2002 Legislative Session: 3rd 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)

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2002

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 10, Number 5

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Privatization of passenger rail service

W. Cobb

Piper James Clelland Richardson

B. Penner

Remembrance Day

H. Bloy

Oral Questions

Child protection

J. Kwan

Hon. C. Clark

Hon. M. Coell

Child care funding

J. MacPhail

Hon. L. Stephens

Hon. R. Coleman

Public service pension plan changes

K. Stewart

Hon. G. Collins

Sex offender registry

B. Penner

Hon. R. Coleman

Post-operative care beds

Hon. C. Hansen

Reports from Committees

Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations, first report

K. Stewart

Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct,

Standing Orders and Private Bills

B. Penner

Second Reading of Bills

Forest and Range Practices Act (Bill 74)

(continued)

M. Hunter

J. Les

D. Chutter

J. Nuraney

D. Hayer

K. Krueger

K. Stewart

Hon. M. de Jong

Committee of the Whole House

Residential Tenancy Act (Bill 70) (continued)

J. Kwan

Hon. R. Coleman

R. Hawes

W. Cobb

[ Page 4397 ]

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2002

The House

met at 2:04 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon.

C. Clark: It's my pleasure to welcome to the House two representatives of

INTRIA Items Inc., Mike Edwards and John Buck. INTRIA Items has over 600

employees in B.C. They were named by the Globe and Mail as one of the top

50 companies to work for in Canada, and I know that INTRIA is committed to

growing and expanding in British Columbia. I hope the House will please make

them welcome.

[1405]

Hon. G.

Cheema: I would like to introduce nine prominent and well-respected members

of the community today. I am totally honoured to be associated with them. They

are Karnail S. Nagra, Dalbir S. Randhawa, Baldev S. Sandhu, Sarbjit S. Bajwa,

Joginder S. Wahlla, Bob Randhawa, Tariq Ghuman, Harjinder Mangat, Navroop Kahlon.

Would the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. L.

Stephens: Today in the House I would like to recognize a very special

person. She's been a government employee for the past 25 years and has served in

12 ministries over that time. She's currently the office coordinator in my

office and really does keep us all on track. I'd like the House to congratulate

Leslie Trueman.

Hon.

S. Santori: Last week we had the pleasure of having the Hon. Stan Hagen up

in my riding to sign off on a 50-year lease with Red Mountain. That agreement

with the provincial government will make Red Mountain the second-largest ski

area in British Columbia, second only to Whistler-Blackcomb.

This will

open the door for 10,000 skiers and boarders a day, as well as make available

the opportunity for $33 million in investment at the Red Mountain ski resort. It

gives me great pleasure today to introduce to the House from Red Mountain

resorts, the principal Skat Pedersen, Don Findlay and Mike Robbins. I would ask

that the House make them feel welcome.

Hon. G.

Halsey-Brandt: Today in the members' gallery we have a very special guest

from Switzerland. Robert Helfenstein is the newly appointed consul general of

Switzerland at Vancouver, and he is visiting Victoria to make official calls on

the government, the Lieutenant-Governor, the Speaker and several ministers.

Mr.

Helfenstein has served his country in Paris, Bangkok, London and Athens and most

recently in Switzerland's capital, Bern. We look forward to working with him and

to strengthening trade and cultural relations between British Columbia and

Switzerland. Please join me in giving him a very warm welcome to British

Columbia.

Hon.

J. van Dongen: Visiting us today from the Robert Bateman Secondary School in

Abbotsford are 20 grade 11 and grade 12 law students. Accompanying them are

teachers Doug Primrose and Jeff Dodds. I ask the House to please make them

welcome.

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: Today there is a bit of sadness in the ministry's office because

one of our members is leaving. She is moving to another department. Chrissy

Melling is in the gallery today. She has been exemplary for most of us and a

pleasure to work with. I had a special connection with her because she, like me,

has Dutch roots.

In Dutch: Veel

geluk en we praten later. That means "good luck," and I would like

the House to share with me in that greeting.

D. Hayer:

I'm very pleased to announce that two of my good friends, along with many other

friends, are visiting the House today. One is Tariq Ghuman, a constituent from

the Surrey-Tynehead riding. The other one is Joe Wahlla. Would the House please

make them very welcome.

Lekstrom: It's my privilege today to introduce a class of 40 students

visiting from Dawson Creek's Central Middle School here today, a group of

students who are involved in the Leadership 8/9 class. Accompanying the students

are teachers Deirdre Fleming and Diana Lindstrom. As well, the advisers along on

this trip are Joanne Nelson, James Ward, Shanon Pratt, Karen Hills and Vicki

Bouchard.

As well,

it's certainly a special occasion for me to be able to introduce this class, as

my daughter Taiya is here. Could the House please join me in making them

welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) PRIVATIZATION OF

PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE

[1410]

W. Cobb:

I want to take a couple of minutes to talk about B.C. Rail and the role it will

play in the future in my riding. There is no doubt that this issue has touched a

nerve among my constituents, as there is a real attachment to the railway. Many

people have contacted me to share their concerns, and I want to assure them that

their voices are being heard. The reality is, though, that B.C. Rail has been

unable to run a profitable passenger service. This is not a new issue. We can't

simply ignore it and hope it will go away, and we can't continue to throw money

at it.

The

passenger service has lost money for the last 90 years. B.C. Rail will focus on

its core service, which is freight, and that's good news for the Cariboo as we

work to renew the resource industries. Private passenger service has been

successful in other parts of the province, and I believe it can be successful in

the Cariboo if we work together.

[ Page 4398 ]

I was

encouraged to hear the member for Kamloops–North Thompson speak yesterday

about the successes of the Rocky Mountaineer and what can be done when

the private sector is allowed to market and promote a product. The ridership of

the Rocky Mountaineer in ten years went from 11,500 when run by the

government to 70,000 passengers when run by private industry. This is a success

story, and I believe we can duplicate that success in the Cariboo.

The tourism

potential in my region is incredible, and we need to tap into that market. B.C.

Rail did not focus on passenger service, plain and simple. In 100 Mile House

there were only 1,700 passengers in a year. That works out to about four people

a day. We need to attract more people, and I believe the private sector can do

that best. B.C. Rail will deal with freight.

I'm

optimistic that a third-party owner will alert passengers to one of the most

scenic and fantastic parts of British Columbia. The railway has played an

important role in the development of Cariboo South, and it can play an important

role once again. We all need to get on board and make sure it happens.

PIPER JAMES CLELLAND RICHARDSON

Penner: Just behind me out in the hallway are a number of black and white

photos, which we walk past every day. These photos honour 22 British Columbians

who have been awarded the Victoria Cross. The VC is the highest and most

prestigious award for gallantry in the face of the enemy that can be awarded to

British and Commonwealth forces. One of the photos depicts a particularly young

and mischievous-looking teenager. According to the inscription, this B.C.

recipient had been a resident of Chilliwack.

James

Clelland Richardson was about 16 years old when he joined the army in 1914.

Known as Jimmy, he was born in Scotland, later moving to Chilliwack when his

father became the chief of police prior to World War I.

Assigned to

the 16th infantry expeditionary force, also known as the Canadian Scottish,

Jimmy served in Belgium and France. His rank was that of a private, and his role

was that of a piper, to play his bagpipes and inspire his fellow soldiers while

intimidating the enemy.

During the

Battle of the Somme, one of the bloodiest battles of World War I, Jimmy pleaded

for permission to "go in" with a planned assault on German-held

positions. The Canadians came up against heavy barbed wire, and at that moment

gunfire and mortar fire erupted from the German lines, and Canadian soldiers

started falling to the muddy ground. Not one of the Canadian soldiers managed to

get past the barbed wire. Things looked bleak indeed.

Jimmy

turned to a sergeant major, asking if he should play his bagpipes: "Wull I

gie them wund?" The sergeant major replied: "Aye, mon, gie them wund."

According to the official citation, here's what happened next.

"Piper

Richardson strode up and down outside the wire, playing his bagpipes with

the greatest coolness. The effect was instantaneous. Inspired by his

splendid example, the company rushed the wire with such fury and

determination that the obstacle was overcome and the position captured.

"Later,

after participating in bombing operations, he was detailed to take

back a wounded comrade and prisoners. After proceeding about 200 yards,

Piper Richardson remembered he had left his pipes behind. Although strongly

encouraged not to do so, he insisted on returning to recover his pipes. He

has never been seen since, and death has been presumed accordingly, owing to

the lapse of time."

Piper

Richardson was later awarded the Victoria Cross for "most conspicuous

bravery and devotion to duty." He is the only Canadian piper to have been

awarded the Victoria Cross. Let's remember Jimmy and thousands of other

soldiers who showed commitment, unflinching courage and a willingness to serve

our great country.

REMEMBRANCE DAY

[1415]

H. Bloy:

I would like to speak today in respect of Remembrance Day. I want to take this

opportunity to pay tribute to and honour the many men and women who are serving

and who have given their lives unselfishly to protect our country over many

years. I want to read one of the most memorable war poems ever written. It was

written during the First World War by Lt. Col. John McCrae, a medical doctor of

the Canadian army. It's In Flanders Fields .

In Flanders fields the poppies blow

Between the crosses, row on row,

That mark our place; and in the sky

The larks, still bravely singing, fly

Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago

We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,

Loved and were loved, and now we lie

In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:

To you from failing hands we throw

The torch; be yours to hold it high.

If ye break faith with us who die

We shall not sleep, though poppies grow

In Flanders fields.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members and ladies and gentlemen, will you join us, please, in

a moment's silence for all of our veterans.

Thank

you, hon. members. Please be seated.

Oral Questions

CHILD PROTECTION

J. Kwan:

When the Liberals were in opposition, they said that there was a crisis and that

it needed to be addressed immediately. Let me quote the Deputy Premier.

"Children are being lost on streets every day. The question we're asking

today is: what is the government going to do about it?" I remind the Deputy

Premier that

[ Page 4399 ]

after extensive consultation, the previous government brought forward secure

care legislation, and the Liberals supported it. Now we learn that the Liberal

government has put off secure care legislation until 2005.

To the

Deputy Premier: if it was such a crisis when the Liberals were in opposition,

why is it not a crisis today for this government?

Hon. C.

Clark: I'll be delighted to take that question on notice on behalf of the

Minister of Children and Family Development.

J. Kwan:

That was a quote from the Deputy Premier herself, when she was in opposition.

I would

like to quote the Premier in this House on May 15, 2002. He said: "We know

there are countless families in the province of B.C. who understand the urgency

and the necessity for providing secure care for our children and youth in this

province." The Premier asked the minister of the day: "What is the

holdup? Why is the minister stalling on this matter, which has been so clearly

identified as a matter of true risk to the children in the province of

B.C.?" Does the Deputy Premier have an answer to the Premier's question?

Hon. C.

Clark: I know the minister is working on it, and I'd be delighted to take

that question on notice on his behalf.

J. Kwan:

Well, the Liberals talk a good talk when they're in opposition. Now that they're

in government, all the compassion they showed for children at risk is gone,

sacrificed to pay for the big tax breaks to the wealthiest British Columbians.

They eliminated the child, youth and family advocate office, they eliminated the

office of the children's commissioner, and now they've put off the secure care

legislation until 2005.

Again to

the Deputy Premier: are these children at any less risk now, when the Liberals

are in power? Are they at any less risk now that the Liberals are here, or was

the Premier simply being hypocritical, a political opportunist, when he demanded

that government act faster on secure care legislation when he was the opposition

leader?

[1420]

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. member, the question has been taken on notice twice. It is out

of order. The Deputy Premier may answer if she wishes, or the Minister of Human

Resources.

Hon. M.

Coell: I'll do my best to answer some of the questions posed. In keeping

with our commitment to take legislative steps to address sexually exploited

youth, the Ministry of Children and Family Development is developing a new

legislation, safe care, which will focus on sexually exploited youth and

establish a more efficient and court-based judicial process which would be

better to protect the rights of children.

CHILD CARE FUNDING

MacPhail: This week we learned that the Cridge Centre in Victoria and 39

more of B.C.'s best day cares are going to have to cut services because of

Liberal cuts. Let me just read from a letter from the Cridge Centre….

Interjections.

MacPhail: Let me read me from a letter from the Cridge Centre…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

MacPhail: …sent to parents last….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Let us hear the question.

MacPhail: Let me just read from a letter from the Cridge Centre sent last

week to parents: "The end of compensation funding means that next April,

$300,000 a year will be eliminated from our budgets. This is an impossible

amount for the Cridge Centre to find from ongoing programs and services."

Today we

learn about another day care that's in danger of going under because of

government cuts. For 30 years the St. David's Preschool has been providing

top-quality child care to parents on Vancouver's east side. As a result of the

Liberals' draconian cuts to day care subsidies, many low-income parents can no

longer afford to send their children to St. David's. They've had a 25 percent

decline in enrolment because of the cuts to day care subsidies by this

government.

To the

Minister for Women's Equality: why are you threatening B.C.'s best child care

facilities, like St. David's, with closure?

Hon. L.

Stephens: Almost all — virtually all — of the child care centres and the

child care providers in this province provide quality, affordable and accessible

care for parents. This government is not cutting funding to child care centres.

What we have at play is a labour negotiation that is going on.

MacPhail: I asked you another question. Did you listen to the question?

An Hon.

Member: Do you listen…?

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. L.

Stephens: This particular agreement is again another example of this

government having to clean up the mess left behind by that government. We are

continuing to fund child care spaces. We will continue to fund child care spaces

in the future. The new child care plan will be announced shortly.

[ Page 4400 ]

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.

MacPhail: I hope the minister actually listens to the question. The question

was about cuts this government has made to child care subsidies, of which every

government caucus member is painfully aware.

There's

more to this issue. Clearly, the minister's credibility with parents is

disappearing. It was just demonstrated this moment, almost as fast as day care

centres are disappearing. It's not only the draconian changes to day care

subsidies that are threatening centres like St. David's in east Vancouver. Every

year St. David's child care centre received gaming funds to help operate its

facility — every year. This year their application has been stalled in Liberal

red tape. That's despite the fact that the minister responsible for gaming

assured this House earlier this year that his changes will make things easier

for non-profits like St. David's to access those funds. As of this morning, they

have received nothing. They made their application, as they do every year, in

April.

To the

Minister for Women's Equality: will you do your job for a change and demand that

the gaming minister release funds to B.C.'s child care centres before more kids

are thrown out of child care by this government?

[1425]

Hon. R.

Coleman: As the member well knows, there is a process with regards to gaming

applications, and in actual fact, our staff have moved the backlog pretty well

in the last number of months.

One of the

pressures we've experienced is the overapplication of an unsustainable amount of

money for charities in the province of British Columbia. This year we are still

doing the exact amount of money we've always done for gaming in the past. Those

grants are processing through. I will look into St. David's as an individual

application, but the member darned well knows we are processing the funds, we

are delivering the funds, and the charities are receiving the funds in an

expeditious manner based on the program available.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order. Order, hon. members. Order. Will the Leader of the

Opposition and the Solicitor General please come to order, and the Minister of

Energy and Mines. Let's have some decorum here while we hear the question from

the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows.

PUBLIC SERVICE PENSION PLAN CHANGES

Stewart: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Recently I have received

a number of inquiries from retired civil servants concerning changes to their

pension plan and what impact these changes will have on their retirement plans.

To the

Minister of Finance: can he tell me and my constituents who made these changes

and why they were made?

Hon. G.

Collins: Perhaps I can take the opportunity to answer two questions, the one

posed by the former Minister of Finance. It was the NDP who stole money from

charities — nobody else in British Columbia. It was the NDP, and I'm…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Hon. G.

Collins: …actually astounded she would have the gall to even ask that

question.

But to

answer the question posed by the member from Maple Ridge, a number of years ago

the previous government went into a system of comanagement with the public

sector unions around public sector pension plans, so the government no longer

makes decisions with regard to the benefits that are given or not given to

beneficiaries of that plan. There is something in that plan called an inflation

adjustment account to which money is allocated, and it's there to deal with

costs of living to adjust the dollars that the members actually receive in their

pension cheque.

If the

earnings that the pension plan makes from its other investments are sufficient

to offset the growth in costs of living, then the inflation adjustment account

can be used for other things. In fact, they have been used over the years, as

those surpluses were there, to provide what are called temporary benefits for

members. They're called temporary benefits because they're not necessarily part

of the plan, and they won't necessarily be there forever.

So if the

results of the investments that are made, the profits from those investments

decline or the cost of those benefits rises… The trustees have to make a

decision, and their first priority is to make sure that the cash payment to the

members is there and the temporary benefits need to be scaled back. That's

what's happened in this case. I'm assuming that's what the trustees are doing.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows has a supplementary

question.

Stewart: We're all aware of the difficulties in the investment situation out

there in the environment where many people's moneys are placed. Many seniors in

British Columbia, though, live on fixed income and are concerned about

government policies that are going to make it harder to make ends meet.

Can the

Minister of Finance tell us what the government is doing to help lower-income

British Columbians?

Hon. G.

Collins: Well, the first thing we did in office, despite the comments from

members of the NDP, was provide a tax cut — not just to the wealthy in British

[ Page 4401 ]

Columbia but to low-income individuals as well — of 28 percent for those

earning $30,000 or less.

We've also

increased the tax credit for disabled people and their caregivers. We have

adjusted the MSP premiums so that people on low income — about 230,000

additional people on low income — pay either less or no MSP premiums. We've

also increased the refundable sales tax credit. We focused the employment and

income assistance on helping people get back into the workforce. We raised the

disability earning exemption by 50 percent. We increased the budget for

subsidized housing by 15 percent, and we increased focus on early childhood

development. There's a series of things this government has done to make sure

the people at the low-income level have been protected from some of the tough

decisions that need to be made and, in fact, have received additional benefits.

[1430]

SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY

Penner: My question is to the Solicitor General. Canadian Premiers have

talked for years about the need for a national sex offender registry. This week,

coming out of meetings in Calgary with his provincial counterparts, the federal

Justice minister announced the federal government will indeed now take steps to

implement such a registry.

Can the

Solicitor General provide British Columbians with further details on this

announcement?

Hon. R.

Coleman: At the federal justice ministers conference, which was the last

couple of days in Calgary with all of the justice ministers of Canada, the

federal government did indeed outline what we as ministers have been asking for

and working with the federal government for some time to accomplish, and that is

a national sex offender registry as part of the Canadian police information

computer system, which we refer to as CPIC, the system that handles all the

wants and warrants.

We are

pleased with this step. As far as the national sex offender registry, there are

still some issues to be worked out. But we're glad that through the initiatives

of ourselves, Ontario and Alberta, they have moved to a national registry, which

we wanted all along. Frankly, we wanted no borders for sex offenders to be able

to move across this country without us knowing where they were.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Chilliwack-Kent has a supplementary question.

Penner: That sounds like good news, because British Columbians have been

waiting a long time for such a registry. In opposition, B.C. Liberals supported

the need to implement a sex offender registry. Now that this announcement has

finally been made, can the Solicitor General explain to us a bit more how it may

eventually protect British Columbians?

Hon. R.

Coleman: This is a good first step. It allows us to establish a registry.

There are some issues we're going to have to nail down with regards to

retroactivity as far as sex offenders already in our system that we would want

to have registered: photographic ability, which the CPIC system can't

necessarily handle but we think we can enhance with our PRIME-BC, which we're

implementing across the province, along with GPS mapping which would be used as

an investigative tool.

This is a

step relative to sex offenders, but we must also remember there are steps that

we're trying to do in British Columbia — some other initiatives where we would

be able to track actual repeat sex offenders who we know are in danger of

re-offending, because they know they will re-offend within a certain period of

time. This is one tool as part of a bigger picture that we're going to build to

protect our children in this province.

[End

of question period.]

POST-OPERATIVE CARE BEDS

Hon. C.

Hansen: Yesterday I took on notice a question from the member for

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant with regard to a patient from Kelowna. The member

referred to a letter that had been sent to me dated September 10. I can assure

the House that following receipt of that letter, officials from the health

authority met with the family on several occasions, including a meeting with the

chief executive officer. While the patient was still in the hospital a

convalescent plan was put forward that would see the patient discharged a week

after surgery and returned to the retirement residence where she lived with full

nursing support. This is an entirely appropriate and safe form of care for a

patient in this particular circumstance and would have been fully funded by the

taxpayers of British Columbia.

The family

rejected this plan and instead chose the option of placing the patient in a

totally private care facility. In doing so, they have to assume the obligations

for the costs that were incurred.

Reports from Committees

Stewart: Hon. Speaker, I have the honour today to present the first report

of the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations for the third session of

the thirty-seventh parliament. I move the report be taken as read and received.

Motion

approved.

Stewart: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving

of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave

granted.

Stewart: I move the report be adopted. In doing so, I wish to make a few

comments.

[ Page 4402 ]

I'd first

like to thank the committee members, Clerk of Committees staff and presenting

witnesses for their cooperation in this process. After almost a 20-year gap,

this is the first report to hold the Crown corporations directly accountable

through a transparent process to this House and the people of British Columbia.

[1435]

All the

transcripts of the interviews are in Hansard , directly available to the

public as completed. This report will also be available on the Internet this

afternoon, thus meshing the goals of openness and transparency with technology.

It is my pleasure to deliver this report and to continue the process of holding

the government Crown corporations accountable to the public we serve.

Mr.

Speaker: The question is adoption of the report.

Motion

approved.

Penner: I, too, have the honour to present a report, this time from the

Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing

Orders and Private Bills.

I move the

report be taken and read as received.

Motion

approved.

Penner: By leave, I move that the report be adopted.

Leave

granted.

Motion

approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call continued debate on second reading of Bill 74.

Second Reading of Bills

FOREST AND RANGE PRACTICES ACT

(continued)

Hunter: I'm pleased to have this opportunity to speak to a bill, the Forest

and Range Practices Act, that represents, in my opinion, a turning point in the

history of British Columbia. Why do I say it's a turning point? In order to do

that, I want to take a look back and take a moment to see what's happened to the

forest industry.

I have to

make a confession, though. My knowledge of the B.C. forest industry came

relatively late in life, because as a youth growing up in the United Kingdom, I

thought forests were collections of trees in the corner of a field where you

went for a quiet smoke. I thought that Sherwood Forest, the legendary home of

Robin Hood, was a pretty big place. But when I was 17, I went on a trip that

took me to a small part of Scandinavia, to the Soviet Union and to Eastern

Europe, and I started to realize there were more trees in the world than I had

thought.

A few years

later I got on a train in Montreal and travelled through the great expanses of

northern Ontario. Two days later I was coming down the North Thompson and the

Fraser valleys and starting to realize what a forest really was. Since then,

I've had the opportunity and the privilege to see much of British Columbia and

to realize how vast our forests are and how important they are to the history

and the future of our province.

I've come

to understand, I think, more than a little about the role the forests play in

the ecological fabric of where we live as well. I've had the pleasure of reading

some of the exploits of pioneers like Jim Spilsbury, whose accounts of life in

coastal B.C. and in coastal forest camps earlier in the last century should be

required reading in our public schools. I'm sorry the Minister of Education

isn't here to hear that. Jim Spilsbury's recollections tell how essential and

integral forestry is in British Columbia, especially on the coast.

How many of

our children understand that in their grandfather's day, there was a sawmill and

a salmon cannery in just about every cove along the length and breadth of our

coastline? How many of these children today understand that the historical

pattern of industrial activity that existed then continues to influence how the

province works today? I've had the privilege in my life of working with people

who were active in the heyday of the commercial salmon and herring fisheries,

and I've heard their accounts of how the coastal forest industry conducted its

affairs.

[1440]

It's fair

to say that the relationship between the forest industry and the fishing

industry was not always calm and friendly. In fact, it was one characterized by

enmity. Forestry practices in some parts of British Columbia, frankly, did have

unmistakable adverse impacts on other resource values, including fish. I'm not

an apologist for the kind of behaviour or the standards that allowed the logging

of hillsides right down to the spawning gravel. Nor do I think that forestry

created every bit of variability in fish stocks over 100 years, as some would

have you believe.

It's very

easy to criticize long after the fact. It's easy to pick on the mistakes that

were made and to ignore the changes that have happened in our lifetimes in our

forest industry. Let's make no mistake. The forest industry is one of the key

reasons why we are here enjoying the standard of living we do. That is why this

bill is so important, and that is why I call it a turning point.

The forest

industry, unfortunately, is an industrial sector that has been taken for granted

for far too long. Not so many years ago, residents of Vancouver knew the forest

industry. False Creek was home to a variety of businesses that transformed wood

into usable products. Many of us will remember walking across the old Cambie

Bridge by the cooperages and the other factories that existed there. Every

September the air would fill with the smoke of slash-burning fires. But now few

people in our largest metropolitan area notice when

[ Page 4403 ]

another timber factory, lumber facility or manufacturing facility closes. You

have to wonder these days if people think that the lumber business starts and

ends at Revy or Home Depot.

The fact

is, and it's useful to remind people, that you can't make a pencil without

cutting down a tree. You can't frame a house without cutting down a few trees.

You can't pay for public services without cutting down a whole bunch of trees.

It's sad that the obvious has to be stated, but it does. People in this province

simply have to get their heads around the fact that without a competitive,

profitable and innovative forest industry, we will become the Argentina of the

north.

I have

nothing against Argentina, especially since my home country, England, knocked

them out of the World Cup last June. But it's worthwhile remembering that

Argentina went from the world's eighth-largest economy pre-Second World War to

somewhere near the bottom of the pack. We cannot and must not allow the same

fate to happen to British Columbia.

That's why

I'm stressing the importance of the forest industry and why we must continue to

drive home the message that we must assist the industry to rebuild its sagging

fortunes. If anybody thinks the fortunes of the industry aren't sagging, all you

have to do is read the Pearse report from last November. Dr. Pearse focused on

the coastal forest industry, as he was requested to do. But he paints a picture

of an industry in decline, an aging capital stock that has not been replaced in

25 years, an aging labour force like some of us around here, no product

innovation, low or even negative returns on equity invested — not good signals

for any industry on which our entire economy still depends.

Government

has had not a little to do with the decline of the forest industry. I just want

to confine my remarks to the coast in this respect, because that's where I have

learned about the forest industry in B.C. and what I mostly know about it.

Government has increased the costs of the forest industry in coastal B.C. The

Forest Practices Code that we are now about to change is just one government

impact. High corporate taxes, capital taxes, sales tax on machinery — all of

these and more have conspired to make our industry uncompetitive.

Let's look

for a moment at the pulp sector. I have a pulp mill in my riding. It provides

high-paying jobs to more than 600 people in Nanaimo, people who provide for

their families and who buy goods and services in their neighbourhood and in

mine. The pulp industry is having a tough time. Why? Well, British Columbia has

moved from a low-cost producer to a high-cost producer. Southern radiata pine

pulp is threatening the B.C. product in markets around the world, even though it

is less desirable as a raw material for paper production.

[1445]

The cost of

raw material, the wood chips, is making the pulp cost too high. Wood chips cost

a lot because of government-imposed costs. Now, no one can legitimately complain

about the costs of environmental protection. The days of the smell of money are

gone forever, and some of us will remember when you went past a pulp mill, that

was what you smelled. Those days are gone, but government has kept driving up

costs. Workers Compensation Board rates in the pulp industry alone, in 2003,

will increase costs in my mill by over a quarter of a million dollars.

I have

other lumber manufacturers in my riding, companies that are struggling to make

paper-thin margins. They're running 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to keep

their unit costs low enough to be competitive. They're being innovative with

product development, marketing, the sourcing of raw materials and, importantly,

labour relations. They don't need government to add more costs. They need us to

reduce costs and be a partner in regaining competitiveness and strengthening

competitiveness and profit margins, because without profits, there will be no

improvements in capital and no investment in labour. Assets will become

depreciated, not replaced, just like in Argentina.

difficult circumstances over the last decade and a half, the B.C. forest

industry has been remarkably adept. In the face of what I call economic

terrorism, threats of boycotts, and so on, and efforts by Canadians and

foreigners to impose specific trade boycotts, in the face of a determined

southeast U.S. lumber trade lobby and an unfriendly if not hostile NDP

government, industry is still here, and it can be rebuilt.

The Forest

Practices Code simply added insult to injury in the mid-1990s. If it was a

defence against economic terrorism, it was ill-advised, in my opinion. Together

with the infamous jobs and timber accord, it represented the height of state

intervention and interference. Remember the jobs and timber accord — the

22,000 new jobs? The results from that: 8,500 jobs actually lost.

The Forest

Practices Code substituted government bureaucracy for common sense,

on-the-ground knowledge and professional judgment. The Forest Practices Code, as

it exists today, said that the industry which contributed the most to this

province could not be trusted, that its employees and contractors couldn't do

their job.

This bill

we are debating today is long overdue and most welcome. This bill represents a

start in the process of industry rejuvenation. I would remind the minister that

it's not the only reform that is needed. I look forward to acting in other ways

to bring the industry's legal and regulatory structure into the twenty-first

century.

The forest

industry knows what the government knows. It knows that environmental protection

is a fundamental and unalterable commitment of this generation to the next and

the next. We know that environmental protection and economic activity through

the harvesting of trees are compatible, not opposing, objectives. In many ways

the forest industry in B.C. has led a revolution in forest practices. On Crown

land and on private lands, industry practice in B.C. is the best practice

anywhere.

[ Page 4404 ]

Remember

the old Participaction ads and how the 60-year-old Swede easily beat the

30-year-old Canadian? Well, it's time to show the Swedes that we can beat them

in forestry, that we take a back seat to no country when it comes to

environmental protection and stewardship. Whether it's protection of wetlands,

fish habitat, botanical habitat or a host of other values, B.C.'s forest

industry practices are leading the world, and they will improve even more under

this bill.

We have

nothing to be ashamed of and everything to be proud of. If anybody doubts this,

just go and ask a forest company to show you what they do. Ask to talk to their

employees and contractors on the ground. Ask to talk to their professional

foresters and biologists. Be prepared to be impressed by a commitment to

sustainability, to continuous improvement and to stewardship of the highest

order.

[1450]

This bill

establishes a system which will codify modern professional practice and ethics

and ensure compliance. To those who say we're simply handing over control of

B.C.'s forests to the tenure holders and the licensees, I say: you couldn't be

more wrong. In fact, this legislation will allow the Ministry of Forests

enforcement staff to spend their time in the field auditing and inspecting

rather than pushing the mounds of paper that the NDP foisted upon them. There's

nothing more counterproductive than an enforcement staff that cannot enforce or

an inspector who cannot inspect but who, instead, has to fill out government

forms.

I'm an old

fish guy. I was involved in a change in Canada's food inspection over a decade

ago. It was a change which introduced an inspection and enforcement methodology

that I think is reflected in this bill. We are not breaking huge new ground

here. This is not radical change in regulation. It's bringing forestry practices

into the twenty-first century.

Let me

explain why I say that. In the late 1980s Canadian fish processors agreed to

assume responsibility and accountability for the products they produced, for

their quality and their safety. The government inspector became an auditor,

ensuring that critical points in the food-manufacturing process were actually

being managed and controlled by that producer. What we had, and what we have

here in the new forest practices code in the Forest and Range Practices Act, is

a science-based methodology that has found acceptance in many fields worldwide.

It's a methodology where producers must exhibit that they do control critical

points in the production process.

It is a

methodology that this bill adapts for our forest sector. It sets out the values

that must be respected. It sets out the responsibility of the producer, the

licensee, the harvester or the rancher to protect those values, and it provides

for government to audit, inspect and enforce compliance. It is a methodology

that employs the professional skill that exists today in the B.C. forest

workforce. It means that professional foresters, ecologists, biologists,

botanists and other professionals will spend time in the woods, not filling out

government forms

Other

speakers have noted that the last government admitted that the Forest Practices

Code that it introduced added over $1 billion of costs to the B.C. forest

industry to no public purpose. It's better that I repeat that so that the record

records it again. That $1 billion in costs imposed by the last government did

nothing to improve environmental stewardship. It was $1 billion in costs that

drove jobs out of my community, a billion dollars in costs that could have

contributed to a renewal of capital stock, diversification of products and

markets, employee training — pick your subject. It was a billion dollars

wasted. B.C.'s lifeblood — because that's what we're talking about in the

forest industry — was being sucked dry by a Forest Practices Code that was

prescriptive at a time when it should have permitted innovation. I hope the

people of this province will never forget the mistake that the last government

made and that we will never repeat it.

Yes, my

community lost jobs. The lumber sector itself has shed jobs. Mills in Nanaimo

remain open for the most part, but they operate with less labour, because the

increased costs of the Forest Practices Code had to be shaved somewhere. The

forest service sector in my community — the equipment manufacturers, the

machine and welding shops, the electricians and other trades that keep the

forest industry operating — have suffered because they had to pay the billion

dollars in costs that the Forest Practices Code imposed.

I want to

switch for a moment to talk about the consultation process, because I know that

some have tried to criticize the process that led to the act that the minister

has introduced. That criticism, in my view, is patently ridiculous. Dr. Hoberg,

my colleague the MLA for North Island, industry, unions and first nations have

all been involved in a process that was iterative, productive and always

challenging of the status quo. I haven't even mentioned the almost 90,000 hits

to the website. I'm proud of the consultations that the minister held before

introducing this bill.

That

commitment to consultation continues in the bill. Forest stewardship plans will

require consultation by the licensee to ensure that the public interest is

reflected and that aboriginal interests are taken into account. This requirement

is consistent with our government's overall commitment to openness and

transparency.

This bill

is the start of the process of repairing the forest sector. It is not the end.

We still must deal with other issues where modernization is needed, where

incentives to investment are required. We have to continue to pursue the

establishment of a secure market in the United States of America. We have to

expand our markets into Asia and back into Europe.

[1455]

When I was

in Europe in the middle of the summer, I learned that in the United Kingdom

alone, 4.5 million new housing units are required to be built in the next few

years to replace old stock and to provide new housing for a growing population.

It's true that houses in the United Kingdom will continue to be built with

brick. That culture will not disappear, but even brick

[ Page 4405 ]

houses need wooden joists and rafters. They need wooden kitchen cupboards,

shelves and doors.

Do we think

that the B.C. industry should lie down and let the Scandinavians and the Baltic

states just have that market? I don't. Yes, the European Union is a tough

environment in which to do business, but it's bigger than NAFTA and just as

rich. It's time to stop being myopic about marketing. It's time to make it clear

that we, too, provide products that earn environmental seals of approval that

European consumers like. This new code builds on and assists our industry in

third-party certification. That's great.

I want our

forest industry to reclaim its rightful place as a low-cost, high-efficiency

producer — as an innovator, not a copier. I want our forest industry workers

to be proud of the work they do and confident that they are leaving behind an

environment that will continue to support fauna and flora and tree-harvesting

into the future. I want the forest industry to invest anew in my community and

my region, confident that it has the support of the people and the government

with a legal and economic framework that encourages and rewards success. I want

a forest industry that does not tolerate bad behaviour.

This bill

sets us on the road that will start to bring about these results. We cannot

fail, because failure of the forest industry means the failure of B.C. I am

pleased to support this bill, and I am anxiously looking forward to the

important changes that it will bring.

J. Les: It's

my pleasure this afternoon to rise and participate in second reading debate on

Bill 74, the Forest and Range Practices Act. Although I am not the most

knowledgable member in this House when it comes to forestry matters and although

my riding is not one of those that would at first blush appear to be that

dependent on the forest industry, I think it is still important for me to

participate in this debate.

All of our

ridings and all of our communities in British Columbia are very dependent on the

forest industry. I think it's fair to say that the forest industry, second to

none, is the industry that has developed and has been the basis of growth for

this province over the last 150 years. I don't think there's any arguing that

statistic. If we're going to have a sustainable province in the future, if we're

going to have sustainable social programs in this province in the future, it is

vital that we have a vibrant and sustainable forest industry in British

Columbia. I think we can have that sustainable forest industry. In spite of the

difficulties we've encountered over the last several years, I believe the future

of this industry can indeed be what it once was in the past, when it was very

much the basis on which the economy of this province thrived.

This Bill

74 has been much anticipated not only by industry but by many serious-thinking

British Columbians who came to understand that the previous regulatory regime in

the forests of British Columbia was failing the forest, was failing British

Columbians and was failing the people who are employed in the forest industry.

[1500]

I thought

it was rather ironic that we had what was called the Forest Practices Code,

which was held up by many as being absolutely key and vital to the

sustainability of the forest. While that assertion was being made, we on the

other hand had a pine beetle that was ravaging the interior forest in the

province, and everybody sat by and fiddled as that beetle worked its way through

and continues to work its way through the pine forests of British Columbia.

Today we have an unfortunate situation where an area roughly twice the size of

Vancouver Island has now been affected by the pine beetle infestation, and that

infestation still carries on more or less exponentially. It is now far too late

to pretend that we can have any significant impact on the spread of that beetle,

although as a result of recommendations that were made by the task force last

year, the Minister of Forests and his staff are trying as best they can to deal

with that infestation.

If there

had been a reasonable response when this problem first emerged — as I

understand it, in Tweedsmuir Park — if there had been a pragmatic response to

that emerging emergency in the forest when that pine beetle first emerged, we

would not have laid waste to all those hundreds of thousands of acres of forest

throughout the interior of British Columbia. On the one hand, we had people

saying the Forest Practices Code was the environmental salvation of the forests

of British Columbia. The very same people were sitting by and doing nothing

while the pine beetle was laying waste to all of this forest in British Columbia

and creating what is in effect an environmental desert that we have today in the

interior. I would submit that we had people certainly not walking the talk over

the last decade when it came to managing the forest.

It should

also be pointed out that the world as we know it will not end, as some would

have it, if we transition into this new era of sustaining and managing our

forests in British Columbia. We have thousands of people in British Columbia who

have made a profession of educating themselves and developing careers around

managing the forest in a professional and sustainable way — registered

professional foresters and biologists — all of whom know how to do their work

and know what it is like to manage a forest and prefer to do that on the ground,

in the forest, not locked up in an office somewhere processing reams and piles

of paperwork. I have been to the offices of various logging and forestry

companies throughout British Columbia, and I have looked on in amazement at the

thousands of files, the stacks and stacks of paper that these companies have to

process. I would often shake my head and wonder why it is that anybody would

want to be involved in the forest industry in British Columbia. It is an

absolute bureaucratic nightmare today. All of that bureaucratic effort, I'm

afraid, has very, very little to do with excellence in terms of forest

management. It perhaps has been somewhat good for the pulp industry, but other

than that, there has been little to show for it in terms of a better forest in

British Columbia.

[ Page 4406 ]

Good forest

management is not necessarily dependent on ever-increasing numbers of staff and

on ever-increasing amounts of bureaucratic paperwork, so this act acts as a

significant transition to what I think is going to be a far more pragmatic and

commonsense solution and approach to forest management. It anticipates a forest

stewardship plan that would be filed for all of the activities in a certain

woodlot or licence area. I am particularly interested, and I am very

appreciative of the fact that it specifically looks at woodlot licence owners

and treats them in a somewhat different way than some of the other interests in

the forest. I am a real believer in woodlot licences as a very productive form

of tenure in the forest. I would hope that in the future we could find ways to

increase that type of tenure for individual British Columbians and perhaps first

nations British Columbians in particular. The provisions that are made for

woodlot licence owners are very productive and, I think, in the long term are

going to be very beneficial for individual British Columbians as they care for

the forest and make a living based on that forest.

[1505]

As I've

said before, my riding is not one where there is much logging activity today. As

a matter of fact, it is sometimes said that my riding is in one of those areas

of the province that is today the largest clearcut in the province of British

Columbia, and that would be the Fraser Valley and the lower mainland. It's true.

All of that area, about 150 years ago, was wall-to-wall trees. Right from Hope

out to the coast were some of the largest trees that perhaps you won't even see

today. It was decided back then to start cutting the trees in that area. Of

course, that land has been put to many and various uses today. My riding, I

guess, is a pretty good example of alternate land uses that sometimes evolve in

those areas where…. My riding today, for example, is composed of tens of

thousands of acres of agricultural land that feeds all British Columbians and

beyond.

I simply

bring that up to point out that even though some would refer to that as one

large clearcut, there are many different and beneficial uses to which land can

be put. The forest industry today…. In spite of the picture that some would

want to paint today, in any given year forestry is carried out on about Z\b of 1

percent of the land base of the province of British Columbia.

I'm often a

proponent for people to get up in an airplane and fly around British Columbia. I

think it really helps with perspective. I've had the opportunity to fly north

and south and east and west across the province. There are many times when you

look out of the window of an airplane and will not see any evidence of human

activity whatsoever — no roads, no towns, no logging. It is almost as pristine

as you could imagine. There are other places, granted, where you can see

evidence of logging activity and, in fact, towns and roads and those kinds of

things.

My point is

this: British Columbia is one vast province. It is equivalent in area to the

size of England, France and Germany put together. It is equivalent in area to

the states of California, Oregon, Washington and Idaho put together. We have one

huge province, and we use only Z\b of 1 percent of that area every year for the

actively logged forest. There is lots of room in this province we call British

Columbia for a healthy, sustainable and vital forest industry.

I've had

occasion to drive up the Island Highway north from Campbell River towards Port

Hardy. The forest industry there has adopted what I think is a very good

innovation, in that it puts up very large signs that indicate when a forest was

first logged and when it was replanted and when it was logged again and when it

was replanted again. There are a couple of locations there where the forest is

being regrown for the third time.

If there's

one thing I would suggest today as an innovation that I think has been very

educational and that we should do more of, I think that is it. We often take for

granted that everybody understands exactly what is happening in the forest. We

need to do a better job, I think, of educating British Columbians as to what

happens in the forest and what are, in fact, the very good forest practices that

are carried out. In the absence of that education, it is altogether too easy for

those who are opposed to any form of forest industry in this province to paint a

picture that is less than accurate and, therefore, is detrimental not only to

the forest industry but to all British Columbians.

In closing,

I not only want to commend the Minister of Forests for bringing forward this

much-anticipated legislation, but I also want to pay tribute to my colleagues

who served on the caucus committee that travelled the length and breadth of this

province for many days and met in many communities with literally hundreds of

people. I think the act today, as it stands, is a testimony to all of their

efforts. They have been vitally interested to ensure that this act was the very

best it could possibly be.

Many of

them come from forest-dependent communities. Some of them come from a very solid

background in the forest industry. I think the act reflects that knowledge and

experience, and I want to thank them for incorporating and contributing to the

act as they have. We also have, of course, the contributions of academia and the

contributions of the forest sector, the forest companies. They, too, have had a

vital contribution to making this act the very best it can be.

[1510]

summary, Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a huge step forward. I think this is an

act that is marked by pragmatism. I think the result will be a better-managed

forest, a more viable forest industry and an even larger contribution from this

industry to the important programs that British Columbians have come to rely on.

Chutter: I come from a rural community, and I represent over a dozen rural

communities in my riding of Yale-Lillooet, most of whom are directly dependent

on the forest industry and many that are greatly influenced by the ranching

industry.

[ Page 4407 ]

Bill 74,

the Forest and Range Practices Act, is great news for these communities. It is

significant legislation, in my view, not just for rural communities but also for

all British Columbians. Every citizen, every city, every town, every man, woman

and child in B.C. will benefit from this legislation, because it will contribute

to reviving the forest industry. This revival will be assisted by reducing the

suffocating regulation and red tape of the old code, thereby reducing costs to

industry and yet ensuring results are achieved that are necessary to sustain the

environment. The fact is that the forest industry contributes almost one-quarter

of all revenues to the government, which means that when the forest industry

thrives, everybody in this province benefits.

What has

inspired me with Bill 74 is that we have a government and a Minister of Forests

that has developed policy involving extensive consultation with the forest

industry, the ranching industry and corresponding professionals. The proof is in

the legislation. The minister actually listened to and heard the people involved

— the people knowledgable about range and forest issues and uses.

Finally, we

have a government that trusts people, that listens to British Columbians, to our

professional foresters, biologists and agrologists, our woodlot owners and our

ranchers, all of whom are interested in looking after the environment while

earning their living from the land.

Trust,

respect and consultation are what our new era in governance is about, and the

Forest and Range Practices Act reflects this. Just the name of the act itself

says a lot about the government's understanding of the issue. It acknowledges

all the players on the forest land base: the forestry, woodlot and ranching

industries. It acknowledges the components of the forest land made up of trees,

open grasslands and the grasslands under the tree canopy. The name acknowledges

the commitment of this government to look after the land base for future

generations by appropriate practices.

This

legislation is a win-win for the environment and the economy of B.C. It is a

win-win because finally we have a land use policy that recognizes that we humans

are capable of looking after the land in a sustainable manner and yet harvesting

the land to feed us and create wealth in order to afford social services such as

health care and education.

We must

always remember that the means to maintain a healthy environment is by having a

healthy economy, and this legislation supports this interdependency. This

win-win for the environment and economy is achieved because the legislation

reflects principles of sound science to direct management and support

environmental sustainability. Bill 74 allows for the flexibility and freedom to

utilize the latest science and innovative thinking by both professional and

non-professional participants to manage the land in new and better ways, and

that is progress.

appreciate, along with many of my fellow ranchers, the fact that the ministry

and the minister held extensive consultation with the ranching community as

represented by the B.C. Cattlemen's Association, which has a membership of 1,400

producers. I want to thank the chair of the MLA committee on the results-based

code, the member for North Island, for his outstanding efforts to repeatedly

meet with the ranchers and to personally get out on the grasslands to view and

experience their challenges.

What is

absolutely amazing to me is that the member of the opposition in yesterday's

response did not even mention the ranching component of the act. The opposition

did not consider the implications of this legislation to the ranching industry,

an industry that contributes three-quarters of a billion dollars to the

provincial economy and involves thousands of people and families in rural B.C.

Obviously, the opposition doesn't care. Well, I care, and so do all of my

colleagues in this government. We care about agriculture. We care about

hard-working families in rural communities, and we care about the environment.

[1515]

This

government, by way of this legislation, has responded to the concerns in

forestry and ranching. Bill 74 recognizes the variability in forests and

grasslands throughout the province and so provides the flexibility to manage. It

recognizes the challenges in the ranching industry such as that, unlike trees,

cattle move around and that other factors beyond the control of the rancher

impact the ability to manage. Just the simple act of another user leaving a gate

open, allowing cattle to move to another area, can significantly impact

grassland management.

Under the

old code, ranchers found themselves signing range use plans, knowing they could

not live up to the agreement, could not achieve full compliance. The Forest and

Range Practices Act recognizes that the forest industry competes in a global

market and therefore must be cost-competitive, with the ability to certify

sustainable practices.

The

forestry and ranching industries want to look after the forested lands and the

grasslands. It is in their interest to do so. This legislation will assist both

industries to continue to do just that: to carry on in business, providing jobs

and revenue to the province, and to practise sustainable environmental

stewardship.

In closing,

I support Bill 74. There is more work to do on formulating regulations to

accompany this legislation, but with continued consultation, I am confident this

next step will be equally productive in assisting the forest industry to thrive

once again.

Nuraney: As you have heard, various colleagues of mine around this House

have spoken in favour of this bill, and I also rise to speak in favour of Bill

74. We have, in this province, been blessed with lots of trees. They are a

resource that is in abundance. Forestry is one of our major industries. It is a

resource which has served the province well over the years and has brought a

sense of well-being throughout the province.

The

industry and the operators felt that the regulations governing the practices

code were too rigid and cumbersome to allow a climate of innovation. One of the

new-era promises this government made was to

[ Page 4408 ]

streamline the Forest Practices Code to establish a workable, results-based

code with tough penalties for non-compliance. The act before us does exactly

that. We have, after extensive consultation with all the stakeholders in the

industry, arrived at this code, which reduces the regulatory burden and allows

the operators to be more innovative and efficient, which we must accomplish to

be competitive in this global market.

self-regulatory process imposes the responsibility on the industry. While we

have supervision to ensure compliance, this model puts the onus on the industry

to act responsibly. British Columbia is a leader in moving from a prescriptive

forest management regime to one that is more adaptable to site-specific

conditions. It is one of the first in North America that requires companies to

pursue sustainable forest management practices and planning and to provide

measurable results. It is also one of the first to require that companies

specifically address biodiversity.

Forestry is

our heritage and a renewable resource which we must maintain, bearing in mind

the environmental concerns whilst we reap the economic benefits out of this

industry. Great progress is in the offing with this new code. All those involved

applaud the hard work and the vision of our Minister of Forests and his staff.

[1520]

The past

government had a philosophical bent which brought in more restrictive measures

and prevented the leaders of the industry from exercising their best judgment.

The result was stagnation and a downward trend in our economic activity. Our

government has vowed to change this trend and to return to the age of prosperity

that has been the inherent right of all British Columbians.

It is my

belief that this results-based code will strengthen British Columbia's economic

base and provide more jobs and security across the province. I do support Bill

74, and I once again applaud the minister for his hard work on this bill, which

meets the vision and epitomizes what this government has been saying it will do:

bring changes that will effectively improve the future of this province.

D. Hayer:

I welcome this opportunity to rise today to address the new forest practices

code. I have, in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead, many lumber mills and many

workers in the forest industry. This new code is good for my constituents, good

for the forest industry and good for British Columbia. Without question and

without debate, it is a win-win for us all. I have met with many forest workers

in my riding. I have met with leaders of the IWA, and I know these leaders,

these union members, support this new code.

I stand

fully behind the Minister of Forests on this new code, because I know it is good

for all of us. It will bolster our economy and put people back to work, and it

will go very far in maintaining the current jobs in the industry. I also know

that the forest companies and the mill owners support this new code because it

cuts red tape. It makes industry more efficient, and at the same time it is good

for the environment.

I have met

many, many times with the Minister of Forests. He has toured mills in my riding,

mills that are considered some of the most efficient on this continent. This new

code will keep those mills working, and it will keep constituents of mine

working. This government made a commitment in its New Era document to

streamline the Forest Practices Code, and we are delivering on this promise

today.

This new

code will certainly promote innovation in the industry, but what is important is

that it will also maintain the high environmental standards that protect our

forests and that most British Columbians hold very dear. With this new code, we

will see forest sector professionals spending their time and resources managing

our forest values, instead of sitting at their desks shuffling papers and wading

through the mountains of red tape that the previous code strangled our industry

with. This new code will put those professionals out in the field managing our

forests and assisting our economy rather than sitting in their offices managing

red tape.

This new

code is a win-win for everyone in the forest sector, and it's certainly a

win-win for British Columbia's economy. For all of us in this province, no

matter where we live or what we do, our lifestyle is affected by the revenues

that come from our biggest resource and our biggest economic engine.

The other

very strong point in this code is that this is a framework for a solid forest

practices regime in B.C. The Ministry of Forests and this government can make

changes as we go to improve its strength, improve its call for innovation

practices and ensure ongoing protection for our precious environmental values.

That

protection will come in the form of very clear standards for a wide variety of

forest values, including water quality and wildlife, from old-growth stands of

timber to the soils that nurture them. I want to make it very clear to those who

are speaking against this new code that it has teeth in it. It is not an open

door to careless exploitation of our forests. The new plan will identify

measurable and enforceable results that the forest company must achieve, or they

will face severe penalties.

[1525]

This new

code contains provisions for fines up to $1 million and time in jail. In fact,

when the new code takes effect in April of 2003, some penalties will double over

what is currently in place.

It is also

important that the new code has not been developed in isolation. The Ministry of

Water, Land, and Air Protection has been involved and will continue to be very

involved in ensuring that there are safeguards in place for key values, for

species at risk. This new code will ensure that forest companies not only meet

B.C. 's stringent environmental requirements but exceed them. This will create a

forest industry that can practise sustainable forestry while being

environmentally responsible.

[ Page 4409 ]

As I said

previously, the main strength of this new code is not simply the new regulation

that will be in place, but the fact that there will be a public advisory

committee in place to review the progress of the code and work in concert with

scientists, researchers and experts that will continue to improve the code. This

new legislation is a win-win for all British Columbians, and I support it fully

and wholeheartedly.

Krueger: It's a real pleasure for me to hear our urban members responding to

this bill in recognition of the fact that every community in British Columbia is

a forest-dependent community. In spite of the hard times that came upon our

forest industry with the overregulation and overtaxation of the previous

government and the body blows inflicted by the American lumbermen and their

softwood lumber dispute with us, still the forest industry provides for

approximately one in five or six social workers in British Columbia, one in five

or six nurses, one in five or six doctors. A fifth or a sixth of pretty well

everything that the government pays for is paid by revenues derived from this

industry. We are all forest-dependent people, so it's very fitting that urban as

well as rural members speak in favour of this bill.

I listened

to the opposition speak to the bill. Although they weren't totally negative to

it, it seems to me that if I had been a minister or anybody to do with the past

government — I wouldn't have been, but if I had been — I'd be hanging my

head in shame before I'd ever get up in this House and say a negative word about

this bill.

Mr.

Zirnhelt admitted, as some members have said, that they took a billion dollars

out of the forest industry for absolutely no gain at all. The craziness of the

regulations that the industry had to deal with during those ten lost years in

British Columbia is truly regrettable. It wasn't just the things that we've been

dealing with here, their version of the Forest Practices Code, but all sorts of

things.

I remember

speaking to a logger on one of our caucus tours. He said he'd been working

through the new territory that he'd been approved for when he came across a dead

snag. He stopped work and said to his crew: "We're going to have to figure

out what to do here. If I log that snag down, I'm going to be fined because

there's an eagle's nest in it, and the Ministry of Environment will fine me. If

I don't log that snag down, then Workers Compensation is liable to catch me.

They'll fine me because they'll say it will be a hazard to you guys." They

worked out which would be the lower fine. It was the WCB fine, so they left the

snag up and, sure enough, got caught and were fined. It was a hopeless situation

for them.

The Forest

Practices Code that we are changing was a terrible impediment to British

Columbia's industry and to the economy. I know there are thousands of people

around this province who will be very glad to say goodbye to it.

I did feel

some amazement at listening to the NDP talk about consultation processes. We saw

so many consultations processes during the sad time of the nineties. People

participated because they're good members of the public who wanted to represent

their views, their family's views, their community's views and their

association's views, but they knew all along that nothing would happen as a

result of their input. Sure enough, the results that came out at the end of

those consultation processes were generally exactly what everybody knew the NDP

government of the nineties planned to do in the first place.

[1530]

I listen

with amazement when I hear them talk about our consultation process. How could

they possibly criticize a government that has been so open about things that it

tabled a version of the results-based code, listened to the input and did a very

thorough job of collecting the input? I want to really congratulate the member

for North Island and my colleagues who travelled with him and accepted that

input from all around the province and made sure that it was incorporated in the

act that is before us. I want to congratulate all of them for a job of real

consultation very well done.

When I

listened to the Leader of the Opposition talk about willingness to accept

amendments, it takes me back to a day we were debating one of Mike Farnworth's

bills in this Legislature, and we had an amendment that he really couldn't say

was a bad idea. He refused it anyway. When asked why, he said it would impose a

cost on government. We asked what the cost was. He said it was the cost of

reprinting the legislation, of all preposterous things.

[ J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

Again, I

don't think an NDP member or adherent or, certainly, an ex-cabinet minister

should be criticizing this government in any way when the conduct of this

legislation has been so inclusive and so honourable throughout. It was a real

consultation, and it's a very good result. We've looked forward to this day for

a long, long time. It's one of the major things we promised while in opposition

and in our new-era platform — that we would rewrite legislation to provide for

the experts on the ground to work toward the results, using their expertise

instead of hanging over their shoulders and presuming to dictate to them

chapter

and verse how they were going to do their jobs.

That was

very much a management style of the nineties in British Columbia. My former

employer, the Insurance Corporation of B.C., experienced it in spades. Managers

in head office would presume to write out the details of how every employee in

the field should do their job — when they should handle their mail and where

they should keep their mail — and devoted its technical experts to travelling

around and ensuring that those petty details were monitored, rather than

monitoring the actual conduct of the important work.

congratulate a Forests minister that has delivered on his promises and ours —

a government that keeps its word. In spite of the horrendous job of turning this

[ Page 4410 ]

gigantic oil tanker around, trying to undo ten years of incompetence,

mismanagement and bad government, we're delivering on those promises. This was a

very major piece. I know the industry in my area is very happy about it. We've

had a lot of positive response from industry. I'm delighted that the minister

continues to carefully consider the interests of small operators, whether they

are the salvage log operators that I and the member for Prince George North and

the member for Okanagan-Vernon and others continually raise the interests of, or

the round log users, the value-added mills or the reman plants. Our government

very much recognizes the huge contributions to employment and to the revenue

base of this province and to the husbandry of our forestry resources that are

provided by those small operators as well as the major licensees.

We're going

through a time of a lot of pain in our forest industry in British Columbia.

We're not out of the woods yet, if you'll pardon the pun, but this will help us

a long way. We can see the light at the end of the tunnel. I better stop using

metaphors here before I get myself confused. I am delighted to be here today to

witness, I expect, the passage of this bill at second reading. In closing, I

just want to really congratulate the minister for a job well done.

Stewart: Today we have very little logging going on in my riding of Maple

Ridge–Pitt Meadows, but we certainly do in Maple Ridge–Mission, the

adjoining riding, where there still is quite a bit of active logging going on.

Even though there isn't active logging going on in our riding, there are many

forest-dependent jobs in our community. Hammond Cedar, one of the largest cedar

mills in British Columbia, produces a lot of the high-value jobs for our

community. They're very dependent on the wood that comes from the other areas of

the province, and it's crucial that they can get at that wood in a method that's

safe, environmentally sound and economical.

[1535]

One of the

things I haven't heard too much discussion on is the technological changes that

are happening in the woods. I know, again using the Interfor company from

Hammond Cedar, they're involved with helicopter logging. I'm sure there are many

different methods they use that certainly aren't employed in traditional logging

practices. We have to ensure we have the professionals out there within the

forest companies that can keep up on what they have to do to ensure not only the

safety of the workers in the woods but also the safety of the environment and

the economic viability of that. That's something which is pretty difficult to

keep on top of unless you're there on the ground every day — the changing

weather conditions, the changing wind factors. Also, there are a number of

different species of woods that they have to work around, and as was mentioned

earlier, every valley is different.

I was

trying to think of an analogy to use with regards to this Forest Practices Code.

The best one I could come up with is mountaineering. The reason I say that is

— being a mountaineer, it's something I know — there are many different ways

to get up a mountain. You can sit at home and do the paperwork, do your route

planning and look over all the maps, but until you're actually there in the

conditions you're faced with — some of the perils that may not have been

before you when you're looking on paper…. You have to be there in the field

doing the job. That's why I'm very comfortable that now we can get ministry

staff out of their office, beyond those huge, huge stacks of paper, and actually

going out there and witnessing the work that's being done by the trained

professional foresters who are employed within this industry.

So being

brief on this, I would just like to say that this industry is very important to

every community. Even though, as I say, we do not have active logging in Maple

Ridge–Pitt Meadows, we do have, as mentioned earlier, Hammond Cedar. Also,

another industry there is Pelton Reforestation, one of the larger suppliers of

seedlings to reforestation, which has put many millions and probably billions of

trees now replanted in British Columbia over the years. This provides

high-paying, part-time work for seasonal workers. Many of these students have an

opportunity to work for two months of the summer at a high-paying job, and it's

a quality work that lasts for a very limited time. It does provide opportunities

not only to its full-time employees but to those looking to go to university or

for summer jobs or part-time jobs.

Again,

forestry is crucial in my community, and it's important that the people who are

in the woods can get on with doing the job to ensure that the people in my

community have not only the seedlings to put out into the forests but the cedar

to run our large mills that we need for our economic growth.

With that,

I just would like to see this move forward. This has my full support, and it

will be great to see those people back in the woods working again.

Deputy

Speaker: Closing second reading debate, Minister of Forests.

Hon. M.

de Jong: Well, thanks, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps, more particularly, my

thanks and appreciation to all of the members of this assembly who have, over

the course of yesterday and today, provided what I think have been some very

thoughtful submissions and comments as it relates to Bill 74. I include all

members, including members of the opposition. I will say candidly that I found

the comments from the member for Vancouver-Hastings more helpful from a critical

analysis perspective than the submissions made earlier today by her colleague

from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

I think the

nature of the debate and discussion that has followed reveals to all who have

been following the extent of the commitment, certainly on the part of my

colleagues in this chamber, to revitalizing an industry that is so critically

important to British Columbia. I think it has been instructive for me to again

have em-

[ Page 4411 ]

phasized the differences that exist right across the province. There is not

one industry or forestry sector. It impacts different areas of the province

differently, and it operates differently across the province. There is certainly

a coastal industry. There is an interior industry, but within the interior there

are different interiors.

[1540]

The

observations and comments made by members during the course of this House as it

relates to this critically important piece of legislation, I think, have been

helpful and demonstrate the commitment that exists to beginning the process of

revitalizing this industry.

There was

at one point, from one of the opposition members earlier today, the observation

that my colleagues in the government caucus were perhaps simply spouting off

scripted messages. Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. I think a

reflection of the discussion that has taken place in this chamber would reveal

that. That is perhaps a reflection of how things have been done in the past, but

it is certainly not a reflection of what has guided this debate here today. I am

indebted to members who have participated.

The member

for Vancouver-Hastings perhaps was in transit when I made the comment, but I

thought her contribution to the debate as a piece of critical analysis was

worthy of recognition. I won't endeavour to answer all of her concerns, although

I will when we get to that more detailed discussion that will undoubtedly take

place at the committee stage. But there were some themes or thoughts she

expressed that I thought I might begin the process of responding to at this

stage.

She and

others, actually, have identified the importance of the forest stewardship plan

as a cornerstone of the legislative framework that is presently before the House

and the subject of this second reading debate. Though it is not by any means the

precise model by which this new results-based framework will be guided, it

occurred to me that it might be helpful to point out that under the existing

code, there is provision made under specific pilot projects for just this kind

of approach. That was a provision that was included in amendments several years

ago, when the Minister of Forests in a previous administration articulated his

support for the notion of moving in the direction of a results-based framework.

Those pilots exist, and a form of forest stewardship plan is very much a part of

that. As I say, it's not a definitive document, because there will undoubtedly

be some changes. A review of that kind of document….

I'm looking

at one from TFL 39. It's actually entitled the Forest Stewardship Plan .

Just a review of the table of contents. It's a pretty weighty document. It runs

fully 70 pages long. It talks about what is, in this case, a pilot project. It

talks about the forest stewardship plan. It talks about the plan area. There is

mapping provided. There is a community advisory group that is referred to. There

are the higher level plan objectives that are referred to. It refers back to the

Forest Practices Code. It then talks about management strategies and measurable

targets. "Results" is the word in brackets. It talks about water, fish

and riparian goals and outcomes, soil, biodiversity, timber, forest health,

wildlife, recreational tourism, cultural heritage. Those are all of the values

that are referred to. It talks about road layout and design, drainage design,

requirements for bridges and culverts, deactivation, strategies to protect soil

and water resources, old-growth zones, habitat zones, recreation and tourism

zones, timber zones. They're in here.

[1545]

The point I

want to emphasize is that is a plan that emerges out of a legislative framework

created in large measure, or provided for in large measure, by amendments made

by the previous government. What we are presenting today can, to a certain

extent, be characterized as a logical evolution. Many of my colleagues and I

would say it's a long overdue evolution, and one fundamentally necessary to

protect the health of an industry that has fallen on hard times as a result of a

suffocating and overwhelming regulatory burden that government has imposed on

it.

Nonetheless,

we are not here charting territory that is completely unknown to us. For anyone

in this House to suggest that is the case is inaccurate and unfair. Perhaps as

we embark upon the more detailed analysis that will follow through committee,

members will remind themselves and take the time to refer back to some of those

comments, observations and statutory provisions that have existed previously.

Similarly,

perhaps as we embark upon that level of analysis… I heard the comments from

the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. As I say, it's an exercise in

critical analysis. I found it less helpful, candidly, than the comments of her

colleague, but she has expressed some concerns and observations around the

penalty regime. She will know — and I do not underestimate the challenge she

faces in responding to the demands of debate in this House, given the extent of

those demands that she faces…. Yet upon reflection and upon a more thorough

review, she will come to realize, I hope, that there are differing regimes for

the imposition of sanction. One relates to a prosecutorial regime, which she

referred to in debate. The other, however — and in many instances far more

relevant on a day-to-day basis — is the administrative penalty regime. I

didn't hear her address that. From the perspective of practitioners on the land

base, I can assure her, as can many members of this House who are intimately

familiar with the workings on the land base, that the increased sanction this

bill provides within the context of administrative penalties is very much on the

minds of licensees and will, in my view, enhance the deterrent effect that these

penalties are designed to promote in the first place. There will be ample

opportunity for us to canvass that matter, and I am obliged to the member for

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant for signalling her interest in that aspect of the

legislation at this early stage.

I can't say

that I agreed with all of the commentary from opposition members, though it is

important that they provide it. I think if there was one aspect of their

submissions that troubled me most, however, it was the way they characterized

the consultation efforts that

[ Page 4412 ]

were made. I must confess that I don't mean to seem overly sensitive to these

criticisms, which it is their rightful place to bring. But to characterize, as

one of the opposition members did, the consultation process guided by a

committee of members of this House and chaired by the member for North Island as

a complete and utter failure reveals a bias and a desire to inject partisanship

that is unseemly and inaccurate as well.

[1550]

I must tell

you that as I said earlier in this debate, my faith in the process of public

consultation has been largely restored as a result of not my efforts but the

efforts of my colleagues who did travel to 13 communities, the efforts of

Professor Hoberg and, I suppose most importantly, the efforts of British

Columbians who took the time to come and make detailed, specific submissions.

They could do that because they weren't operating within a vacuum. They actually

had a document that revealed what was in the government's mind. They actually

had a target they could shoot at. We all know how the member for Kamloops–North

Thompson likes a target that he can shoot at.

Interjection.

Hon. M.

de Jong: It's a generational thing in his family.

I think if

there was a success…. I believe there was, because the product changed. The

product changed in a dramatic way because of those comments.

Look, I'm

not going to stand here and get into an exercise of "Look at how great this

was," but I saw this today from the British Columbia Cattlemen's

Association, who historically have felt left out, have felt as if they are an

appendage. You know what? They are as dependent on operating on our land base as

any forest licensee. As the member for Cariboo North would say, you can't run

cows in your living room.

I actually

am heartened to read a release that they issued yesterday, I guess. "The

new Forest and Range Practices Act will improve range management by rewarding

good performance." It will do that; it actually does that. What a novel

thing.

It's the

first line in that document, to be candid, that makes me feel pretty proud of

the MLA committee and the work Professor Hoberg did. It's a pretty simple line,

and it reads as follows: "Cattlemen in British Columbia were given the

opportunity to have meaningful input into the new Forest and Range Practices

Act." How about that? I didn't ask them.

I'm glad

they made that comment. They talked about how the new legislation provides more

incentives for good stewards of the range rather than simply increasing

enforcement, which it already does. "Ranchers who have demonstrated good

performance for at least two years will receive recognition for that fact."

Well, I'm proud of that. I'm proud of the fact that is a theme and that is a

statutory instrument which is on the verge of being in place because those

people had an opportunity, in a meaningful way, to impact the product, to

influence the product.

I know it

is perhaps not politic for members of the opposition to acknowledge that fact,

and I don't ask them to. Their job is not to…. There are enough of us here to

talk about what we see as the good things we're doing, but I hope, as we move

forward through this debate, that they will demonstrate some fairness — and

tenacity and passion, as they always do — in critiquing the provisions of this

act, because we did make those efforts.

[1555]

There was

comment made about Professor Hoberg's…. I'll take a minute, Mr. Speaker. It

might be my best opportunity to talk about Professor Hoberg's recommendations.

You know, when he released his report…. I made this clear to him when I asked

him to undertake this process. I was not looking for a cheering section. Had

that been the case, we wouldn't have ended up with a product that I think will

withstand scrutiny. Let me go through a couple of the areas Professor Hoberg

referred to and that I think we actually did respond to.

Professor

Hoberg talked about a recommendation to ensure that appropriate requirements for

professional regulation are contained in legislation for all professionals

involved in the delivery of the results-based code. Well, you know what? We're

doing that. That's exactly what this legislation allows for, depends upon and

leads to. There are amendments to the Agrologists Act and the Foresters Act to

comply with Professor Hoberg's recommendation, and the creation of a college of

biologists — first time in Canada, first province — as a direct response to

a recommendation that arose out of that consultation process.

Professor

Hoberg recommended that we restore site-level plans to the code framework. In

fairness, under the original discussion paper, site-level plans were not

contemplated. That troubled not just Professor Hoberg but a whole bunch of

people and agencies that made submissions through that consultation exercise. It

gave rise to that recommendation. We've acted on it. Site-level plans are now

required. They must be prepared. They must be available to the public. We have

altered, admittedly, the approval process. It focuses on the forest stewardship

plan. But those site-level plans which the public of British Columbia deemed

essential have been reincorporated — again, a direct response to the

consultation process that we undertook.

We were

urged to clarify and define public consultation objectives. That will now be a

part of the forest stewardship plan process. We were encouraged to consider the

certification status of companies. As we sometimes beat ourselves up, or some

people are inclined to try and beat us up in B.C., we forget the fact that we

lead Canada — in fact, we lead North America — in terms of certification

amongst our forest licensees. Yeah, I happen to think that they deserve some

credit for that. I happen to think that is a positive step in the right

direction, and we responded to that recommendation.

Now, I

could go on, and we probably will in more detail at the committee stage. But I

also want to be fair. We didn't accept every recommendation. Professor Hoberg

had a specific concern around a policy that the

[ Page 4413 ]

former NDP government introduced to limit the impact of the code on timber

supply to 6 percent. It was the former NDP government's policy. That policy

concerned Professor Hoberg, and it concerned a number of the people that made

submissions to both him and the MLA panel. We didn't accept that recommendation

in its entirety, but what we have committed to is reviewing the impact of that

policy on environmental stewardship.

[1600]

I'm not

going to stand here and tell members of the opposition or members of the public

who have expressed skepticism that we have embraced and enshrined every feature

of every submission that was made to either Professor Hoberg or the MLA panel.

But we went into this process with a view to incorporating as many of those

views as were possible within the context of meeting our objective to establish

a results-based code. I think the evidence, as reviewed by any reasonable

person, will lead that person to draw the conclusion that we have kept our word

in spades.

People have

described this as a turning of the corner, as the advent of a new era in

forestry. I think we need it. I am pleased that people feel that way. I hope

that people view this as a signal that the government is serious about taking

the steps, about following through on our commitments.

I don't

think we should be under any illusions. There is no silver bullet here. The

people that are suffering as a result of ongoing trade sanctions by the

Americans are going to continue to face challenges until such time as we have

resolved that matter. We have critically important issues around tenure reform

and timber pricing policy that are yet to be resolved.

Yes, I am

frustrated with the length of time it is taking to move on these issues. Yes, I

confess and acknowledge that it is always a little simpler when you're sitting

in opposition. These issues are all tied together, and they all impact on one

another. I confess that we, as a government and as a caucus, have decided to

proceed with caution to ensure that we understand the impacts and implications

for the policy decisions that we make, that there are no unintended consequences

and unanticipated negative side effects as we move forward in the move towards

market-based timber pricing, in the move through tenure reform.

I think

that's a responsibility we have. I know that every member of this House takes

that responsibility seriously, as I know that the members of the opposition take

seriously their responsibility to critically analyze what governments do.

I am

candidly appreciative and thankful for the degree of support and input that my

colleagues the members of this House have articulated here in this House and in

their communities and in the countless meetings and consultations that have

taken place to get us to this point. I wish I could say to them all as a reward

that this is an issue we have now dealt with and that we may now turn our

attention to other fields of endeavour, but of course, they know that is not the

case.

We have

just begun with respect to taking the steps necessary to revitalize the forest

industry in this province of ours. I am heartened, as never before, that there

is a sense in this chamber and a realization of the importance of this industry

and these matters for virtually every British Columbian.

Therefore,

I move second reading of Bill 74.

Second

reading of Bill 74 approved on the following division:

[1605-1610]

YEAS — 41

Coell

Halsey-Brandt

Hawkins

Whittred

Cheema

Hansen

J. Reid

Santori

Barisoff

Nettleton

Collins

Clark

de Jong

Nebbeling

Stephens

Neufeld

Coleman

Chong

Jarvis

Orr

Harris

Nuraney

Belsey

Bell

Long

Chutter

Bennett

Hayer

Christensen

Krueger

McMahon

Bray

Les

MacKay

Cobb

K. Stewart

Brice

Hamilton

Sahota

Hawes

Kerr

NAYS — 2

MacPhail

Kwan

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 74,

Forest and Range Practices 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. G.

Collins: I call committee stage debate on Bill 70.

[1615]

Committee of the Whole House

RESIDENTIAL TENANCY ACT

(continued)

The

House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 70; J. Weisbeck in the

chair.

The

committee met at 4:16 p.m.

section

14 (continued) .

J. Kwan:

Before we broke for dinner earlier this week on debate on this section, I was

canvassing the minister on questions about what facilities could be

[ Page 4414 ]

terminated as they relate to

section 27 of the act and what would be deemed

to be a reasonable replacement. The minister, of course, in that exchange talked

about why it is that I'm only advocating on behalf of tenants, or he asserted

that statement in any event. My response to that, of course, is that I'm not

just advocating for tenants; I'm advocating for both tenants and landlords.

These are important issues on both sides, and they have an impact and

ramification on both sides.

On the

issues I do highlight, though, some of them do tend to address issues related to

tenants. In my view, particularly for tenants who are in need of accommodation

and those who are perhaps more marginalized and disadvantaged, they may well be

at a further disadvantage as a result of this bill. Given that nobody else so

far in this House has raised these issues, it's left for the opposition to raise

these matters. I am asking these questions.

I just

received an e-mail from the residential tenancy advocate and adviser, the

Terrace anti-poverty group, who have been watching the debate and sent their

information and questions to us. The last time, just by reconnecting with our

debate previously, I raised the question around a space heater — whether or

not a space heater would be a reasonable replacement of a service or facility.

If the landlord has decided to withdraw the central heating system or does not

replace a broken-down central heating system and replaces it with a space

heater, is that reasonable under

section 27 as

section 14 refers to it?

The

question that's come in from the Terrace anti-poverty group, the residential

tenancy advocate and adviser, is as follows. First, a statement that

section

14(3)(b), which is the

section we're dealing with, is a

section that has a lot

of room, plenty of room, for problems.

Here's a

scenario.

"Most

recently, I had a landlord who decided he was going to cut off the heat

because he didn't want to pay for the repairs to the baseboard heaters. How

can this be allowed, is the question. I've seen this occur in basement

suites where the landlord who resides upstairs has control of the heat from

the unit he resides in above the tenant, and because he doesn't want to pay

the costs incurred, he refuses to turn the heat up."

This kind of problem is occurring right now.

[1620]

The

provision under

section 14 of the act allows for it to happen by legislation.

Would the minister please answer this question for the advocate in Terrace who

is concerned and who advises of this situation in terms of no heat or heat being

turned off? It's happening right now in her own community.

Hon. R.

Coleman: The landlord may, without the tenant's consent, withdraw a service

or facility if the service or facility is not essential or can otherwise be

obtained by the tenant. The tenant is compensated for the withdrawal of the

service. The arbitrator may also order a change to the agreed-upon term of the

tenancy. The issue in and around what the member is describing is something

that…. You know, we hear those stories in tenancies that concern us. We don't

like that. That's why it's actually set up so that if it's in a prescribed

tenancy agreement, it can't be taken away unless it's replaced with something of

an equal or better quality, not with lesser quality, or the tenant can replace

it with another service. I think that on the balance, if somebody's out there

doing otherwise, then that's outside the standard form of a tenancy agreement,

and we should be dealing with that so the tenant can come forward and deal with

a landlord that is not going to operate in a professional manner.

J. Kwan:

Well, if the replacement is required so that it is of equal or better quality

for services or a facility that's been withdrawn, then could the minister please

advise? Earlier this week he actually stated that a space heater is reasonable

enough to replace a central heating system. How could that be of equal quality

or better quality?

I'll give

you an example. We're not even in that particularly cold weather here in the

lower mainland, in the community where I come from. My own heater actually

stopped working for whatever reason. I couldn't turn the thing on. I brought a

repair guy in. He came in to look at it, got the thing turned on for about an

hour, and then it stopped again. As it turned out in that situation, there's a

thing called a relay box that needed to be replaced. The heater in my own home

is of such a nature that you actually have to go and order this relay box from

outside of British Columbia, so there's a bit of a process to get the relay box

in and then for it to be installed and then to fix the heater.

I myself

for several weeks was without heat. Now, as I mentioned, Vancouver is not in a

freezing cold climate by any stretch of the imagination, but I found that it was

cold, truth be told. Then we went out and got some of those small plug-in oil

heater things. Trouble is, you've got to move it to every room, unless you've

got one in every room, to warm it up. You move it from the kitchen to the living

room — the living room was cold without the heater — into my bedroom and so

on and so forth. How could it be that a space heater somehow replacing a central

system is actually sufficient or reasonable under the definition of this act?

Hon. R.

Coleman: That description the member just gave is a repair issue. If a

heating system breaks down, I think it's reasonable expectation within the

tenancy agreement and between the landlord and the tenant that the landlord

would provide an alternate form of heating while the repair was taking place.

It's a lot different than somebody saying: "I'm going to give you 30 days'

notice to withdraw a service that you can replace by…." For example,

you're in a basement suite, and they're going to actually change the form of

heating to where they're going to meter the basement suite, so the meter is

separate from the House. The heat will still be there, but they're now going to

change it and reduce the rent accordingly, because now you're going to be paying

for your own heat. There's a big difference.

[1625]

understand the member's comment about the space heater, but what I said earlier

this week was that

[ Page 4415 ]

in some cases that may be a reasonable replacement. I didn't say in all

cases. I didn't say they would be moving it from room to room. I didn't say

they'd take it from the kitchen to the bedroom to the bathroom to the living

room. We can get into lengthy descriptions of possibilities out there, but this

is pretty clear as far as withdrawing a service — one, on the non-essential

side. Sometimes that can be the case of a tenant that wants to have Star Choice

versus having cable and saying to a landlord: "I don't want to pay for

cable anymore because I want to replace it with a dish. Is that okay with

you?" Yes, by agreement you can do that. Fine.

So it's not

about the descriptions the member just made. If a heating system breaks down,

which can happen…. Boilers can break down in apartment buildings where there's

hot water heat. Electrical problems can happen, and baseboard heating would have

to be fixed by an electrician. Therefore you need an alternate form of heating,

like a space heater, for a period of time until you can get either the part or

the equipment or the electrician in to do the work. That's all common sense, and

we recognize that. That's part of this relationship that should be a pretty

beneficial relationship. I don't know or haven't heard of a landlord, other than

sometimes we do get…. There's no question there are people out there who own

residential properties which are rented that are way substandard, and that's not

good for anybody. But I don't think people deliberately go out and say:

"We're going to turn off the heat." If they are, certainly we want

them in front of the arbitrator, and we want them meeting the standard forms of

a tenancy agreement, because, frankly, that's just not acceptable.

J. Kwan:

Well, the legislation doesn't say that, Mr. Chair. The legislation under

section

14(3) says: "The requirement for agreement under subsection (2) does not

apply to any of the following: (

a) a rent increase in accordance with

Part 3 of

this act; (

b) a withdrawal of, or a restriction on, a service or facility in

accordance with

section 27."

When you go

section 27, it states: "27(1) A landlord must not terminate or restrict

a service or facility (

a) that is essential to the tenant's use of the rental

unit as living accommodation, and (

b) that cannot, or for which a reasonable

substitute cannot, be purchased by that tenant." It doesn't say that it has

to be a substitute that is of equal or a higher standard. It does not say that

at all.

In my

situation, it is different. It is different because my intention was to fix the

heater. It is fixed now, but there are some situations where people do not

intend to fix the heater. I'm just using the heater as an example. The advocate

from Terrace who sent me the information that she has come across as an advocate

in the residential tenancy area is actually coming out to say the heat has been

cut off because the landlord did not want to pay for the repairs to the

baseboard heaters. If heaters are deemed to be an essential service, and I think

the minister actually said that this week, then how could this be allowed? How

could it be allowed? If the remedy, then, is to say, "Okay, you get to

reduce your rent," who gets to determine how much? I know we will get to

that later on in the act, but who gets to determine how much of the rent should

be reduced?

Hon. R.

Coleman: I would be curious as to how many people the rental advocate up

north has that are landlords who don't do this to their tenants and could

actually give you some examples of good landlords, because all we seem to do is

talk about the one or two that somebody thinks is a bad landlord.

The bottom

line here is this. It says it can be a reasonable substitute. A reasonable

substitute to me would be something that at least is at the level of what you

had before. I mean, it's pretty simple language to me. When you talk about

changes in tenancy agreement, you always skip over

section 14(1), which says:

"A tenancy agreement may not be amended to change or remove a standard

term." If it's a standard term of the tenancy agreement…. You know, lots

of tenancies in rental properties include rent, and people have separate meters

for their heat.

Each one of

these examples can be moved from here to there, but I think what we have here is

a reasonable test with a standard-form tenancy agreement where, long term,

there's a relationship between a landlord and a tenant. We will deal with those

people who are going to be bad landlords through our arbitration system and

through our standard-form terms.

[1630]

J. Kwan:

Well, the minister raises the question that he finds it interesting that in the

debate, the opposition always brings up problems people might be faced with.

Well, you know, that is exactly why I think legislation sometimes needs to be in

place. Yes, it's there to guide those who engage in good practice and who will

continue to engage in good practice, so that they know what good practice means.

By and large, it's not a problem, but enforcement and legislation need to come

into place, and clarity of language needs to be there when there are problems.

That's why we raise the issues — when there are problems. It's when disputes

arise that you need to know what the legislation says. Then you need to know

what the consequences are.

everybody is abiding by the law and there are no disputes, then there is no need

for such a debate. But we don't live in such a utopian world. Even I know that

is the case. Hence we have to raise the scenarios where there are problems and

how legislation will address those problems.

The

minister now likes to use the test of reasonableness when facilities or services

are being withdrawn. The test of reasonableness is to be applied. But for the

service to be withdrawn, the test is not reasonableness. The test under

section

27 is actually "essential," a service or facility that is essential to

the tenant — not reasonable for the tenant, but essential. When that service

is being withdrawn, then the test to apply for its replacement is a

reasonableness test.

There are

two different standards being set, and that is problematic. Whether or not the

minister wants

[ Page 4416 ]

to acknowledge that sometimes in the case of heat in some communities, there

are some landlords who will abuse the system and not provide heat to the tenant.

It becomes a problem for the tenant. This

section of the act allows for it. It

allows for it and, quite frankly, in the language of the act, allows for the

withdrawal of the service to be replaced by a standard that's less than what was

there before. That's what the act says as we see it right now before us. It is

problematic both for the tenant, who has the right to expect a level of

services, and for the landlord to be able to meet that standard and understand

what the standard of requirement is to be.

For that

reason, the opposition will be opposing

section 14. We think that it is

unreasonable to allow services to be withdrawn or facilities to be withdrawn.

When you look under

section 27, what the replacement of the consequences are,

the protection is simply not there, I would argue, for the tenant or for the

landlord.

Section 14

approved on division.

section

J. Kwan:

Section 15 is in relation to the application and processing of fees and their

prohibition. AIDS Vancouver has sent information to the opposition.

By the way,

I should clarify. It's not just AIDS Vancouver that has sent information to the

opposition. AIDS Vancouver has also sent information, I believe, to all MLAs,

including the Solicitor General. I should also say that the Tenants Rights

Action Coalition has sent their comments to the opposition, but also to the MLAs

and particularly to the Solicitor General, in the hopes that information would

be processed and reviewed by the MLAs, by the government, and in the hopes that

the amendments they have proposed would be brought forward by government.

Therefore, we can truly bring forward

an act that respects comments from the

community and addresses their issues.

This should

not come as a surprise to the government, to the Solicitor General or to the

MLAs. Let me just go back to

section 15. AIDS Vancouver advises that, of course,

they're pleased that the government is moving to prohibit the practice of

collecting application fees. It is an outrageous practice — there's no doubt

about it — when a landlord charges several tenants to simply apply for a

rental and then keeps the money, whether or not the tenant is chosen.

[1635]

In the

section, though, the question is this. The legislation does not provide for a

penalty or consequence if a landlord collects such a payment. Is the only

alternative for a tenant, a prospective tenant or a former tenant to go through

the residential tenancy branch for dispute resolution?

Hon. R.

Coleman: The penalty is that it is an offence under the act, and under the

offence

section of the act, it's liable to a fine up to $5,000.

J. Kwan:

How would that be enforced? Would it only be applicable through the residential

tenancy branch in terms of its potential enforcement?

Hon. R.

Coleman: Well, as the member knows, it's usually a complaint process through

the residential tenancy branch, who then would deal with the issue and, if

necessary, forward it on to the appropriate authorities to move forward the

charge, based on any other normal court proceeding, to prejudge what the

evidence would be, to do that and to decide on if we're going to get into a

discussion of what fee and where and how it was taken, etc. That will be

something for the courts to decide.

We've

always said to all the parties in and around this act, whether they be landlords

or tenants, that the one thing we intend to do once we get this legislation and

the regulations in place, hopefully by spring…. They can expect that for the

first time ever, we will actually use the offence

section of this act. It has

not been used in the previous 20-odd years where there has been offence sections

within the act for penalties for people who do these things and breach these

sections of the act. We intend to do that. We're going to watch it very closely.

We'll take the complaints through the branch. If there's somebody that's

egregiously doing this or deciding they're going to break the rules, then we're

going to deal with it.

J. Kwan:

Nobody is asking the Solicitor General to decide under what circumstances what

the fines would be and so on. I'm asking the Solicitor General what the process

is for a person if a person has such a complaint. Is the process such that the

person would go to the residential tenancy branch and file a complaint, and then

it would be up to the arbitrator to make a decision whether or not to invoke the

penalty? Or is it some other court process? Is it through small claims process

or what? That's the question.

Hon. R.

Coleman: No, the person would file the complaint with the residential

tenancy branch. It would then go to the director. The director would review it,

and it was felt to be necessary, the information is there to assign an

investigator to it. When the investigation was completed, they would come back

with recommendations to move forward with charges to Crown.

Section 15

approved.

The

Chair: Shall

section 16 pass?

Some

Hon. Members: Aye.

The

Chair: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

J. Kwan:

Actually, I'm ready to move to

section 18, Mr. Chair.

The

Chair: Shall sections 16 and 17 pass?

[ Page 4417 ]

Some

Hon. Members: Aye.

The

Chair: So ordered. Shall

section 18 pass?

J. Kwan:

Pardon me. I do have a question on

section 16. I'm sorry, Mr. Chair.

section

The

Chair: On

section 16, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

J. Kwan:

Thank you. My apologies. My notes are a little disjointed because, as I say,

e-mails are coming in fast and furious. We're trying to incorporate all the

questions that have come in from the public to be tabled here, and I missed this

one.

A concern

has been raised on

section 16. There are many instances in which a tenant may

sign a tenancy agreement and then go to their worker with an intent-to-rent form

— these are, of course, people who are on income assistance — only to have

the ministry worker advise them that the rent they are faced with for that

particular accommodation is beyond their financial means. We also have parents

who have children in care, who are not allowed to have these children back until

they secure safe housing. They're ultimately put into the same situation,

because the rental costs are beyond their means. So by making it such that a

tenancy becomes effective prior to the inclusion of money exchanging hands, both

parties are potentially put into a precarious situation.

[1640]

The

issue that is raised by the residential tenancy advocate is that the prospective

tenant is now at the mercy of the landlord, who may decide that they are now

going to sue the tenant for the agreed-upon payment rather than mitigate his or

her loss by finding another tenant. This, of course, leaves the door open for a

landlord to have to try to collect, which is of course a lengthy process.

This is a

concern that's been raised by a tenant advocate who has firsthand experience

with people who are faced with these kinds of difficult situations. The

suggestion from the advocate is for the

section to be amended to include the

following words — that is, the inclusion of money exchanging hands. The

proviso is, of course, under the start of the tenancy agreement, that aside from

a line about what the agreement is, also to ensure that the proviso of money

exchanging hands…. Once it takes place, the agreement will then trigger. Then

those who are not able to get approval from their social worker through the

income assistance office will actually have some protection and would not be

penalized as such. Could I get the minister's comments on