1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 7, 1995

Afternoon Sitting (Part 1)

Volume 20, Number 21

[ Page 15109 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Clerk of the House: Pursuant to standing orders, the House is advised of the unavoidable absence of the Speaker.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

Prayers.

W. Hurd: It's a rare privilege for me today to introduce not one but two groups of students and their teachers in the gallery. We have with us a group of 50 grades 1 through 6 students from Crescent Park Elementary, accompanied by their teacher Ms. Davison. Also with the chaperon party are Mr. Bennest and Ms. Nancy Gingell. The second group is a group of students -- 54 visitors -- from South Meridian school, accompanied by their teacher Ms. Parker. They're here to tour the precincts today and listen to question period. Would members of the assembly give them a warm welcome.

G. Campbell: I want to reiterate the welcome to the school children, but specifically I would like to introduce to the House the grandchildren of the deputy leader of the B.C. Liberal Party -- the member for Delta South -- Jessica and David Gingell. We hope that this will give them a chance to meet with their grandfather and enjoy his company as much as we have over the last few weeks.

Hon. J. Cashore: In the gallery today are John and Irene Sproston of Zurich, Ontario. They are here to visit their son Steve, who lives in my riding, and their daughter Janette, who lives in Saanich. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm delighted to rise today for what I'm sure will be a unanimously -- and in a totally non-partisan way -- acclaimed set of announcements which I'm going to make. It has to do with a sporting event. It's not the sporting event that the Opposition House Leader is thinking about, but it includes humble representatives of this House and some of our servants who help us along so well, who will be once again playing in the Speaker's Trophy at the seventh annual tennis tournament of the Legislature versus the press gallery.

It will include, of course, the Clerk, showing the captain's leadership that he has for so many years, including the one or two years when we let the press gallery win. The Leader of the Official Opposition will be in attendance, as well as the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. He will not be filibustering his tennis game the way he does his estimates, I can assure you. It will include, of course, the member for Okanagan-Penticton and past members such as the Hon. Brian Smith.

We should talk about the sponsors of this tournament and a very important event that takes place the night before. Joining us in the gallery today are Cliff Stright from SHL Systemhouse Ltd., the sponsor of this tournament; Sheila Neopole, president of the South Cowichan Lawn Tennis Club; and Loren Stubbs, a board member of Providence Farm. Would you show them a very kind welcome.

In conclusion, as part of the fun and festivities of the tournament, the MLAs and members of the press gallery will help serve at a fundraising dinner at Providence Farm, which, of course, we are all aware specializes in therapeutic riding and horticultural programs for physically and mentally challenged individuals. This year the fundraising dinner will raise funds for a shiny new red tractor.

So, hon. Speaker, I want you to know that the trophy will once again rest in the right hands after this tournament.

Introduction of Bills

CHILD, FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICE AMENDMENT ACT, 1995

Hon. J. MacPhail presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 1995.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Last year the Legislative Assembly passed the Child, Family and Community Service Act, which addresses public demand for change in the area of child protection. This year, prior to proclaiming the act, we are improving and clarifying it in response to recommendations which came from several sources, including the interim report of the inquiry into child protection by Judge Thomas Gove.

I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 41 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

CHILD, YOUTH AND FAMILY ADVOCACY AMENDMENT ACT, 1995

Hon. J. MacPhail presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Amendment Act, 1995.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Again during the last session, this Legislative Assembly passed the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act. That act establishes an independent advocate for children, youth and families who are to receive services pursuant to the previous act, the Child, Family and Community Service Act.

The advocate is an officer of the Legislative Assembly. This year the assembly had the pleasure to recommend Joyce Preston as the first child, youth and family advocate. Subsequently, the Gove inquiry into child protection submitted its interim report, which included recommendations for amendments to the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act. Therefore, this amendment act, the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Amendment Act, 1995, incorporates those recommendations with which the advocate wishes to proceed at this time.

Bill 47 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[2:15]

[ Page 15110 ]

Oral Questions

DOUGLAS LAKE RANCH BLOCKADE

G. Campbell: In spite of the peaceful dismantling of the illegal roadblock at Douglas Lake, this NDP government continues to send out confusing messages to the people of those communities. Last night the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs met with members of the Upper Nicola band. Today there are fears that the minister is negotiating away legitimate property rights, including leases and permits, in response to the illegal blockade. Will the Premier commit today that property rights will not be negotiated away through secret interim agreements as the result of illegal acts?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I think it's unfortunate that that reckless, careless use of language is used by the Leader of the Opposition. He is prepared to behave like a Mike Scott Reformer -- sort of a Rambo of the roadblocks -- and it's not the way to conduct the public's business.

I think we should realize what I have said all along and what the Attorney General has made very clear: that there is one law for all British Columbians and one policy for these types of situations. We don't second-guess, as the Leader of the Opposition does. The experts in this area, who are the police authorities, were there to directly carry out the Supreme Court injunction in this matter.

G. Campbell: What people want to know is what this government's position is. The Premier may think that he has been clear, but he may not be paying attention to his Aboriginal Affairs minister, his Attorney General or members of his own caucus. The government simply has to be clear in its goals. Private property must be protected. This government has not made that clear. Secret negotiations....

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, members. Order! I would ask the members on the government side to please allow the question to be put, and I would ask the member to please put the question.

G. Campbell: I will put the question, hon. Speaker.

Secret negotiations must simply be open to all affected parties. So will the Premier make a commitment today that no agreements will be signed until all affected parties have been included in any discussions and involved in any negotiations whatsoever with regard to Douglas Lake?

Hon. M. Harcourt: First of all, the Leader of the Opposition's research staff have let him down once again. This is a matter between two parties: the Douglas Lake Ranch and the aboriginal people in the area. The government's role is to facilitate a peaceful resolution of this. We have had a mediator in there. After he had been assured by the police authorities that the roadblocks were down, the minister went to meet....

Interjection.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I wouldn't call it exactly a secret meeting when the Sun and the CBC were in that meeting.

Hon. Speaker, the real issue here is the inconsistency of the Leader of the Opposition. Here he's prepared to be a reckless Rambo, a sort of of the interior. Yet when he was the mayor of Vancouver, he and the police were criticized for not going in and doing exactly the kind of thing that he is recommending. As a matter of fact, in 1987 Chief Justice McEachern was critical that the police didn't go in and clear the way for strikebreakers, and here's what the then mayor and chair of the police board said....

Deputy Speaker: I'm sorry, Premier. I think we have gone beyond the time for the answer.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I will conclude, hon. Speaker, with one sentence.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: One sentence. Please, members, order.

Hon. M. Harcourt: This is what he said: "I think the police are there to enforce the law."

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order!

Hon. M. Harcourt: "They have also been very concerned about not exacerbating any violent activities," said the then mayor.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, I just want to give everybody a caution. If we can't allow questions and answers to be heard, then the entire point of this exercise is lost. My job is to uphold the rules of the chamber. I am trying to do so, but I need your cooperation.

MINISTER OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS' MEETING WITH UPPER NICOLA BAND

A. Warnke: My question is for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Over 43 aboriginal bands and tribal councils have submitted notices of intention to negotiate treaty rights with this government, and are patiently waiting for their opportunity to seek fair and affordable treaties. Meanwhile, the Upper Nicola band has not entered into any treaty negotiations through the B.C. treaty negotiation process. Instead, they set up an illegal blockade and then met with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

Therefore my question is: what message has the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs sent to the bands committed to the treaty process, especially when a band that set up a blockade received a meeting the following afternoon?

Hon. J. Cashore: Most British Columbians are very, very supportive of the fact that that blockade came down, that a confrontation was avoided and that we were able to sit down in a mature way and talk about the way that issues can be resolved at a table. There are different entities with regard to first nations. There's the First Nations Summit, which is the

[ Page 15111 ]

process in the Treaty Commission negotiations; there's the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, of which this band is a member, which see their primary negotiations as being with Canada; and there are others. We respect the rights of these different first nations to have their own perspective on how to resolve these longstanding issues. But recognizing that, I appreciate the question, because it's an opportunity to point out that the Treaty Commission process is absolutely separate from the process, with regard to the kinds of discussions we are having with the Upper Nicola band, and that there is no connection whatsoever.

Deputy Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

A. Warnke: What we're concerned about on this side is that the government is sending the message that if the band gets involved in the treaty process it has to wait in line for a meeting, but if you put up a blockade you meet the minister the next day. A question to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs: can the minister tell the House if the government told the Upper Nicola band that if they brought down the blockade, they would be rewarded with a meeting the following afternoon?

Hon. J. Cashore: This government will not negotiate while there is a blockade up; that is our position. Secondly, this government will seek to facilitate an orderly resolve to issues such as the one we have seen develop there. Recognize, hon. member, that we are dealing with a legacy of history -- this is the first government in the history of this province to take on these difficult issues, because we know they must be resolved. We cannot leave this confusion to future generations.

The hon. member makes the comparison to the treaty-making process, and he has outlined the Liberal platform with regard to the treaty-making process, but his leader won't come into this House and say that he agrees when this hon. member supports the fact that we've entered into that process.

J. Weisgerber: My question is also for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. The Upper Nicola band succeeded in extorting an agreement to negotiate their grievances in exchange for bringing down an illegal blockade. Why would this government ever allow any group to advance their political aims through illegal activities -- through illegal blockades? What are the penalties, if any, for the illegal blockade at the Douglas Lake Ranch?

Hon. J. Cashore: Using this kind of inflammatory language does not help deal with the situation of a longstanding historical problem that must be addressed. We are addressing those issues in the best way that we can possibly address them, and in a way that this hon. member counselled -- as reported in the Vancouver Sun on July 19, 1990 -- when he made a statement, which was quoted, saying that he called on all British Columbians to exercise common understanding in the context of difficult blockades.

Deputy Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party on a supplemental.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please, members.

J. Weisgerber: The member might have quoted a little further as well, because at that time I said that there should be a price for illegal activities. Indeed, Mr. Minister, the government should be sending out a clear message...

Deputy Speaker: Question.

J. Weisgerber: ...that there is a price to pay for illegal activities.

Will the Premier or the minister or somebody commit that this government will not negotiate an interim agreement with the Upper Nicola band until they publicly commit to bring down and keep down the road blockades and not participate in further illegal activities? Will the government adopt a policy of not negotiating any interim agreements with any band that refuses to participate in the provincewide B.C. Treaty Commission process?

Hon. J. Cashore: This hon. member has a very short memory. He forgets that he dithered at Duffey Lake for three months before injunctive relief was sought back in 1990. He forgets that he went to that blockade and offered to negotiate while the blockade was up. He forgets.

The fact is, as I said to an earlier question, that we respect the fact that different first nations do not all follow the same process. We respect the fact that the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs have a different process.

UNREGULATED NET FISHERY OF UPPER NICOLA BAND

W. Hurd: I have a question for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. The Delgamuukw and Sparrow decisions clearly stipulate that resource conservation must take precedence over claims of aboriginal title. Given that net fishing on the two lakes was at the heart of the illegal Douglas Lake blockade, will the minister assure this House that unregulated net fishing was not on the table for discussion when this minister sat down with the Upper Nicola band? As the minister who used to defend fish in this province, will he stand up and defend them today in this House?

Hon. J. Cashore: Conservation is always this province's bottom line; we have no hesitation to reaffirm that.

With regard to the dispute between Douglas Lake and the Upper Nicola band, we are seeking to find a method whereby those parties can discuss their differences.

Deputy Speaker: Supplemental for Surrey-White Rock.

W. Hurd: It has been clearly indicated that those two lakes cannot sustain an unregulated net fishery by the Upper Nicola band. Will this minister stand today and defend conservation in the province and assure the House that this fishery was not on the table for discussion when he sat down for a marathon meeting with the Upper Nicola band -- a meeting, hon. Speaker, which isn't esteemed to be available to any other band in this province right now.

Hon. J. Cashore: Well, hon. Speaker, this hon. member can't have it both ways. He says in his question that he wants us to assure him that we won't discuss the issue, but he also

[ Page 15112 ]

wants me to assure him that we'll resolve the issue. Hon. member, we're going to resolve the issue by being able to discuss it as reasonable adults.

[2:30]

DOUGLAS LAKE RANCH BLOCKADE

M. de Jong: British Columbians were indeed pleased to see that the blockade came down without any violence. They were pleased by the action taken by the RCMP. They were shocked, however, to learn at 7:30 this morning that discussions had taken place between this government and the Upper Nicola band while the road between Minnie Lake and the home ranch remained blocked. That was despite the fact that the NDP government said they wouldn't negotiate under those circumstances. My question to the Premier is: why did his government enter into negotiations with the Upper Nicola band while the road to the ranch remained blocked by the band?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The main reason is that.... The minister wasn't going to leave Victoria and go to the area at all until he'd been advised by the proper authorities, who are the police. He received the following communication from Staff Sergeant Smith:

"Please be advised that the traffic situation with respect to the Douglas Lake roadblock has been cleared to both the satisfaction of the terms of the B.C. Supreme Court injunction and the Merritt Royal Canadian Mounted Police."

Hon. Speaker, on the clear assurance, and without any knowledge of the other road situation, the minister proceeded in good faith -- the roadblocks were down -- to try and facilitate the parties to this dispute. Don't forget, this is a private dispute between the Douglas Lake Ranch and the Upper Nicola band. He went in good faith on the basis of this communication from the police authorities in the area, on the ground.

Deputy Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Hon. A. Edwards tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources for the year 1993-94.

G. Brewin: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

G. Brewin: I would like to welcome to this House a group of nearly two dozen energy experts from the People's Republic of China, led by their Victoria leader, Dr. Wee Chong Tan. I wonder if the House would please make them welcome.

W. Hartley: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

W. Hartley: On behalf of the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head, I'd like to introduce one of her constituents visiting the Legislature, Mark Beardsell. Please welcome him.

S. Hammell: Hon. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome....

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, member. We're beyond standing orders. I need a request.

S. Hammell: I request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

S. Hammell: I would like to welcome to the House another class from South Meridian Elementary School in south Surrey. They are here to watch the procedures.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply in

Section A for the purpose of debating the estimates of the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations. And in the House today I call committee stage of Bill 46.

COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1995

The House in committee on Bill 46; H. Giesbrecht in the chair.

section 1.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I would like to move the amendment to

section 1 that is standing in the name of the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations on the order paper:

[SECTION 1, in the proposed

section 72 (6), by deleting "the date on which the Cooperative Association Amendment Act, 1995 received First Reading in the Legislative Assembly." and substituting "June 5, 1995."]

On the amendment.

D. Mitchell: The minister has just moved an amendment to this bill standing on the order paper in the name of the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations. It seems to be a technical amendment, but there are some date changes here in terms of when the bill will come into effect. I wonder if the minister could just offer a brief explanation of why this amendment is necessary.

Hon. J. Smallwood: The change the amendment has brought about is simply that the first draft indicated that the amendment would come into effect at first reading. This substitutes the actual date of the first reading, simply to further clarify the date of effect, rather than leaving it open as first reading.

D. Mitchell: I guess this is one of those weird situations where the government is being extremely responsive and changing legislation as we make progress, very quickly, in the Legislature, but it's rather unusual to have done this.

I wonder if there is any other motivation as to why the first draft was unacceptable. It seemed to be fine the way it was. Is it just a matter of legislative drafting to be more precise, or is there any other reason why June 5, the date of first reading, is required to be put into the statute?

Hon. J. Smallwood: The intent of the amendment is simply for certainty, and no other reason.

[ Page 15113 ]

V. Anderson: I'm wondering if the minister might comment a bit about the intent of this

section so that we may have her explanation about this section.

Interjection.

V. Anderson: On

section 1.

The Chair: We are still on the amendment, hon. member.

V. Anderson: I'll wait until the amendment is finished.

Amendment approved.

section 1 as amended.

Hon. J. Smallwood: Perhaps I might read into the record for the members the explanation of this section. It might help provide members with the background and the rationale and expedite some of the questions in that respect.

This

section repeals and replaces existing

section 72 of the Cooperative Association Act to close a loophole in the current wording of the

section in order to ensure that housing cooperatives which receive public subsidies continue to operate as non-profit housing cooperatives and are prevented from distributing their assets to their members.

Section 72, which was initially enacted to assist publicly subsidized housing cooperatives, complied with public funding arrangements. This

section enables housing cooperatives to adopt an unalterable provision in their constitutional documents, preventing the cooperative from distributing its assets to its members upon dissolution. Housing cooperatives are required to adopt such a non-profit provision in order to be eligible for funding for public agencies.

This

section ensures that the amended

section 72 will apply to any housing cooperative which had on June 30, 1988 -- the date on which

section 72 originally came into force -- a non-profit provision in any of its constitutional documents that prohibits the cooperative from distributing its assets to its members upon dissolution, regardless of whether the provision was in its memorandum, its rules, or both its memorandum and rules, and ensures that the provision remains unalterable.

To ensure that housing cooperatives which have already dissolved and innocent third parties are not affected by the retroactive amendment to

section 72, this

section also adds a new subsection (6) which excludes from the application of

section 72 those housing cooperatives that were dissolved or had legally commenced dissolution pursuant to sections 293 or 297 of the Company Act before the date of first reading of this bill.

I hope that's of some help to members.

D. Mitchell: Thanks to the minister for that explanation as to what the loophole is here that we're trying to close. Could the minister give a little bit more background on the specifics of this particular amendment? I know that this amendment is proposed in large part because of the situation at one particular housing co-op in the province -- the Bracken Heights co-op in the constituency that I represent.

Can the minister tell us how it is that this loophole has not needed to be closed until now? Is it the case that no housing co-op society in British Columbia, or perhaps in Canada, has sought to take advantage of this loophole to date? I'd be interested in the minister's explanation of that. Also, could she add where British Columbia stands with respect to other provinces on similar legislation? Has this kind of an issue come to the fore in other jurisdictions in Canada, where housing cooperative societies have sought to be dissolved to the benefit of occupants of the housing co-op?

Hon. J. Smallwood: To our knowledge, this is the first. As soon as this particular initiative was brought to our attention, we acted both through order-in-council and now with the changes to the legislation, closing this loophole. This is a significant loophole in that the stock in this province is vulnerable. As we proceed through the legislation, you will see that there are sections that deal with the potential of other housing cooperatives that may have positioned themselves to take advantage of that loophole, and it captures them through the retroactivity, going back to 1988.

[2:45]

We have also spoken at the national housing cooperative association's annual general meeting, bringing it to the attention of their organization and asking them to go back and speak to their respective provinces to check and ensure that they have tended to their legislation. We have been in consultation with CMHC, because we believe there is a potential that other provinces may be in the same situation, and this valuable stock throughout Canada may likewise be at risk.

V. Anderson: I want to commend the minister for her presentation at the annual meeting of the housing co-ops across Canada. I had the opportunity to listen to her and can vouch that she did raise the flag and the warning about this, and she indicated that she would be acting.

Section 1(6) talks about the exemption of those who may have already wound up or are in the process of winding up. Is there an indication that groups have already acted to wind up their housing cooperatives, and are there particular bodies that you are aware of that have acted and to which this exemption does apply? Is it just in case there were some that we didn't know about?

Hon. J. Smallwood: It is simply precautionary. Neither the superintendent of cooperatives nor our ministry are aware of any that have initiated these actions.

V. Anderson: I'm assuming that the minister believes that there are none who have commenced this prior to this coming into effect and who would be affected.

Hon. J. Smallwood: That is correct. The caveat that I would like to put on that is that prior to this government's commitment to non-profit and cooperative non-market housing.... I can't speak for previous governments' diligence on this front of protecting affordable housing.

D. Mitchell: I wonder if the minister could make a comment, generally, about the possible continued dissolution of housing cooperative societies. My understanding of this

section and of closing this loophole, which this

section is going to

[ Page 15114 ]

achieve, is that it's not going to prevent housing cooperative associations or societies in the province from dissolving their societies. What it's going to do is prevent those societies from dissolving them in such a manner that some personal benefit would flow to the current directors or occupants of that cooperative housing. Is that correct? Will it still be possible for housing cooperative societies to dissolve in British Columbia?

Hon. J. Smallwood: Yes, you're absolutely correct. As we proceed through the sections, the way that a housing cooperative can dissolve and what has to happen to those assets will become clear. It's the intent of these amendments to preserve and protect the stock and ensure that this valuable resource of affordable housing is maintained within that affordable-housing stock for the province.

L. Hanson: What I'm still confused about -- and maybe the minister could comment on it -- is that in the case of cooperative housing, the members of the cooperative quite often build up personal equity in the housing. If there were that situation, is there a provision in here that would let them recoup that investment if they dissolved?

Hon. J. Smallwood: The member may be confusing the difference between an equity co-op and a co-op that is in the non-profit housing sector. These changes pertain exclusively to non-profit housing cooperatives; equity cooperatives are not captured in this amendment.

L. Hanson: I take from this that these housing cooperatives you talked about are totally subsidized by taxpayer funding, or totally built or created by taxpayer funding.

Hon. J. Smallwood: The point I want to make with this is that in the constitution of the housing cooperative, it spells out that the cooperative is specifically a non-profit housing cooperative. They receive public subsidies, either through the province or from the federal government when we're talking about the older stock. The key here is that in their constitution, as governed by the Cooperative Association Act, it is clearly spelled out under

section 72 that this is non-profit and that it is the intent that this be held as a non-profit housing cooperative. An equity co-op, where there is some building up of personal equity in an individual unit in a co-op, is not affected and not governed by this provision.

V. Anderson: Under 72(2) in the

section we are discussing, it indicates that if a housing cooperative does dissolve, it has two choices. If I understand it correctly, one choice is to give the funds to another housing cooperative or to a charitable organization registered under the Income Tax Act, but that registered organization does not need to be a housing co-op. I'm wondering if there is a concern about maintaining the housing funds back to the housing co-op rather than having them go out to some other charitable purpose.

I note that this is a standard practice under the charitable societies act, but I am wondering about moneys that have been given specifically for housing now being allowed to go out to non-housing charitable societies.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm going to need to ask for some guidance. The member is asking about

section 72(2)(a). I have an amendment to that

section and would ask the Chair's guidance as to the appropriate time for tabling that amendment.

The Chair: Please proceed.

Hon. J. Smallwood: Having sought that guidance, I appreciate the Chair's recommendation. I would move an amendment to

section 1,

section 72(2)(a), which I am tabling today, and I will distribute copies to the members in the House. Let me read it for the record, and we will circulate a copy.

"Section 1,

section 72(2)(

a) is repealed and the following substituted: (

a) if it is a housing cooperative described in subsection 1(

a) or (b), the property shall be transferred to or distributed among one or more other organizations that are housing cooperatives to which this

section applies;"

The intent and the change we have for you deletes any reference to registered charities. The intent of the amendments, as has been stated on a number of different occasions, is to maintain the housing in the cooperative housing stock. The reference to registered charities was not intended.

V. Anderson: I would like to commend the minister on the amendment, because I thought the other was contradictory to the very purpose of the act, and was surprised -- she was surprised, too, if I'm lip-reading.... So I appreciate that she had this prepared to bring in.

Amendment approved.

section 1 as amended.

V. Anderson: Perhaps I should ask at this point if the minister has any other amendments that we're not aware of. That would save us time in the discussion.

Hon. J. Smallwood: The answer to the member's question is no. That is the only other amendment.

Section 1 as amended approved.

section 2.

D. Mitchell: That doesn't necessarily mean that there won't be more amendments, but I'm glad to hear that the minister doesn't have any -- nor do I.

Section 2 of the bill is furthering the closing of the loophole that I think the minister referred to in the legislation. It deals with the distribution of assets to members in a housing cooperative society. The minister said, on the previous section, that there is no precedent in British Columbia that we know of, and perhaps not even in Canada that we're aware of, of a housing cooperative society distributing the assets to members in the way that we are trying to prevent with this act. In terms of

section 2, why is this

section necessary? And in terms of the distribution of assets to their members, are there any precedents in British Columbia where the assets of a non-profit housing cooperative society have been distributed to its members? Are there precedents for that at all?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'll give the member the same answer we gave earlier on. We are not aware of any. That is not to say that it has not happened in the past. So in some sense this is due diligence. I think many of us were quite surprised that it was even a possibility. The fact that this province has taken the initiative to close the loophole and

[ Page 15115 ]

protect the stock, and is providing that leadership across Canada, is important and well worth the precautionary extent of the amendments in this bill. This will ensure that even if we are unaware of co-ops entering into dissolution or, for that matter, any co-ops that have made amendments already to their legal documents -- changes to their rules or memorandums -- this legislation now, even if they have not initiated the process, will require them to revert back to the primary intent of

section 72, preserving that stock within the non-profit sector.

D. Mitchell: Thanks to the minister for that answer.

Just another brief question on the registrar referred to in this

section that was amended. Could the minister tell us what the role and purpose, or function, of the registrar is? If the minister or her staff are not certain that any such co-op has been dissolved in this manner, then what role does the registrar play? Surely the registrar would keep records of this kind of information. It would seem to be pretty crucial if you're the registrar of housing cooperative societies to know if any had been dissolved and had had their assets distributed to members. It's curious to me that we don't have that information, and I just question the minister as to what the role of the registrar is. Is there something lacking here?

[3:00]

Hon. J. Smallwood: The superintendent of cooperatives' role is to register changes pertaining to the act, so he would only be aware of those that have been submitted to him -- or her, even though it is a man. At this point in time, because we have not surveyed all existing cooperatives throughout history, I'm not prepared to say absolutely.... I simply do not have that information. Again, the superintendent registers the applications for changes. They don't have a proactive or regulatory role, as I understand it.

V. Anderson: If I understand the minister correctly, there is the assumption that some societies may have already made changes in their constitutions. Is she aware that some have actually made changes in their constitutions? I gather from her nod she is saying that some have made changes. So, in effect, what she's doing is making a retroactive statement requiring every society to revoke those changes if they have already made such changes, or else the changes would be automatically revoked -- to be in effect when they first took them out. So they would go back to the original statements as of June 30, 1988.

Hon. J. Smallwood: That is correct.

V. Anderson: I have one other comment on that. Am I to understand, then, that the minister will be notifying all registered housing societies of this act so that they can take action accordingly? My understanding is that this will take place so that they don't make changes in the future, and those that have made these changes will be advised that they need to correct the changes as quickly as possible.

Hon. J. Smallwood: This gives me an opportunity to advise the member of our close working relationship with the Cooperative Housing Federation of British Columbia and CMHC. We will continue that relationship with the sector in bringing these changes to their attention, and we will examine other ways of communicating with housing cooperatives throughout the province, as well.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

D. Mitchell: This

section deals with the liability of government. It provides immunity to the government from any litigation that arises pursuant to this bill. I'd like to thank the minister and her staff for their cooperation when briefing me on the bill generally, and on this

section in particular. But I'd like to ask the minister why this

section is in there. Why does the liability of the government need to be dealt with? Why does immunity need to be provided? Is it simply because of the current circumstances dealing with the particular housing cooperative society at Squamish, the Bracken Heights cooperative, and the possibility of legal action arising against the government for that situation?

The reason I raise this is the larger precedent we might be creating here in terms of government receiving immunity from legislation. The other reason I'd like to note is this. Currently, during this legislative session, we're dealing with an important piece of legislation the government has brought forward which deals with class actions. For the first time in British Columbia, it provides the opportunity for groups of individuals to come forward with class-action suits, and that includes class-action suits against the government, interestingly enough.

Hypothetically, I wonder whether this

section would take precedence if members or directors of housing cooperative societies in the province decided for whatever reason to come forward with a class-action suit against the government of British Columbia for anything relating to the contents of this bill or to the amendments to the act. Or would the class-action legislation currently being brought forward by the minister's colleague the hon. Attorney General take precedence?

These are important questions. I support what the government is trying to achieve with this bill, but I wonder if this immunity is really required here.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm advised by legal counsel that while the amendment is not a necessity, it is simply for greater certainty and pertains specifically to this act.

D. Mitchell: As legislators, though, I think the minister would agree that we have to be careful when we provide any kind of immunity to the government or disallow any possibility that citizens can come forward and take legal action against the government. We need to be absolutely assured that it deals only with a specific situation. There's always a concern when this kind of immunity is provided to deal only with a specific situation, because it's now going to be enshrined in statute. I note the words in

section 3(1) stating that this deals only with situations "resulting...by or from the enactment of this Act." I think those are fairly key words. I'd like to get the minister's assurance on the record, in debate in this committee this afternoon, that the words "by or from the enactment of this Act" refer specifically to this amendment to the act provided in Bill 46. Or do they also apply to the act that we are amending?

[ Page 15116 ]

Hon. J. Smallwood: The assurances sought are that it deals specifically with Bill 46, and I give the member those assurances. Again, I want to remind the member that the intent of the amendment is to close a loophole that would see the dissolution of non-profit housing cooperatives to the private benefit of the existing members. That was never intended in the original act. In closing this loophole, it ensures that the non-profit housing cooperative stock is secure and maintained. That is the intent of Bill 46. The provision that we are discussing deals only with Bill 46 and these amendments for that purpose.

D. Mitchell: I wonder if I could ask the minister whether or not this immunity from litigation implies that if any directors or members of a housing cooperative society in British Columbia wish to take legal action against the government in the future, it's not prohibiting that at all; it's only prohibiting such individuals from taking action against the government for closing this particular loophole. Is that what she's saying?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm simply going to reiterate that the prohibition on legal action deals only with Bill

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

D. Mitchell: On the commencement clause, maybe just a point of clarification from the minister. She explained earlier why the date June 30, 1988, is significant in terms of the coming into force of this legislation in the province. But the words, "...and is retroactive to the extent necessary to give it effect on and after that date...." Why is that language necessary? Why don't we just say it's retroactive to the date that the legislation came forward? It's language that I'm not familiar with. I'm always concerned about retroactive legislation. Does this give the government power to go beyond June 30? Or is it necessary to put that wording in there?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm really tempted to take a shot at the Ministry of Finance -- not representing them, of course. This is an abundance of caution. Recognizing that the legislation is the responsibility of the Ministry of Finance, I think the drafters have been very cautious, very specific and very clear in the drafting -- very much like some of the other questioning -- simply for greater certainty.

D. Mitchell: I won't make any comments about the minister's colleagues over in Finance. I will, but I won't in this forum; over in Committee A, I can do that.

The commencement clause relates only to

section 1. Can we therefore assume that the rest of the bill dealing with other matters, including the liability issue that we discussed, comes into effect on the day that the bill is proclaimed into law? When does it come into effect?

Hon. J. Smallwood: Yes, that's correct.

D. Mitchell: I have one further question on the commencement, because this is fairly important. This bill has gone through the stages of approval in this Legislature very rapidly. The minister introduced the bill only on Monday. We had approval in principle yesterday, and here we are in committee stage today. Can the minister tell us if we can anticipate His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor coming to give royal assent to this bill today or tomorrow? We have gone through this fairly quickly, and we have assisted the minister in her deliberations for that purpose. When can we expect the bill to be proclaimed?

Hon. J. Smallwood: Unfortunately, I don't have that information here. As I shared with the member privately, we are very concerned about the action or the potential of dissolving a particular cooperative in the province, and we have moved very quickly to secure that property. As the member knows, that particular cooperative is in his own riding, and I would like to compliment him and thank him for his interest and support in dealing with this issue. It has been very important and well appreciated.

Section 4 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; D Lovick in the chair.

Bill 46, Cooperative Association Amendment Act, 1995, reported complete with amendment.

Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. J. Smallwood: With leave of the House now, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 46, Cooperative Association Amendment Act, 1995, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J. Smallwood: Committee on Bill 18.

FOREST PRACTICES CODE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT, 1995

The House in committee on Bill 18; H. Giesbrecht in the chair.

[3:15]

section 1.

D. Mitchell: We are getting into the amendments to the Forest Practices Code, a major piece of legislation that the hon. minister brought forward just a year ago. As an introductory comment, I wonder if the minster could let us know in general -- we have had a good second reading debate -- what the significance of the series of amendments to the code that we're going to be dealing with really represent today in terms of this major piece of legislation. Does it suggest that we are in the early stages of the Forest Practices Code, and it simply needs

[ Page 15117 ]

fine-tuning? Or does it suggest that perhaps the government is moving so rapidly with this new era of regulation in the woods that we're really having to think on our feet a little bit?

I note that Bill 18 represents some significant amendments; they're in some part the process of consultation with industry and other groups. Are there any problems in the minister's mind as to why we're moving forward, simply a year after bringing in the code, with such a significant set of amendments, including

section 1 that we're on?

Hon. A. Petter: I think what I would do is simply reiterate what I said during second reading debate in response to similar concerns that were raised. That is that the code is a major innovation in this province. We have not previously had a single piece of legislation that tries to address all of the major concerns around forest practices in the way that this code does.

I recognized last year -- and I think we must collectively continue to recognize -- that this is a living document and, as we proceed, we will learn about how to improve this document. Over the last year, we have conducted further consultations and reviews and have learned from that experience -- and learning from that experience, we act on what we learn.

What we have today, I would say, are amendments that build very much -- they don't represent any major changes of direction or policy under the code -- on the general directions that the code took. They refine, clarify and improve, in some areas, code requirements. In other areas, they move to better protect the financial interests of the Crown with respect to silviculture obligations. In other areas, they respond to concerns about reducing administrative burdens.

Certainly it is our goal to see that the code requirements are met, but we want to try and achieve those requirements with a minimum of administrative burden on those who must operate within and under the code. Finally, there is that category of amendments which I guess are normally referred to as housekeeping amendments -- things that were picked up over the last year, here or there, as requiring further clarification or correction, or typographical errors -- those kinds of things.

So this is building on the initiative of last year. It is not a major redirection; it's certainly not a retrenchment. It's a recognition that we have to learn as we go. We're doing that, and we're making amendments in order to reflect that knowledge.

D. Mitchell: I take it from what the minister is saying, then, that the Forest Practices Code is a living document that can likely be expected to receive amendments in each session of the Legislature for the next several years as we learn to use this code with the province's most important resource, the forest resource.

section 1 of Bill 18, we have a number of definitional changes to the Forest Practices Code. I think some of them are significant. I'd like to ask the minister: what in particular has been driving these definitional changes? What is behind these definitional changes?

I know that the minister speaks of consultation with a variety of groups. It would appear that he has spoken with a few people here -- perhaps ranchers, environmentalists and a few others, and perhaps the industry as well. When we take a look, for instance, at the definition of "community watershed," which is the first definitional change in

section 1.... I'd like to ask the minister: why this definitional change? What about the joint management with the Ministry of Environment, and his colleague the Minister of Environment, that he spoke of in the debate on the Forest Practices Code last year? What about the authority of the Minister of Health to designate watersheds and grant water licences?

What's happening with this definitional change? Is it that the Minister of Forests and the Ministry of Forests are really taking greater and much more exclusive authority over the management of the Forest Practices Code? Is this interministerial cooperation that the minister spoke of last year when the code was introduced really being abandoned? Is the Ministry of Environment being edged out? Is the Ministry of Health, which normally has input and a say in the granting of water licences and the designation of watersheds, going to continue to play any role whatsoever?

Or is there a centralization of power here within the Ministry of Forests? Is that perhaps what's driving some of these definitional changes?

Hon. A. Petter: The member asked questions about the definitional changes. I think the definitional changes, depending on the definition that's being looked at, are there to clarify and improve the code in a number of different ways, depending on the definition.

With respect to the community watershed definition, the reference is to a

section of the act, and perhaps when we get to that section, we can talk more specifically about the nature of those changes. They relate to the fact that there was need for clarity around the area that was being defined as a community watershed, being the area above the intake as opposed to areas that might be below the intake for drawing upon a community watershed.

As for the reference to the Ministry of Health, upon further consultation among ministries it was felt that it would place an undue administrative burden to formally require the Ministry of Health's involvement. Certainly the Ministry of Health is involved in the designation process that leads to community watersheds, and indeed, as we'll see when we get to that section, the Ministry of Environment is involved and continues to be involved in the designation of community watersheds.

D. Mitchell: Just for the record, I wonder if the minister could tell us about the scope that is being contemplated here: the number of community watersheds that have been designated to date in the province, how many will be proposed, and where they're located, just generally speaking. Are they all on the coast, in the interior in particular, or are they throughout the province? Could you give us an idea of the order of magnitude of what we're dealing with here with this concept of community watersheds -- where are they, how many are there currently, and how many are currently proposed?

Hon. A. Petter: Under the code, a number of community watersheds were automatically given designation by virtue of the provisions that were introduced last year. I'm informed that that number is about 488 -- 488 community watersheds, representing about 1.75 percent of the province's land base. I don't have a spatial distribution of those watersheds; there may be some geographers in the room who do. But certainly I'll be happy to try to get that and communicate it to the member at some future time if he requires it.

[ Page 15118 ]

W. Hurd: I just have a brief clarification question under the

definitions

section with respect to community watersheds. I appreciate the briefing that I received from ministry staff, which was very helpful, and I thank the minister for that opportunity.

But with respect to community watersheds, it's my understanding that a forest licensee was previously required to have a sign-off from the Ministry of Health with respect to the logging plans in a watershed,

whereas the change that's being proposed in the

definitions

section no longer requires that regulatory sign-off. Is that what we're dealing with here? I suppose, if that is the case, I'd be seeking assurance from the minister that the abilities of the Ministry of Health to test for water quality and for the impacts of soil disturbance still remain intact, and that what we're dealing with here is nothing more than a requirement that would allow the licensee to deal directly with the ministry on the plans. But there has been no lessening of the ability of the Ministry of Health -- particularly in watersheds, where residents are depending on the supply of clean drinking water -- to have input into that concern?

Hon. A. Petter: There has been no lessening of requirements. Health sets the standards, and Health's input is reflected through the water licensing process. There was never a requirement of Health to sign off on logging plans; there was an expectation, I think, under the provision introduced last year, that Health would be involved in the community watershed designation. But that, on review, was considered superfluous, unnecessary, by virtue of Health's direct involvement in the water licensing process, which in turn is reflected in that designation process.

In consultation with ministries it was felt that it simply imposed an unnecessary additional step to have a formal sign-off of community watershed designations. But the input of Health -- the degree to which Health will continue to remain a presence in protecting health values -- is undiminished by these changes.

W. Hurd: Just continuing with the definition section, then, there are references made to grazing schedules and natural range barriers. I assume that these are designations that already exist in the statutes -- in the Range Act or the Forest Act, for example. Are these terms just being added to the Forest Practices Code for the purpose of consistency with other statutes that affect forest and land use in British Columbia?

Hon. A. Petter: Grazing schedules and natural range barriers are not, I believe, defined elsewhere. In the case of the natural range barrier, it was included in the act last year but wasn't defined, and it is being better defined here for further clarity. In the case of the grazing schedule, this is an industry term which I think is well understood within the industry, but it is not defined as such in other legislation.

W. Hurd: Just continuing with the definition section,

section 1(

b) refers to defining forest practice to include industrial road use. I wonder if the minister could just clarify whether the term "industrial road" implies a broader definition than a logging road. Are we dealing with any type of road that might be constructed for any use, whether it be mining or to access private property, for example? It just seems curious that the ministry would see a need to include industrial road use. Is it the ministry's concern that there may be some types of roads that the Forest Practices Code previously wouldn't have applied to?

Hon. A. Petter: I think this is more in the nature of a clarification. This is one of these issues where, in fact, the term "industrial use" is used elsewhere in the act in the road

section of the code, and to carry that forward into the forest practices definition provides consistency. But obviously, yes, the term "industrial use" is somewhat broader and does embrace other uses of roads which, of course, can cause more damage and degradation than would be the case if they were simply for forestry use. But I want to reinforce that that is already reflected in the road sections, and it is simply being carried forward here into the forest practices definition for greater clarity.

W. Hurd: Finally, under

section 1(c), there is reference made to a higher-level plan under the Forest Act. I'm just a little confused by this particular definition, which seems to imply that a plan already on the books of the ministry, so designated under the Forest Act, may in fact be designated as a higher-level plan under the Forest Practices Code. I'm just wondering whether that's a retroactive provision which would enable a licensee, for example, not to have to resubmit plans to be in accordance with the code.

I wonder if I could just get a clarification from the minister on that, because clearly one of the concerns out there is that there may be a requirement to resubmit a number of plans that are currently on the books, and this particular definition would appear to be a relaxing of that standard. I would welcome a clarification on that.

Hon. A. Petter: The higher-level plan refers to plans as broad as an LRMP plan or as local as an LRUP plan, local plan or regional-type plan. This provision allows those plans that are currently in place, or that have been in place in the past, to be grandparented into the code.Hhowever, they have to be consistent with the code, and therefore there may be some old plans that would require modification or reconsideration before they are brought within the code. This provision allows for that consideration to ensure that plans are brought in in an efficient way, but not if they are of a nature that would be inconsistent with the code.

[3:30]

W. Hurd: If the minister is suggesting that a local land use plan is, in fact, the type of plan that's envisaged under this section, that surprises me somewhat, because we're dealing with the ability of the regional manager to designate such a plan with this particular section. We are dealing with that type of broad land use plan, not a harvesting plan or a range development plan. It's strictly a broader land use process that may be formulated by community stakeholders, as is the case with the LRMP. It's strictly a broader plan that might be developed by the community. That's what we're dealing with here.

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, we're talking about broader plans, although, as I said, an LRUP can be fairly confined in terms of the area it covers. All this change does is allow us and the chief forester to screen out plans that may prove to be inconsistent with the code. In other words, it doesn't make their

[ Page 15119 ]

designation automatic; it requires attention to the plan to make sure that it's consistent and can live with the other provisions of the code.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

D. Mitchell: Just a couple of general questions on

section 2. It's a fairly important

section of this bill. I'd just like to add my words to those of the member for Surrey-White Rock to say thank you to the minister for his responsiveness in providing and arranging for briefings on this bill by his officials. They did an excellent job, and hopefully that's going to expedite things in committee this afternoon.

section 2 of the bill, we're dealing with management plans, and we're dealing with the power of the chief forester of the province to require holders of tree farm licences to provide information regarding the inventories on their TFLs. It would be surprising to some to note that up until now holders of TFLs -- licensees who hold that area-based tenure -- have not been required to provide that kind of information about inventories on the TFL to the chief forester. It makes you wonder about management working plans on TFLs and the kind of accountability that takes place. It apparently has not been there.

I'd like to ask the minister about the role of the chief forester in this regard. Does this amendment really suggest the changed role and mandate of the chief forester as an independent officer as a result of the code? I'd appreciate the minister's comments on the role of the chief forester and how the code is impacting on it with respect to this

section and generally, and also on whether or not this

section is going to provide any extra costs to industry -- in particular to the holders of tree farm licences.

Hon. A. Petter: The member raises a number of questions. First of all, this provision is really designed to fill a gap. The provision of inventory information to the chief forester is already provided for in the code and will occur upon replacement, but there are some tree farm licences that have already been replaced. In the interim, there's a gap in time in which the chief forester might have difficulty obtaining inventory information, and this fills that gap.

In terms of the larger questions.... Let me go to the cost question. Yes, obviously the provision of inventory information to the chief forester may impose an additional cost on licence holders, although much of this inventory information is already within their possession. It's simply a matter of providing it in a way that the chief forester can gain access to it and make use of it.

Finally, in terms of the role of the chief forester, I don't think this changes the fundamental role. The chief forester has many roles: he has a role in determining cut levels, which is quite independent, but he also has a role to carry out the responsibilities of chief forester to ensure compliance with the Forest Practices Code and good forest management. That role has certainly been strengthened and given more substance by the code, but that was always notionally the role of the chief forester, even under the more modest provisions of the Forest Act.

What I would say is that this provision and others give the chief forester the tools he requires to do the job that has always been expected of him. The job hasn't changed; we're just saying to the chief forester: "Here are some tools for you to do what the public has been expecting you to do; but perhaps due to deficiencies in political will and legislation, you've not been able to do it in the past."

W. Hurd: Following up on the questions from the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, the minister will be aware that there's some disparity between the tree farm licences in the province with respect to the inventory availability or inventory data they have. I'm aware that some TFLs have become very sophisticated in terms of their long-term growth yields and other such information. I wonder whether under

section 2 we'd be dealing with a threshold of information that's spelled out in legislation elsewhere. For example, if a tree farm licence holder had done an enhanced inventory projection, or had an enhanced forestry regime in place, would there be a requirement to submit information beyond the level that might be generally provided by a TFL holder? Would they have to provide computer programs, for example, on long-term growth and yields to the chief forester under this section? Or are we dealing with just a standard level of information which would have to be exchanged?

Hon. A. Petter: The short answer is that it is to a uniform threshold. That is, the amount of inventory information that will be expected is the same amount as is expected with respect to timber supply area licence holders. It does not go beyond that to require the provision of information simply because someone has taken the initiative and acquired that information.

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

section 2. The minister's response obviously invites a question, then, about administrative penalties. One would assume that there would be some penalties that would accrue under the act for a failure to comply with

section 2.

I guess I can't let the issue go by without raising the fact that because this enhanced inventory information does exist on some TFLs, it's somewhat of a shame that there weren't some incentives built into the code that would induce TFL holders to undertake those kinds of enhanced long-term projections on growth and yields, and that there is no recognition within the code that they should be rewarded for providing that incremental information.

As we reflect back on the debate which occurred last year with respect to the code, I know one of the presentations the minister received from industry was a concern that there weren't enough of these types of incentives built in. Maybe I can just ask the minister whether he would expect TFL holders to go above and beyond those thresholds, of their own volition, to provide useful information to the chief forester with respect to his abilities to come up with a long-run sustained harvest in the province.

Would he hope that enhanced inventory information would be voluntarily forwarded to the chief forester, or does he anticipate that most of the TFL holders in the province will simply comply with the minimum thresholds? It has been one of the underutilized resources in the province with respect to the fact that many TFL holders have information which I think would be of great interest to the chief forester.

[ Page 15120 ]

Hon. A. Petter: First, as regards the administrative penalties, notionally under the act it would be possible for there to be an administrative penalty for failure to provide information. I should say at this time that there is no intention to create such a penalty, and none has been created under regulations. It's certainly our hope that this is a requirement that will be met without necessitating the creation of such penalties; that's certainly the intention at this point.

With respect to information and incentives to provide information, I should clarify that information with respect to timber supply is already required, by virtue of other provisions under the Forest Act. What we're dealing with here is additional information that's required for the code.

I guess what I'd say by way of general comment is that the reward that tree farm licence holders may reap as a result of taking additional initiative and acquiring additional information is in the form of giving themselves a better position to make investments that will produce greater volumes of timber in the future, which will, of course, because of the area-based nature of the tenure, redound to their benefit. So there are incentives for those who hold tree farm licences to acquire additional information, particularly with respect to information that's relevant to enhancing timber supply. That information can produce its own rewards.

W. Hurd: That invites just one other brief question. With respect to situations where there's an area-based takeaway, a reduction of a TFL for any reason, would there be an expectation under this

section that the same level of compliance would be necessary for the areas that have been alienated from timber harvesting? Because clearly, as the minister will be aware, there have been incidents where the area-based tenure has been reduced. In fact, it could be argued that one of the real challenges and one of the problems we've had in British Columbia is that there have been a number of area-based withdrawals from these management units that have resulted in considerable problems with respect to sustainable harvest levels, etc. I'm just seeking clarification.

Assuming that there was an area-based takeaway in the future, would the same level of requirement for the flow of information apply, even though the area might be, for whatever reason, declared as an area that couldn't be harvested?

Hon. A. Petter: I think the short answer is that if it's an area that is deleted from the tree farm licence for whatever reason -- by virtue of the creation of a park or it's for urban use, or whatever it may be -- then these requirements would no longer apply, and there would be no requirement for provision of information. If it's an area within the tree farm licence, then it's within the capacity of the chief forester to ask for appropriate information that's relevant to the preparation of a management plan.

W. Hurd: Really, my line of questioning was sort of based on the potential for expropriation costs. The minister has indicated that there wouldn't be a requirement to furnish that information if there was a takeaway from the area-based tenure. Would he not agree with the view that that might leave the Crown without sufficient information to deal with an expropriation case? Would that be something that the ministry would be concerned about? When we deal with some of the effects of the land use plans in the province, there will be compensation implications for the Crown.

I just wonder whether he feels that the information that he might have on the TFL as a whole would be sufficient information in terms of an expropriation case or a compensation case. Or would the Crown then have to go out and get that information?

Hon. A. Petter: The information that's spoken of here is information that's relevant to forest management. As I already indicated, information on timber supply is provided for elsewhere, and requirements concerning expropriation and compensation are provided for under the Forest Act. I think those are already well provided for and are not really the subject of this section.

R. Neufeld: Briefly, this adds quite a bit to the bill. In fact, when I go back to the minister's comments from last year, he really stated that there wasn't too much to be concerned about in this section, but this adds quite a bit to it.

I'm just wondering about the part about an inventory of the forest, recreation and cultural heritage resources of the tree farm licence area. What happens to the company if some of these cultural areas, or whatever, are missed in the plans -- that no one knows about at the present time, that aren't brought forward? Are we just dealing with the known ones that are here today? How does the ministry deal with those?

[3:45]

Hon. A. Petter: I guess what I would say by way of an answer is that while there is an expectation that inventory information will be provided, clearly that expectation is not an unrealistic one, and it is limited by what information is available.

In the case of cultural inventories, the government itself has indicated it will take a leadership role and provide overview assessments, and work with licence holders in that regard. We will obviously expect licence holders to cooperate and do their best. But the intention here is not to require people to provide information that is not available to them or that was not disclosed during inventory work. Like all aspects of the code, these requirements are ones that must be balanced against the practicalities and realities.

A. Warnke: I just have a quick, short question. Obviously, through this section, the chief forester's ability to increase his administrative capabilities is certainly met. But there are a couple of things I just want to explore. Perhaps this will be dealt with through some sort of ministerial direction, through regulations established later on and so on. It kind of follows up from the point mentioned by the member for Peace River North; that is, the criteria by which it is determined whether the inventory of forest, recreation or cultural heritage resources is really met.

Let me put it in this kind of context. The minister partly answered the question by saying that those who have TFLs have the ability to assess accurately whether they're meeting the provisions. But when we get into recreation and cultural heritage resources, there may be some difficulty in terms of assessing the current state. Indeed, there are the requirements that are met in subsection (3), I understand. I suppose I'm looking further for the criteria for establishing that, especially when we sort of put pressure on TFL holders to assess the

[ Page 15121 ]

future status of where they're going. Again, this is outlined in subsection (5), which certainly plots out the aspirations as to what TFL holders are required to do.

I guess I'm essentially following up on the criteria so that people do not find themselves in a very difficult situation, because the potential is there for them to have their licences taken away if they do not comply with certain kinds of regulations. Therefore I think it's necessary to lay out just exactly what the criteria are so that we're confident that TFL holders will meet them.

The Chair: I believe the member for Vancouver-Langara wishes to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

V. Anderson: I would ask the House to help make welcome a group of students and those who are with them from the Vancouver Hebrew Academy in the Vancouver-Langara riding. Their teacher is Ms. Claire Anderson, and those with her are Judy Epstein, Lisa Estren and John Gruneau. Would the House make them very welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: I think the best way for me to answer the question that was put prior to the introduction is to say that if you go back, the chief forester already expects this information to be provided. There is already that expectation and requirement under the code. What we're trying to do here is fill a gap that existed as a result of the code not covering off these particular situations in which there was a replacement already in place that did not have these requirements. So this is an extension of existing requirements.

The provision of these kinds of inventories -- recreation and cultural inventories -- is being set out by the chief forester in a way that is realistic. If the licence holder follows the basic prescription set out, there should be no difficulty. This is not a wholly new enterprise; this is simply an extension of the requirement to fill this particular gap that existed.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

W. Hurd: I have a general question that actually could probably apply equally to sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Bill 18. It is an observation that all three of these sections, particularly

section 3, seem to imply a relaxing of the requirements under the code.

Section 3 makes reference to the removal of a requirement that logging plans specify road construction and deactivation.

Section 4, which we will get to eventually, removes the requirement that the silvicultural prescription be consistent with the five-year plans.

With respect to

section 3 but probably of relevance to the other two sections, I wonder if these changes are the result of problems that have been determined in the application of the code in the field. Do they represent a lessening of the paperwork or of the regulatory burden for forest licensees? I would welcome a general observation from the minister on whether these amendments, particularly referring to

section 3, will make it easier for forest licensees with harvest plans or development plans to not have to reinvent the wheel as they seek to ensure that their plans are in compliance with the code.

Hon. A. Petter: I would prefer to see these not as a relaxation of standards but as a removing of unnecessary administrative burdens -- that category I referred to earlier. Under

section 3, for example, the information that is no longer going to be required as an aspect of logging plans is provided for elsewhere under the forest road regulation, so it doesn't make sense to require it in both places. What is really happening here is that we are removing redundancies in situations in which the same information need not be provided twice, in a way that would encourage paper flow. It may be good for the pulp and paper industry, but it wouldn't be particularly efficient and wouldn't in any way improve the requirements that are expected. But there is no reduction in the substantive requirements or expectations here; it is simply removing redundancies and streamlining.

W. Hurd: With respect to

section 3, I'm assuming that the logging plans definition refers to the harvesting plan that is forwarded to the Minister of Forests for approval of a cutblock plan. I would welcome clarification on that.

Clearly, since one would assume that a number of these requirements in the code carried with them administrative penalties for non-compliance, I'm still curious as to why the ministry would deem it necessary to remove the requirement that logging plans specify road construction and deactivation methods. Is the minister saying that this information is already in the plans that are approved by the ministry, or was this an additional requirement that existed only under the code and is now being changed? I still can't seem to achieve clarification on that within my own mind and would welcome the minister's suggestions on it.

Hon. A. Petter: In the case of road construction methods, those are addressed by road layout and designs required by the forest road regulation, so there is no need for them to be covered off or specified in the logging plan. In the case of deactivation methods, they are addressed in deactivation prescriptions that are required under

section 64(5) of the act, so there is no need for them to be covered off in logging plans. As I say, it's not a case of doing away with these requirements but of simply recognizing that they are provided for elsewhere.

W. Hurd: Just to follow up on that, there is no lessening of responsibility by the licensee, even though he or she or the company may forward a logging or harvesting plan that receives approval by the ministry and does not contain a strategy for road construction or deactivation. Even though that may not be the case, because there's a requirement elsewhere, it is considered a superfluous regulation under the code.

I guess my only question, then, would be whether there are any administrative penalties or other penalties called for in the other statutes to which the minister alluded that would penalize licensees for improper deactivation or improper road construction. I assume that that is dealt with under the regulations elsewhere and that the same level of penalties would apply.

I think it's an important issue, because the minister, during his second reading debate last year on the code, I think, specified the importance of the big stick, so to speak, that existed under the code. I just wonder whether there has been any lessening or adjustment of the administrative penalties with respect to a road that may be improperly deactivated, or

[ Page 15122 ]

a road that might have been improperly engineered and there's slippage or erosion or some other situation.

Hon. A. Petter: This

section does not in any way affect the ability to create or apply administrative penalties, except insofar as, I suppose, the provision is more specific when it's set out in a road layout and design as supposed to a general logging plan. But the other provisions I referred to are provisions of the code. The same administrative penalty provisions would apply to them as they would to logging plans. It's simply a question here of not requiring a licensee to do the same thing twice in two different places.

R. Neufeld: Earlier in discussions on

definitions we talked about industrial roads, where the definition of industrial road was the same as for a logging road. Did I understand the minister to say that, and if so...? There are all different kinds of industries that use roads out in the wilderness, such as the oil and gas industry, yet I see logging plans.... How do we correlate industrial roads? Are they just the roads that the logging companies use? Are those the only ones we're concerned about? What about the mining industry and the oil and gas industry?

I know the oil and gas industry has an awful lot of winter roads in the constituency that I represent. Some of them go through timber, and of course, they have to go through the Ministry of Forests and log that commercial timber, which is laudable and good. But there is a lot of land they travel through where there is no timber at all. How does this apply to those users?

Hon. A. Petter: I'd like to clarify my earlier statement. I suggested that industrial use is not the same thing -- it is broader than logging use -- but it was already provided for last year in the code under the road provisions. I think the member makes a good point: there are other people who construct roads for other purposes within the provincial forest. When they do so, they must adhere to code requirements.

That may be an additional reason -- not the primary one but an additional reason -- that it makes sense to provide for road layout and construction within road layout and design rather than as part of logging plans as well. The road layout and design provisions speak to all road layouts; they're not attached to just those that are part of a logging operation.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

W. Hurd: Just a very brief question with respect to

section 4, which, as the explanatory note indicates, removes the requirement for a silvicultural prescription, which I assume is the strategy, or at least the legal requirement, for a preharvest silvicultural prescription, which refers, I guess, to the plan before harvest as to how the licensee intends to undertake the reforestation obligations under the act. Why would there be a removal here of the need to have that consistent with a five-year silvicultural plan? I wonder if the minister could just offer us an explanation and an assurance that that in fact doesn't represent a relaxation in any way of the importance of having consistency not only annually but over a five-year period.

[4:00]

Hon. A. Petter: The five-year silvicultural plan is not a direction to silvicultural activities; it really is a

summary -- hopefully a convenient

summary, for use by government and the public -- of activities carried out under silvicultural prescriptions and stand management prescriptions over the preceding five-year period. Therefore, to make silvicultural prescriptions consistent with the five-year plan really would have accomplished nothing and would simply have imposed a significant and unnecessary administrative burden on licensees. If we didn't do this change, government would frequently be required to amend their five-year plans when new silvicultural activities are proposed. As I said, this would have done nothing to improve silvicultural activity; it would have simply created an unnecessary administrative burden.

So the answer is no, there's no lessening of standards here at all; it's simply a matter, again, of addressing an unintended administrative burden and removing that burden in a way that makes some sense.

[F. Garden in the chair.]

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

section 6.

W. Hurd: With respect to

section 6, the ministry staff did provide me with a briefing on this change. It sounded logical at the time, but I must confess that I've since forgotten exactly what was offered. I assume that the grazing

schedule required for unfenced grazing land is a recognition that as long as the appropriate head of cattle, for example, are on Crown rangeland.... I wonder if the minister could just explain exactly what additional imposition this might impose on the holders of range licences in the province.

Hon. A. Petter: I hate to shock the member, but in fact its intention is to remove what would otherwise be an administrative imposition. The concern that's being addressed here is that private land that is associated with Crown grazing land has, in the past, been subject to a grazing

schedule but not to other regulatory or administrative requirements. The way the act was phrased, it raised a concern on the part of range holders that their private land might be subject to additional administrative requirements. That was not the intention, and this simply clarifies that that is not the intention, by limiting the Crown's capacity -- to only apply the range

schedule as is the current practice and not to apply additional requirements to private land.

Section 6 approved.

Section 7.

W. Hurd: This is an interesting

section which requires the holder of a pulpwood agreement, which is a volume-based licence, to prepare a forest development plan. I wonder if the minister could tell us exactly what incremental requirements are envisaged here. Are we talking about the same kind of plan that would be submitted by the licensee for any other type of licence? Is this an additional requirement for this type of licence -- which, as the minister knows, is put out for competitive bidding, I understand? I'd just welcome a clarification of whether he feels this was a gap in the Forest Act that didn't require the holder of a pulpwood agreement to file this particular plan with the ministry.

[ Page 15123 ]

Hon. A. Petter: Yes. The nature of forest development plans that would be required here would be similar to that of forest development plans required on other tenures and, indeed, required as a matter of contract by some, but not all, pulpwood agreements that are current -- I think all of the ones that are currently active, but not all that are in existence. This simply clarifies that those same forest development plan requirements would apply to all pulpwood agreement holders, whether they are provided for as a matter of contract or not.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

section 9.

W. Hurd: I just want a brief clarification on

section 9, which refers to woodlot licence holders. I understand that with respect to the private land portion of a woodlot licence, there is a lessening again of a requirement by the holder with respect to silviculture treatment. I wonder if the minister could tell us whether this

section was the result of consultation with or input from the holders of woodlot licences in the province, and what impact this might have on the holders of those licences and their activities on their own land.

Hon. A. Petter: I think this helps to clarify a situation with respect to woodlot licences which may embrace both Crown and private land within their boundaries. The intention is not to require those licence holders to prepare stand management prescriptions; that is a matter for them to determine. Those prescriptions relate to incremental activities. If they choose to undertake those activities on their private land, that's not a matter we intend to regulate through the code.

Sections 9 through 11 inclusive approved.

section 12.

W. Hurd: I did receive a briefing from ministry staff on this which I found helpful. The way the issue was explained to me was that this provided a method of not having a person who is in any way affected by an adjustment of the area under their licence having to file a silviculture prescription if the district manager is satisfied that the person will carry out only planting to supplement previous planting or natural regeneration. I wonder if the minister could tell us exactly the circumstances under which the district manager might be asked or required -- or his sign-off would be required.... Under what circumstances would the licensee approach the district manager for this kind of relief?

Hon. A. Petter: I don't know quite how to answer the question, because the member's

preamble sort of answered it. In cases in backlog areas where there's a need to go back and do some fill planting, which is a low-impact activity -- and obviously we are concerned to cover off that backlog planting as quickly as possible -- it simply doesn't make sense in most cases to require that there be a silvicultural prescription to authorize that activity. Rather than putting unnecessary paperwork in the way of those who want to take on that activity, it is more desirable to allow the district manager to grant an exemption where in fact a prescription would not be necessary because the activity is low-impact and we should get on with it as quickly as possible.

Sections 12 and 13 approved.

section 14.

G. Wilson: When you kept asking about

section 13, hon. Chair, I was beginning to wonder whether you knew something we didn't -- I don't know. Having received such a thorough briefing from ministry staff, I was certain there wasn't much to that.

With respect to

section 14, the Chair will be aware that I have served notice of proposed amendments to

section 14.8(

a) and

section 14.10(b). What is being proposed here is really just a question of language, and what it does is to put into written form what most people would concede is in fact in place now.

The reason I'm doing it is that I have sat in on enough local resource use planning sessions and watershed management area committee plans at the community level over the past ten years to know that there are still people out there who will dispute what a drainage area is or that the drainage area should go to the point of drainage divide. As a professional geographer and somebody who has been involved in resource economics, I would concur with the members from the minister's staff who I met with earlier this morning to discuss this matter.

Everybody who is involved in the drafting of this material thinks that a drainage area in fact goes to the point of drainage divide, but that isn't specified anywhere.

I was advised that the forest practices and community watershed guidebook makes this somewhat clear. In trying to get a copy of that, I was advised this morning that it's not available. It isn't printed yet, so we won't be able to get it until sometime in July.

I don't want to miss this opportunity to move this amendment, which I think is a sensible amendment that just clarifies what is intended by the term "drainage area." It would insert ", to the point of drainage divide" following the words "the drainage area" and prior to the words "above the most downstream point." I have already tabled the amendment -- if the minister can see his way to putting in that minor amendment. I'm sure that if the problem with amending it is moving it directly to third reading, we could try and get some unanimity in the House to be able to do that.

The Chair: Are you moving this as one amendment, member? There are two amendments, but you are moving them as one, I presume.

G. Wilson: I'm moving it as one because it's the same thing, and it affects the one section. There's no point in saying the same....

The Chair: Okay, as long as we're aware of that. The minister can respond.

On the amendment.

Hon. A. Petter: I accept that the amendment is offered in a helpful way, and I agree that the intent of the amendment is to clarify. Unfortunately, as is so often the case, amendments intended to clarify can have the opposite effect. Staff did review, following the briefing this morning, the member's point and did confirm to my satisfaction that the definition we now have -- with the help that will be provided in its application through guidebooks -- does meet the member's point.

[ Page 15124 ]

I simply point out that the member defeats his own purpose with the amendment in an unfortunate way, because if you add the words "to the point of drainage divide" after the words "the drainage area," the implication is that the drainage area might be beyond the point of drainage divide, which is the very point the member is saying ought not to be the case. Trying to clarify the drainage area to the point of drainage divide suggests that, without that wording, the drainage area might embrace more than that.

We, of course, are saying that is not the case. The drainage area as currently defined means the same thing and fully satisfies the member's concerns. Based on staff's advice and our review, I'm afraid I'm going to adhere to that advice and speak in opposition to what I accept is a constructively offered amendment but one that I cannot accept.

G. Wilson: The minister knows that the drainage area can't go beyond the point of drainage divide. That is its maximum. What it says, essentially, is that it's the drainage area to the maximum point. You can't possibly go beyond it, but it can certainly be less than that. The way it's worded now, I can tell the minister, has been a point of dispute in LRUP and community watershed planning and in.... I've sat on committees where professional foresters have vigorously argued that the drainage area does not include area within the drainage divide. So, with all due respect, you can't possibly assume it goes beyond it, because it can't physically do that. Water doesn't flow uphill.

[4:15]

Hon. A. Petter: Either way, the point stands, whether it's less or more. The point the staff are making is that the term "drainage area" applies to the entire drainage area above the intake. That's staff's

interpretation: up to point of divide. That will be reflected in the guidebooks. To add these words suggests, therefore, if I take the member's point about not going beyond, that but for these words, "drainage area" might encompass less. That could have all....

The trouble is that by confirming that notion, one can in fact reinforce the very argument the member is trying to oppose elsewhere. So I think the more constructive answer is the one staff has said, and that is: let us proceed on the assumption the drainage area will in fact apply to the entire drainage area. That's the way it will be applied; resolve it in that way.

If the member is not satisfied a year hence that his concerns have been addressed, I'm certainly prepared to entertain it at that time. But to suggest that drainage area might mean less than -- or more than, but I'll settle with less than -- the point of divide is to yield to the very argument the member is trying to not yield to. So I think we're better to go with the staff's advice here, rely upon the staff to interpret and apply drainage area as meaning the entire drainage area -- i.e., to the point of divide -- and proceed on that basis.

G. Wilson: This is my last shot at trying to change the minister's mind, where it seems that he's going to take staff advice. The problem with the community watershed guidebook is that it isn't printed yet; we haven't seen it. I was advised in the briefing this morning that by getting in touch with Bob Harding, whose job it is to provide this, I could have this to study prior to this debate. He didn't have a copy of it. And -- going through the minister's office to talk to the ministerial assistants -- they didn't have a copy of it.

I was finally advised that nobody had a copy of it because it isn't written and printed yet. So I hardly take comfort in the fact that the guidelines are going to deal with this issue if they're not even there.

As a result, this amendment simply makes clear what I think all of us in this House would agree should be a drainage area. I really think that the minister, by not accepting this amendment, is suggesting that in fact it may be less -- and in some cases it probably will be less, if the local plans put in place prescribe it that way on the maps that are drawn. I think that is unfortunate, because it should not be discretionary in that sense; it has to be to the point of divide. And that's what this language in the amendment would say. Leaving it out implies there is a discretionary basis by which that can be negotiated.

Hon. A. Petter: My final shot, because there's no substantive disagreement. Staff agree that the drainage area above the most downstream point means the entire drainage area -- that is, to the point of divide. There is no disagreement about that. That will be reflected, in this case, under the code. This decision will be made as a matter of application of the code by government, and that will reflect the member's intention; he has my assurance. If it doesn't, come back and see me, and we can work it through.

Incidentally, Bob Harding was not the contact person on this issue, but I nevertheless take the member's point that the guidebook isn't yet available. But semantically, the member has to acknowledge that once you acknowledge here the drainage area to the point of drainage divide, that implies that without those words the term "drainage area" might mean less than that. And that's the very suggestion we do not want to feed or confirm, because it is our position that the term "drainage area" does apply to the entire drainage area including the point up to the point of drainage divide.

So we have no disagreement. It's just a question of how we reach that point, and I, with due respect to the member, will continue to rely upon staff's advice on this particular semantical point to achieve the substantive result we all collectively desire.

R. Chisholm: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

R. Chisholm: I'd like to introduce to the House today Ms. Wood, a teacher from Greendale Elementary, and 27 of her students, along with, I believe it is, ten adults accompanying them, who are visiting the precincts today to watch parliament in action. Hopefully we will show them a little bit of style and class. Would you make them most welcome.

W. Hurd: It's an interesting amendment from the hon. member, but I want to ask an additional question with respect to the amendment, or an additional point that needs to be addressed. It is one the member referred to briefly in his remarks. It stems from the concern that the public has about the boundaries of a watershed. I know the minister will agree that there is a great deal of concern out there about the impact of harvesting methods on watersheds that have been designated. There are, I'm sure, examples of streams and tributaries

[ Page 15125 ]

that clearly are not designed to be part of a drainage, and I'm not clear in my own mind whether they would be captured by this amendment. But if there was a provision to adjust the size of the drainage to capture them, then I think the amendment has some merit.

That is the only point that I would offer with respect to the amendment, which I agree with the minister was offered in a reasonable way to enssure that the public concern is addressed.

Hon. A. Petter: A stream that flows into the stream within the drainage area is, by definition, within the drainage area.

Amendment negatived.

Interjections.

The Chair: I certainly heard enough nays to convince me that it was defeated.

section 14.

G. Wilson: That is so tempting to go to division on, because, I'll tell you, I didn't hear a nay, and the minister was engaged.

Nevertheless, we're on the main

section now. I would ask the minister, because this is such an important section.... There are two classifications in here that I think are important with respect to the Water Act and how it has been amended. One is the matter of domestic purpose and the second one is with respect to waterworks purpose, as the

definitions that are in place. Now one of the things we run into when we get into community watershed protection and the problems with selective logging or designated logging in these areas is that often there will be an attempt made by Ministry of Environment officials, or possibly even Ministry of Health officials, to put in place very restrictive access into those areas that are deemed a community watershed. The problem with the regional manager having designation.... Under

section 10, it says: "...in the opinion of the regional manager and a designated environment official should be designated as a community watershed." The problem with that definition is that it may in fact impinge upon community planning, and in some senses regional district planning, in that it demands or puts in place waterworks that are going to require expansion in the future.

I think that one of the concerns we have.... Let me use an area that the minister is well conversant with, and that's the Tetrahedron question. Where the primary concern is for water, the principal demand is to make sure that watersheds are protected, and not just for the intrinsic value that an unspoiled watershed has, which is one concern -- and that's one of the things that I think we can certainly see within the Ministry of Forests, and the Clayoquot is an example of that.

The second concern, which is equally important, is that waterworks are going to have to be constructed in the future that may very well change the nature of the designations by turning lakes as they are naturally occurring within a drainage basin into reservoirs, which will then be used for long-term water supply.

My concern is that within the provisions of this bill there does not seem to be coordination at this level anymore and, based on what we've got in here, between what local government is advocating, what the Ministry of Environment has to regulate through provisions of the Water Act and what we are looking at in terms of the regional manager's discretionary powers -- it would seem almost -- with respect to designation provisions.

So I have some very serious concerns about the way this is going to proceed, particularly in light of the defeat of that amendment, I would point out, because it now.... And believe me, the minister must be aware that somewhat arbitrary lines are often drawn around what constitutes a drainage area, eliminating logging from areas that in fact could well be logged and sometimes excluding areas from a watershed and permitting logging activities in areas where they should not be occurring. I'm concerned about this, because we lack the coordination now that I think we desperately want with the practices code.

I say that in light of the protected-areas strategy, with this movement toward park classification and park status, all of which speak to the protection of the natural watershed basin but none of which speaks to the need for enhancement of waterworks construction, which may in fact put in long-term reservoirs. I ask the minister to make that clarification here.

Hon. A. Petter: Just a couple of points. First of all, subsection (11) provides for a variation by the regional manager with the agreement of a designated environment official. With respect to the question of the involvement of local communities, I think that is provided for. Remember that what we're dealing with here is a forest management designation -- that is, a designation that influences the way in which the forest is managed through the code, not a designation for all purposes.

What you'll find under subsection (12) is: "Before designating an area as a community watershed under subsection (10) or varying or cancelling the status of a community watershed under subsection (11), the regional manager must provide for review and comment in accordance with the regulations." That provision is inserted because previously the designation was automatic. Now we're talking about variations.

We're talking about potential addition to community watersheds, and with respect to that, there is a need to connect with local government and local communities in terms of their aspirations -- changes they may make on intake, etc. That's why, through regulation, there will be provision to enable local officials and locally interested citizens to have opportunity for review and comment, and to influence the designation process, taking account of many of the concerns that the member has articulated.

G. Wilson: With all due respect to the minister, the local government, which is often the case, or the community -- which is almost always the case -- don't want to influence the Ministry of Forests. They want to control their watershed. They want to have control over the water they are dependent upon. They don't want to suffer the vagaries of a regional manager, who has significant discretion in the powers as provided in this act with respect to powers of designation.

The matter of cancellation is one thing, but the actual designation of a community watershed is something that should be provided for, with accompanying powers for administration and control at the community level. That's what the public wants. That's what I'm hearing at all the public meetings I go to. And believe me, when you get into a community there is no hotter issue than the protection of a community water

[ Page 15126 ]

system. Everybody is dependent upon it, and they don't feel comfortable, quite frankly, having that under the control of a regional forest manager. They want it under the control of either their locally elected government, or they want it under some other locally constituted body -- community authority -- which is going to have an authority over that watershed. So I don't think that this meets the guidelines, and if the minister could acknowledge that.... I'll let the minister answer.

[4:30]

Hon. A. Petter: First of all, the automatic designation for communities that are already licensed under the Water Act for waterworks purpose covers about 70 percent of the watersheds in the communities already. That's automatic.

With respect to changes that may take place -- the addition of new areas -- there will have to be an interplay between those communities and the ministry. This is obviously an area in which there are different responsibilities that must be coordinated. The Ministry of Forests does hold a responsibility to ensure that there is good forest management that is consistent with the aspirations of the community and its watershed management plans, but is also consistent with the objectives of the Forest Practices Code and the provision of opportunities for forest harvesting that do not impede that.

There may be communities that would prefer to say: "Give us the control and we will do it, unilaterally." I'm sure there are; I know of some. I think that what we have provided for here is a much better system than previously existed, but one that does not completely yield authority over forest management to local communities. It provides for a reasonable balance.

As I say, in the case of 70 percent of community watersheds, they are already automatically covered. In respect of additional watersheds, there is provision for local input, and certainly the input I've received from communities is that they are quite impressed at the steps we have taken to protect watersheds and water quality values through the code. At the end of the day....

The member is right; there are some communities that prefer to assume full authority over all aspects of community watersheds, notwithstanding that it's Crown land and notwithstanding that there are other resource users who have to be accommodated, and I guess they will not be fully satisfied. But I think they should be more satisfied than they would have been had we not proceeded with these aspects of the code.

G. Wilson: The last point on this, so as not to belabour it, has to do with the 500-square-kilometre designation on the issuance of June 15, 1995. The minister might just tell us why that area designation particularly is under review. One would have assumed that that might have been something that would have been looked at in a broader context. Why was the issuance date of June 15 put into this section?

Hon. A. Petter: I understand that about 80 percent of watersheds are much smaller than 500 square kilometres; they're less than 100 square kilometres. When you get larger than that size, then there is more ability to accommodate forest practices without compromising water quality. There are some watersheds beyond that size that communities are desirous of seeing designated, and part of the changes in this act is to accommodate those communities' desires and proceed with designation on a selective basis.

Obviously, it's a balance between the overriding need to protect the quality of drinking water and the need to provide forest harvesting and other activities. The 500-square-kilometre threshold is useful, although as a result of these changes, there is the discretion to designate watersheds that are larger than that.

W. Hurd: Just a brief question with respect to

section 14 and the impact on harvesting methods that might be called for under the Forest Practices Code. The ministry has not come up with a master harvesting arrangement for areas that have been designated as sensitive or low intensity in the province -- at least, not that I'm aware of. They're subject to the vagaries of the area they happen to be in. I wonder if the minister could just clarify whether the designation as a community watershed....

Have the standards of logging practice been spelled out in any way under the code, or is this a definition that just requires more local input, more public review, of the logging plans than would otherwise be the case? Are we dealing with a substantive impact on harvesting methods, or is that something that we can quantify at this point?

Hon. A. Petter: There are additional constraints that apply in community watersheds in order to protect water quality and water values, and they are specified in the operational planning regulations. I assume that the member has access to those. Having said that, as is the case throughout the land base, the application of those constraints has to be sensitive to the specific site conditions that pertain in a given watershed. They are not uniform in their application across the province.

W. Hurd: Reference is made in this

section to a joint opinion of the regional manager -- one would assume it's of forests -- and a designated environment official. One assumes that there's a sign-off provision for both the MOF and the MOE with respect to this designation. Does the regional manager invite an opinion by the Ministry of Environment with respect to this designation? I'm just wondering, with respect to the logging plans that might be forwarded for the community watershed, to what extent the Ministry of Environment would be involved in scrutinizing those plans.

Would there would be a joint sign-off on that, or is the Minister of Forests just inviting opinions from the Ministry of Environment on this important issue?

Hon. A. Petter: As the legislation suggests, it is the regional manager who actually makes the designation or variation. There is a formal requirement for agreement by a designated environment official, and that would imply a formal sign-off of some kind by that official.

W. Hurd: One brief point with respect to

section 14. I'm just following the progress of this section. It refers specifically to a decision the manager may make to deactivate or rescind the designation of a community watershed. There is a provision made here for some sort of public review process. I wonder if the minister could clarify the circumstances under which such a decision might he made by the regional manager. What formal mechanisms would there be for the public to be involved in that decision?

Hon. A. Petter: I can certainly provide an example. When what was a watershed shifts from human use to irrigation, the water is no longer provided for human consumption but for

[ Page 15127 ]

irrigation purposes. That might well invite reconsideration of the designation of a watershed.

Section 14 approved.

section 15.

R. Neufeld: A brief question. The removal of "to comply with the prescription." Can the minister explain briefly why we would change it to be "in accordance with the regulations and standards"? I would assume that the prescription.... Even if you exceeded the area you were supposed to be in, it's obviously in the immediate area, so the prescription would apply. I'm wondering about the need for the change.

Hon. A. Petter: It's because the content requirement is provided for in the regulations. It was an oversight not to make reference to the regulations. It simply links up this

section with regulations that are already contemplated, as set out in that content requirement.

Sections 15 to 23 inclusive approved.

section 24.

W. Hurd: It's my understanding that the minister will be moving an amendment. Is that accurate?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes. I appreciate the member reminding me at the same time that my staff were. It's nice to get consistency on these things and help all around.

I move the amendment to

section 24 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 24,

(

a) in the proposed

section 70(4)(

b) by deleting "the regulations and", and

(

b) by deleting the proposed

section 70(4)(

d) and (

e) and substituting the following:

(

d) by the regeneration date specified in the prescription meet, and after that date maintain, the stocking requirements as defined in the regulations and specified in the prescription for that date;

(

e) within the free growing assessment period specified in the prescription, establish a free growing stand that meets the stocking requirements as defined in the regulations and specified in the prescription; .]

On the amendment.

W. Hurd: I did receive a brief message by phone today from ministry staff with respect to this particular amendment. I wonder if the minister could clarify the intent or the need for this particular change. I understand that it's almost like a grandfather clause. Is that correct? It's to ensure that there's no penalty or no additional regulatory burden on those who would otherwise be affected under this section. I wonder if the minister could clarify for the committee the rationale for this amendment.

Hon. A. Petter: This amendment is designed to remove a requirement that might otherwise exist for a person to come back a second time on a silvicultural prescription. That is as a direct result of consultation on the originally proposed wording with those in the forest industry. I know it was suggested during second reading debate that the government isn't listening. In fact, the government is listening to all those with an interest in these issues, and this is as a result of direct input from the forest industry.

Section 24, in particular, deals with two of the content requirements for silviculture prescriptions. As currently drafted, it can be interpreted as allowing changes in the forest floor displacement and stocking requirements of silviculture prescriptions after they have been approved -- that is, requiring different types of trees to be planted after the planting has taken place. That was not what the

section intended to do. So this proposed amendment simply clarifies that the forest floor displacement and stocking requirements in the regulations at the time the prescription is approved are the only ones that apply to the prescription, and takes away the concern that industry had that we were inadvertently placing an additional requirement upon them.

Amendment approved.

Section 24 as amended approved.

section 25.

W. Hurd: Again, the ministry staff did provide a briefing on this

section which seemed to make sense to me, but I just want to briefly clarify. This section, I assume, just provides more flexibility with respect to the licence holder, who may now designate the ministry to be responsible for reforestation.

I wonder if the minister could clarify for the committee the type of licence we are dealing with here, and how the costs of the silviculture requirements would be recaptured in the event the responsibility shifts to the Crown. Is it built some way into the timber cutting fees? Is the licensee required to pay an additional amount that's agreed upon by the ministry? I wonder if we could get a clarification on that point.

Hon. A. Petter: The member is quite correct. This is to provide additional flexibility. It is intended to apply only in certain circumstances where an individual or company holds a non-replaceable licence and holds no other replaceable licences. The amendment is intended to then provide the opportunity for the responsibility to be shifted to the Crown in exchange for an agreement to compensate the Crown for assuming that obligation. It will be accompanied by amendments to the security for forest practices liabilities regulation, which will increase security requirements on all licensees.

So for certain small licensees who may feel that they do not wish to assume this responsibility, where it's deemed appropriate by a district manager, that responsibility can be shifted. But that will only be done where the holder has paid the government an amount sufficient to cover the reforestation costs, and there will have to be sufficient security to accompany that commitment.

R. Neufeld: I too had a briefing on this section. I wonder if the minister has any idea about how many small licensees we're talking about that this would affect. You stated that it was just a few.

[4:45]

Hon. A. Petter: I can't provide a specific number. What I can say in general terms is that there is a growing number of

[ Page 15128 ]

non-replaceable licences. There has been a tendency to provide non-replaceable licences. I think this is a discretion that district managers may choose to use more frequently, but I can't give a precise number. Obviously it's a matter of discretion, and therefore it has to be accommodated within the capacity of the district to take on that responsibility -- and as I have said, only where there is adequate compensation. But I don't have a specified number that I can offer to the member that I feel comfortable with at this time.

Sections 25 to 27 inclusive approved.

section 28.

W. Hurd: I have just a brief point for clarification under

section 28. I wonder if the minister could describe what is meant here by fire preparedness responsibilities. One assumes that it applies to any business activity within 300 metres of a forest that has been designated under the act. I wonder if the minister could describe the nature of the responsibilities that may now accrue under

section 28 to a business carrying on activities within 300 metres of an area designated as management or working forest in the province.

Hon. A. Petter: The kinds of activities are, as the

section suggests, industrial activities. If the member goes back to

definitions in the Forest Practices Code,

section 75 says: " 'industrial activity' includes land clearing, timber harvesting, timber processing, mechanical site preparations and other silviculture treatments, mining, road construction and any prescribed activity...."

W. Hurd: What we're dealing with here, then, is the type of business that would normally be governed by the Forest Act, the statutes related to Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, or some other sort of resource-related activity. It wouldn't apply, necessarily, to other types of enterprises -- recreational businesses, for example. I'm just seeking, I guess, an assurance that the industrial definition under this particular

section wouldn't necessarily apply to anything other than those enterprises directly related to forest harvesting or any other type of activity along those lines.

Hon. A. Petter: It implies that the kind of activity is not restricted just to forest use activity; it may embrace other types of industrial activity. But I'm also advised that that is the situation now. This is simply a carryover into the code of the same kind of requirements that previously existed under the Forest Act with respect to fire preparedness.

Sections 28 and 29 approved.

section 30.

W. Hurd:

Section 30 invites a few questions for the minister with respect to the requirement that industrial operators who incur costs for carrying out initial fire suppression be compensated in accordance with the regulations.

Obviously, the ministry sees a need here to add this

section to the Forest Practices Code, and I'm just a little confused as to why this type of section, dealing as it does with compensation issues and costs, should find its way into a code dealing with forest standards and practices for harvesting, silviculture and that whole range of activities. I would just welcome a brief explanation from the minister as to the r