2002 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2002

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 10, Number 9

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Services for youth at risk

K. Stewart

National Child Day

E. Brenzinger

Community living services

J. Nuraney

Oral Questions

Transfer of patient in long-term care case

J. MacPhail

Hon. K. Whittred

Cridge Centre for the Family

J. Kwan

Hon. G. Abbott

Student achievement

D. MacKay

Hon. C. Clark

Oil and gas resources

P. Bell

Hon. R. Neufeld

Tabling Documents

Environmental Appeal Board annual

report, 2001-02

Committee of the Whole House

Forest and Range Practices Act (Bill 74) (continued)

J. MacPhail

Hon. M. de Jong

[ Page 4505 ]

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2002

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

B. Kerr:

I'd like to introduce a constituent of mine who is returning to the House for a

visit. She worked here for a number of years before leaving to raise her family.

She's here today with her son Ryan and his friend, Mark Jaeger. I'd like the

House to welcome Heidi Harmes.

Krueger: I'm pleased to introduce to the House this afternoon two

constituents of mine: Ines Popig, who is the new chair of the Sun Peaks

improvement district, and Peter Dudas. They are here to celebrate a milestone

birthday of Ines. Just in case any of you make it up to Sun Peaks this winter,

which I hope all of you do, you'll probably meet Peter. He skied 120 days there

last year. By all means, will you all give them a good welcome.

[1405]

Hon. G.

Campbell: I'm pleased to rise today to acknowledge the birthday of Sri Guru

Nanak Dev Ji, the founder of the Sikh faith. During his many long journeys, Guru

Nanak identified himself with the poor, the sick and the lower castes. He became

a prophet of the downtrodden and outcasts, and he did not distinguish between

people on the basis of religion, wealth or caste. His permanent companions were

a low-caste Hindu and a low-caste Muslim. Guru Nanak sought to unite all of

humanity. He believed that all men and women were equal under the Lord Almighty

and preached that people treat their neighbours as brothers.

Thousands

of Sikhs in British Columbia and millions more around the world are celebrating

this festival. On behalf of British Columbians, let's wish them a wonderful

celebration.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, I would like to remind you all that the library is

having an open house this afternoon from 2:30 to 4:30 p.m., and I'm sure that

everyone in the library would like to see you there as they unveil a new service

for members.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) SERVICES FOR YOUTH AT RISK

Stewart: My community of Maple Ridge is currently grappling with the tragic

loss of Ms. Colleen Anne Findlay. Her loss is a tremendous one to her husband,

Jim, and children, and I know it leaves a huge void in many of us. Colleen was

born and spent her entire 39 years in Maple Ridge. One of her passions in life

was helping young people, and she always thought of ways to encourage and

support the lives of youths in our community.

Untimely

deaths are the most difficult to deal with. What makes this one even more tragic

is that a 15-year-old youth has been charged with Ms. Findlay's senseless death.

This is a reminder for all of us that the ongoing prevalence of youth violence

is a threat to the very fabric of our society. The question for me and, I'm

sure, for many others is: how do we stop this type of violence from happening

again?

We, as a

society, have so much to teach our youth and stand to gain so much by giving

them the tools to be positive members of our communities. In Maple Ridge we have

examples of two programs that are going a long way to help youth at risk. The

Greg Moore Youth Centre, which opened its doors just a year ago, provides safe,

secure locations for our youth. The centre offers a positive alternative for our

youth, it gets them off the street, and it keeps them busy, engaged and

interacting with the community and with each other.

There's

another program that deserves our attention: the Ridge Meadows Youth and Justice

Advocacy Association. This is a volunteer-based organization that helps divert

first-time young offenders from further criminal activity. This program promotes

community involvement and recruits local mentors who volunteer their time to the

prevention of youth crime. It has been highly effective.

There are

other youths who need much more intervention than these programs can provide. As

a society, we need to recognize these alternatives, and we must be prepared to

ensure the protection of our citizens. It's time to look to our young people, to

talk to them and to support the programs that focus on youth. We all have much

to gain from this.

NATIONAL CHILD DAY

Brenzinger: Tomorrow, November 20, is National Child Day. This is a day to

celebrate our most precious resource: our children. It is a day to remember that

children need love and respect to grow to their full potential. It is a day to

marvel at their uniqueness and all they have to offer. It's a day to celebrate

the family and think about how adults affect the development of children close

to them.

Upholding

our children's entitlement to a secure and healthy upbringing is one of the most

important and precious legacies we can leave. Healthy families are key to

revitalizing our communities and our province. This government, the Minister of

Children and Family Development and the Minister of State for Early Childhood

Development are working hard to implement programs and initiatives which assist

families to realize their dreams and achieve their goals.

I'd like to

remind the House about some of the important steps we've taken to lay down a

foundation for a better tomorrow for B.C.'s children. We've established a $5

million early childhood development fund

[ Page 4506 ]

with the Vancouver Foundation. We're investing $8 million in aboriginal early

childhood development programs. We've committed $13.8 million to help families

with children under six with autism. We've joined the Prairie–Northern Pacific

FAS Partnership to support families and educate the public about children with

fetal alcohol syndrome.

[1410]

Our

community partners play a valuable role too. In my constituency of Surrey-Whalley,

I have a number of groups that together provide playtime and support for

children. These include youth centres, preschools, day cares, sporting

activities and much more.

On this day

and every day, each one of us can do our part to invest in our children's

future. I encourage all of you to celebrate National Child Day by taking the

time to ask a child for advice or to send a package of toys, clothes or books to

children in need. Explore ways to make your neighbourhood a safer place for

children, or simply hug a child to reassure them that they are loved. What we

can do today will determine the quality of life and the range of choices

available to our youngest citizens.

COMMUNITY LIVING SERVICES

Nuraney: I was privileged to attend an event last Wednesday at the Burnaby

Association of Community Inclusion, where I witnessed a powerful demonstration

of emotions. The Minister of Children and Family Development was present, along

with the self-advocates, family members, service providers and representatives

of community living associations from across the province.

The

minister officially received the report from the transition steering committee,

a 25-member committee appointed by the minister from the community and the

ministry. The report, titled A New Vision for Community Living: A Vision of

Choice and Change, recommends a new provincial authority for community

living and promised planning support and, at the community level, to provide a

greater range of choice for individuals and families. The minister also

appointed an interim authority board to plan the transition.

The

outburst of emotions expressing the general acceptance of the vision of our

minister was overwhelming. Those who were skeptical six months ago became

convinced of the vision and the benefits of the new direction. Tears of

happiness were shed and gifts presented. Words of appreciation were the order of

the day. There was a spontaneous standing ovation for the new direction of the

ministry.

I felt very

proud of our government and our vision to create an environment where adults

with development disabilities and children with special needs can participate in

and contribute to their communities and live a full and valued life. Once again,

I would like to congratulate everyone involved in this event and, in particular,

our Minister of Children and Family Development for his excellent initiative.

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

TRANSFER OF PATIENT

IN LONG-TERM CARE CASE

MacPhail: Today a member of the Liberal caucus was kicked out for speaking

his mind on issues important to his constituents. Well, today we're going to

talk a bit about how out of touch some members of this government caucus are,

who took that decision. The minister has just received notice that I'm going to

ask this question.

A few weeks

ago we asked the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care why

Edward Laitenen, a senior citizen in Salmon Arm, was billed almost $200 for the

privilege of being shuffled around by ambulance between care homes. After we

asked the question, Mr. Laitenen's wife received a call on November 7 from the

office of the MLA for Shuswap, promising that the member would phone her on

November 12 and see what he could do.

Elsie

Laitenen waited by the phone all day on the 12th, but the member for Shuswap

never called. In fact, as of 11 a.m. this morning, she still hadn't received a

call. It would be too much, I know, to ask the Minister of State for Long Term

Care why her colleague didn't deliver for his constituent, but perhaps the

minister could say what the member for Shuswap was going to do when he called

her to fix Mrs. Laitenen's problem three weeks after it was brought to her

attention.

[1415]

Hon. K.

Whittred: I have been in communication with the interior health authority

around this issue that was raised by the opposition. I believe my office has

thoroughly investigated the situation. The family is working with a patient

advocate, and the interior health authority is resolving the issue with the

family.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: I was going to say it's not good enough to promise action —

well, anyone can do that — especially since the member for Shuswap is quoted

that he would resolve the problem. The point is that actually after you promise

action, you have to take follow-up and then carry out the promises. Let me

just….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

MacPhail: Let me just tell the minister what didn't happen. Not only did the

member not phone his constituent on the 12th as he promised, but last week

another bill arrived on Mrs. Laitenen's doorstep, charging her for a third trip

her husband was forced to take because of the health authority's lack of a bed.

Three weeks ago the member for Shuswap said: "Don't

[ Page 4507 ]

worry. We're going to take care of it." The minister promised action.

She's very good at closing beds, shuffling seniors around like luggage, but she

can't seem to fix the one simple problem that was brought to her attention three

weeks ago. In fact, it's worse. Another bill for another trip has arrived.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

MacPhail: Will she now stand up and assure Mr. and Mrs. Laitenen and the

hundreds of other seniors being charged unfairly for being moved around like

pieces of luggage that they don't have to pay their ambulance bills? Will she

encourage…? I was going to ask her to encourage the member for Shuswap to

honour his commitments to his constituents, but that's probably unrealistic.

Hon. K.

Whittred: I am aware of the second billing. The interior health authority,

working with a patient advocate, is working with the family, and I understand

that will be resolved quite appropriately according to the needs of the family.

CRIDGE CENTRE FOR THE FAMILY

J. Kwan:

Last week the member for Victoria-Hillside got up in the House and said

everything was fine at the Cridge Centre. She said it was wrong for the

opposition to suggest that child care programs would close at the Cridge because

of government cuts. If that is the case, can the Minister for Community,

Aboriginal and Women's Services please explain to this House, and in particular

to the member for Victoria-Hillside, why child care workers at the Cridge all

received layoff notices last week?

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G.

Abbott: What we do know very clearly is the capacity of this very

irresponsible opposition to politicize every issue that's of importance to

people in this province. This is an opposition who, when they were a government

— I don't know if this story has ever been revealed before — blew $500

million on three fast ferries that didn't float. Imagine that. Imagine the child

care that could have been purchased with that $500 million. This is an

opposition who, when they were in government, put together an unsustainable and

unfunded universal child care program. They have everything to be ashamed about,

and they should hang their heads in shame.

Mr.

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

question.

[1420]

J. Kwan:

We just heard this morning from the member for Surrey-Whalley actually making a

statement about how important child care is. Again to the minister. What we have

here is a minister and a member of his own caucus in denial. When he hears the

impacts of his cuts, he closes his eyes, he shuts his ears, and he pretends that

nothing is wrong. Even some Liberal backbenchers are pleading with the minister

to back off on his cuts to child care subsidies, but he won't listen. He won't

listen.

The member

for Victoria-Hillside said that the Cridge Centre won't have to close child care

programs, but the Cridge Centre is laying off staff. Can the minister tell this

House what he intends to do to ensure that not one child is forced out of the

Cridge Centre because of his deep cuts to child care programs in B.C., and what

he's going to do to keep the member for Victoria-Hillside informed on what he's

doing with respect to child care services across British Columbia?

Hon. G.

Abbott: There is at least one area in which this opposition is remarkable.

They are remarkable in their capacity for twisting words. They are remarkable in

their capacity for concocting stories. They are remarkable.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Let us hear the answer to the

question.

Hon. G.

Abbott: They are remarkable in politicizing issues that are of genuine

concern to the government. This is an opposition that has, in their partisan

madness, completely lost touch with the people of British Columbia. One of the

ways in which they've lost touch is to still think that their unsustainable and,

I hasten to add, unfunded commitments around child care simply can go ahead.

This is a government that will be protecting child care. We're going to be doing

it in a sustainable and funded manner.

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

MacKay: My question is to the Minister of Education. Recently, grade 12 exam

results from across B.C. were released. In the Stikine school district the

scores were more than 10 percent below the provincial average.

Across this

province, the results show that the participation rate in the core subject areas

is not strong. Can the Minister of Education tell us what steps she is taking to

solve this problem and reverse this trend?

Hon. C.

Clark: We know that there aren't enough children participating in exams

across British Columbia. What that means is that we don't have a complete

picture of how well all students are doing everywhere in the province in every

topic.

We know

that the children who are taking exams are doing extremely well. We know that

kids who are taking mathematics are doing extremely well. We rank

[ Page 4508 ]

amongst the best in the world in mathematics. We are amongst the best in the

country in science; 41 percent of all the national science fair awards were won

by British Columbia students.

But we need

to increase participation rates. We need to make sure that every student has a

key grounding in those core subject areas. One of the things that we're talking

about with the grad requirements review is a requirement for five exams in four

subject areas for every single student in order for them to graduate from a high

school in British Columbia. That's how we can ensure that every student has a

grounding in all those areas that will be so important for them, no matter where

they intend to go in this world and no matter where they intend to compete.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine has a supplementary

question.

MacKay: Again to the Minister of Education. Students in my constituency face

unique challenges. Small school populations and access to courses are only some

of the problems faced by students in my constituency. This government made a

new-era commitment to provide top-quality education to students across this

province, regardless of where they live.

Can the

Minister of Education tell my constituents what steps she is taking to fulfil

this commitment and provide students in rural and remote communities the best

education possible?

[1425]

Hon. C.

Clark: I said many, many times that our commitment as a government is to

make sure that every child gets a quality education no matter where they live in

British Columbia, whether it's in rural British Columbia or urban British

Columbia. I recognize that students in rural B.C. have had increasing challenges

over the year. That's not a new problem. A problem of declining enrolment is

something that's been happening for a long time in many, many rural communities.

That's why we appointed a task force to look at rural education. They'll be

reporting to us in January with some ideas about how we can make sure that a

top-quality, world-class education is available to kids no matter where they

live.

Ultimately,

as I've said, this isn't a new problem. What we need to do is revitalize rural

communities. We need to re-ignite those economies. We need to make sure that

those economies have enough jobs that they're attracting new families, that new

kids are moving in. That's ultimately what's going to reverse this trend of

declining enrolment. That's what's going to make sure that ultimately, rural

communities across British Columbia continue to thrive from north to west to

east to south.

OIL AND GAS RESOURCES

P. Bell:

The oil and gas sector has become an incredible economic engine in northeastern

British Columbia, but northeastern British Columbia isn't the only area in the

province that has oil and gas. The Nechako basin and particularly the Bowser

basin are believed to have significant volumes of both oil and gas. I wonder if

the Minister of Energy and Mines can tell us what he is doing to promote these

basins and other areas in the province to the oil and gas industry.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Yes, the oil and gas industry is not the economic engine of only

northeastern British Columbia. It's one of the economic engines of the whole

province of British Columbia. One thing this government wants to do is move that

activity out to the rest of the province.

The member

is quite right when he talks about the reserves that are in the Nechako and

Bowser basins — six billion to seven billion barrels of oil, ten Tcf of

natural gas, all kinds of opportunity. We've done some geoscience in those

areas. We're working with first nations in those areas to come up with some kind

of an agreement. We've got drilling going on in the southeast for coalbed

methane, and in the northeast. We want to, in fact, encourage that to create

good private sector jobs and investment in the province of British Columbia.

That's what this government's all about.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Prince George North has a supplementary question.

P. Bell:

The oil and gas sector and the dollars provided through that sector benefit all

of British Columbia and provide dollars for health care, for education, for all

the social services that the members to the left of me who have just left seem

to really want. What I'd like to know, I guess, for my region is how the oil and

gas sector can help diversify the economy in an area that has been hard hit by

the forestry slump in the softwood lumber.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: There are all kinds of opportunities across the province of British

Columbia in the oil and gas industry. Specifically in the Bowser and the Nechako

basins, there are huge opportunities. There are also opportunities offshore. We

just had a delegation from Norway come talk to us about offshore oil and gas and

what it's done to diversify the economies in Norway. That would happen in the

Prince George region. There would be all kinds of services that would be

procured from Prince George to do the offshore or the Bowser or Nechako basins.

Those are all opportunities that are out there.

It's

incumbent on this government to make sure we have the right regulations, the

right rules, the right taxes in place to make sense for those companies to come.

We're trying to encourage them to come to those areas. They are actively

interested. It probably won't be all that long before we do some land sales in

some of those areas to see what kind of interest we actually have.

[End

of question period.]

[ Page 4509 ]

Tabling Documents

Hon. J.

Murray: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 2001-02 annual report

of the Environmental Appeal Board.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call continued committee stage debate of Bill 74.

[1430]

Committee of the Whole House

FOREST AND RANGE PRACTICES ACT

(continued)

The

House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 74; J. Weisbeck in the

chair.

The

committee met at 2:31 p.m.

On

section

MacPhail: As I spend more time researching this, the discussion gets

increasingly difficult. It's complicated by the point I raised in the opening

discussion last night. That is that we are now into a situation where there's a

piece of legislation coming that will modify this

section once again.

Section 5

deals with the issue of the content of the forest stewardship plan, and it

replaces the forest development plan. The first difference between the forest

development plan and the forest stewardship plan is the requirements of the map

that must be submitted.

Section 10(1)(

b) of the current Forest Practices Code

requires that maps include the size, location and shape of proposed cutblocks

with the proposed location of existing and proposed roads. Could the minister

explain what the purpose of the old requirement was?

[1435]

Hon. M.

de Jong: I think the first point I want to try and make, perhaps

successfully or unsuccessfully, is to acknowledge to the member that we are

replacing, ultimately, an overall statutory regime. As we move through this, it

is, I think, valid for the member to look at individual components of it and

compare it to what exists under the present code, but at the end of the day,

what we will be left with is an overall new statutory regime. When the member

suggests we are replacing individual provisions, that's not entirely accurate.

We are replacing the overall regime.

There is a

difference on the mapping component of this. Forest development plans were for a

shorter duration, and the mapping requirement at that stage of the process

required more specific information. Again, if the suggestion is that the mapping

requirement within the forest stewardship plan is different and less specific

than in the forest development plan, then that would be an accurate statement.

MacPhail: I hope the minister isn't trying to guess my intent here. I'm

merely asking questions of information. I mean, I'm the only one asking

questions. This is a centrepiece of this government. We had speaker after

speaker here at second reading standing up and saying what a great piece of

legislation this was, with no specifics in their speech. I'm asking the

questions about explaining it to people. Perhaps the minister could answer the

question I just asked, which was: what was the intent of the previous

legislation? My next question is: have these requirements been eliminated, and

why?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Well, it's an interesting question from a member who was a member

of the government that introduced the previous legislation. If the member is

asking me to speculate what was in her government's mind when it introduced the

previous legislation, then perhaps I'll endeavour to speculate.

MacPhail: Well, it's surprising that the minister takes such umbrage at this

point. I clearly know what the intent was. What I'm doing is being the only

person putting these issues on record to explain the direction the government is

now going in. These are questions that are coming from the public.

Interjection.

MacPhail: Yes, as a matter of fact, they are.

The

Chair: Members, through the Chair, please.

MacPhail: Well, if the minister can't justify the change himself, then I'll

put on record the point of view of one group of stakeholders.

Did

something happen in the course of the last 20 minutes or something that

everybody's upset? These are legitimate questions.

Interjection.

MacPhail: I am asking them, and the minister is taking umbrage at them.

Here's the

concern. As I opened up, I said the forest stewardship plan replaces the forest

development plan. Here is the point of view expressed by the ENGOs, who, I might

add, also reflect some of the concerns of the workers in the industry as opposed

to the industry business side, the company owners. "The one approved plan

will be more general than the current forest development plans because they will

identify general areas of proposed operations called forest development units,

as opposed to roads and cutblocks." That was the nature of my question to

the minister.

[1440]

"This

has been the case even before the current code — that industry, even in

the sympathetic administration, had to provide plans for roads and cutblocks.

While it will be left to the regulations to determine the content of these

plans, the statutory indication of how general they

[ Page 4510 ]

are intended to be gives us cause for concern that it will be

considerably more difficult for agency officials to determine the impact of

proposed logging operations when approving them."

the way, Mr. Chair, the minister himself has this letter before him. He

acknowledged that this morning.

"This

concern is compounded by what we view as weak approval criteria for a

stewardship plan. In addition to complying with the letter of the law, the

minister must consider whether the results or strategies proposed by a company

are 'likely to achieve the objectives set by government.' What if no objectives

are set by government, as is the case for many areas in the province?"

That's the land use planning process.

"We

do not see a clear legislative requirement in Bill 74 to set meaningful

environmental and biodiversity objectives. While we understand the government

intends to spell out more specific desired outcomes in regulation, the approval

criteria are not linked to achieving these outcomes. We would have more

confidence in this legislation if it clearly specified environmental outcomes

and required decision-makers to be satisfied that proposed plans will achieve

those outcomes."

question, in making the shift…. This is a very specific…. This is not a

question where the minister can stand up and say: "Well, we've gone to a

whole new area." This is the new area that's replacing the old regime. This

is the nub of it.

Prior to

the introduction of this legislation, prior to the Forest Practices Code,

companies had to provide maps that included the size of proposed cutblocks —

the location and the shape — and the proposed location for existing and

proposed roads. Those are no longer required under the forest stewardship plan .

Why?

Hon. M.

de Jong: The member's assertion that that degree of detailed mapping is not

required simply isn't correct.

MacPhail: How will it work, then, in terms of the approval process?

Hon. M.

de Jong: We've been through this in part. There is a forest stewardship

plan, which is what we are discussing now. It extends for a five-year period and

is renewable for a further five-year period. It is necessarily going to be

somewhat more general, although it will identify the area. It will require,

prior to the commencement of any harvest activity, the issuance of site permits

and road permits. Therefore, those site plans will be prepared. It will require

the preparation of the type of mapping that has been prepared to this point. It

is not, again, unlike the situation that exists under the pilot projects that

are in operation this very day pursuant to the existing provisions of the Forest

Practices Code.

MacPhail: I appreciate that the minister is trying to suggest that somehow

— and I'm sure this is his link — because the previous government instituted

pilot projects, that's justification for his actions here. We'll debate that

later.

Interjection.

MacPhail: I said we'll debate that later. Frankly, because I haven't got any

answers to it, I haven't come to any conclusion about that whatsoever.

[1445]

I asked a

specific question: is approval required for the location of cutblocks and for

proposed road location? Is approval required for those now under the forest

stewardship plan? The answer is no. Or am I wrong?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Hopefully, this will help the member. When we get to the nub of it,

I think her question is: are site plans approved in the way they have

traditionally been approved under the existing regime? The answer to that is no.

MacPhail: Well, perhaps the minister could say — and he's got the

experience from pilot projects: what's the size of an area that a forest

stewardship plan could cover — some example?

Manhas: I'd like to ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Manhas: I'd like to introduce a couple of constituents that I ran into in

the building here just recently: Jessie Tyson, who's just immigrated from

England to B.C. She's looking to become a citizen, and she's been retraining to

become an administrative assistant. She explains to me that she's had

considerable help from Victoria, and she's quite happy with that.

She's here

today with Arthur Perot from Port Coquitlam in my riding. He works for Ad Print/Amco,

which, I'm told, has increased their business over the last number of years and

is looking to increase that too. I would ask the House to please welcome them

here and wish them to enjoy a great trip to Victoria.

Debate Continued

Hon. M.

de Jong: Depending on the circumstances, it could be an area under a

thousand hectares; it could be an area larger than that. In the Fort St. John

pilot where there is area-based management, cooperation amongst licensees, it

could be an entire timber supply area.

MacPhail: Here's my point: we could be dealing with an area the size of

P.E.I. It's a possibility that the timber supply area could be the size of P.E.I.

Previously, under the old Forest Practices Code, in order to get approval to

maintain all of the sustainability and

[ Page 4511 ]

biodiversity values, as well as to allow a company to go in and cut wood that

will allow them to sustain themselves and their workers and their community, one

had to put in place a plan that would deal with the exact part — let's say, an

area the size of P.E.I. — that they were going to go in and log. It was part

of the approval process.

It wasn't

that they could say, "Oh, my area covers P.E.I., and here's my plan to

achieve these outcomes throughout the whole area of P.E.I.," because maybe

there's an area of sensitivity within that range. Maybe there's an area of

concern. Maybe there's a community watershed. The company — and they've had to

do this for decades — had to actually determine the size and the location of

the cutblock in an area of the size of P.E.I., and then they had to show the

proposed roads into that area.

[1450]

Now they

just have to show what their intent for outcomes is for the whole area the size

of P.E.I. That's what the plan requires for approval now. So I'm asking: why is

it that somehow this is an improvement on ensuring sustainable outcomes?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Well, in fact, all of those things that the member has identified

are areas and issues that the proponent or the licensee will have to identify. I

note that in the sample forest stewardship plan I'm looking at, there is

specific provision made for sensitivities around water, fish, riparian, soil,

biodiversity, timber, the higher-level plan objectives, the community advisory

group that is in existence there, recreational values and wildlife values. The

point, I think — and I don't want to be argumentative — is this: there is

clearly a difference here, insofar as proponents under the regime that is set

out here will identify those sensitivities in the forest stewardship plan. All

of the more detailed planning work set out in the traditional site plan is done

and must be consistent with the forest stewardship plan. That document is not

approved in the same way that it is under the existing code. The member says she

is troubled by that, and I'm suggesting in reply that there are appropriate

safeguards in place to ensure that the outcomes we are seeking to achieve are in

fact achieved.

MacPhail: I might just note for the minister that the pilot projects do not

in any way reflect a full sampling of the geographical diversity, flora-fauna

diversity, watershed diversity or the riparian zones that exist throughout this

province. So somehow, if the minister suggests what was tried by the previous

government in a pilot project can be transferred to the entire province now,

we're just going to have to simply disagree.

Here we

have a situation where we just found out before lunch that in the new regime,

community watersheds have no special protection whatsoever — none. That will

be interesting — to see how this government's safe drinking water legislation

proves to be a success. Community watersheds have no protection whatsoever, and

we now have a situation where a licensee, a stakeholder, can put forward a

forest stewardship plan that covers an area the size of P.E. I., and they don't

have to give any specifics about where they're going to cut. In fact, they could

move around after the plan is approved. They can move around where they're going

to cut. Perhaps the minister could explain to me where it would be prohibited by

this forest stewardship plan that they could cut in certain areas of their TSA.

Hon. M.

de Jong: Well, I need to take issue with the member's first statement around

protection for watersheds, and we will revisit that issue when we get to

section

150 of the bill. Beyond that, let me say there is a regime being put in place

here that requires the preparation, by licensees — proponents — of a

comprehensive, detailed forest stewardship plan within which there must be

management for a series of values, and they are enumerated here.

[1455]

Before

harvest activity can take place, there is a requirement for the preparation of

traditional site plans, which gives rise to the issuance of road permits.

Is there a

greater degree of flexibility? I think there is. I think this legislation —

and we'll get to this — contemplates a licensee's ability to make minor

amendments. That is not something that is presently provided for.

It seemed

to me that the member suggested that the opportunity to move around within an

area that has been designated for harvest activity is somehow a nefarious or

terrible thing. I will suggest that as long as the requirements are complied

with, as they relate to the preparation of the site plans and the obtaining of

the requisite permits, that is not nearly as insidious a development as she

seems to be suggesting.

MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could actually put some meat behind his

words. In an area the size of P.E.I., which could include a huge range of

diversity, what was the thinking behind turning over to the company — the

licensee, the stakeholder — the right to move around inside that area without

any approval necessary in terms of cutting?

Hon. M.

de Jong: It is this notion that the member is promoting that a stakeholder

or licensee can move around within a forest stewardship plan area with impunity

that I am having difficulty with. The proponent will need to lay out within that

plan the specific forest development units, which will in a sense provide the

boundaries within which that type of activity can take place. A plan that is not

prepared with sufficient detail in that respect simply wouldn't be deemed

acceptable.

MacPhail: Yes, we'll come to the forest development unit as a new creation

inside the forest stewardship plan, but if we actually look at that, it's in the

negative — in the breach — that the legislation addresses forest development

units. It says: "The minister may not refuse to approve a proposed forest

steward-

[ Page 4512 ]

ship plan that carries forward an existing forest development unit…."

That doesn't give me any comfort whatsoever — none whatsoever.

I guess

we'll just have to leave it at that for that area. This is a huge area of

concern, a huge step in a direction that's never been seen before in this

province — ever — in terms of a legislated mandate for licensees and their

right to not have to develop this. Again, there's another requirement that's

been eliminated.

Before I

move on, could the minister point out to me where either the Forest Act or any

act shows the requirements for approval in order to get a permit for a road?

[1500]

Hon. M.

de Jong: My recollection is that a district manager may only issue a road

permit pursuant to provisions of the Forest Act where that road is shown within

a forest development plan.

MacPhail: Yes, but you see, those have been eliminated. The forest

development plans have been eliminated. There's no requirement for road approval

anymore, so I need a concrete assurance. I'm absolutely fine to stand this

section down until the minister can show me. He offered this up as comfort, and

I'm fine to take comfort. But the requirement for road approval, as I recall —

and I want to be proven wrong — rests on the forest development plan, which is

being eliminated.

Hon. M.

de Jong: Hopefully, this will help the member. Moving down from the forest

stewardship plan to the forest development unit, roads will have to be contained

within that forest development unit — therefore, part of an approved plan. If

the question is whether a similar approval process applies to each and every

road in the specific in the way that it has under the existing regime, then the

answer, again, is no.

MacPhail: What are the changes?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Sorry; I don't understand. In what sense?

MacPhail: How does it change? What was the previous approval that was

required for a road, and what's the difference? What will the new process look

like versus the old process for approving roads in terms of the requirement?

There was a requirement under the old code that requires a

schedule of proposed

timing for the timber harvesting but also for road construction and then

deactivation of roads too. What will it look like under the new plan?

[1505]

Hon. M.

de Jong: The mechanics around road permit issuance will not be substantially

different. The difference will be that they will be checked off against their

appearance in a forest development unit as opposed to the present mechanism.

With respect to deactivation, those are objectives that will be laid out by the

proponent in the forest stewardship plan, and they will be measured against

their achievement of those objectives.

MacPhail:

Section 5 of Bill 74 requires that forest stewardship plans must

specify intended results or strategies. When the consultation process was going

on this past spring, there was a lot of criticism that arose directed at the

unclear outcome statements in that discussion paper. The minister has

acknowledged that. We still have a lot of work to do on the outcomes. Perhaps

the minister now has a better, clearer idea of what the intended results will be

and how they'll work under the forest stewardship plan.

Hon. M.

de Jong: The member has certainly got it right when she says that there is

work to be done in terms of defining those outcomes. They will appear in

regulation, and we are entertaining submissions and input from a broad range of

stakeholders to help us finalize that regulatory framework in which those

objectives and outcomes will be defined.

MacPhail: We have legislation right now that I'm wondering whether the

industry has expressed any anxious curiosity about. It says that the forest

stewardship plan must specify intended results or strategies. I assume that it

will be the stakeholder that will be developing the results or strategies upon

which the plan will be approved because the ministry has said quite clearly:

"We're getting out of the business of government doing it."

What

consultation have you had with the companies in terms of the costs that will be

associated with them now having to do this on their own, or is there any

additional cost that the industry has suggested will have to be incurred?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Just to help me provide an answer that is helpful to the member,

are we now referring to the provisions of

section 5(

b) or

section 5(2)?

MacPhail: It's 5(b).

[1510]

Hon. M.

de Jong: Thanks to the member for particularizing the question.

The

responsibility for preparing a forest stewardship plan that specifies the

intended results and strategies falls to the proponent. They will lay out, much

as they have — and I keep referring back to some of the pilots — how it is

they intend to achieve and manage for the values laid out in 5(2).

There is

undoubtedly some cost associated with assuming that responsibility. My

information, or the advice I have received from the industry side of the

equation and woodlot owners and cattlemen, is that the overall package provides

them with a degree of flexibility and reduces the regulatory burden they are

facing through approval processes and other transactions with government, so

there is a net saving. We've

[ Page 4513 ]

already canvassed what that may or may not be, but there is, I think it's

fair to say, the assumption of responsibility, and with that goes the assumption

of some cost.

MacPhail: Just to be clear, this is a transfer of costs. Or maybe I'm wrong.

There was a cost borne by government to do this work, and now it's being left to

the proponent, and they will now bear the cost that used to be borne by

government.

Brice: I'd like to ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Brice: It's with pleasure that I welcome into the Legislature this afternoon

25 members of the Royal Oak Probus Club. The Probus Club is a group of retired

businessmen, and they're here with their wives. They've been enjoying the

Legislature, and they're here to take part and enjoy the discussion on this

important piece of legislation. I ask the House to make them welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. M.

de Jong: There is certainly an assumption of greater responsibility on the

part of those individuals, those agencies preparing the forest stewardship plan,

for laying out the objectives, the outcomes. Though it is at that stage still a

comprehensive document that must be approved by government, I can only relate to

the member some of the anecdotal information that has been relayed to me by

various stakeholders — that is, their belief that they are better equipped to

conduct this work, and given the flexibility that is built into this, there is

greater opportunity for them to realize, ultimately, some cost savings that to

this point weren't available to them under the existing regime. It does

represent a transference of responsibility to some degree.

The

Chair: For the information of the gallery, we are debating Bill 74, the

Forest and Range Practices Act.

MacPhail: I knew that. [Laughter.]

Interjection.

[1515]

MacPhail: I know. I'm just teasing.

Section

5(1)(

b) also states that the plans must conform to prescribed requirements.

That's a bit of a throwback.

Hon. M.

de Jong: It's (c).

MacPhail: Sorry —

section 5(1)(c). Could the minister elaborate on what

the "prescribed requirements" will be? Why the distinction now between

"specifically intended results or strategies," which clearly, as we've

just discussed, will be the responsibility of the industry, and these prescribed

requirements which I assume will be prescribed by government?

Hon. M.

de Jong: The provision is not unlike

section 10(1)(ii) in the existing

Forest Practices Code. By that I can relate to the member that what is

contemplated is something of a prescribed form or format for the forest

stewardship plan. This provision provides us with a mechanism by which we can

provide for that prescribed format.

MacPhail: Okay. I guess we're talking about a form, not prescriptive for

objectives or outcomes. Well, let me just ask, then: in the area of road

construction that we've just discussed, will there be any prescribed

requirements for road construction?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Roads will have to be provided for, constructed, in a way that is

consistent with the other values that are enumerated here and must be consistent

with achieving the objectives in those value areas. There is a separate

provision within the act — I believe

section 22 — that refers specifically

to roads and road deactivation.

[1520]

MacPhail: Thank you.

Let's talk

about objectives. We've already discussed objectives set by government. Then in

this section, 5(2), we have that the objectives set by government have to be

consistent in certain subject areas. The subject areas listed are soils, visual

quality, timber, forage and associated plant communities, water, fish, wildlife,

biodiversity, resource features and cultural heritage resources.

We're at

the nub of the issue about what work still needs to be done, because all of

these are going to be set by regulation. We don't have those regulations before

us, so it's impossible to debate them now. It is a huge part of the forest

stewardship plan that people have to take on faith.

I want to

explore…. Perhaps the minister could outline now what process is in place for

establishing the regulations around this matter.

Hon. M.

de Jong: We are continuing to meet with individual stakeholder groups. I can

tell the member that that club has expanded over the past number of weeks and

— happily, I might say, given what I detect to be the tone of the letter the

member and I received today — may expand further.

The

member's right. This is a vitally important part of this process. Settling upon

definitions around those values and those objectives does go largely to the

heart of the issue here. My hope is that we can marshal the ingenuity and the

experience of all of those stakeholders, whether they are biologists,

agrologists, foresters, licensees, environmental organizations or cat-

[ Page 4514 ]

tlemen. When I say licensees, large and small independent operators on the

land base all have a perspective to bring on how we define in regulation these

various values. That work is ongoing. The member will know — or perhaps

doesn't — that I have expressed my desire to, in short order, establish a

standing public consultation body.

recollection provided for it specifically in this bill, and I think it could

have a role to play in refining these regulations and tracking them on an

ongoing basis to ensure their effectiveness.

MacPhail: Who are the members of the club as we speak?

[1525]

Hon. M.

de Jong: I don't want to suggest to the member that there is a body. We are

involved in discussions with the range of stakeholders that I have referred to

earlier. As I said, of late, we have seen involvement from those and others.

First nations have been involved, and over the course of the past month and a

half or two months I think it was unfortunate that we didn't see a degree of

involvement from the environmental organizations. It appears there is some

prospect of that changing, and I am happy to take advantage of that offer or

sentiment if, indeed, I have read the letter that the member and I have received

correctly.

MacPhail: Well, because this is the nub of the issue about consultation, Mr.

Chair, now, about developing the regulations that are the foundation of this

whole piece of legislation, let me read into the record the view of the

environmental non-governmental organizations about what the consultation process

has been so far and their commitment in the future. It's the letter dated

yesterday to the Minister of Forests, copied to me, and I am working with it as

one of my sources for questioning the minister.

Here's what

this group had to say about consultation. It's entitled "Engagement of

environmental groups in the process." The letter is to the Minister of

Forests:

"You

have commented publicly that the environmental community pulled out of

discussions with government in the summer. I would like to explain our

organization's perception of the consultation process to date. We consider

ourselves among the groups that, as you say, 'have demonstrated in the past the

capacity for approaching these issues in a responsible way.'

"We

were therefore pleased to learn that the government was planning to have

a public process around this major law reform initiative, because there have

been several instances where this has not been the case. When the government

announced the consultation process to be overseen by Professor Hoberg, we

participated in good faith and provided extensive comments on the ministry's

discussion paper.

"While

awaiting the government's response to Professor Hoberg's recommendation,

we learned that the government already had established several committees with

forest industry representatives and that substantive discussions about

legislative content were taking place without ENGO involvement. We understand

that the British Columbia Environmental Network Forest Caucus sought access to

that process but were told that it was not possible to have government, industry

and ENGOs in the same room.

"As

an alternative, we sought a separate, parallel opportunity that offered

parity of process rather than a few rushed meetings over a short time period. No

meaningful process in terms of political commitment, opportunity to shape

substantive decision or time lines that allowed meaningful engagement were

offered. We did have some discussions with your staff on possibly providing

comments just before its introduction, but as a result of those conversations,

it became apparent that the decisions had already been made on key issues. Given

that, there appeared to be little reason for participating in what appeared to

be a charade of public consultation."

Mr.

Chair, I'm reading from a letter from the West Coast Environmental Law

Association speaking on behalf of the environmental non-governmental

organizations. The letter goes on to say:

"Nevertheless,

we believe that it is important to have our concerns laid out as a matter of

public record before the bill is passed. We are therefore offering these

comments to you and others. We appreciate your comments in the Legislature that

'there is a chair at this table for you to sit down and work with

government.' We believe there is ENGO willingness to engage in the

regulations so long as the opportunity is seen as meaningful consultation with

realistic time frames. We will, however, avoid participating in processes that

are not meaningful."

So,

I'm wondering whether the minister, having either read that previously or having

me read it to him, has a response.

[1530]

Hon. M.

de Jong: Well, suffice it to say that my assessment of the process that took

place and the opportunities for meaningful involvement is different than the

author's. I mean, I suppose I could read into the record copies of

correspondence of my own. I'm not sure that is particularly helpful. I do not

doubt that the author of the letter that the member has read from feels the

process was not one they were, at the time, comfortable participating in. That's

unfortunate.

Rather than

engage in a prolonged debate through this member with that author, I am more

interested in moving forward and doing what I can to ensure that a climate

exists where that organization and others from the ENGO community feel they can

participate in a meaningful consultative process. I say candidly that

consultation does not always mean that all of one's views are ultimately

embraced and reflected in the final product. I say that to any stakeholder, and

all of them have come to the table and participated in this process with

requests or opinions or perspectives that have not in their entirety been

reflected in the final document. So, yes, governments make decisions based on

the information and submissions provided to them, but the message I would like

to convey today is that an organization such as this, which is interested in par-

[ Page 4515 ]

ticipating in a meaningful consultation process, is more than welcome to do

so.

MacPhail: Let's just try to put some shape to that commitment then. We

learned two weeks ago that the regulations must be set by early December, and

that's because staff in the ministry have to start being trained in January.

It's November 19. Perhaps the minister could outline the time frame for

establishing the consultation and finishing the consultation and putting the

regulations in place.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I am sufficiently motivated to try and involve as many of these

stakeholders as possible to advise this member and others participating that it

is more important to me that we have the benefit of their participation and

submission than to necessarily abide by a pre-Christmas time deadline. It

appears to me, given where we are in this debate, that the likelihood of us

completing this process prior to the end of January 2003 is pretty remote. If we

are going to have that opportunity for a meaningful exchange, I hope

stakeholders will understand that I am certainly prepared to ensure that the

process is ongoing through that from now until then.

MacPhail: I'm sure that will come as a welcome relief.

Who's on

the list to be consulted? The minister said first nations were going to be

consulted, and I guess now ENGOs will be consulted. We also received another

letter from the Carrier-Sekani tribal council, who are still raising concerns

around this. My colleague and I attended the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs annual

general meeting last week, and there were still substantial concerns around

consultation. It may be just that the information and the invitation haven't got

through yet.

[1535]

appreciate that the minister has now extended the process for six weeks so that

there's six weeks left, but surely there must be an invitation list. What is it?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I think the member's question…. I was going to say it related

specifically to first nations, but I don't think it did. It was a broader

question. I can certainly provide the member with a list of the groups that we

have been engaged with. I have no difficulty doing that.

I can tell

the member, as well, that the Aboriginal Forest Industries Council is an agency

that has expressed an interest in participating in detailed discussions. I think

it is legitimate for them to do so and welcome that participation.

I think,

candidly, we have to be practical, as well, about how we do this. To suggest

that we would convene a congress of 300 people to draft these regulations would

be not only impractical, but it would be misleading for me to suggest to the

member that I thought that was a workable model for achieving our objectives.

MacPhail: Okay. If the minister doesn't want to tell me who he's consulting

with, does he know who he's consulting with? Is there a list? There are six

weeks left. The West Coast Environmental Law Association has not been invited

yet. The Carrier-Sekani hasn't been invited yet. The Carrier-Sekani refers to

that forum, this aboriginal forum that the minister just acknowledged as not

being engaged in this process yet. I have the letter here if the minister wants

to see. That's all I'm asking: when will people know if they're going to be

engaged in this process?

Hon. M.

de Jong: We are working with stakeholder groups now. I've mentioned a series

of them. I can mention them again: the agrologists association, the biologists

association, the Cattlemen's Association, the interior loggers association. I

can go through a series of them. I can go through a series of the first nations

we have met with and will meet with.

I have

already mentioned to the member my interest in establishing the public advisory

body that will provide an ongoing forum for this process. We are interested in

involving stakeholders with an interest in this legislation in what is,

candidly, a key component of it, and that is the preparation of the regulations.

But I hasten to add that participation and exchanges do not constitute for any

one group a veto, and the likelihood that any one group is going to get

precisely what it wants at the regulatory stage is no more likely than it was at

the stage of drafting the legislation.

[1540]

MacPhail: That's the second time the minister's raised that. I haven't heard

of anybody demanding a veto anywhere. Even the industry isn't demanding a veto.

I only say to the minister that the way this process is going to be legitimized

is by ensuring that the consultation process on the regulations works.

There was

huge dissatisfaction about the consultation process prior to the legislation

being introduced. Dr. Hoberg, the minister's own director of consultation hired

by him, was dissatisfied with the consultation process and made a series of

recommendations around consultation that were not carried out prior to the

introduction of the legislation. If that same sort of concern remains after the

regulations are gazetted, then we have a problem in this province. What role

will the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection or her staff play in

developing the objectives?

Hon. M.

de Jong: They have been and will continue to be full partners in that

process.

MacPhail: What does "full partners" mean? I'm unclear how it

works. The minister says there's not going to be a forum of 300. Nobody

suggested there should be. How does that consultation work where the Minister of

Water, Land and Air Protection is a full partner?

Hon. M.

de Jong: As a former minister of the Crown, I think the member has some

sense of how policy development and implementation take place at

[ Page 4516 ]

this level. There are, in fact, cross-ministry ad hoc committees both at the

ADM and at the directors level, which meet regularly, where there is dual

participation and a full exchange of ideas and information.

MacPhail: Yes, I'm aware of a cabinet committee that existed under the

previous administration that I don't think exists anymore, the Environment and

Land Use Committee. Is there a similar committee? Do the ministers participate

directly in the setting of these regulations? Do ministers set…?

The

Environment and Land Use Committee, ELUC, was a committee of cabinet. These

matters would have been referred to cabinet. Is there such a forum, or is it at

the officials' level that all of the joint full-partnership consultation takes

place?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I am advised that when the present code was developed…. I'm not

sure I've said this, but my recollection, by the way — lest anyone thinks this

is somehow a horrific departure from practices of the past — was that that

code was introduced in the absence of regulations, which took a subsequent

period of time to develop. That process did not involve the cabinet committee

that the member refers to but, in fact, a series of cross-ministry committees

that were established.

MacPhail: I'm not sure. I almost want to say methinks the minister doth

protest too much. My question isn't about what happened in the past. ELUC did

meet and did meet on the Forest Practices Code. That's not the issue. I'm asking

the minister what exists now. Is there ministerial engagement, or is it

officials' engagement?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Both.

[1545]

MacPhail: We've talked already about the importance of land use planning and

higher level planning in relationship to setting these objectives. Is it the

minister's view that one can set objectives without having the land use planning

completed?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Yes.

MacPhail: What land use planning is needed? Could the minister outline, list

for the Legislature, the land use plans that are not yet complete and need to be

completed before objectives can be set?

Hon. M.

de Jong: In the spirit of providing accurate information, perhaps that is

something I could obtain for the member from the responsible ministry,

Sustainable Resource Management.

MacPhail: Thank you. We'll probably be in this debate tomorrow, so tomorrow

will be fine.

There are

land use planning processes going on now where the minister commits they will be

completed before objectives are set.

Hon. M.

de Jong: No, I can't offer the member that assurance. The package is

designed to contemplate the possibility that that comprehensive, higher level

land use planning process across the province will not be completed. Therefore,

it contemplates the establishment by government of a specific set of objectives

in areas where that process has not been completed.

MacPhail: Let me explore that area a bit with the minister, then, because

various contributors to the consultation process expressed how crucial the land

use plans were to a results-based code. It's different. The completion of land

use planning becomes crucial when one is moving to a results-based code, said

various contributors to the consultation process. The reason for that was

because in order to develop appropriate objectives, land use plans should be

complete.

[1550]

Let's

explore a bit more what happens in areas where the land use planning process is

currently incomplete. Is there an opportunity for interim objectives by the

Sustainable Resource Management minister? Is that what the Forests minister is

suggesting?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Indeed, interim objectives — but they are set by the Forests

ministry.

MacPhail: Does the forest stewardship plan, then, have to be consistent with

the interim objectives set by the Minister of Forests?

Just out of

curiosity, why is it the Minister of Forests that sets the interim objectives

but the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management that sets the permanent

objectives?

Hon. M.

de Jong: The answer to the first question is yes. I'll take a moment to deal

with the second question.

[H.

Long in the chair.]

apologize to the member for the delay. This is a tool designed to provide on a

temporary basis the Forest Service and Forests ministry with the ability to set

those interim objectives as they relate to these values and the operation of

forest-related land use, pending the completion of the broader land use planning

process that now falls within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Sustainable

Resource Management.

[1555]

MacPhail: Thank you for that.

When

interim objectives are set, the forest stewardship plan is approved and the

final land use plan is approved, what happens then in terms of regulations or

objectives? Is it a brand-new process, or is it an amendment process?

[ Page 4517 ]

Hon. M. de

Jong: The act — I'm now looking at

section 8 — actually contemplates

that very scenario and does provide for a reopening of the forest stewardship

plan and imposes the obligation that the forest stewardship plan be made or

remain consistent with the final land use plan.

MacPhail: It's my understanding that the forest stewardship plans will bring

planning for objectives to the front end of the process, and that's good. In

fact, I support that, but there are a number of uncertainties and anxieties

being expressed by some community groups, first nations and environmental

organizations about the after-the-fact nature of the plans — sort of the lack

of specific information around what these objectives are and how they'll be

developed. During second reading, I did express my disappointment that the

regulations defining the objectives were not present in the debate. We've

addressed that issue. We've now discussed how those regulations are going to

come about. Once regulations are established around objectives, we've addressed

how they'll work with land use planning.

What I want

to do is ask the minister a series of questions about the nature of the

consultation around specific values. The first objective…. Well, let me see. I

want to make sure I'm using the language correctly. Yes — around specific

objectives. Objectives are listed in

section 5(2)(a). Let's just take, as an

example, soils. What is the minister consulting on in terms of establishing

objectives around soils? One of the areas that I'm concerned about is — we've

already mentioned it — soil disturbance on its own and in community

watersheds. Let's just start with those.

Hon. M.

de Jong: To the member: if I could, I just want to clarify. Her question

relates to the consultation that is taking place around the establishment of the

regulatory basis as opposed to consultation that might relate to a specific

forest stewardship plan.

[1600]

MacPhail: Let me outline my issues around soil, if I may. I've already

talked about soil disturbance on its own, but soil disturbance in a community

watershed…. What rules are there around slope stability in sensitive areas?

I've met with some companies who are developing new techniques around soil

stability. That's a good thing, but I'm wondering what the nature of discussion

around an outcome would be when there's a failure of soil stability in a

sensitive area. That's basically it.

Hon. M.

de Jong: Let me see if this properly addresses the question. The member

asked about the question of soils. I think the question is: what is it you're

interested in, in an outcome statement, when you talk about soils?

She

mentioned watersheds. I'm going to suggest to the member, in terms of looking at

the outcome statement, that's probably something that will be captured under

"water" as opposed to "soil," although there's clearly a

relationship there.

She

mentioned slope stability. That is something that has an obvious relevance to

outcomes as they relate to soil — levels of soil disturbance, the footprint

that harvest activity leaves on the land base. Soil exposure would be another

issue that would be relevant to that discussion in terms of preparing an outcome

statement.

MacPhail: The next objective is visual quality. I am going to ask the

minister to just address generally what is meant by visual quality. I remember

this as being my first discussion at the cabinet table, about site corridors in

terms of cutblock areas.

Let me ask

this: what is the minister's consultation involving in terms of the general

visual quality objective? Will there be specific and separate requirements for

areas with high levels of tourism and recreation activities corridors — visual

corridors to protect against what some might view as unsightly views?

Hon. M.

de Jong: The differential that the member referred to does exist now and

will continue to exist and be taken account of through this process.

[1605]

I might

take advantage of this moment and this question, hon. Chair, to highlight

something that I have come to be familiar with as a result of the involvement of

Professor Hoberg and UBC. That is that some of the fascinating work taking place

around computer-enhanced imagery, where the ability to actually project some of

those visual qualities and to present what an area will look like from different

perspectives, different elevations following harvest activity, has now reached

an incredible state — a very developed state.

Though it

seems to be, at the moment, a tool that is finding application at the academic

levels, I rather suspect that very soon we will see those kinds of tools used on

a regular basis as part of the public consultation that is contemplated in the

preparation of a forest stewardship plan where licensees will bring this

technology and say to people who have concerns around view corridors: "In

terms of the view corridor, this is what we believe harvest levels of this sort

will result in."

So the

answer to the member's question is yes, and some of the technology that has been

developed out of institutions like UBC is improving the ability we have to look

ahead to the impacts of some of these activities on the land base.

MacPhail: My second question in this area is actually a general question to

all these objectives, even though I am going to go through the individual

objectives to at least put on record issues that I want to see included in the

consultation. My general question is: does the objective set the result for

which there could be a penalty, if not complied with?

Hon. M.

de Jong: These set the general outcomes that are required under the

legislative framework. For

[ Page 4518 ]

enforcement purposes, we then look to two different sources — that is, any

additional regulatory provisions that speak specifically to those outcomes and

the forest stewardship plan itself. In either case, if the licensees finds

themselves out of step with either, then they will find themselves out of

compliance.

MacPhail: Just before I move on to timber, will a licensee, a stakeholder,

know clearly what his or her penalty will be for non-compliance around a

particular objective? Is there a judgment element to it?

Hon. M.

de Jong: There are two possibilities in that kind of scenario. One depends

on the application of an administrative penalty, and the other would be

triggered if there were an actual offence under the act. In both cases, there

are ranges of penalties. I think the member's question was: if there is

non-compliance, will the proponent know?

[1610]

The system

is designed to operate in a way that if the objectives or results are not met,

that will constitute an abrogation of the responsibility under the legislation

and therefore trigger a penalty. It could be an administrative penalty,

depending on the circumstances, or it could be an offence, which is triable via

the courts.

MacPhail: Let's just carry on. This discussion I've been asking about

applies to all objectives.

Under

timber, I note that there's no explicit reference to old-growth retention in

this act. Will there be specific objectives for old-growth retention?

Hon. M.

de Jong: It is our intention to set in regulation retention requirements for

old growth. Those requirements will have to be dealt with specifically in the

forest stewardship plan.

MacPhail: That gives me comfort. In examining what has already been in place

for penalties in the past for failing to meet a timber objective, is it the

minister's view that there will be…? Let's just stick to the area of timber.

Will the penalty for failing to meet a timber objective remain the same, or is

every penalty up for re-examination and change?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Hopefully, if I use a specific example, it will be helpful to the

member. The obligation as it relates to timber would capture the obligation to

take a harvested area back to what is called free-to-grow status. The failure to

do that would represent abrogation of one's obligation.

It would be

an administrative penalty because the obligation would continue, and it is my

expectation that the penalty associated with that administrative breach will be

increasing.

[1615]

MacPhail: The next objective is called forage and associated plant

communities. I was trying to find out, through looking through the current act,

about what addressed this issue and perhaps what this objective is replacing.

Let me

suggest this. In the current act, under

section 17, there is a requirement for

the holder to identify and classify certain areas — streams, wildlife habitat,

scenic areas, recreation features. First of all, under the old act, they have to

identify and classify those, and then there's a requirement later on that the

holder must collect and analyze data respecting the following. Those, I think,

are gone now. How does an objective around forage and associated plant

communities get set? What's taken into account in this area?

Hon. M.

de Jong: This is particularly relevant to the range use and ranching

community. What are the kinds of things that are involved here? Well, they

relate to biodiversity on the range. In the past there have been some

prescriptive requirements around the length that grass is left at following

grazing, reseeding and grazing at particular times of year. Those are, broadly

speaking, the kinds of issues that arise around the use of range, and they will

have to be addressed in what in this case would not be a forest stewardship plan

but a range use plan.

MacPhail: Okay. Moving on to water. Is this the area where we discuss

community watersheds and how protection for community watersheds will be

established through this objective?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Yes.

MacPhail: How will community watersheds be protected?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Perhaps most importantly, let me begin by saying that community

watersheds will have to be designated as they are presently designated. From

that flows a series of other requirements that relate to conduct around in-flows

for community water systems: managing risks to the quality of the water, the

timing of water flows, channel integrity, drainage patterns, riparian zone

management. Those are all issues that obviously impact on water quality

generally, and when we're talking about community watersheds, which will be

designated, there's an obvious enhanced importance.

MacPhail: Who designates the community watersheds?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Watersheds that are presently designated will continue to be so. I

think it's

section 150 of this act which creates the ability and the process by

which new community watersheds would be designated.

[1620]

MacPhail: There is a biodiverse concept of sensitive streams. Will that

concept be captured in the setting of objectives in the area of water?

[ Page 4519 ]

Hon. M.

de Jong: Yes. It is a legitimate issue in the establishment of these

regulations.

MacPhail: In the area of fish, my staff were assured during our briefings

that riparian habitat and zones will remain as they are, and the minister, I

think, just confirmed that. Did I hear that earlier under the discussion of

water?

Hon. M.

de Jong: The answer to the member's question is yes, but in fairness, I want

to point out one distinction. It is the rule that a licensee, a rancher or a

woodlot owner would have the option of presenting a case for something

different, but the onus would fall to that proponent to demonstrate that these

objectives are being met and that divergence from the norm would have to be

approved. The onus would fall on the proponent to demonstrate that the values

and objectives are being met.

MacPhail: Will there be any actual prescriptive requirements around the

preservation of riparian habitat and zones?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Yes.

MacPhail: What role will the minister…? There are two that I'm concerned

about. Actually, I assume that the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection

will have a role in setting these objectives. What role does the Minister of

Agriculture, Food and Fisheries play in defining and enforcing these objectives?

Hon. M.

de Jong: That is a function that will fall to Water, Land and Air Protection

and the Ministry of Forests.

MacPhail: The next objective listed is wildlife. Will the objective include

the preservation of sensitive habitats and wildlife retention?

[1625]

Hon. M.

de Jong: We do intend to carry forward in the regulation the existing

provisions. In the discussion I was having, I wasn't sure whether I heard the

member refer specifically to endangered species or just wildlife generally.

MacPhail: My question was just around wildlife retention, but I doubt…. Is

the minister tackling the issue of protection of endangered species habitat?

Hon. M.

de Jong: In certain areas where it's applicable, that may well be a specific

objective that needs to be enumerated. I think the member knows that it has been

articulated by some that this was a shortcoming of the existing code. We're

hopeful that we can, in part, redress that omission.

MacPhail: Good. I wish the minister the best of luck.

Biodiversity.

I want to know how the biodiversity objectives relate to the wildlife and the

old-growth retention objective. It seems to me that there's a meshing of

interests there.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I agree with the member. I am told that it's here that objectives

around things like old-growth retention would appear.

MacPhail: I'm sure the minister heard this, but I also included objectives

around wildlife as well. But we've already discussed that.

The next

one is objectives around resource features. It's kind of an interesting title.

What would it capture? What would an objective around resource features capture?

Hon. M.

de Jong: This brings forward a term principle that appears in the existing

Forest Practices Code. It speaks to recreational features and to structures that

might be constructed related to range use, cattle enclosures, livestock trails

and those types of things.

MacPhail: The final objective is around the area of cultural heritage

resources. Would this be specifically targeted at capturing the cultural

heritage interests of first nations and aboriginals?

Hon.

M. de Jong: The short answer is yes. It is not restricted to that, however,

and I suppose one could contemplate other types of archaeological sites that

might exist. It is certainly a mechanism that allows for us to take specific

account of things like first nations, culturally modified trees and sites.

MacPhail: Is there a specific consultation with first nations around

cultural heritage, the setting of objectives for culture heritage resources?

[1630]

Hon.

M. de Jong: I should say that this is a value that emerged directly as a

result of our discussions with first nations and the submissions they made

around its relative import to them. What it does require with respect to a

forest stewardship plan is that the approving authority — the minister or his

or her designate — be satisfied that the proponent has adequately, reasonably,

turned their mind to addressing these interests and these values in the

preparation of their plan. It seems to me it would necessarily follow that there

would be discussion, consultation and exchanges between, in this case, first

nations to whom those values would be important.

The

Chair: Members, the committee will stand recessed for ten minutes.

The

committee recessed from 4:31 p.m. to 4:43 p.m.

[H.

Long in the chair.]

MacPhail: Continuing on

section 5 of the Forest and Range Practices Act,

there are a couple of missing

[ Page 4520 ]

elements from the list, the headings for the ten objectives. Let me ask the

minister where the overall ecosystem health, safety and integrity will be

addressed.

[1645]

Mr. Chair,

in fairness to the minister, let me not piecemeal this one. Let me ask the

minister this. When I say, "Where is the protection for the integrity of

the overall ecosystem health?" here's what I mean. As the minister knows,

we have the most diverse range of ecosystems, second to South Africa, in the

world. What I'm concerned about is that there be a protection for the overall

health and well-being of the ecosystem, as one forest stewardship plan relates

to the one adjacent to it. I can't figure out any other way of determining an

integrated approach to the overall well-being of the ecosystem unless there's a

requirement to take an integrated approach.

Hon. M.

de Jong: Let me try to answer the question this way. I think I would suggest

that the values that are listed in this

section are designed to be sufficiently

broad to take account of the reality that the member has described as it relates

to the diversity of ecosystems. I think her question — and it's not an unfair

question — relates, as well, to the function of coordinating those various

forest stewardship plans that will exist across the provincial land base. I

think my answer there would focus in on the role played by the minister or his

or her approving designate to ensure that that element of coordination is

addressed at the approval stage.

MacPhail: Well, that leads nicely into my next area of the process for

approval of forest stewardship plans. I know that there are other sections, but

I want to explore initially this area, because this is the

section of the

legislation that reduces planning to one plan, and that has been determined by

the minister to be an achievement. What I'm trying to figure out is: an

achievement in what areas? I'll be frank, Mr. Chair. I'm at the stage right now

where I can't support this

section because of the vagueness of it and the fact

that there is one plan that leaves so many questions unanswered.

Before I do

that, let me get the minister to explore one area, and that's the area of

resources necessary in order to bring about a forest stewardship plan. We've

already had a discussion where there will be a transfer of required resources

from the government to the proponent. We don't know whether that's an increased

cost or not, but it is a transfer of responsibility. I expect that there may be,

at some point, a discussion of whether there is not only a transfer of

responsibility but also a transfer of costs required in ensuring the carrying

out of that responsibility.

What I'm

trying to get at here is understanding, now that we have one plan instead of

three, whether the whole process is more complex than the one we have now or

whether it isn't. The nature of the discussion around what's entailed in

establishing these objectives is to, first of all, ensure that the objectives

are appropriate and integrated, but then to get some sort of assessment of how

much staff will be required, how much time will be required, to validate the

claims around the objectives. I would assume, given that the ministry is

reducing its staff complement, that they would have done an analysis around the

amount of staff time that will be required under this new regime.

[1650]

Let me just

finish, and then I want to ask the minister what work has been done in terms of

identifying the amount of ministry staff resources. Let me give one example.

When someone applies to have land removed from the ALR, the agricultural land

reserve, they have to go through an entire investigative procedure with the Land

Reserve Commission. Their application is just not accepted at face value, and

yet it's a non-prescriptive process as well.

With forest

stewardship plans, they are also non-prescriptive now, but what kind of

validation process do they go through? What is the time frame the government

thinks it will take? What kind of resources have to be allocated to it? Does the

minister know that that process is less complex than the previous process?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I'll try to answer bits of this, and then I'll undoubtedly miss a

few of the questions that flowed and will come back to them. The first thing

that occurred to me as the member was asking the question is that she spoke of

the number of plans. Although there is a degree of truth to what she said, I

want to make the distinction between the number of plans and the number of

approvals, because I think the numbers she was referring to spoke to the

approvals that were part of the…. Some of those plans — we talked about site

plans — still exist. They are, I acknowledge, not approved in the conventional

way. That does represent a significant savings of resources on the part of the

ministry.

The example

I am alerted to on a frequent basis relates to silviculture prescriptions and

the issuance of those, the approvals of the site plans — labour intensive. The

approval of those documents is something that officials within the Forest

Service will no longer be as intimately involved in.

Now,

another component to the member's question related to the amount of time. I

think that's a fair question, certainly a question that stakeholders asked:

"How long is it going to take?" It's hardly an improvement if the

three-part approval process that used to take four months is reduced to a

one-stage approval process that takes five months, so that is something that we

are acutely aware of.

The

objective within the Forest Service is to obviously process these forest

stewardship plans upon their receipt in completed form. I was going to say in a

reasonable time, but that's hardly a helpful answer to the member. Thirty days

is an objective that has been set and something that we're going to be tracking

very carefully to ascertain whether we're meeting that objective.

Now I think

there were some other questions that I haven't answered.

[ Page 4521 ]

[1655]

MacPhail: No, in terms of the dialogue we're having, that's fine. Where I'm

having trouble figuring out is: if indeed there's still a requirement for the

plans, but there's a single approval — and perhaps the minister has had

feedback on this already — where are the savings to industry? There are

certainly savings in approval to the government. Of course, the minister may

remember from my second reading comments that I said there's much belief that

this change in the Forest Practices Code is driven by the need to have a code

that can accommodate a much-reduced Ministry of Forests staff. I fully

understand there's savings to the Ministry of Forests, but where are the exact

savings? What does the industry believe will be their savings in terms of

paperwork, commitment to actually developing these plans?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I'm going to suggest two things that account for what we believe

will represent savings. One is a diminished paper flow between government. I've

just been advised the estimate is that forgoing the approval process as it

relates to site plans will reduce the direct flow of paper between proponents

and government by upwards of 100,000 documents in a year. That transference of

paper and those transactions translate into a cost of doing business.

The other

feature to this that, again, is difficult to quantify, but that I have received

submissions on, relates to the importance of granting a degree of flexibility in

operating on the land base. This is the notion that in examining a circumstance,

the professionals that are employed by licensees can look at a situation and

achieve the objective in ways that are more cost-effective than a particular

prescribed route.

We had the

discussion earlier around quantifying that. Industry has offered their opinion.

That was not solicited from me necessarily. It's slightly lower, I have to

admit, than the advice I have received. Nonetheless, there does seem to be

acceptance of the proposition that taken as a whole, the reduction in the flow

of paper combined with the enhanced flexibility in operating on the land base

will translate into savings.

Will those

savings be uniform across the fold? I don't think so. I think certain operators

will be better equipped to realize those savings than others. I don't think they

will accrue — to the extent that they accrue at all — on a similar time

frame to all licensees. That reflects, as well, on the transitional period that

we've built in. Those, I think, are the two areas where the member will hear me

argue that those savings, such as they are, will be realized.

MacPhail: I appreciate that the minister and I will have different points of

view on the advisability of all of this change. I certainly agree with the

virtually unanimous voice that the status quo is not acceptable, but in the name

of reduction of red tape and costs in forestry, I have grave concerns about the

direction that these particular changes are heading.

I'm trying

to reassure myself and others that there is benefit in the area of reduction of

red tape and costs that would, in some way, contribute to the overall good

around the sustainability of our forests. I have yet to be convinced. It is on

that basis that the opposition cannot support this section.

[1700]

I have one

concluding question. It may be that the answer is that it's in Bill 75.

Section

5(3) of this legislation reads as follows: "A forest stewardship plan or an

amendment to a forest stewardship plan must be signed by the person required to

prepare the plan, if an individual or, if a corporation, by an individual or the

individuals authorized to sign on behalf of the corporation."

We have a

situation here where this is the plan that's going to do it all — deliver for

all in terms of the objectives we've just discussed, lead to the outcomes we've

just discussed, be the basis upon which penalties will be established and the

basis upon which enforcement will take place. However, as far as I can tell,

it's the corporation, the licensee, the stakeholder, the person with the vested

interest to earn from the forest that signs off on the plan.

In the old

Forest Practices Code,

section 10 describes the content of the forest

development plans that are now replaced by the forest stewardship plans, and it

stipulates that the plan must be signed and sealed by a professional forester.

Is there some amendment forthcoming that requires the forest stewardship plan be

signed by a professional forester?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I think there are a couple of issues here. One relates to the

provisions of the Foresters Act, which make it clear that a plan of the sort

contemplated here represents work that would necessarily engage a forester, so

there is a scope-of-practice argument that is involved.

The member

is correct when she points to the difference, though, and there are two

additional issues that arise out of her making the point. One is that the

philosophy guiding this says to a licensee: "We expect you to utilize the

best talent out there." That will most certainly involve foresters, but in

many instances it will also involve agrologists, biologists and other

professionals. They will also be involved in the preparation of this forest

stewardship plan.

The

specific issue that

section 5(3) is designed to address is a proposition we

heard from some that said a corporation should simply submit the plan, and it

would become the plan of the corporation. In fact, we wanted to ensure there was

the signature of an individual representing the corporation attached to the

document to signify ownership by the corporation or agency of that submitted

forest stewardship plan.

[1705]

MacPhail: I need to explore a bit more, then, what role the professional

forester plays. In our briefings, we understood that there were going to be

changes to the Foresters Act or that there would be a

[ Page 4522 ]

reinforcement of the ethical obligations by which a professional forester

must act. Here's why. It's because there's a removal of approval in several

areas by the Ministry of Forests, and it's now the obligation of the company or

the corporation or the individual to sign off on the plan. There's a removal of

a requirement for a professional forester to sign off on any plan, because

that's gone now. Where does the obligation of the professional forester get

committed to a statutory obligation?

What we

were told by the chief forester was that the code of ethics of a professional

forester has five responsibilities, five ethical standards, one of which was an

obligation to his employer. The first in rank order was an obligation to protect

the public interest. Somehow, maybe I misunderstood. I thought I was hearing

from the minister's comments when he introduced this legislation that there

would be a strengthening of the Foresters Act to incorporate the right of the

professional forester to uphold his professional obligations even in the face of

adversity from his employer.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I don't think we're necessarily at cross-purposes if I can

effectively explain this. The objective with respect to strengthening the

foresters legislation is to enhance the ability of that governing body to hold

its members to account for areas of practice which fall within their mandated

jurisdiction. In addition to that, however, what I would say to the member —

and now I'm going to throw another concept into the mix here — is that in a

general way, when we get to the point where we are assessing whether or not a

licensee has discharged their obligation — and this gets to the whole question

around liability and due diligence — it seems to me that there will be times

when it will not have been sufficient simply to have relied upon advice from a

forester. It will have been reasonable to receive advice and information from

some of the other professions, as well, whether they were biologists or

agrologists.

In a sense,

the foresters sign off, which from a practical point of view, given the scope of

practice that foresters have legislatively, will be required in any event. That

single sign-off may have provided a false sense of security to licensees who, if

acting reasonably, would also have required information, advice and expertise

from other professional quarters.

[1710-1715]

Section

5 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 51

Falcon

Coell

Hogg

L. Reid

Halsey-Brandt

Whittred

Cheema

Hansen

J. Reid

Bruce

Santori

van Dongen

Barisoff

Roddick

Wilson

Masi

Lee

Hagen

Murray

Collins

Bond

de Jong

Abbott

Neufeld

Chong

Penner

Jarvis

Anderson

Harris

Bell

Mayencourt

Trumper

Johnston

Hayer

Christensen

Krueger

Bray

Locke

Nijjar

Bhullar

Wong

MacKay

Cobb

K. Stewart

Visser

Lekstrom

Brice

Sultan

Sahota

Kerr

Manhas

NAYS — 2

MacPhail

Kwan

[1720]

On

section

MacPhail: This

section is called "Term of forest stewardship

plan." This

section outlines that the forest stewardship plans are for

five-year terms with the possibility of a further five-year extension. We had

substantial discussion around this issue at our briefings.

Subsection

(2) says that the extension of the term for another five years will be

determined by "circumstances specified by regulation." Just to be

clear, this term — the length of the plan from an initial five years with a

possible extension to a total of ten years — replaces the current code, which

has a term of one year with an extension for two years. This is a big change.

There is a level of anxiety around this. Perhaps we can clear up some of those

anxieties if the minister could explain the circumstances he's considering that

would permit an extension of the term.

Hon. M.

de Jong: Two things come immediately to mind. I suppose the first is whether

or not the forest stewardship plan, if renewed at the expiration of the first

five-year period, would continue to meet the objectives and tests set out in the

Forest and Range Practices Act. I think that would be determinative.

Off the top

of my head, some other considerations come to mind. Record of compliance would

be one. If there has been a series of problems relating to the achievement of

objectives during the course of the first term…. Of course, this legislation

provides the power to step in at any stage along the way in circumstances where

it is deemed warranted, but were a plan to distinguish itself by being

problematic throughout its first term, it would be my expectation that the

regulatory framework we'll set out will make that a relevant consideration in

determining whether or not to renew it for a subsequent term.

As the

member was asking her question, I was returning to the letter that we have

referred to during the course of this debate, and only from this perspective. I

[ Page 4523 ]

have not, even anecdotally from environmental associations or others,

received much in the way of expressions of concern around the term

"provision," off the top of my head. I haven't been able to review it.

Interjection.

Hon. M.

de Jong: Well, the member is telling me there is an expression of concern

there, and I accept her characterization of that.

MacPhail: Yes. It's a list of concerns under "Other Issues," where

West Coast Environmental Law says: "There are several other issues that

concern us." Then it's "the reduced opportunities for public input

based on the five- and perhaps ten-year term of forest stewardship plans"

under

section 6. It is there.

[1725]

Let me ask

this: will there be a list of criteria that applies to the renewal of each

forest stewardship plan, or will the criteria for renewal be determined on a

case-by-case basis?

Hon. M.

de Jong: It would be the latter. There would be an enumerated set of

considerations that the minister and/or his or her designate would want to turn

their mind to. For example, if there are public concerns relevant to the forest

stewardship plan that may have arisen during the course of the first five-year

term, that would be instructive in determining whether or not to renew for a

second five-year term or require the refiling of a forest stewardship plan,

which would necessarily address in part the concern the member referred to about

the opportunity for further input.

MacPhail: Well, yes. Just to expand on that, then, will there be opportunity

for public input to comment on the extension of the term?

Hon. M.

de Jong: It would be accurate to say that as a forest stewardship plan came

to the expiration of its five-year period and at any point along the way,

interested parties, members of the public, first nations — whoever — would

have an opportunity to make their concerns known to the approving authority, to

the ministry. That would be taken into account in determining whether or not

there should be a renewal or whether the proponent would be obliged to resubmit

a new forest stewardship plan.

Sections 6

to 8 inclusive approved.

On

section

MacPhail:

Section 9 deals with proportional objectives. The

section states:

"In prescribed circumstances, the minister may establish targets, in

specified proportions between or among the holders of forest stewardship plans,

for sharing the responsibility to achieve objectives set by government."

It's interesting to note this

section in the context of the discussion we had

previously about taking an integrated approach to ecosystem health. Perhaps the

minister could clarify the purpose behind this section, maybe in the context of

the previous discussion.

[1730]

Hon.

M. de Jong: Indeed, this does fall squarely within the ambit of the

coordinating aspect that we were discussing earlier. The example I can cite for

the member is a situation where within a timber supply area, there may be

various licensees who are actually proffering individual forest stewardship

plans.

Let's take

an example of old-growth retention. The first person in the gate may attempt to

escape or minimize their obligations in that respect. This provides the

approving authority with the opportunity to say: "No, in fact, we are

setting objectives as it relates to this area, and those objectives must be met

by licensees operating, notwithstanding the fact that you might have separate

forest stewardship plans." That is where that element of coordination

emerges.

MacPhail: The

section says: "In prescribed circumstances…." I

understand that the minister's saying this is the role of the ministry. What

happens when there's…? It requires a sharing of responsibility, so I would

assume non-compliance would require a sharing of penalty as well. How is that

going to work?

Hon.

M. de Jong: I was trying to distinguish and wanted to distinguish between a

situation where we have an area-based management scheme, where you may have more

than one licensee practising within a timber supply area, and a situation which

is more closely aligned to the example I used, where you've got in an area

several forest stewardship plans. The point that is made here is that there is a

shared responsibility for meeting the objectives laid out in the legislation in

that area. The member is correct insofar as any one of those licensees that

fails to meet their shared responsibility with respect to their forest

stewardship plan assumes a liability in that respect.

MacPhail: Who in the ministry would determine all of this? What department

would this come under?

[1735]

Hon. M.

de Jong: In determining the shared responsibility and that aspect of this,

that is something that would, under the terms of the act, fall to the minister

— more practically be assigned and delegated to the district level. The second

part of that is tracking whether or not those objectives and shared

responsibilities have been met, and that is a function that would fall to the

compliance and enforcement

section of the ministry.

Section

9 approved.

section 10.

MacPhail: This is a

section that we've referred to peripherally. It's a

section on site plans for cutblocks

[ Page 4524 ]

and roads, so again this is where it gets a little bit murky.

Section 10

refers to site plans that were known as logging plans under

section 11 of the

previous Forest Practices Code.

Let me just

walk the minister through this. Bill 75 will amend

section 11 of the code. Now,

remember we're on Bill 74. But Bill 75 will amend

section 11 of the code, adding

a

section on site plans. So in order to understand all the changes here, we have

to look at

section 11 of the code, which is going to be amended under Bill 75.

We also have to look at

section 9 of Bill 75,

section 13 of Bill 75 and

section

10 of Bill 74. All of those amendments deal with site plans for cutblocks and

roads.

I confess.

In this area this is as murky as it possibly gets. I question how all of these

amendments impact on clarity and red tape. I need some help here. How do the

four sections relate, all of which amend site plans for cutblocks and roads?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I'm not certain. First of all, let me try to clarify, if I can, the

terminology. There is a distinction between logging plans and site plans. Site

plans, in this context, actually contemplate permitting for logging, permitting

for silviculture prescriptions and road plans, so it is a broader concept than

simply the logging plan that the member referred to.

Although I

followed her point — I'm not sure I agreed with it entirely — when we had

the reference back to the other legislation in a discussion we had earlier in

this debate, this

section 10, unless the member can persuade me otherwise, does

not on its face require reference back to the legislation or to the sections the

member is referring to. It is true that Bill 75 amends certain provisions of the

Forest Practices Code for that interim and transitional period, but this measure

stands alone and is all-inclusive in that respect.

MacPhail: Yes, I understand that, but we now have a situation where — and

this is the dual process of which a person can select, but the process was

supposed to be that the original code…. They could choose to go under the

current code, the original one, or under this new process, but the original code

is being amended not once but twice. Yes, it's true that

section 11 of the

current code has two parts — a couple of components to the logging plan, one

of which deals specifically with the cutblock and the roads going to the

cutblock. For all intents and purposes, the first part of

section 11 under the

current code would represent the one choice of one process compared to

section

10 of this act, which is the other choice.

[1740]

Then we

have Bill 75 amending the original process for site plans, dealing specifically

with — if you look at Bill 75 — cutblocks.

Section 9 and

section 13 of Bill

75 directly address cutblocks. Even though the original code talks about logging

plans, all of the amendments and the new legislation deal with cutblocks and

roads, which we're discussing.

Let me ask

this, then. No, I guess I can't do it until we deal with Bill 75. Until we

debate Bill 75, then…. The minister has just said that Bill 74 stands on its

own. What's the difference in the two processes between the original code, not

yet amended, and Bill 75?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I don't think the member is attempting to be argumentative here. I

accept that. It is likely my inability to articulate this clearly. I do want to

say a couple of things in reply to her commentary.

We will,

for a period of time, have two processes that guide. Let's talk about harvesting

activity for the moment, just to simplify the discussion. One is the regime that

is established by virtue of Bill 74. The second, which we now know will be in

effect for a period of two years following the proclamation of Bill 74, is

essentially the existing Forest Practices Code with some changes.

When the

member suggests that the original code is being amended twice, that's just not

correct. It is being amended once by Bill 75, which we will discuss. It is much

more helpful in this context to stick to one process or the other. Right now we

are discussing the new process that will be in place.

This

section deals with site plans. I think it's a fair question to ask, comparing

this regime with the original Forest Practices Code. How are site plans

different or dealt with differently? They're not approved in the way that they

once were. Those are all questions that we have canvassed in part and that we

can continue to deal with. To suggest that somehow we're amending the Forest

Practices Code twice just is not correct, and it does confuse the discussion.

MacPhail: The fact is that

section 11 of the original Forest Practices Code

is being amended twice. I'm not saying the code is being amended twice.

Section

11 is being amended twice.

Let me

explain why. The minister is quite correct. I'm not being argumentative. I asked

a question earlier on about the role of professional foresters in signing off on

forest stewardship plans. They're not required to sign off on forest stewardship

plans now. What we have here is a situation where the original Forest Practices

Code will be amended by Bill 75 to now require that the site plans under

section

11 be signed and sealed by a professional forester. That's why I'm asking what

the difference is between….

[1745]

I'm trying

to figure out how a company, a stakeholder, will go through a decision-making

process about choosing one process or the other. Is it that the minister is

trying to skew the balance or skew the decision-making in one way or another? I

don't even have a view on that. If he's doing that, I don't even have a view yet

on whether that's horrendous or fine.

Apropos my

previous question about the role of professional foresters, the minister is

seeing fit to change the original code to prescribe the requirement to have a

professional forester sign off on a plan. My question under the new legislation

being proposed,

[ Page 4525 ]

which replaces completely — right? — and in full the previous code around

cutblocks and roads, is that it's silent. There isn't a requirement for a

professional forester to sign off on it. Why?

Hon.

M. de Jong: Here is where we have tried to achieve a degree of consistency.

This results-based code, as the member correctly points out insofar as the

forest stewardship plan is concerned, does not require sign-off by a

professional forester. We've discussed why that is and what the logic is around

that.

Similarly,

it does not prescribe the sign-off by a professional forester at the site-level

plan, although I would hasten to add that the type of work involved here would,

in virtually all cases, engage the attention of a professional forester. Whether

one agrees with that or not, there is a consistency around that approach in this

legislation.

Similarly,

as the member has correctly identified, under the existing or former code, that

requirement for sign-off is required, so for the….

MacPhail: It's being enhanced.

Hon.

M. de Jong: Sorry?

MacPhail: It's being enhanced by Bill 75.

Hon. M.

de Jong: Well, it is made consistent for the life of what will ultimately

become a transitional document, but we've been talking about it in terms of a

second process or a first process. That will remain in place, consistent with

the requirement around the forest development plan, for the life of that

document, which we now know has a limited life span.

MacPhail: It's not consistent, Mr. Chair. I'm sorry for interfering with the

minister's flow.

[1750]

There's an

actual amendment coming in Bill 75 that adds the requirement for the sign-off of

a professional forester to the original code requirement around site plans. We

just had this discussion about why it doesn't exist in the forest stewardship

plan. My question remains unanswered about why the requirement for the sign-off

of a professional forester is now being added, pursuant to Bill 75, to the

original code's requirements around site plan approval but remains absent in the

new process. That was my question. What led to that addition under Bill 75?

Hon.

M. de Jong: We are being drawn into a discussion now that falls squarely

within the ambit of Bill 75, but I think I understand the context within which

the discussion is taking place. I'll pursue it as best I can with the member. In

fact,

section 12 of the existing code speaks to things like silviculture

prescriptions, and if one looks at

section 12, you'll note that there is a

requirement for that silviculture prescription to be signed and sealed by a

professional forester. In fact, the amending provisions that replace the

requirements for silviculture prescriptions with a site plan, therefore,

incorporate that requirement as it presently exists within the Forest Practices

Code.

MacPhail: Let's move on. The legislation we're debating now eliminates the

requirement for a detailed map describing the location of roads and timber

harvesting. How, then, are ministry staff supposed to determine — and this

came directly from ministry staff — where they go out in the field and inspect

activities? I mean, we are talking about areas that are huge here.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I think the language here is, again, important. The need for

detailed mapping is not eliminated. In fact, it is a necessary function of

issuing the permit. What has been eliminated is the approval process that goes

with the preparation of those maps. Now, some people might be troubled by that,

but I do want to make the point that the need for that detailed mapping has not

been eliminated.

MacPhail: There will be roads which the ministry staff can travel via a site

plan. I assume that's what the minister is saying. You know, for us city kids,

it's kind of like "hee, hee, hee," but I must say that when I was

actually meeting with ministry staff on this issue, it was a huge factor.

Otherwise you're literally wandering around in the forest, searching for

something to comply, something to enforce. I take it that there will still be a

requirement to give those details.

Does that

also apply to Forestry staff that will be examining the harvesting methods and

the rehabilitation efforts too? Will that also be part of the plan?

Hon. M.

de Jong: The answer, I think, to the member's question is yes. I think we've

dealt with roads. I think the specific location of harvest activity and

reforestation activity refers to what are termed cutblocks, and the requirement

at the permitting stage for them to be laid out in detail also exists.

[1755]

MacPhail: Just to be clear, that permitting still exists even under the new

regime?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Yes.

MacPhail: My last question for the day, Mr. Chair, revolves around the

changed regime. Under the old regime, there was a requirement that the site plan

be consistent with any higher level plan. Now the higher level plans are gone,

as I understand it. Well, all right then. How will consistency be maintained,

then, between site plan and higher-level plan?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Here's the progression. I actually have a chart. Maybe at the end

of the day I can give it to the member, which is helpful.

Interjection.

Hon. M.

de Jong: It's so thin.

[ Page 4526 ]

The

progression goes as follows, Mr. Chair: higher-level plan, where it exists;

forest stewardship plan, which must be consistent with the higher-level plan;

and, thereafter, site plan, which must be consistent with both the forest

stewardship plan and the higher-level plan.

MacPhail: Well, actually, a flow chart would be helpful.

Noting the

hour, Mr. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress…. Oh, I'm

sorry. We can pass this section.

Section 10

approved.

MacPhail: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to

sit again.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 5:57 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee

of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit

again.

Hon. M. de

Jong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion

approved.

The House

adjourned at 5:58 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

In addition to providing transcripts on the Internet, Hansard

Services publishes transcripts in print and broadcasts Chamber debates on

television.

channel guide • Broadcast

schedule

Copyright ©

2002: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN: 1499-2175