duplicate of the forest stewardship plan list that's contained in sec- tion 5(2) of the bill, that it's the same list of items that forest stewardship plans must contain. But there's a dif- ference — one difference. The new

section 149 setting out objectives includes recreation resources, but forest stewardship plans don't include the requirement to ad- dress recreation resources. Why the difference? Hon. M. de Jong: The member is correct in pointing out what would be a discrepancy except for what I will alert the House to. In fact, the provisions of 5(2) — the list the member referred to — have been repealed by this legislation and are replaced by a statutory cross- reference to this section. So the forest stewardship plan now incorporates the criteria set out in 149(1). [1635] While the member is confirming that fact, I will tell her that the route by which that occurs is

section 2 of the bill we are dealing with today.

Section 2(

b) repeals 2(

a) and incorporates the objectives referred to — ob- jectives being something of a defined term pursuant to 1(b) — and that incorporates

section 149. So the thing that ties it all together in this bill is

section 1(d)(a), which refers specifically to

section 149(1). J. MacPhail: So in

section 5 now, the only term that we can rely on for the list is "Objectives set by govern- ment," and when one looks at the definition of objectives set by government, it refers to

section 149. Is that it? Hon. M. de Jong: That is correct. J. MacPhail: When will there be a complete act, which has all of the work that the minister and I have so diligently done over the course of the last year and a half, published? When will it be published? Hon. M. de Jong: I am advised that following pas- sage and proclamation of this bill, a consolidation will take place fairly immediately thereafter.

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7261 J. MacPhail: Okay. We've already explored a little bit the concept that the government is moving to ask for greater detail from licensees and enforced steward- ship plans and in woodlot licence plans. I think it's safe to say that the minister has acknowledged that greater detail will be required, and I have defined that greater detail as the government moving to being more pre- scriptive in the code as opposed to results-based — moving in that direction. What I want to explore with the minister now un- der this

section — this

section that talks about objec- tives set by government — is how it all comes together in terms of what the licensees have to provide, to whom they answer and who in the government signs off if there's contradiction or confusion. [1640] The minister and I had a substantial discussion about this on November 18 and 19 of last year. This was a debate around the objectives set by government. I'm going to read back a little bit of that debate only for this. I want to ask the minister what has changed since November 18 and 19.

I was asking the minister about who sets the objectives, and that's what I want to dis- cuss again, given these changes. I had asked the question: who sets the objectives? The minister: "I think the second part of the mem- ber's original question, which I didn't answer" — some things never change — "related to the process. That process is now contained within the ambit of the Minis- try of Sustainable Resource Management." Me: "Okay. In plain English just tell the House how this section, this definition, is going to be applied. Who's in charge?

What does it mean?" The minister: "The member will know that this re- lates to the establishment of higher-level plans, as is presently contemplated. That process won't change. The ministry that has responsibility for the establish- ment of those higher-level land use plans is now, and has been for some time, the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management." Me: "…the government has removed much of the prescription under the Forest Practices Code. They take great pride in that, absolutely great pride, and then say it's going to be a results-based code.

But the objectives set by government will determine what the results are that the companies, the stakeholders, have to comply with. Or am I wrong?" Minister: "…she is correct that the forest steward- ship plans must be consistent with general land use objectives." Me: "The minister has said that the objectives set by government will be under the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. He's not here to answer the questions.

We have the objectives being set by gov- ernment, meaning objectives established under sections 3 to 5 of the Forest Practices Code by a person or per- sons authorized under those sections. I'm just trying to figure out what it is the government wants to achieve. Where would we turn?

Where would an ordinary citi- zen turn to find out what are the objectives around soil, let's say, that the government is setting?" The minister: "The member will know that pursu- ant to a process actually initiated by her government, there are a series of higher-level land use plans that either have been set or are in the process of being set.

The objective — and I don't know that this is particu- larly or should be at all mysterious — is that harvest activity and, specifically, stewardship plans should be formulated in a way that is consistent with the objec- tives that emerge out of that land use planning process. It's not much more complicated than that." Me: "Couldn't agree more, except that: what's the status of land use planning in this province? Is the min- ister committed to completing the land use process before proclaiming this code?" I'm almost finished. The minister: "In fact, that land use planning process is ongoing.

This act, and we will come to the relevant sections…. This bill makes provision for the establish- ment of interim objectives in those areas where the planning process has not been completed, but the member will know that the process is ongoing via the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management." M e : " L e t m e j u s t g i v e y o u a n e x a m p l e . H e r e w e have a situation where the key to the application of the whole new act is the term 'objectives set by govern- ment.' I'm told by the minister the objectives will flow from a land use plan. I couldn't agree more.

What's the state of land use planning in this province? The minis- ter says it's ongoing. Well, no, it isn't, actually. The government has completely reversed at least two land use plans that were agreed upon and is now deliberat- ing at the cabinet table about what those land use plans will be." [1645] That was a discussion the minister and I had about how this stuff, this act, applies in land use planning. At that time I took it to mean, because the minister was on the basis of a results-based code, that whatever hap- pened in the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Man- agement in land use planning prevailed.

But now it looks like — and this is where I need help…. I need to ask the minister where we are going on this. It now looks like this act, the Forest Practices Code, will pre- vail in land use planning. Who is the final approver of land use planning now, given that — it seems to me — this particular

section gives superiority, primacy, to the Forest Practices Code over the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management and the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection? Hon. M. de Jong: I'll try to answer the member's question this way, and there may be other questions that flow from that. A licensee will prepare a forest stewardship plan, and we've established that the plan must be consistent with the objectives as set out pursu- ant to this

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

7262 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2003 level strategic plan will take priority. Pursuant to the statute, responsibility for administering that priority falls, in the case of the higher-level plan, with the Min- istry of Sustainable Resource Management. There's my first kick at it anyway. J. MacPhail: Could the minister name the statute for the record? Hon. M. de Jong: The authority that derives to the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management exists and derives from the Forest Practices Code. J. MacPhail: Okay.

So it is the Forest Practices Code that will guide and then mandate higher-level land use plans or that will prevail if there's inconsistency. Let's take a practical example now. Land use plan- ning is ongoing. What's happening out there with land use planning in terms of the real and practical applica- tion of the Forest Practices Code now? Hon. M. de Jong: Hopefully, I'm answering the member's question.

There are certainly areas in the province where higher-level strategic land use plans are not yet in place, although the hope, expectation and objective is for that to change in fairly short order. [1650] In areas where that is in fact the case, however, the objective set out in

section 149 would operate as the default objective. They would operate exclusively there in the absence of those higher-level strategic objectives. I'm not sure I've answered the question. J. MacPhail: Well, I assume the government is going to have higher-level plans, that the government hasn't abandoned land use planning completely. It seems to me that with this legislation, in order for a forest company now to complete its forest stewardship plan, it has to have some idea about what the higher-level plans are, or else it's going to have to redo them.

Now, what the min- ister did say in the last debate was that he would set interim objectives. Has that happened? Hon.

M. de Jong: If we accept as a fact that there are parts of the province where there are not yet higher-level plans in place and accept as a fact that it is government's objective to remedy that situation and complete the land use planning process, it is conceiv- able that in an area like that, a forest stewardship plan could be prepared in advance of the completion of that land use planning process consistent with these objec- tives but thereafter find itself in one way, shape or form inconsistent with the objectives set out in that higher- level plan.

In those circumstances, that would trigger the need for an amendment for which there are procedures set out elsewhere in the legislation. But the basic premise that the member has identified is, in fact, correct. J. MacPhail: Well, this is all going to come to a big crunch, because in April 2004 this is all going to be in force and effect, by the Liberal government's own deadline. I mean, the train is coming down the track.

We're six months away from not only having every- body know about this, not only having every ministry understanding what their contribution is to this, but then companies themselves having to abide by this law. Now, the change here is the addition that the gov- ernment can now prescribe objectives. With the gov- ernment now saying they can prescribe objectives, I'm unaware of any interim objectives being set. So does this mean that in the very near future, companies will have new prescribed objectives for which they have been unaware prior to now? [1655] Hon. M. de Jong: It's a fair question.

What I can advise the member is that over the course of the past number of months, work has been taking place around finalization of the regulations that are contemplated in this section. That has involved oversight by the public advisory council that was established, stakeholders. The intention there is to have those regulations ready for enactment in December, in a month and a half or so. There is then a period of time within which people will have to familiarize themselves with those regulations.

But in addition to that — and the member identifies the intention around ultimate proclamation date — the legislation contemplates from December a two-year transition period, during which time licensees will have the option of submitting to the regime con- tained in the Forest and Range Practices Act or con- tinuing along under the Forest Practices Code. So that transitional period exists for two years from December, during which time they'll have the option and the abil- ity to make that transition in a way that makes sense operationally. J. MacPhail: Well, the crunch is coming. It's coming as of December.

Very specifically, where forest stew- ardship plans mesh with land use planning — higher- level plans — who prescribes the objectives for forest stewardship plans? Is it the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management, or is it the Minister of Forests, pursuant to the Forest Practices Code? [1700] Let me put another thought on record so the minis- ter can contemplate this. It's a continuation of the same line of questioning, so just for time's sake, let me put this to him. I want now to also bring in Bill 75, the For- est Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002, which was passed last year as well. In

section 6 of that act, it said it replaces the existing provisions to enable a single min- ister to establish and administer resource management zones, sensitive areas and objectives for resource man- agement zones and sensitive areas. That's what

section 6 of the Forest Statutes Amendment Act said. Then last year this Minister of Forests said: "What is d o ne and what i s b e i ng d o ne v e ry p u rp o s e l y i s t o re - duce the decision-making process from three ministers to one, and that minister and ministry is the Ministry of Sustainability Resource Management." Then the Minis-

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7263 ter of Forests later said that the approval of forest stewardship plans was the lone responsibility of the Minister of Forests, and that's being confirmed today. The reason why this becomes even more important is because the addition to

section 149 of the act that we're dealing with today adds prescription, the ability to prescribe objectives by this government now, so it becomes even more key about who's in charge. Who's on first, basically? Who's going to be doing the pre- scribing? If it's the Minister of Forests, then I would assume that the Minister of Sustainable Resource Man- agement is out of play. If he isn't out of play, then who's in charge? If he is in play, does he have an op- portunity to determine whether the forest stewardship plan meshes with the objectives set in the land use plan? Let's be clear.

We're often talking about exactly the same tracts of land. In fact, we are talking about the same tracts of land. [1705] Hon. M. de Jong: Hopefully, again, I've captured the essence of the question. It seems to me that what can fairly be said is that in the

section we are dealing with, the legislation contem- plates the possibility that there could be an inconsis- tency between the objectives set out here or in a forest stewardship plan and the objectives contained in a higher-level plan. We know what happens if that is found to be the case. The question is: who determines whether there is an inconsistency? I think the answer to that is it be- comes apparent at the time the plan is accepted and that becomes a function. The determination of whether there is that inconsistency would flow from the Minis- try of Forests. J.

MacPhail: In the absence of a complete land use plan and where there are interim objectives set, then will the forest stewardship plan be given final approval by the Ministry of Forests, given that it seems to me that this act now has primacy amongst legislation? Hon. M. de Jong: Dealing with the circumstance that I think we're involved with here, if there is not a higher-level strategic plan in place, then I guess it fol- lows that we wouldn't find ourselves in a situation where there is an inconsistency between the forest stewardship plan and that higher-level plan.

In those circumstances, assuming the forest stewardship plan that has been presented meets all of the requirements including addressing the objectives set out here and the regulations that flow from it, it would flow through the approval process. It would then exist in a world where a forest stewardship plan existed in the absence of the yet-to-be-completed higher-level strategic plan. J. MacPhail: I'm trying to figure out — and we're getting there — where companies and woodlot licen- sees can take comfort that the deal is done.

In the ab- sence of a land use plan the minister will approve for- est stewardship plans. Will that be final approval, or is there a possibility those stewardship plans can be changed once the final land use plan is approved? There are higher-level plans that have not been com- pleted substantially, covering substantial tracts, so this isn't hypothetical. Come January of this year it will be a reality. Hon. M. de Jong: The member is right; it's not a hypothetical. In fact, there are sections within the For- est and Range Practices Act that contemplate the need to make amendments, so that mechanism exists.

I will tell the member candidly that it is my hope and my belief that we can do this in a way that doesn't require wholesale changes, but as I acknowledged earlier, until such time as that higher-level strategic planning is complete across the province, we do need to contem- plate the possibility that it will be necessary to change a forest stewardship plan. [1710] J. MacPhail: So will the minister be putting in place clear, direct instructions to licensees and to the public about what ministry they should be going to, to look at objectives and talk about these matters and determine who is the decision-maker?

Will the ministry be pub- lishing guidelines? Hon. M. de Jong: I think the question was from the perspective of a licensee. How do you acquire the cer- tainty that you're looking for? It probably isn't an issue in situations in areas of the province where that higher-level strategic planning has been completed. You'd look to the plan and then conform with the other requirements. It's probably more of an issue in those parts of the province where that process hasn't been completed. You would look to the regulations. You would look to the objectives set out under the act.

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

It may lead some of them to decide that in that par- ticular area of the province, they will rely upon the previous Forest Practices Code regime, as opposed to the regime provided for here. They may simply take the approach that says: "I'm not going rely upon this until that lingering question around the higher-level strategic plan has been resolved." [1715] [J. Weisbeck in the chair.]

Section 54 approved.

7264 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2003 On

section 55. J. MacPhail: I have questions that overlap into sec- tion 56 too. One question. Sections 55 and 56 give regulatory powers to the Ministry of Forests, to the Ministry of Wa- ter, Land and Air Protection, and to the Ministry of Sus- tainable Resource Management — regulatory powers with regard to ungulate winter range, community wa- tersheds, stream and lakeshore management.

We've already discussed my view that this is moving to more prescriptive regulation, but of interest — which we've also discussed a little bit — is the prohibition of the Min- ister of Water, Land and Air Protection and the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management to establish, through regulation, objectives unless those objectives are "consistent with the objectives set by government." I'm taking from the debate we've had so far that the

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H1008pm-12
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H1008pm 12
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	5184a5f4d1704ba9f5ec61e873212e6cbcba7070

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).