1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th 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, MAY 11, 1994

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 15, Number 6

[ Page 10733 ]

The House met at 2:09 p.m.

Prayers.

F. Gingell: In the precinct with us today are some students from grade 11 at Delta Secondary School together with their teacher, Mrs. Parker. I ask all members to make them welcome.

L. Reid: I would ask the House to please join me in welcoming Karen Legeer to the chamber today. Karen is visiting from White Rock, British Columbia.

G. Wilson: With us in the gallery today are 15 students from Langdale Elementary School, accompanied by their teachers, Ann Skelcher, Gordon Stevens, Sandra Kelly and Graham Crowell. I would ask that the House please make them welcome as they see firsthand how democracy does, or perhaps doesn't, work so well.

Introduction of Bills

HEALTH STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1994

Hon. P. Ramsey presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1994.

Hon. P. Ramsey: This bill amends a number of existing statutes within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Health. A total of nine statutes are being amended or repealed. I will be providing details about all the amendments in second reading. I would, however, like to note several key provisions of Bill 38 for the assembly.

First, the Health Act is being amended to broaden the authority of the provincial health officer to monitor population health, and to report publicly on key health issues in a manner that he or she feels is most appropriate. These changes were previously announced in "New Directions for a Healthy British Columbia." Second, authority is being provided under the Health Authorities Act to permit the appointment of regional health boards in areas where community health councils have not yet been established. Third, provisions for public protection in the Continuing Care Act are being broadened.

The unduly narrow provisions for appointment of a public administrator have been expanded to encompass all types of continuing care. Finally, Bill 38 provides for the repeal of the Physiotherapists Act. However, I hasten to add -- and assure the House -- that physiotherapists and massage practitioners are not being deregulated; rather, they are going to be designated as health professionals and regulated under the new, up-to-date Health Professions Act.

Bill 38 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

WORKERS COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1994

Hon. D. Miller presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 1994.

Hon. D. Miller: The amendments to the Workers Compensation Act will mean that the Workers' Compensation Board may consider full compensation for workers or their dependents who make late applications for occupational disease claims. A late claim may be made because when the individual first became aware of the disease, the medical knowledge was not available to link it to the workplace. Workers or their families who make occupational disease claims within three years after they became aware of the link between the disease and the workplace will be eligible for full benefits.

The legislation will also improve the compensation and rehabilitation of workers who move to and from other provinces. It will allow the Workers' Compensation Board to enter into agreements relating to these issues with boards in other provinces.

Bill 13 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AMENDMENT ACT, 1994

Hon. D. Miller presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Institute of Technology Amendment Act, 1994.

Hon. D. Miller: Bill 23 contains amendments to the Institute of Technology Act which will give the British Columbia Institute of Technology the power to grant baccalaureate degrees that have been designated by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council; change the composition of the board of the institute to include faculty, students and support staff; and create the education council, a new body for institute governance to be composed of elected members representing faculty, students, support staff and appointed administration members.

Bill 23 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

COLLEGE AND INSTITUTE AMENDMENT ACT, 1994

Hon. D. Miller presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled College and Institute Amendment Act, 1994.

Hon. D. Miller: Bill 22 contains amendments to the College and Institute Act which will give the university colleges and provincial institutes the power to grant baccalaureate degrees that have been designated by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council; change the composition of the boards of universities, colleges and institutes to include faculty, students and support staff; and create the education council, a new body for institutional governance to be composed of elected members representing faculty, students, support staff and appointed administration members.

Bill 22 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[2:15]

The Speaker: I recognize the Leader of the Third Party.

[ Page 10734 ]

J. Weisgerber: I rise to make a personal statement regarding party affiliation. I'm delighted to advise all members of this House that my friend and colleague the member for Okanagan-Vernon has joined the Reform caucus. He not only brings a wealth of knowledge gained as a mayor, a cabinet minister and an opposition critic, but he also brings with him, as you have noted, Mr. Speaker, official party status to Reform. As such, we will be grateful to him for all of his contributions over the ensuing years.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member, and congratulations.

Oral Questions

CALL FOR INQUIRY INTO ABUSE OF CHILDREN IN GOVERNMENT CARE

V. Anderson: I rise on a very serious matter. Over the last two days I have received over 85 letters from people in this province objecting to the Minister of Social Services' response regarding child care in British Columbia. These citizens from all across the province are furious that the Minister of Social Services has refused to accept responsibility for abused children...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

V. Anderson: ...so much so that the ombudsman...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

V. Anderson: ...has had to step in.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order! Hon. member, please proceed.

V. Anderson: The question is: even though the ombudsman had to step in, will the minister undertake to give her support to a full, independent inquiry into the abuse of children in the care of her ministry?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I have committed to the hon. member across the floor, and to everyone in this House, that the findings of my ministry will be made available in full for all of us to consider. After we have considered that report, I have made it clear that if further action is necessary, further action will be taken. It is really time for us to set aside the politics of this issue and actually deal with what's happening within the system, and I'll tell you that I am committed to that fully.

The Speaker: Supplementary, hon. member.

V. Anderson: The minister does not seem to understand. We are not talking at this point simply about one review of one case. The minister should be defending all of the helpless children in British Columbia, not the ministry. Today I have called upon the ombudsman to expand her investigation to cover all children who have been abused while under the care of the Ministry of Social Services. Will the minister undertake to support us in asking the ombudsman to expand her review to cover all the children who have been abused while under the care of Social Services?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. member, your memory is very convenient. You know that over the last two years an investigation has been conducted into the children in care in this province and into the systems of how we deal with family and children's services. There have been two reports released with recommendations. We have issued a White Paper, and we have promised action in this area over and over again. I call upon the hon. member and all the members of this House to join with us in support when those actions are introduced into this House.

The Speaker: Final supplementary, hon. member?

V. Anderson: The citizens of this province are confused, because they have heard the Minister of Social Services say: "Our ministry hasn't been found to have liability." She went on to indicate, as has been reported widely, that she was asking the Attorney General's ministry if there was moral responsibility.

I ask the Premier: since the Minister of Social Services cannot decide whether her ministry has a moral responsibility for children in this province, will the Premier himself accept responsibility for addressing the needs of abused children in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I fully accept the responsibility, and I fully back the Minister of Social Services. She's made it very clear that this government has conducted the most extensive review -- bringing in experts, bringing in the people of British Columbia -- to make sure that the children of this province receive far better treatment than they have from past governments. I back the minister in that. I will back the minister when she brings forward some initiatives, some legislation, in the near future. And I hope that the minister will find that the member for Vancouver-Langara will do more than play politics with the tragedy of our children.

EFFECT OF HEU SETTLEMENT ON PATIENT CARE

L. Reid: My question is to the Minister of Health. The same minister who cut the Island Highway kickback deal is responsible for road kill in our health care system. The sweetheart deal with the Hospital Employees' Union, cut by the Minister of Employment and Investment, is now creating a crisis for British Columbia patients. Can this Minister of Health tell us how B.C. hospitals are supposed to stop the epidemic of bed closures and resignations in health care? How is he going to return decent health care to British Columbia?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Over the three budgets we have brought down, this government has spent about $1 billion of additional money to support quality health care for British Columbians. That's a record we can be proud of. We are also doing what needs to be done to build a comprehensive network of health care, including both hospitals and community care. That includes the shift of services to the community sector through initiatives such as the Closer to Home fund. But we are not prepared to do that at the expense of health workers, who have served the citizens of this province well. I support the accord. It was signed by the employers, the employees and this government. It is a

[ Page 10735 ]

critical part of doing what we need to do to ensure quality health care.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

L. Reid: It is now becoming obvious that the Minister of Health is prepared to put his union friends ahead of patients in British Columbia. This government has proven that it will raise election funds on the backs of charities and through highway kickback schemes. Are the patients in British Columbia next?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I find this very strange coming from this member. It was this very member who stood up in this House not so long ago to urge that we reach a settlement with the community nurses of this province, and she shed great crocodile tears of concern for health workers. I'm pleased to advise the House that we have now reached that deal with community nurses in this province. We will continue to negotiate fair agreements with health workers in this province that respect their contribution to our health system.

The Speaker: Final supplementary, hon. member.

SEPARATION OF SERVICE BETWEEN VGH AND UBC HOSPITAL

L. Reid: This minister is not putting the welfare of British Columbia patients first. This week no acute care neurology patients will be admitted to Vancouver General Hospital. They in fact will find themselves at the UBC site; the services will remain at Vancouver General Hospital.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Would the member please state her question.

L. Reid: My question to the hon. minister: if indeed the patients are at the University Hospital and the services are at the Vancouver Hospital, why is this pathetic scheme, where we'll see patients going back and forth in ambulances in this province, being allowed to continue under your leadership?

Hon. P. Ramsey: There is no doubt that hospitals in this province face challenging budgets this year. I'll be releasing their funding to them later this week. As they implement those budgets, I have asked them, first, to do what they have not done in the past and work with other hospitals in their city and in their region to ensure that access to services is not diminished; to work with community groups to make sure that services are passed from acute care institutions to the community and home setting; and finally, to assure my ministry and me that services and access to services have not been diminished for the people of this province.

VIOLENT CRIME IN B.C.

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Attorney General. British Columbians are shocked and scared by the rampant increase in crime in this province. They are worried that they are seeing crime patterns develop that make this province look like many American cities. What specific steps is the Attorney General taking to ensure that there is a comprehensive review of the Criminal Code of Canada, including the Young Offenders Act?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: That question properly should be put to the federal Minister of Justice. But I can tell the member that at the recent meeting of all ministers of justice in Canada -- in March, if my memory is correct -- we talked about a number of changes that are needed in the country. I note that the federal minister has now talked publicly about one of the initiatives, which is a community participation crime panel proposal to try to get the public more involved in matters of security in their community. We talked extensively at that meeting about proposed amendments to the Young Offenders Act.

Every justice minister in this country is concerned not so much about increases in crime, because it hasn't been increasing dramatically, but about the fact that violence in crime has increased dramatically. That's an issue that we have to get to the bottom of, and every one of us across this country is determined to do so.

The Speaker: Supplementary, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: Again to the Attorney General. British Columbians are looking to this government to provide leadership in dealing with violent crime in this province. Does this province support the three-strikes-and-you're-out policy that would see people convicted of three crimes involving violence or drugs given a life sentence without parole? Does this government support that position?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No.

The Speaker: Final supplementary, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: I can tell the Attorney General, then, that he is out of step with many British Columbians. I have raised this issue with groups around the province, and there is wide support. Will the Attorney General commit to ask a question of British Columbians on this particular issue in the next opinion poll done by the province, and will he agree to share with British Columbians the results of seeking that information?

NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH HOLDING SOCIETY

M. de Jong: The special prosecutor investigating the NCHS scandal has indicated that he would be content to release his report to the public, following the completion of criminal proceedings. Presumably he has been guided by the same considerations that prompted Mr. Peck to make similar recommendations regarding the release of his report involving the Attorney General. Now that the special prosecutor has made his position clear, will the Attorney General, on behalf of his ministry, to whom that report has been delivered, commit to releasing the special prosecutor's report, along with the RCMP's report to Crown counsel, following the completion of criminal proceedings?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: As the member should know, the Crown Counsel Act very carefully and very deliberately separates the responsibility of the criminal justice branch -- in particular, special prosecutors -- from members of this cabinet. Following the criminal proceedings, if Mr. Henderson and Mr. Quantz make decisions in respect of the information they have and how much of it they want to release to the public, that will be their choice, and will not be interfered with by me.

[2:30]

The Speaker: Supplementary, hon. member.

[ Page 10736 ]

M. de Jong: I wish the Attorney General would read sections 5 and 7 of the act he quotes. The government's utter disregard for the victims of crime becomes clearer with each passing day. There are victims in this case: the charities whose good works have been disrupted because of the alleged misappropriation of funds in favour of this NDP....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Question, hon. member.

M. de Jong: Will the Premier now commit to referring this matter to the House committee on ethical standards for a complete investigation, following the completion of the criminal proceedings?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member makes reference -- as he did a week or so ago -- to other provisions in the Crown Counsel Act. I want to say to the member that it is true that the Attorney General can direct -- in writing, if it's gazetted -- the decisions made by the criminal justice branch. This Attorney General will not do that in a matter that has the kinds of political overtones this matter has.

COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY

D. Mitchell: I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Investment regarding the downstream benefits of the Columbia River Treaty -- the approximately $1.5 billion due back to British Columbia commencing later this decade. Could the minister tell us whether or not British Columbians can expect an agreement with the Bonneville Power Administration in Washington State to have all the cash benefits from the new negotiations flow directly back to the province of British Columbia rather than to B.C. Hydro, the Crown corporation? Will they come back to the consolidated revenue fund of the province as opposed to going to the Crown corporation?

Hon. G. Clark: The short answer is yes, but I should give a full explanation. The entitlement is the result of a treaty negotiated by the government of British Columbia, not by B.C. Hydro. Therefore the negotiations taking place are between the government entities. B.C. Hydro, obviously, with their expertise, are involved in those negotiations. If we were to take back the power, then obviously there would be no resale and no direct revenue, although B.C. Hydro would pay revenue. If we were to negotiate any sale of part or all of the entitlement, or any variations thereof, any benefits from that would go to the people of British Columbia, not to the Crown corporation.

The Speaker: Hon. members, the bell terminates question period.

Hon. G. Clark: In a

preamble to a question, the member for Richmond East referred to a highway kickback scheme. The member knows full well that that is an outright lie, and it impugns the integrity of members of the House. I'd ask her to withdraw those comments.

The Speaker: The Chair would ask the hon. member for Richmond East to withdraw that, if she in any way imputed an improper motive to another member. Would the member withdraw any....

Interjection.

The Speaker: Hon. member it is the custom and tradition....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. It is customary....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, may I have order, please. It is a matter of courtesy that if a member did not intend to impute an improper motive to another member, the withdrawal is granted out of deference to the person who is objecting. The person simply does this as a matter of parliamentary custom and decorum. If the member is suggesting that she is not concerned about the feelings of a member, then the Chair has to tell the hon. member that it is an unequivocal request being made by the Chair that the member withdraw.

If the member is simply refusing to withdraw, I would caution the member that this is not a suggestion that the member has done something deliberately, or intended to; but where there is a question of a person's motive and an hon. member feels offended, it is customary in this House that a member simply withdraws out of deference to the request by the member. That's all the Chair is asking the hon. member. If the member refuses to withdraw, then I would ask....

On a point of order, the hon. member for Richmond Centre.

D. Symons: I think if we look back on the statement which the member alluded to, there was no mention of a person involved in there; it was an agreement made. There was no mention or impugning of the character of an individual at all, so the need for the withdrawal of that comment is not necessary.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. members, the Chair would like to try to clarify this situation. With the assistance I've just received, I request of the hon. Minister of Employment and Investment that he consider the remarks he made in standing up on a point of order. He indicated that the hon. member for Richmond East had herself lied, in making his protest with respect to the remark she'd made. That in itself, albeit an attempt to bring a point of order, is an unparliamentary expression. I ask if the minister would withdraw his terminology and perhaps use different language; then it would be appropriate for me to make a request of the hon. member.

Hon. G. Clark: Obviously, hon. Speaker, I withdraw any unparliamentary language I may have used. I simply asked the member to withdraw the reference to highway kickbacks, because I believe that that is clearly incorrect.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. minister. In light of that cooperation, would it be the wish of the hon. member for Richmond East to also withdraw any unintended imputation of impropriety on the part of any other member?

Hon. member, I regrettably must ask that the hon. member withdraw for the remainder of this sitting of the House.

[ Page 10737 ]

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply in

Section A, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates; and in the House, I call committee stage of Bill 32, BC Forest Renewal Act.

BC FOREST RENEWAL ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 32; D. Lovick in the chair.

The Chair: I'd like to call the committee to order. I ask those members who have not yet decided whether they are staying or leaving to please make that decision promptly. Then we shall begin.

section 5.

W. Hurd: I have a series of questions regarding the reporting of the committees to the board of directors of Forest Renewal B.C. Could the minister indicate whether the reports that are required to be filed or to go forward to the board of directors will be made public? Will there be an opportunity for the public of the province or the people of the regions of British Columbia to scrutinize those plans that are brought forward, in connection with these broad areas of forest industry diversification and investing in environmental values?

Hon. A. Petter: I have absolutely no reason to believe they would not be. I am sure they will be part of the scrutiny of the legislative committee, and I would expect they would also be available through freedom of information. But my expectation is that that wouldn't be necessary; they will be available.

W. Hurd: Could the minister elaborate on the nature of the makeup of these committees? Once the board of directors is appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the Forest Renewal board has the mandate to appoint the committees. During the course of this debate we have sought to ensure that the representation of the forest sector strategy group and the diversity that that group represents will be reflected in the makeup of the board of the Crown corporation.

Could the minister provide us with a commitment today that the kind of diversity he is not prepared to write into an amendment, but to which he is committed, will be a fact of life on the board of directors and be reflected in the work of the committees which report to the board?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes. With the committees, the concern was to have a group that could look much more specifically at particular elements of concern in advising the board on its responsibilities. So there will be a balance between expertise with respect to particular areas -- such as value-added or silviculture, for example -- and an attempt to ensure that there is as broad representation as possible. But certainly the spirit of partnership and the representativeness of the overall structure will be reflected on these committees, as I anticipate they will be on the board.

As the member will note, it is expected that the committees appointed by the board to serve these functions will be qualified to advise on the subject matter assigned to that committee. That adds the further element that we are looking for people to serve on these committees who will have particular expertise and knowledge in the area that the committee will be advising on.

W. Hurd: One assumes that the committees will be, in essence, directing the work of the Crown corporation. They will be given specific duties in the areas of forest industry diversification, investing in environmental values, fostering forest employment opportunities and supporting community development. During the early stages of this debate the minister introduced an amendment guaranteeing regional equity. I wonder if he could commit to the committee, under

section 5, that.... First of all, how does he hope to achieve regional equity with the committee structure? My second point would be: how are the committees going to present their plans to the board? Is there going to be a dollar figure attached to the committees? Are they going to cost out the recommendations? Or is it going to be up to the board itself to receive plans for these various activities and then attempt to set a budget for them?

Can the minister elaborate on the work of the committees: whether they are going to have a budget recommendation responsibility; whether they are just going to identify projects that make sense; whether they are going to be charged with the responsibility of bringing forward this regional equity that we've talked about in earlier clauses of the bill?

Hon. A. Petter: The role of the committees is not to direct the board; it is to provide advice to the board on the areas that are specified in the legislation. So it will be for the board, in accordance with its mandate -- which includes the goal of regional equity -- to establish the parameters for the investment program and then draw upon the advice given to it by the individual committees in developing that program.

[2:45]

When we get to

section 6, I'm sure the member will be pleased to see -- if he has not already done so -- that there is a specific reference that the committees must provide advice to Forest Renewal B.C. on appropriate regional goals, which complements rather nicely the amendment that was passed as a component of

section 4.

W. Hurd: It's important during the course of this debate on

section 5 to really attempt to clarify exactly what the minister means by these particular activities. I'm particularly interested in

section 5(2)(e), which talks about "supporting community development and adjustment." Can the minister advise the committee whether that means employment adjustment? Does that refer to job losses that he's expecting to occur as a result of other activities, whether they be declining annual allowable cuts or whatever? What exactly does he mean by adjustment, and what will that committee be recommending specifically when it looks at community development and adjustment?

Hon. A. Petter: The five committees that are specified flow very much from the work of the Forest Sector Strategy Committee, which identified these five areas as ones that required attention and were appropriate for investment strategies. With respect to

section 5(2)(e), "supporting community development and adjustment," the intention is to assist communities in taking full advantage of the benefits of the forest renewal program -- of the investment strategies that it will provide to communities and the opportunities for enhanced work and opportunities in all of the elements, be they investments in the land, the environmental component, value-added or skills and training.

The reference to community adjustment is a reference, I think, to the transition or adjustment that we see taking place

[ Page 10738 ]

in communities as a result of this forward-thinking initiative -- moving from a situation in which those communities have been threatened by the failure of past governments to address declining employment and come to terms with the need to better steward the resource to a situation in which there is an investment back into the resource that will support those communities and enable them to grow and thrive in the future.

W. Hurd: When the committee charged with the responsibility of supporting community development and adjustment compiles some sort of plan that's regionally equitable and submits that plan to the board, is the minister telling us that the initiative for accessing that portion of the $400 million that's being generated every year will be a bottom-up process whereby the communities are galvanized to apply for funds? Or will the board, having received this report from the committee on community development and adjustment, decide from a top-down position which programs they're going to fund?

Is it this committee's mandate to advise the board that we're going to experience an employment loss in region A of British Columbia, for example? Perhaps the committee has been in contact with the mayors or some of the community development officers in that region: "These are the ideas they have given to us as a committee; these are the recommendations that we are making to the board, and we're going to put the communities together with the board to access the funds." Or, on the other hand, is the strategy going to be delivered from the top down?

Is it going to be the board that looks at the committee reports and then makes a decision as to what they're going to support and what they're not going to support? What role will there be for the communities through this particular committee?

Hon. A. Petter: I don't know how many times I can answer the same question when it's asked in different forms, but I'll try perhaps one last time. As I've made clear throughout this entire debate, the intention of the forest renewal plan is to support communities. Its intention is to provide support to existing institutions, including communities. In that sense, it is very much a bottom-up initiative designed to provide support to forest-based communities.

The structure of these committees and their relationship to the board is that the committees will no doubt -- particularly the committee concerning communities -- involve community representation in developing an investment program or strategy to support communities in taking advantage of the elements of the program and in strengthening economic development. Those committees will act in an advisory capacity to the board, and the board will make the decisions on that strategy. Those decisions will have to be consistent with its mandate, which includes the goal of regional equity.

W. Hurd: How does the minister envisage that these boards will acquire the information they need to make recommendations to the Crown corporation board? Will they in fact be holding public meetings? Will they be touring the province? When these committees are struck, I imagine that they are going to be immediately inundated with ideas for forest renewal, with the identification of environmental stewardship problems, areas of the province that may be facing the loss of a sawmill -- whatever the case might be. How are they going to access this information, first of all?

How are they going to reach out to the public? With the committee structure, what is the opportunity for public meetings, public involvement?

Hon. A. Petter: There will be many opportunities for the involvement of communities in a number of different ways. I don't want to prejudge, however. The member wants to have it both ways. He wants to say, on the one hand, that it shouldn't be top-down -- at least I take that as the implication. On the other hand, he wants to prejudge how best to engage with communities.

The committee and the board will no doubt be discussing with communities and other stakeholders the best way to engage with them. I imagine -- and I'm just imagining here, because I don't want to prejudge what the committee and the board may decide -- that that would involve opportunities for direct input from people in those communities, and it would also, no doubt, involve some relationships with the municipal organizations and with the municipalities directly.

But the mandate of the board and the committee's role in advising the board is to ensure that these funds are delivered in a way that supports communities, that doesn't create new bureaucratic structures, and that delivers it in a regionally equitable way.

W. Hurd: Assuming that that kind of dialogue goes on -- and I hope the minister is correct that it will -- I see the committees establishing a wish list, which is something that I guess all committees do at one time or another. But the assessment of how funds will be allocated to support the wish list will be at the total discretion of the board, subject to approval from the cabinet or from the Forests minister.

I just wonder whether we aren't going to potentially run into difficulty, where each committee, through its zealous good work, comes up with a wish list that can't in fact be met with the resources of the board. Is there a cutoff point where each committee determines that we must be almost out of funds or almost near the envelope of the funds that exist, or are they just basically going to be compiling a set of recommendations for these various activities around the province without a price tag attached to them?

Hon. A. Petter: I really didn't want to get back into this, but I find it ironic that the member is so concerned about these processes when he fundamentally opposes this whole initiative.

However, I anticipate that the committee's primary role will be to devise a policy to assist the board to fulfil its mandate, not to develop a wish list. But wish lists will no doubt be forthcoming. Part of that mandate will be to ensure that funds are dispensed in a way that ensures that this initiative is not overdrawn but can provide a consistent and long-term commitment to communities.

The committee will have a direct relationship with the board and its mandate. Indeed, it will have a representative of the board on the committee to ensure that linkage. It will be for the board, therefore, to ensure that the advice the committee provides enables the board to carry out its mandate, which will include ensuring that the program of investments looks to the long term and is sustainable.

Some of these imagined problems of the member, I think, are more imagined. Perhaps he's being paid by the hour; I'm not sure how his leader remunerates him for this kind of questioning. But I would urge him to get on to some more substantive questions, rather than making up problems that run contrary to his own philosophy, which is opposed to this act.

[ Page 10739 ]

W. Hurd: I know the government is very concerned about hourly rates these days; we see evidence of that every day.

I have a series of further questions on

section 5, because I think it's an important

section -- the creation of these committees. I wonder if the minister could tell us why he has decided, under

section 5(4), that the Minister of Forests should be required to approve the makeup of the board. Why wouldn't it be a function of the corporation itself to simply make the decisions on who needs to be appointed? Obviously he feels there's a role for the Ministry of Forests in appointing the committees as well as the boards. I wonder if he could elaborate for this committee on what involvement he would expect his ministry to have in looking at the selections recommended by the board for the makeup of the committees.

Hon. A. Petter: Yes. I think this provision speaks directly to the concerns the member earlier raised -- to ensure that there is adequate representation and that that representation is reflective of the various stakeholders and regional interests. Obviously, in the final analysis, this is a political responsibility. I expect that the minister -- be it me or some other minister -- would be exercising the responsibility to ensure that the makeup of those committees is reflective, in the best way possible, of the various stakeholders and regional interests that the member himself has signalled are an important component of this initiative.

The Chair: Next is the member for Surrey-White Rock.... I'll take the member for Prince George-Omineca. We're all being so gracious today.

L. Fox: The Chair is always gracious when it comes to the third party.

I have a couple of specific questions around

section 5. Some of it flows out of discussions that we had earlier on

section 4. When you look at the five objectives outlined in subsection (2) of

section 5, it's fairly easy to identify a common thread throughout those objectives. One of my questions has to be: given the discussion we had in the earlier

section around the number of regions, does the minister envision that each committee would have a member from each region, who will be identified somewhere down the road, to look after the regional equity part of this legislation?

Hon. A. Petter: As I mentioned in response to a question from the member for Surrey-White Rock, when we get to

section 6, we'll see that "the committee must provide advice to Forest Renewal BC as to appropriate regional goals for expenditures."So I certainly expect the committees.... We and Forest Renewal B.C. will seek, in the appointment of these committees, to achieve a measure of regional equity in representation. I don't want to prejudge exactly each and every committee. I don't think it would be useful to say ahead of time that each and every committee will have exactly this form of representation.

But clearly, because their role is not only to advise on the substance of the area in which they're advising but also on the regional goals for that investment strategy, it would be appropriate. I expect attention will be paid to ensuring that these committees have regional representation.

[3:00]

L. Stephens: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

L. Stephens: Today in the House we have 27 grade 7 students from Langley Prairie Fundamental school in Langley, with their teacher Mr. Wiebe. Would everyone please make them welcome.

L. Fox: I guess the reason I'm concerned is that I've sat on this type of structure before. I know that normally the flow of information is from the bottom up, but along with that go priorities. Usually the recommendations are prioritized in terms of an action plan, and the board would give consideration to that. I'm somewhat concerned about regional equity if the input of people from a particular region of the province isn't contained within those priorities. I would like the minister to give us some assurance that indeed that kind of consideration would be given. I think it's very important, if the flow is going to be from the grass roots up, that each region has an opportunity to take

part in all five committees.

Hon. A. Petter: To the extent that I, as minister, can speak for what will unfold under this bill, I certainly think it would be unthinkable for there not to be full opportunity for regional input into this committee process. What I don't want to do is signal that we are going to design a structure that's so large or unwieldy that it will not be able to carry out its functions efficiently.

I anticipate that the committees will be appointed with regional equity in mind. But certainly the committees will also be quite able to draw upon the input and advice of those in the various regions, and they will have to do so in order to fulfil their obligations under

section 6 and to advise Forest Renewal B.C. on how to fulfil its mandate, which is now more clearly than ever stated as implementing a regionally equitable program of expenditures. To the extent that I can add to those assurances in the legislation, I'm happy to do so.

J. Tyabji: I notice that in

section 5(1), where it says "The board may establish committees," there's no limit to the number of committees the board may establish. Does the minister have any comment on that?

Hon. A. Petter: I think the comment is that the work that has taken place over the past year has identified the five areas laid out in 5(2)(

a) through (

e) as areas that are going to require ongoing attention. But there may well be other emerging issues that either require some short-term advice or, though unforeseen, may justify separate consideration by a committee of a different composition and structure. We wanted to ensure that the board had the flexibility to establish a committee to achieve those other unforeseen or more specific purposes.

Rather than simply have some boilerplate -- "The board may establish committees" -- we thought it was more forthcoming to identify the five areas that we believe justify ongoing committee work but to leave the board with some additional flexibility to deal with other issues for which they may wish to establish a committee, either on a short-term basis or, if the need emerges, for a longer term.

J. Tyabji: So there are no limits to the committees that may be established by the board. Obviously the board would establish committees in addition to the five named committees according to the mandate outlined by the appointed board, and those committees would sit for as long or as short a time as the board then deems necessary.

The next questions that come up are: what is the remuneration for the appointees to the board? What are the

[ Page 10740 ]

expense accounts or allowances that will be provided for the mandated committees? Are there any limits to the remuneration for the committees that the board may strike in addition to the five listed?

The Chair: Before I go to the minister, I caution the member that she is anticipating matters in another

section of the bill --

section 8, board remuneration. So would you defer that question, as I'm not really allowed to let it go yet.

Hon. A. Petter: Hon. Chair, I think the question of remuneration for both board and committee members is dealt with in

section 8, and that will be the appropriate place to deal with it.

J. Tyabji: I would assume, then, that when we're talking about committees in

section 8 -- which are in addition to the five listed -- those would also be struck by the board that would be governed by

section 8. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Petter: The member is asking about

section 8, and we're on

section 5, so I have a little difficulty. When we get to

section 8, I think the member will find that the language there refers to "committee member." It doesn't define it in respect of a particular committee assignment.

J. Tyabji: The only reason I'm raising this in

section 5 is that I don't want to get to

section 8 and have "committee members" mean the ones who are mandated. As I see it, there are no limits laid out in

section 5 as to the number of committees that may be established by the board, in addition to the five specified. I'm assuming that the minister is assuring me that they will all be dealt with in

section 8. That's the assurance I needed with regard to the limitations.

With regard to the committees that are mandated, I don't see a limit to the number of members on those committees, except that there are stipulations about some of the requirements for those members. Could the minister comment on that?

Hon. A. Petter: The only comment I would offer is that the board and also the minister or the government, to the extent that they are involved, will no doubt want to make sure that the committees are not overly large, but they will want to make sure that they are representative and that they provide appropriate input. So there is some flexibility provided here on committee size -- subject, no doubt, to the searching scrutiny of this member and other members when the matter reaches the legislative committee -- in order to ensure that the committees have been established in an effective and efficient way, which is the intention.

J. Tyabji: I note that some committees that have been struck in the term of this government have been extremely large, such as the regional committees of CORE, which have had numerous members on them representing a wide diversity of interests. Since there are no limits, I would assume that any of these committees could have in excess of 30 people on them in order to meet the objectives laid out in

section 5(2) -- whether it be in (a), (b), (c), (

d) or (e) -- with all of them receiving relative rates of remuneration.

This question comes up. Subsection (5) says: "At least one of the individuals appointed to each committee established...must be a director of the board." Five members will have characteristics with regard to the five different areas of interest. The minister has said that these members should be experienced, yet I would assume that they are meant to be independent, whether it be of the workings of the forest industry, the unions or government. Where would the minister find a person who would have the qualifications to meet one of these five requirements and yet be independent of some of the people who have special interests in the Crown corporation?

Hon. A. Petter: I guess my problem is with the member's assumption. I have tried to describe this agency throughout as a partnership. That will be true of the committees, as it is of the board. I would anticipate that committee members will be drawn from various sectors, including the industry, unions, other worker representative groups, communities and environmental organizations. I think there are plenty of people in those various sectors with the talent, ideas and expertise to fulfil the roles.

In addition, I would point out that one of the intentions of having more focused committees is so that you don't have to replicate the 30 or so people that might otherwise be necessary. You can have a more focused group looking at particular issues without having to ensure that people who have other expertise have to waste time engaging in the process. One of the rationales for having committees advising the board is so that people with a more focused mandate can advise on particular areas. That should also obviate the need for extraordinarily large committees, bearing in mind that we want to ensure that the committees are representative to the greatest extent possible.

J. Tyabji: It would seem that by the general nature of subsections (2)(

a) through (2)(e), the board committees would have to be extremely large just to make sure that everybody is represented at the table, even though the minister is saying that he has narrowed it down. It is slightly narrower than CORE, but when subsection (2)(

a) says "increasing investment in the forest resources and in the forest land base," and then one of the people who must be appointed is someone the board considers to be qualified to advise on the subject matter, it would seem to me that the committee could be extremely large. But the question I'd like to ask is: does the minister think it's a concern that the person whom the board deems to be qualified may be somebody directly related to one of the -- I prefer to say sides; the minister prefers to say partnership -- partners of the Crown corporation?

Hon. A. Petter: I really think the member does not have the same conception of this agency that I do, and perhaps that's because it's her role to have a different conception. What is intended here is not to have committees that replicate all of the groups or all of the areas of the province but to have committees that can advise on policy matters to the board in a way where those policies are reflective of the general interest. The committee will have to do some work -- as previous members asked, and I responded -- engaging with communities, those in industry and others.

The committee is not there to replicate the entire province. Each committee is there to be a small, focused group that can, in itself, be somewhat representative but, even more importantly, can draw upon the representative input of stakeholders throughout the province.

Do I envisage a problem in terms of the advice given? I do not. Clearly, if the advice given were of such a specific nature as to affect a particular stakeholder group, then the member might have to remove himself or herself. Generally, these committees are to advise on general policy. The expectation is that the stakeholders will be there, to some extent,

[ Page 10741 ]

advising on that policy from the point of view of the stake they have. I think that's the nature of a partnership. I expect that that can work well, as the process to date has worked well.

J. Tyabji: I'm not sure how the minister defines stakeholders, but it does seem that he has left out the most important stakeholder: the public, which owns the resource from which the Crown Corporation is going to reap its financial benefits. So that's an interesting point. I think that the minister, when he refers to stakeholders, talks about either industry, government or, perhaps, the unions. It would appear from the minister's comments that he can expect some of these committees to have only three members.

The way this is written, the committees can have a membership of one -- or two, I suppose, because you'd have the member of the board, and then you'd have the qualified individual. The minister is not concerned that the qualified individual might be directly tied to one of the people who the minister sees as a stakeholder, whether that be government -- mandated to have the expansion of government through the Crown corporation -- or industry.

Section 5(2)(

a) says that "increasing investment in the forest resources and in the forest land base" is to be the mandate of that committee. I wonder: if the increased investment is taken to be private investment, is the Crown Corporation then going to make recommendations to the private sector, or is the increased investment solely with regard to the investments of the Crown corporation?

Hon. A. Petter: There are so many elements. I guess I continue to believe that government represents the public of British Columbia. I'm sorry that the member doesn't hold that view, but I think that's why we're all here. Government certainly will be one of the partners represented, and it will be speaking on behalf of the general public. It may come as a surprise to the member to know that members of the public are workers, representatives of the forest industry and environmentalists, and they are represented in communities.

I think that the public will be adequately represented, in every way, through all the partners. Any concern you may have about any stakeholder group or individual not being represented as a partner will be represented by government. That's what governments are here to do: to represent the community at large, and that's why it's important that government be a partner.

[3:15]

In terms of increasing investment in forest resources and the forest land base, that investment speaks to both meanings. We are principally looking at the investment that will derive from the investment program being managed by Forest Renewal, but I certainly hope and anticipate that that investment strategy will also encourage and foster added investment by the private sector as well in, for example, value-added industries.

By doing market research and facilitating research and development in new value-added products, we can do an awful lot to encourage private investment in the value-added industries and increase both employment and the value of the products we export from the province. Investment can mean both senses of investment here, although in

section 5(1)(

a) the "increasing investment" refers to investment in forest resources and in a forest land base. Nevertheless, there may be opportunities to encourage private investment in that case as well.

J. Tyabji: It would appear the minister is saying that the priority of Forest Renewal B.C. is to encourage the investment of Forest Renewal B.C. in the forest land base. That seems to me to be in direct competition with the private sector, which has generally been the vehicle through which investment has occurred in the forest resources. The minister is saying no, so perhaps he can address that before I go further.

I find it extremely odd that this minister stands up in this House and tries to tell me that this government represents the public's interests at the table with regard to the land base when this government has excluded the public from talks on aboriginal land negotiations, for example, and has said that it is this government that represents the public's interests there as they carry through on the Charlottetown accord with regard to the aboriginal land strategy. It's not a big comfort to the people of this province to know that this government is going to be representing the general interests of the public.

If the minister is not saying that Forest Renewal B.C. is moving into direct competition with the private sector, could he please explain how the mandate of Forest Renewal B.C. is going to increase public sector investment? I see Forest Renewal B.C. being defined as a public sector investment in an area which has traditionally been private sector investment.

Hon. A. Petter: If the member and others in this Legislature, particularly in the official opposition, consult with the public on the issue of Forest Renewal B.C. and this investment program, they will find that it is they who are out of step with the thinking of British Columbians, and that through this initiative the government has done an exemplary job in representing the short- and long-term interests of British Columbians. I would encourage them to examine themselves and talk to their constituents, and maybe the member would find some reassurance as to who is best representing the interests of British Columbians.

Leaving that partisan comment to one side, I will deal with the question of investment. As a partnership, this initiative involves both public and private investment. I find it astounding that I have to constantly remind members that the forest resources of this province are, for the most part, publicly owned by the citizens of the province. I suppose some members wish it were otherwise; I have heard some members in the official opposition who seem to wish it were otherwise. But that is the case, and as steward of that resource, the public has an obligation to ensure that it is managed in a way that ensures its long-term sustainability.

Historically, there has not been much private investment in this province in the kind of advanced silviculture contemplated in section (2)(a). That is why a program of investment is required. Because the public as landowner is the most appropriate mechanism for coordinating a partnership arrangement for that investment, industry supports this initiative. Once again, the member is trying to create distinctions and ideological battles where there are none. This is a public resource. The industry accepts that; the people of B.C. accept that.

As stewards of the resource, the government has an obligation to ensure that there is investment of a kind that hasn't taken place in the past: back into the land. We have an investment strategy that takes the value of that public resource and returns it to the land, in partnership with the private sector. Everyone can support it -- except, it seems, the official opposition and a few other misguided members in this House.

J. Tyabji: I really wish I could believe that the minister's rhetoric -- which is, as always, very eloquent -- is something that addresses the point in front of us. First of all,

[ Page 10742 ]

the minister has pointed out something that everybody knows: the forest lands of this province are primarily publicly owned. But the other thing that the minister is forgetting -- conveniently, it seems -- is that the number one issue in front of the public isn't great confidence and rejoicing over Forest Renewal B.C. What people are saying in general is: "I don't trust the government. I don't trust the government to look after my needs or to steward my interests." That's what they're saying.

I've talked to my constituents, and you know what? They shrug when they hear about Forest Renewal B.C., because they're not sure if it's some sort of Orwellian doublespeak or if it's just another way to have some extra revenue coming into the government coffers. If this minister is interested in accountable stewardship of the resources, he would continue to have the stewardship of those resources through his ministry, where they're more accountable, and not through a Crown corporation.

He would take the money that is going into remuneration for all these millions of little committees that are going to be set up and put it into subsidizing silviculture which is currently being conducted in the private sector.

The Chair: Excuse me, member. Will you take your seat for a moment, please. I want to emphasize that I offer this caution to all sides in the debate: we are long past second reading; we are now in clause-by-clause on

section 5, the establishment of committees. All questions must be directed very specifically to the items in

section 5. I give members notice that I will no longer allow any latitude. Please continue.

J. Tyabji: I don't know what comes over me when I hear that kind of rhetoric from a cabinet minister.

With regard to

section 5(2)(b), it says: "...promoting activities that assist (

i) forest industry diversification." I'm assuming that that diversification refers, once again, to Forest Renewal B.C. being public sector investment in diversification, which would also be in direct competition with the private sector. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Petter: No, that is not correct. I know the opposition likes to think in dichotomous terms and divide everything into one side or the other, but in this case let me assure the member that forest industry diversification is, again, a partnership. A partnership, member; think of it. We will be working in partnership with communities and the private sector to ensure there is a diversification.

In this case that kind of diversification may be -- indeed, I would expect it would be predominantly -- a diversification of private sector initiatives in value-added processing and manufacturing on a scale we have not seen in this province in times past, but which can now take place because of this initiative.

J. Tyabji: That goes back to the original questioning. How big are these committees going to be in order to allow that kind of diversification? Just so I can be clear on this -- I don't want to stray from the questions in the committee

section of the bill -- if the minister is saying, then, that this one committee is promoting activities that assist forest industry diversification, then what he's saying, I would assume, is that in effect the person who has been appointed to this committee and is supposed to be qualified to advise on this is someone who is going to do market research for private sector investment, community dialogue to see where the communities are going and those kinds of activities. Could the minister elaborate on that? It's quite interesting.

Hon. A. Petter: Whenever a member says that I'm interesting, I'm always tempted to go on and on, but I'll try to discourage myself from doing so and keep my answer brief.

Forest industry diversification refers to the very obvious notion that we have a forest industry that could produce far more jobs and far more wealth for the province if, in fact, we branched out in the kinds of products and processes that we have in this province to better utilize our forest products.

I expect that the committee will be advising on policies that will lead to that diversification, be they policies that are directed at market research through educational institutions or other private or public sector structures, or be it through research and development initiatives aimed at generating new products. There will be a general set of policies and investments that the committee will advise the board on that will enhance and promote the diversification of the forest industry.

J. Tyabji: In addition to policy on regulation or legislation, would this committee be empowered or be, perhaps by whim, providing recommendations to the board that would then go to the minister? If not, why not -- if this committee is supposed to be doing such in-depth market research on what's going on in the forest industry?

Hon. A. Petter: I think that's been made clear in

section 4, where we had a very extensive debate. The mandate of Forest Renewal B.C. is primarily to oversee a program of investments and not to engage as a regulatory body.

J. Tyabji: Perhaps the minister didn't understand the question. I understand this is not a regulatory or legislative body. What I was talking about was advising. The minister has said that these committees will be advising the board with regard to policy for financial investment. It would seem to me that if there's going to be enough field research done, given the package of legislation that's coming down in this session on the forest industry.... We've got the new forestry code; we've got the new water act.

We've got all these things that I would imagine these committees will be coming directly in contact with, because they're supposed to be dialoguing with the communities and talking to all the various interests in this sector. It would appear logical that some recommendations would be made with regard to changes in regulation or legislation as they see the new regulations and legislation being enacted. I'm curious about that. If not, why not? All the money is going out, anyway.

Hon. A. Petter: The answer is simply that this is not the focus of these committees or of Forest Renewal B.C. The focus is on the investment side. Government may well pursue policy initiatives to complement the investments, but that is not their focus. I suppose recommendations may be made and passed on in the course of events, but they will not have the same place within the structure of things, because this agency is about making investment decisions, not about engaging in regulation of the forest sector.

J. Tyabji: In

section 5(2)(b)(ii) it says, "the further processing of wood supply," and in (iii), "increased manufacturing of wood products." In those cases, would the committee be empowered to recommend to the Crown corporation that there be a branch of the Crown corporation or that the Crown corporation itself engage in those activities to fill any sort of market gaps? Or would they be analyzing

[ Page 10743 ]

private sector opportunities and then communicating them to other companies in addition to the Crown corporation?

Hon. A. Petter: Again, this is well-trodden ground. The whole function of this agency is not to deliver programs itself or to compete as an entity in the market, but rather to deliver an investment strategy that will support entities that currently exist and those that may become possible through this strategy. The answer is no, I do not envisage any possibility in which the agency itself would engage in the processing of the wood supply or manufacturing of wood products.

What I do envisage are many new opportunities for private sector investors and perhaps local communities and others to get involved in one way or another in the job opportunities that will be afforded and economic activity that can be generated as a result of investments and the investment policy implemented by the board on the advice of the committee.

J. Tyabji: With regard to subsection (3), where it says that each committee must take into account the need for increased participation of first nations and aboriginal persons in the forest economy, I have two questions. How is that going to be cross-referenced with the activities underway in the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and the Ministry of Environment, and to what extent will there be dialogue? There are, of course, ongoing negotiations in those ministries.

[3:30]

The other

part is -- and this may have been canvassed before; if so, I'd like to be referred to the

part in Hansard where it would be: will the committee, in giving its advice to the board, actually be advising on how these first nations and aboriginal peoples would be getting involved in each separate committee's activities?

Hon. A. Petter: We have discussed the fact that all of the activities of the agency are to be made available to first nations; there is not a separate envelope or a separate approach for first nations. In fact, I now recall that I did engage in this debate at some length at an earlier stage, and I'd be happy to reference the point in Hansard where that occurred.

In terms of the wording in

section 5(3), the member may be aware that first nations and aboriginal people in this province are underrepresented in the forest sector relative to their numbers and have not received the same opportunities to participate and benefit from forestry activities that non-aboriginal people have. We believe it's important that attention be paid to ensure that first nations, who in many cases exist in areas where significant cutting activity, for example, takes place, enjoy a fair share of the opportunities that this initiative will provide.

I expect that there may well be coordination and work with other agencies that have a regard for first nations interests -- for example, the First Nations Forestry Council -- in developing policies in this regard.

The intention is to attend to the fact that first nations citizens have not been adequately represented and have not adequately benefited from the benefits of the forest resource in the past, and here is an opportunity to ensure that first nations and aboriginal people can do so. Therefore we have included a specific reference in the act asking the committees, in the course of carrying out their duties, to ensure that these programs will in fact be afforded to first nations and aboriginal people.

J. Tyabji: How is this going to be related, then, to the joint stewardship arrangements that are currently in place? Are the lands that are under joint stewardship, such as up in Mackenzie or the Clayoquot lands, going to be under the jurisdiction of Forest Renewal B.C., or are they excluded? If so, on what basis?

Hon. A. Petter: Forest Renewal B.C. will not have jurisdiction over lands. Forest Renewal B.C. will not be negotiating jurisdictional issues with first nations or aboriginal people. What Forest Renewal B.C. will be doing is providing a forward-thinking program with investments for all British Columbians and, as part of that investment program, ensuring that that investment program is one that can be accessed by first nations and aboriginal people to ensure that they enjoy the benefits that can flow from this kind of initiative.

Any negotiations with respect to land rights issues, be they treaty negotiations or pre-treaty negotiations, would not be conducted under the aegis of this agency; they would continue to be conducted, presumably, under the aegis of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, the Treaty Commission and other agencies established for that purpose.

J. Tyabji: I think this is my final follow-up question, unless something comes up in the minister's answer.

I understand, obviously, that Forest Renewal B.C. doesn't have jurisdiction. But if Forest Renewal B.C. is putting a financial investment strategy in place, I'm assuming that the financial investment strategy for forest renewal in British Columbia has a defined area of land that it's looking at. Especially when it's making the regional equity programs, there must be a land base that is referred to.

This goes back to a question that we had last week, when the minister tried to say that the protected areas strategy was not relevant. I'm just trying to define that where there is land that is relevant to this financial investment strategy.... Would land that is under dispute or the subject of negotiations with aboriginal people be excluded from the financial investment strategy, particularly with regard to regional equality?

Hon. A. Petter: We're straying perilously far from committees, but given that it's the last question, I'll be characteristically generous.

The investment program will be directed to provincial forest lands. To the extent that first nations may have rights they wish to assert against those lands, there are forums to assert those rights. Indeed, some tremendous initiatives -- which I won't go into, because they're far from the purview of this

section -- to enable those rights to be advanced have been put forward by this government. But this agency will not be dealing with those issues. It will be dealing with the economic and other opportunities that can flow to first nations and aboriginal citizens as a result of this program of investment into the provincial forest lands of the province.

J. Tyabji: I have three more.

The Chair: I'll just remind the member of Robert Service's words, "A promise made is a debt unpaid," and remind her she now owes us.

J. Tyabji: Considering the debt this government has racked up in the last couple of years, I think mine is minimal.

Hon. Chair, my follow-up is: if the minister is referring to provincial forest lands, would the lands in the Clayoquot cut

[ Page 10744 ]

be considered provincial forest lands or outside that category?

Hon. A. Petter: The lands that have been identified for forest management and harvesting within Clayoquot Sound or any other part of this province would fit within my definition of provincial forest lands.

G. Campbell: I have a quick question for the minister. As I have gone around the province and talked with people about Forest Renewal B.C., the consistent message is that they are concerned about how their region will be represented. I haven't heard an answer from the minister that I think gives any comfort to people in parts of the province that they are going to be represented.

Let me be specific. The issue with regard to

section 5(2)(

c) is: "...investing in the environmental values of the forest." Will there be another layer of response created by Forest Renewal B.C. beyond the Forest Practices Code that I understand the minister is intending to introduce? Or will the committees be responding within the purview of the Forest Practices Code, so that we won't have different rules applying across the province?

Hon. A. Petter: I can't let this question pass without saying that I find it ironic that the Leader of the Opposition is concerned about consistent messaging, particularly in reference to Forest Renewal B.C. However, let me strive to answer his question.

Clearly the activities that will take place, in terms of the environmental components or investment in the land base, must all be consistent with the regulatory requirements that will flow from the Forest Practices Code. But the Forest Practices Code will not preclude additional investment activity, provided that is carried out in a way consistent with its requirements.

[J. Pullinger in the chair.]

So, for example, there is plenty of room to restore damaged lands -- which may not be required under the Forest Practices Code, because the damage occurred in the past. There will be opportunities to engage in commercial thinning and further forms of silviculture beyond those required under the Forest Practices Code as licence conditions or minimal standards. So we see here an opportunity to build upon the Forest Practices Code an investment strategy that will have to be consistent with, but will go beyond, the minimal regulatory requirements of that code.

G. Campbell: I appreciate the minister's confusion. Unfortunately, I have served on a Crown corporation board in the past, as well as on committees to Crown corporations, and under this government and previous governments they are not accountable and often do not carry through with the purposes set out by legislation. That is why the minister is having some trouble with this side of the House on this legislation.

Again, in terms of the people across this province and the regional representation that is demanded and required and requested of the minister, what guarantees can the minister give us that regions will be represented, so that they do not feel they are going cap in hand to the minister or the Crown corporation board in what is really an exercise in futility? That is what has happened with other Crown corporations that the government has had control over.

Hon. A. Petter: I regret the fact that the Leader of the Opposition wasn't present when we had a full and vigorous debate on

section 4, the mandate of Forest Renewal B.C., which includes the requirement to implement a regionally equitable program of expenditures. In addition, when we get to

section 6, the member will find out that each of the committees is required to advise on regional goals. If the member wants to raise the question again in

section 6, I guess he could do so, but we had an extensive debate around regional representation. I can assure the member, as this government has assured all British Columbians, that one of the goals of this initiative is to ensure that not only is there a much-needed investment back to the land, but the investment will be carried out in a regionally equitable way, in a way that is sensitive to the various regions.

If the regions in this province are concerned, it's probably because the member has gone to those regions and told those regions that he supports this plan, and then he comes back to this House only to vote against it. That's the real source of their concern, and not the puffed-up concern for regional equity that the member now brings to bear.

D. Lovick: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

D. Lovick: My introduction today is on behalf of the Speaker. In the galleries we have 48 grades 5 and 6 students in the company of their teacher Ms. J. Gerhard, as well as 22 adults. These are students from Cathcart Elementary School in Snohomish, Washington. I would ask all members to please join me in expressing a warm welcome to them.

D. Mitchell: While we're on

section 5, I would like to question the minister with respect to

section 5(2)(a). I believe this is one of the committees that is going to be formed. They are enumerated (a), (b), (c), (

d) and (e). Committee (

a) is going to be looking at increasing investment in the forest resources and in the forest land base. I know the minister discussed that at some length already. Certainly that committee has a very broad mandate, a very broad function. One wonders whether or not it's too broad, whether there is a need to limit or guide the work of that committee more specifically than is done in the bill.

The minister has talked a bit about the need for this committee to fulfil its mandate. But when we talk about investment in forest resources and in the forest land base, we could be talking about just about any conceivable thing, including campsites in parks, for instance. I wonder whether or not the minister agrees that perhaps there needs to be a limit on and guide to the kinds of investments that should be recommended by this very important committee of Forest Renewal B.C.

Hon. A. Petter: I think we may be in danger of replicating a debate we had earlier. Just to set out the relationship, the committees in

section 5 will be advising the Forest Renewal B.C. agency that is referred to in

section 4, whose mandate is to implement a regionally equitable program of expenditures in order to carry out the purpose of this act, which is established in

section 2. If we go back to

section 2, we find, front and centre, that the purpose is to enhance the productive capacity and environmental value of forest lands and to renew the forest economy of British Columbia. So there is adequate guidance given here as to the direction that this committee will take from the purpose clause and from the other sections.

[3:45]

[ Page 10745 ]

I would simply say this to the member: obviously one likes to define things as specifically as one can, but the opportunities to increase the productive capacity of the land are considerable, and I wouldn't like to foreclose some of those opportunities. Those opportunities include things we can foresee today, such as investments in better disease control, advanced silviculture and commercial thinning, but there may well be other opportunities to enhance the productive capacity of the forest land base and the products that the land base can provide that are unforeseen today.

I think it's appropriate that we have a committee that has a clear focus -- I refer back to the purpose clause -- but whose mandate is not constrained from looking at every possible strategy to enhance the timber supply and other productive opportunities to utilize the forest resource for the future of this province and its people.

D. Mitchell: I'll just ask the minister, then, if any of these five committees that are being established with this

section of the bill will be assigned the specific responsibility of dealing with the matter of stumpage fees that are going to be collected. I know that the key rationale for the bill is that increased revenues collected through stumpage are going to be directed to this new agency for investment in the province, but the minister has said -- and he's on the record as saying it -- that stumpage fees may have to be reviewed from time to time, based on lumber prices and future economic uncertainties.

In the event of future economic uncertainties, dealing with the price of lumber or the log market, would any one of these specific committees be given the specific task of addressing stumpage-related issues?

Hon. A. Petter: The answer is no. If we want to explore the issue in more detail, we might want to do it at a later section, such as

section 11. But very briefly, there is a process in place within the ministry to review technical issues. At the end of the day, the setting of stumpage will continue to be done by government through the existing processes, which involve certain consultation and technical review, and not through this agency.

L. Fox: I have a couple of very short questions to ensure that I understand the intent of the five objectives. Specifically, with regard to

section 5(2)(c), "investing in the environmental values of the forest," I'm assuming that the intent of this particular clause is to increase the opportunities for more jobs and investment coming out of our working forests. Could investing in the environmental values of the forest include such things as a spotted owl protection area or having committees recommending certain set-asides for different values, or are we merely talking about working forests and not about environmental values on their own?

Hon. A. Petter: There is no role for the committee to deal with land use issues. This is an investment program, and therefore questions of land use will not be determined by this agency. There are opportunities to enhance and promote environmental values that I think, as the member indicates, do have tremendous economic potential. If we can bring back into forest production some of those lands that have been lost due to slides and poor road construction, that has economic potential. If we can enhance the wildlife and fish values of the forest in terms of recreation and tourism, that has economic potential.

If through research and development we can find better ways to manage the forest to protect environmental values on the one hand, in a way that does not limit economic opportunities on the other, that will also be of benefit. I think all those opportunities exist here. But what does not exist here is an agency that can get involved in the land use decisions that the member is referring to.

L. Fox: I thank the minister for that assurance. I certainly thought that was the case, but I wanted the response on record.

I have one final question. It's almost a statement, rather than a question. The minister knows that I and my colleagues supported this bill at second reading. We are still extremely concerned about the regional equity issue. I guess I want one more statement from the minister, saying that he will do the best he can to ensure that all regions will be given consideration in the appointments to these committees.

Hon. A. Petter: Very briefly, the philosophy that underlies this piece of legislation and this

section is that for too long in this province we have seen the wealth taken out of forest-based communities and the forest and not reinvested back into the forest and those communities. Secondly, we want to ensure that that investment back is equitable -- that it takes account of the relative contributions of regions, to ensure that those regions enjoy the benefits on an equitable basis. I hope that assurance and that philosophy can further reassure the member that in fact this initiative does speak to regional as well as provincial concerns.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

W. Hurd: I really hesitate to bring up the issue of regional equity yet again, but it does tend to show up in some of these items in the bill. I note with interest that the minister saw fit not only to introduce an amendment on a previous

section but also to issue a press release emphasizing the regionally equitable distribution of funds.

With respect to

section 6(b), where the committee functions will be to provide advice to Forest Renewal B.C. as to appropriate regional goals for expenditures, this gets us back to the same sort of difficulty in defining regional equity and defining the regions. I know the minister has received a submission from the northern interior lumber sector that sought to identify four regions of the province, based on the stumpage formula that exists in those four regions.

Since we are talking about regions -- it certainly has been raised by the member for Prince George-Omineca and by the opposition and has been the subject of a rather hastily contrived press release by the Minister of Forests -- we have to ask the question again: are we talking about the four regions of the province in which -- the minister will agree -- there are different stumpage formulas? Are we talking about timber supply areas? Are we talking about the BCTV weather map? What do we mean by regions?

Hon. A. Petter: I want to inform the member that in terms of stumpage it's two regions, not four. In terms of the ministry it's six regions. I indicated earlier that I think the six-region approach is the one that the Forests ministry and I as minister would likely look to as an initial take on regional considerations.

But let's recognize that the province does not neatly fit into predetermined regions. For certain purposes some regions make more sense, and for certain purposes others do. When you're designing an investment strategy that you want to make sure is equitable overall and also serves the

[ Page 10746 ]

particular needs of particular communities, you may want to look, for example, at things I would call subregions but others would not -- certain parts of the province that have particular characteristics or kinds of wood supply that lend themselves to certain opportunities.

We will want to make sure that, overall, the program is one in which there are appropriate regional goals for expenditures, in the sense that we maximize the benefits from the investment on the one hand, while ensuring there is equity in terms of the overall return on the other. That's the essential balance, so that over the piece -- I see the member is perusing the press release; I hope he is, anyway -- there will be the assurance given in the legislation and in the press release that regions can look to this fund to ensure there is a return to those regions of the wealth or value produced by those regions. It will be fulfilled, but in the most effective and efficient way.

W. Hurd: Again referring to the

section and the role of the committees, and with respect to item (

b) on the appropriate regional goals for expenditures, as the minister knows, there is now a growing concern in the communities of British Columbia that there be a dollar-for-dollar commitment with respect to Forest Renewal B.C. funds. So I ask the question under

section 6(b): does the minister believe that the appropriate regional goal for expenditures should in any way be a dollar-for-dollar transaction in terms of regional equity?

This may cause the hon. member for Prince George-Omineca to leap into the debate again, but I note from the minister's press release that he makes reference to the Prince George region, where appropriate investment focus might be. At least it seems to imply some sort of dollar-for-dollar return to Prince George. The minister will know that in their submission to the Premier, the northern interior lumber sector felt very concerned about this type of provision.

Is there any sort of dollar-for-dollar notion inherent in the regional goals that are going to be set by the committee, or is it a nebulous term that does not imply any specific area or specific region? We have not really defined that in the course of this debate. Again, I would ask whether there's any dollar-for-dollar notion inherent here so that there's an equitable regional distribution of funds.

Hon. A. Petter: We had a full debate on this very issue under

section 4, which provides that Forest Renewal B.C. must plan and implement a regionally equitable program of expenditures. That is the mandate of Forest Renewal B.C. In

section 6 we are talking about designing appropriate regional goals for particular expenditures to achieve that overall equity.

If you read the press release really closely, hon. member, you will find that the reference to Prince George gives a very good example of how one might achieve regional equitability but on specific initiatives would direct funds to a particular region. Let me take you through the example in the press release. There is considerable marginal agricultural land around the Prince George region that might be better utilized as forest land.

That situation doesn't exist on the coast, and therefore if one's looking at that component of your investment strategy that's directed at converting marginal agricultural land into forest land, it would be nonsensical, stupid, counterproductive and idiotic to direct it in a regionally equitable way. You would want to direct that component of the investment strategy to Prince George, ensuring that other components are directed in their most sensible way and achieving regional equity overall so that there is a payback to each of the regions on an equitable basis.

Section 4 sets out the general principle of regional equitability, which we've debated at length.

Section 6 directs the committees working within that general principle to devise particular goals for particular investments in a way that will maximize the benefit without compromising regional equitability.

W. Hurd: Referring to

section 6(b), again we run into this term: "appropriate regional goals for expenditures." I have no wish to belabour the point of regional equity -- and I'm sure the minister is relieved to hear that -- but there is mass confusion developing out there.

While the minister was sending out his press release, the Premier of the province was speaking to groups in the Okanagan. I refer to the Kelowna Daily Courier, which says: "'Revenues from the government's forest renewal plan will be returned to the communities that need it,' [the Premier] says." Whether it's erroneous or otherwise, there appears to be a belief developing out there that there's going to be a dollar-for-dollar return to the regions of the province.

I know that the forest organizations and the people in the northern interior and in the Prince George region have determined that they may be sending out $50 million in stumpage under the forest renewal stumpage increases, but they have a belief that that $50 million is going to be returned to the region which generates it. I throw it out because obviously much more clarification is needed here than just an amendment and a simple press release.

Under

section 6(b), the committees are to "provide advice to Forest Renewal BC as to the appropriate regional goals for expenditures." Again, I advise the minister that there is an expectation that that represents a dollar-for-dollar return. I hope he will issue more press releases in the future to combat that misinformation.

L. Fox: In earlier discussions with the minister we talked about the reforestation of marginal agricultural lands, and he just mentioned that again with respect to his press release. The minister suggested earlier that within this bill -- not in this particular clause -- there may be the opportunity to acquire some of those marginal lands presently owned by private individuals. Under the last section, he also mentioned that it isn't the mandate of this Crown corporation to own land. This is all going around in my head. How is this going to be? Is the land going to be purchased by this Crown corporation?

Would this committee recommend lands to be purchased by the Crown corporation, and then the Crown corporation would decide whether or not that is a worthwhile goal? At the end of the day, should everything fall in place, who would own that land? Would it go back to the Ministry of Lands? What would happen to it?

Hon. A. Petter: I don't want to get drawn too far down this line, because as I recall, the earlier question was: what if? I certainly don't want to foreclose the possibility that, while I anticipate that most of the investment being referred to would take place on Crown lands, there may be some private marginal agricultural lands that could be better utilized for forestry purposes. One way of achieving that might be to acquire them and bring them back into the provincial forest.

If this investment program were to take that direction, I would anticipate that it could take place through acquiring that land for the provincial forest, for example, or perhaps through a local community. But it would not be through this agency.

[ Page 10747 ]

L. Fox: I have one brief observation as to why I mentioned it. In the Vanderhoof area of the Prince George region, most of these marginal lands were brought forward because of an agricultural land lease program in the past, and acres and acres of land are privately owned but sitting dormant. So it may very well be a major objective identified by that respective committee. That's why I ask the question.

[4:00]

D. Mitchell: Just for clarification, I want to make sure I understood the minister's response to the question by the member for Prince George-Omineca about the possibility of land acquisition by the agency. Did the minister indicate that that is not a possibility, that Forest Renewal B.C. will not specifically be acquiring lands? Is there a specific prohibition against that?

Hon. A. Petter: We might want to discuss this in other sections. There is not a specific prohibition. The function of this agency is not to become a manager of land; it is to act as an agency that directs investments in a way that draws upon existing structures, be they industry, government or community structures of one kind or another. My answer was that I do not envisage that. It would be inconsistent, in my view, with the long-term goals of this agency, to become a landowner of any sort. It may in order to establish an office or something, but not to manage public lands in the way contemplated by the member.

The whole thrust of this initiative is to facilitate agencies that are currently established to do that job. In this case, if the purpose of the acquisition was to bring lands into the public domain, as Minister of Forests I naturally think that the Ministry of Forests might well be the most appropriate agency.

D. Mitchell: While we're on

section 6, I have a question about the relationship between the committees and the board. The

section deals with the committees' functions, and it says that the committees can "make recommendations," "provide advice," etc. Is it correct that none of the committees have any binding power on the agencies, then? Can I ask the minister whether or not any of the recommendations or advice offered from these committees to the board is binding in any way? The board must have the final authority, I would imagine.

Hon. A. Petter: No, the committees are not binding upon the board. They are advisory to the board and are to carry out their function in accordance with the mandate established for the board.

J. Tyabji: I'd like to know from this minister why he was so nice to the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi. If I'd asked that question, he would have been flailing his arms and saying: "We covered that in

section 5." I'd just like to encourage the minister to keep up that level of etiquette with all members of the House.

Under

section 6, I note that the committees' functions have no time lines. Later on in the bill we will be canvassing the business plan that the board is mandated to provide, which will eventually end up before the Legislature. In terms of these committees' functions, what time lines are they within and who determines that? To what extent does the minister have a say in guiding these recommendations so that they have some input into the business plan?

Hon. A. Petter: I only flail my arms after the fifth question, hon. Chair.

The committees referred to in

section 5 and that are now referred to again in

section 6 will have ongoing functions because this is an ongoing commitment -- at least insofar as this government is concerned and so long as this legislation stands. The actual time lines for the advice provided by the committees will be established by the board.

J. Tyabji: Then the minister has no concerns when looking, for example, at

section 6(a), which says: "...make recommendations to Forest Renewal BC as to expenditures to be made." That seems to me to be directly tied into what we will be getting into later with regard to the business plan that the board has to make. If the committees have been mandated with these very specific tasks, as we see in

section 5, then the deliberations of each of those five committees -- or 500 committees, since there's no limit on them -- will result in recommendations that go to the board. Does the minister believe that those recommendations should be given to the board with enough time so that the board can include those in their thoughts for the business plan?

Hon. A. Petter: Absolutely, and I'm sure the board will ensure that. The committees do exactly that.

J. Tyabji: When we look at

section 6(d), it says: "...develop and recommend initiatives that fulfil the purpose of this Act." The minister was quite clear in the previous

section that the committee was only to be making recommendations. This reference to developing initiatives is, I would assume, a conceptual development. The minister is nodding his head. Could you put on the record that this is not for the committee to actually develop any initiatives other than on paper?

Hon. A. Petter: The purpose of

section 6(

d) is to indicate that the committee must develop but not implement those initiatives. That will be within the purview of the board. If the member wants me to say, using her lexicon, that it is to develop the ideas that go into the initiatives, fine. That's what it means.

J. Tyabji: What am I on? Number four? One more and I'm in trouble -- flailing arms.

I'm sure the minister recognizes how important this debate is in guiding those committees, and since there is no limit to the number of committee members or to the number of committees, they will need some guidance, no doubt, from these debates.

Section 6(

b) says: "...provide advice to Forest Renewal BC as to appropriate regional goals for expenditures." I know that the member for Surrey-White Rock has talked quite a bit about regional equity. In the previous sections we've talked about the private sector investments, and in

section 5, of course, the committees are going to be responsible, I would assume, for a lot of the field work in determining what Forest Renewal B.C. should do based on what is already out there. I just wonder to what extent the advice to Forest Renewal B.C. on appropriate regional goals for expenditures will take into account what the private sector is projecting for that area. Is that part of the mandate of that section, or will they only be looking at what Forest Renewal B.C. will do?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm sure that in ensuring that the investments are directed in the most beneficial way, the committees would certainly look at the activities of the private sector in ensuring, for example, that investments are

[ Page 10748 ]

directed to maximize benefits for the communities as a whole, including investment through private sector and public sector initiatives. I'm sure that the committees will read this exchange with rapt interest as they go about their function, and that they will take guidance from this fifth answer.

J. Tyabji: I recognize that I take my life into my hands with the next question, but the minister had his hands safely in his pockets last time, so perhaps they'll stay there.

Following up on that last question -- because it was a little bit fuzzy in the previous

section -- am I to understand that if Forest Renewal B.C. perceives an opportunity in the marketplace in an area, whether it is because it's regional equity or otherwise, and if it appears that the private sector is moving to take advantage of that opportunity, this committee would still make a recommendation that Forest Renewal B.C. move in to make those investments? That would obviously be direct competition.

Hon. A. Petter: The whole function of Forest Renewal B.C. is to work with and promote benefits for the community. Certainly, if there was an interest and facility for the private sector to act without the participation of Forest Renewal B.C., I'm sure Forest Renewal B.C. would not want to duplicate or impede that investment. On the other hand, there may be cases in which Forest Renewal B.C., through some small incremental investment, can enhance and encourage private sector involvement that would not otherwise take place, and there, I think, Forest Renewal B.C. would work closely with those private sector opportunities.

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

D. Mitchell: I have a quick question on

section 7 that deals with resolutions of the board. I'm wondering about the power of resolutions of the board of Forest Renewal B.C. I would imagine that resolutions coming forward from the board of this agency would have the force of law, effectively. I guess I'm looking for an

interpretation by the minister here. This is a hypothetical question, but it's one we may have to anticipate: what would happen if the board of Forest Renewal B.C. passed a resolution that was at odds with or contradicted provincial policy of the government of the day? Would the resolution of the board have the force of law? How would we regard that? I'm anticipating any potential or hypothetical conflict between an action of the board and an administration of the day. Could cabinet, for instance, override a resolution of the board?

Hon. A. Petter: The member will find that back in

section 4(3), the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has the power to ensure that Forest Renewal B.C. complies with general and specific direction with respect to its exercise of powers and functions. With respect to the member's question on the status of a resolution, the status of a resolution is that of a resolution.

J. Tyabji: This is number one -- we start over with each section.

Section 7(1) says: "The board must manage or supervise the management of the affairs of Forest Renewal BC...." Are those the same activities? If they're different activities, who decides which one of them the board must do?

Hon. A. Petter: As is commonly the case with any agency, sometimes the management functions will be exercised directly by the board, and sometimes they may be directed by officers of the agency at the direction of the board or under the supervision of the board. I think that's what's being referred to here.

J. Tyabji: So that line is meant to say that the board must manage the affairs of Forest Renewal B.C. in the event of there not being a senior officer who would be responsible for management, and when there's a senior officer responsible for management, the board supervises that senior officer. Is that correct? Is that how it's to be read? It's a little confusing.

Hon. A. Petter: The board would supervise the management that has been delegated to officers.

J. Tyabji: To which...?

L. Hanson: That's three.

J. Tyabji: That's three, says the brand-new Reform party member. They're new....

D. Mitchell: New bottle, old wine.

J. Tyabji: Same product, new packaging.

Section 7(1)(

c) says: "...delegate the exercise or performance of any power or duty conferred or imposed on the board to the chief executive officer of Forest Renewal BC or to any of its employees." Who would be imposing these powers or duties? Where would that be coming from?

Hon. A. Petter: The answer, I assume, is a power imposed on the board by the board itself through resolution, or it could be through the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, or it could be through this Legislature in this legislation.

J. Tyabji: So the minister is saying, under 7(1)(c), that the cabinet can, in effect, impose some powers or duties that the board can then delegate to some of their senior employees or to their chief executive officer, and then the board is mandated to oversee the activities of those employees. What I don't understand is that that's a lot of power for them to delegate. In what circumstances would the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council be imposing these powers or duties on the board? Why would the board delegate it if the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council specifically imposed that on the board? Can you give me an example?

[4:15]

Hon. A. Petter: It's very common to include a clause in legislation of this kind allowing for a subdelegation of authority. The reason is that there was an assumption in common law that powers delegated to an agency could not be subdelegated. I don't want to go through an entire statutory

interpretation class, but that rule dates back to a time when we had a far less sophisticated notion of boards and agencies than we do today. To overcome that historical impediment, provisions of this kind are traditionally placed in our legislation in order to enable subdelegation, which facilitates good and effective administration by agencies such as Forest Renewal B.C.

J. Tyabji: It's actually not the delegation that concerns me; it's the word "imposed." I can understand that the board may delegate the powers that the board has under this act to a chief executive officer or to any of its employees. Well, that

[ Page 10749 ]

might be a bit of concern, but considering that it's an appointed board, I think that's where our concerns begin. But the word "imposed" seems to imply that beyond this act there could be orders-in-council, or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council could impose further powers on the board. The minister is saying that that's not the case.

Hon. A. Petter: It doesn't imply that. One would have to go to other sections of the act, which we have. We can debate them as we move forward through the bill to determine where powers exist and who can impose them. For example, if you look at subsection 7(1) -- since I want to stay within this

section -- it says: "The board must manage or supervise the management of the affairs of Forest Renewal BC...." That is a power imposed upon the board. They must do it, therefore that power will be referenced in

section 7(1)(c).

J. Tyabji: In answering my first question on this section, the minister said that powers could be imposed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and I assume that that would be in addition to the act. Would the minister foresee policy or regulations -- specifically regulations -- that would be parallel to or with reference to this act coming up through the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council after the act is passed?

Hon. A. Petter: I was struggling to determine the previous question. Could the member repeat the question -- the sixth or seventh question, I might add. But I won't count it as an additional question.

J. Tyabji: I believe that I am allowed to flail my arms this time.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: Welcome to the House.

When the minister first answered the question, he talked about the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council possibly imposing further powers or duties on the board, which obviously it always has the power to do. Does the minister foresee companion regulations in reference to this

section coming through the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council after the act is passed?

Hon. A. Petter: There will be regulations, and we can talk about regulation-making power at the appropriate time. I don't have any preconceived notion of a particular form of regulation that would be engaged by this section. When we debated

section 4 we noted within that

section that certain powers were given to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, for example, to authorize Forest Renewal B.C. to do additional things and to ensure compliance by Forest Renewal B.C. with general directions, etc., and we debated that at that time. This

section doesn't enlarge upon those other powers; it simply references them. Where powers are conferred, imposed by legislation, regulation or whatever, on Forest Renewal B.C. through this act, they are referenced here. But they are not enlarged by this

section in any way.

J. Tyabji: I would like to follow up on a question from the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi about land acquisition by Forest Renewal B.C. and whether there was something in the act that precluded land acquisition. The minister said no, although he said he didn't believe that was on the agenda of Forest Renewal B.C., because it's going to be a financial investment strategy and therefore there won't be land acquisition. In

section 7(1)(c), the concern is that in the event of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council imposing duties on Forest Renewal B.C. which would include land stewardship or land acquisition, it would be something that's unforeseen in this debate, and if there is....

The minister is shrugging. I'm not sure what that means. Perhaps he will elaborate on his feet, and I look forward to it. Maybe it will be enlightening.

Does the minister foresee anything being imposed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, or are there no regulations currently in draft form somewhere that would be adding to what the act has?

Hon. A. Petter: There are currently no regulations in draft form. I love a free-flowing and wide-ranging debate as much as the next person -- although I just talked to the next person, and I'm not sure he was as keen about it -- but we're simply talking about a power to delegate. If the member has concerns about powers that may be imposed or created by this legislation, we should debate those in the sections that create those powers or allow the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or others to give direction to the agency.

All we're talking about here is a simple clause providing that in order to carry out its functions efficiently and effectively, the agency has the power to subdelegate powers imposed upon it elsewhere in this legislation. If the member has concerns about those powers that appear elsewhere in this legislation, we should debate them elsewhere in this legislation.

J. Tyabji: I appreciate the minister providing the commentary from his assistant. It's unfortunate he doesn't have a voice in the debate.

Since the minister is directing me to the sections of this bill that would allow me to debate future plans passed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, if he could direct me to the

section under which we could talk about powers imposed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, maybe we could canvass it there. But the only place where I see "imposed" is in

section 7, which is why I brought it up.

The main reason I'm bringing it up is that we have seen from this government in the past -- not that we want to revisit other debates -- acts that have come before this House with regulations in draft form. The acts passed, then the regulations came out, and there was no avenue to debate them at that time. If there is nothing planned in addition to this act, and we have it on record, that's very reassuring. But if the minister is trying to say that somewhere else we can debate what may happen in the future, I don't see it. So we've received the reassurance, and I think I've run out of my five questions, anyway.

Section 7 approved.

section 8.

D. Mitchell: A brief question on

section 8 dealing with board remuneration. I note that

section 8(

b) says that if the director or committee member is not a member of the Legislative Assembly or a public servant, remuneration at rates fixed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can be paid. We know that there are going to be 15 directors, approximately. I'm interested that it's contemplated that some of them might be Members of the Legislative Assembly. How many members of the board will be Members of the Legislative Assembly, and where can I hand in my resume for the job?

[ Page 10750 ]

Hon. A. Petter: There has been no determination made at this stage about Members of the Legislative Assembly or, indeed, public servants who might sit on the board. It's an issue that we wanted to make sure was covered off, in the event there was a decision to appoint members of this assembly or public servants, to reassure the public and to establish the rule that there would not be double remuneration. But the member is free to send in his resume.

D. Mitchell: I don't know that it's going to be based upon party membership, surely, but I'll make this commitment to the minister: if I do send in my resume, it will list me as an independent.

Could the minister tell us what is contemplated in terms of remuneration for members of the board who are not Members of the Legislative Assembly or public servants? Is there a range of remuneration contemplated here? Will it be paid on a per diem basis -- $100, $200, $300 a day? Can the minister give us some idea of the range that's contemplated?

Hon. A. Petter: It will be on a per diem basis, I anticipate, and it will be consistent with other public agencies. The rates -- which, again, have not been predetermined -- will enable us to have participation from all sectors and to remunerate people sufficiently to ensure that. But we'll be as modest as possible to ensure that the dollars that flow into and through this agency are not consumed by administrative costs, but rather flow out to communities and to the investments that I think we all desire -- at least, that most of us desire. There are a few who don't seem to desire it, but those of us who desire it, desire that, I'm sure.

J. Tyabji: I'd like to hear the minister recite "Jabberwocky." I think that would be very interesting.

With regard to

section 8, we started and I was asking in

section 5 about the committee members. The minister assured me that the limitless committees and limitless members of those committees would all fall under

section 8. With that in mind, would the allowances and remuneration fixed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council be the same? Or does the minister believe that there'd be some sort of tiered payment schedule, depending on which committee they would be on?

Hon. A. Petter: These either/or questions are always difficult to answer. I'll answer the first half. I don't envisage it necessarily being a uniform rate for committee members and board members.

J. Tyabji: The minister said he doesn't envisage the committee members and board members being the same. There are five mandated committees and an unlimited number of committees that the board may or may not set up. The question actually was: would those be separate rates of pay? Or does the minister believe they'd be the same?

Hon. A. Petter: My reference earlier was that I don't necessarily expect that the remuneration for board members and committee members would be the same. I expect that the remuneration for committee members, regardless of what committees they're on, would likely be the same. The goal here is going to be to establish fair rates of remuneration that do not deplete the resources of the agency but do enable people to participate who otherwise would not be able to do so, because of the need they have for some remuneration.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

J. Tyabji: What are the limits being set on the expenses? Who sets them? And how accountable will they be to this House?

Hon. A. Petter: The rates will be set by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. They will be consistent with general government policy on such expenses. And they will no doubt be reviewable as part of the accountability that can occur through, for example, the legislative committee that will scrutinize the business plan of the agency.

J. Tyabji: For the purposes of debate, would the business plan -- which obviously we can't get to right now -- include the levels of remuneration and the expenses? Or is that just the financial investment strategy? If the remuneration and expenses are not contained in the document that will come before the House for debate, what will be the time frame through which we will find out how many people are employed and how much they're being paid?

Hon. A. Petter: That information will be made public when orders-in-council appointing members are passed; the remuneration and expenses information will be made available at that time. I don't necessarily anticipate the business plan itself will set out those rates of remuneration. But obviously the amounts for purposes in the business plan presuppose a certain degree of remuneration for board members. I'm sure the committee will be able to scrutinize that as part of its scrutiny of the agency's activities, and scrutinize whomever it decides to look into as part of its scrutiny of the business plan.

J. Tyabji: When these committees are being set up -- and there could be any number of committees and of people on them -- to what extent will there be some control by the minister, or will the minister be advising the board? If anyone studied physics, for example, they'd know that inertia is an overriding principle. The concern I have is that the committees would be forming committees which would be forming committees, because it's the tendency of almost all governments in this country that when there's an issue you form a committee around it.

Since there are no limits on anything here -- including the expenses, the number of members or the number of committees -- what's the control mechanism by which we save ourselves from an endless mushrooming of committee numbers and members and expenses?

Hon. A. Petter: Well, there are provisions in

section 4 whereby Forest Renewal B.C. is required to comply with directives provided by Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. There are provisions in

section 5 dealing with the approval of the minister concerning the appointment of committees, and there is the power of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to establish rates of remuneration and expenses, so there are plenty of control mechanisms. Of course, the government itself will be held accountable for the decisions it makes through this Legislature.

[4:30]

J. Tyabji: Is the minister saying that if the orders-in-council show a large number of committees with a large number of members and a large number of expenses, this minister or the cabinet, through the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, will then actually make a directive to the board to limit the number of committees, members or expenses? In what way is there some accountability on the part of the cabinet to this new Crown corporation?

[ Page 10751 ]

Hon. A. Petter: I anticipate that there will be members of government sitting on the board as one of the partners. In addition, the government has the power to issue directives if necessary. I do not believe that will be necessary; I believe that the agency will reflect the concerns of the government to maintain a slim, trim and effective administrative structure that will impress the member with its effectiveness, efficiency and ability to deliver these programs in a way that maximizes the benefits for communities and minimizes the bureaucracies that might otherwise occur.

J. Tyabji: I find it amazing that the minister could say that with a straight face, because his government has one of worst records for growing bureaucracy that this province has seen. There is a proliferation of jobs, and now we have a new Crown corporation. We had two new Crown corporations last year and two just this spring, and each one of them requires employees, committees, boards and officers. I think that this Crown corporation itself shows that the minister's reassurances are not that reassuring.

The minister said that if the committee expenses, the number of committee members and the number of committees appear to be getting out of hand, there would be a directive through the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to the board to limit that. Then the minister said that there should be some members of the government on the board, and therefore there shouldn't be a problem. I don't think you would get a lot of agreement from the opposition members in this House that the government will be a good watchdog on the size of government. We haven't seen that.

Now the question that I have for the minister is: in the event....