2004 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 2004

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 23, Number 9

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Tributes

Ivy Granstrom

Hon. L.

Reid

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading

of Bills

Education Services Collective

Agreement Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 19)

Hon. G.

Bruce

Tabling Documents

Teachers' Collective Agreement

Deletions

Introduction and First Reading

of Bills

Society Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill

32)

Hon. G.

Collins

Nanaimo and South West Water Supply

Act (Bill 31)

Hon. M.

Coell

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Hydrogen highway proposal for 2010

Olympic Winter Games

R. Sultan

B.C. Youth Parliament

Anderson

Volunteerism in Burnaby

P. Sahota

Oral Questions

Terms of B.C. Rail agreement with

CN Rail

J. Kwan

Hon. K.

Falcon

MacPhail

Audit involving Doug Walls

Brenzinger

Hon. G.

Collins

Hydrogen highway proposal for 2010

Olympic Winter Games

J. Bray

Hon. R.

Neufeld

Terms of B.C. Rail agreement with

CN Rail

MacPhail

Hon. K.

Falcon

Eligibility for farm status

K. Stewart

Hon. G.

Abbott

Reports from Committees

Select Standing Committee on

Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private

Bills

Lekstrom

Tabling Documents

Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia, annual report, 2003

Committee of the Whole House

Education Statutes Amendment Act,

2004 (Bill 12)

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Education Statutes Amendment Act,

2004 (Bill 12)

Second Reading of Bills

Land Survey Statutes Amendment Act,

2004 (Bill 17)

Hon. G.

Abbott

Wildfire Act (Bill 25)

Hon. M. de

Jong

MacPhail

K. Krueger

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Forests (continued)

MacPhail

Hon. M. de

Jong

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Small

Business and Economic Development (continued)

J. Kwan

Hon. J.

Les

D. Hayer

P. Wong

[ Page 10227 ]

TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 2004

The House

met at 2:04 p.m.

Tributes

IVY GRANSTROM

Hon. L.

Reid: I rise today to pay tribute to one of the province's great female

pioneers. Ivy Granstrom, known as the queen of the polar bears, peacefully

passed away on April 14, 2004, at the age of 92 years.

[1405]

Many of you

remember Ivy as the leader of the polar bear swim each January. Having

participated in 75 swims since 1928, this woman has made her mark. She was a

disabled athlete. She has done many, many wondrous things, left some glorious

tributes and leaves behind 12 unchallenged world records. She was named British

Columbia's Disabled Athlete of the Year for 1982, was made a Member of the Order

of Canada in 1989 and received a lifetime achievement award from B.C. Athletics

in 1997. I would ask that we pay tribute on her behalf. I know she will be

missed.

Mr.

Speaker: So ordered.

Introductions by Members

Cheema: On behalf of my colleague from Surrey–White Rock, I am pleased to

introduce 24 grade 5 students, five parents and one teacher from White Rock

Christian Academy. Will the House please join me in welcoming them to the

Legislature.

Sultan: In the House with us this afternoon is Deborah Spicer, a director of

the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver, a president of the North Shore real

estate board — including the Sunshine Coast, I should say — and a former

award-winning television journalist. Would the House please make her welcome.

Hawes: In the gallery today is Rayster Lanjit, who is a film and documentary

maker from Philippines TV, along with his cameraman Julius Amar. They're here

making a documentary about the differences between political life in British

Columbia and political life in the Philippines and also to investigate the

tourism opportunities for Philippine people in British Columbia. With them in

the gallery is Joanna Bernardo, who is a Philippines student attending UBC on a

scholarship, along with David Soberpiña, who is a resident of Abbotsford and

has sponsored their visit here, and one of my constituents, Dan Haughian, who is

chauffeuring them around our beautiful city. Could the House please make them

welcome.

P. Wong:

In the gallery today there are 38 young and hard-working students from Sir

Alexander Mackenzie Elementary School in Vancouver-Kensington. They are led by

three of their teachers: Ms. Lorraine Baker, Ms. Tracy Janze and Ms. Jean

Redpath. There are also parents who are volunteering their time in assisting the

students: Fred Howie, Helen Pan, Julian Luk and Julie Hicks. Would the House

please make them most welcome.

Krueger: The government caucus received an e-mail today from the Minister of

State for Intergovernmental Relations, the member for Kelowna-Mission, advising

that the medical tests indicate that her bone marrow transplant has been a

success, and I wanted to share that great news with the House.

Hon. K.

Falcon: Today in the House we are joined by Len and Laura Koski. Len and

Laura Koski are the proud parents of two young daughters, Lisa and Jennifer, who

used to work for me back in my private sector days. They were wonderful

employees, and they've got wonderful parents. They're also joined by Laura's

parents, Charlie and Jean Clayton. I had the pleasure of having lunch with them

today in the legislative dining room, and I would ask the House to please make

them welcome.

Trumper: Yesterday Mrs. Muriel McLean celebrated her 104th birthday in Port

Alberni. She is known as the grande dame of the Alberni Valley. Her son was a

mayor of Port Alberni before my time, as a matter of fact. Their family owned

the McLean Sawmill for many, many years, and the McLean Mill is now a federal

heritage site for forestry industry in British Columbia. She is a great lady.

She still plays the piano, and up until the age of 97 or 98, she was still

driving her younger friends around the community. I would ask the House to

please recognize this great lady on her 104th birthday yesterday.

[1410]

Hon. G.

Bruce: I am happy to introduce a whole busload of friends from the Cowichan

Valley — 45, actually. They're members of the Probus Club in the community. As

an organization, it's been around for about ten years or so. They're retired

professional business people, as you would know, but they're actually very busy

and far from being retired. On behalf of my colleague from Malahat–Juan de

Fuca, I would ask that you make them all feel very, very welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

EDUCATION SERVICES COLLECTIVE

AGREEMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

Hon.

G. Bruce presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Education Services Collective Agreement Amendment Act, 2004.

Hon. G.

Bruce: I move that Bill 19 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

[ Page 10228 ]

Hon. G.

Bruce: Bill 19, the Education Services Collective Agreement Amendment Act,

2004, implements specific changes to teachers' collective agreements identified

by the arbitrator, Mr. Eric Rice. In doing so, it brings consistency to the 60

local contracts and the master agreement.

Mr. Rice,

you would be aware, Mr. Speaker, now is a B.C. Supreme Court judge who was

appointed under the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act in July of 2002

to determine which provisions in teachers' collective agreements needed to be

changed under the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act. Unfortunately,

soon after Mr. Rice began hearings, the British Columbia Teachers Federation

withdrew from the process and refused to participate further. However,

finalizing the terms of the 2001 collective agreements between the teachers and

the B.C. Public School Employers Association will allow the parties to begin

bargaining for a new contract should they choose to do so.

I will

shortly be tabling a document in the House listing the specific sections of

collective agreements to be removed. I move that the bill be placed on the

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Bill

19 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.

Tabling Documents

Hon. G.

Bruce: I seek leave to table a document entitled Teachers' Collective

Agreement Deletions , which is referred to in Bill 19.

Leave

granted.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

SOCIETY AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

Hon.

G. Collins presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill

intituled Society Amendment Act, 2004.

Hon. G.

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

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Collins: I am pleased to introduce the Society Amendment Act, 2004, which

amends the Society Act to simplify and streamline registry requirements for

societies and update a number of provisions in the act. The amendments will

simplify and streamline the forms that societies are required to file with the

corporate registry. In addition, the number of filings required by societies

will also be reduced.

The

amendments also update a number of provisions in the act. For example, they

eliminate the prohibition on the awarding of degrees and diplomas by societies,

which is now governed by the degree-granting authority act. These amendments

will reduce red tape for societies, streamline processes at the corporate

registry and update a number of provisions of the Society Act, allowing

societies to spend more of their time and resources focused on the purposes of

the society and less on completing and filing forms with the government.

I move that

the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Bill 32

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.

NANAIMO AND SOUTH WEST

WATER SUPPLY ACT

Hon. M.

Coell presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled

Nanaimo and South West Water Supply Act.

Hon.

M. Coell: I move that Bill 31 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

[1415]

Hon. M.

Coell: I am pleased to present the Nanaimo and South West Water Supply Act.

This act reflects our commitment to and the recognition of local government

autonomy. At the request of the city of Nanaimo, we are introducing legislation

to convert the greater Nanaimo water district to the city of Nanaimo water

supply service.

Originally

formed in the 1950s, the greater Nanaimo water district served the city of

Nanaimo and a number of rural communities. The water district is a vehicle for

establishing a shared service. Over the last 50 years there have been many

changes in the area, and membership on the greater Nanaimo water district

decreased to just two members as many rural areas became part of the city of

Nanaimo. In fact, today the city of Nanaimo already effectively controls the

water system through its representation on the water district board and consumes

the majority of supplied water.

The

legislation introduced today will see a formal transfer of operations, assets

and liabilities to the city and will not affect the bulk water supply in the

area. This act is a response to a local government request and recognizes the

autonomy and authority of that local government in this matter.

I move that

the Nanaimo and South West Water Supply Act be placed on the orders of the day

for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 31

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.

[ Page 10229 ]

Statements

(Standing Order 25b)

HYDROGEN HIGHWAY PROPOSAL

FOR 2010 OLYMPIC WINTER GAMES

Sultan: The Premier has announced that hydrogen power will be a hallmark of

the 2010 Olympic Games. British Columbia's cluster of hydrogen technology

businesses has attracted worldwide attention, and for good reason. Burn hydrogen

in a bus, and water vapour comes out the tailpipe — not smelly, lung-damaging

fumes. Companies such as Ballard are developing fuel cells which burn hydrogen

to generate electricity which will power the electric motors which drive the

wheels of those Ford Focus cars you will soon see on the streets of Vancouver.

However,

before you throw away your gasoline credit card, three roadblocks must be

overcome. One, where will the hydrogen come from? Methanol, natural gas,

electrolysis or whatever — take your pick. Large quantities of hydrocarbons or

energy are involved. It would be nice if B.C. Hydro had lots of surplus

electricity for this purpose, but right now it doesn't.

Two, how

will we deliver hydrogen to the customers on selected routes? The U.S. and

Canadian federal governments will help finance the hydrogen highway, a string of

refuelling stations from San Diego to Whistler.

Three, what

about costs? Fuel cells have a ways to go on the learning curve. Meanwhile, due

to the scope of B.C.'s technology, other combinations merit consideration.

Westport, started by a UBC engineer, converts diesel engines to run on natural

gas. They can also run on hydrogen. Presto — a hydrogen automobile engine. One

of my constituents is linking up with Profile Composites in Sidney to build what

they believe will be cost-competitive, composite-based, hybrid-powered

"people movers" for the Olympic Games. They will have hydrogen

internal combustion engines drive right into B.C. Place — no fumes.

On the

question of producing hydrogen fuel using electricity, another distinguished UBC

engineer, Dr. John MacDonald, founder of MacDonald Dettwiler, has made a

persuasive case for large-scale electricity production from solar energy. Since

Dr. MacDonald built a large global enterprise in satellite technology, I would

not dismiss his judgments lightly.

One way or

another, it seems clear that B.C. engineering, coupled with B.C. entrepreneurs

and B.C.'s business-friendly government, will accelerate the arrival of the

non-polluting car of the future — yet another spinoff of our marvellous 2010

Olympic venture.

B.C. YOUTH PARLIAMENT

Anderson: It is my honour to commend the British Columbia Youth Parliament

for their contribution to the youths of British Columbia.

[1420]

The B.C.

Youth Parliament meets each year during the Christmas break here in this

Legislature session, taking the seats of the regular legislative members for

three days. They divide themselves into government and opposition. They pass

legislation which is important to youth and plan projects to further fulfil

their motto of "Serving youth serving youth."

Each season

around 100 youths aged 16 to 21 elected by local schools and youth organizations

come from across the province. This continues a tradition of over 75 years. It

is part of this tradition across Canada that I myself participated in some 55

years ago in Saskatchewan Youth Parliament.

The youth

also meet in regional assemblies. Recently I was privileged to serve as the

Lieutenant-Governor for the lower mainland session of the Youth Parliament at

the University of British Columbia. Fifty-four youth, plus alumni who support

the program, met to implement provincial legislation from their last session and

to respond to regional issues.

These young

people undertake their own fundraising at the silent auction, which they will

hold again in June of this coming year in Vancouver. They fund their own

programs and particularly the Camp Phoenix summer camp. This annual camp

provides opportunities for children to have a week at the lake who otherwise

would not have this opportunity. The youth organize the camp, plan the programs,

contact the children and provide the camp leadership.

This is not

all. They also continue to commit themselves to be volunteers in community

service. I commend them for the work they do in Youth Parliament.

VOLUNTEERISM IN BURNABY

Sahota: On April 24, Brentwood Town Centre in Burnaby will showcase dozens

of the city's non-profit agencies and the volunteers who make valuable

contributions to our society. Volunteers work tirelessly behind the scenes. They

coach our children's sports teams, care for our seniors and deliver a multitude

of valuable family services, all because they're dedicated to making our

communities better.

It's for

this reason that my Burnaby colleagues and I are pleased to be hosting Burnaby's

first Festival of Volunteers. This year's theme is "Light up your

life." We chose this message because it reflects both the positive changes

non-profit agencies create in our lives and the opportunities that await those

who choose to volunteer with them.

Many people

volunteer because it allows them a chance to give something back to their

neighbourhood or to their community. Organizations like the Byrne Creek

Streamkeepers are a prime example of volunteers who have shown dedication and

determination in the face of adversity and have won the support of the community

with their Stream of Dreams.

The Burnaby

Festival of Volunteers will bring a wide range of organizations and community

causes together under one roof. The residents can learn about the important

services that are available to them and find out about volunteering

opportunities. This year's festival is jointly organized by Volunteer Burnaby,

the

[ Page 10230 ]

city of Burnaby's citizen support services, Burnaby Board of Trade, Burnaby

Optimist Club, Norburn Interagency council, Stoney Creek community school,

Burnaby Hospital, the Brentwood Town Centre and the four Burnaby MLAs.

particularly want to thank my colleague from Burnaby North who is co-chairing

this festival along with Bryony Hollick of Volunteer Burnaby. Both have shown

exceptional leadership in making sure that we have a successful volunteer

festival this coming Saturday.

On behalf

of my colleagues, I would like to invite all Burnaby constituents to come out

and learn how volunteers can make a difference in our community.

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

TERMS OF B.C. RAIL

AGREEMENT WITH CN RAIL

J. Kwan:

I have some specific questions on the B.C. Rail deal. All I'm seeking from the

Minister of Transportation are honest, straightforward answers. We now know the

taxpayers are on the hook for a portion of the 7 percent rate reduction for

shippers — this from a government and a minister that claim to have banned

business subsidies. Can the minister tell us specifically how many taxpayer

dollars will be spent on this subsidy to CN?

Hon. K.

Falcon: Well, the member opposite should be happy to know that because of

hard bargaining, actually, CN offered a 5 percent tariff reduction for interline

shippers. We were able to get a 7 percent reduction. That was part of the

overall negotiation process we went through. I'm proud to say that we got a 7

percent reduction for interline shippers, and that's good for British Columbians

right across the province.

[1425]

Mr.

Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Excuse me. Order, please.

The member

for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question.

J. Kwan:

These are not difficult questions for the minister. The minister's already

admitted that taxpayers are on the hook. All we want to know is how much. We

need answers to these questions now and not after the competition bureau looks

at the deal, because it will be too late for meaningful debate.

According

to the contract leaked to the media, the government "hereby assigns to the

tenant all of the landlord's right, title and interests in and under all of the

assigned agreements." This sounds like a sale to me. Can the Minister of

Transportation tell the public: if it walks like a sale, talks like a sale and

quacks like a sale, how is it not a sale?

Hon. K.

Falcon: I'll again remind the members opposite of the distinction between

the term of a lease and renewal options. What happens — to the members

opposite, because I know they're clearly not familiar with negotiating business

deals — is that at the end of a 90-year term, the government of the day has

the option. It's our option as the government of the day, or whatever the future

government of the day is, to determine whether they want to continue with the

current CN and B.C. Rail investment partnership, or they can bring in another

railway operator if they choose, or…. I'm just thinking: would that party

possibly have been in power by 90 years? I don't think so, so the government is

unlikely to probably want to get back into a government-run railway again.

Let me

remind the member of this, though. The benefits that she keeps ignoring, like

the $135 million northern development initiative, like the $8 million that we're

going to be spending on….

Thank you,

Mr. Speaker. I take your message.

Mr.

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

supplementary.

J. Kwan:

Clearly, the minister is still playing a game of hide-and-seek with the public.

Let me tell….

Interjections.

J. Kwan:

Actually, you know what? That's a good pointer for the Minister of

Transportation. Get outside of your message box and tell the truth to British

Columbians. The minister likes to make it sound like after 90 years, the

government can choose to cancel the lease at no cost and just walk away. Well,

not true, according to the leaked contract. It states specifically that if the

government wants to end the lease after 90 years, it must purchase B.C. Rail

back from CN. Can the minister tell British Columbians how much it will cost

taxpayers to buy back B.C. Rail if the government wants to terminate the lease

after 90 years?

Hon. K.

Falcon: Flash to the members of the opposition: when you have a company

investing a billion dollars to operate the rolling stock, at the end of the

term, if you want to bring in a new operator, it's not at all unreasonable to

suggest that they acquire the rolling stock at fair market value.

It's

staggering — it's actually staggering — that they can ask these kinds of

questions and have such a fundamental misunderstanding of how basic business

transactions work. I guess that's why we now understand much more clearly how we

got into half a billion dollars being flushed down the fast ferries, how we saw

$400 million go down a failed pulp mill and how they promised smelters that

never appeared. It's now becoming very evident.

[ Page 10231 ]

MacPhail: Here's Liberal math. Yesterday the minister says that CN is going

to invest $3.5 billion in maintenance. Well, B.C. Rail in 2002 invested $62

million in maintenance. That works out to $5.6 billion over 90 years, so CN is

only investing two-thirds of what B.C. Rail would have invested, and…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

[1430]

MacPhail: …B.C. Rail's turning a profit of $60 million per year. That's

how bad this government is. But yesterday the Minister of Transportation

insisted that anyone who disagreed with him didn't understand basic business

principles. So yesterday a Dr. Paul Kedrosky got on air — a highly educated

B.C. business professor, years of experience in his field, someone who is

consulted widely for his advice. Here's what he called the Transportation

minister's explanation. "Magnificently bizarre" is how he…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order. Order, please.

MacPhail: …labelled what the Minister of Transportation said.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order. Order, please.

Hon.

member, it's time for the question now.

MacPhail: Right.

He said the

whole deal was just a sale in disguise. He said it was semantics to say

otherwise. Can the minister tell Dr. Paul Kedrosky, a respected business

professor, why he — Dr. Kedrosky — doesn't understand business principles?

And can he point to any contract in the western world…? Can he google to see

whether there's any contract in the western world that lasts for 990 years?

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. It is question period, not time to

make speeches. The Leader of the Opposition has gone double the time allowed for

questions.

Hon. K.

Falcon: I would encourage the gentleman that you're quoting to actually have

a look at what the deal says. As I pointed out, it's got a 90-year term. We have

the option in determining whether or not to renew the arrangement. You know, I

fail to understand the challenge that member has with that.

And as far

as the member's google comment, I would actually encourage the member to do a

Google search, because if the member undertook a Google search, she would find

that, actually, in rail transactions where there are massive capital

investments, there are many other examples very similar to this.

AUDIT INVOLVING DOUG WALLS

Brenzinger: Thank you, Mr. Speaker….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, so that we may hear the question.

Brenzinger: For several months now, a secret audit into the disappearance of

hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' dollars at the hands of the Premier's friend

and relative Doug Walls has been in progress. That audit has now been delivered

to the government. Will the Premier release the full contents of the report

today, before the Premier's spin doctors have an opportunity to do to the audit

what they have tried to do to the B.C. Rail deal?

Hon. G.

Collins: The audit has been delivered to the comptroller general from

PricewaterhouseCoopers. They're doing a fact check, which is a normal process.

No ministers have been briefed on the matter, and the comptroller general is

handling the audit.

HYDROGEN HIGHWAY PROPOSAL

FOR 2010 OLYMPIC WINTER GAMES

J. Bray:

Actually, I am pleased that so far today we've been talking about the hydrogen

highway. My question is to the Minister of Energy and Mines. A couple of weeks

ago, the David Suzuki Foundation….

Interjections.

J. Bray:

The member for West Vancouver–Capilano actually gave an excellent speech on

the hydrogen highway, so if the members want to listen, they would have heard

that.

But a

couple weeks ago, friends of the opposition, the Suzuki Foundation, came out and

actually were opposed to the hydrogen highway. Certainly, my research into the

topic has suggested that large-scale production of hydrogen fuel cells can

reduce greenhouse emissions, and, in fact…

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

J. Bray:

…fuel-cell powered cars have zero emissions. I'm wondering: given both the

economic benefits — because we have high-tech industry here — as well as

environmental benefits to large-scale hydrogen fuel

[ Page 10232 ]

plants, can the Minister of Energy and Mines tell me why anybody, including

the Suzuki Foundation, would be against the hydrogen highway project?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Our Premier has a vision for the province, and part of that vision

is developing and moving forward with our hydrogen in British Columbia. B.C. is

world-renowned for hydrogen. Around the world, we're world leaders in hydrogen

with the Ballard and those kinds of hydrogen developments in the province.

[1435]

We want to

actually see that developed in a hydrogen highway by 2010, so people can start

to see the benefits of hydrogen in the province. We're actually looking forward

to the future of a time in British Columbia where we put less into the

atmosphere but can still power this great province, and hydrogen will be a great

part of it. It does, though, baffle me why the Suzuki Foundation would be

against something that they've talked about for many years.

We are

moving forward on that. We will continue to move forward, through the Premier's

office and through my ministry, on hydrogen as it develops in British Columbia

and worldwide.

TERMS OF B.C. RAIL

AGREEMENT WITH CN RAIL

MacPhail: Well, apparently the new-era, 990-year leases are the new

standard, according to the minister. It doesn't matter that anyone with any

expertise would say otherwise, although I do remember the last time a professor

challenged a minister on his expertise with a conflict. We got a tax cut that

hasn't been paid for yet, even though the professor said exactly that. Perhaps

it will have to be by 2994 that we actually get that tax cut.

The

minister refuses to come clean on the terms of the contract. Today he says,

"Read the deal," claiming that it must remain a secret until the last

minute, and yet he says to everybody: "Read the contract." Will the

Premier deliver what his Minister of Transportation just told us all to do —

to read the deal? Will the Premier actually stand up now, take charge, release

the deal and then allow for a full debate on the entire contents of the deal,

just as the Minister of Transportation directed us to do?

Hon. K.

Falcon: Well, we have been very clear. There is a process involved where the

federal competition bureau is analyzing this deal. We've been very clear that

all the information we can release that doesn't have commercial sensitivities

will be fully disclosed. At that time, and even now, I look forward to debating

it with this member. What this member and Carole James and the NDP refuse to

talk about are the $17 million investment in the Prince Rupert port

containerization, the $4 million to expand the airport in Prince George, the

$135 million northern development initiative fund and the $5 billion being

invested in rail to ensure that British Columbians and communities right up and

down that corridor see the benefit of private sector investment at no risk to

the taxpayers of British Columbia.

ELIGIBILITY FOR FARM STATUS

Stewart: My question is to the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management.

As many of you in this House know, farming has come upon hard times in many

areas of British Columbia due to the crises of BSE, avian flu and forest fires

which have damaged many forage areas. As a result of this, many farmers in my

community and in British Columbia are unable to make the economic quotas

necessary for them to gain their farm tax status. Can the minister explain to us

today some of the consequences that may occur to these members as a result of

this economic loss and the fact that they may not be able to meet their quotas

for farm status?

Hon. G.

Abbott: I thank the member for raising this important question. There are

always a lot of challenges for farmers, notably weather frequently. But recently

they have been subject to two very new problems: BSE, or mad cow disease, and of

course, most recently, the avian flu, something which no one could ever have

reasonably contemplated here. I have discussed the issue which the member raises

— farm status — with the Assessment Authority, and I'm working with my

colleague the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries to ensure that we come

through for the farmers of British Columbia in a very difficult time.

In

summary,

no farmer will lose their farm status as a consequence of failing to meet the

income threshold or revenue threshold for a single production year. As well, I'm

glad to add that payments received under a compensation plan will qualify as

farm income for the purposes of protecting farm status. We're well aware of the

devastation that has been brought upon the farming industry, first by BSE and

now by the avian flu, and all ministries will want to work with producers to

ensure they get through a very difficult time in their lives.

[End

of question period.]

Reports from Committees

Lekstrom: I have the honour to present a report from the Select Standing

Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private

Bills.

I move that

the report be read and received.

[1440]

Motion

approved.

Law

Clerk:

"April 20, 2004:

"Your Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary

Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills

[ Page 10233 ]

begs leave to report as follows: that the

preamble to Bill

Pr401, intituled B. J. Field Service Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2004,

has been proved, and the committee recommends that the bill proceed to second

reading; that the

preamble to Bill Pr402, intituled Kidd Resources Ltd.

(Corporate Restoration) Act, 2004, has been proved, and the committee

recommends that the bill proceed to second reading; that the

preamble to Bill

Pr403, intituled Pheidias Project Management

(1979) Corp. (Corporate

Restoration) Act, 2004, has been proved, and the committee recommends that the

bill proceed to second reading.

"All of which is respectfully submitted.

B. Lekstrom, Chairman"

Lekstrom: By leave I move that the report be adopted.

Leave

granted.

Motion

approved.

Bills

Pr401, Pr402 and Pr403 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Tabling Documents

Hon. R.

Coleman: I have the honour to present the annual report for 2003 for the

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of

members, we'll be debating the estimates for the Ministry of Small Business and

Economic Development. In this House I call Committee of the Whole for

consideration of Bill 12.

[1445]

Committee of the Whole House

EDUCATION STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 12; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:49 p.m.

Sections 1

to 28 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. T.

Christensen: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 2:50 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill

12, Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2004, reported complete without amendment,

read a third time and passed.

Hon. P.

Bell: I call second reading of Bill 17.

Second Reading of Bills

LAND SURVEY STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

Hon. G.

Abbott: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

The

Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management proposes amendments to a number of

statutes related to the practice of land surveying in B.C., including the Land

Surveyors Act and the Land Survey Act. This bill is consistent with the

government's commitment to eliminate unnecessary regulations and to operate more

efficiently and effectively. The purpose of the proposed amendments is to

transfer the authority and responsibility for setting and enforcing land survey

standards from the province to the Corporation of Land Surveyors of the Province

of British Columbia. These authorities are currently with the surveyor general.

Standards

for the practice of land surveying are now set out in the general survey

instruction regulation. This regulation will be repealed as a consequence of

transferring this authority. The corporation will thereafter be responsible for

making changes to those standards. These amendments allow government resources

to be redirected toward other priorities and put responsibility for survey

standards in the hands of the professional body with the most expertise in this

area.

In order to

ensure that adequate standards are in place at all times, the surveyor general

will be able to review and approve any new standards adopted by the corporation.

Additional amendments to the Land Surveyors Act modernize the governance system

for the corporation by updating its disciplinary powers, allowing land surveyors

from out of province to become members, and revising examination and admission

authorities.

Other

amendments relate to corporation membership, meetings, voting and structure of

annual general meetings. It also repeals a requirement for the secretary of the

corporation to provide a performance bond. These amendments also allow the

corporation to change its name to the Association of B.C. Land Surveyors. These

changes will come into effect to coincide with the corporation's 100th

anniversary on June 21, 2005.

As a

consequence of the amendments to the Land Surveyors Act, a number of other acts

will be affected. One of these is the Land Survey Act, which is amended to

reflect the transfer of authority for the land survey standards from the

province to the corporation. Various other amendments to this act relate to

definitions,

[ Page 10234 ]

electronic filing of plans and changing references from regulations to

orders.

There are

eight other acts amended as a consequence of the amendments to the Land

Surveyors Act. These are the Coal Act, the Freedom of Information and Protection

of Privacy Act, the Land Act, the Land Title Act, the Mineral Tenure Act, the

Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, the Pipeline Act and the Strata Property Act. The

amendments to these acts delete references to the surveyor general, who

currently makes regulations for land surveys under those acts. These references

are replaced with "the corporation," which will now be responsible for

making rules under the Land Surveyors Act.

The

proposed amendments to each of these acts will also require that land surveys be

prepared by a land surveyor who is a member in good standing with the

corporation. I am pleased to note that this bill has the full support of the

Corporation of Land Surveyors of B.C. and other affected professional

associations. This bill also follows through on the government's commitment to

reduce regulation and improve efficiency by seeking out appropriate alternative

service delivery mechanisms.

It gives me

great pleasure to move second reading.

Motion

approved.

Bill 17,

Land Survey Statutes Amendment Act, 2004, read a second time and referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House

after today.

[1455]

Hon. P.

Bell: I call second reading of Bill 25.

WILDFIRE ACT

Hon. M.

de Jong: I move that Bill 25 be read a second time now.

This bill,

the Wildfire Act, provides government with a comprehensive range of measures to

address this serious threat, and we all know how serious a threat forest fires

pose in our province. This act brings together the relevant existing provisions

from the old Forest Practices Code and incorporates them and compliance and

enforcement and general administrative provisions of the Forest and Range

Practices Act as it relates specifically to the issue and threat posed by

wildfire in B.C.

The key

objectives of the act are to ensure that all users of our forests — not just

forestry licensees but all users of our forests — are aware of and understand

their responsibilities with respect to fire use, prevention, control and

rehabilitation. I'll repeat that: not just those licensees that are engaged in

forestry activity but recreational users, hikers, campers, hunters — anyone on

the land base and frequenting our beautiful forests. The act also seeks to

guarantee the safety of British Columbians and that that consideration remains

paramount. Thirdly, the objective is to aid in the establishment of policies and

priorities to ensure the most efficient use of firefighting resources.

Additionally, the act clarifies the prescribed circumstances under which open

fires may be permitted.

The act

also takes into account the recommendations of the Filmon report. I might just

take a moment to remind members of the House that the bill was initially tabled

in the last session, the fall session, and the decision was made to have it

remain on the order paper through the fall during the time that Mr. Filmon was

conducting his review of Firestorm 2003, for the purpose of providing us with

the option of incorporating any changes that might be necessitated by the

recommendations that flowed from that report. The old bill died on the order

paper. This bill, Bill 25, is reintroduced, taking into account the

recommendations of the Filmon report, including enhancing the government's

ability to manage and respond to the threat of wildfire.

The act

maintains government's right to carry out fire control operations to protect

public safety and to act in the public interest, including the continued support

and assistance to local governments and residents. Under the provisions of Bill

25 the government will retain the right to enter onto any land, public or

private, to carry out fire control operations. If government determines that it

is necessary to enter onto lands to control a fire, this act ensures and enables

government to recover costs associated with that intervention.

Fire

preparedness, fire hazard assessment and abatement issues are also addressed in

the act, and we will, I'm sure, address some of those in the committee stage of

this debate.

Under the

terms of Bill 25, the Wildfire Act, government retains the authority to restrict

or prohibit open fires, declare areas as restricted and limit activities within

them. When we discuss that in more detail, I will refer to how I believe these

sections of the act as it relates to the declaration of areas as restricted are

an improvement over the old provisions administratively, functionally and

operationally, particularly when it relates to emergency situations.

The act

provides the jurisdiction to government to order people to leave specified

areas, to hire temporary employees for fire control operations and to

requisition facilities, equipment and personnel.

[1500]

The only

other remarks I want to make — and they are ancillary to the bill — speak to

the issue of overall fire preparedness or preparedness for the coming fire

season and relate to some of the additional action that government has taken in

the aftermath of fire season '03 and the Filmon report. I should ensure that

members of the chamber are reminded of the fact that government — the forest

protection branch, Forest Service — conducted its own internal review of the

situation that occurred and Forest Service's response to that catastrophe last

summer, and that was comprehensive. I attended a portion of that review in

Penticton myself and can advise members of the House that those who participated

— and there were a good number of them from the various teams — took the

process very seri-

[ Page 10235 ]

ously and identified some key issues that they wish to address moving

forward.

Likewise,

when the Premier announced the appointment of Mr. Filmon, he was provided with

an opportunity, which he took ample advantage of, not only to consult with

British Columbians generally around the circumstances of last year but also to

interact with the Forest Service protection branch and other divisions within

the government in settling upon a series of recommendations — 42

recommendations in all — that form the basis of his report.

On the

weekend, in Kamloops, the Premier and the government made clear our intention to

act on all 42 of those recommendations. I won't speak to all of them, but I will

tell you I am — as one who has responsibilities for one department within

government — pleased, proud but not surprised, actually, that the government

has devoted almost $14 million in additional resources to ensure we've got the

people, the equipment and the planning work in place to make sure we're fully

prepared or as prepared as one can be for something as unpredictable as fire.

Part of

that involves providing upwards of $3 million to the Union of B.C.

Municipalities. This is a novel exercise insofar as we're saying to the UBCM as

that agency which represents local government in British Columbia…. Insofar as

planning for fire, particularly in the urban-rural interface area and the fire

interface areas, communities have the most to gain or lose and are best equipped

to make decisions about where that work, as it relates to fuel management,

should begin. There is a heck of a lot of work to be done, and we're not going

to get it all done in one year, but the process can begin. It can begin in

earnest, weather and climate permitting. Local communities will have access to

those moneys via the funds that were provided to the UBCM.

addition, the fact that unit crews will be restored to the levels they once were

in the 1990s — five additional unit crews…. These are highly trained

individuals — teams of 20. There will be five additional crews, and that will

provide us with an enhanced ability around the province and an ability to move

the crews around the province — that combined with the fact that we have two

additional air tankers in our fleet now. That provides us with a level of

comfort. We are not as reliant as we have been in the past on fleet or aircraft

from other parts of the country, though the protocols which provide for the

exchange of that information remain in place.

The dilemma

we all potentially face is a situation in which there is a fire catastrophe in

one part of the country at the same time that we are having one elsewhere in the

country, and there just simply isn't enough equipment available on a casual

basis to meet the needs. So that provides us with some additional assurances.

[1505]

I would

like to end, however, by saying this. The legislation we are debating today

provides, I think, a framework within which we can effectively deal with

preparation and issues around wildfire and the combatting of wildfire.

Similarly, the additional personnel, equipment and planning tools that were

announced assist.

It is

impossible to predict with certainty what one is going to be met with in a fire

season. We certainly learned that in spades last year. It's as dry at this time

this year as it was last year, based on the reports I am getting. I have seen a

variety of reports around the weather prognostications — everything from

predictions about a drier summer than we had last year…. I think one of the

almanacs predicted a wet summer or vice versa.

I'm not

sure how much stock one can put in those kinds of prognostications, but I do

know this for a fact: we've already had over a hundred fires in B.C. Sadly,

notwithstanding what happened last year and the fact that I think public

awareness of this issue is at an all-time high, 80 percent of those fires were

human-caused in the last three weeks — not because anyone purposely set out to

start a fire but just through carelessness. I hope people will take seriously

the threat that is posed. All of us read the reports last year about how fires

started or allegedly started. It was a matter of seconds, certainly minutes,

that it took for a fire to burn out of control and consume literally millions of

dollars in property and in timber resources.

We think

this legislation provides a framework upon which to move forward. When we move

through the committee stage debate, I'll be more specific about some of the

provisions that I think particularly lend themselves to that. I have alluded to

a couple of them already in the debate. In the meantime, each day that we move

closer to the summer, I would urge all British Columbians to be mindful of the

unpredictable threat posed by fires and the havoc they can wreak when they rage

out of control.

MacPhail: Of course the opposition is going to support Bill 25, the Wildfire

Act, and I want to make that clear at the beginning of this debate. I also want

to say that governing is about choices. I do hope there will not be any

discussion in this House that with the benefit of perfect hindsight, some will

look to place blame for what happened last summer. That's not a healthy debate.

There is no need to rehash the devastation of last year's fire season or to try

and see into the future of the coming season — although as the minister has

just noted, early indications are not good. But it is early, and much can

change.

The B.C.

Liberal government is with much fanfare acting on the Filmon recommendations

and, with this legislation, is bringing greater clarity and certainty to the

prevention and control of wildfires. Good. But make no mistake; there will be

fires this year. There will be fires every year. We all hope we will never again

witness a fire season like last year, but we will see fire.

If you go

to the Ministry of Forests website, you will find a wealth of information about

the number of fires, the size of fires, the amount of damage done by the fires,

the number of people who fought the fires

[ Page 10236 ]

and the cause of the fires. Much of this data will be ten-year rolling

averages. They are rolling averages because there is no certainty. As much as we

try as humans to predict the weather or the human behaviour of our fellow

citizens, the fact remains that we are not very good at predicting either.

[1510]

What looks

so glaringly obvious in hindsight is often inconceivable in foresight and

shrouded by distractions when we look at them in the immediate. When it comes to

government, we need to acknowledge our limitations, because despite so-called

balanced-budget legislation and service plans full of performance measures, what

good government is really all about is allocating public resources for the

public good. Governing is about choices. This bill provides a regulatory

framework, but it does not address or determine government action. This bill

does speak to the penalties and prescriptions, to liability and responsibility,

but it does not speak to what government does.

Last year

the budget for fire protection, I believe — I'm doing this from memory — was

$55 million. The government spent $375 million. I believe — and I will confirm

this later in estimates debate — the budget this year for fire protection is

$63 million. The government may overspend that amount like it did last year, or

the $63 million could be too generous. We don't know. We simply can't tell at

this point. As legislators, we cannot possibly know at this point in time how

much real money will be needed. The minister will have received advice on what

the ten-year average is and, probably, what that average is with the

extraordinary costs of last year factored out. In his budget will be a figure we

all know is simply a best guess. That's all it can be. That's not partisan;

that's all it can be.

Government,

by definition, functions in a realm of scarcity. I have not yet, in my 52 years,

experienced a government who has not said: "We must allocate resources

properly because there is limited financial capability." There will never,

ever be enough money to do everything that can or should be done, and fighting

forest fires is no different.

Controlled

burning is not something new that came out of our experience last summer. The

use of this technique to reduce the fuel level in the forest is not

revolutionary, nor is it simple. It most certainly will not end forest fires,

and it will remain controversial. The most important resource in our province is

our forests. We've just been debating that this morning and yesterday in the

Ministry of Forests estimates. We quite rightly try to protect them from

environmental damage and the ravage of fire. I don't think any member is about

to stand in this House and say that the fires should just be allowed to burn. We

will work to put them out, to protect the jobs and communities that depend on

our forest industry. Everyone in this Legislature will commit to that.

Weather and

the proximity to populated urban areas increasingly on the forest interface must

be considered. We live in a province of steep valleys. Weather inversions trap

smoke and other pollutants, and not just in the Fraser Valley, but in the

Nechako, the Similkameen, the Columbia and the Okanagan. Much of the

south-central interior of B.C. is semi-arid desert. Lightning fires in this

climatic zone always present a danger, and neither of those previous two

statements are about to change.

Government

choices are made by politicians and must balance the interests of the citizenry,

or at least that is the theory that we all work under in our public service. The

practice is often much different and not always for straightforward partisan

goals.

This bill,

as I said in opening, is a good idea. It is a good idea to isolate and

consolidate the powers, responsibilities and consequences that stem from our

life with wildfire. But the real test of good government will come in the years

ahead, when the memories of the forest fires of 2003 fade, and the temptation to

move scarce government resources, tax dollars, away from the vigilance that the

Filmon report called for — and that the auditor general has called for and

that experts in the forest have called for over the years — to other equally

or even more important government services will be the real question that's put

before us.

[1515]

Members

opposite in the government will talk of how governments, particularly

governments on the left, are egregiously risk-averse. I've heard that. I've

heard that from the members of the government. Members on the government side

with those who see government as an obstacle say that being risk-averse is a

hindrance to economic development. But with this bill and the implementation of

the recommendations of the Filmon report, the government is now siding with

those who have been saying that the risk we take with wildfire is too great. I

applaud that.

Members on

the government side will be proposing more regulation of building codes and

subdivisions in and around our forests and grasslands. They will be saying that

municipalities and homeowners will have to take more responsibility, and that

will mean that homeowners will be paying more. They have now become, as a

government, risk-averse in this area.

Now, nobody

likes to pay more. Developers will be unrelenting in their efforts to have

accommodations made for their subdivisions, whether they be at the forest

interface in the Okanagan or on the Cheakamus fan where floodwaters developed

and resulted in two deaths last year. Politicians of all parties will have to

respond to the competing pressures of their constituents and supporters and

their duty as public servants to protect the public interest. That is our

obligation. That obligation is not made any easier by this legislation, although

it is good legislation. It is never an easy task, but it is one that has been

brought to the forefront to all of us by the forest fires of last year.

Krueger: I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for her remarks. It is

rare that we have such unanimity in the House on an issue.

certainly experienced a trial by fire last summer — a terrifically grim

experience for my constituents. I

[ Page 10237 ]

don't think the memory will really ever fade for us: the shock of realizing

that a forest fire could move faster than a horse can run; the way those fires

ran — the Strawberry Hill fire — 12 kilometres the first night, creating

their own tremendous weather systems; huge winds that whipped the flames up and

threw burning material kilometres ahead of the path of the fire, starting other

fires.

I know that

my constituents will never forget, either, the courage and the expertise of the

firefighters and the way they attacked such an incredible foe, the way they

demonstrated the skills that they trained so long and hard for.

I remember

flying over the Strawberry Hill fire and seeing how small the people looked with

their machines, and yet amazingly they had managed to build a border all the way

around that fire — a huge area. They had done their back-burning and laid down

the retardant, and they had the fire contained. The McLure fire, of course, took

a lot longer. The fire in Kelowna was horrific. These are all experiences that

we hope will never be repeated, but the way the weather is shaping up this

spring, there certainly is the risk of that.

Like the

Leader of the Opposition and I'm sure every member of the Legislature, I'm

certainly supporting Bill 25 and congratulating the minister and the government

for bringing this legislation to us.

We were

very grateful in Kamloops–North Thompson at the time for the quick action of

government with the declaration of a state of emergency and the way that brought

resources to bear on the problem, the disaster, that was confronting us. It was

heartening for my constituents to see 40 fire departments from around British

Columbia fighting the fire and protecting the community of Barriere. It was very

encouraging for them that the Premier came up to the area. The Minister of

Forests did as well, and the Solicitor General. Everybody demonstrated with

their presence and with the tangible things they did that the government was

very much in a position of wanting to do everything possible to protect the

communities.

[1520]

Obviously,

as the Leader of the Opposition said, the problem built up over many years.

We're all aware of that. It's a very expensive problem to confront and to try

and ensure that it never happens again. We certainly wouldn't wish that

experience on anyone else. Yet Mother Nature is so tremendously powerful when

she really cuts loose, as we experienced last summer.

The

economic harm to communities is something that I and my constituents have been

grappling with ever since. It's been very, very tough on the communities of

Barriere and Louis Creek to have lost their major employer, which as everyone

knows has decided not to rebuild at that location — 189 jobs that existed till

the last day of July 2003 and now have just disappeared.

Again,

we're very appreciative of the assistance the government is providing, the money

that the Premier sent to set up a $2 million fund for people who suffered

hardship as a result of last summer's wildfires — that money has largely been

distributed now — and also money for economic redevelopment of the North

Thompson Valley.

The

minister and the Minister for Forestry Operations have entertained delegations

from my constituency, have spent a lot of time with me and, I believe, are

favourably disposed to an allocation of timber from the pine beetle uplift to

the communities themselves so that we can use the money that will flow from that

to continue to rebuild that economy. We're looking forward to good news there.

The

economic development advisory commission, which I chair, has hired an economic

development officer with the funds that the Premier gave us in trust to the

Thompson-Nicola regional district, and we're working hard on rebuilding the

economy that was shattered up there. Everyone is anxious to make sure that it

doesn't happen again there, that it doesn't happen again anywhere.

We were

grateful for the Premier's decision to appoint Mr. Filmon to do his inquiry, and

Mr. Filmon distinguished himself. We had very positive comments from my

constituents about the way he dealt with them, the way he listened to them, the

way he responded to them, and everyone is very impressed with his report. We

were delighted when the Premier came up last Saturday to Kamloops and announced

the funding for all of Mr. Filmon's recommendations.

I am really

proud of a government that responded so well to the emergency itself and has

responded so thoughtfully to the issue of prevention of another catastrophe.

This legislation, of course, brings all of that together.

My thanks

to the minister and to the government and, obviously, my full support for this

legislation.

Mr.

Speaker: On second reading of Bill 25, the Minister of Forests closes

debate.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I've been around this place long enough to know that when something

as rare as splendid consensus breaks out, one is wise to grab it and run. So I

will thank the member for his comments and his reminder to us of the very human

face of wildfire and the impact it has and thank the Leader of the Opposition

for her thoughtful comments and support for the bill and also for reminding us

that it is actually in partial response to recommendations that have emerged

from various auditor general reports. But I also point out that the success of

the regime we are developing by virtue of this legislation will be determined by

the extent to which governments and ultimately the public are prepared to devote

the resources necessary.

We can talk

about preventative action. We can talk about planning. We can talk about fuel

management. It takes (1) money and (2) a recognition of the impact that

something like controlled burn has in terms of the environmental consequences

and things like smoke and all of the ancillary effects of burning in the forest.

[1525]

difficult as it is to believe today, in the immediate aftermath of what took

place last year, memories

[ Page 10238 ]

will recede. Our job, or the job of those who sit in this chamber, will be to

constantly remind people of the extent of the damage, dislocation and anxiety

that the firestorm in 2003 caused.

The statute

that I believe Bill 25 will give birth to — with, I think, unanimous support

in this House — will be a tremendously helpful tool. But like all tools, its

success will be determined by the manner in which it is used and the resources

that are brought to bear to give it effect. With that, I will move second

reading of Bill 25.

Motion

approved.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 25,

Wildfire Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House

for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. S.

Bond: I call estimates debate for the Ministry of Forests.

Committee of Supply

The

House in Committee of Supply B; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 3:27 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

(continued)

On vote 24:

ministry operations, $393,292,000 (continued) .

MacPhail: We left off discussion this morning about the requirement for

site-level plans. The minister assured the House that forest licensees must

produce a site-level plan. Must they produce it, or do they have to have it

available if asked?

Hon. M.

de Jong: It was my poor choice of terminology. They must prepare one. It is

not submitted for approval by the Crown, but they must have it available if

asked to produce it.

MacPhail: Where I was going on this discussion was that the site-level plan

that used to be mandatory was what demonstrated the indicators of logging plans

and how those logging plans would affect environmental, recreational and social

values, I thought — at least environmental and recreational values. The reason

I was making that clarification — that they must have them available and

produce them if asked — is that if the compliance and enforcement staff don't

ask for them, then there's no violation of the law.

What I want

to know is: how will government staff continue to identify and insist on

protection for important values such as wildlife habitat if they don't have any

precise information provided on site-level plans?

[1530]

Hon. M.

de Jong: There might be disagreement on the wisdom of this, but I'm not sure

there's disagreement on the process when I say that the distinction between the

former regime and the one that is in place under the Forest and Range Practices

Act relates not to the requirement to prepare the site plan — there is in both

instances a requirement to prepare a site plan — but to the fact that in the

former regime there was sign-off by the Forest Service or an approval mechanism.

Under the provisions of the Forest and Range Practices Act, the site plan is

neither approved nor signed off, though if requested it must be produced by the

particular licensee.

As there

were under the former forest development plans, now to be replaced by the forest

stewardship plans, there are differing levels of requirements. Under the forest

stewardship plan, all of the values that must be managed for must be reflected

in that large-scale document that relates to the overall area.

The site

plan focuses down on a much more localized area, and the site plan must be

consistent with the overall objectives set out in the Forest and Range Practices

Act but also with the specific provisions included within the forest stewardship

plans. The site plan which needs to be produced must demonstrate and be

consistent with both. That must be apparent in terms of on-the-ground

activities, which must be consistent with all three — site plan, forest

stewardship plan and the act itself — and it must be apparent on the face of

the site plan.

MacPhail: I also understand from previous debate I've had with the minister

that the site-level plans have to be available to the public on request. What

does the public have to go through to request a site-level plan, and is there a

fee associated with the request?

Hon. M.

de Jong: First of all, the site-level plan must be available for the public

to request and obtain. They would generally do so directly from the licensee.

What we are checking to confirm is whether or not, within the regulatory package

that was enacted several months ago, there was anything more specific than that

about the requirements that bind the licensees in terms of where they must make

the site plan available.

MacPhail: Is the minister saying there's no fee that would be associated

with that?

Hon. M.

de Jong: My understanding is that there is no fee. What I want to confirm,

as well, for the member is whether the regulation spoke in any way, shape or

form to the question of fees, either allowing them or disallowing them.

MacPhail: Okay. Thank you.

[ Page 10239 ]

The other

thing I would ask the minister, if he's had time to get it, is the percentage of

GDP that's forest activity–related.

Interjection.

MacPhail: No. Sorry. What percentage of our GDP is as a result of forest

activity? That's forest-related industry.

Hon. M.

de Jong: We've made the request. I haven't yet received it. Hopefully, we

will this afternoon.

[1535]

MacPhail: I understand that under this new regime of approval of logging

plans, the discretion that the district manager had under the previous regime to

reject proposed plans — if the district manager was not satisfied that

resource values will be adequately managed or conserved — is now gone. Now the

plans must be approved unless the minister or his delegate determines that the

industry's results and strategies are not consistent with the government's

objectives in the act. Of course, we've already had a discussion about how the

objectives are further defined by regulation, but they're not in the act.

How is the

minister or his delegate going to get the information necessary to make an

informed decision regarding whether a plan should be rejected? That's number

one. Well, let me ask that question.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I apologize for the delay. The language here is quite specific, and

if I say it incorrectly, we'll head down a path that will be of no help to

anyone.

If I

correctly understood the essence of the member's question, it is, broadly

speaking, an explanation of the difference in approval processes between the

Forest Practices Code and the Forest and Range Practices Act. I will do this in

reverse.

The last

point I think the member made spoke to the issue of where the authority derived

from. Under the Forest Practices Code it was statutorily enshrined in the hands

of the district manager. Under the new Forest and Range Practices Act it is

statutorily enshrined, as the member pointed out, in the hands of the minister

or his or her delegate. For all practical purposes that won't affect much. The

minister of the day isn't going to be involved in those decisions. What it does

mean, however, is that the minister of the day can appoint individuals to be a

delegate beyond simply the district manager, as was the case in the Forest

Practices Code.

The other

issue, and perhaps the more significant issue, relates to the test. In both

instances there is discretionary authority to be exercised. The member, broadly

speaking, summarized the tests that are applied. They are still subjective. In

the case of the Forest and Range Practices Act it relates to measuring the

forest stewardship plan against the objectives that have been set by government,

by the act and the regulations.

[1540]

What we

have stopped short of…. Although I know the member has many things that she

has to deal with, she may be aware that there were those within industry who

sought to advocate that there should be a deemed approval process whereby once

the content of a forest stewardship plan was confirmed — i.e., that it

addressed all the required issues and there was sign-off from a registered

professional forester — that should in and of itself lead to approval.

We have not

accepted that approach. We have said there is still a role for the exercise of

discretionary authority in a subjective way to ensure that the forest

stewardship plan, as can best be determined, will in fact realize and be

consistent with the values and objectives set out in the statute. It's a

sufficiently important distinction that I'm going to ask for confirmation that I

have articulated that in a reasonably accurate way.

MacPhail: Okay. Thank you. I accept that.

But now can

I know how many staff people in the ministry there are to determine this as the

minister has suggested? Who are they? What's their classification? Where do they

work, and how many FTEs are assigned to this?

Hon. M.

de Jong: The decision, for all practical reasons operationally, will remain

with the district manager. I'm advised that in a typical district office

setting, the district manager, in coming to the decision to approve or

disapprove of the proposed forest stewardship plan, would rely on advice from a

staff complement dedicated to this job of between three and five individuals.

MacPhail: How many district managers are there? How many people in the

province are doing this?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Twenty-nine district offices in the province. As I say, the

district manager in each office would be the designated individual for reaching

the final decision. Depending on the size of the office, I'm advised there would

be between three and five individuals assisting with the task of analyzing the

forest stewardship plan.

MacPhail: Are those staff, including the district manager, being trained and

given the resources required to ensure that these legally binding agreements —

they're legally binding agreements with the forest companies — can be

realistically enforced in the courts? That's where they have to be enforced.

[1545]

Hon. M.

de Jong: Short answer: yes. The training is taking place at a number of

different levels. I think it's fair to say at this point that what we're trying

to develop is a sense, both on the part of the licensees and the Forest Service

personnel, of what a standardized forest stewardship plan would look like.

[ Page 10240 ]

The

member's question is actually a good one. Part of that training for both

parties, but particularly from the perspective of the Forest Service, is to

ensure that the language contained within the document is enforceable. I am

reminded that within the act and/or the regulations, there is a requirement that

the objectives set out in the forest stewardship plan are quantifiable and

measurable. That training is taking place. There are some early examples of the

work that is being done. I presume that as this evolves, there will be an

attempt on the part of both the Forest Service personnel involved, the district

managers and the licensees to standardize to the greatest extent possible both

the format and the ingredients of the forest stewardship plan beyond what is in

the regulations.

MacPhail: Now, I noted when I was looking at the Forest and Range Practices

Act regulations around old-growth management…. There is basically a regulation

that says the status quo for old-growth areas under the Forest Practices Code

remains, but I note there is no provision for the establishment of new areas. Is

the government not anticipating any new areas designated as old-growth forests?

There are organizations there right now that the government funds for…. Their

responsibility is to identify old-growth management areas. What's the future of

this?

[1550]

Hon. M.

de Jong: There is — and the chief forester has direct involvement in this

— a process by which old-growth areas are identified, designated. The legal

mechanism for doing that remains. I think the provisions that the member was

referring to are those which provide for the carrying forward of those

designations, and I think she said that, in fairness.

What I have

been doing is canvassing whether or not, given that the mechanism for creating

old-growth designated areas remains, there are any impediments to doing so. I am

not aware of any; I am not advised of any. The mechanism by which old-growth

areas can be designated continues to exist. It is tied in part to the land use

planning process, I believe. I'll stop there.

MacPhail: In the past, and I don't know whether this still exists, agencies

were designated and funded by government to identify old-growth management

areas. Does that still exist under this government?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I'm not aware, and some of the officials here today are not aware,

of what the member might have been referring to and have no recollection of that

kind of funding flowing through the Forest Service, though there is some

speculation that there may have been funding made available to groups involved

in the land use planning tables for that purpose.

I posed the

question whether there might have been funding flowing through an agency like

FRBC, and the response I'm getting is that that is not the case. If there were

such funding, the only advice I have at the moment is that it did not flow

through the Forest Service budget.

[1555]

MacPhail: To summarize the minister's comments then, old-growth designation

will continue to be available, and the designation will largely be done through

land use planning tables.

Hon. M.

de Jong: Sorry again for the delay.

Here is how

the process by…. Well, I'll back up. I think the question I'm trying to

provide an answer to is: how, if at all, is it possible to have an area set

aside as an old-growth retention area in the future, moving forward? I've got

the right question; hopefully, I can answer it in a comprehensible way.

Under the

legislative regime that is the Forest and Range Practices Act, it is, as the

member knows, the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management that has

responsibility for setting objectives. Some of the examples would relate to

old-growth retention, habitat preservation and some of these other values. That

having been done, the licensee's objective is to prepare a forest stewardship

plan that reflects those values and those objectives.

The member

correctly identified the tie-in between the land use planning process and the

establishment of those objectives and the forest stewardship plan which would

lead to the designation of an area under the forest stewardship plan. Now, the

member is astute enough, and she is going to, I suspect, quickly point out that

there is land use planning process that hasn't been completed across the

province, so there are some default standards in place. There are some default

standards in place that can be relied upon. I am further advised that the

Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management is to introduce an objective shortly

to establish old-growth forest retention targets to be met in all forest

stewardship plans, so there will, in the interim, be a standardized objective

pending the completion of that process.

MacPhail: I understand that the minister has now referred me to the

Sustainable Resource Management minister, which is fine. I accept that. I want

to have a location where a group of people, a company, an organization or a

person can say to a minister, a branch or an agency: "You are responsible

for old-growth management." If the plans are that they're going to set a

policy for retention of old growth, then I will be looking there, to the

Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, to see what the plans are — how

they're going to implement that retention rate of old growth on a more specific

level.

Mr. Chair,

the next report I'm going to deal with is by the Forest and Range Practices Act

Practices Advisory Council, the PAC. They issued a report in January of this

year. I'm sure it was January. The minister issued a reply or response in

February to that Forest and Range Practices Advisory Council report. I am going

to ask some questions based on those two, both the report and then the reply.

[ Page 10241 ]

[1600]

The PAC,

the advisory council, noted that one of the goals of the Forest and Range

Practices Act is increased reliance on professions, increased professional

reliance. However, the advisory council also noted that the draft FRPA

regulations do not require that forest operational and site plans be signed by a

professional. So does this mean that any employee of a licensee can sign an

operational or site plan?

Johnston: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Johnston: Joining us today in the precinct are 30 grade 11 social studies

students from David Thompson Secondary School in Vancouver-Fraserview. They're

here having a tour of the capital city and, of course, the legislative area.

They are accompanied today by instructors Chris Ascher, Deider Bylsma and Joan

McDermid. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. M.

de Jong: The member does identify an issue raised by the public advisory

committee. If she'll permit me, I'll take advantage of this opportunity to put

on the record my thanks for the work that has been done to date and the

continued consultative work that the members of that committee — all of whom

are extremely busy but also extremely dedicated individuals — has put into

providing feedback on what was a pretty hefty document in terms of the

regulatory package accompanying the Forest and Range Practices Act.

Their

comment, and the one relayed here today by the member, is correct. The statute

and the regulations require the forest stewardship plan to be signed off by a

representative of the licensee. It does not require the plan to be signed off by

a registered professional forester.

I'll say

two things. First of all, that legislative provision reflects the fact that the

relationship that is regulated here is between the Crown and the licensee, not

between the Crown and any particular individual employed or contracted by the

licensee. We wanted to be clear where the liability rested in that relationship,

and it is with the licensee.

Beyond that

— and the member may recall — a few moments ago I referred back to a

submission we had received in the formative days of creating the statute, which

suggested we should have a deemed approval process whereby by virtue of having

obtained the signature of an RFP on the forest stewardship plan, the Crown

should accept that, the Forest Service should accept that, and there would be

deemed approval of the entire plan. We didn't go along with that either, so I

suppose you could say that we ended up somewhere in the middle.

[1605]

There is

still a discretionary authority that rests with the minister and his or her

designate, generally the district manager. At the same time, there is a

requirement that the plan be signed off by a corporate representative — but

not necessarily a registered professional forester — either employed or

contracted by that licensee.

MacPhail: It's interesting that the minister says the new legislation

regulates the relationship between the government and licensees, not the

relationship between employers and professionals, and that's why there's no

requirement for a professional to sign off on the plan. I guess what I'm looking

for here is some confidence that can be instilled in the system where the public

can say that even though this is a results-based system we're going to now, a

default system where the government deems everything to be okay unless proven

otherwise rather than the previous system that was monitoring and enforcement

and compliance…. Isn't there a logical step to be taken here that says a

company should have an expert sign off on this? I mean, what's to prevent the

company from having their CFO sign off on it because the CFO likes the business

aspect of it?

Hon. M.

de Jong: There are two things that come to mind that would logically lead to

the involvement of a registered professional forester. Though the member is

correct that the act does not require a sign-off from an RPF, there are a couple

of things that would suggest that will be the case in most, if not all, cases.

The first,

I'm reminded, is that the nature of the work that goes into preparing one of

these reports is that which is contained squarely within the Foresters Act as

amended by this House. Because of the type of work involved, it would naturally

engage a registered professional forester. That's the first thing.

[1610]

In addition

to that, in a world where a licensee must always be aware of the possibility

that, were something to go wrong, the Crown will return and seek damages or

compensation or take enforcement action, there is under the act the defence of

due diligence available. A licensee who had not availed himself or herself of

the services of a registered professional forester for the purpose of preparing

what is a fundamentally important document now would risk, I think, abdicating

or losing the ability to raise a defence of due diligence in any number of

circumstances.

MacPhail: Yes, and I recall very well our debate under the Professional

Foresters Act around this very issue, because of course the change from the old

Forest Practices Code to the new Forest and Range Practices Act says — and

this minister has admitted this, because it's true — that the government will

be relying on professional foresters in the employ of the licensees, the forest

companies, and that it will be incumbent upon the professional forester to do

the right thing to protect

[ Page 10242 ]

the public interest. We actually had a debate about the ranking of their

obligations, I recall.

The

minister's explanation is very interesting. How does one who is in the employ of

a forest company — the forester — guard the public interest when that public

interest may go against the private interests of his or her employer? How does

that work?

Hon. M.

de Jong: First of all, let us not discount the possibility that the

registered professional forester involved here is not an employee but could be a

contractor. In the case of major licensees, that is perhaps less likely, but in

the case of many of the smaller licensees involved, that is a more common

feature of the relationship. So there is that component. The member's question

arising out of that response would be…. It's the same question. They are tied

contractually to someone, and there is perhaps the same issue.

I suppose

that in the same way, many other self-regulated professions must address that

issue in the way that one could argue that in-house counsel or contracted

counsel in the legal profession might, on occasion, be confronted by a client

who seeks him or her to engage in an activity that is contrary to any one of the

tenets by which they are bound as a self-regulated profession. That concern

around conflicted professionals is not something that is unique to the

relationship that exists here. It exists in other circumstances as well.

MacPhail: Yes, I accept that, except that this is the professional who will

guarantee that the public interest is being acknowledged and addressed and who,

at the same time, is in the employ of a private interest whose own profitability

may be affected by the public interest. I'm not sure of another example such as

that. How does the privately employed — whether through contract or direct

employee relationship — professional forester guarantee public accountability?

How does he or she demonstrate that under this act?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Two responses come to mind, Mr. Chair. The first is that in this

process, that professional forester is preparing a document either as an

employee or as a contracting agent for a licensee. It is an important document

that must still pass muster with the district manager generally, pass muster

with that public official charged statutorily with the task of ensuring that the

objectives set out in the act, which are designed for the very reason the member

alluded to — to protect the public interest — are met.

[1615]

addition, I am reminded that where the registered professional forester does

affix his or her signature and attach his or her seal, they incorporate into

that, or are bound by, a series of professional ethical considerations that do

tie into protection of the public interest as stipulated by that profession.

It's the combination of the two.

The point I

would emphasize is that it doesn't begin and end with the preparation and

sign-off of the forest stewardship plan. There is still an approval mechanism

that is driven by public servants.

MacPhail: Has the minister or his staff in the public service had a chance

to discuss this matter directly with the Association of Professional Foresters?

Hon. M.

de Jong: In fact, there have been, dating back now over a year and a half,

pretty extensive discussions with what was the Association of Professional

Foresters and is now renamed the Association of B.C. Forest Professionals. The

reason for that is they have amalgamated with another group, forest technicians,

so there is a larger organization.

There have

certainly been those discussions, and they have touched on a number of issues. I

will acknowledge to the member that some of those concerns relate to everything

from, I think…. Well, I should be careful. I think there were some

professional foresters who suggested there should be a mandatory requirement and

others who thought differently. There were, as well, concerns expressed around

what the new legislative provisions might mean for the cost of professional

insurance, because in certain circumstances it is conceivable that in a

worst-case scenario, where liability is assigned against one party, they may

seek redress from a contracted professional forester. Each circumstance is

different.

There have

been extensive discussions around the various facets of what is proposed here

and the greater role, as the member pointed out, and the greater reliance,

though not exclusive reliance, that is being placed on the talents of the

professional foresters and technicians that comprise their professional body.

MacPhail: Has the new act that applies to professional foresters been

proclaimed?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Yes.

[1620]

MacPhail: The Forest and Range Practices Advisory Council also recommended:

"…the minister ensure that the forest planning and practices regulation

require sufficient content and details in forest stewardship plans to provide

for meaningful evaluation, public review and comment as well as approval or

rejection by a statutory decision-maker."

My question

is: how is the minister going to ensure that the forest stewardship plans are

supported with what the council says is sufficient information to ensure that

the public review process is meaningful? I mean, I'm sure the minister will say

you'll be monitoring it to see what kind of SFPs are prepared under the new act

— we've heard that there aren't that many yet — and to make sure they're

adequate, or not. If the minister is going to go in that direction, what is the

process that he's put in place to ensure, as these plans increase, that they are

adequate in terms of a public review process?

[ Page 10243 ]

Hon. M.

de Jong: I think there are two important periods for which the question has

relevance. One is the period of time during which the forest stewardship plan is

being developed. There are regulatory provisions in place that stipulate the

involvement or the entitlement that the public has to make their views. Or I

should actually say the reverse: the requirements and the obligations that

accrue to the licensee developing the plan to involve the public and to notify

the public. There are pretty specific regulations. That deals with the period

leading up to the development, submission and approval or disapproval of the

forest stewardship plan.

Following

that, there is also the question of access for the public to the plan itself

following approval having been granted. This touches on an area where, actually,

the public advisory committee provided some recommendations and advice that gave

rise to changes in the proposed regulation. That part of the regulation

providing for public review and comment of a forest stewardship plan now more

closely resembles the wording and, therefore, the opportunities that were

available under the former forest development plan. That's an example of where

the public advisory committee made some recommendations and offered some advice

that led to a change in the regulation.

At the end

of the day, though — and I apologize for the length of the answer…. I think

the member's question was: how are you going to know whether it's working? I'm

not sure I have a good answer for that. It is a case, I think, where you do have

to track whether the Forest Service and the district offices are receiving

complaints from those. The forest stewardship plan is on file with the district

office. I think that's where they would logically be kept. That provides a point

of entry for the public, so I can't imagine why, in the period of time after the

approval of a plan, there would be difficulty obtaining access. My hope would be

that with the technology available now, it would be simply a matter, eventually,

of logging on to review the plan.

I probably

have more concern…. If there is a concern, it would relate more to the

developmental period of the plan and whether or not we begin to hear about

complaints from the members of the public and interested parties about notice

being provided in a meaningful way.

[1625]

MacPhail: Along that theme, concerns about process around the implementation

of this new act, I read a news

article that in mid-March a group that

represented the environmental interests on the PAC withdrew from the process.

They were called the Forest Caucus of the B.C. Environmental Network. At least,

what the media reported was that they alleged that the environmental concerns

expressed by the PAC were not being meaningfully addressed by the government.

Has the minister or his staff had an opportunity to meet with representatives of

the Forest Caucus to see if that concern could be resolved?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Yes, the member correctly identifies an issue that arose. My

recollection is that the chief forester has had a meeting — actually, more

than one meeting. I have not, and that is my responsibility.

I am

hopeful that those that have chosen not to participate will change their minds.

I can think, as we have gone through this exercise, of a number of examples

where advice from various participants in the process — whether they are from

industry, from first nations, from the community, from the range and the

Cattlemen's Association and from what we often refer to as the ENGO community

— has given effect to tangible changes in the product.

I'm not in

a position to enlighten the member as to what, beyond the report she read, the

specific concern was. The advisory committee is there to provide a forum through

which people with diverse interests and diverse perspectives can provide their

commentary.

I will say

this: the report the member is referring to has some criticisms of the

regulatory package as well. It was designed to provide a forum and an avenue by

which those criticisms and those ideas could be presented and available to the

public and to government. I'm hopeful that those who have said they don't wish

to participate will have a change of heart, and I'm open to that.

MacPhail: In the meantime, how is the minister getting advice on proceeding

to alleviate or allay concerns of those who are particularly charged with

environmental interests?

[1630]

Hon. M.

de Jong: The committee, which is provided for in the legislation, continues

to sit, continues to exist. It is without a member or two at the moment. Were

those individuals unprepared to re-engage in the work of the committee — and

it is their right to do so; I hope that will not be their position, but if they

were unprepared to re-engage in the work of the committee — it would be my

intention to seek out representatives from within the ENGO community to

ascertain whether there are others who are prepared to have a go, recognizing

that there is a debate that takes place on that committee and with government.

That would be my answer to the member.

The

Chair: Hon. members, the House is going to recess for ten minutes.

The

committee recessed from 4:32 p.m. to 4:44 p.m.

[K.

Stewart in the chair.]

On vote 24 (continued) .

Hon. M.

de Jong: We were, earlier today and yesterday, discussing gross domestic

product and estimates around the significance of the forest sector to the

economy as measured by GDP. I've got a couple of numbers.

The

Vancouver Board of Trade estimates the B.C. forest industry accounts for,

directly and indirectly, 25

[ Page 10244 ]

percent, which is the number I referred to earlier. Within the Forest Service

the direct and indirect numbers are somewhat lower than that — 7.2 percent

direct and approximately 15 percent indirect. In both measures, there's

obviously significance, but one is different. I can't account for the

methodology that the board of trade has used to come up with its number.

[1645]

MacPhail: Thank you. I appreciate that.

I wanted to

move to the biodiversity report of the Forest Practices Board. I have two areas

to explore with Forest Practices Board decisions. One, they released a report

entitled Implementation of Biodiversity Measures under the Forest Practices

Code . That was released in March of this year. Then there is another report

just recently released on the forest practices related to the Kemess mine power

line. Let me make sure I'm right on that title: Special Report on the Kemess

South Mine Power Line Right-of-Way .

First, on

the biodiversity report…. Mr. Chair, this is definitely a non-partisan

question, because the report itself went back and covered the biodiversity

measures and the implementation of those from 1995 to 2003. That's six years

under the previous government and two years under this government, and it found

that during the entire time, the biodiversity strategy of the governments of the

day under the Forest Practices Code was applied unevenly.

As we move

forward on this, I'm curious as to whether the minister has any plans to work

with the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection to do what the report calls

for, which is to develop indicators to enable assessment of the effectiveness of

the measures to conserve biodiversity.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I, first of all, appreciate the spirit with which I believe the

question has been brought. And she's quite right. The study and the report that

arises from the study transcend governments in office, so we don't need to get

into that kind of exercise.

The member

anticipates in part what my answer was going to be, because the work in

coordinating with the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection to ascertain

how we can better realize the objectives as they relate to biodiversity has

already begun. Part of the work involves refining the measurement tools we use

and applying them to effectively evaluate what is taking place on the land base

as it relates to biodiversity.

I will say

this. It was with a view to capitalizing on the energies, the effectiveness and

the expertise of the Forest Practices Board in the way that is reflected in this

report that I thought and the government thought was important — to keep the

Forest Practices Board in the regime, in the new Forest and Range Practices Act

regime. As the member has pointed out by virtue of her question, these issues

don't go away because one statute replaces another. The overall concern around

management for these wildlife or environmental qualities remains, and the need

to have an arm's-length agency — and the member can take some credit for being

a member of the government that created that arm's-length agency to measure

these factors — is, I think, apparent to all.

So, yes,

the coordinating work has already begun. We take the report seriously. The

non-technical language would be that we're trying to develop approaches and

processes that will allow the Forest Practices Board to say government is doing

better.

MacPhail: The other issue that the Forest Practices Code dealt with recently

was the building of temporary bridges for the construction of the Kemess mine

power line. The history on that is that the Forest Practices Board already

addressed this issue in 1999. The company had built 169 temporary bridges to

allow for the construction of the power line, but in 1999 those bridges had not

been removed and had become an environmental threat.

[1650]

They

reissued a report — or they issued another report — on this matter in 2004

that said 53 of those 169 temporary bridges remain and continue to be a threat.

They also said that nobody in the government has taken responsibility for this.

They named the three ministries who had regulatory responsibility: Energy and

Mines; Water, Land and Air Protection; and Forests. The Forest Practices Board

recommended that those three ministries review the professional reports arising

from the 2004 inspection and take appropriate actions to ensure Kemess mine

addresses any concerns or environmental harm that is identified. Can the

minister tell me what action has occurred since this report?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Well, at the risk of the reaction this may attract from the member

— I've probably been at this long enough to concoct some kind of a flip

answer, but I won't — I just heard about the report now from the member. If

there is concern around action being taken, I'm not sure if it has. It hasn't

come to my attention except today by virtue of the member's intervention here. I

will endeavour to look into it. Maybe the fact that I don't know about it is,

hopefully, not a reflection of the attention it has received either within the

Forest Service or elsewhere in government, but I appreciate it being brought up

here today.

MacPhail: Humble acknowledgment of ignorance is always welcome on this side

of the House, so I thank the minister for that forthrightness. The report was

just from earlier this month, so I'm fine with that. I will await a written

reply to my question.

Mr. Chair,

I'm moving to timber takeback now. We debated some of this at several points in

the legislation, in several pieces of legislation dealing with the $275 million

package surrounding the changes in forest practices and forest compensation in

this province. Of a $275 million package that was part of the '02-03 provincial

budget, there was a $75 million compensation fund covering transition to the

Forest and Range Practices Act. So we have a $75 million pot of money for

[ Page 10245 ]

that. As I understand it, only $25 million of that has been pledged to

loggers.

Hon. M.

de Jong: Logging contractors.

MacPhail: Logging contractors? Okay, logging contractors. Fair enough. Then

there is still about $200 million set aside for forest corporations. What

discussions are taking place for the expenditure of the $25 million for logging

contractors? Let's start there.

Hon. M.

de Jong: A couple of things. First, I think I should acknowledge what the

member has heard and other members have heard, and that is the submission from

the contracting community — the TLA, the ILA, the Northwest Logging

Association — that they don't think it's enough money. There is that

disagreement or agreement to disagree on that front.

[1655]

At this

point I don't think I would suggest that discussions have, in any instance,

gotten beyond a general procedural level, because we're not yet at a stage

where…. We are just approaching the stage now where individual contractors are

beginning to get a sense of how they might be impacted. In licences where there

are multiple contractors, it's still unclear how an individual contractor might

be impacted.

I will give

an example of a contractor in the Terrace area whose entire licence, it appears,

will be captured by the takeback and reallocation. In that case, it is now clear

that there will be an impact on that contractor. That would be a triggering

event, to my mind, whereby that contractor would now want to do a couple of

things — first of all, contact the trustee who has now been put in place to

administer the $75 million trust. Eric van Soren, who, as the member may recall,

was involved in the Coast Sustainability Trust fund, has now been appointed.

There will be representation on his board from the logging community, the IWA

and the licensees. For that contractor, there is now something to talk about —

something specific to talk about.

I will say

this, however. Since we last discussed this matter in the House, another feature

has been added to the issue of transitional assistance, and this is as a result

of some pretty strong submissions that organizations like the TLA have made.

That is, for some who are contemplating leaving the industry, a discussion

around compensation and buyout of capital is one they are prepared to have. For

others who are very much anxious to remain a part of the industry and take

advantage of the new opportunities that might emerge with other licensees, what

they want is work. What we are discussing with them is the possibility of

transitional licence opportunities with volume that might exist through undercut

volumes or a combination thereof.

I think we

are at the leading edge now of contractor-specific discussions, via the trustee,

around the expenditure of that money. I should say this, and it's probably

apparent from the comments that I'm making. None of that money has yet been

expended. There has been no recipient of either the $25 million, the $50 million

or the $200 million, so it all remains with government at this stage.

MacPhail: I was going to ask about this musing — and I use that in a

polite sense — that the minister did say about transitional access to timber.

I assume that's what he means. He was referring to the undercut being available.

Two

questions. Does Mr. van Soren have final say on how money is spent? Is there any

appeal to his decisions? And is the undercut different than the AAC?

Hon. M.

de Jong: The answer to the first question around ultimate authority for the

expenditure of the trust funds is yes. That is for Mr. van Soren and his board

to consider, and there's no mechanism by which government or ministers can

intervene in that exercise beyond the fact that the terms of the trust were set

by government back a year ago. That is in place.

[1700]

The second

question, as it relates to AAC and undercut, is something that took me a while

to make sure I was getting straight, and I may yet reveal that I haven't got it

straight. We have an annual allowable cut that is in the neighbourhood of 75

million cubic metres. It fluctuates, and right now there have been some sizable

uplifts. If we have a licence that has an annual allowable cut of 100,000 cubic

metres over the term of that licence — five years — that would allow for

cutting 500,000 cubic metres of timber. If at the end of that five-year term

only 300,000 cubic metres have been harvested, we have an undercut of 200,000

cubic metres. Under the new legislation, which has been in place for some time

now, there is no provision for carrying that forward. Under the old legislation,

licensees could make application to carry that volume forward. That's no longer

available. That's new. Irrespective of that, there is a reservoir of undercut

volume from past years that is presumably there in part because approval was not

given to carry it forward.

It's a

volume of one-time cutting rights that have accrued to the Crown for a variety

of reasons but which the Crown now holds and can dispose of. The cautionary

note, of course, is that it is not replaceable volume, so if people make plans

around the notion that that volume will be there in perpetuity, they are

destined to be disappointed potentially.

MacPhail: Is this undercut that the minister may offer to contract loggers

theirs to sell? Does it become part of the B.C. timber sales, then, to determine

open market? What happens after that?

Hon. M.

de Jong: No, technically what they become is a licensee. They hold a

non-replaceable licence. They're what they call in the industry a market logger.

They would harvest the timber. They'd try to find a market for it obviously.

They'd come to an arrangement with a processor, which in our province generally

[ Page 10246 ]

tends to be other licensees. They'd harvest the wood, and they'd sell it.

That's the status they enjoy.

To get to

the member's point about sale, theoretically, I suppose they could sell.

Can they

sell a non-replaceable licence?

Interjection.

Hon. M.

de Jong: It is possible, but insofar as this would be a transitional licence

for a specific purpose to bridge them to a point in time, I'm not sure what

their interest would be in doing so. They certainly often employ subcontractors

for a lot of the work associated with the harvesting activity — the harvest

side or the roadbuilding side. In that sense, they are a licensee like any other

— a market logger licensee.

MacPhail: What's been the reaction to the floating of this idea?

[Interruption.]

Hon. M.

de Jong: My Pavlovian instincts, Mr. Chair, remain completely intact.

The

Chair: And they're thoroughly appreciated. Minister, please continue.

Hon. M.

de Jong: Well, it is a dog-eat-dog world after all, isn't it?

The idea

arose out of the logging contractor community, the TLA. It is not something we

began this exercise thinking about. There are challenges associated with doing

it. I should point out, because I have this opportunity, that there is not this

vast reservoir of timber out there in most of the province that one can draw on.

There are challenges associated with it. In areas where there are beetle uplifts

and undercuts associated with that, there are perhaps more opportunities, but to

be blunt, there's not a lot of shortage of work for the harvesting community in

those areas. It's more of an issue on parts of Vancouver Island, the west coast,

other parts of British Columbia.

[1705]

The TLA

diligently made it clear that they weren't satisfied with the envelope of money

government had set aside and also pointed out that for many of their members, it

wasn't money they were after. It was work. And while they saw some value and had

some enthusiasm for what these changes would eventually lead us to, they, like

many others, are concerned about the transitional period of time and want to

know that their members and the hugely valuable capital assets they have are

going to be working through that transition period. That is where the idea came

from. It struck the government as a good idea, and now we're trying to give it

effect.

MacPhail: As I was searching the latest developments on the timber takeback,

I did note some concerns raised by municipal politicians about the lack of

consultation on takeback affecting their communities. What is the status of

consulting local politicians, regional politicians and labour stakeholders

regarding the implications of timber takeback in their particular area?

I will note

one example. The minister may be able to stand up and say it has been resolved,

but the mayor of Hope, a Mr. Poole, said that there was a floating of the idea

— and I guess it's not an idea; it's a reality now — that Interfor is

planning to give up 100 percent of its tenure in the Fraser supply area. The

mayor is quoted as saying: "It's out of the blue, with no consultation for

the people being affected — like the community, like the employees. I got a

call from Interfor on this. The government never contacted us. The least they

could have done is contact us, let us have input." How do these things

unfold?

Hon. M.

de Jong: It's a good example, and the report is one that I recall reading. I

should tell the member that Mr. Poole, the minister of state and I and,

actually, much of the council of Hope met on the weekend. I'll relate to the

member the strategies that we are trying to employ to make what is a situation

of concern for the community leadership in Hope one that will work for them.

The

dilemma, of course, going through this, relates to the fact that the

relationship as per the licence is between the Crown and the licensee. As we

work through all of the various considerations — and the member has again, I

think, enumerated most of them — we talk about what we need from the Crown's

point of view in terms of representative volumes and volumes for first nations

and woodlots and communities.

That, in

part, drives what the Crown goes looking for in the reallocation process when we

say to a licensee: "Well, we would like to have this and this and

this." I won't purport to identify anyone in particular, but a licensee,

for their part, probably isn't thrilled about surrendering 20 percent of their

volume but then says, "Well, if I've got some stuff I don't like or junk,

let's see if I can roll that into this process and say to the Crown: 'Here are

some areas that you should be looking at.'"

All of that

discussion and negotiation, of course, also has implications for communities,

contractors and, in the case of the coastal situation, company harvest crews,

which generally are IWA crews. Finding a way to balance all of that out…. Of

course, it's a 20 percent takeback and reallocation. Yet by virtue of how we've

done it, where we've said, "It won't be each licence affected by 20

percent; some will be more, and some will be less," that creates a tension

for those who say: "Well, what's going on here? You've got 50 percent from

the licence in my community and 10 percent from another licence."

In the case

of Hope, in fact — and the licensee there is Interfor — it was 100 percent

of the licence. That, driven by the fact that the obligations we have vis-à-vis

the first nations, the Stó:lo in that area, require obtaining a volume of

timber…. The licensee doesn't want to

[ Page 10247 ]

be left with an unmanageable volume of 3,000 or 4,000 or 5,000 cubic metres,

so the licensee says: "Well, if that's what you need for those purposes,

then we prefer to surrender it all."

[1710]

Caught in

the middle, in a sense, are the members of the IWA company crew. I have met with

the representatives from the crew and members of the IWA national executive.

What we are trying to do is arrange for a transition that makes sense.

The mayor

of Hope, as recently as Friday night, re-emphasized to me his interest in

achieving a community forest for his community. I am sympathetic and supportive.

I have pointed out that in order to do that, there is going to need to be a

takeback, and that's going to impact on these individuals. I have also said this

— that timber needs to be harvested. You are not, as a community, going to

just sit on it and hoard it and have it for breakfast. You're going to need

people to harvest it. You've got a crew here that knows how to do that and has

been doing it very well for some time. Similarly, the first nations that are now

anxious to have access to that fibre in many cases are going to need some

capacity development and are going to need to contract with people to harvest

that timber.

The

challenge that we are now working on with all of those parties is to try and

effect a transition, which would see the members of that crew continue to work,

continue to live in the community they want to live in and continue to harvest

that timber.

The

licence, until we have arrived at a final settlement of those issues, remains

with the licensee, Interfor, so harvesting continues. There was, at the time of

that article, which I believe was in February or thereabouts…. It relates,

actually, to the week that letters went from the Ministry of Forests to the

licensees. Of course, the information in those letters begins to leak out, and

people are left with the impression that next week they're going to be out of

work. That's not the case. The volume remains with the licensee until we have

worked out these details.

I have to

say to the member that at the end of the day, it is a pretty site-specific

process that needs to be embarked upon. If there was a way to notify everyone

simultaneously, maybe that would have been the better way to do it. I couldn't

think of a way to do that. There are probably between a half dozen and a dozen

areas in the province that qualify. It's not an elegant term, but a hot spot

like Hope, where the potential impact was pretty obvious based on the data that

was released back in February, is going to require site-specific transitional

planning that involves first nations, that involves the community and that

involves either the contractor or the company crew, as the case may be.

MacPhail: What is the plan for Hope, and how is it being received?

Hon. M.

de Jong: So far I'm optimistic, based on the initial reaction that emerged

out of the meeting. I will pay tribute and compliment to the local

representatives from the company crew. In our meeting they left me with no doubt

that they are prepared to engage immediately and actively with the community of

Hope and the first nations to create a relationship that would see them assume

harvesting responsibility for the volumes that would accrue to those entities.

They, in effect, would be working for a different licensee.

[1715]

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

I thought

that might be met with some hesitancy or some reluctance. I got none of that. I

got a pretty clear expression of interest and willingness to embark upon that. I

also got a request for government, the Forest Service and my office, to try and

facilitate some of those discussions. Happily, there was an expression of

preparedness on the part of the IWA executive to also facilitate those

discussions. So at this stage, good intentions and a willingness to follow

through. The real test, of course, will be whether it matures into an actual

situation in which those people who want to continue to reside in Hope are

residing in Hope and are continuing to perform their profession, which is

harvesting timber.

MacPhail: What's the process for determining compensation to the forest

licensees — the $200 million fund that's for compensation for forest

licensees?

Hon. M.

de Jong: The actual jurisdictional authority and formula that drive the

calculation from the Crown's perspective and for the licensees, obviously, is in

the original legislation that was passed a year ago. The process that one would

follow, of course, relates again to identification of the actual areas. The

triggering mechanism at which point you would know with certainty which areas of

which licences are impacted to what extent is the signing of a ministerial

order.

The timing

on that varies depending on where you are in the province. We're hoping to

complete the northwest of B.C. within a matter of months and then move to the

coastal industry and then the interior of the province, which will take us into

Until such

time as there has been final determination of the actual areas, it won't be

possible to finalize the settlements with individual licensees around the

quantum that is owed to them in terms of compensation. My sense is that we will

settle more quickly with some licensees than others and that negotiations will

vary depending on the areas involved and the licensees involved and to what

extent there are differences in valuing the timber and infrastructure that is

captured by the reallocation process.

MacPhail: What's the time frame for full implementation and expenditure of

the $200 million?

Hon. M.

de Jong: If I'm wrong, I'll alert the member, but the bill that was passed

one year ago providing for the $200 million requires that…. Well, the bill giv-

[ Page 10248 ]

ing rise to the reallocation exercise stipulates that it must be complete by,

I believe, March '06.

MacPhail: I'm going to switch to a

section of the service plan that deals

with the human resource plan, page 64, and talk about FTEs, particularly as they

relate to the announcement that the minister and the Premier made over the

weekend about implementing the Firestorm 2003 Filmon report.

But I would

like to seek leave, Mr. Chair, to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

[1720]

Introductions by Members

MacPhail: I note that James Shavick has just arrived at the Legislature,

which is interesting. He's my fiancé, so that's interesting. Would the House

please make him welcome. Actually, I knew he was coming. Don't worry.

Debate Continued

MacPhail: The announcement that the Premier made on the weekend about

implementing the 42 Filmon recommendations is a welcome move forward from what

was the commitment of the government at the time of the release of the report

— when the Premier, I think, at the time said that some of the recommendations

would be costly to implement. Others have said that he said that they were too

costly to implement. I don't recall him actually saying that, but he was

reluctant to make a full commitment to the Filmon report because of the costly

nature of the recommendations.

I also note

there has been a substantial reduction in the Ministry of Forests staff,

staffing levels. I think it has been a 35 percent reduction of

full-time-equivalents over the course of the last three years. Now the minister

is rehiring 100 people. Or is it a rehire? Could the minister go through, in a

fairly simple way, the commitment that was made on the weekend to hiring

additional staff?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I will try to collect, while I'm providing this initial response,

more global numbers. The essence of the announcement from a staffing point of

view that took place on Saturday relates to something called a unit crew. A unit

crew within the protection bran