Hansard Blues

Committee of the Whole –

Section A

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Thursday, November

9, 2023

Morning Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 41 — FOREST STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

A) on Bill 41; S. Chant in the chair.

The committee met at 11:12 a.m.

On clause 38 (continued) .

The Chair: Good morning, Members. I call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 41, Forest Statutes

Amendment Act, 2023, to order.

Hon. B. Ralston: Prior to beginning questioning again, I did want to report to the committee on the

question about the forest operation maps, which I said I would get an answer for.

Let me just say this. The mapped information must be publicly available for 30 days.

The term is three years. It will be viewable online, and it will be held in the platform

for an additional five years. I hope that's a satisfactory answer.

M. Morris: Looking at

section 52.04(2)(b), it speaks to an applicant for a cutting permit being

required to provide information, plans, studies or analyses that the minister considers

will assist him in making these decisions.

I'll go back. I've already mentioned some of these hydrological studies. There are

ongoing science reports and various reports, and I know government has also implemented

a number of watershed assessments throughout the province, in different areas. Are

these the types of reports that the minister will be looking at as a requirement under

these applications that are being filed?

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: I just want to make sure that it's understood that while the language is "the minister,"

it's typically the minister's delegate. I don't sit at my desk with a big stack of

files and check off individual applications. I don't think I would be able to get

through them all.

The reason for this provision is that some representatives of industry — not all,

but some — are reluctant to provide the cutting permit issuer with information that

must be prepared under the Forest and Range Practices Act; for example, a site plan

— which may be requested, and some contractors will refuse to provide that — engineering

reports or wildlife reports. This gives the authority to the issuer to request those

reports to consider prior to making a decision.

M. Morris: That was one of the specific reasons why I'm asking the questions, because I'm aware

of a lot of those situations. And I assure the minister, having been in a minister's

chair before, that I know the act refers to the minister doing all these things. But

if it wasn't for the staff that's behind you and every other minister we have, there's

no way in the world we'd get through those papers. So I completely understand that.

A lot of times I have gone and requested various licensees' information on their calculations

for ECAs, equivalent clearcut areas, information on different things happening within

the operating area. And of course, they provide the reason that it's proprietary,

and they won't release it any further than that. I'm also troubled that they don't

release the information to the ministry, as well, that's trying to control that.

Subsection (3) requires that the information required under sub (2)(

b) must be prepared

by a person with qualifications specified by the minister. So in this respect, is

the minister looking at hydrologists, wildlife ecologists, habitat specialists? Or

is he looking at a contracting firm that might employ those people? How specific are

those directions going to be?

Hon. B. Ralston: Yes, there will be a requirement that the professional who's preparing the report

be a registered professional, for example, an engineer, a biologist, a forester —

the typical range of professional qualifications that would be expected in order to

give a professional opinion.

[11:20 a.m.]

M. Morris: Thank you for the answer.

This next one deals with 52.05. I'll address some of it here. But I know 52.05, under

this particular clause that we're on, was also amended in the next clause and then

re-amended in the clause after that. I'm not sure what the reasons were for that.

It states in 52.05, under this particular clause…. It says: "The minister must refuse

to issue a cutting permit (

a) if the minister determines that, taking into account

the prescribed matters, issuance of a cutting permit would compromise a prescribed

government objective…." Those are the objectives under the planning regulations, I'm

sure, unless there are some other ones out there.

I know, recently, that the Forest Planning and Practices Regulation was amended to

remove the off-ramp clause, I used to call it, in there that they must do all these

great things to deal with wildlife habitat and riparian areas and other things unless

it affected the amount of timber available for harvest and whatnot. That clause was

removed. It was amended here a little while ago.

What I'm curious about, though, is that…. Is it my understanding that that clause

is still applicable in four stewardship plans that have yet to expire? And how many

of those four stewardship plans are there, or is that being completely removed from

all four stewardship plans and is no longer an issue, is no longer something that's

considered?

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: I want to deal with just the

interpretation of subsection 52.05(

a) that was the initial

part of the member's question. The second part perhaps we can deal with in the subsequent

section.

The language that's there already really repeats the language that exists in the Forest

Act with some slight grammatical changes. This authority has only been used once,

in 2018, to justify the refusal of the permit. It established a government objective,

"ensuring that BCTS" — which is B.C. Timber Sales — "generates adequate cost and price

information and data respecting the harvest of representative Crown timber through

the planning, development and auction of the authority to harvest timber in BCTS operating

areas."

There has been a problem, and the member may be familiar with this, where BCTS has

done some of the preparation, built the roads, and then someone else will come in

and make an application for a cutting permit, and there hasn't been the discretion

to refuse that application. So this will give the authority to the issuer to refuse

an application in those circumstances.

Perhaps the member could repeat his other question, and we can try to deal with that.

M. Morris: I'm aware of those kinds of situations as well. What I'm curious about is the removal

of that clause without unduly affecting the amount of timber available for harvest.

It was repealed from the regulations recently, but in my understanding, it's still

applicable to the existing forest stewardship plans until they expire. So I'm wondering

if that is the case.

How many of those forest stewardship plans are in existence today, and how long are

they lasting before that clause no longer applies?

Hon. B. Ralston: The existing language in the plan would apply unless the plan is amended or is replaced

by a new stewardship plan or a forest landscape plan.

In terms of the number of forest stewardship plans, that's not available right at

the moment. We'll get that information for you. Also, I think I acknowledged the member's

question about the duration of these forest stewardship plans and will endeavour,

is insofar as it's possible, to get that information to you as well.

M. Morris: I think I understand that that clause still applies to the existing forest stewardship

plans unless they have been amended, which probably many of them haven't been with

respect to that part of it. So I'll appreciate hearing back on that information, when

the minister provides it.

In the same area, the issuance of a cutting permit would compromise a prescribed government

objective, and the government objectives, I'm assuming, are all the objectives that

are listed under

part 2 of division 1 in the planning and practices regulation. The

government objectives set for soils, for timber, for wildlife, for water, fish and

wildlife and biodiversity within riparian areas — are those the objectives that this

section covers as well?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: The focus of the cutting permit will be a site-specific consideration. I think it's

important to remember that in the planning process, a number of considerations will

already have taken place and been prepared in the process of leading up to the application

for a permit. The general principle that will guide that discretion is the management

and conservation of forests as objectives in that process.

[11:35 a.m.]

That's the process. It's not a new decision. It's a refinement of the previous decisions

that are specific to the site that's being brought forward.

M. Morris: So 3.1 addresses the management and conservation of forest resources. And we heard

yesterday from the minister that this includes all aspects of a forest — biodiversity,

hydrology, all those types of things. My question really hasn't been answered with

respect to if the objectives set by government are applicable under 52.05.

When 52.05 refers to a prescribed government objective, are all the objectives under

the planning and practices regulations dealing with the riparian objectives, wildlife,

water — those kinds of things — part of the objectives that need to be considered

under 52.05?

Hon. B. Ralston: Let me try this. The header above this

section is mandatory refusal to hear a cutting

permit. This is a fairly narrow, circumscribed discretion where the issuer is obliged

to refuse a permit. In order to do that, you need a specific regulation, and that

one exists. That's the one that I made reference to in the case of the BCTS situation

where there'd been work done and someone came along applying for a cutting permit

after, say, a road had been built or something like that.

I just want to emphasize, in what I'm saying here, the fairly narrow focus of this

particular section.

M. Morris: This is under the new

section 3.1, "Cutting Permits," and a requirement to obtain

cutting permits. We talked about the issuance of cutting permits and applications

for cutting permits under 52.04 and the mandatory refusal to issue a cutting permit.

So what information would the minister have, by this time — mandatory refusal?

[11:40 a.m.]

It comes before the minister or the delegate, and that person has to take into consideration

whether or not issuing the permit would compromise a prescribed government objective.

Bearing in mind all of these prescribed objectives that are listed in the planning

and practices regulations, what information would that decision-maker have with respect

to a certain area that's being cut, whether or not it is compromising or has complied

with the objective set by government?

I want to get into a couple of other areas there once I hear the answer from the minister.

Hon. B. Ralston: I think the answer is fairly nuanced, but let me try this. This decision in considering

an application is the first decision that would be considered. I wouldn't get to considering

the other objectives because the decision-maker is obliged to. It's mandatory to consider

this.

[11:45 a.m.]

So the decision-maker will have the B.C. Timber Sales maps and operation plan. If

B.C. Timber Sales has already done some work in the area, then the obligation is to,

and the decision-maker is required to, refuse the permit — full stop — at that stage.

You don't get to consider any other objectives in this process in that case. This

is the first decision, but the first aspect of the decision. If the applicant can't

overcome that hurdle, the permit is refused.

M. Morris: I know we're going to be breaking for lunch here.

Basically, I'm getting the picture of a process that is separate and siloed. One particular

part of the ministry will look at some of these objectives, and then it goes to the

next level. And by the time it gets to this particular stage for mandatory refusal

for issuing a cutting permit, a whole bunch of preliminary work has been done.

What I'm hearing from the minister is that the person making the decision on behalf

of the minister for this particular

section won't be privy to all these other decisions

and what was considered in those other decisions. I guess what I'm reading into this

is that this is a critical…. It's a mandatory refusal to issue a cutting permit. It's

the last step.

So the decision-maker has to consider all these other factors to make sure that all

the checks and balances have been put in place and everything is done by the time

it gets to this particular stage. Maybe something has surfaced indicating that maybe

the applicant is deficient in some of these areas here.

Am I reading that right? Is this sort of, basically, how that works? Then we'll get

into some more of that after lunch.

Hon. B. Ralston: The opportunity to make an application for the permit emerges from a planning process

which identifies areas where that would be appropriate. But it comes to a single decision-maker,

and there is a process. It's not legally mandated what order they're considered in,

but it's a logical way to consider the application. If the application fails to pass

this test that the application has to comply with, and it doesn't, it's mandatory

to refuse that permit. So that's why the decision-maker would likely….

In the decision tree or matrix or however you call it, that would be addressed early

on. Then you wouldn't get to considering the other aspects of issuing and the new

discretion that this affords the decision-maker, because it would be basically stopped

at that stage. If you can't pass that hurdle, the application doesn't go forward.

The decision-maker is obliged to refuse it, so the process ends there.

I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:50 a.m.

Top

NOTICE: This is a DRAFT transcript of debate in one sitting of the Legislative Assembly of

British Columbia. This transcript is subject to corrections and will be replaced by

the final, official Hansard report. Use of this transcript, other than in the legislative

precinct, is not protected by parliamentary privilege, and public attribution of any

of the debate as transcribed here could entail legal liability.

Copyright © 2023: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada