2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 2008

Morning Sitting

Volume 28, Number 5

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Second Reading of Bills

Housing Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 10)

Hon. R. Coleman

D. Thorne

Hon. R. Coleman

Statements

Anniversary congratulations

Hon. R. Coleman

Committee of the Whole House

Forests and Range Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 8)

B. Simpson

Hon. R. Coleman

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Small Business and Revenue and Minister Responsible for Regulatory Reform (continued)

C. Wyse

Hon. R. Thorpe

D. Cubberley

J. Brar

[ Page 10403 ]

TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 2008

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill

10, the Housing Statutes Amendment Act, 2008. In Committee A, I call Committee

of Supply. For the information of members, it's continued estimates on the

Ministry of Small Business and Revenue.

Second Reading of Bills

HOUSING STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

Hon. R. Coleman: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 10 be read

for a second time now.

The government is committed to creating a greener B.C. building

code and strengthening the safety of buildings. The amendments under this act

ensure that B.C. can construct greener buildings and respond to rapidly changing

building technology.

Bill 10 proposes amendments to the Local Government Act, the

Community Charter, the Vancouver Charter, the Architects Act and the Engineers

and Geoscientists Act.

It is a first step in providing tools for consistent and safe

application of the B.C. building code. The amendments provide local governments

with the authority to make bylaws related to energy and water conservation,

reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving access to buildings for people

with disabilities.

It also permits the Minster Responsible for Housing to designate

an official to make binding

interpretations of the B.C. building code. This

will add clarity and will lead to more consistent application of the code.

It will allow professional associations to establish building

specialist designations for architects and engineers whose expertise in complex

building technologies will improve safety and more effectively meet the

objectives of the building code and regulations. It will provide local

governments with the authority to require those specialists to sign building

plans and other documents required for a building permit.

[1005]

Bill 10 will also include amendments to the Local Government Act

which will ensure that the B.C. building code applies to significant repairs and

renovations of buildings as well as to new construction. It will clarify the

minister's authority to provide an exemption to the building code or

regulations.

In conclusion, the proposed amendments will improve the way

buildings and construction are regulated in B.C. and support a greening of the

B.C. building code.

I'll close when the members have finished their comments.

D. Thorne: I'd like to say that I didn't have very much

time to look into this overnight. It was produced yesterday, so this is the best

that I can do with short notice. I expect to have many, many more questions when

we actually get into the sections.

Looking through some of the notes that I have made here, on the

face of it I think that this is a move in the right direction, certainly

regarding having a greener building code. I mean, this is something that people

in the municipalities, larger cities particularly, have wanted for a long time.

They have been waiting for this regulation to actually start.

However, I do have some concerns which may be alleviated, as I

say, when we get into

section 3. I would just like to go through right now and

talk about a couple of the sections.

Most of the sections that I can see — sections 2, 6, 7 and 8 — are

mainly, as the minister said, adding some extra powers to the municipalities,

regional districts and the city of Coquitlam through the Community Charter and

the Local Government Act, and the Vancouver Charter — a few more authorities

around building permits and building codes in the areas of disability access,

conserving energy and water, and greenhouse gas emission reduction. Those

sections, I think, are pretty clear by just reading them.

However, from my previous experience on council, I'm wondering if

section 3, which amends

section 55 in the Community Charter…. I recognize that

this is in here because we have to add the definition of "qualified

professional" into the Community Charter in order to make any of these other

things work. I know that there has been a lot of discussion in the larger cities

— I'm not as familiar with the rural areas, but certainly in the larger cities —

about city inspection services in total. Certainly, a lot of cities are very

nervous about doing inspections and would probably like to eventually get out of

the business of doing inspections through municipalities — rather, having

qualified or certified professionals responsible for specific parts of a house

or a building as it's being built.

While it may be moving in a direction that the UBCM and the cities

would like to see, I think that it is a huge step, when we move into this area,

where we're expanding the definition of qualified professionals and giving them

the ability, through law, to do the inspections, possibly instead of — that's

where I'm wondering if it's "as well as" or "instead of" — the city inspectors

themselves. I'm concerned about municipal inspection and the totality of

oversight by the municipalities and what could happen to that down the road,

because that raises all kinds of issues around liability and insurance.

[1010]

If it makes it easier, I will call it the consumer. Is the

consumer going to be protected? I mean, up to this point, if you build a house

and it's inspected by the city as you go along, the city signs off on it and you

get your occupancy permit, and if something goes wrong with the house that the

inspector from the city didn't notice or the builder inadvertently made an error

that wasn't noticed by the city, then you had recourse with the city.

[ Page 10404 ]

If you were building a house, you didn't have to go and try and sue the

builder of the house or the architect or the electrician or any of the various

subtrades that would be working on the house.

If we move in the direction of qualified professional doing the

different levels of inspection, who is going to be responsible? Who will I, as a

consumer, be able to get recourse from if a problem arises? I'm hoping that as

we move into the third reading, the minister will be able to reassure me that we

are looking at those issues.

Most of these qualified professionals will be small businesses,

very small businesses. Quite a lot of these engineers and environmental

technicians and architects work on their own, basically. They come out of

school, and they basically start their own business, so there is just them. Will

they have the ability to get enough insurance to cover a condo building, for

instance, that may have huge problems and that he or she signs off on?

Those are the concerns that were raised with me in

section 3

around municipal inspection. For an example, in rural British Columbia a couple

of years ago I remember that we changed regulations around septics. I mean,

liability issues are one thing that I've already mentioned, but there's also

been, I understand from my friends….

I have a place on Mayne Island, and certainly that's a rural area.

Looking at the price escalation in putting in a septic field, it has tripled or

quadrupled. I'm wondering if that is going to happen across the province and

across the board with all of these inspection services and the ability to put in

your septic, or whatever. Will there be huge price increases, and how is that

going to affect the housing market and consumer protection?

I understand that we have to change the Engineers and

Geoscientists Act in order to give them the ability to consider what would be a

specialist and give that designation. I'm hoping that this is not going to

diminish the powers of the municipalities, because I understand that the purpose

of this bill is actually to increase the power of the municipality. The things

that I'm concerned about so far all look to me, in the end, that some of the

powers of municipalities could be diminished.

I've mentioned the compensation for owners. I'm also wondering

when and if cities are no longer involved in doing inspection and we do have

qualified professionals doing most of the work and the inspection, how will the

cities be liable? Is there a concern that cities may also be wondering about

compensation for issues themselves?

Also, looking at the

section that allows the minister to make

regulations establishing and adopting standards and to designate an official to

do those same kinds of things, I'm seeing that this is giving the ministry much

more power to perhaps override the municipalities. That could be a huge concern.

I'm hoping, with this cursory overview I've done and my municipal background,

that I'm just overreacting to some of this stuff. But I am concerned that they

might be able to override the municipalities.

[1015]

There have been, in the past couple of years, other bills that

have passed through this chamber that have in fact diminished the powers of the

municipalities and cities across British Columbia. I think we're all aware of

which bills they are, so I'm not going to go into that this morning. I am

concerned about the centralization of power here in this chamber rather than in

the city halls and town halls across the province.

That pretty much covers my comments for second reading. I look

forward to the minister's comments and to third reading of this bill.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister of

Forests and Housing closes debate.

Hon. R. Coleman: I think this probably is a committee stage

debate type of bill. The reality, though, just to clarify some of her concerns

off the bat, is that septic fields are not in the building code. They're

actually managed by the Ministry of Health by a process of theirs. There's no

question that we had to change to new technologies, because we lag here on the

rest of the world, frankly, on how we handle our solid waste management.

The certified professional has actually been in place in Vancouver

for probably…. Well, I used one in 1989 on a building I did in Vancouver, where

you could go hire a certified professional who was conversant in the building

code and building structures and have that person replace the process of the

city of Vancouver for their building inspection and department. It was seen as

an efficiency for Vancouver, simply because that allowed them to have somebody

skip a nine-month process that wasn't necessary if you had a certified

professional.

It's something that has been asked for not just in the municipal

areas and in larger municipalities with regards to some of the issues in and

around liability and concern but also in the rural areas, where there are no

standards and no training. In many areas nobody is qualified to actually do the

inspections with regards to it.

This bill is actually enabling, as much as anything, because there

are complex issues with regards to the building code. It's probably the most

complex piece of any file that I have ever managed, simply because the building

code has been in evolution over generations. In actual fact it needs to have a

whole raising-the-bar change to it, it needs to have people that will understand

it going forward, and quite frankly, it needs to have some flexibility.

I'll give an example of the flexibility where I was able to do a

regulation that actually affected something. We had one municipality in B.C.

that decided overnight that vinyl siding and vinyl windows were no longer

meeting the standards on rain screening in B.C. What they did was they told

everybody they couldn't use those products any more.

We make vinyl siding and vinyl windows in British Columbia, and we

were actually about to shut down the ability of our own product to be applied to

our own

[ Page 10405 ]

buildings. It was just a case of somebody at the local level deciding to do

their own

interpretation of something versus what the provincial

interpretation

of a particular product was. We had to change a regulation in order to fix that.

Sometimes those regulations take a little bit longer than they can, and it could

have an effect on people who are actually involved in building in B.C. today.

On the reverse side, if we had had some standards in place, we

might have been able to deal with some of the issues around acrylic stucco in

the old leaky-condo issue back then, if we had had the flexibility to identify a

problem early and move quickly on it.

There will be some debate, I'm sure, about what level of ability

there should be for the minister to make changes in the building code. I do know

that in my experience I've found many times a national code that is applied

provincially can oftentimes take the issues that actually bring us to failure.

The classic example is where the national code and some of the

building code years ago didn't recognize that in some areas of B.C., like

Revelstoke or Whistler — I'm not using those communities by name; it's just that

I know they have heavy snow loads — couldn't actually build buildings with the

structure to handle the snow load because it was against the building code.

There needed to be amendments and changes done in order to adapt to that.

It is a very complex issue. This is the first piece of a very

long, extensive process with regards to building code and raising the bar and

the professionalism of building in B.C. Ironically, I think that in many cases

we're actually a lot greener than most areas in the country as to how we build

buildings. It's just that we're going to try and improve on that.

We do a lot of 2-by-6 construction and high-energy furnaces, and

some of our water management is not bad. It could get better with low-flush

toilets and how we monitor and meter this stuff, but there are certainly ways to

improve. We have to set the template and, basically, say that this is where

we're going.

[1020]

Industries are like anything else. They will change when they see

change coming, but they won't change, necessarily, and will continue to do the

same old thing over and over again because it's comfortable.

This is basically the beginning of the green building code and its

initiatives, and I look forward to the committee stage debate.

Having said that, I move second reading of Bill 10.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the bill be placed on orders

of the day for the next sitting of the House after today.

Mr. Speaker: Minister of Forests, the motion should have

been "referred to a Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting after

today."

Hon. R. Coleman: That's right. Very good, Mr. Speaker.

Bill 10, Housing Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, 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. C. Richmond: I call committee stage of Bill 8,

intituled Forests and Range Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, in the hands of the

hon. Minister of Forests and Range.

Committee of the Whole House

FORESTS AND RANGE STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 8; S.

Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 10:22 a.m.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'd like to seek leave to make an

announcement.

Leave granted.

Statements

ANNIVERSARY CONGRATULATIONS

Hon. R. Coleman: This morning I received an e-mail from a

gentleman by the name of Bill Bond. Bill happens to be the spouse of the Deputy

Premier of British Columbia and the Minister of Education. Today, because she

loves this House so much and we don't give her leave, she is sitting in this

House celebrating her 29th wedding anniversary, while Bill is stuck in Prince

George.

I'd ask the House to please pass on their congratulations to the

Minister of Education and her husband Bill on their 29th wedding anniversary.

Debate Continued

The Chair: The committee will come to order on Bill 8.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

B. Simpson: I did have my coffee this morning, so I got up

in time for this.

My understanding of the

section 48 amendments to the Forest Act

are that the amendments, according to the press release, are intended to give

first nations access to timber for domestic use. Again, according to the

minister's own words and the press release for this bill, it "updates the Forest

Act provisions for free use permits to assist first nations in assessing timber

for domestic purposes, a right that was established under the Supreme Court of

Canada."

[1025]

[ Page 10406 ]

I am referring to the actual act itself. I'm trying to understand.

It says that

section 3, the two amendments that it's making, in part (

b) in

subsection (2), by adding "with an applicant described in subsection (1) (

a) to

(f)…." It looks to me like

section 48(1)(

g) is the piece that actually describes

the use of Crown timber and is not selling timber to others. Yet I don't see

anything in this

section that actually gives first nations any rights additional

to what they already have. Under this, they already have, in 48(1)(g), a

designated right to use, through a free use permit, Crown timber for traditional

cultural activity.

I wonder if the minister can explain to me where this additional

right is supposedly given to first nations in this act.

Hon. R. Coleman: I won't mention to Bill, who's probably

watching right now, what's going on in the House, although he did ask me to

e-mail if the minister blushed when the announcement was made.

Before I start, on my left is Diane Goode, who is the manager of

litigation and policy analysis for the ministry. On my right is Richard Grieve,

manager of policy development and legislation in the ministry.

Basically, the change here is that it removes the requirement for

the first nation to exhaust its personal supply before it asks for a free use

permit. Then the next section, which has the rest of the changes, removes the

volume, which used to be 50 to no more than 250 cubic metres. It now removes the

250-cubic-metre limit.

B. Simpson: I guess, not being a lawyer or a legislative

lawyer, I'm trying to really find out the connection between the bill note, the

press release and what is actually happening in this bill. The explanatory note

says that this particular

section "allows a free use permit to be entered into

with a person who requires Crown timber for a traditional or cultural activity

and who is not selling the timber." But that's already in the note.

I'm looking at the Forest Act, current as of February 27, 2008.

Section 48(1)(

g) already has a person having access to Crown timber for

traditional and cultural activity not selling it to others. Again, all (

a) does

is change subsection (1) from an agreement "in the form of a free use permit" by

getting rid of some verbiage and putting in "a free use permit." Then (b), in

subsection (ii), is the

section that says it cannot be entered into, by putting

in 1(

a) to (f), so that it's not, I guess, excluding (g). But it's not giving

rights, as far as I understand, to first nations.

Again I ask the minister: where is it that this gives incremental

rights to first nations?

[1030]

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm going to basically try and do this.

Section 48(2) presently prohibits entering into a free use permit with an

applicant who has sufficient access to timber on land owned or occupied by the

applicant. We're taking this away.

This

section amends it to enable the first nation to hold a free

use permit and access timber on Crown land for a traditional or cultural

activity, including timber to build a residential dwelling in situations where

the first nation may have sufficient access to timber and land owned or occupied

by that first nation.

The amendment to

section 48(2) is necessary to address the Sappier

and Gray Supreme Court of Canada decision and to prevent a possible

unjustifiable infringement on aboriginal right for timber for domestic purposes.

In December 2006 the Supreme Court of Canada found there was an

aboriginal right to harvest timber for domestic purposes, including the

construction of residential buildings. In the situations where a first nation

holds such an aboriginal right, this right may be practised on Crown land and in

an area traditionally used by the first nation.

So these provisions are changing to accomplish that, to take care

of that aboriginal right. The provisions will also allow us to amend the

regulations to include the residential building to be included in what the first

nations can use the timber for.

B. Simpson: We will move on to

section 4, which raises this

point that we're talking about — treaty first nations. If I understand the

minister correctly, what we're adding in

section 2 is a clarifier clause, (1)(

a) to (f). So it excludes (g), which is the clause in

part 1 that speaks to

traditional cultural activity. We're saying that now gets removed.

As a consequence,

section 2 does not apply to those who are using

the land for traditional or cultural activity. That's effectively what we're

doing.

What I need to understand is….

Section 2 talks about land that the

applicant owns or occupies. As we know, first nations do not own the land that

they're on. At least that has not been determined in many cases, other than

where we have a treaty that exists and that actually transfers rights of

ownership to the first nations.

Again, I'm trying to understand the disclaimer. If first nations

are actually on land, that is sufficient for them occupying that land. So if

they go in and they want a free use permit, whether it's to build a home or

firewood or whatever the case may be, the regional or district manager, by right

of their occupation on that land…. Whether it's their traditional territory or

whatever the case may be, they automatically get a free use permit and cannot be

excluded under 48(2). Am I understanding correctly that that's what's happening?

[1035]

Hon. R. Coleman: I'll try this. Basically, this

section

allows an applicant who may have reserve lands or treaty lands that they already

have…. It allows them to have a free use permit on other Crown lands that might

be within a traditional territory. They're not restricted to the reserve or

Crown lands, and they're not restricted by their access to that to be only

allowed to have a free use permit, because of the Sappier and Gray decision.

[ Page 10407 ]

B. Simpson: I just want to be clear about that last point,

that this goes beyond reserve lands, then. There are the treaty lands. I guess

in the treaty lands, it depends on where Crown and treaty lands intersect —

whether or not the first nations under treaty would actually need a free use

permit, because they should have sufficient owned fibre supply for their own

needs in traditional cultural uses.

The reality is that non-treaty first nations that had access under

this…. All it's saying is that we can't restrict that access because they've got

some in their existing agreement, whether it's a forest and range agreement or

some other forest licence or whatever the case may be.

But I want to be clear. The minister said that it's not just the

reserve land. For Nazko, for example…. They live on reserve lands, but they have

a huge territory that they now have under discussions at the treaty table. Same

with Nadleh, and same with most of the first nations in the interior.

So they can actually request the access under a free use permit

for anywhere in their traditional territory. Is that what the minister is

indicating?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah. The member is correct, with the

exception that it depends on the treaty. Some treaties will allow for things

outside the treaty lands, so that would be taken into account on the application

for the free use permit.

Basically, this is to allow first nations who don't have access to

particular properties and lands to be able to go and get land to build a home or

a building, or whatever the case, right off Crown lands with a free use permit.

Then, of course, the descriptions in (

a) to (

f) basically cover off what that

may be, and then forward from there.

But your description, according to my staff, is pretty close.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

[1040]

B. Simpson: No presents today yet.

Section 4 changes

section 48(2) of the Forest Act by adding "and

(h)" after the previous amendment of adding "subsection 1(

a) to (f)." Where

would I find the (

h) that it's referring to?

Hon. R. Coleman: The Maa-nulth Final Agreement Act won't

come into place for about a year, and in the treaty there is a

section that has

basically become

section (h), which was passed by the Legislature but won't be

brought into force until the agreement is actually in place.

I'll read the

section which would be (h): "a treaty first nation

that has entered into an agreement with British Columbia, in accordance with its

final agreement, for the harvesting of types of timber specified in the final

agreement."

That's in the agreement. We can't put it in the act today, because

the Maa-nulth final agreement hasn't been passed. This enables us to add

section

(

h) when that agreement is passed in order to basically accomplish, I guess, the

legal responsibilities under the treaty.

B. Simpson: I find that curious, because what we're being

asked to do is to approve "and (h)" with (

h) not described. I don't understand

why you wouldn't take that out and add the "and (h)" when you're describing what

(

h) is. Effectively, if we add "and (h)" here, we're agreeing to whatever (

h) is

in the act. We're agreeing to it sight unseen.

I don't understand why you would even put it in at this point.

It's asking for us to give you leave to do something later on, and we don't know

what that something is.

Again, this section, in the explanatory notes, says, "…adds a

treaty first nation that has entered into an agreement with British Columbia to

the list of persons," but it actually doesn't do that at all. It just adds the

little phrase "and (h)" to it. There's a disconnect between the explanatory

note, which is saying that we're making room for a treaty first nation to be

added. The explanatory note, if anybody reads this bill, is false advertising as

to what's going on. I think we have an obligation to the public to be

crystal-clear about what it is we're doing and not doing when we make changes to

legislation.

For what it's worth, my recommendation to the minister would be

that this gets excluded at this juncture and that the explanatory note be

changed in accordance with that. I would put that to the minister. Can we at

this juncture just simply have an amendment put forward and have this

section

removed from the act?

[1045]

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm going to try and do this one, and I

don't know if I can satisfy the member's concern or not. Under the previous

discussion, sections (

a) to (f), we added (

g) to allow for basically global

access for Sappier and Gray. That is to meet the Supreme Court of Canada

decision with regards to that.

In the Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement Act there's

actually a statement that says you'll add

section (

h) to this act with regards

to them. The Maa-nulth final agreement has a situation where they have agreed to

exhaust any timber supply in their own area before they would actually ask for a

free use permit under Sappier and Gray. That needs to be added at the same time

as the Maa-nulth final agreement comes into force.

The actual language that I read out is in the Maa-nulth final

agreement, so it is basically meeting the legal requirement under the treaty and

having

section (

h) put in at the time that the agreement comes into place. This

enables us to do that.

I will read the

section again for the member, who, as I understand

it, according to my staff, could go to the Maa-nulth final agreement and find

this wording. It's

section (h), which is: "a treaty first nation that has

[ Page 10408 ]

entered into an agreement with British Columbia, in accordance with its final

agreement, for the harvesting of types of timber specified in the final

agreement." That needs to be added at the same time as the Maa-nulth comes into

force. This allows us to do that.

The agreement itself, of course, as the member knows, will

probably go through a period of time with the federal government, etc., and the

approvals that are necessary to get the treaty finally done. Then this can come

in, in order to make sure this does not contravene Sappier and Gray and

contravene the Maa-nulth agreement, at the same time.

B. Simpson: I appreciate that clarification. However, I

guess what I'm getting at is that we will have to have a piece of legislation

introduced, once the Maa-nulth is actually enacted, that adds (

h) to this. Right

now there is no (h). We will have to have legislation come forward that adds (

h) for clarity of purpose and to stop having explanatory notes that do not coincide

with what actually is happening in the act.

If we take that explanatory note out and we take

section 4 out and

add the phrase "and (h)" when (

h) is actually described, I think that's a better

legislative process, more clear to the people of British Columbia. Why is it

necessary, then, to put the phrase "and (h)" in at this juncture? Why not put

this amendment in when the Maa-nulth comes in and (

h) is actually described in

the act as well?

Hon. R. Coleman: We've already passed this in the

Legislature — passed this language, passed this agreement, passed this treaty.

It has to go through the federal. All this does is allow us to bring the

section

of the treaty into force under this act when the act actually becomes the final

act, I would say, from the federal government — right? That's what it is, so

that's why it's in there this way. My understanding is that it's about the only

way we can do it and be able to have the two blend at the appropriate time, at

the same time, so that there's no confusion on the legislation.

[1050]

B. Simpson: But there is confusion in the legislation when

this goes in, because (

h) isn't described.

Let me ask it a different way. Will we actually get a Forest Act

amendment adding (

h) from the Maa-nulth treaty into the Forest Act? Will that be

an explicit amendment to the Forest Act brought into this Legislature at some

point in the near future, once Maa-nulth has gone through its approval process?

Hon. R. Coleman: We've already passed this. This is

basically allowing us to bring it into force as a consequential amendment so

when the Maa-nulth agreement comes in as final legislation, this automatically

will go into this section.

B. Simpson: Sorry. I do want to be clear on that point,

because that's the point that I'm not clear on. So there will be nothing

introduced in this House. When the Maa-nulth is finally approved, it

automatically slides into the act. Is that correct?

The minister is nodding, so I'll take that as assent.

Hon. R. Coleman: That's correct.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

B. Simpson: So what we've done at this juncture is excluded

first nations who are non-treaty — other than Maa-nulth — to, within their

traditional territory, get access to timber. We are not excluding them if

there's other access available.

Now what we do under 3 is explicitly for the (1)(g), those first

nations we've been describing to this point. We remove the "not exceeding 250

m 3 " — is that correct? So we removed the ceiling on the size of these free use

permits. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Coleman: Member, you're correct. The amendment

removes the 250-metre volume limit on free use permits. This amendment actually

addresses the Sappier and Gray Supreme Court of Canada decision by ensuring a

first nation has the ability to access sufficient Crown timber. Removing the

volume limit enables a first nation to access the necessary volume of Crown

timber for cultural and traditional activities, including the aboriginal right

to access timber for domestic purposes, which could include building a

residential dwelling.

B. Simpson: By removing the cap on there, what are the

upper limits? And how will the upper limits be defined for the designated

decision-makers in those areas?

Hon. R. Coleman: The decision-maker will make a decision,

basically, applying Sappier and Gray, based on the showing of intrinsic use

applied to the culture of the first nation and that the volume that is applied

for would be appropriate.

[1055]

We're developing revised policy guidelines for our decision-makers

with regards to this, but it's not a case of somebody coming in and saying: "I

want 100,000 cubic metres, because I want it for cultural purposes." It will be:

"I want a free use permit, because I want to build a longhouse and three houses,

etc., and this is what we think the amount of volume is." Then they apply. The

decision-maker won't be able to apply the test with regards to that intrinsic

cultural value and use with regards to Sappier and Gray.

B. Simpson: Just so I'm clear. Each designated

decision-maker, whoever that may be, will have to then deal individually with

each first nation and will have to use their own discretion in each first

nations case as to how they apply this particular fact — that there is now no

limitation on how much wood they give.

[ Page 10409 ]

I just want to make sure that that's clear before I go on to my

next question.

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, that's correct. Sappier and Gray

basically felt that the limitation was unfair for some first nations who may

actually have a larger use of more than 250 cubic metres and basically said it

should be…. If I can put it in my understanding of the plain language, it would

be: therefore, you can't have a limit, but you can identify what the use is and

give the free use permit according to what the use is.

In some cases it may be a thousand cubic metres, because there are

five houses and this and that and whatever. That's where that draws the line.

B. Simpson: Again, it's not in the legislation, but with

respect to any kind of policy recommendations to designated decision-makers, how

is the potential cumulative impact of this rolled up? Because you could have an

entire…. Nazko could decide that they're going to rebuild all of their homes in

Nazko. They're going to replace trailers and other homes that they've got there

and build a big lodge. They're going to have nice fireplaces and all of that.

Again, you give each of the designated decision-makers that

individual authority to work with the first nations. How much can a first nation

actually come to, year over year, to get wood? And how does it work in with that

area's annual allowable cut and other volume constraints, which some of the

areas are now coming up against?

Hon. R. Coleman: There are two questions there. Obviously,

if they could use this right to rebuild some of the what I would call

substandard housing on first nations land, I think we should all applaud that

opportunity. Quite frankly, there is some housing out there where I really think

we've let first nations down, collectively, with regards to how they're built.

Just so we're clear here, though, the wood has to be used for the

purpose. It can't be used for any commercial purpose. There's no commercial

opportunity here. They can't go and barter the wood off for other services like

electrical and plumbing, etc.

The wood has to go into the construction of the facilities it is

identified for. So if they get a free use permit because they want to build five

houses of wood, the wood has to go into those homes. It can't be sold. You can't

enter into a commercial relationship. Sappier and Gray was very clear on the

fact that this cannot be used for commercial purposes, and the wood is to go

into the actual use.

[1100]

Having said that, we don't think this has a large volume impact on

any part of the annual allowable cut and wouldn't affect the management of the

forest sector.

B. Simpson: I agree with the minister that giving first

nations the access to do these kinds of things is important. I'm just trying to

understand how it's going to work.

First nations have various complaints about relationships that

they have with local decision-makers, depending on their own perspective. Giving

the authority to local decision-makers to apply this particular part of the act

within some policy framework may further exacerbate some of those situations if

favourites are played or if the rules aren't clear.

My question to the minister is: if a first nation is not happy

with the decisions that are being made by the designated decision-maker, what is

the recourse for them, and will that be stipulated in the policy?

Hon. R. Coleman: We wouldn't put that in the legislation

but certainly in the policy — where they would go if they were dissatisfied with

a solution. I guess it could probably go up to the ADM or the deputy level.

You know, the frustration that even brought on Sappier and Gray

was actually the ability to get the wood to begin with, because of the free use

permit process tied to the tune of 250 cubic metres and the restrictions on it.

That's why we've made these changes to meet the Supreme Court decision.

I know that licensees, as well, sometimes get frustrated with

statutory decision-makers who make their decisions based on the law or policy.

They will come to various levels to have their situation heard if it has to. Of

course, this is a decision-maker. It wouldn't necessarily have to be a statutory

decision, so it could probably be discussed up the line.

I think the First Nations Forestry Council, if there were a lot of

problems with these, would bring it to the minister, quite frankly, and to the

deputy minister. I get the member's comment about some of my decision-makers and

policy-makers out in the field not getting along with first nations. I don't

actually get that from the first nations when I meet with them.

There are some, I guess, that would have to be based on their

merit. There may be an application that somebody doesn't like the decision on

because they're actually asking for more than what they're entitled to.

Sometimes our guys have to make those tough decisions and allow for some

discussion to find a place that's middle ground or where we can find solutions.

I think they do a pretty good job out there on these things. I

will certainly bring it to the deputy's attention to have something in the

policy that says if there's dissatisfaction with the application… But I believe

that would probably be built into our process anyway.

B. Simpson: Just to be clear, I didn't suggest that it

should be in the legislation. I was asking if it would be in the policy.

With respect to the minister's comments about what's happening out

in the field, I guess we talked to different organizations. Because of our

different roles, we get different impressions of what's going on out there, and

we've canvassed that a number of times here.

If you take a look at FRAs and FROs, for example, that was a

formula-based process that caused disputes out in the field as to who got what

volume and

[ Page 10410 ]

whether or not that volume was viable. It has been circling around for quite

some time without resolution, and I know this has been punted to the leadership

council and the First Nations Forestry Council to try and get them to resolve

it.

[1105]

That's why my question is: in the policy for this, will there be

an explicit statement of how to resolve conflicts or complaints about unfairness

across jurisdictions, between designated decision-makers or by the same

designated decision-maker? Will it be an explicit statement, or will it be, as

the minister seems to have described it again, an ad hoc — "let's see what

floats up and deal with it when it floats up"?

Hon. R. Coleman: We haven't written the policy yet. The

legislation isn't passed, and the regulations aren't in place. As I said to the

member, I will bring it to the attention of the deputy subsequent to these

debates.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

section 7.

B. Simpson: Here we get into the timber marking. We

canvassed this a bit yesterday in our debate where, according to the press

release and the minister's comments yesterday, this is the enabling legislation

for the so-called forest recovery strategy and the coastal forest action plan.

It's to streamline requirements for the marking of timber transported by water.

What in fact it does….

Under sections 84(1) and (3), and under 86(1) and (2), we're

striking out the word "conspicuously." My understanding is that striking out

that word applies to both water and land. I wonder if the minister can clarify

that for me.

Again, the news release and the minister's comments are that this

is going to streamline requirements for the marking of timber transported by

water, but the actual amendment doesn't differentiate between water and land. It

removes the word "conspicuously" from timber marking for both land- and

water-based transport.

[1110]

Hon. R. Coleman: I've had two other staff join me: Sabina

Ghazarian, who's with the timber pricing forestry revenue branch, Ministry of

Forests — I'm sure Sabina will tell me if I got that wrong — and Graham

Archdekin, who is the manager of tenure opportunities for the Ministry of

Forests and Range, B.C. Timber Sales.

This is really geared to floating timber, because the biggest

challenge we have in transporting timber is that that's in the water. As you can

imagine, when they drop them into the boom, they're this way and that way and

every other way, so they don't actually meet the test of conspicuously….

So rather than write the entire

section — because we do have the

timber marking and transport regulations, which are pretty clear — by removing

"conspicuously," it affects mainly floating timber.

That's why in the release it talked about how it would help the

transport of timber by water. The wood has to be marked in the prescribed manner

with a timber mark that pertains to the land under the section, and that is

covered by the timber marking and transport regulations.

The challenge we had under the regulations, though, was that when

we dealt with timber being transported by water, getting to "conspicuously" was

virtually impossible. In order to reduce some of the things that need to be done

on the water, and in order to have people taking less risk on the water, for

their own safety, we had to remove the word "conspicuously," which we think

accomplishes a combination…. It accomplishes what we want to do by removing it

and then having the regulations in place that basically exist today with a

prescribed manner for timber marking.

B. Simpson: If I understand the minister correctly, he's

indicating that all we're trying to do is give more scope for the water-based

marking,

whereas the minister indicates it's difficult sometimes to make it

conspicuous because of how the logs float and how they're boomed and bundled.

But in order to achieve that, "conspicuously" has to be removed not only from

land transportation but from…. This covers both private and public logs. So I

want to be clear about that — that logs from private lands are covered by this

removal of "conspicuously" as well as logs from public lands.

[1115]

Hon. R. Coleman: How the mark is applied is prescribed in

regulation. This is only about the transport of the timber. So "conspicuously"

means you can't necessarily see it in the boom as it's being transported,

because you know the difficulty around that, or how there are other ways to

transport it.

However, it still has to be marked — right? — and for the purpose

of an inspection, it has to be legible and conspicuously applied to the timber.

All we are doing is getting the transport here. It doesn't mean that they don't

mark the timber anymore. They still have to mark the timber.

When you take it out of the water, you put it on a truck. When we

come and check it when it comes out of the water and onto the log sort, there

still has to be a timber mark that is legibly and conspicuously applied under a

separate

section of the act with regards to the timber markings.

This is about the "conspicuously" thing coming out of the way they

transport it in such a way that allows us to allow them not to have to do some

of the work that we may have to do today. But it still has to be marked. It's

not a case of removing the mark.

B. Simpson: I just want to clarify the point the minister

made a number of times about transportation, because 84(3) actually covers

storing unscaled timber as well, and the conspicuous is relative to storing

unscaled timber, not just the transportation of timber.

So I want to make that clear — that it's not just transportation;

it's if I've got unscaled timber that I'm

[ Page 10411 ]

storing. Whether I'm storing it on land or in water, it's in that storage

area. I'm removing the word "conspicuous" from that just as much as I'm removing

the word "conspicuous" from transporting timber that's not scaled yet.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'll try and work this one through. A

person cannot store unscaled timber in decks or piles on Crown land unless they

have marked it in a prescribed manner under the regulation. So you can't just

leave it there and store it. It has to be prescribed.

They can't remove or transport unscaled timber from Crown land or

private land unless the timber has been marked in a prescribed manner with a

timber mark that pertains to the land. That's how the

section would read versus

"has been conspicuously marked in a prescribed manner."

They still have to mark it. The "conspicuously" comes out,

basically, that it be marked in a prescribed manner, and the regulation is

pretty straightforward on how it has to be marked. That hasn't changed. It's

just that the transportation on the one piece is that it has to be marked.

[1120]

Conspicuously marked means that in the case of water in

particular, the logs could be transported in such a way that they're not all

going to be seen easily. But the fact of the matter is that they all have to be

marked in the applied manner according to the regulation, which is quite clear.

B. Simpson: My point was that the minister was saying this

only applied to logs being transported. It doesn't; it applies to stored logs as

well. That's the point I was making. I get that we're removing the word

"conspicuously."

Maybe the minister could inform anybody who has no life and is

watching this or reads the transcript afterwards: why it is so vital that these

timber marks are conspicuous? Why is it so vital that these timber marks are

there for everybody to see?

My understanding is that on the coast, in particular, we've had

trouble over the last number of years with the loss of timber marks, the lack of

conspicuous marking of timber. We've had more C and E — compliance and

enforcement — infractions, and we have more tickets being written as a result of

timber-marking problems. I'd ask the minister to speak to that issue.

My concern with taking the "conspicuously" out of here and

applying it to the regulations, all under the guise of addressing the coast

action plan and streamlining and so on, is….

Are we not at risk of exacerbating an already growing problem on

the coast of private-public land logs being intermingled, of increasing

infractions and increasing concern — partly because we don't have enough C and E

officers out in the field — about us losing control of where logs came from,

what value should be ascribed to those logs and what stumpage should be ascribed

to those logs — all of the information that timber marks give us?

If anything, we should have more stringent regulations put in

here, not be watering down the legislation. We should be making them more

conspicuous, making it more stringent for people to make sure those timber marks

are there.

So to summarize, my question to the minister is: do we have

current problems just now on land base? Let's separate out the water stuff,

because we're going to get to the safety piece. On land base, am I in fact

correct? We are getting increased C and E and tickets and compliance issues

around timber marking in general and in particular on the coast.

Hon. R. Coleman: This is to remove or transport unscaled

timber from Crown land or private land unless the timber has been "marked in a

prescribed manner with the timber mark that pertains to that land." It's

removing one word — "conspicuously."

I don't have the staff here. You can ask me about the enforcement

stuff when we get to estimates. We're talking about a

section of a bill. I don't

have the staff here to answer that question. The member can either ask me to get

the information for him, or he can bring it up in estimates, and we'll get the

information for him. This isn't the place to be able to specifically answer that

question. The member also knows we've moved to more weigh scaling on the coast,

because of the efficiencies of that and how that works.

This is really an amendment that removes the word "conspicuously"

to prevent conflicts between the act and the regulations respecting the marking

of timber. That allows for some flexibility. If the member doesn't like that,

it's fine, I guess. But I'm not going to get into a debate on statistics and

information that I don't have at my finger tips during a debate of the

section

of the act that deals with one word.

B. Simpson: I guess I will take it into estimates. But one

would think that if the minister is going to streamline regulations, he would be

examining whether or not the area in which we're going to do further

streamlining is already having difficulties with applying the existing

regulations in a stringent fashion — that we are not having infractions, that we

are not having compliance problems — and therefore make sure that's covered off

before you then water down the regulations, or the legislation that's governing

those regulations, even further.

Another question on here that one would think the minister has

done is: what cost savings will there be to the industry as a result of this

streamlining?

Hon. R. Coleman: The member likes to find ghosts behind

trees or whatever. We're not having the problem you're describing. In actual

fact, we have very stringent regulations with regards to timber marking and

transport, and they're working.

[1125]

This is just a case of one word that probably allows for some

interpretation to be better on the enforcement side versus not. The member may

disagree and not like

[ Page 10412 ]

it. The fact of the matter is that this is about a problem we've identified

with industry with regards to the transport of timber. It doesn't water down the

regulations on timber marking. It doesn't change the rules in and around that.

It's not changing the regulation.

It's removing a word that says "conspicuously," but it still has

to be marked in the prescribed manner under the regulation. That covers off any

other eventualities the member is bringing up.

B. Simpson: It must change something; otherwise we wouldn't

be removing the word. We wouldn't be making the amendment. If something wasn't

changing, we wouldn't be doing this. So I contest the minister's contention that

it's not changing anything. Otherwise, this whole discussion is moot.

But the minister didn't answer my question. This is supposedly a

derivative of the coastal forest action plan's objective to streamline

requirements for marking of timber. That's what it's supposed to do.

So what is the net cost saving to the industry, or what is the net

benefit to the industry, financially, for taking this action and streamlining

these regulations? And I'm not coming up with the word "streamlining." It's the

minister's own documentation that's saying we're streamlined. What is the net

financial benefit to the industries of putting this in place?

Hon. R. Coleman: Time.

B. Simpson: Since time is money, and money is usually

associated with bodies, how many people are going to lose their jobs as a result

of this legislation?

Hon. R. Coleman: Nobody.

B. Simpson: So, really, the company is going to save a

little bit of time, but the reality is that what this is going to do is remove

some obligations for — I mean, it's doing it for private lands and public lands,

but according to the minister's own documentation — water transportation of logs

so that somebody doesn't have to be there to make sure that the timber marks are

conspicuous.

That's a body that has to make sure those timber marks are

conspicuous right now. That's somebody that's out working the log booms to make

sure they can be seen. That's a body. That's where the time comes from. That's

where the money savings come from.

A big chunk of what the industry is looking for is cost savings. I

just want to clarify that the minister is saying categorically that not one job

will be lost and that all we're saving is time on this. There will be no money

savings to the company from this.

Hon. R. Coleman: I get that the member is trying to find

some conspiracy here and wants to not care about the safety of workers on the

coast of British Columbia, I guess, either. The last comment was just bizarre —

that you would think anybody is out there turning every single log.

The reality is that this just removes this out of legislation and

leaves all the regulations in place which actually talk about "conspicuously

marked" in the regulation. The member may not like that, and that's fine, I

guess. But these amendments remove the word "conspicuously" to prevent conflicts

between the act and regulations respecting the marking of timber. By doing that,

the best effect it has is for the people who have to deal with logs that float

in water. They still have to be marked.

You know, there are certain challenges that regulations and laws

can sometimes put on, which put people at risk and actually create

inefficiencies in the system. Given the state of the forest sector today, if you

can find some efficiency and protect workers' safety by giving some flexibility

to the regulation, that's something that makes sense to me.

[1130]

To the member opposite: there is nothing more than that to it. The

regulations don't change. The rules on timber marking don't change. They're in

the regulation. They're strong.

This is basically removing it from the legislation so the

flexibility exists there for both the policy and the enforcement side but also,

quite frankly, to allow a boom of logs to be moved from one place to the other.

It will still get scaled. They're still going to get marked. They're still

marked; they're still scaled. They can't move them into the water without

marking them in the first place. That's the law. Those regulations will still

apply.

Section 7 approved.

section 8.

B. Simpson:

Section 84(2) goes to the minister's comments

that I'm being silly by saying that people are turning the logs and so on.

The minister has said that this is related to safety. So somebody

is actually doing something that's regarded as an unsafe behaviour because

they're trying to keep the timber marks in view. So there is a person involved

with this who is trying to make sure that the logs have discernible timber marks

that are conspicuously discernible. Hence, that's why there's a safety

consideration. If there wasn't a person involved with it, there would be no

safety consideration.

Secondly, the minister talks about efficiencies. I always find it

very interesting, as someone who's spent a lot of time in the industry finding

efficiencies…. Efficiencies mean cost reductions. It means getting regulations

out so you have more freedom to act. It means reducing the number of people that

you have doing a job by either replacing them with capital or replacing the need

for them to be there.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

In this case, what we're doing is changing the regulation so that

we replace the need for somebody to be

[ Page 10413 ]

there to make sure the timber marks are conspicuous. That's what this clause

actually does. We're repealing a clause that stipulates that the person placing

the timber in the water or putting it into rafts must ensure that the timber

mark is readily discernible when the timber is in the water. That takes bodies.

It takes people to do that.

Again, as we repeal this and we're not replacing it with anything,

how is this replaced in the regulation? Will there be regulatory changes with

respect to this? Or when we go and look at timber that's floated in water, do we

just take it for granted that we may not be able to see the timber marks?

[1135]

Hon. R. Coleman: For the member's information, we've

already amended the regulation for greater transport of timber by water. This

brings it in line with what we've already done in regulation. But just for the

member's information, those regulation changes allowed for larger amounts of

bundled timber to be transported within booms.

For instance, they can be bundled into a bundle. Some will be

under the water; some will be above the water. They have to be identified with a

bundle tag as well as the timber mark. Those bundles are then transported so

that we can track the bundles. We already have an agreement within regulation

with industry that accounts for any sunk timber so that we can estimate anything

that sinks. Therefore, we can still get our stumpage for that by the way we

calculate the information.

Amending this basically reacts to the business practices that are

out there — but at the same time, the regulation. Basically, what we're doing

here is repealing that

section to specify the requirements respecting

conspicuous timber marks. These changes will ensure that there's no conflict

between the act and regulation respecting the marking of timber, such as will

ensure unambiguous directions providing for timber marking or timber

transporters or on the enforcement side.

The industry has always said that it would be more efficient to be

able to bundle a number of logs within a boom and move a larger volume within a

boom efficiently, but you can't have a conspicuous mark if half the boom is

under the water. The reality is that by removing "conspicuously" and still

applying the regulations on the timber-marking side that require all the

marking, etc., we accomplish the goal.

B. Simpson: I just want to be clear, again, for the public

record and for anybody paying attention to this. The reason we have all these

timber marks on the unscaled timber is that we haven't valued them yet, and we

haven't derived a value to the Crown yet. We need to know where the logs came

from, because whatever the agreement under the forest licence is, we'll ascribe

a value to the Crown. This is how we get the revenue to the B.C. taxpayers from

these logs that's appropriate to both the kind of harvesting that we do and to

the considerations and constraints in harvesting that timber in the first place.

If timber marks get shifted around, you can actually ascribe a

lesser value to timber than what it should have, and the Crown therefore loses

revenue as a result. That's why it is so important that we understand what is

exactly going on here and that, as we streamline this, we don't streamline it to

the detriment of the B.C. taxpayer.

Given that we're going to do the bundling and given that we'll

have the ability to move water out of the line of sight of individuals who may

be scanning booms or scanning the logs that are being transported, are we going

to increase compliance and enforcement at the log yards and log dumps and areas

where that will be put back onto land or where it will be made available for

processing so that we actually make sure that, as we move through this

transition to do the streamlining, this system is not abused?

Effectively, what you're doing is taking public logs — and the

private logs, which are another thing — and, as you transport them in water,

putting them out of sight so you don't know if they're properly timber-marked or

not. Then, when they're landed or before they go into a mill, we have to make

sure that they actually get scaled appropriately, according to the timber mark.

Will we be increasing compliance and enforcement officers out

there in this transition phase to make sure that this new system is not abused?

[1140]

Hon. R. Coleman: This change was developed in collaboration

with our compliance and enforcement people and our people that do scaling. One

of the challenges over the years has been how many times you touch the wood, how

many times you scale it and how many times you check it. Every time you do that

you add cost to somebody, and that cost is usually effective in affecting the

efficiency of the movement of the product.

Could there be challenges with this system? Possibly, like there

have been, if the member is familiar, with every system we've ever had with

regards to how we collect stumpage and scale. We think this is more efficient.

We think the scaling will probably be manageable. Our compliance and enforcement

people are comfortable with it.

I think that the day will probably come when technologies that are

used elsewhere in the world…. The log is marked with something along the lines

of a boom with GPS or whatever the case may be, in volume, and then it arrives

at a mill and actually get scaled going into the mill. With computer data it is

probably the ultimate, but we're not there yet. There was one company thinking

about introducing that technology. They haven't done that yet.

The reality is that we're always looking for ways to improve how

we manage the resource, and the bottom line is that it still can't be moved

without a timber mark. It can't be taken from the forest floor without a timber

mark on it, no matter if it's going in the water, on a truck or rail or whatever

the case may be. They can't move it without the timber mark, and that allows our

guys to identify where the wood comes from.

[ Page 10414 ]

Then the booms can be moved in the water. Because of the nature of

the movement, it's pretty tough to meet the conspicuous side of this thing from

the previous section. Basically, this is to ensure that there are no conflicts

between the act and regulations. We already moved on the regulations as we

promised we would with regards to how we would allow the movement of wood in

water, and they still have to meet the same regulations with regards to timber

marking prior to transport, etc.

B. Simpson: Before I move on, I just want to clarify

something here. The minister said that we can't move without a timber mark. You

actually can move without a timber mark; it's just illegal. Before it's

discovered to be illegal, you have to get caught. In order to get caught you

have to have compliance and enforcement officers out there in sufficient numbers

doing sufficient checks to make sure that people do get caught. Timber does move

around this province without timber marks, and we do catch people doing that.

The other issue that we've got, on the coast in particular, is the

overlap between public and private lands. When you have owners that own both

public and private lands and the movement of logs, assigning timber marks to

your higher-grade products that are your private land timber marks as opposed to

public land timber marks is a problem.

Again, we will canvass this in estimates debate, about whether or

not we have enough compliance enforcement officers out there to do that. I take

the minister's point that this has already been changed in regulation, and we

will canvass the other aspects of this with respect to compliance and

enforcement, written orders, etc., in estimates debate.

Hon. R. Coleman: The reality is that forestry is no

different than any other commodity or any other aspect of the law. I mean,

you're right. It's not supposed to be moved without a timber mark. Illegal

activity takes place in all kinds of commodities, and quite frankly, our

compliance and enforcement officers aren't the only people watching for this. We

do have a complaint-driven process. The RCMP have conducted a number of

investigations in cooperation with our people where we've had report of fraud or

thought that the timber was moving.

We want to be vigilant on that. Quite frankly, we recognize that

whenever there's value, somebody wants to steal it, whether it be the theft of a

car in my community or whether it be a theft of a log from the forest. Our rules

say that you can't move it without a timber mark. That was the context of the

comment. If somebody's doing it without a timber mark, well, we want to catch

them, and that's why we have compliance and enforcement.

I actually think you'll find that a lot of people in the industry

will be the first ones to report somebody that wants to move illegal timber,

because it affects their competitive ability on the land base. We have a fairly

good system, and I'll be happy to canvass that stuff in estimates.

[1145]

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

section 10.

B. Simpson: I wonder if I could just ask the minister to

clarify this

section for me. According to his briefing, I understand that what

we're doing is putting a constraint on the ability for an order-in-council to

lower stumpage rates so that it doesn't go below the minimum. Under what

circumstances is this particular part of the act used? I wonder if the minister

can give me an example of that.

Have we in the past actually lowered stumpage below the minimum,

which in some areas is 25 cents? I'm not sure how you can get it below the

minimum without giving it away. I would like a clarification and then an example

of where this particular part of the act is applied.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm told that it's never happened. This

amendment is basically your housekeeping changes that recognize that subsection

(7) does not deal with regulations but instead with orders of the

Lieutenant-Governor.

The amendment will clarify that cabinet cannot lower stumpage

rates below the prescribed minimum rate. There's some

interpretation which says,

if you read it a certain way, that they could. This basically clarifies that.

Currently it could probably be argued that in lowering the stumpage rate…. Under

subsection (7) cabinet must lower stumpage rates below the determined rate and

the minimum stumpage rate because of the way you could argue the section. This

is cleaning up the language.

B. Simpson: I want to be clear that the minister has

indicated…. It does that. It clarifies that you can't lower it below the lowest

stumpage rate. Then it also adds below it — (8) there — that whatever the

conditions are that are required, you have to continue to meet those conditions,

or your stumpage will be redetermined.

I just want to clarify that the minister says that this has never

been used. What's the purpose of having it in the act? What is the foreseeable

use of this

section of the act? When would we use it?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's never been used to go below the

minimum. This is to make sure that nobody can interpret that they can go below

the minimum. This is to make sure it's clear. It's just clarifying that cabinet

cannot prescribe a stumpage lower and below the prescribed minimum rate.

B. Simpson: That's an important clarification, that it has

in fact been used to lower stumpage rates, though. Is that what the minister is

saying — that this has been used to lower stumpage rates, just not below the

minimum?

Again, if that's the case, can the minister give me an example of

when an order-in-council was used or cabinet decided that they were going to

lower stumpage rates? If there's one that's recent, that would be helpful.

[1150]

[ Page 10415 ]

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't have a specific situation here,

but I will get one for the member this afternoon or tomorrow, whatever the case

may be.

B. Simpson: I appreciate that, and I would like to look at

a specific situation.

How does having that ability to reduce stumpage impact the market

pricing system where the price of timber and stumpage and so on is supposed to

be done by the market and not by what could be regarded by the Americans as an

administrative or, in this case, political adjustment to stumpage?

What is the impact of this on the market pricing system, first?

Hon. R. Coleman: I guess it could. I can't give the member

an example, but for instance, under softwood there is a safe haven for first

nations. The First Nations Forestry Council, if they have some recommendations

that are brought to me that will go through our process with regards to how we

price first nations timber…. That may require an OIC in the future to establish

the rate, whether it's by tabular rate — similar to what we do to community

forests — or however the case may be.

I think it would be better if I could just get a couple of

examples and sit down with the member and explain them to him and walk him

through them as much as anything. I think that's about the only….

The quick example that comes to mind at the moment would be with

regards to that process that's ongoing that hasn't had any decisions made to it

as yet. Any time we make a decision, we do extensive consultations with our very

good law firm in Washington in regard to anything to do with softwood.

B. Simpson: I would appreciate a briefing from the

minister's staff on how this has been applied so that I understand it. It would

strike anyone looking at it as not just an administrative adjustment but a

political adjustment of stumpage, because it comes to cabinet and is done

through an order-in-council.

The minister's comment about the softwood lumber agreement having

a safe haven for first nations, which I understand is a negotiable item…. I

don't think it's as ironclad. It was part of what was put on the table for

further elaboration and discussion.

As the minister is well aware, or should be aware, the Nadleh have

asked for a specific intervention by the minister's office to have their

stumpage reduced and, in fact, have argued that stumpage should be reduced

across all forest range agreements to make those forest range agreements viable.

Does this give the minister, through an order-in-council and

cabinet, the ability to address that specific request, as an example?

Hon. R. Coleman: No, this doesn't affect that. The ability

already exists to be able to do that and bring in an order-in-council. This just

clarifies that we can't go below minimum stumpage.

B. Simpson: I'll clarify my point. I get that this

amendment is correcting that. I'm talking about the

section in the Forest Act so

that I understand the

section correctly.

In the

section in the Forest Act, does it give the minister the

ability to sit down with a group like the Nadleh or to address the forest range

agreements, forest range opportunities stumpage rates where they're actually

asking for, as the minister already referenced, an adjustment like the community

forests got? Would this then give the minister the ability to take that to

cabinet and make that change as long as, as this amendment stipulates, it's not

below the minimum stumpage rate?

It could be a downward adjustment of all forest range

opportunities at the minister's request through an order-in-council. Does this

section of the act allow that?

Hon. R. Coleman: It does that already, but it doesn't give

the minister the power. What it does is allows…. If a particular group, like

what you describe, came forward with a proposal, the minister could take a

proposal forward, down at least two trains and maybe three.

There's a cabinet committee on aboriginal relations and

reconciliation. It may have to go there to see whether this is a policy change

in the earlier example that might be considered. Then it would have to be looked

at from the financial aspects with regards to Treasury Board and their comments

with regards to it.

[1155]

Then there would probably be a legal review done with regards to

whether it was possible and how it would fit in with any trade agreements we may

have. Then all of that would be compiled and brought forward with

recommendations to executive council for a decision, which they could or could

not approve. That would probably be a process along the lines or similar to…. So

the minister doesn't get to do this.

Noting the time, I move that the committee rise, report progress

and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:56 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolution, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. G. Abbott moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this

afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

[ Page 10416 ]

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF SMALL

BUSINESS AND REVENUE AND MINISTER

RESPONSIBLE FOR REGULATORY REFORM

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Bloy in the

chair.

The committee met at 10:10 a.m.

On Vote 41: ministry operations, $65,114,000 (continued).

C. Wyse: Minister, I don't know whether you are aware, but

I have just been notified that the B.C. Assessment office in Williams Lake,

effective March 15, will have a removal of the farm portion of assessments. It

will be relocated to the Kamloops office.

Since 2006 the staffing numbers in the Williams Lake office have

gone from nine to five full-time-equivalents. My question to the minister is

whether he's aware of this set of circumstances?

Hon. R. Thorpe: There are no staff reductions at the

Williams Lake B.C. Assessment office.

C. Wyse: My question would then be: how many positions are

filled in the Williams Lake office?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I'm advised that the staff from B.C.

Assessment does not have that information here, but we'd be pleased to provide

that to the member.

C. Wyse: If we can then assume that we will get that

information…. The important part of the questioning that I'm dealing with is

that this region is very large. It covers from about 70 Mile up to Hickson and

out to Bella Coola, and it has 44,000 folios in it over a very large

geographical area. To have that area being serviced out of Kamloops contradicts

the availability of the local area having access to an office to have their

questions pursued directly.

When we get into the other part, my question would be: is the farm

category being transferred to the Kamloops office?

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, it's my understanding…. I've

been advised that farm specialization has been handled out of Kamloops for some

two years now. This is required to ensure that we have good retention of staff

and that we have better training and consistency of the application of policy.

C. Wyse: My question would be: how would the minister bring

together the aspect of the promotion of the hundred-mile diet when we have a

whole category that has been moved literally tens to hundreds of miles away from

where the actual agricultural business is taking place?

[1015]

Hon. R. Thorpe: I did have some trouble understanding the

member's question, so let me say that we believe that this does not affect

property evaluation. It improves and assists the farming community.

I believe it might be appropriate for me to advise members who

aren't aware that we are embarking upon a farm assessment review. A panel has

been established. I do want to thank very much the member for Saanich South for

his inputs, for his contributions, as we move forward. This has been

necessitated by the fact that there have been some concerns in the agricultural

farming community in areas of British Columbia.

I believe that this review panel, given its terms of reference,

will be very good. It will be focused on…. As a matter of fact, I'll just read

the overall objectives, if I could: "To review the farm classification process

and regulations with a focus on simplifying and streamlining the regulations,

while at the same time ensuring the property assessment system is fair,

equitable, enhances competitiveness, and supports innovation and the British

Columbia agricultural plan and a healthy future for British Columbia families

and communities."

C. Wyse: The information I have is somewhat different. The

information I have is that the farm category is eliminated March 15 in the

Cariboo office. I just want to come back and have the minister respond to that

particular date with regards to that category being relocated to Kamloops.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I have been advised by the chief executive

officer of B.C. Assessment that there will continue to be a staff on the ground

doing inspections of farm properties as required in the Williams Lake area. We

have some two years ago centralized for policy reasons, for consistency reasons,

specialization of farming in Kamloops for the area — over two years ago.

C. Wyse: I'm not quite certain whether I understood the

answer to the question, whether that means in actual fact that officially on the

15th, it has become a fact.

But leaving that, again, my understanding is that when Nelson

experienced the same type of situation a couple of years ago, when it was drawn

to the minister's attention, the downsizing of the Nelson office was stopped by

the minister so that the service remained locally.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Actually, that decision was made by the

board of directors of B.C. Assessment. The board of directors had received a

report that suggested significant changes in the way the organization was

staffed. The board of directors of B.C. Assessment rejected that.

C. Wyse: Is the minister willing to review the situation in

the Williams Lake office?

[1020]

[ Page 10417 ]

Hon. R. Thorpe: I would be pleased to receive the details from

the member so that I have greater clarification of what his concern is. I have

been advised by the chief executive officer of B.C. Assessment that there is no

staff reduction in the Williams Lake office. If the member has other information

on that, and if he would be pleased…. He hasn't provided that to me so far. If

he provided that detail to me in writing, I'd be pleased to look into it on

behalf of him and his constituents.

C. Wyse: I appreciate that commitment from the minister to

do such. I will provide the information that I have been provided, and I will be

seeking that clarification through the minister. Upon assuming confirmation of

this information, I would be looking for the minister's support for the return,

retention — whatever the correct word would be — for the Williams Lake office.

With that, I thank the minister for his attention. We will pursue

the item later.

D. Cubberley: I appreciate having the opportunity to ask

some questions of the minister around the farm status review panel.

I'd just like to begin by thanking the minister for both

soliciting and receiving input from me around the panel and for acting on what I

believe is a pressing problem for agriculture in British Columbia and for

hopefully creating a mechanism that will allow the resolution of a number of

issues that have come to light recently, not least of which has issues to do

with the assignment of split farm classifications for farmers of small holdings

in my own constituency of Saanich South and in other areas of the province.

So in that vein, I want to ask some questions, try and clarify

some things, because I have a significant constituency of people who are tugging

at my sleeve and wanting my attention on this issue. Therefore, I want to be

able to provide the best information to them. It's in that vein that I'm going

to ask questions.

The panel that was named on this is said to represent a "diverse

cross-section of agricultural communities in British Columbia." One of the

things that, in going over the people who are on the panel, all of whom have

lots of bona fides…. There's no reason to object to any of them being members of

the panel. But I guess the question is: why wasn't there some representative

from the small organic-farming sector, from wherever that might be in British

Columbia, given representation on the panel?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I believe that the small — if we will, to

use the member's comments — organic farmers…. I understand he has quite a few in

his constituency that he represents. I actually believe they are very well

served on the panel. In fact, it should be noted that the co-chair of the panel

is the mayor of Saanich. His views have been well known on this issue, as have

the member for Saanich South's. I think that the entire farming community of

Vancouver Island, the capital region and Saanich is very, very well served by

the co-chair.

I might add that there is one other member of the panel from the

Saanich area, and that is Sarah Pendray. I'm advised that the Pendray family are

fourth generation farmers on the Island and have always had a philosophy of

working cooperatively with the local community.

When we look at the makeup of the board, it would seem to me….

We'll see if other members from other parts of British Columbia are going to ask

me: why does Saanich have two representatives on the panel and other communities

not?

[1025]

I think the most important thing as the review panel goes forward

is that all sectors — small, medium, large — from all regions of the province of

British Columbia are going to have the opportunity to provide their views, to

provide their recommendations for consideration by the panel, whether they are

going to appear in person before the panel as they have public hearings around

the province of British Columbia or as they accept written inputs or e-mail

inputs.

I believe there will be many, many venues for all types of farming

communities of British Columbia to adequately express their views, to share

their views and to have their views considered by this panel, which I believe

represents all of the regions of the province of British Columbia.

D. Cubberley: I thank the minister for that response.

Really, I wasn't concerned with the amount of representation from Saanich in

particular. While I have every confidence that the mayor will be seized of the

problem in particular of smallholdings in organic farms under the current regime

from B.C. Assessment, the question is really about representation in the broader

sense on the panel.

Sarah Pendray and the Pendray family are very longtime farmers,

not in my constituency of Saanich South but in Central Saanich, so another

member will be happy to see that his area is represented. I'm not bothered by

that at all.

My questions are in this vein. The reaction that we have in

Saanich did not come about because we were approached by dairy farmers, cattle

ranchers, turkey farmers or people running agritourism operations who were

concerned about B.C. Assessment practices. It came about because of the impact

in particular on the smallholding sector, both within the ALR and, more

particularly, outside the ALR — a particular class of farmers whose ox was, if

you're looking at it from my perspective, being gored.

It's interesting, because the organic sector in British Columbia

is probably the newest sector in farming. It's done on entirely different lines

than classic industrial or traditional farming, and it's apparently the

fastest-growing sector in the province.

Now, what's interesting, if we look at the representation on the

panel, is that we've got two members who are connected to B.C. Assessment on the

panel. We have two mayors and a regional district director. So we have three

local government politicians on the panel.

[ Page 10418 ]

We have a turkey farmer, a cattle rancher, and then we have two dairy

farmers. Now, things seem to run in twos on this panel, if we are looking not

geographically but sectorally.

The problem that we have in my constituency is really arising

around the smallholdings. There is some concern that traditional agriculture

does not value the emerging sector, and yet traditional agriculture is strongly

represented on the panel, and the affected sector is not. B.C. Assessment is

strongly represented on the panel, and the organic sector is not. Local

government, which may have another perspective on this, is strongly represented

on the panel, but organic agriculture and smallholdings are not.

So it's in that vein that I ask the question. If the minister

wants to respond again, that's fine, but I'm more wanting to impress upon him

the rationale for my comments than I am to try to get him to respond again.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I think it's important. I think it's

really, really important. I mean, is it about having an apple grower? Is it

about having a poultry producer? Is it about having a cherry grower? Or is it

about having a cross-section that represents all regions?

I'm not sure if the member is aware of this, but I'll share it

with him. The member from Princeton…. Now, I think it's pretty fair to say that

very rarely do we have the opportunity, when we have provincial panels, to have

someone serve from Princeton, British Columbia — very rare. Some people may not

even know where Princeton is.

D. Cubberley: I do. I've done a lot of work there.

[1030]

Hon. R. Thorpe: Okay, good. Princeton is part of the

Similkameen. I'm sure that members on that side know that Keremeos is the

organic capital of Canada. I feel very strongly that not only will the panel

member from Princeton be adequately representing the views of Keremeos — I might

just say, once again, the organic capital of Canada — but the mayor, Walter

Despot, of Keremeos, will be making sure those views are heard. George Hanson, a

farmer from that area, will be making sure that Mr. Willis knows those views. So

I think there will be lots of opportunities.

There's one other thing that the member said. I don't believe that

the member — I'm not even going to say that. With respect to…. There is a board

member from B.C. Assessment on this panel, and he's from Prince George, British

Columbia. We thought, as we had discussions, that it's very important that we

have someone from the B.C. Assessment board involved to understand and hear

firsthand what British Columbians are saying throughout the province. That's why

Mr. McLaughlin was picked.

We also had the opportunity to pick a retired B.C. Assessment

employee, a farm specialist as I understand, Mr. Keith Skidmore, I think with

some 32 years of experience. I think it's always important that when we have

former employees who have knowledge, who have expertise, that we should avail

ourselves of that opportunity. So I think it's good to be able to capture the

expertise of Mr. Skidmore.

I think also — and I'm sure the member will agree with this — it

sends a very, very positive signal through to the employees who work at B.C.

Assessment that their efforts, their knowledge and their inputs are valued in

this process.

D. Cubberley: I do know where Princeton is and Keremeos and

have had the opportunity to work in both — significantly around the Kettle

Valley Railway, which as you know, representing the area that you do, played a

vital role in the development of agriculture in the province and was a way for

farm goods to make their way to major markets for so long.

I thank the minister for his comments. I agree with the

perspective, especially about bringing somebody from previous times at B.C.

Assessment Authority onto the panel. One of the things that's clear to people in

the field who are attempting to farm is that B.C. Assessment radically changed

its approach when it went through the review process in Saanich. That is part of

the concern — that the approaches which had applied with the known assessment

officers in the past were swept aside and a new regime was brought in.

It will be interesting, I think, for the panel to have that

expertise inside and, hopefully, to draw on it so that they can come to

understand that as well. It's not easy for people who are urban dwellers to

understand farming because our assumptions about things are very different from

those of people who are actually tilling the land.

I want to move to the terms of reference for the panel. One of the

things that is said in here — I think it's really important — is that the review

panel can bring forward interim recommendations. The question I want to ask the

minister is whether he has conveyed to the co-chairs the importance of seeking a

resolution to the current problems associated with split farm classification

prior to the next round of assessments beginning.

I'm already being asked whether I will lobby the minister to place

a moratorium on another round of assessments so that we can have the report out

and come to the better day that we're all hopeful we're going to arrive at

without going through the travail and disruption in farmers' lives another time.

My question would be: has he conveyed his interest in seeing that

happen prior to the next round of assessments?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I think it's important for everyone here to

actually know, and for those people who may at some point in time watch these

estimates — also for those who choose to read Hansard on these estimates

— to realize that the member for Saanich South and I have quite frankly…. I

would never want to put words in a member from the opposition's mouth, but we've

worked very, very closely on this file.

[1035]

[ Page 10419 ]

I think that's actually what the taxpayers, the citizens, of

British Columbia want. They actually want not only different levels of

government but parties that share different views on some matters to work for

the common good.

I'm very, very pleased that when the member first came forward to

me with his concerns…. I didn't keep a record of how many times we met or how

many times we talked or how many times that he sent me some notes and we talked,

but I can assure the member that his views, in the terms of reference…. I

believe his concerns have been captured in the terms of reference. I can assure

all of the members of this House that the co-chairs of the panel do understand,

should they deem it appropriate to bring forward interim recommendations.

We've talked about the mayor of Saanich being one of the co-chairs

of the panel. The other co-chair is the member for Peace River South — another

large farming community, very important to the agriculture community of British

Columbia. I believe that both of those co-chairs understand the urgency of the

issue, and I would be surprised if they do not bring forward some interim

recommendations.

D. Cubberley: I thank the minister for that response.

I want to go to something which, in the mandate of the panel, was

a little puzzling. I'm not an expert in the area and neither is the member for

Nelson-Creston, and he had the same concern. It's really a question of

clarification.

There are a couple of items that it said, explicitly, are not

included in the mandate of this review and won't be examined, and that includes

definitions of farm and the list of activities that constitute primary

agricultural production for the purposes of meeting income threshold, and then

exemptions applicable to properties classified as farm, which may or may not be

in the agricultural land reserve.

The question, to try and boil it down rather than get into the

internal mechanics, is: does this in any way, those things, impinge on the

panel's ability to recommend that split farm — should they believe it should be

— classifications on small parcels be done away with in favour of an income

threshold or some other method, simply for establishing this status?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Could you repeat the last part? Just repeat

the last part.

D. Cubberley: What I'm asking…. Do these two things that

are excluded, whatever they mean, which…? Corky says: "Could you ask the

minister to translate these into language that a farmer or an MLA could

understand?" Do they in any way impinge on the panel's ability to make a

determination and recommend that split farm classification on small parcels, in

the ALR or not, be done away with?

Hon. R. Thorpe: No.

D. Cubberley: I'm certain the member for Nelson-Creston

will be asking you off-line what they mean.

Hon. R. Thorpe: The member for Nelson-Creston doesn't

understand no?

D. Cubberley: I'll let him speak for himself. That's always

wise.

One of the things that I notice is that nothing in the terms of

reference explicitly characterizes the problem that's posed by split farm

classification for small organic farmers. For example, the potential of split

farm classification to remove lands being made available to the sector by people

who are obtaining farm status on lands by allowing a leaseholder to farm on

those lands. So someone else owns and occupies the lands, but they're actually

leasing parcels.

What I want to ask about is: how is the panel going to receive an

understanding of the implications of split farm classification and the impact

that it has on the availability of lands, ALR or non-ALR, for smallholdings? The

sector thrives on smallholdings and access to smallholdings, and as the minister

will be aware, it's not easy in a context of suburban development to sustain

access to agricultural parcels. One of the biggest problems for new farmers is

trying to find access to land.

[1040]

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, I think that particular issue

that the member raises…. That's why I was very, very pleased when I sat in my

office and contemplated who could be the chair or the co-chair of this. My dream

list was actually to have the mayor of Saanich serve as the chair or co-chair,

and we were able to achieve that. I think it's very fair to say that the mayor

of Saanich understands this issue very, very well.

I think it's also important to know that in the overall review we

make comment that it links back to the British Columbia's agricultural plan, so

we know that small farms are important to communities. In the context, we do

talk about climate action, green communities and the hundred-mile diet concept.

Through the member, we did receive some input, letters from restaurateurs. I

actually know that from my own community — the importance of those

smallholdings.

I think I do understand the concerns that some will have. There

are always concerns when you are taking the first step, because often, from time

to time, people think that's the last step. In fact, this is the first step.

People are going to actually have the opportunity to present in person at

consultations, to e-mail and to write in. So I believe that British Columbians

will have unbelievable opportunities not only to share their views but to

explain their views in detail on why they reach certain conclusions that they do

in bringing forward.

I would hope that as we have done in the past, the member for

Saanich South and I will work together to make sure his constituents, my

constituents and the farming constituents of British Columbia make sure that

this panel is receiving as many submissions, as much input as possible in

reaching a new approach that will review thoroughly regulation 411/95, which

[ Page 10420 ]

has not been done for some time. I'm very confident that when we all work

together, we will find the solutions that are applicable for today and, more

importantly, as we move forward.

D. Cubberley: I thank the minister for that, and I have

every intention of continuing to work cooperatively towards these outcomes. I

will attempt to be a veritable conduit for information to go to the Farm Status

Review Panel.

One of the things that I will certainly want to talk to them about

— and I think others will as well, because one of the biggest challenges that we

face in all of this is for the Assessment Authority to somehow come to a firmer

understanding of British Columbia's commitment generally, and the commitment of

individual communities like my own in particular, to practise growth management

policies, to establish urban containment boundaries and to maintain rural areas

as rural areas, using a variety of policy tools to achieve that objective.

Obviously, the most highly valued use of rural lands is farming,

in all probability. As we know from the history of the agricultural land reserve

and the pressures on farming today, it takes a great deal of art to maintain any

farmlands outside of development because of the pressure of lands to move

towards highest and best use, as they say inside the development industry.

I think that in attempting to create a balance in which the

imperative to stop sprawl and to protect rural lands from development — to

define an edge to the city, if you will — we need to find a balance so that the

assessment practices in the province aren't driving rural lands towards

development and increasing the pressure on municipalities to allow development

on rural lands.

I think that's probably an objective that we can agree to if we're

having a discussion amongst ourselves. But I think it's a concern that has to be

brought to the panel, quite frankly, and its members need to be informed of

that. That is something that assessment policies need to frankly encounter and

find a way to establish a balance with.

[1045]

One last question that I have to ask of the minister has to do

with the current B.C. Assessment practices. The minister heard all about this in

letters from many constituents — about the way that people felt they were being

treated through the process of review.

In the course of questioning B.C. Assessment about its practices,

one of the things that came to light is a repeated statement that assessment

authorities have no need to be trained in agronomy or to have any particular

understanding of farming practice, that they will develop that in discussion

with the smallholder or the farmholder, and they will allow the farmer to

educate them about agriculture parcel by parcel. That's a proud view held by the

authority.

What this suggests is that they're approaching it neutrally.

That's the implicit claim in what's being stated. Yet in practice what we see

happening on the land is that the assessment officers do in fact hold a

particular view of farming, and that view of farming is traditional or

industrial agriculture. That leads and shows itself in pronouncements that are

made about particular operations.

The one that I remember making the minister aware of was the honey

producer who had a B.C. Assessment officer tell her that what would qualify for

the purposes of assessment were the areas of land that were used for the hives,

which appeared to be a particularly industrial view of how a farm would operate.

Another one came to light yesterday, which was passed on to me and

which I really liked. I thought I would just share it with the minister, because

I think it characterizes the problem that these people are up against. Yesterday

in my constituency, B.C. Assessment informed a farmer that crops that qualify

for farm status must be in rows. Now, that's a very particular view of farming,

a very industrial view of farming, and completely beside the point. But that was

the assessment officer's view.

One of the things — and the minister will answer this however he

likes — that I want to get at here is that I think the panel needs to consider

the fact that within the assessment authority as it's currently operating, there

is actually a systemic bias against organic farming, because there is a wilful

misunderstanding of the conditions under which it is practised. One of the

things that need to happen in order for us to get to yes around assessment

practices is some recognition of the way this type of farming is conducted.

Hon. R. Thorpe: One of the things, in working with the

member for Saanich South, is that he is always able to bring forward new little

tidbits of information to broaden the database of knowledge, which I appreciate.

But let me just say this, because I think this is important to

say. I do have the chief executive officer of B.C. Assessment here today — Doug

Rundell. Interestingly enough, when we sat and I talked with Doug and the chair

of the board and some of Doug's senior team, they welcomed the review panel.

They absolutely welcomed it and embraced it. I see that as a very positive move.

I think the other thing that we all have to realize is that

there's no question we're moving through changing times. We're moving through

changing times with respect to the demographics of our workforce.

Again, that's why I think it's important to have someone like

Keith Skidmore, with 32 years of experience. If someone takes the time to read

our service plan at B.C. Assessment, one of Doug's and the board's biggest

concerns and challenges is staff — staff management, recruiting trained workers.

From time to time…. I know it's hard to believe, but we all are

humans. I can't speak for anybody else's family, but I know that there are no

perfect members in our family. I know you find that shocking, but everyone

should judge their own family.

[ Page 10421 ]

I think it's also important, because the member did make some

comments…. At least, my

interpretation was that the member for Saanich South

said that B.C. Assessment's policies should recognize what's going on in

communities.

[1050]

Actually, I think it's very, very important, and that's why, yes,

the mayor of Saanich is a co-chair. There were some issues in Saanich. I believe

that's warranted, and I believe his expertise and professionalism are a great

addition. But that's also why we have the mayor of Richmond, Malcolm Brodie —

another urban area, another area of concern because they also have small farm

communities.

It's also important that we have Karen Goodings from Peace country

regional district, because I think it's important that municipalities understand

their responsibilities and the roles that they play in making sure that small-

and medium-sized farms can be part of their community.

Climate action is a serious issue. It's one of reducing greenhouse

gases, as I said a few times yesterday, by 33 percent by 2020, but it's also

about local economics of a community. That's where the hundred-mile diet that

the member talks about, that I talk about, that others talk about….

When we take all of these things together, I actually believe

very, very strongly that this is the right time for the review panel. This is

the right time to take that to partner with the British Columbia agricultural

plan so that we can build for our future and learn from our past.

J. Brar: Yesterday we had quite a detailed debate about EDS

Advanced Solutions. I have a few more questions on this to the minister. One of

the things which we….

The Chair: Member, just one moment.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Is that all the questions on B.C.

Assessment? I have staff here. If there are no more questions on B.C.

Assessment, I know they probably have a couple of other things to work on.

J. Brar: I think those are the questions on B.C.

Assessment.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Thanks, hon. Chair. Sorry for the

interruption.

The Chair: Member, continue.

J. Brar: Yesterday, one of the particular items mentioned

by the minister about the ten-year contract with EDS Advanced Solutions was that

there was a built-in refresh which took place after roughly about a year and a

half of the ten-year contract.

I just want to know. Was that the only refresh built into the

contract, or are there any more coming in the next eight years?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I've been advised that the contract does

allow it, on mutual consent of both parties, should they want to sit down and

look at things in the future. That provision is there, but it requires mutual

consent.

J. Brar: Can the minister clarify, then, as the minister

stated yesterday, that the refresh was built in? Was that separate from what the

minister said today, or was it basically open from the beginning that, with the

consent of both parties, the agreement can be opened any time and renegotiated?

Hon. R. Thorpe: At any point in time in the contract, the

parties can mutually agree to look at items in the contract. But it does, again,

require mutual agreement.

J. Brar: That will confirm, then, that there was no time

line with the refresh which took place about six months ago. That was basically

an agreement between both parties — that was the outcome of that — rather than

that there was something written in the contract that actually forced both

parties to go in and look into the contract with a fresh view and refresh the

contract.

[J. Nuraney in the chair.]

Hon. R. Thorpe: It was mutually agreed. It was not forced.

[1055]

J. Brar: Thanks to the minister for clarification.

Can the minister very briefly tell us the total value, in dollar

figures, of the contract at the initial stage and the total value of the

contract after the refresh took place?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The original agreement envisaged benefits

to the province of $347 million over ten years. With the refresh review it's a

further $170 million now for a total, over the 12-year time frame, of $517

million.

J. Brar: I just want to clarify this information I have

here. My understanding is, and I want the minister to clarify this, that the

ten-year contract with EDS is going to cost the people of British Columbia a

total of $570 million, which includes $301 million as a base fee and then $271

million of what is called "potential incremental benefits." Is that the right

figure?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Could the member repeat the question,

please, Chair?

J. Brar: I will be more than happy to repeat it. What the

minister mentioned is the value to the people of British Columbia. What I want

to know is what the people of British Columbia, the taxpayers, are going to pay

to EDS to provide services to the people of British Columbia. My understanding

is that the total bill to the taxpayers from EDS for its ten-year contract is

$570 million, and this was before the refresh.

[ Page 10422 ]

My question is: what is it after the refresh? The first question

is: can you clarify if that amount is right, the $570 million for the total

ten-year contract? What was the cost after the refresh? Is there any change in

that?

[1100]

Hon. R. Thorpe: In the first annual report of the revenue

management system on page 17, it clearly states that the base fees were $301

million and that the potential financial benefits were $271 million, for a total

of $572 million.

With respect to the result of the refresh, there will be a further

estimated $60 million in base fees and a further $17 million in potential

benefits. I might note that while the vendor is accruing, as a result of that

two-year extension, $17 million in benefits, the potential to the taxpayers of

British Columbia is $170 million.

J. Brar: So what we know now is that, all together, roughly

$77 million was the original cost to the people of British Columbia after the

refresh.

My question to the minister is: can the minister very briefly

describe for us what were the additional responsibilities handed over to EDS for

this $77 million deal for the people of British Columbia?

Hon. R. Thorpe: They are actually carrying on the

commitment to carry on the business to British Columbians for two more years,

yielding potential increased revenue benefits to British Columbians for $170

million.

J. Brar: If I understand it correctly, that $77 million

additional cost is related to just the two-year extended period. Or is that over

and above what they were getting for each year?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The numbers that I have given the member

are for the entire 12-year period. I also have given the numbers that are

specific to the two-year period, the $60 million and the $17 million.

J. Brar: I will move on to a little bit different topic. On

page 18 of the service plan, what we see are the targets set for collecting

overdue accounts. Those targets are 36.10 percent for '07 and '08. What I want

to know, if the minister can explain, is: what is the total dollar value of

those 36.10 percent targets?

[1105]

Hon. R. Thorpe: Based on our understanding of the question

that the member asked, I believe that the answer to the question is the answer

we gave yesterday of $518.498 million.

J. Brar: This is a bit confusing to me, and I certainly

want clarification. Like, 36.10 percent looks pretty low. I may be totally

ignorant on this. I want to ask: why 36.10 percent? If the minister can clarify

that for me, because it certainly looks pretty low if we are talking about the

collection of the amount overdue towards people or businesses.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I have been advised by senior financial

staff in the ministry that this is an acceptable percentage, and I think it's

important to look at how the percentages are increasing.

What we could do after we conclude estimates in the weeks ahead,

if the member would be interested…. We would be more than pleased to provide the

member with a detailed briefing on this area so that he fully understands the

measurement here — what the state is today and, more importantly, where we're

going in the future.

J. Brar: Thanks to the minister for the clarification. My

understanding is that based on the figure given by the minister, 36.10 is

roughly over $500 million. Does that mean that we, at the end of the day, end up

not collecting over a billion dollars, based on this figure?

Hon. R. Thorpe: No.

J. Brar: How much is it, then, that we don't collect, at

the end of the day?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Can the member repeat the question, please?

J. Brar: The minister simply said no. I asked if, based on

the figure the minister gave, which is $500 million, it stands for 36 percent.

My understanding is, based on that, then we end up not collecting over a billion

dollars. Is that the true figure? The minister said no. I want to know: what is,

then, the true figure of uncollected revenue here?

[1110]

Hon. R. Thorpe: I think it would really be important to

have a detailed briefing for the member on this. The one thing we have to keep

in mind here is that with the billions of dollars of revenue that are coming

into the province, the accounts receivable are not static. They are changing on

an ongoing basis.

Of the $518 million…. When we say 36.1 percent, that's the target

to collect on the overdue, but the number keeps changing because the accounts

keep changing. I think that to just take a point in time and to say that things

stop and that therefore this must happen is not what happens in the real world.

We have very, very disciplined approaches to ensure that amounts

owed to British Columbians are collected on a fair and equitable basis. We have

a number of tools available to us to ensure that that takes place. I really

think that on this very complex issue, a detailed briefing…. Just looking at

numbers at one point in time, it's very hard to say what's moving and what's not

moving, etc.

J. Brar: Thanks to the minister for the offer of a detailed

briefing. I appreciate that.

But I think this is a matter of common sense. I mean, I can give

the numbers. If you don't have the numbers for this year, there must be a number

for last year.

[ Page 10423 ]

Can the minister tell, then, what the amount was, in a dollar

figure, of the overdue account collected last fiscal year? I think that figure

should be available there.

Hon. R. Thorpe: It's $518 million.

J. Brar: Either I'm not making my question clear, or the

minister doesn't understand my question. The 36.1 percent stands for over $500

million.

Hon. R. Thorpe: No.

J. Brar: So can the minister clarify, then…?

The Chair: Through the Chair, please.

J. Brar: Through the Chair, the figure 36.1 percent stands

for how many dollars? If the minister can clarify again.

Hon. R. Thorpe: The goal for collecting on the overdue

amount of $518 million is 36 percent for that point in time. That number will

continue to evolve, and other measures are undertaken to collect. We make every

effort to maximize the returns to the taxpayers of British Columbia, to the

citizens of British Columbia who the money is owed to.

J. Brar: If I understand that correctly, the minister is

saying that the total amount under this is over $500 million, and out of that,

the goal is to collect about 36 percent of the total money.

[1115]

Hon. R. Thorpe: I am advised that the $518 million is, at

one point in time, a number of the amounts outstanding from a number of years,

from a number of revenue streams. What happens is…. The goal is to collect 36.1

percent of that in the current fiscal year, but then we have other things coming

in, and we have other things going out. So it's a very, very fluid number.

Again, that's why I have offered to the member…. A very detailed

briefing on this issue would, I think, be most useful.

J. Brar: I think it's pretty simple. I, again, appreciate

the offer for the briefing, but my question is very simple. Last year — I'm

talking about a one-year cycle — what was the total amount outstanding? What was

collected? You should have the figure, Minister, for the last year. That's

simple. I understand that it will keep changing. But last year is last year;

it's gone.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I have said — this will be the fifth time,

I believe, now — that a detailed briefing on this very complex area would be

warranted. Staff do not have the detailed numbers that the member is asking for,

but staff do understand the question. Staff will get the detailed information so

that we can give the member a detailed briefing on this very complex matter.

J. Brar: I will take the offer that the minister will

provide the information as to what is, based on the service plan, actually the

total amount overdue, what percentage and the total dollar figure that was

collected last year. So I would be more than happy to receive that. Then we can

go from there.

I will move on to the next question. We have had a lot of

discussion about EDS and revenue solutions. The minister may be much more

knowledgeable than I, because I have had this file just for the last two weeks.

So I would appreciate it if the minister could very briefly provide me…. As to

these two different agencies, what are their tasks or responsibilities? If the

minister can provide an overview of EDS and revenue solutions.

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, let me just say that every

year our ministry, the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue, posts an annual

report for Revenue Services of British Columbia. That report is based on the

year-end of December 31. I believe that for the last two years we've got that

information published on our website by about May 30, May 31 — something like

that — and that is our intention there.

I think if the member — and I know he's only had the portfolio

very, very shortly — takes the time to read it carefully, it clearly lays out —

for instance, on last year's report on page 4 — what account management Advanced

Solutions is responsible for, what billing, what payment processes, what

collection of overdue accounts.

To properly characterize it, I would say that these items are, for

all intents and purposes, the collection of non-tax items,

whereas revenue

solutions within the ministry collect all of the tax-related amounts due to the

province of British Columbia. I would think that that would be the simplest

approach.

[1120]

J. Brar: I do have a copy of the latest report on EDS, the

report called Revenue Services of British Columbia dated May 31, 2007.

Can the minister tell me if there is also a report available on the other side

called "Revenue Solutions" — a similar report?

Hon. R. Thorpe: It's our service plan and our annual report

that I believe come out in June every year with public accounts. I should just

correct the record. I've said "revenue solutions" a few times. I think I should

probably be saying "revenue programs division."

J. Brar: One last question on EDS versus revenue programs,

if the minister can provide a very simple clarification. I know the ministry

collects almost 60 percent of the total revenue of the province. So what

percentage is collected by the revenue program? What percentage is collected by

EDS?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I believe the member did ask us that

question yesterday, and I know I undertook that we would supply that information

to him in due course.

J. Brar: Once again, I will wait for that information, of

course, which will be made available.

[ Page 10424 ]

On page 14 of the service plan under goal 1, called "Service that

meets the needs of customers and partners…." There's one goal here that the

minister has laid out in the service plan, which requires responding to any

correspondence from the people of British Columbia within 14 days. I would like

to ask the first question…. Has the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue met

that goal 100 percent?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I might just say, if I could, that the

staff at the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue have shown, quite frankly,

very, very impressive results in their commitment to the continuous improvement

of customer service.

I did have the pleasure last night of attending the fourth annual

Premier's awards regarding innovation and excellence. I just want to say before

I answer this question in detail, because I think this signifies the commitment

of the ministry and the staff at the ministry to customer service and to results

in customer service….

The Ministry of Small Business and Revenue was up for a Premier's

Innovation and Excellence Award in the area of partnership. I'm very, very

pleased to advise you, hon. Chair and members of this House. But more

importantly, it's to recognize the employees at the Ministry of Small Business

and Revenue who won the award for innovation and excellence for a program called

BizPaL. This is not only the result of all the employees that work in the BizPaL

section, but it's also the leadership of the ministry and the commitment to

customer se