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)

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2002

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 10, Number 10

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Roger Madson

W. McMahon

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Yacht-building industry

R. Sultan

CT scanner for Ridge Meadows Hospital

R. Hawes

Independent power producers

B. Penner

Oral Questions

Division of B.C. Hydro operations

J. MacPhail

Hon. R. Neufeld

Funding for Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

R. Hawes

Hon. G. Collins

J. MacPhail

Long-term care beds

J. Kwan

Hon. K. Whittred

Tabling Documents

Land and Water British Columbia Inc.

service plan report, 2001-02

Second Reading of Bills

Hansler Ozone Canada Inc. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2002 (Bill Pr403)

D. Jarvis

Gold Standard Resources Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2002 (Bill Pr404)

R. Nijjar

Acting Police Complaint Commissioner Continuation Act (Bill 77)

Hon. G. Plant

Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 72)

Hon. G. Plant

J. MacPhail

Committee of the Whole House

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

J. MacPhail

Hon. M. de Jong

K. Stewart

Reporting of Bills

Forest and Range Practices Act (Bill 74)

Second Reading of Bills

College of Applied Biology Act (Bill 76)

Hon. M. de Jong

J. MacPhail

Forests Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002 (Bill 75)

Hon. M. de Jong

J. MacPhail

[ Page 4527 ]

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2002

The House

met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

[1405]

Introductions by Members

Hamilton: Joining us this afternoon in the House are 12 students from China

who are enrolled in the MBA program at Royal Roads University. Accompanying them

is their instructor, Mr. Adelson. Would the House please join me in making them

all welcome.

S. Orr:

I have the pleasure today of introducing a terrific bunch of young people, UVic

students and a whole group of young Liberals. They are Dallas Henault, Trisha

Girard, Spencer Sproule, Robert Boyd, Adam Trombley, David Girard, Tom Grainger,

Lyssa Marcil, Patti Boyden, Arik Broadbent, Richard Wise, Agata Lis and Mike

Allison.

Also with

them is one of the parents. Her name is Patricia Girard. She is the mother of

Trisha and David Girard, and she's come here all the way from Maine to make sure

her kids are behaving.

B. Kerr:

I like introducing people in the House so much that I sometimes get to do it

twice. Yesterday I introduced Heidi Harmes, her son Ryan and friend Mark Jaeger.

Heidi had worked in this precinct for a number of years, but it turns out she's

in the House today, not yesterday, so she didn't get to hear my introduction. I

would like the House to make her feel doubly welcome today.

H. Long:

The one thing I have done is made sure the gentleman I'm going to introduce is

in the House today. I would like the House to make welcome Jeremiah Archambault,

who's here right from Victoria, actually, visiting. He's a good friend of mine,

so I'd like to make him welcome.

Tributes

ROGER MADSON

McMahon: I rise today to pay tribute to Roger Madson of Invermere, who

passed away suddenly on Sunday, November 17. Roger was born in Vancouver and

spent the majority of his life in Radium Hot Springs and Invermere. In 1970 he

founded Radium Hot Springs Glacier Skiing, and today his business operates as

R.K. Heli-Ski Panorama.

Roger was a

businessman and a pilot. Roger was an organizer both in business and in

politics. Roger was dedicated with a passion to the industry he loved:

heliskiing. At times he may not have agreed with what you had to say, but he was

always upfront about it. Roger met with many of my colleagues over the past year

and a half, raising his concerns and frustrations with an environmental review

process that has gone on and on over the past decade.

Roger

always advocated for what he believed in. During the CORE process in the early

to mid-nineties, he was always front and centre, ensuring that his tourism views

were factored in. He was a pioneer in the tourism industry in the Columbia

Valley. Being committed, he knew he could make a difference.

Untimely

deaths are often difficult to deal with. Roger was a husband to Jenny and a

father to Christy and Shaw. Roger offered his friendship openly, but you had to

earn his respect. He loved life and lived it to the fullest. He will be missed.

Statements

(Standing Order 25b)

YACHT-BUILDING INDUSTRY

Sultan: I want to pay tribute to the British Columbia yacht-building

industry. We're not talking here about millionaires' toys; we're talking about

export products built by highly skilled British Columbians using craft skills

and marine savvy based on generations of fishing, tugboating and ferry boat

operations in one of the world's toughest marine environments. In this we are

the best.

The title

of this book says it all — British Columbia Yachts: Building Dreams . We

have a tradition of construction going back to the late nineteenth century. In

the twenties, B.C. rum-runners were about as fast as anything in the world. In

1930 Bill Boeing's 125-foot Taconite , which you can see down in Coal

Harbour, became famous, and postwar wooden boats built by Grenfell are even

today lovingly restored.

[1410]

Today 5,000

people are employed in the construction and refit of luxury yachts. Fibreglass,

aluminum and steel yachts are manufactured by over a dozen boatbuilders, most of

them here in the lower mainland but also on the Island and up-coast. Our system

design, our wood joinery, our seaworthiness and our competitive pricing are now

recognized around the world. We build offshore passage-makers, sailing yachts

and custom motor yachts. We also manufacture a full complement of marine

component systems and electronics. Total economic benefit is about

three-quarters of a billion dollars a year right here in British Columbia.

Once our

customers take delivery, the best is yet to come: cruising the waters of our

inland sea, up the coast to the mid-coast and on to Prince Rupert — might even

drop in and see Mr. Belsey here.

Tied up in

Victoria's Inner Harbour right outside this Legislature, the fruits of this

industry are frequently on display. I appreciate that on 5 percent reduced

salaries, most MLAs can only dream. But if the price tags are beyond reach, the

high-paying jobs aren't, and I mean really high-paying jobs, as any shocked boat

owner will verify when presented with

[ Page 4528 ]

the bill when the boat goes back in the water. Any industry that pays so

well, brings so much money into the country and provides so much enjoyment to so

many people surely deserves our encouragement and our salute.

CT SCANNER FOR RIDGE MEADOWS HOSPITAL

Hawes: This coming Saturday, November 23, will mark the official opening of

the CT scan suite in the Ridge Meadows Hospital. This is a multi-slice CT

scanner that originally was approved as a single slice, but the community, led

by Dr. Frank Ervin, a local specialist in the Maple Ridge Hospital, and Bart

Findley, a lawyer from Maple Ridge, got together with the Ridge Meadows Hospital

Foundation and galvanized the community into putting hundreds of thousands of

dollars towards increasing or improving the CT scanner to a multi-slice scanner.

This is a tremendous innovation for Maple Ridge and for the Maple Ridge Hospital

and, indeed, for all the people in the Fraser Valley. Over the last decade the

previous government put us hundreds of millions of dollars behind in medical

equipment in our hospitals throughout the province. This is a great step forward

as we move towards repairing the damage that was done over the last decade.

On behalf

of my colleague from Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows and myself, I'd like to invite

you and anyone else who wants to come to Ridge Meadows Hospital on Saturday

afternoon from one to three for the official opening. You will find it's a great

day and, for British Columbia and the Fraser Valley, just more good news.

INDEPENDENT POWER PRODUCERS

Penner: There's been considerable public discussion of late regarding

electricity issues in a number of provinces, including British Columbia.

However, an important component has been overlooked, and that is the emergence

of an independent power producer industry in our province. On Monday I heard the

opposition leader say that IPPs can't be counted on to supply the growing

electricity needs of British Columbians. She indicated that IPPs aren't

investing anywhere at the moment. Well, IPPs certainly are investing right here

in British Columbia.

B.C. Hydro

has entered into 23 agreements with IPPs in just the past year. These agreements

will facilitate projects that, in total, will generate an average of 112

megawatts of electricity — enough to supply about 80,000 homes — and help to

meet our incremental electricity load growth.

All of

these projects are environmentally friendly; 20 of the projects are small or

microhydro developments, which divert a portion of water from creeks without

adversely affecting fish habitat. Two are biomass operations, and one will

utilize methane gas escaping from a landfill, gas that would otherwise be

wasted.

The

developers of these projects carry the financial risks, protecting taxpayers

from cost overruns or construction problems, and will sell their electricity at

a set price to B.C. Hydro, which is and will remain publicly owned. Already two

of these projects are built and delivering power — Hystad Creek near Valemount

and Raging River on Vancouver Island — creating jobs in rural communities.

This past summer I had an opportunity to visit a 30-megawatt project that is

currently under construction on Miller Creek near Pemberton. More than 100

people were working on the site when I was there, and the foreman told me that

the average wage was about $25 per hour. The owner of the project, an

Alberta-based company, has brought about $40 million into our province in order

to build just this single project.

[1415]

British

Columbia is blessed to have so many potential energy sources. We're fortunate to

have a very creative and talented private sector that can help harness that

energy for the benefit of our great province.

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

DIVISION OF B.C. HYDRO OPERATIONS

MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy says that he must carve up

B.C. Hydro into two companies because American regulators demand it if we want

to continue selling energy to them. Manitoba Hydro and Hydro-Québec also export

energy to the U.S., at a greater proportion than B.C. does, but those companies

remain whole and in public hands. In just the last few months Manitoba Hydro

signed a contract worth $1.7 billion to sell electricity to Minnesota.

To the

Minister of Energy: why does B.C. Hydro have to split into two separate

companies to meet American demands, when Manitoba Hydro and Hydro-Québec don't?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: We have consistently stated in this House and around the province

of British Columbia that B.C. Hydro will remain in public hands. If we want to

continue to trade in the Pacific Northwest, there are some steps we have to

take. That's one of them: to have transmission separate from generation. That's

exactly the way it is in the U.S.

The member

is wrong. Quebec has separated transmission from their generation and

distribution, although it remains in public hands — exactly the same way as

B.C. Hydro is.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: Yes. Actually, the minister is right. Quebec hydro is as B.C.

Hydro is now. The minister wasn't listening. He already announced that he's

separating B.C. Hydro into two companies. Or have they

[ Page 4529 ]

reversed themselves from just last week, when he announced that on radio? All

I can rely on is what the minister said just last week.

Manitoba

Hydro and Hydro-Québec live by the same American rules as B.C. Hydro, but the

Manitoba government and the Quebec government don't use those rules as an excuse

to break their companies up into pieces. They simply restructured their

administrative functions, keeping their companies whole and intact, protecting

them against the kind of incremental privatization that the member for Prince

George–Omineca warns will happen if B.C. Hydro is broken into pieces.

Will the

Minister of Energy please explain to a very suspicious public — and now to his

own back bench — why he's pushing ahead with the plan to carve up B.C. Hydro

instead of following the Manitoba model?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Mr. Speaker, it's always difficult to get a point across to that

member. I'll try again.

As we've

said, British Columbia Hydro will remain in public hands — transmission,

distribution and generation. That is exactly the same way that it is in Quebec

and the same as it is in Manitoba. We're doing the same as Quebec and Manitoba

have done. They have separated their transmission aside from generation —

still owned by the Crown, still owned by Quebec hydro. Transmission will still

be owned by B.C. Hydro. In fact, transmission will always be owned by B.C.

Hydro. We have committed to that. We will continue to commit to that.

We're going

to keep it in public hands. We're looking forward to keeping prices as low as we

possibly can for consumers in the province of British Columbia. There are some

steps we're going to take to make sure that happens.

[1420]

Mr.

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

MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, it's….

Interjections.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: It's no wonder this minister has caused so much anxiety and

concern about the future of B.C. Hydro, because he doesn't have a clue what's

going on in other jurisdictions. It probably is because he doesn't care. It

doesn't work for their agenda. But let me read from a letter sent just this

morning from Manitoba's director of energy policy.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

MacPhail: Just this morning, he says: "The previous government"

— actually, he says it's the previous Conservative government — "looked

at deregulating the retail market but rejected going down that route. In

hindsight, that was the best decision for Manitobans. Manitoba Hydro has been

able to satisfy U.S. requirements, thereby protecting its export business at the

same time as keeping the utility whole and in Crown hands."

Before the

minister uses any more phony excuses about needing to carve up B.C. Hydro, will

he agree to release the top-secret energy task force report and commit to a full

public consultation on his plans to break up B.C. Hydro?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: The member she refers to, who is not in this House today, and she

are both wrong. They just don't get it. We are not selling B.C. Hydro. We are

not going to market rates. We are not deregulating, as a lot of other provinces

have. We're going to keep it in public hands.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Let me read to you very quickly….

Interjections.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Can you listen? I listened to you. I listened to you.

Interjections.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Let me read what Quebec has done, for your information, so it will

be in the record: "Quebec has functionally separated under common

management…." That's exactly the same as what we are doing. "They

have adopted the….

Interjections.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Listen up.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Listen. Mr. Speaker, this was….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: This was the group that was going to sell B.C. Hydro. We're not

selling B.C. Hydro. They were the ones that were going to sell B.C. Hydro.

Mr.

Speaker, I just want to finish this one sentence. "They have adopted the

FERC open access transmission tariff, which allowed them to receive a power

[ Page 4530 ]

marketers authorization to transact in the U.S., same as B.C. Hydro's

wholesale transmission tariff."

FUNDING FOR CANADIAN CENTRE

FOR POLICY ALTERNATIVES

Hawes: The Canadian Taxpayers Federation has learned that in the dying days

of the previous NDP government, $200,000 of taxpayers' money was handed out to

the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, a left-wing think tank, with no

strings attached.

An Hon.

Member: Didn't they write your Hydro stuff?

Hawes: In fact…. That's where this Hydro stuff came from, I think.

The

previous government spent this money in contravention of their own government

policy. To the Minister of Finance: given the underhanded way this money was

shovelled out to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, is there any way

for our government to reclaim this money?

Hon. G.

Collins: I think it's true….

MacPhail: CCPA was a major source for you in March of 2000 — major.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

[1425]

Hon. G.

Collins: That's right, Mr. Speaker. They were, because they contradicted

what the NDP government was doing at the time. However, I've never given them

any taxpayer money despite government policy.

Now, we all

know about the long, close relationship between the Canadian Centre for Policy

Alternatives and the NDP government. But I think what is a surprise is the fact

that in the very dying days of the NDP government, within days of the election,

the NDP government and the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, as a member of

Treasury Board, ushered through $200,000 in taxpayers' money to that agency

despite government guidelines. I'm going to ask the Deputy Minister of Finance

to investigate whether that was done properly. If it wasn't, I'm going to demand

that money be repaid to the taxpayers of British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order. Order, please. No one has the floor at the moment. Thank

you. If we cannot get some decorum into question period, it will be terminated

immediately. The member for Maple Ridge–Mission has the floor.

Hawes: Not only did the previous government shovel that $200,000 out, but

they paid $35,000 a year for an enhanced government subscription to the Canadian

Centre for Policy Alternatives, which gave them 50 copies of their monthly

newsletter that's available for free on their website. However, interestingly,

the Manitoba NDP government had a similar subscription, except they only paid

$15,000 and received 100 newsletters. In other words, the NDP government in B.C.

paid about $700 a newsletter, and their cousins in Manitoba paid only $150 for

the same thing.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hawes: To the Minister of Finance: was the previous NDP government swindled,

or were they once again using taxpayer dollars to pad the pockets of their

buddies?

Interjection.

Hon. G.

Collins: I hear the voice, the ever-attentive voice, of the former Minister

of Finance, the member for Vancouver-Hastings, saying to check the Legislative

Library. I doubt there are 50 copies of the Canadian Centre for Policy

Alternatives….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G.

Collins: I guess it's not surprising for the people of British Columbia when

you think that the previous NDP government, with the member for

Vancouver-Hastings sitting in the Finance chair and various other positions in

cabinet, actually spent $400 million-and-some for $70 million worth of fast

ferries. It's probably no surprise to the taxpayers of British Columbia when

they know that the member opposite, as the head of ICBC, paid $312 million for a

$100 million building in Surrey. It's probably no surprise, knowing that

information, that they paid seven times — or whatever it was — what they

paid in Manitoba than what they did here in British Columbia. I guess it just

goes to prove that the NDP in Manitoba are a heck of a lot smarter than the NDP

in British Columbia.

LONG-TERM CARE BEDS

J. Kwan:

Jim and his wife Frances O'Conner have lived in the Kootenays for 57 years. Jim

is 78; his wife is 77. Frances O'Conner has been living with Alzheimer's for the

last six years. Recently Jim had major abdominal surgery, and he's had a weak

heart. Frances has been in a respite bed since July, but because of government

cuts to long-term care beds in the Kootenays, Frances will be sent home next

week to live with her

[ Page 4531 ]

very ill husband. He can't take care of her. They're both too sick.

To the

Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care: is this her idea of

a care plan for seniors — to force one very sick senior to take care of

another?

[1430]

Hon. K.

Whittred: This snapshot of this couple in the Kootenays exemplifies the very

reason we have put in place a plan to add 5,000 beds to the system for long-term

care. The previous government was in power for ten years. Do you know how many

beds they added to the system? One thousand in ten years. We are committed to

5,000 beds in five years.

Mr.

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

question.

J. Kwan:

Frances O'Conner had a bed before this government started to shut down long-term

care facilities. Francis and Jim have pleaded with the government for help.

They've written to the Premier; they've written to the Minister for Long Term

Care. Their daughter told the minister that her family has to come to the

realization that if they do not get the 24-hour care for their mother, there

will be a disaster. The Premier wrote back, telling them to explore other

options. The clock is ticking. Next week Frances will be forced out to go back

home into the care of her husband, who is just unable to provide the physical

and mental care or to have the stamina to provide the support for his wife.

Will the

minister ensure that by the end of the week, long-term care is provided for

Frances O'Conner?

Hon. K.

Whittred: We are the first and, as far as I know, the only government in

Canada to put in place a long-range plan to deal with the very challenging

problems. We are committed, and we have…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. K.

Whittred: …a plan in place to provide 3,500 units, which is the first

stage of meeting our commitment for 5,000 beds.

[End

of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon.

S. Hagen: I have the honour to present the service plan report for Land and

Water British Columbia Inc. for the year 2001-02.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call second reading of Bill Pr403.

Second Reading of Bills

HANSLER OZONE CANADA INC.(CORPORATE

RESTORATION) ACT, 2002

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

This bill

is to restore the company named Hansler Ozone Canada Inc. to the registrar of

companies and deem it to have continued in existence.

Motion

approved.

Jarvis: By leave, I move that the bill be referred to the Committee of the

Whole to be considered forthwith.

Leave not

granted.

Jarvis: I move that the bill be placed to the committee in House to be read

at the next sitting.

Mr.

Speaker: The motion is that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole

House for the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Collins: I'm glad. I expect that the people from Hansler Ozone Canada Inc.

will be pleased to see what just happened here on the floor of the House today.

Bill Pr403,

Hansler Ozone Canada Inc. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2002, read a second time

and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call second reading of Bill Pr404.

[1435]

GOLD STANDARD RESOURCES LTD.

(CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2002

Nijjar: I move the bill be now read a second time. This bill is to restore

the company name, Gold Standard Resources Ltd., to the registrar of companies

and deem it to have been continued in existence.

Motion

approved.

Nijjar: By leave, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the

Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Leave not

granted.

Nijjar: I move that Bill Pr404 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

at the next sitting.

Motion

approved.

Bill

Pr404, Gold Standard Resources Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2002, read a

second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at

the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 4532 ]

Hon. G.

Collins: I call second reading of Bill 77.

ACTING POLICE COMPLAINT

COMMISSIONER CONTINUATION ACT

Hon. G.

Plant: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time. This

bill extends the appointment of the acting police complaint commissioner until a

permanent commissioner is appointed by the Legislative Assembly. I am pleased to

say I'm speaking to second reading on behalf of my colleague the Minister of

Public Safety and Solicitor General.

When the

police complaint commissioner resigned earlier this year, cabinet appointed an

acting commissioner while the Special Committee to Appoint a Police Complaint

Commissioner began the search for a permanent commissioner. Under the terms of

the Police Act, the acting commissioner can only serve for 20 sitting days of

the Legislature after appointment. When that formula is applied to the

circumstances of the present case, the result is that the term of the acting

commissioner expires on November 21, 2002. The Police Act makes no provision for

the reappointment or extended appointment of an acting commissioner while the

Legislature is sitting.

The Special

Committee to Appoint a Police Complaint Commissioner has been hard at work.

However, its work is not complete. We need to give that special committee the

time it needs to recommend the best candidate possible to ensure that the office

and the public interest are well served in the future. It is in the public

interest to have the position continue to be filled by an acting commissioner

while the search continues so there is someone with decision-making authority to

discharge the functions of the commissioner under the act, including the

acceptance of complaints and the investigation and disposal of complaints

against municipal police officers.

It is also,

however, important that the Legislature respect the basic framework of autonomy

represented by the appointment provisions in the act. By that, I mean that the

decision with respect to the selection and appointment of the police complaint

commissioner as an officer of the Legislature is a decision for this

Legislature, not a decision for cabinet.

With that

in mind, the bill has been drafted in a way to ensure that the extension of the

appointment or the continuation of the appointment is not indefinite.

Accordingly, the bill, by its own operation, will be repealed on March 31, 2003,

or sooner if prescribed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Our intention is

to repeal the bill as soon as a permanent police complaint commissioner is

appointed, as there will no longer be any need for this bill.

Motion

approved.

[1440]

Hon. G.

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

be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 77,

Acting Police Complaint Commissioner Continuation Act, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting

of the House after today.

Hon. G.

Plant: As Government House Leader, I call second reading of Bill 72.

LOBBYISTS REGISTRATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002.

Hon. G.

Plant: I move that Bill 72 be now be read a second time. This bill amends

the Lobbyists Registration Act to close a loophole that would have allowed

consultant lobbyists, who are currently engaged in a lobbying undertaking on

behalf of a client, to avoid registration. The loophole is unintended, and in

fact, the exemption in the act before this bill comes forward…. The exemption

made sense when the act was passed in August of 2001. The idea of a lobbyists

registration act was a new concept and an advance in open and transparent

government not seen before in British Columbia.

At the time

the act was drafted and introduced and debated in the House in the summer of

2001, it was, in our view, quite reasonable to exempt current undertakings from

registration on the basis of an argument that those who were in the business of

consultant lobbying could not at that time have anticipated or prepared for the

requirement to register.

That was

then, and this is now. Fifteen months have passed, and during those 15 months,

we have developed a totally new system to handle the registry. What has also

happened, of course, is that lobbyists have had the opportunity to familiarize

themselves with the basic requirements of the act and the registry itself, so

the requirement to register is no longer a surprise.

We're

speaking here about the consultant lobbyists. They are one of the three groups

of lobbyists that are required to file under this act. As you may know, some

lobbying undertakings are short-term. Many, however, will last for several

months or even years. If we miss the opportunity to capture these ongoing

contracts, we will fail in our goal to provide the people of British Columbia

with the full disclosure of lobbying activities that we promised when we passed

this act as one of the first initiatives of the new government in 2001, so we

have drafted the amendment.

The

amendment is intended to capture those existing lobbying undertakings — that

is, agreements to undertake specific lobbying activities for a client on

specific issues for specific periods of time. I should make it clear, however,

that this amendment does not require consultant lobbyists to register retainers

to lobby. However, as soon as the retainer is activated and the consultant

begins a specific undertaking, that undertaking will have to be registered and a

fee paid. The result is that there may be several undertakings that will have to

be registered within the course of the retainer. If, however, the retainer is

never activated and no lobbying is actually done under the retainer, there

[ Page 4533 ]

will be no need to register. It's not the fact of the retainer but the

activity of lobbying that is the public policy object of the act and this

amendment.

This bill

also amends

section 11(2)(

c) of the act to expand the reasons that the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may set different registration fees or waive

those fees. Different fees may be set, or the fees may now be waived, based on

the time when a registration is submitted or on the class of lobbyists. This

will allow the flexibility to address expeditiously any unforeseen unfairnesses

or anomalies in the fee structure.

[1445]

This is a

new undertaking. It is, I believe, an exciting undertaking, and it is a new step

forward in putting in place government in British Columbia which is open, which

is transparent and which is also accountable. I am certain these amendments will

improve a scheme that was basically sound when it was introduced and will ensure

that as we continue to get the registry up and running, it will serve the public

interest that lies behind it. I urge all members to continue to support the

initiative generally and this particular amendment which is before the House in

these provisions in this bill.

Sultan: I seek leave to acknowledge the presence in the Legislature of a

visiting group of students from Handsworth Secondary School.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Sultan: Handsworth Secondary School in North Vancouver, in my riding, is one

of the jewels in the crown of the North Shore's secondary school system. They

strive to achieve their personal best in all areas. They have a well-balanced

program of both athletics and cultural activity. The teachers are extremely

dedicated. In fact, I think Handsworth is an example of how our school districts

in the North Shore have adapted very flexibly to the new arrangements under the

new era. I just wanted to acknowledge their presence in the Legislature. They

are having a tour.

Interjection.

Sultan: It's fabulous.

Anyway, I

won't go on describing the glories of Handsworth. I just wanted to acknowledge

the presence in the Legislature of this fine institution.

Debate Continued

Mr.

Speaker: The question, hon. members, is second reading of Bill 72, the

Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, 2002.

[1450]

MacPhail: Thank you to the Attorney General for giving me an opportunity to

speak at second reading.

This is an

amendment that, while the Attorney General needs to be congratulated for quickly

amending the legislation to fill a huge loophole that was in the legislation

that was amending the original legislation…. Let's see, this is the second

amendment to the legislation before it's even been put in place. It was to close

a loophole that actually was identified very quickly by the opposition, and then

the media raised it with the Attorney General. It was to say that lobbyists who

currently hold contracts and are lobbying the government have to also register

as lobbyists.

congratulations to the Attorney General for closing the loophole. I am taken

aback a little that the loophole was there in the first place. It was such a

substantial loophole that one has to question why the Attorney General didn't

know about it, and one has to question why the Attorney General didn't know

about it when it was because of his own news release that the opposition quickly

identified the loophole and then brought it to the media.

It is

important for us to make sure this lobbyist registration works properly. I

actually happened to go onto the site shortly after its introduction. Maybe it

was just startup. Maybe it was just a situation where somebody was testing the

lobbyist registration, but when I looked at the people who had registered, they

were joke names. They were sort of like high school people who had registered in

jest. The media didn't seem to be interested in that, so that's why I'm bringing

it to the Attorney General's attention.

Even though

there's a rather late, slow start to this lobbyist registration, I hope that

people take it very seriously. Now that the loophole is closed and that

everybody — people who have current contracts and people with new contracts

— has to register, it should work well. We'll be monitoring it closely. If

there have been jokesters registering that weren't just tests of the system,

we'll have to figure out a way to prevent that from happening so British

Columbians can take this very seriously.

I guess

when the Liberal government actually allows the public to see what legislation's

intent is, when they announce transparently what the intent is and find out very

quickly that the intent is not what British Columbians want and then come in and

amend the legislation, that's good. That's the way the system should work.

Hon. G.

Plant: I agree with many of the comments of the member opposite. I'll

certainly go back and scrutinize Hansard from last summer, because one

thing I recall from looking at it when this issue first arose was that,

actually, it was not identified on the floor of the House by anyone who

participated in the debate. It is certainly unfortunate that the matter arose.

It was not discovered until later.

I'm sure

that all of us as members collectively, both government and opposition, hang our

heads in shame that we did not introduce an amendment then, as would have been

easily possible to do, had the matter been identified — as easy, actually, for

the opposition

[ Page 4534 ]

as for government to do, in fact, had the matter been identified. Sadly, the

matter was not identified then either by opposition or by government.

Fortunately, however, I think it was identified in time to ensure….

Oh, I'm

sorry.

An Hon.

Member: I'll wait.

Hon. G.

Plant: Fortunately, however, it has been identified in time to make sure

that it's part of the scheme as it gets up and running. I will be as interested

as the member opposite in following the development of this registry to be sure

it is subscribed to seriously by those who are required to file. Since I suspect

I have a moment or two to speak about the registry, maybe I could say this.

[1455]

One of the

things we looked at when we were designing this model a year ago last summer was

the experience in Ontario and in the federal registry, which are the two other

registries that exist in Canada. We tried to borrow what we thought was the best

of their structures and put in place something that is also a made-in-B.C.

solution and meets the public policy objective of transparency and openness,

without becoming an exercise in regulating the profession of lobbying.

But as we

did that research — and as I had done the research in the years before then,

when I was thinking about this initiative — I did discover that in both

Ontario and the federal registry, there is from time to time a tendency to take

the provisions of the statute and the requirement to register and to construe

them narrowly and legalistically. I recognize that all statutes are intended to

be lodged, and people are free to do the best they can to read about their

obligations and try to ensure that they organize their affairs in a way that

they believe is consistent with those obligations. But there is this tendency

from time to time to look at the basic spirit of the requirement to register and

respond to it in a very technical and legalistic way. I hope that is not the

experience that we have in British Columbia. I hope the experience we have in

British Columbia is that the different categories of lobbyists who are intended

to be caught by this act will recognize that the burden of registration is not

great, the fees are relatively modest and the information that's required to be

disclosed is not overwhelming or, frankly, that intrusive.

I hope

we'll see that there is a recognition that this is a statute that can serve us

all well. It will serve government well. It should serve the public interest.

But I also think it can perhaps serve the profession of lobbying well if those

who engage in lobbying read the act and look at its obligations from the

perspective of ensuring that they comply with the spirit as well as the strict

letter of the law.

It's early

days yet. I don't doubt that there will be a few more growing pains as we move

through the months to come. But I'm confident that these amendments will help

ensure that we get on the right footing, and I look forward to the support of

the House in bringing them to enactment.

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

Deputy

Speaker: The motion is second reading of Bill 72.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

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

for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Bill

72, Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, 2002, read a second time and referred

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

House after today.

[1500]

Hon. G.

Plant: I call committee stage debate on Bill 74.

Committee of the Whole House

FOREST AND RANGE PRACTICES ACT

(continued)

The

House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 74; H. Long in the chair.

The

committee met at 3:01 p.m.

Sections 11

and 12 approved.

section

MacPhail:

Section 13 is entitled "Content of woodlot licence

plan." The

section is similar to

section 5 in this bill, which outlines

requirements for forest stewardship plans, but there are some differences that I

would appreciate having an explanation of.

Section

13(1), dealing with the woodlot licence plan, requires a map, which includes

providing "prescribed information about forest resources." Could the

minister explain what this requirement is and why it's necessary here but not in

the forest stewardship plans?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I'll just make a couple of general comments and then, hopefully,

answer the member's question. Philosophically, we have tried to reflect in this

section the realization and the fact that woodlots are smaller entities of 400

to 600 hectares. We've tried to simplify the planning process for them.

The other

significant departure from the forest stewardship plan is that there is not a

requirement on the woodlot side of things for subsequent site plans. The more

detailed mapping that a licensee would be required to do following the

acceptance of the forest stewardship plan in order to get cutting permits and

road permits…. A similar requirement doesn't exist here, so we thought it made

sense to include something of a mapping requirement at the stage where the

woodlot licence plan was presented.

[ Page 4535 ]

MacPhail: So is it size that matters?

Interjections.

Hon. M.

de Jong: That's never been my position, hon. Chair. [Laughter.] But it

certainly has a relevance; so I'm advised.

[1505]

That's not

the only consideration. The fact is that there is a mapping requirement with the

forest stewardship plan, and there is one here as well. It's obviously a much

smaller land area, but because that mapping requirement isn't attached to, for

example, a site plan on the woodlot side of things, we thought it made sense to

include it at the stage in the process where the plan itself is filed.

MacPhail:

Section 13(2) lists the same subjects of objectives set by

government that were listed in

section 5, and we had a thorough discussion of

the intent there on the forest stewardship plans. Will the objectives of these

ten subjects be the same for the forest stewardship plans and woodlot licences?

Perhaps, if there are distinctions, the minister could outline them.

Hon. M.

de Jong: With the exception of those values listed in subsection (3), the

answer is yes. For example, if you have a woodlot licence contained within a

particular TSA for which these objectives have been set, they must be met within

the context of the woodlot licence plan in the same way that they must be met

within the context of a forest stewardship plan.

MacPhail: Subsection (3) has some exceptions. Maybe that's not the right

word. Let me ask about subsection (3), which says that a woodlot licence need

not be consistent with objectives set by government referred to in subsection

(2) to the extent that those objectives pertain to retention of old forest,

seral stage distribution, landscape connectivity or temporal and spatial

distribution of cutblocks.

Could the

minister just outline for the record why those are exempted?

Hon. M.

de Jong: In fact, in this case it really is a matter of size. These are

features that have application over a much broader area than a 400- or

600-hectare woodlot licence. The ability to practically apply them on that scale

simply isn't there.

MacPhail: Are there any consultation requirements around woodlot licence

plans and objectives? There's no specific reference to consultations here, but

are they occurring? Are they occurring now? If so, what are they, or what's the

intent?

Hon. M.

de Jong: In fact, they do occur now, and pursuant to

section 18 of this

bill, there is a requirement that they continue to occur.

MacPhail: How does that occur? I had a presentation, along with my

colleagues, from the woodlot licensee association — one woodlot licensee

association, anyway. Is there only one in the province? Is that the body with

which the government is consulting?

Hon. M.

de Jong: There is certainly a provincial body, and then there are regional

components to that provincial body. I can't recall offhand how many regional

units there are. I'm familiar with the one in the Fraser Valley and in the

Stewart area. I can get that information for the member.

[1510]

Sections 13

to 15 inclusive approved.

section

MacPhail: Mr. Chair, this is the

section entitled "Approval of forest

stewardship plan, woodlot licence plan or amendment." We'll be spending a

bit of time on this

section — well, I guess not that much but a little bit.

I've raised

some of the concerns under

section 5 about the approval process of forest

stewardship plans. Let me ask the minister this: what's the process that will be

followed by ministry staff to determine if the forest stewardship plan's results

or strategies are likely to achieve the objectives set by government? What's the

process that will be followed by ministry staff to approve, sign off on

approval, so that the forest stewardship plan's results and strategies are

likely to achieve the objectives set by government?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I'll start with the process, and then the member may have questions

about the considerations that are employed during the course of that process. We

expect that a stakeholder would present a forest stewardship plan at the

district office level. The district manager would then assign a team of

individuals within the office to conduct the review of the plan and would apply

some tests, which I can go into in a moment for the member. Our hope is that

within a period of 30 days, assuming that the plan is complete, that review

process would itself be completed and the proponent would receive either an

approval or, as the legislation sets out, reasons for non-approval.

MacPhail: Will there be actual visits by ministry staff? What's the actual

hands-on approach that the ministry staff will do in evaluating the plans?

[1515]

Hon. M.

de Jong: Hon. Chair, first, I neglected to inform the member — through you

— that the expectation is that in advance of preparing and submitting the

forest stewardship plan, the proponent would actually sit down with the district

manager and review what the expectations from the Crown side were. There would

be that discussion, which presumably would influence to some extent the content

of the plan itself.

[ Page 4536 ]

The

member's particular question related to the possibility or the likelihood of

site visits. There will certainly be circumstances where that is deemed

necessary or more necessary. I'll give the member an example where I think it

would be entirely legitimate to expect a site visit. Earlier in these debates we

canvassed around the discussion of objectives. We talked about riparian zones

and the fact that there would be some detail maintained around riparian zones. I

think I also said to the member that the option under this legislation does

exist for a licensee to make the argument that those default positions should be

varied in unique circumstances and that the onus would fall to the licensee or

proponent to demonstrate why that could be done without compromising the overall

objectives. I think that is a case where a site visit would make sense. That's

one example. I can think of others where, at this stage of the process, Forest

Service staff would want to examine on a site-specific basis.

MacPhail: I think it was yesterday that the minister reported that the

reduction to the approval of one plan would eliminate 1,000 pieces of paper. I

think it was 1,000 forms or 100,000. Is that figure of 100,000 per approval or

provincewide?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Provincewide.

MacPhail: My next area that I wish to explore is: how does the current

approval process, even though it involves just one plan, differ from the

previous approval process? What are the forms…? How is the 100,000 made up?

Just let me ask this: in the context of the approval of the forest stewardship

plan, how is that process different than the forest development plan? Now I'm

not talking about the site plan but just the forest development plan approval.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I think there are two parts to the member's question. The bulk of

that paper at this stage relates to the silviculture prescriptions that flow

back and forth between government and licensees. That accounts for a goodly

portion of the 100,000 documents that I referred to last day. In broad terms,

I'm not sure the review process undertaken at a district office would be that

different as between a forest development plan and a forest stewardship plan,

although admittedly the document itself and the contents of the document and

what is being measured and actually reviewed will be quite different.

[1520]

MacPhail: Could the minister outline the differences, please ?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Hopefully, this is helpful. Under a forest development plan, given

the legislative regime that gives it its existence, the licensee is really

charged with the task of demonstrating how they are going to, during the course

of their operations, conform with a prescribed set of rules.

That

contrasts with a document which — again, broadly speaking — charges the

proponent with, first of all, in part setting objectives that are consistent

with the government values set out in regulation and higher-level plans and also

obligates that licensee to demonstrate how they will be meeting those objectives

and achieving those results. There is that fundamental difference in content

that should reveal itself.

MacPhail: To whom are the plans submitted?

Hon. M.

de Jong: To the district manager.

MacPhail: I understand there are 11 district offices that will be closed.

How does that work? What impact does that have? Have you taken into account the

timing for approval that will now, I'm sure, change because of the closing of 11

district offices?

[1525]

Hon. M.

de Jong: Well, one of the obvious results of the closures the member has

referred to is that for some proponents, they will be sending or transporting

their proposed forest stewardship plans a further distance if they are located

in centres that no longer have a forest district office. As this legislation has

been developed, the executive within the Forest Service have modelled and, I am

advised, are confident that we can, in virtually all cases, meet the 30-day test

we have set for ourselves. Admittedly, that is something we will need to attract

to ensure we are meeting the performance objective.

MacPhail: I'm sorry, but is the 30 days set as an objective separate and

apart from the legislation?

Hon. M.

de Jong: The 30 days is not set out in legislation. It is an objective we

have set.

Sections

16 and 17 approved.

section

MacPhail: This is the

section that deals with review and comment of the

forest stewardship plan where there is a requirement for the plan or amendment

to be publicly available for review and comment before submitting the plan or

amendment to the minister for approval. That's why I ask the question. So the

30-day approval time is after the forest stewardship plan is submitted to the

district office? The minister is nodding his head yes. What does the minister

anticipate in urging proponents to put forward as a time frame for the review

and comment period?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I think it will vary. Although we do intend to bring some

regulatory guidance, I think it's fair to point out to the member that what is

reasonable in one circumstance or location may be entirely unreasonable in

another — in a very isolated part of the province where there are no

additional licensed

[ Page 4537 ]

interests or no first nations interests engaged. A different length of time

will be appropriate in a situation where the opposite holds true. The test that

will be applied in measuring whether or not the review and comment period has

been reasonable is a subjective one, but we will endeavour to provide some

regulatory guidance.

MacPhail: Will the regulatory guidance also stipulate…? I mean, there's a

difference, in my view, between review and comment. There could be a review and

comment that doesn't involve public scrutiny. Will there also be an indication

through regulation about how long the plan has to be available to the public

before it can be submitted?

Hon. M.

de Jong: That is the case now, and it strikes me that if…. Well, the

member asked the question. It strikes me that it's a reasonable proposition to

suggest a minimum specified period. But as I say, in some cases a minimum period

may not in and of itself be reasonable, given the circumstances surrounding the

application.

[1530]

MacPhail: This is a two-part question. Will the ministry play any role in

informing the public that there are plans to be considered? Secondly, will the

ministry staff review the submissions and comments made during this period of

time prior to deciding the fate of the application?

Hon. M.

de Jong: The answer to the second question is yes. Obviously, that will

become a fundamental feature of passing judgment within the approval process,

and there is that obligation imposed on proponents.

The first

question, I think, focused on whether or not the Crown, via the Forest Service,

will itself have responsibility for the distribution of information to

interested parties. The answer to that is no, but it will exercise a very

significant role in determining whether what the proponent has done meets the

reasonableness test.

MacPhail: I want to just explore for a moment the consultation process,

because the minister did earlier in the discussion refer me to this section,

section 18, about the issue of consultation. We've had some discussion about it,

but I am particularly concerned about the issue of consultation and review and

comment that's available to first nations.

The reason

why I am particularly concerned about it is because the industry itself is

raising concern about the lack of investor confidence in British Columbia.

They've done that very recently. My experience has been that the reason why

there's any concern amongst investors is lack of certainty of land use. Part of

that concern — a substantial amount — arises because the market campaigns

we've managed in this province to ameliorate their concerns, and I hope we

continue to do that…. So most of the concern about lack of certainty arises

out of first nations treaty claims, treaty negotiations. There is also a body of

law that we have discussed very briefly that concerns what I would call a

different right to consultation entrenched now in law for first nations who are

in treaty negotiations.

I know the

minister has seen the letter from the Carrier-Sekani tribal council dated

November 7. Their concern is specifically around consultation around the Forest

Practices Code. It's dated November 7, so it's after the introduction of this

legislation. They still are concerned about consultation. I'll just read the

concluding paragraph. If the minister doesn't have the letter in front of him,

I'm happy to provide him with a copy. I know he gets a lot of correspondence.

What they

have said is — this is from Mavis Erickson, who's the tribal chief of Carrier-Sekani

tribal council:

would also like to note that your deputy minister stated that the Ministry

of Forests would work with these groups to create an area-based first

nations tenure for legislation. To date no discussions on the creation of

this tenure have commenced. We request that a meeting be arranged with this

group and your assistant deputy minister to receive a response to the paper

and initiate negotiations on November 28 in Vancouver."

[1535]

Now, that's

one. I know that's on the issue of tenure. The previous part of the letter also

says: "We're still waiting for the consultation on Forest Practices

Code." They do refer to the forum that the minister had, but the parties

agreed that it wasn't consultation on the Forest Practices Code.

I'm aware

of first nations both in the First Nations Summit and the Union of B.C. Indian

Chiefs specifying at the very beginning of every meeting now whether the

government considers this to constitute consultation, and there was an agreement

that it didn't.

I'm just

curious. In order to ensure investor confidence and allow our forest sector to

thrive — always in a sustainable way, but in order to allow them to thrive —

we need to have certainty around land use. That begins with first nations

ensuring that their legal right to consultation takes place. Perhaps the

minister could help me in a little more specific way, because after our dialogue

around this issue — I'm not sure whether it was yesterday or the day before

— I did receive feedback that the concerns are still there. What can the

minister hold out in the way of ensuring adequate consultation around the Forest

Practices Code for first nations?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I think, first of all, the observation offered by the member around

the importance of working towards the resolution of some of these issues as a

way of establishing a greater degree of certainty, and the economic benefits

which flow from that, are arguments that I think are beyond any question and are

certainly ones I agree with.

For those

that look at these or any other legislative provisions and ask about the

obligations that the

[ Page 4538 ]

Crown has vis-à-vis first nations, I would hasten to respond that we intend

to discharge those duties fully not just because there is a legal requirement to

do so, but in large measure because of the reasons the member has alluded to.

The establishment of that certainty has benefits for first nations, non–first

nations and the province as a whole. This legislation specifically refers to

first nations in ways that the existing Forest Practices Code does not. I would

point to those provisions as a signal that we take that duty seriously.

Similarly,

I would point…. I think there are people who are much more interested in what

governments do than what they say. I'm not sure that if I spoke for the next

five hours in this House, I would entirely eliminate doubts or concerns. What I

can say is that in the consultation exercise leading up to the tabling of this

legislation, we did meet with first nations, and there are tangible examples of

how we responded to their concerns, particularly with respect to the values that

we intend to manage for. Cultural values are set out. That is in direct response

to suggestions and submissions we received from first nations.

The Crown

primarily has duties in this respect, and we intend to discharge those duties.

The courts recently are issuing pronouncements around other duties that may or

may not exist, and to the extent that those are confirmed judicially, those

obligations and duties must be upheld by the parties they affect. It is an

evolving matter.

[1540]

Lastly, I

will say this to the member. When I and, I think, my colleagues meet with first

nations, in most cases our interest is to proceed with the dialogue that will

help us achieve solutions. What I said to the group at the meeting in Richmond,

which the member is referring to, was: "I don't want us to get bogged down

in how we characterize this meeting. What I want us to do is meet and find some

solutions." So if it is significant to you that this not be labelled

consultation within the legal meanings of that term, then don't. I want to talk,

and I want us to move forward, and I want us to develop some economic

opportunities for first nations.

MacPhail: I understand that it's subjective, and believe you me, I haven't

had any first nations in any way characterize the relationship as unworkable.

But they also are fully aware of their legal rights, as the minister said. How

would the minister characterize the ability to move forward in a way that will

actually reach practical resolution of this matter, in a way that will

contribute to investor confidence?

Hon. M.

de Jong: The entire legislative regime — and not just the Forest and Range

Practices Act, but the Forest Act itself — is designed, firstly, to make

provision for the Crown discharging its duty as it relates to first nations and,

at the Forest Act stage, to preclude the possibility of issuance of licence

rights without ensuring that those duties have been properly discharged. The

proof is always in the acting. The provisions requiring the discharge by the

Crown of its duties are there, and we intend to abide by and fulfil those

duties.

Sections 18

to 21 inclusive approved.

section

MacPhail: This is the

section of the act that deals with roads. We've had

some discussion earlier on approval for roads, but perhaps the minister could

explain the changes here in terms of the shift from the original Forest

Practices Code to this new act. Let me put it out. What I'm looking for is

clarification on

section 22 in relation, again, to Bill 75 — about to be

debated — which repeals and/or amends several sections of the Forest Practices

Code that deal with roads.

I think the

minister and I have an agreement on this. We both understand — particularly, I

now fully understand — that there are two processes, the old process and the

new process, and that proponents can choose either. But at the same time that

we're introducing this new road

section for the new process, the government is

amending the old process in a way that changes…. The gap is even bigger

between the two processes now. Perhaps the minister could explain the thinking.

[1545]

Hon. M.

de Jong: Maybe what I'll do, for the purpose of the discussion, is compare

the Forest Practices Code process No. 1, as amended by Bill 75, to the regime

that would exist under this act. I think the short answer is this: under process

No. 1 that will remain in effect for a little more than two years, there is

still something of an approval process for specific roadworks,

whereas under

this regime, except insofar as roads will be referred to in a general way in the

forest stewardship plan and although roads will show up on a subsequent site

plan, they are not approved by the Crown in the way that they were and would be

under the Forest Practices Code. That's probably the fundamental difference.

MacPhail:

Section 22(2) states: "A person must not use, construct,

maintain or deactivate a road" — this is under Bill 74 — "except

in accordance with this Act, the regulations, the standards and any forest

stewardship plan or a woodlot licence plan, if the road is…." It goes on

to list some qualifications. Will it be that the clear guidelines for the

requirements will be established by regulation? Is that the intent?

It says

here: "…in accordance with this Act, the regulations…." What

section in here permits regulations to be established around roads? That's what

I'm asking.

Hon. M.

de Jong: The statutory provision that enables the creation of regulations

relating to roads is

section 155(c).

[1550]

MacPhail: Thank you very much to the minister.

[ Page 4539 ]

How much of

the road design legislation in the Forest Practices Code, which I think is

sections 53 through 56, will still apply? In other words, I don't think there

are any amendments in 75 to 53 and 56 of the current code. Is there a difference

between licence holders if they use the old system and those using the new

system? Now, the minister has kind of answered that question, but let me just

tell him finally where I'm going on this. Even though the new process is a broad

overview and the old process is a very specific overview, are there two

completely different processes that will now be put in place for the different

plans during the transition period?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I think there were two questions: one relating to the provisions of

the Forest Practices Code and whether they will continue to apply. For people

who are operating within the context of the existing Forest Practices Code, all

of those provisions will continue to apply through the life of that document —

a little more than two years — until that person makes the shift to a forest

stewardship plan.

The second

question about the differences is, I think, an excellent question. It does go to

the heart of a lot of the input that I have received over the last two or three

months from many affected parties, so I thank the member for her question. What

they have said to me is that at a practical level, this doesn't really change

what they do on the ground. They are still going to have to employ those

practices. It won't alter in large measure their on-the-ground practices. It

will provide them with a degree of flexibility when they are confronted by a

unique set of circumstances not contemplated by a standard set of rules, and it

will also — I need to acknowledge — ultimately remove much of that bank of

prescribed regulation that governs every facet of road construction, maintenance

and deactivation. But in large measure what I am told and what we will be

watching for is to ensure that on-the-ground practices remain consistent with

the highest standards.

Sections 22

to 28 inclusive approved.

section

MacPhail: This is the

section dealing with silviculture. Perhaps the

minister could explain how the changes are here around silviculture — just

general comments to begin with. I have some specific questions. We learned

earlier in the debate today that the elimination for what I think was called the

silviculture plan….

[1555]

Interjection.

MacPhail: Sorry, I can't hear the minister, but he can correct me when he

stands up.

The

approval process around silviculture will eliminate the 100,000 pieces of paper.

Oh, I'm sorry — silviculture prescriptions. The elimination of the requirement

for silviculture prescriptions, which was in

section 12 of the old Forest

Practices Code…. That's gone now. So what happens? How is it that the 100,000

pieces of paper get eliminated, and what were they doing before that's being

done in some other way now?

Hon. M.

de Jong: In general terms, I think the point I want to make is that the

holder of a forest stewardship plan — and that could be the timber sales

manager in an area — or the holder of a woodlot is charged, under the

provisions of this legislation, with establishing a free-growing stand in areas

they have harvested specifically in accordance with the terms of the plan they

themselves have created and, in addition, any additional prescribed

requirements.

If we can

start there, there is presently an obligation that is tracked via the

silviculture prescriptions. It involves a tremendous transference of

documentation back and forth between government and licensees or operators on

the land base. In general terms, what is taking place now is that obligation is

confirmed in legislation and becomes a fundamental feature of the forest

stewardship plan or the woodlot plan that the operators themselves submit, and

they must conform to it.

MacPhail: Unlike the silviculture prescriptions under the old code, it seems

that

section 29 is much less clear — vaguer — about the requirements that

would be contained in a silviculture plan. Actually, in my discussions with

government caucus members it is this area particularly that they hold out as the

reduction in paperwork. This still requires a silviculture plan, as the minister

has just said, but it's not going to be turned in. Is it the minister's view

that those 100,000 pieces of paper were all about the exchange of approval and

that the requirement for a plan now doesn't in any way take away from that

reduction of the 100,000 pieces of paper that will no longer be needed?

[1600] [J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

Hon. M.

de Jong: I want to be as candid as I can about the significant change that

is occurring here. I am reminded that under the existing regime, what was taking

place was the preparation by forestry professionals, on a site-by-site basis,

silviculture prescriptions that were prepared by professionals, submitted to

government and reviewed by another set of professionals. That's where that

paperwork was generated. What is taking place here is the imposition of a

straightforward obligation to take a harvested cutblock back to free-to-grow.

That would normally take eight to 15 years, but that will be specified in the

forest stewardship plan with measurable results that could be tracked in terms

of getting there. That becomes a legal…as it is today, but it remains a legal

obligation. Rather than the detailed exchange of documentation on an ongoing

basis, the Crown looks to the forest stewardship plan in conjunction with this

section and the regulations and

[ Page 4540 ]

tracks whether or not that obligation is being discharged.

Some people

have made the suggestion: "Ah, but then it's 15 years until the Crown can

bring sanction to bear." Well, pretty clearly, that's not the case. It

becomes pretty obvious to Forestry officials within the compliance and

enforcement

section when the work has not been taken that would lead to the

achievement of those results, and that constitutes an offence under this

statutory regime.

MacPhail: I note that this legislation eliminates the requirement that the

new silviculture system relate to higher-level plans, but I also note that Bill

75…. Oh, and there is a requirement under the old code that

section 12(

c) said

that silviculture prescriptions had to be consistent with higher-level plans,

but I note that Bill 75 actually eliminates that requirement from the old code

too. We've got to a situation where no silviculture plan or prescription has to

relate to higher-level plans. So what will be the relationship between the

silviculture plan and a higher-level plan? Is it volunteer?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I apologize for either not referring to that or doing so unclearly.

Because the silviculture requirements and objectives are set out within the

forest stewardship plan and because the forest stewardship plan itself must be

consistent with higher-level land use plans, that link is very direct. The

fulfilment of the silviculture obligations must, therefore, be consistent with

the higher-level land use plan.

[1605]

MacPhail:

Section 29(5) grants a person the ability to transfer the

obligation to establish a free-growing stand to another person. I want to

discuss this in terms of liability. Under the current system, if a holder fails

to comply with the silviculture prescription, the government has several

opportunities for recourse, since there are various sunk assets like mills,

bridges, etc., on the land base. It's the licensee. Normally, you know, the

proponents have substantial assets; they're responsible for the silviculture

prescription.

Under this

legislation, that can be transferred. Of course there are issues. When I say

issues of liability, I mean that some of the silviculture companies now operate

with a very, very small margin, with very few assets. How will the government

take action on a silviculture outfit that's not associated with the licensee,

not associated with any of the sunk assets that the larger licensee may have to

hold as penalty?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I think the member has identified correctly a point of departure

from the previous act and an area of concern that I am also alive to. That is,

it is one thing to provide the means to transfer that obligation or to sell that

obligation.

I'll tell

the member in part what the thinking was here, and she's already cottoned on to

it. There are some companies out there now whose stated expertise is in the

silviculture business and who have demonstrated both an ability and a desire to

assume these responsibilities. The member's also correct that the Crown has an

interest.

Part of the

value in dealing with the licensee is that there is some security there.

Ultimately, the security is the interest in timber that the Crown grants to the

licensee. There is potentially a risk associated with allowing the licensee to

transfer the obligation if the Crown is put in a position where there is not the

same degree of security. One of the options that is provided for in these

provisions is the requirement that security be posted. At the regulation stage

we'll have to specify where that is appropriate. There are silviculture firms in

this province that have been doing good work on Crown land for many, many years,

but we'll want to, obviously, take appropriate steps to minimize the risk to the

Crown.

There's

another example, though, for which this

section is relevant that we haven't

talked about, and that's the woodlot licensees. What we have found, I am

advised, is that you get a woodlot owner who is coming to the age of retirement

and is looking to transfer the obligation to another party to maintain the

silviculture obligation. This act also facilitates that kind of transference. I

don't take issue with the point the member has raised about needing to ensure

that there is appropriate security for the Crown.

MacPhail: Under

section 5 around the objectives and the values, we did have

a discussion about what the minister's intent was for establishing regulation

around achieving the values. Silviculture was not part of that; it's part of

this section.

[1610]

Could the

minister elaborate on what he thinks the prescribed requirements, the

regulations, would look like around silviculture?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Here are some of the indicators and features that will both be

included within the plan and for which the Crown and the Forest Service will

demonstrate an interest — some basic things. How long to free-to-grow? At what

height do the replanted trees reach free-to-grow status? What kinds of species,

interdistance between species and competition between species?

Those are

some of the features that will need to be addressed and that the Crown will have

an interest in, in terms of sign-off. That's ultimately where we get to with

this: at what point do you effect sign-off that the objective has been met? At

the end of the day, it is probably the most important feature of all this,

because it is what constitutes regeneration of our forests and sustainability.

Of course, it takes the longest to achieve, so having an appropriate measurable

regime in place becomes that much more important.

MacPhail: Thank you.

Just one

final question on this section. I'm back to the transfer from a licensee to

another person in terms of the silviculture plan.

Section 29(6) says: "An

agreement referred to in subsection (5)" — which is the

[ Page 4541 ]

transfer — "has no effect if it does not receive the minister's

approval under subsection 5 (c)."

Can the

minister outline what the approval process will be for that transfer?

Hon. M.

de Jong: There will, in fact, be a prescribed process by which that

transference can occur. Further to what the member raised earlier, at the end of

the day the primary consideration for the Crown is going to be if we're

satisfied that the replanting, the silviculture work, is going to be done and

maintained to free-to-grow, to ensure that the Crown has not exposed itself to

any additional risk that that won't occur.

Sections 29

to 31 inclusive approved.

[1615]

section

MacPhail:

Section 32 deals with the issue of range use plan and range

stewardship plan. We're now into range planning.

Could the

minister give me specifics around what the difference is between a range use

plan and a range stewardship plan and the sort of circumstances under which each

becomes applicable? That's the difference between range use plan and range

stewardship plan. Who gets what?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I apologize to the member. There is an amendment standing in my

name on the order paper which refers specifically to the cross-reference

section. I wonder if I might begin by moving that amendment and advising the

members that the purpose of the amended provision is to provide greater planning

flexibility to range tenure holders who have demonstrated range management

competence for five years or more.

Let me put

it in terms that perhaps make more sense as to what the general intent is here.

I should say I'm obliged to the member for Cariboo North for pointing out the

error in terms of the cross-reference.

What we're

really trying to accomplish here is to provide range stewardship holders —

ranchers, cattlemen and -women, who occupy an unique place in terms of their

role as practitioners on the land base — with some recognition that if they

have demonstrated themselves to be good stewards over a period of time, the

obligations they face in terms of the content of their range stewardship plans

or the burden they face in satisfying the decision-maker will diminish over

time. There's a two-year threshold and a five-year threshold. That's the

purpose.

The

specific amendment is to correct what is in effect a typographical error that

relates to a cross-reference to another section.

[SECTION 32, in the proposed subsection (2) (

a) and (

b) by deleting

"section 35 (1)" and substituting "section 35 (2)".]

Amendment

approved.

section

32 as amended.

MacPhail: Shall I repeat my question, then?

This

section deals with the range use plan and the range stewardship plan required.

My question was: could the minister provide, with specific examples, the

difference between a range use plan and a range stewardship plan and the

circumstances in which each would become applicable?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I don't pretend that this is an exhaustive description of the

differences, but I can tell the member that further to what I said earlier about

providing ranchers with a degree of credit for good practice…. A range

stewardship plan is similar to a range use plan for things like grazing, but it

also may include intended results and strategies to achieve them. Unlike a range

use plan, range stewardship plan content wouldn't include an actual grazing

schedule. It wouldn't be that specific. That's one example.

[1620]

Section 32

as amended approved.

On sections

33 to 35 inclusive.

MacPhail: Sections 33, 34 and 35 are integrated. With the indulgence of the

Chair, I might ask my questions across those three, and then we can vote on them

together if that works in terms of integration.

The

sections deal with the content of the range use plan for grazing, content of

range use plan for hay cutting and then the content of the range stewardship

plan. I note that the legislation lists the ten subjects in which the government

will set objectives. Those are soils, visual quality, timber, forage and

associated plant communities, water, fish, wildlife, biodiversity, resource

features and cultural heritage resources. Those are the same ten subject areas

required for a stewardship plan, and we've already discussed those. Could the

minister explain how these same subject areas will be developed in setting

objectives in relation to range use plans? Will they be the same objectives as

for forest stewardship plans?

Hon. M.

de Jong: In fact, there will be differences, and they relate to the, I

suppose, obvious differences between a forestry operation and managing a

ranching operation where the subject matter tends to be a bit more mobile.

We were

discussing some of the examples that I might offer to the member on the wildlife

side. For example, the objectives that would be set as it relates to the

interaction between an elk herd and a range user would be different than the

interaction that would take place between a forest licensee on that front.

Riparian

standards. Again, the application of the objectives would be different given the

fact that you're dealing with a herd of cattle and the potential damage they

could inflict. There will be differences that are specific to the range use side

of things.

[ Page 4542 ]

J. MacPhail:

That is exactly the area I was going to discuss next with the minister, so just

let me ask specifically around livestock.

[1625]

Will there

be provisions that tie the objectives of water and soils, particularly with

livestock, with the Drinking Water Protection Act or the protection of

groundwater sources? It's my information, particularly in the area of range,

that often the sources for drinking water for the area would perhaps be the same

as livestock grazing.

Hon. M.

de Jong: In fact, it's a valid question and something that we heard about

during the course of the consultation with the public. In fact, there will be

specific regulations, and they are contemplated and provided for in the act

itself around watershed protection. Ironically, one of the examples I have cited

in making the case for tougher and heightened fines on the administrative

penalty front relates to protection around domestic water intakes, and that

actually relates to both logging operations and grazing range use operations.

MacPhail: I want to just explore this a little further as the concluding

area in these three sections.

Section 17 of the old Forest Practices Code

outlines the planning requirements for holders of an agreement under the Forest

Act or the Range Act. In the old

section there were some very specific

requirements for identifying and classifying several valued ecosystem

components. It's my understanding that the specific nature of ensuring

protection of those values was because of the circumstances that the minister

and I have just been discussing.

Now, the

list there is similar. There's no question that it's similar to the ten subjects

we've been working with under Bill 74. It's

section 17 — I think I've already

said that — of the old code. The old code, I would suggest, is more specific,

and it's actually very clear with its objectives and intent.

Now, in Dr.

Hoberg's report — Dr. Hoberg did the review of the original consultation

around changes to the Forest Practices Code — he recommended that the

government should review the proposed regimes for environmental values and

ensure that, at a minimum, they maintain the existing environmental standards. I

want to discuss with the minister how he's going to ensure that the objectives

outlined under the old

section 17 are going to be maintained.

almost…. Well, it's hard to put a rank order of importance, but this is an

extremely important issue for people not only around the environmental values,

because we have domestic animals integrating with wildlife, but we also have

huge tracts of land, and we have populations who will be using the groundwater

as their source for drinking water as well.

If I could

just read one into the record: "Assess watersheds that meet the prescribed

requirements to determine the impact of proposed timber harvesting and related

forest practices." This was the old Range Act as well.

[1630]

Can the

minister give the public some reassurance that the environmental values will

still be maintained?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Thanks to the member for additionally referring to the commentary

from Professor Hoberg. I agree with him and the member when she says this is an

issue that sorts of transcends interest in forestry. It impacts on anyone —

well, all of us. It's water quality. It is one thing for me to profess our

absolute commitment to ensuring that what Professor Hoberg recommends actually

takes place and is achieved. I think the member, though, asks me properly to go

further and express how that will happen ? in addition to the statutory measures

contained in this act, the regulatory provisions it provides for.

I want to

tell members that one of the things any range use plan or range stewardship plan

will be measured against — and it will be a key component of those plans —

is the degree to which protection for those domestic water sources, domestic

water intakes, is identified, recognized and protected at a practical level.

Those are issues that will need to be addressed specifically by the people who

seek the right to operate grazing operations on the public land base.

Sections 33

to 40 inclusive approved.

section

MacPhail: Again, this is a

section that talks about the review and comment

of range use and range stewardship plans. We've already looked at the review and

comment

section for the forest stewardship plans, but I want to ask the minister

if he could reassure us on the same items affecting range use and range

stewardship plans. Will the same prescriptive regime, regulatory regime, around

review and comment we've discussed under the forest stewardship plans apply to

the range use and range stewardship plans?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I think the member's question is this: is what I have said about

the processes that relate to the public consultation review and comment

provisions as they apply with respect to the forest stewardship plan — all of

those processes I have described — equally applicable to

section 41 and range

use plans? The answer to that question is yes.

Section 41

approved.

section

[1635]

MacPhail: Again, we're still in the

section of range.

Section 42 is entitled

"Proportional objectives." It's the

section that says: "In

prescribed circumstances, the minister may establish targets for sharing — in

specified proportions between or among the holders of

[ Page 4543 ]

range use and range stewardship plans — the responsibility to achieve the

objectives by government."

Again, I

would ask the minister to give examples of circumstances where he would work to

establish the targets for sharing, what the targets would look like and how this

would be achieved administratively.

Hon. M.

de Jong: Conceptually, this

section is not that dissimilar from

section 9,

which we discussed earlier, which spoke to a degree of coordination amongst

forest licensees and the government's interest in ensuring that overall

objectives are met by their combined efforts. An example that came to my mind as

the member was asking the question would be grasslands and the distinct

possibility that one would have two, three or four operators grazing cattle over

a particular tract of Crown land and the Crown's interest in going beyond

imposing an obligation on those operators individually. Really, the Crown's

interest is in ensuring that their combined operations on the land base achieve

a particular result or, in the negative, don't impose a degree of degradation

that goes beyond a certain level. That's what this

section is designed to

facilitate.

MacPhail: I appreciate it's probably the same discussion that we had around

section 9, but I've been thinking about this. I'm wondering about the legal

issues. I assume it's that the plan has to include shared responsibility or an

acknowledgment and a description of how the shared responsibility will work

under the plan, but what about the legal issues here? I was thinking about this

following our discussion. How does the liability regime work when more than one

holder has responsibility to achieve the objectives set by government? I want to

make it clear that I support the concept of shared responsibility and the

requirement to plan for it, but what happens in terms of the legal

ramifications?

[1640]

Hon. M.

de Jong: Holding with the example we were discussing with cattle grazing on

grasslands, in the event of a situation where there was overgrazing…. I am

advised, first of all, this is not a unique situation. It's the kind of thing

that occurs now, and I appreciate that the member is not opposed to that taking

place. Compliance and enforcement would try to ascertain as best they could who

among the shared partners was responsible — or in this case, whose cattle were

responsible — for the violation. It may be that it was one of them. It may be

that it was a number of them combined, and enforcement action would be commenced

against that individual or those individuals who had contributed to the

violation.

Sections 42

and 43 approved.

section

Stewart: I have one question with regard to the availability of the request

for the grazing schedule. With regard to that, what's the intent? Is that for

anyone wanting to come on that doesn't believe you have a permit? What's the

rationale for having anyone that comes upon a grazing area to ask for that? And

who is a person? That's the second part of that.

Hon. M.

de Jong: A person, obviously, is any individual but pursuant to, I think,

the terms of the

Interpretation Act in this province is also a corporation, so

standing to make the request is pretty broad. The rationale behind the

section

is the realization that in areas where grazing is taking place on Crown land,

there are often other interests. It might be forestry interests. It might be

recreational interests. I suppose that if you're in an area or on a trail with

your mountain bike or otherwise, you might be interested to know when the bulls

are running, as it were.

Stewart: What would be the time frame in which a person would be required to

produce this

schedule for a person who asked?

Hon. M.

de Jong: In fact, the expectation and obligation would be to provide the

information within a reasonable period of time. What is reasonable may differ.

I'll suggest that if the member has the range use plan or the grazing rights and

I inquire as to what is going to be occurring there next month or the month

after, that is a reasonable request to be made.

[1645]

I suppose I

could think of circumstances where a shorter notice period might impose itself

on me or the holder of the grazing rights. It's not prescribed certainly in the

act, and I honestly can't tell the member…. I haven't made up my mind on the

extent to which I would want to specify something in regulation beyond

reasonable.

Stewart: The reason for my request is sort of a nuisance factor. This could

give someone an opportunity to be a nuisance to somebody by constantly coming

on, constantly asking or having a troop of people constantly coming on or asking

when there's maybe a conflict of usage of land. I notice it not only applies to

this

section but applies to earlier sections with regard to forestry. That was

the nature of my questioning.

Sections

44 and 45 approved.

section

MacPhail: I need to spend some time with the minister on

section 46. The

section is entitled "Protection of the environment." I'm actually

going to ask the minister to indulge the discussion by looking at

section 45 of

the old code. I want to compare it to 46 of the new Forest and Range Practices

Act.

I'll just

reiterate. We've discussed this recommendation from Dr. Hoberg earlier today,

but I'll repeat it. Dr. Hoberg recommended that "the government should

review the proposed regimes for environmental values

[ Page 4544 ]

and ensure that, at a minimum, they maintain existing environmental

standards." It's on that premise that I'm going to ask the minister to meet

that test.

Section 45

of the Forest Practices Code is entitled "Protection of the

environment," which is the same as this new

section we're dealing with. I

cannot find anywhere else in the legislation where there would be other sections

that would deal with the matters contained in the old

section 45 of the code. If

there is, I'm going to ask the minister to point me to it.

Under

section 45(3) of the old code, the Forest Practices Code…. I will read the

language into the record.

person must not carry out a forest practice if he or she knows or should

reasonably know that, due to weather conditions or site factors, the

carrying out of the forest practice may result, directly or indirectly, in:

"(

a) slumping or sliding of land,

"(

b) inordinate soil disturbance, or

"(

c) other significant damage to the environment."

That's the old language. The new language under

section 46(1)(

b) is an odd

change, and perhaps the intent can be made clear and my concerns will be

allayed. Here's what the new language says:

person must not carry out a forest practice, a range practice or another

activity that results in damage to the environment, unless in doing

so…"

"(

b) the person does not know or cannot reasonably be expected to know that,

because of weather conditions or site factors, the carrying out of the

forest practice, range practice or other activity may result, directly or

indirectly, in damage specified by regulation."

I expect that people might be concerned about the transparency of that, but

it's an odd shift. I need reassurance that the odd shift enhances protection of

the environment.

[1650]

Hon. M.

de Jong: I wanted to ensure that I give the member as complete and accurate

a response as I can. What both acts do is create an obligation and impose an

obligation on someone operating on the land base. They both then provide an

exception and specify circumstances in which one can be excused from the

fulfilment of that obligation.

In the case

of the old code, it specifies in the subsections (a), (

b) and (c), a degree

of…. It specifies specific damages that may occur and from which individuals

can be excused responsibility in certain circumstances. In the Forest and Range

Practices Act there is a broader opportunity to define what that damage may be.

The

presence of the word "reasonable" speaks to the issue, also, of due

diligence as a defence. Now, we'll get into that discussion, as well, when we

come to those specific sections of this act. The presence of the word

"reasonable" is also significant insofar as it imports a test or a

threshold beyond which the individual has to establish that they conducted

themselves.

[1655]

MacPhail: I confess, Mr. Chair, that I'm not reassured. Here's why. Under

the old code, the Forest Practices Code, which will be gone in two years, there

is no exception. It is a positive obligation. I'm not using these terms in any

legal meaning, because I'm not a lawyer. I'm just trying to explain it in the

context of lay language. There is a positive obligation on a person to not carry

out a forest practice that he or she should know or should reasonably know will

create slumping of land, inordinate soil disturbance.

The new act

allows for an automatic exception. It doesn't impose a positive obligation. It

actually allows for an automatic exemption, buying out of an obligation. Let me

read: "A person must not carry out a forest practice, range practice or

another activity that results in damage to the environment, unless in doing

so…the person does not know or cannot reasonably be expected to know…."

It's a very

different standard being set. Frankly, I didn't think ignorance was a defence

under the law. Right now under the new Forest and Range Practices Act, ignorance

is a defence. The person doesn't have to comply if, in doing so, the person does

not know that this will create…. Well, Mr. Chair, that's a pretty big hole to

drive a damaging truck through. Unless I can have a much greater reassurance, I

cannot support this clause.

Hon. M.

de Jong: What I can say to the member — and I'm not sure it will offer her

the assurance that she is looking for — is that the advice I have received

from legal quarters and otherwise is that the legal effect is the same. In

making that submission to the member, I will point to

section 45(3) of the

existing Forest Practices Code and point out that the test of reasonableness

exists there as well, and the reference again is made to weather conditions.

I'm not

sure it's a question of hiding behind ignorance. I'm going to suggest that in

both instances, there is an application of the principles of reasonableness, and

at the end of the day — convincing or not for the member, who is certainly

entitled to ask the questions and is — the advice I have is that the legal

effect of these sections we are comparing is in fact the same. Now, when we get

to a subsequent discussion around liability, I won't be making that same claim,

but I am here.

MacPhail: Yes, and these aren't issues of liability. It's not due diligence.

These are issues of actually protecting the environment in a way that could

involve administrative penalties, or they could involve actually ensuring that

there's a positive obligation to protect the environment rather than to allow

for an exception to it.

It's a very

different point from which one starts to impose an obligation to say, "You

should know," or "You should reasonably know," rather than

saying: "Oh well, you're let off the hook if you don't know," or

"You can't reasonably be expected to know."

[1700]

Let me just

tell you why it's of concern. I had my own concerns with this, but when I

discussed it with the West Coast Environmental Law Association, they said that

my concerns on the face of the matter are even more justified because of changes

elsewhere. I'll just read this

section from the West Coast Environmental

[ Page 4545 ]

Law. Some of it isn't particularly flattering to the old code either.

"Section

46 is the one

section that focuses on results, making it an offence to carry

out a forest practice that 'results in damage to the environment.' However,

if one is operating in accordance with the plan or permit, there is no

offence regardless of whether there is damage to the environment. While this

section carries forward provisions in the current code, they were justified

there on the basis of the level of prescribed content in the plans and the

fact that government was approving plans right down to the site level. By

moving away from approval of site plans and making the one plan that is

approved more general in nature, there is no longer justification for this

broad indemnification for harm to the environment in our view.

"We

find it quite surprising" — I'm reading from the letter from the West

Coast Environmental Law Association — "that government would allow as

a defence to environmental damage compliance with site plans that the

government does not even see, let alone approve. Is that not a prescription

for writing one's own defence? This raises serious enforcement difficulties

in our view and does not amount to meaningful accountability for results on

the ground."

They're

quite concerned, and I accept their concerns, but my concerns are not even based

on the expertise of the West Coast Environmental Law Association, which stands

on its own. It's that as soon as a government imposes the right to an exception

rather than a positive obligation, I believe the legal test is completely

different.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I guess what I can do firstly is repeat my earlier assertion that

the advice I have received is that the legal effect of this section,

notwithstanding the different drafting, is the same.

I should

also make the point that, as it relates to the passage that the member read from

the oft-quoted letter, this provision isn't actually…. It's not intended that

site plans will be captured by the provision because, as we've already

discussed, they are not approved under this regime in the way that they were

formerly. The test then relates back to the forest stewardship plan, and the

compliance and enforcement takes place vis-à-vis that plan.

MacPhail: That's their exact point — that the test under the old code

allowed people to say that the plans are approved and therefore based on the

plans, the person should or can reasonably know that damage would occur. But

it's on that basis that the plans were approved right down to the site level,

that there were road and cutblock approval plans. Their point is that because

that approval right down to the site-plan level is no longer there, the

government is allowing a defence of ignorance to blossom basically, because

they're not requiring approval of those plans. That's the point.

I think the

minister — I'm not sure whether it was intentional or not — by his own words

confirms the fears of the West Coast Environmental Law Association.

I also want

to examine subsection (2) of

section 46 under the Forest and Range Practices

Act, and compare it to the

section under the old code that it's replacing.

Section 46(2) is replacing 45(4) under the old code. Let me read the old code

into the record first. "A person who contravenes subsection (1) or (3) must

(

a) stop the forest practice in the area affected, (

b) prevent any further

damage to the environment, (

c) promptly notify the district manager, (

d) take

any remedial measures that the district manager requires."

[1705]

That's

replaced with 46(2) of the Forest and Range Practices Act. "A person who

contravenes subsection (1) must (

a) take appropriate action to prevent any

further damage, (

b) promptly notify the district manager of the damage, and (

c) take any remedial measures that the minister requires." I assume that for

the delegation, that will mean the district office.

What is

glaringly absent is that there's no requirement to stop the forest practice in

the area affected. While I would never impugn a broad base of intentional wrong

to the industry, there is no requirement for the industry or the licensee or the

stakeholder to immediately stop the forest practice that's causing the damage.

They could carry on while they're putting in place a prevention plan or an

action for prevention to prevent any further damage.

Hon. M.

de Jong: Actually, I am not at all troubled by this

section and the

difference in the way the member is. I suppose it is the difference, even at the

statutory level, between ultimate prescription and results. Under the act we are

debating,

section 46(2), it seems to me that any reasonable reading of that

section would take a reasonable person to conclude that we're actually achieving

the result that you look for, which is to take appropriate action to prevent

further action.

In most

cases, that would mean stopping what you're doing. I suppose one could consider

a circumstance in which the degradation or the damage has already ended and that

it is now a question of remediating it. I must confess I take comfort in the

wording of the

section that the ultimate result we are looking for — in this

case, the ending of the damaging activity — is provided for in the section,

notwithstanding the absence of the word "stop," which the member has

correctly pointed out doesn't exist in these provisions.

MacPhail: It is an area where we will disagree, and we'll disagree on

record. Under

section 46(3) of the new act, the Forest and Range Practices Act,

let me read the

section into the record before I ask my questions: "A

person who discontinues a forest practice, a range practice or another activity

referred to in subsection (1) may resume that practice or activity only if and

when (

a) it can be resumed without contravening subsection (1), and (

b) any

remedial measures required under subsection (2) (

c) have been carried out to the

satisfaction of the minister."

What is the

compliance and enforcement regime that will apply to this particular section?

Will there be written records required? Will site visits and evaluation occur

before the person can resume the practice?

[ Page 4546 ]

Hon. M.

de Jong: Generally speaking, that would be the case, and that is no

different than the regime that presently exists, but generally speaking, there

would certainly be a written record. To my mind, the likelihood of a site visit

or inspection would be high.

[1710]

Section 46

approved on the following division:

YEAS — 48

Falcon

L. Reid

Halsey-Brandt

Hawkins

Whittred

Cheema

Santori

van Dongen

Barisoff

Roddick

Masi

Hagen

Murray

Plant

Collins

Clark

de Jong

Nebbeling

Stephens

Abbott

Coleman

Penner

Jarvis

Anderson

Orr

Nuraney

Brenzinger

Long

Mayencourt

Bennett

R. Stewart

Krueger

McMahon

Les

Locke

Nijjar

Wong

Bloy

Suffredine

K. Stewart

Visser

Brice

Sultan

Hamilton

Sahota

Hawes

Kerr

Hunter

NAYS — 2

MacPhail

Kwan

[1715-1720]

Sections 47

to 58 inclusive approved.

section

MacPhail: We're entering the part of the new act,

part 6, that deals with

compliance and enforcement. Just a couple of general comments before we enter

into clause-by-clause debate. There are two aspects of the results-based

management process that are, in my mind, absolutely critical. We've already

discussed the first. It's that clear objectives be set and that they be

consistent with higher-level plans. The minister has made a commitment that that

will be the case, but we will be watching very carefully the establishment of

the regulations to ensure that the commitment is delivered.

The second

critical piece is compliance and enforcement. That's something the minister

talked about vigorously and with great pride when he introduced the legislation,

and in second reading it was a major thrust of the government caucus members'

praise for this new legislation. I need to spend some time with the minister now

on knowing how the compliance and enforcement regime will work. I would very

much appreciate specifics because, of course, compliance and enforcement is

absolutely critical to assess the new code, because the act, by virtue of it now

being a results-based system, is what everyone acknowledges is of an

after-the-fact nature.

I am going

to ask the minister — and he can do this

section by

section if he wishes —

what the specific information is now, with as much detail as he can muster about

how the compliance and enforcement regime will work. Perhaps in so doing, he can

explain how the new regime is different from the old regime.

[1725]

Hon. M.

de Jong: Maybe the first thing I'd like to do is try to disabuse anyone that

might be watching of one proposition. The member has said it, and it's something

others have repeated, so I'm not going to suggest she is the only person making

this suggestion. It is the one that says this is a purely after-the-fact model.

In fact, when we get to

section 77, if we have a discussion around that section,

I will take some pains to emphasize that we have preserved in this act the

ability for the Crown to step in where it is clear that environmental

degradation and damage is taking place, notwithstanding the fact that this

damage may not have perpetrated itself in its entirety. The ability to step in

and issue a cease-and-desist order is preserved in this act. It is not accurate

to characterize this as purely an after-the-fact model of compliance and

enforcement.

[K.

Stewart in the chair.]

The general

comments that I could make before we begin to move through the sections would

relate to, in large measure, how this part within the act is going to be

utilized by a reconfigured Forest Service. This gets to the point, as well, that

others have made — and I think the member and her colleague may have referred

to it in second reading debate — and that is the reductions in staff that have

taken place within the Forest Service.

I want to

say a couple of things about that pretty clearly. Most recently there have been

involved in various aspects of compliance and enforcement within the Forest

Service upwards of 350 to 360 individuals. The point I want to emphasize is that

in large measure, if not entirely, most of those people have been involved on a

part-time basis and have had other duties, and as we've discussed, the paper

burden associated with the existing code has imposed that upon them.

What we are

in the process of establishing is a core of approximately 300 full-time, fully

trained compliance and enforcement officers. That training is ongoing, of

course, following the passage of this bill. If it passes, as I hope it does,

then that training will continue to familiarize them with the provisions of the

act and the regulations that follow. The key feature is that they will be

full-time, specifically trained and dedicated to being on the land base and

conducting those audits, those inspections and those enforcement activities,

some of which we've referred to during the course of our discussion and debate

to this point in the bill.

[ Page 4547 ]

That is

something that I take a degree of comfort in and have candidly highlighted when

we have come to discussing how compliance and enforcement under this regime

will, at a practical level, be different — more focused — than it has been

previously.

MacPhail: I'm sorry. Could the minister run through those numbers again in

terms of the FTEs that will now be dedicated full-time?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I think the numbers I mentioned were 350 to 360 previously, though

the point I made is that they were by no means full-time dedicated. We are now

looking at a core of between, I think, 295 to 300 full-time individuals within

the compliance and enforcement section.

MacPhail: Well, maybe we can get into the specifics by going through the

section, then. I am going to address the minister's point here, because it is

going to require some explanation of how, given the current cuts to the

ministry, this will work.

Let me just

start. I'll go through it on the specifics.

Section 59 is entry and inspection.

This is the on-the-ground work of Forestry officials who monitor forest

practices. It's entry and inspection.

[1730]

substantial number of interested parties, and it isn't…. The minister is quite

right that my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I are concerned

about this, but there are other interested parties concerned about this too —

environmental groups for sure. But forestry union workers are very concerned

about this.

Frankly,

even industry commented in the last few months that the results-based approach

requires more on-site evaluation to ensure that the results are achieved. They

offered that as comfort to the public. It wasn't that they were complaining

about it. It was almost to say, "No, no. Don't worry about going to a

results-based code. There will be more on-site inspection." That's the only

way this shift can work. The reason why they were saying that is because they

needed to offer the assurance that that's the only way you can achieve the point

of getting rid of a prescriptive approach. That's because, in order to know

whether the results are being achieved, more inspections and follow-ups will be

required.

I just want

to outline the cuts that this ministry is undergoing. This is from the

minister's own service plan. The number of full-time-equivalents working in the

ministry in '01-02 was 4,061. That was last fiscal year. This fiscal year,

2002-03, there are 3,566 workers. In the next fiscal, 2003-04, there will be

2,929 workers, full-time-equivalents. In the year 2004-05, there will be 2,625

full-time-equivalents throughout the Ministry of Forests. That's a total cut of

35 percent from '01-02 levels, and the minister has acknowledged that this is

from a service plan.

I am

curious. In terms of the overall demands of the ministry, the minister's

assurance over the last few days that the achievement of the move to one plan

that needs to approve doesn't necessarily mean that there won't be requirements

in all other areas of the ministry. He gave that as a reassurance. How is that,

given these substantial cuts in ministry staff?

For those

who are watching and will berate me if I don't admit to my own government's

record on this, there were cuts in the previous Ministry of Forests prior to

this government taking over that were very controversial and not particularly

welcomed — by my own government. With the acknowledgment by virtually

everybody that there will have to be more on-site inspection, not less, how is

it that the minister can assure that that will take place? As I understand it,

it isn't just the compliance and enforcement staff that carry out this work.

[1735]

Hon. M.

de Jong: I would return to the point I tried to make initially. If one

reviews the numbers that the member has related…. She has indicated that she's

taking them from the service plan. I haven't cross-referenced them, but I assume

they're right off the service plan. If you cross-reference that with what I said

earlier, it is clear that the one division within the Forest Service that has

largely been spared from what are otherwise very significant reductions in

staffing is the compliance and enforcement section.

The

assurance that I have offered is probably, at the end of the day, not much more

complicated than this. The work performed by roughly 300 full-time, fully

trained, dedicated compliance and enforcement officers is going to be more

effective and more focused than the efforts, albeit well intentioned, of 350 or

360 part-time individuals whose attention was diverted to processing an

incredible degree of paperwork back at the office.

MacPhail: In fact, it isn't the compliance and enforcement paperwork that

the minister's cutting out now, as I understand it. I've been very clear —

I've asked specifically: where is the reduced paperwork? — that it's in the

approval process around the silviculture prescription.

Actually,

the minister has been very diligent in not engaging in rhetoric, and I

appreciate that. This is the

section where we really have to work with the

facts, because the reduced paperwork isn't around compliance and enforcement, as

I understand it.

Let me just

deal now with the facts in the overall level of employment. There were 360

compliance and enforcement people, officials, in a workforce of 4,061. There are

now 300 compliance and enforcement officials in a workforce of 2,625. I

appreciate the minister's willingness to dedicate those officials solely to

compliance and enforcement, but they are now — I'm sorry I don't have my

calculator right here — about 12 percent of the overall workforce. Previously,

even though they were working less than full-time, they were about 9 percent of

the workforce. Dedicated as they may be, they are now forming a substantial part

of the workforce, of the overall workload, of the Ministry of Forests. I'll get

to that in a moment.

[ Page 4548 ]

What is it

in terms of paperwork that these workers will now not be doing that they did

before?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Right. I think what I have not properly, adequately or clearly

articulated for the member's benefit is that because these people were dedicated

only part-time to compliance and enforcement, much of their other time was spent

not processing compliance and enforcement paperwork, but processing that very

paperwork we have just spent time talking about — whether it is silviculture

prescriptions…. It would be inaccurate to speak of stemming the paper flow

within compliance and enforcement. These people were part-time because of duties

that took them away from compliance and enforcement. I don't know if that helps

the member.

MacPhail: That's not my understanding of how it worked before, and I did

meet with some forestry workers just last week. I guess we'll have to take the

minister at his word that that was the situation. I thought the work was a

little more specialized than that between compliance and enforcement and

approval of plans. If the minister is saying the same people are doing the work,

I guess we'll have to see whether the actual people on the ground doing the work

accept the minister's view of their current jobs.

[1740]

If indeed

it is the situation, as the minister describes, that it was the compliance and

enforcement officers who were doing the paper approval that is no longer

necessary and they'll now be able to devote their time full-time to doing their

work in the field, does that translate into logging more hours in the field that

will be demanded by the results-based process?

My question

was: does this actually mean that Forests officials in compliance and

enforcement will actually be logging more hours in the field that will be

demanded by the results-based process?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Yes.

MacPhail: The reason I asked that is because the minister is shutting down

11 district offices. From my old days as a union rep, there's a lot of travel

time — a lot of travel time. So how is it that the minister says…? In fact,

with 11 fewer district offices and in a province that is a substantial size,

perhaps the minister could tell me what account he has made of the increased

travel time that compliance and enforcement officers will now be doing.

Hon. M.

de Jong: No, and though it's been some time for the member, her

recollections are, I dare say, accurate. It's why in every location where a

traditional district office has been closed, we have actually maintained a field

presence. I might just explain what that relates to. It is largely around

compliance and enforcement. The idea was not to create a situation in which

people were spending four hours on the road as opposed to time on tasks. We have

done that. These are offices or field locations that will not provide licensees

or stakeholders with an opportunity to come in the door unannounced and meet

with Forestry officials — that will be the big difference from the point of

view of the customer and client — but it will ensure that in these locations

where there was formerly a district, those field presence officials will be

there. They won't be spending hours on the road each day. They'll actually be

located in the areas from which they can then go out and conduct inspections and

audits.

MacPhail: How does that work? Do they work out of their houses, then?

Hon. M.

de Jong: In some cases there is shared space with other government agencies,

and in some cases some of these officials will actually work out of their homes.

Those arrangements are being made presently.

MacPhail: Are those arrangements being made through a bargaining process, a

negotiating process?

Hon. M.

de Jong: The discussions are taking place, and they do involve the

bargaining agent.

MacPhail: That's interesting. They must have started very, very recently —

this planning — because no one to date has mentioned that concept to me in any

of my discussions. Perhaps the minister, then, could outline what concrete plans

are in place for actual location of staff and the administrative structure that

is attached to the compliance and enforcement unit.

Hon. M.

de Jong: What I can do is provide the member with a breakdown of where there

will be remaining district offices, where there will be field office locations.

The other forestry presence in towns will be the timber sales program, formerly

the small business program. That will be another forestry feature in many towns.

I realize

I'm not the person who does the asking in these, but I noted the member's

reaction to the idea that staff would be based out of their homes in

communities, and with her experience, I'm curious whether that is something that

she finds problematic.

[1745]

MacPhail: No, not at all. I'm speaking from my history of knowing that these

matters have to be agreed upon — that as an employer, one isn't allowed to

impose working conditions. That's all. Working conditions that change have to be

agreed upon in a unionized workplace. That's all. There are certain areas that

need to be changed in terms of…. There are substantial changes in the work

relationship and work conditions when that circumstance becomes a requirement.

I'm just

curious as to how far along the government is in establishing those working

conditions in a way that actually gives the employee comfort that their new job

is not slavery —