2003 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2003

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 16, Number 12

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Tourism in Burnaby

R. Lee

Mining industry in B.C.

R. Sultan

Street people in Vancouver

Mayencourt

Oral Questions

B.C. economy and income assistance

regulations

J. Kwan

Hon. M.

Coell

Government position on gaming

J. MacPhail

Hon. R.

Coleman

Logging in Elk Creek area

B. Penner

Hon. M. de

Jong

Retroactivity of rent increases

J. Bray

Hon. R.

Coleman

Tabling Documents

B.C.

Treaty Commission, annual report, 2002, The Changing

Landscape

Office for children and youth, annual report, September

30,

2002-March 31, 2003

Public guardian and trustee of British Columbia, annual report, 2002-03

Committee of the Whole House

Forests Statutes Amendment Act (No.

2), 2003 (Bill 44)

J. MacPhail

Hon. M. de

Jong

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Forests Statutes Amendment Act (No.

2), 2003 (Bill 44)

Committee of the Whole House

Forest and Range Practices Amendment

Act, 2003 (Bill 69)

Hon. M. de

Jong

J. MacPhail

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Forest and Range Practices Amendment

Act, 2003 (Bill 69)

Committee of the Whole House

Skills Development and Labour

Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 37) (continued)

J. Kwan

Hon. G.

Bruce

Reporting of Bills

Skills Development and Labour

Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 37)

Third Reading of Bills

Skills Development and Labour

Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 37)

Committee of the Whole House

Pension Statutes Amendment Act, 2003

(Bill 49)

Hon. S.

Santori

Reporting of Bills

Pension Statutes Amendment Act, 2003

(Bill 49)

Third Reading of Bills

Pension Statutes Amendment Act, 2003

(Bill 49)

Second Reading of Bills

Environmental Management Act (Bill

57)

Hon. J.

Murray

J. Kwan

M. Hunter

J. Bray

R. Sultan

Integrated Pest Management Act (Bill

53)

Hon. J.

Murray

J. Kwan

Flood Hazard Statutes Amendment Act,

2003 (Bill 56)

Hon. J.

Murray

J. Kwan

[ Page 7247 ]

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2003

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Mr.

Speaker: Visiting today in the gallery are three young men from Switzerland,

who have been spending the late summer and early autumn visiting Victoria. They

are all pursuing university studies in Switzerland and are looking forward to

the unique experience of witnessing question period under the Westminster

parliamentary system. Please welcome Matias Kaufman, Ralph Stam and Roman

Schamdeck.

[1405]

Statements

(Standing Order 25b)

TOURISM IN BURNABY

R. Lee: I

would like to take this opportunity to talk about an outstanding tourism

initiative that is being driven by Burnaby's business community and the

hospitality industry. I understand that the Burnaby Board of Trade is working

with the local hotel industry to rally support for the formation of a new agency

that will promote Burnaby's excellent tourism and recreational destinations. The

timing for this idea couldn't be better with two major sporting events on the

horizon — the 2009 World Police and Fire Games and the 2010 Olympics.

Parks in

Burnaby are among some of the most beautiful in the province, and our heritage

homes and gardens have to be seen to be believed. Our community's love for the

arts, dance, theatre and music is second to none. These wonderful attributes

should not be kept a secret. It is time to spread the word that Burnaby is ready

to welcome the world.

The board

of trade and a number of hotel representatives are proposing a local 2 percent

hotel room tax to fund a tourism promotion agency that they would like to call

Tourism Burnaby. It's believed that this agency can generate an additional $3

million in tourism business for the city each year. This proposal for a hotel

tax has already received the endorsement of the city council, the board of trade

and an overwhelming majority of the hotel owners within the city.

I'm sure we

can all agree that tourism equals jobs and economic growth for all British

Columbians. I would like the business and hotel owners in Burnaby to know that I

fully support their efforts to bring our community to the forefront of B.C.'s

tourism market.

MINING INDUSTRY IN B.C.

Sultan: I wish to talk about the mining industry. If we simply project the

trend of the last dozen years, much of what remains of B.C.'s gold and metal

mining will be gone. Coal and aggregate are in better shape but also under

pressure. While market prices dictate much of what happens, an even bigger

factor is government policy. Some say that for 30 years B.C. mining policy

fluctuated between indifference and hostility. The NDP was particularly clever

at writing new lyrics to that old song, Fifty Ways to Leave your Province .

Under the leadership of Premier Gordon Campbell, this province is trying to

change that tune.

In May,

Energy and Mines Minister Neufeld asked a group of 15 private members to study

this situation and bring forward recommendations. A considerable block of MLAs

surrendered their summer break for this assignment. We visited 35 mining

locations, received written briefs from some 80 organizations and citizens, and

talked with several hundred miners, mayors and first nations. We went out and

asked them what to do, and they told us.

Mining

sustains the heartlands. Mining produces good, community-supporting jobs, and a

mine's life is long. At $89,000, mining pays more than any other resource

sector. Mining has a great potential to generate an even larger chunk of

government revenue. Mining in B.C. has a magnificent cluster of geoscientists,

financiers, engineers, entrepreneurs, lawyers and environmental technicians who

tend to be focused globally, not in their own back yard. With few exceptions,

they would prefer to work at home. The task force is committed to making that

happen.

STREET PEOPLE IN VANCOUVER

Mayencourt: Today the city of Vancouver is experiencing vibrant growth. We

can see it everywhere, from residential and commercial construction to the

coming Olympics, and even the tourists and shoppers on Robson Street. People are

moving into the city from around this province, the rest of Canada and indeed

from around the world. Vancouver is truly a world-class destination.

But there

is another kind of migrant coming to our city. Vancouver is becoming a magnet

for squatters and urban campers looking for a free campsite, a free ride and a

free pass from the authorities. Dozens and dozens of people are squatting at

Creekside Park beside Science World, harassing and even assaulting passing

commuters and residents for coming too close to their campsite. Urban campers in

Nelson Park discard used needles, pile up mounds of garbage and scare the

parents of school children at Lord Roberts Annex, an elementary school in my

riding.

[1410]

What are

the residents of the downtown core and the West End saying? A petition signed by

3,800 people says that squatters and aggressive panhandlers are compromising

their quality of life. They're sick and tired of being harassed and robbed of

their sense of safety and security. What do the squatters have to say? They say

they have nowhere to live, yet I know that outreach workers approach the camps

and implore people to come to shelters and out of the cold and out of the parks.

Our

province has been committed to helping those who are truly in need. That is

demonstrated by our

[ Page 7248 ]

budget for affordable housing, which has risen from $112 million in 2001 to

$153 million this year — a 36 percent increase that I am very proud about. In

Vancouver alone we have 20,000 units of affordable housing. Since our government

has come to office, we've built over a thousand new units in the city of

Vancouver alone and a thousand in other regions of the province. Regardless of

the housing situation, we know that the current situation is unsafe and

untenable. It is time for the squatters, the park board and the city to respect

the wishes of the citizens of Vancouver. It is time to remove the squatters.

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

B.C. ECONOMY AND

INCOME ASSISTANCE REGULATIONS

J. Kwan:

B.C. has the worst economy in the country. Today there are more unemployed

British Columbians than ever before — more than 200,000 people without work.

In May of 2001 the unemployment rate in B.C. was 6.8 percent. It is now 8.5

percent.

Read the

papers, and it is clear the jobs that are open require highly trained people.

Despite that, communities across B.C. are bracing for thousands of the most

vulnerable and poor British Columbians to be kicked off income assistance.

Will the

Minister of Human Resources simply tell this House how many people his officials

told him would lose their income assistance when he decided to bring in the

two-year rule?

Hon. M.

Coell: B.C. has created almost 100,000 jobs since we took office. My

ministry will be spending $300 million on training and employment programs. My

ministry has 10,000 jobs today available for people on income assistance. The

10,000 jobs that our contractors have are waiting.

This

province suffered for ten years under the NDP. It suffered where jobs and people

left this province. This government believes that people can work, and this

government believes that people will work. That's why we're spending $300

million on job creation. That's why this government has put 20,000 people back

to work, who were on income assistance.

There was a

time when the socialists in this province thought that success was the number of

people on welfare. This government believes in people and believes that people

will find work, and we're doing that every day.

Mr.

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

question.

J. Kwan:

With all due respect, what a bunch of baloney. The minister knows exactly how

many people will be kicked off income assistance. He was given that information

before he made the decision to implement these draconian changes. The opposition

has the minister's briefing note, obtained through FOI, where those numbers were

given. But guess what. They were severed from public view.

Let me read

the note for the minister: "This initiative is expected to affect blank

number of people in 2004 and 2005 and blank number of people the year

after." He knows the answer. He's been given the answer. Would the minister

fill in the blanks? How many people are going to lose income assistance this

year and next year?

[1415]

Hon.

M. Coell: Only the socialists believe that people fail. This government

believes that people will succeed. My socialist friends don't understand

success. They don't understand people wanting to do better, wanting to find jobs

— tens of thousands of jobs. Tens of thousands of jobs are available for

people on income assistance. They want them, and we're helping them to work —

unlike the socialist government, whose success was to have more people on

welfare, bigger rolls, and not to worry about them.

Mr.

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

supplementary.

J. Kwan:

You know that this government and this minister are running when he starts

to call people names — people who actually care about British Columbians and

what happens to them.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please, hon. members. Let us hear the

question.

J. Kwan:

With the new two-year rule, the minister plans to cut $168 million from

income assistance next year. The minister won't admit it, but that's over 27,000

people left with no support in an economy that has no jobs. We can see the

impact of the government's failed economic plan on the people. More British

Columbians are now sleeping on the streets, food banks are overloaded, and a

study released yesterday said hunger is on the rise in B.C.

Can

the minister tell municipalities how they are supposed to cope with the

explosion of homelessness that's coming, when over 27,000 people get kicked off

income assistance next year and are forced onto the streets because this

government simply doesn't care?

Hon. M.

Coell: Again, I don't understand why the…. Well, I do understand why there

are two members of the opposition: because they couldn't run this province.

They're afraid of people succeeding; they always have been. People in British

Columbia want to succeed. They've got a government that's helping them succeed.

There are

80,000 fewer people on income assistance. They're moving to employment, they're

contributing,

[ Page 7249 ]

and they're fulfilling their potential. But my socialist friends don't

understand. Success and moving ahead in this province means getting a job, and

that's why we're spending $300 million on jobs, and that's why people are

getting jobs. They've got a government that understands the economy, a

government that understands people, and they've rejected the socialist ideas of

the opposition.

GOVERNMENT POSITION ON GAMING

MacPhail: Let's take a different look at how this government views this

province. Since taking office, this government has doubled the number of slot

machines, and the Lottery Corporation is forecasting an increase in revenues to

almost $1 billion by the end of this government's mandate. Last week the

Solicitor General announced a special lottery deal with the Vancouver Canucks.

Then this week the Attorney General said that lotteries are "a desperately

dishonest way for governments to raise revenues." Does the Solicitor

General agree with the Attorney General?

Hon. R.

Coleman: The beauty of a strong political party is the ability to have

divergent views within caucus.

To the

member opposite: if the member would check the record, we actually will have

fewer casinos in British Columbia when we're done with the B.C. Lottery

Corporation than we do today. We will actually have repositioned the market

because we gave the mandate to a corporation without political influence to go

and do the job on behalf of British Columbians. If it bothers the member that

they increase their profitability so we can put more money into health care and

education, that's really too bad.

[1420]

If the

Lottery Corporation wishes to pick a product line like the Vancouver Canucks and

negotiate a business deal — arm's length from government — that's successful

for British Columbians, they should be doing that for the benefit of the

corporation. I will tell this House today that the initial lottery is sold out.

Basically, another pool is being created that will go on the market on October

14, because British Columbians have responded to the Canucks lottery, in support

of both the team and the province for health care and education.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: So the Solicitor General thinks the Attorney General is wrong.

That's exactly what he said. He takes pride in more than doubling the number of

slot machines. He takes pride in taking more in gaming revenue than ever

contemplated. That's why they're in Calgary, actually — to learn how a

government can succeed on the backs of lotteries and gaming, because that's what

that minister is doing.

The

Solicitor General compares the special deal with the Canucks as being a simple

marketing agreement. He takes great pride that more and more people are spending

money on gaming. I wonder what the Premier thinks of that. Harley-Davidson and Wheel

of Fortune were paid a fee for the use of the products. According to the

Solicitor General, that's all the Canucks are too.

Let me

point out just a few differences for him. Maybe this is why the Attorney General

disagrees so much with lotteries. First, since 1996, Orca Bay, the owner of the

Canucks, has contributed almost $20,000 to the Liberal election machine. Second,

the Premier and other members of the cabinet have been showered by Orca Bay

management with luxury skybox seats for hockey games that are completely out of

reach for average British Columbians. What are the results of these generous

donations?

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please, hon. member. Would you please put

your question now. Now. Please put your question.

MacPhail: The result is that there will be tens of millions of dollars going

to a Seattle billionaire.

Again, to

the Solicitor General, why is the Attorney General wrong? Stand up and clarify

directly why the Attorney General is wrong and why this is not a subsidy to a

billionaire and millionaire players.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I'm not aware of this luxury suite that this member talks about. I

do know that there is a press box where people are invited from time to time,

but I'd hardly call that luxurious.

To the

member opposite, the fact of the matter is this: in January of 2001 we

identified what the capacity of gaming was in the province, and we are working

to that capacity. We've given that capacity to the Lottery Corporation…

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. R.

Coleman: …to do their business on behalf of British Columbians. They're

actually managing this company properly. They're actually doing the job that

British Columbians would expect of them — the board of directors and the staff

at the Lottery Corporation. I will tell you point blank, hon. member, that

they're doing that job well. They're doing it by repositioning the market.

I want the

member opposite to know one other thing…

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order.

Hon. R.

Coleman: …something that she always seems to not realize, and that is

this: the incidence of

[ Page 7250 ]

problem gambling where an adult makes a choice in a legal gaming

establishment is lower than the incidence of gaming anywhere else. The highest

incidence is in things like illegal gaming and Internet gaming, and those are

the things we fight to stamp out. We're the only organization in the province,

on every ticket and everything we do, that gives notice to people of how they

can get help if they have a problem with gaming, because we're also responsible

to the taxpayers in how we run this company.

MacPhail: Lying during the election…. Is that what you just said?

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order! Order! Order! Order!

Will the

Leader of the Opposition please retract her last statement. It's

unparliamentary.

MacPhail: I will retract my question. I didn't hear an answer, but I'll

retract my question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker: It isn't what I asked, hon. member. The reference was made to

somebody lying, and we don't tolerate that language in this House. Will you

please retract it.

MacPhail: I'll retract it inside the House. Yes.

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you.

[1425]

LOGGING IN ELK CREEK AREA

Penner: That was a tough act to follow, but I'll try.

My question

is for the Minister of Forests. Last week I spent a good part of a day hiking

near Elk Creek just east of Chilliwack. I wanted to get a firsthand look at

recent logging activity that has attracted considerable local interest. I went

along with local Forest Service officials. Some of my constituents are concerned

that old-growth trees will be cut down and wonder if the decision to allow

logging was somehow made at the political level.

Can the

minister please explain how this decision to log about 5 percent of the Elk

Creek area was made and describe what, if anything, is being done to ensure that

a balanced approach is being taken to managing this forest for the benefit of

everyone?

Hon. M.

de Jong: In fact, there was a decision made back in July following the usual

local processes by which access by the licensee, Cattermole Timber, to an area

around Elk Creek was approved. It's about 110 hectares. The licensee has access

to 40 percent of that area.

That 110

hectares represents about 5 percent of the overall area. There are about 100 or

so ancient trees in the area that the licensee is precluded from logging. The

area had been logged previously in the early part of the last century. The

licensee is precluded from logging those 100 or so ancient trees.

The

district manager made the decision. That decision is available in his 68-page

report, and I commend it to all those people who, as the member has said, are

interested in the decision and what has followed.

RETROACTIVITY OF RENT INCREASES

J. Bray:

My question is to the Solicitor General. My riding consists of over 68 percent

of renters, and therefore issues relating to the landlord tenancy act are very

important.

One of the

suggested provisions from Bill 70 in the Residential Tenancy Act passed in 2002

allowed landlords to backdate rental increases….

Interjection.

J. Bray:

Would the member of the opposition please like to listen to an MLA doing their

job, for a change?

Interjections.

Mr.

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

J. Bray:

Landlords to backdate their rental increases for up to three years….

Interjections.

J. Bray:

This

section has caused my…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

J. Bray:

…community some concern. My question to the Solicitor General is: can he

confirm whether or not this provision in Bill 70 is still in place?

Hon. R.

Coleman: Bill 70 has not been enacted as yet because our regulations are

under draft. We've actually been working with stakeholders across the province

in the last number of months. I can tell you, member, coming out of those

consultations with both landlord and tenant groups, both of them felt that

retroactivity wasn't necessary to the functioning of this act. We will be making

the recommendation that retroactivity be removed.

[End

of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon.

G. Plant: I rise to table reports. I have the report of the B.C. Treaty

Commission, the annual report for 2002 entitled The Changing Landscape.

Interjection.

[ Page 7251 ]

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G.

Plant: I rise to table the annual report of the office for children and

youth for the period September 30, 2002 to March 31, 2003. I also rise to table

the annual report of the public guardian and trustee of British Columbia for the

year 2002-03.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R.

Coleman: I call committee stage of Bill 44.

[1430]

Committee of the Whole House

FORESTS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2003

The

committee met at 2:32 p.m.

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 44; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

Section

1 approved.

On

section

MacPhail:

Section 2 of the Forests Statutes Amendment Act — Bill 44, the

bill we're debating now — forms a package of almost ten pieces of legislation

around changes in forestry that this government has introduced. This particular

section introduces the DFAM process, the defined forest area management process

for timber supply review. Can the minister please explain the defined forest

area management process?

Hon. M.

de Jong: In very general terms, what we are dealing with is a process by

which the various licensees in a timber supply area will work together to obtain

the data required that ultimately makes its way to the chief forester's office,

where the chief forester makes determinations around questions like annual

allowable cuts. So it is a process. The shift is one in which the licensees

themselves play a much larger role in the collation and collection of that data

than they have heretofore.

MacPhail: I'm sorry. Maybe I was out. Did the minister introduce his staff?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Thanks. Gary Townsend on my left and Richard Grieve on my right,

and, through the Chair to the member, thank you for asking.

MacPhail: Is anyone from the chief forester's office here?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Yes.

MacPhail: I'd like to know who did this previous to the introduction of this

process.

Hon. M.

de Jong: There would have been contributions from staff at the branch or

district level, the regional level and, ultimately, the chief forester's office

located in Victoria.

MacPhail: So what used to be done by the Forest Service is now going to be

done by the forest companies. Is that correct?

Hon. M.

de Jong: In part.

MacPhail: And is that privatization?

[1435]

Hon. M.

de Jong: No, I'm not sure I would characterize it as privatization. There is

no doubt, however, that in the data collection process, we will be relying to a

greater extent on the combined and coordinated efforts of the licensees.

I should

say this, as we head into this discussion: what is being proposed here is

precisely what has taken place for, I think, 30 or 40 years with respect to tree

farm licences, where the data is provided by the licensee. The difference, and

one of the reasons — I presume one of the reasons — that same process did

not follow automatically with respect to the timber supply areas, is because

there was more than one licensee involved. And the nature of the licences were

different — some being replaceable, some being non-replaceable. So the

objective at the end of the day is to end up with a process that mirrors, within

the timber supply areas, what takes place and has taken place for years and

years within the tree farm licence areas.

MacPhail: Well, there's a huge difference between a forest licence and a

TFL, as the minister well knows. The work that was done in this area before was

carried out by the Forest Service. What has happened to the size of the chief

forester's office this fiscal year and next fiscal year?

Hon. M.

de Jong: The numbers I have compare 2001-02 with what we anticipate there

will be in 2004-05. In 2001-02 there were 19 timber supply analysts working

within that office. There will be 15 in '04-05.

MacPhail: And the overall chief forester's office?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I don't think this helps the member, but I'll give the number. For

the chief forester's office itself, that number was seven FTEs and goes to 3.5,

but that's not, I think, what the member is referring to. I suspect she is

asking about those people involved in the timber supply analysis process

overall.

MacPhail: Well, it's a combination of both. The chief forester has half the

staff that he did before. The chief forester is still a "he" — it's

still Larry Pederson, I assume. So it's a combination of both that's important

here. Maybe the minister could explain to me how this isn't putting the fox in

charge of the henhouse.

[ Page 7252 ]

Hon. M. de

Jong: The chief forester is still setting the standards that must be

complied with in terms of the collection of the data, and ultimately, once that

data is collated and forwarded, there is a threshold test that the licensees

must pass. It will either be accepted or be rejected for failing to comply with

those requirements. Thereafter it is the chief forester who makes the ultimate

determinations around things like annual allowable cut, and I have heard the

comparison made by the member previously. Again, if that is so, then with

respect to tree farm licences, that analogy would have applied for many years

past.

[1440]

MacPhail: No, I'm sorry. There is a difference between the management of a

TFL and a forest licence. There is a historical difference and an outcome

difference. We don't have time to go into it right now, mainly because…. Also,

my preparation for this is not here with me. There is a difference.

Anyway, I

just put that on the record. If the minister is somehow suggesting that the fact

the forest companies are now in charge of the timber supply area — all of the

information, all of the collection of information — and at the same time the

chief forester's office has been cut substantially, then — great — let him

live with it. Absolutely.

Sections 2

and 3 approved.

On

section

MacPhail: This

section is being added. It's entitled "Misrepresentation

prohibited" and says: "A person must not represent that the person is

authorized to perform a scale under this

Part if not so authorized." What

problem is being solved here?

Hon. M.

de Jong: There has been a longstanding desire or obligation on the part of

the Crown to be in a position to ensure that people aren't passing themselves

off as scalers. The member, I am certain, knows that scalers within our forest

management system have historically performed a pretty vital function in

deciding what charges will be levied against particular stands of timber, so

ensuring that the people assigning those values are actually accredited to do so

is very important. There is a desire to ensure that it is an offence to pass

oneself off as an accredited scaler when that is not the case.

The

specific provision, I am advised, is a harmonizing provision to ensure that the

Forest Act wording is consistent with that which exists in the Forest and Range

Practices Act.

MacPhail: What's the penalty if one does fake being a scaler? And are these

private…? These are licensee scalers, I assume?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Yes. It captures private scalers, people employed by a private

agency. The penalty provision is set out in

section 163. That

section is dealt

with in

section 14 of this bill and lists the fine as a maximum of $50,000 or

imprisonment of up to six months.

Sections

4 to 19 inclusive approved.

section 20.

MacPhail: What is the purpose of

section 20, particularly

section 20(b)?

[1445]

Hon. M.

de Jong: This is the mechanism by which the district manager signs off on a

licensee having fulfilled their silviculture obligations, which do not end at

the planting of the trees but can extend for upwards of eight, nine, ten or 11

years, until the stand has reached a certain point where the district manager is

satisfied that it is, to use the terminology, "free to grow" —

absent any additional work on the part of the licensee. That can trigger,

depending on the nature of the licence, the release of certain deposits. The

specific provision we're dealing with here is to bring the language of the

Forest Practices Code in line with the Forest and Range Practices Act for that

remaining duration when the Forest Practices Code will be in effect.

MacPhail: Is this prescriptive?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I guess it depends on one's definition of what is prescriptive. A

"free-growing stand" is a defined term under the Forest and Range

Practices Act. To quote from that act, it means: "A stand of healthy trees

of a commercially valuable species, the growth of which is not impeded by

competition from plants, shrubs or other trees." Broadly speaking, that is

the test that must be satisfied before a district manager could declare an area

free to grow.

MacPhail: The reason why I ask whether it's prescriptive or not is because

there are three negatives in this. I assume it's imposing an obligation on the

district manager to determine, through a prescription, whether the licensee has

achieved something. That was why I asked my question about this being

prescriptive. It does appear to be prescriptive to me.

Hon. M.

de Jong: Well, I'm not quarrelling with the analysis of how the

section is

laid out.

Sections 20

to 22 inclusive approved.

section

MacPhail: Could the minister please explain the purpose of this section?

[1450]

Hon. M.

de Jong: To the member, I'm glad she asked, because I actually knew the

answer. It is the

[ Page 7253 ]

new subsection (2) that is significant here. It specifies circumstances in

which the Forest Practices Board will be able to investigate a contravention by

someone acting on behalf of a licensee in circumstances where that licensee has

actually been found to have displayed due diligence. It is something of an

expansion of the powers of the Forest Practices Board to look beyond the

licensee themselves in circumstances where that licensee has been duly diligent.

Sections 23

to 28 inclusive approved.

section

MacPhail:

Section 29 amends

section 30 of the Range Act. It's about making

regulations to remedy any transitional difficulties. Why is this necessary?

Hon. M.

de Jong: It's a fair question, but I think it is a

section 30 question.

MacPhail: Sorry, maybe I'm misreading the bill.

Section 29 amends

section

49. Is the typing different for

section 30? I don't care what

section it's

under. It looks like….

Hon. M.

de Jong: The amendment we're dealing with in

section 29 is equivalent to the

addition of

section 151(7) and (8) of the Forest Act. What it ensures is that

there will be a consistent framework for administrative penalties between the

Forest Act, the Forest and Range Practices Act and the Range Act. That is

something of an attempt to ensure consistency of language.

The other

part of the member's question related to regulations pertaining to transitional

issues that might arise. I can answer that, but I do think that part of her

question then related to

section 30.

MacPhail: That's fine. Those are my questions.

I need five

minutes to go get my stuff on Bill 69, please.

Sections 29

to 31 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 2:54 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 44,

Forests Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. S.

Hawkins: I call committee stage of Bill 69. For the information of members,

that's the Forest and Range Practices Amendment Act, 2003.

Committee of the Whole House

FOREST AND RANGE PRACTICES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 69; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:55 p.m.

The

Chair: Members, we will have a five-minute recess.

The

committee recessed from 2:55 to 3:04 p.m.

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

Hon. M.

de Jong: As we start off, with me on my right, from the Forest Service, is

Richard Grieve; on my left, Ralph Archibald; and behind me, Tim Ebata from the

Forest Service as well.

section 1.

[1505]

MacPhail: I was trying to figure out how I was going to approach the

discussion of this legislation. Let me just begin by saying that there are

issues that can be explored very thoroughly in the

definitions clause, which is

the one we're under —

section 1 — right now. I think I will explore some

issues there, but I am going to save most of my comments and most of my

questions for other sections. Frankly, I think if I go down the particular track

I need to have explained, we could spend all day on

section 1.

It seems to

me that the government is taking a huge tactical shift in this legislation, the

Forest and Range Practices Amendment Act, 2003 — Bill 69. I think it's the

ninth — it could be the tenth — piece of legislation that this Liberal

government has introduced since 2001 changing the way forestry is carried out in

British Columbia. One of the concerns that the government seemed…. I have to

confess, Mr. Chair, that it is extremely confusing to annotate, to compile and

to consolidate the legislation this government has brought in dealing with

forestry.

What I do

know, clearly, is that this is a substantial change in the way the government is

now going to legislate forestry. To me, the government is reintroducing

prescription into forestry practices. This legislation is rife with mandatory

and compulsory provisions to replace their previous pieces of legislation that

set out objectives and what the minister called results-based activity. The

legislation that previously set objectives to promote a results-based forestry

practice in this province is now, with this legislation, being replaced with

provisions that are prescriptive and compulsory.

[ Page 7254 ]

Let me ask

just a couple of questions under

section 1, but I'll be pursuing this further

and in more detail further on in the legislation. In fact, I will be referring

to debate verbatim that the minister and I had on this very concept just earlier

this year.

Here's what

section 1(

b) does. It repeals the definition of "forest development

unit," and it says that the forest development unit will be defined in

regulation. The definition in the current act of a forest development unit —

which was passed less than a year ago, November 2002 — defines a forest

development unit as "an area identified in a forest stewardship plan within

which the holder of the plan proposes to harvest timber or construct a

road." That was pretty straightforward, and the minister explained how

forest stewardship plans were going to be results-based, defined by the company.

Now we're

changing that and moving it into regulation. Why?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I think there are two issues that the member has raised in her

comments. One is the broader philosophical discussion around where on that

continuum between results-based and prescription we find ourselves. It won't

surprise her to know that I take a slightly different view of that than she

does, but I suspect we will canvass that at length both here and in some of the

other sections, as the member indicated.

[1510]

In the

particular instance, however, the definition of forest development unit is being

repealed because of its inclusion in

section 3(3) of the act itself, which lays

out the specific definition. So its requirement to be contained in

section 1 of

the act doesn't exist.

MacPhail: That's 3(3) of what? I'm sorry, the minister is going to have to

be very specific here, because this is about the third layer of changes he's

bringing in.

Hon. M.

de Jong: The self-contained definition of forest development unit is found

at 3(1)(

d) of the Forest and Range Practices Act.

MacPhail: Okay. So I have to go back to the old act. You're talking about

the act that we dealt with last sitting, Bill 74. Okay. We actually don't have

enough staff to compile or consolidate or annotate the legislation — and

neither does the public — so the minister has a distinct advantage there, just

to note.

I'll ask

one other question on this that relates to my saying that the minister is now

prescribing as opposed to setting objectives and allowing for outcomes to be

results-based. If the minister looks at the definition of "objectives set

by government" in Bill 69…. I'll just read it. They're repealing the old

definition of objectives set by government, which was done just several months

ago, and they're now replacing it with this section, "objectives set by

government:" "'…objectives set by government' means (

a) objectives

prescribed under

section 149 (1), or (

b) objectives established or continued

under sections 3 to 5 of the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act by a

person or persons under those sections."

Then if you

actually go to the changes that the bill introduces to

section 149 of the Forest

and Range Practices Act, it's contained in

section 55 of this bill. It says that

section 149.1(

b) says the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations

"…prescribing the circumstances in which the discretion conferred in the

authorization may be exercised." That's just one example where what used to

be "objectives" — and the minister and I had a lengthy discussion

under one of the previous bills about why the government was moving to

objectives because he wanted to have results-based rather than prescriptive

outcomes…. Now we're moving to what the legislation clearly describes as

prescriptive mechanisms. Why?

[1515]

Hon.

M. de Jong: Maybe I'll do this in two parts. I'm not sure it'll change the

member's mind. The relevant connection between subsection (

d) in

section 1 that

the member has focused on is with

section 54 of the bill, which actually

enumerates (1)(

a) through (k), the specifics around the regulations that can be

made. I don't know that that's going to change the member's mind, but I agree

with her.

We had a

fairly lengthy discussion in our last debate on this subject around the wisdom

of doing this and what it might ultimately look like. My recollection at that

time is that I thought I had alluded to the fact that there would be greater

particularity around the specific values that would be the subject of those

regulations. As I recall, the member articulated some concern around the absence

of those enumerated values in the legislation.

Our next

step is the amendment that gives rise to the amended

section 149, which lays out

those values in specifics.

MacPhail: We'll get to that. I'll be able to quote your words back…. I

have the discussion here exactly.

The

minister actually makes my point. I'm not sure he wanted to. The old

section 149

said this, in defining "objectives set by government" — and by old,

I mean months old, baby old…. This was the government's original legislation

describing objectives, which was last November, and it said, under

section 149:

"The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations respecting

objectives set by government, including but not limited to regulations."

The new legislation today says: " The Lieutenant Governor in Council may

make regulations prescribing objectives in relation to one or more of the

following subjects…."

The

minister can't get off the hook. He spent hours discussing how the old

prescriptive ways — and prescriptive is a derivative of prescribing — were

what caused all the problems in the forest industry, and we were going to go to

a results-based code. Did the minister get it wrong, and now he's admitting that

he's wrong? You've got to help me here.

Hon. M.

de Jong: The intention is the same, and that is to ensure that the

objectives are there for agen-

[ Page 7255 ]

cies, licensees, people practising in the woods to know what it is that is

expected of them. It is, I am told, a term of drafting. When that is to happen

by regulation, the usual terminology would be to prescribe those objectives.

The member

will, if she wishes, choose to read into that term what she wishes. I will,

however, emphasize reading the

section in its entirety and emphasize that what

we are seeking to achieve here is the establishment of the objectives and

regulations that lay out the objectives that licensees must meet in respect of

the ten or so areas listed in the section.

[1520]

MacPhail: Sorry, I don't accept that it's just a drafting mechanism. I don't

accept that at all. How could the minister have gotten it so wrong in the eight

previous times he tried to change the code and the way things are done in this

province? This government is moving back to a prescriptive Forest Practices

Code. It's clear here. It's not drafting. It's a substantial change. I'm just

trying to figure out why here.

Let me just

ask another question, then. Let's refer to

section 149 again of the Forest and

Range Practices Act. It's now being amended by the amendment act that we're

discussing right now. Not only are there changes to say that there will be more

prescription through this legislation, but it's also declaring the supremacy of

the Forest Practices Code.

I just want

to refer this to the minister. It says

section 149.1(2) is added, and it says

this: "The Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection may not establish an

objective referred to in subsection (1) (a) (

i) or (ii) for an area unless the

objective is consistent with the objectives set by government that pertain to

the area." It seems to me that once again the Forest Practices Code reigns

supreme. Am I wrong?

[1525]

Hon. M.

de Jong: I apologize to the member for the delay.

The regime

that is being established here is, first of all, the greater particularization

of values as it relates to

section 149. But then with respect to sub (2) of that

section and 149.1, what is being anticipated is the possibility that objectives

as they relate to that

section may run afoul of objectives set out within

something like a higher-use land planning process. To the extent that that could

occur, the objectives of the latter — the higher-level plan — take priority.

In both

cases, as it relates to Sustainable Resource Management or the Minister of

Water, Land and Air Protection, who maintains a role within the Forest Practices

Code, in the event of an inconsistency it is the objectives as set out in that

higher-level plan that would take priority.

MacPhail: Yeah, well, I think we're saying the same thing. In rank order,

the Forest Practices Code prevails now, because you look on…. I'm not going to

section 56. Well, actually, I'm going to refer to

section 56. It gives priority

when dealing with a community watershed and dealing with lakeshore management

zones, etc., etc. The changes say that the objectives contained in the Forest

Practices Code, listed in the Forest Practices Code, prevail. That's new.

What's

happened? Let me just ask this. Maybe we can actually tell this…. The minister

can say why the changes came about in describing real problems. We had the

Forest and Range Practices Act passed just a little over six months ago. These

changes have been introduced….

What have

we done? What's changed since the introduction of this bill? What problems are

we trying to resolve that the minister found out about in the last six months?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Is the change the member is referring to that which is contained

within

section 149.1 — or what will be 149.1?

MacPhail: No, it's the change…. Just a second here, Mr. Chair. I have to

find my…. It's the change that will be contained in the sub (2) of 149, 150,

150.1 and 150.2. Subclause (2): The minister "may not specify an objective

referred to in subsection (1) (

b) for an area unless the objective is consistent

with the objectives set by the government that pertain to the area."

That to me

is what has been added to say that the Forest Practices Code now prevails, is

supreme.

[1530]

Hon. M.

de Jong: Here's what the intention of the

section is. I may be

misunderstanding. It's my fault that the member's question…. The code, as it

were, sets objectives with respect to these various issues that are listed here.

If there is an inconsistency with respect to a particular area, if there is an

inconsistency with respect to the objectives that are set pursuant to the code,

which is (2)(a), and objectives that might exist with respect to something like

a higher-level plan, it is, pursuant to this section, the objectives from the

higher-level plan that would take precedence.

Interjection.

Hon. M.

de Jong: Then I have misunderstood. I'm not trying to be troublesome with

the member.

MacPhail: No, but this is a change; this is an addition. This is a change

from the Forest and…. We're actually agreeing. The higher-level plan is

contained in the Forest Practices Code. So this is a change; this is an

addition. This is an admission that in ranking of priorities in determining

forestry practices, the Forest Practices Code prevails, is supreme. That's how I

read this.

Why? What

was brought to the minister's attention in the last six months that required him

to specify that the Forest Practices Code is supreme?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I do apologize to the member. The rationale here for what we have

before us today is

[ Page 7256 ]

to simply make the hierarchy abundantly clear — clearer than it was. That

was something that, in the intervening time, we received comment about, and

there was a desire and a willingness to make the hierarchy of priorities clearer

than it was.

Section 1

approved.

On

section

MacPhail:

Section 2 amends

section 5 of the Forest and Range Practices Act.

What it does is…. If I could, I interpret this to mean to actually add

prescription once again. Subsection (1)(

b) before just said that the forest

stewardship plan must "specify intended results or strategies." Now we

have in subsection (1)(

b) that a forest stewardship plan must "specify

intended results or strategies, each in relation to (

i) objectives set by

government, and (ii) other objectives that are established under this Act or the

regulations and that pertain to all or part of the area subject to the

plan…." This is adding work; this is adding detail. There's no question

about it.

[1535]

The

amendment adds greater clarity. There's no question about that. It adds greater

clarity to what must be included in a forest stewardship plan. The clarity takes

place both in relation to the objectives set by government in legislation, by

the regulations and the ministerial order. So this bill is adding stuff that

needs to be done, and it's making things clearer.

In the

original legislation, Bill 74, there was no connection between results and

strategies and the objectives. Nowhere in the legislation could you find the two

that would come together, so

section 5 corrects that. But doesn't it again sort

of confirm my belief that these amendments are going to greater prescription now

rather than results-based? I mean, I heard members, I heard the minister and I

heard the government caucus MLAs say over and over again that that disastrous

decade of decline in forestry was because it was too prescriptive.

Now, here

we are six months later adding work, rewriting the code, making it clear that

the forest industry and forestry practices have to meet legislatively prescribed

standards. What was the consultation? What was the feedback that the minister

heard in the last six months that led the minister to now add greater clarity

through more work and more prescription and through the tying of results and

strategies to objectives?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I agree with the member to this extent: the

section does provide

greater specificity. I think I disagree, though, with the suggestion that

somehow the model has been abandoned, because what we have said is that the

obligation will be to meet certain…. Within the forest stewardship plan, they

will have to set intended results and strategies for achieving those results,

and we are saying that those results must be consistent with the objectives set

by government. I think I have always said that government would set those

objectives.

Does that

mean there is an additional legislative instrument — be it the statute, a

section of the statute and/or a regulation — that the licensee who is

preparing a forest stewardship plan must consult? I guess it does. They will

certainly have to ensure that their forest stewardship plan is consistent with

those objectives as set out by government.

I don't

think it follows, and it is not intended to follow, that that represents a

retreat to a more prescriptive approach. Well, that is, in part, my response to

the member.

[1540]

MacPhail: Well, what I do know here is that there is greater clarity that

requires more work to be done. So let me ask this: who pointed out to the

minister that greater clarity was needed in the stewardship plan?

Hon. M.

de Jong: In the time that has passed, the discussions and consultations have

been ongoing. It has been a theme of those discussions that the various

stakeholders who are going to be subject to this legislation — the licensees,

the ranchers and the various other practitioners on the land base — have

emphasized they want to be clear and they want government to be clear about

where the link is. What are their obligations? What are the objectives they need

to meet? Where do they derive from, and how is that tied in specifically to the

legislative structure that they must abide by?

That

ultimately is what has given rise to the inclusion in the bill we have before

us, recognizing, of course, that — lest I be accused of misleading anyone here

— the bill was tabled in the spring. It would be unfair of me to suggest that

this is here before us because of something that happened last week. It was

actually tabled in the House some time ago.

MacPhail: What did professional foresters say to you?

Hon. M.

de Jong: None of us can recall getting a specific submission from the

Association of B.C. Professional Foresters. On an individual basis, I am advised

it was a matter of great concern to them — and their belief, generally

speaking, that a model of this sort requires that there be clearly enunciated

objectives for their members to work towards in the preparation of things like

the forest stewardship plans.

[1545]

MacPhail: And that's exactly the feedback I got as well — more detail.

Now, no matter how we like to dress it up, more detail is more prescription,

more prescribing. I mean, at some point we're going to have to actually confess

that that's the direction we're moving into. I'll have more questions on exactly

the same topic as this on

section 7.

Sections

2 to 6 inclusive approved.

[ Page 7257 ]

section 7.

MacPhail:

Section 7 deals with changes to woodlot licences — how one goes

about getting approval for woodlot licence plans. This

section amends

section 13

of the original act, the Forest and Range Practices Act. Now we have exactly the

same thing for woodlot licensees — that they must give detail that explains

the connection between intended results and strategies and each objective set by

government. So now woodlot licensees have to take every objective set by

government and give details about intended results or strategies to achieve that

objective. What feedback did the minister have from woodlot licensees to justify

this change?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Actually, in the case of the woodlot owners, it has been fairly

extensive. Brian McNaughton and the association, in fact…. Their AGM is coming

up, I think, either this week or next week in Abbotsford, and there are a number

of issues on the agenda. I don't actually know that this is one of them, because

when I met with them last week, they professed to be content with what they had

seen with respect to the content and the requirements for their plans.

They have

some other issues as it relates to the expansion of their program, but I think

it would be fair for me to relay to the House and the member that they

seemed…. My recollection is that they expressed to me a degree of contentment

with what is here in this bill.

MacPhail: Yes. Maybe the minister misunderstood my point. I wanted to know

what consultation from Bill 74 to the changes now being enacted in Bill 69

around woodlot licensees — i.e., the additional requirement of details

matching results and strategies to objectives…. What feedback did the minister

have from woodlot licensees to make this change in Bill 69?

I'm pleased

to hear that they're content. They're going to have more work to do, so I'm

pleased to hear that they're content.

Hon. M.

de Jong: Forgive me if I inadvertently misled the member. The discussions

that would have been relevant to the presentation of this legislation actually

occurred earlier in the spring this year, when the B.C. woodlot federation was

fully engaged with the ministry. That is what led to its inclusion in the

package that was tabled. I guess it was in May. Again, the conversation was not

that dissimilar — a desire on the part of that body to be able to say to its

membership: "There will be a clear enunciation of the objectives that you

must perform to, which you must manage to and address in your preparatory

planning documents."

Sections 7

and 8 approved.

On

section

[1550]

MacPhail:

Section 9 of this act amends

section 16 of the original Forest and

Range Practices Act. The current act that was passed about 11 months ago states

simply that the minister must approve a forest stewardship plan or amendment to

a plan if (

a) the plan or amendment conforms to this act, the regulations and

standards; and (

b) the minister considers that the forest stewardship plans,

results or strategies are likely to achieve the objectives set by government or

the woodlot licence plan's results or strategies are likely to achieve the

objectives set by government other than those referred to in

section 13(3).

The

substantive change now that was made to the language that I just read under this

section is, rather than simply "likely to achieve," the plan

"must" now be consistent with the objectives of the government and

those provisions set out in the act in

section 5 and repeated in

section 41. So

this is now mandatory. We've moved to mandatory requirements. Why?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I'm not sure it's a lot more complicated in this instance than

this. I am advised that the phraseology "likely to achieve the

objectives" was thought to be problematic. It signalled a lack of clarity,

and just about everyone was looking for language that would be clearer. It was

determined that "consistent with the objectives" trumped "likely

to achieve the objectives" in terms of the clarity we were looking for.

There seemed to be pretty universal agreement that the original language

contained in

section 16 wasn't as clear as it could or should have been.

MacPhail: Let me read the explanatory note on this. It says that this

amendment to

section 16 "provides separately for forest stewardship plans

and woodlot licence plans to more precisely require that the plans reflect the

relevant content requirements and to enable the minister to require the

information described in

section 16(2.1)." To me, that was a giveaway that

more precision requires more prescription.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I'm detecting a theme to the….

Interjection.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I know the member did, which assisted me greatly in detecting it.

There is an

attempt here to improve on the precision of the language. If the member thinks

that translates into greater prescription, so be it. I'm not sure I agree. But

it was certainly the case that we wanted, after discussions, to be more precise.

[1555]

MacPhail: Let me ask this, then. In the six months between the introduction

and passage of the original Forest and Range Practices Act, and then the

introduction of Bill 69 amendments to that act, what happened to convince the

minister that unless it's law, which it now is…? What suspicions did he have

that industry wouldn't follow the standards that were so highly touted by those

who suggested that it was okay to turn over the management of our forests to the

companies?

[ Page 7258 ]

Hon. M. de

Jong: Well, I will concede this to the member. Part of the objective here,

insofar as dealing with the language that existed and the language that is there

now, is to ensure that through this approval process and through any kind of an

enforcement mechanism, the operators were in the best position possible to

understand what their obligations were, and the Crown was in the best position

possible to ensure that those obligations were being met and that they could

discharge their duties. And the test for that was clearer than the original

language provided for.

[G.

Trumper in the chair.]

Sections 9

to 11 inclusive approved.

section

MacPhail:

Section 12 of this current act amends

section 20 of the original

act, and the

section is titled "Minor amendments to forest stewardship and

woodlot licence plans." What this does now is add compulsory language to

what was six months ago permissive language. Let me just say the current act —

I want to make sure I get this right — reads this way:

"20

(1) Despite

section 16, and unless required by the regulations, an approval is

not required to amend a forest stewardship plan or a woodlot licence plan if

its holder determines that the proposed amendment (

a) otherwise conforms to

this Act, the regulations and the standards, and (

b) does not materially

affect the likelihood of achieving the applicable objectives set by government

or the intended results specified in the plan."

That was the original act. Now the new act repeals that

section and

replaces it with this:

"

(1) Despite

section 16, except in prescribed circumstances, an approval is not

required to amend a forest stewardship plan or a woodlot licence plan if its

holder determines that (

a) the proposed amendment (

i) conforms to

section 5,

for an amendment to a forest stewardship plan, or to

section 13, for an

amendment to a woodlot licence plan, and (ii) does not materially change the

intended results or strategies specified in the plan, or (

b) the proposed

amendment conforms to prescribed requirements."

We're

tightening up on changes that can be made to forest stewardship plans. I

remember the minister lauding flexibility. This is certainly lessening the

flexibility, adding more prescription.

[1600]

Madam

Chair, I want to go on record that I in no way disagree with this direction, but

it is probably coming as a surprise to many government caucus members.

Hon. M.

de Jong: Actually, in this particular case I'm not sure I disagree with the

member. Sub (

b) is the new

section here, and it clearly contemplates the

possibility that in exercising some of that flexibility we talked about

previously, there may be additional requirements that the licensee would have to

meet. So in this case, I think the member's characterization is one that I can

buy.

Sections

12 to 14 inclusive approved.

section

MacPhail:

Section 15 of the bill we are now debating amends

section 26 of

the original act.

Section 26 is entitled "Control of insects, disease,

etc." The new section, I think, is more properly entitled "Control of

insects, diseases, animals or abiotic factors." I'm interested in

section

26(2) of the new legislation. This requires the minister to compel the

development of a forest health strategy within tenures held by companies and for

the cost of that forest health plan to be shared by the government.

As I read

it, there is going to be increased use of pesticides to control pests, and the

government will then incur some cost. Who gives out the pesticide permit?

Hon. M.

de Jong: First of all, I disagree to this extent: nothing I have found in

this

section contemplates a greater use of pesticides. With respect to the

actual question, the approving agency remains Water, Land and Air Protection

pursuant, I think, to the Pesticide Control Act.

[1605]

MacPhail: I'm reading this section. The old

section 26 has been repealed

completely, and the new one adds: "Section 26(2) If the minister determines

that on a forested area on Crown land that is subject to (

a) a forest…there

are insects, diseases, animals or abiotic factors that are causing

damage…." There will then be a requirement for a proposal to dispose of

the insects, diseases, animals or abiotic factors. Is that in the old act?

Hon. M.

de Jong: The language that begins "insects, diseases, animals or

abiotic factors that are causing damage to the forest" is in the previous

manifestation of the bill. There are two differences. We have broken out private

land and Crown land as between sub (1) and sub (2). In sub (2), which deals with

Crown land, we have, through sub-subsections (

a) through (c), defined the

various licence arrangements that could exist between an individual and the

Crown.

MacPhail: The old act said that the group could propose reasonable measures,

and now this act requires a proposal that conforms to subsection (3) to control

or dispose of…. Subsection (3) is now pretty specific, pretty prescriptive,

and so that's new. I read it as new, anyway. I don't find anything in the

legislation that is as prescriptive as this

section now.

Why is more

required now?

Hon. M.

de Jong: It is certainly a change in drafting. There are two points I think

I would make. One relates to subsection (2). It is not a directive of the

minister or the Crown. It is discretionary by virtue of the use of the word

"may." Secondly, if we go down to

[ Page 7259 ]

subsection (3), the language that the member correctly referred to in the

original piece of legislation is captured in sub-subsection (b), and that is

that the proposal must contain or specify reasonable measures to be carried out.

I don't think the intention here is to go beyond the test that was contained in

the original legislation.

MacPhail: But "may" has been replaced with "must" in the

legislation. I can't find a "must" in the old proposal. It's now

mandatory, so what is the minister achieving here? What problem is he

correcting?

[1610]

Hon. M.

de Jong: To the member, the

section in its entirety certainly does lay out

in greater detail the process that would follow in a case where, on either Crown

land or private forest land, an insect, disease or problem were to arise. What I

was referring to on the discretionary side of things was in subsection (2). The

Crown then has the option to require the proposal. Once the Crown has exercised

that option, then certain things become mandatory.

I do note

that in subsection (3), as part of the proposal, the licensee or the owner of

the property is given discretion to state the time frame, for example, within

which the measures are to be completed, but the member is correct. Once that

triggering event has occurred and the Crown has exercised the option to require

the proposal, a number of things must then follow.

MacPhail: What alternatives to pesticide use are contemplated?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Alternatives to pesticide application would be harvesting, fall and

burn, or fall and peel. Sometimes there are salvageable values that can be

retrieved, but it certainly contemplates things well beyond the use of

pesticides. On some of these pests, the use of pesticides simply doesn't work.

We discovered that with respect to the pine beetle. By virtue of its incubation

period under the bark, there's just no point in even using a pesticide.

MacPhail: What forest health problems, other than pine beetle, will be

contemplated under this section?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I'm advised that generally speaking, a

section like this would have

application to bark beetle, whether it's spruce or pine.

I'll pose

the question about the inclusion of the term "animals" in the section.

I am advised that at times, something like a porcupine — if it were in a

particular area — could do damage in a private-land setting where there are

adjacent properties, but it is generally an instrument that would be used with

respect to bark beetles.

[1615]

Section

15 approved.

section 16.

MacPhail: We're still dealing with the issue of forest health and control of

insects, diseases, animals or abiotic factors. This

section adds a new

requirement under

section 27, forest health emergency, that requires the

government to pay certain expenses incurred by holders of agreements when

ordered by the minister to carry out measures to address forest health

emergencies.

I'll read

this new

section into the record: "If an order made by the minister under

this

section requires the holder of an agreement under the Forest Act or the

timber sales manager to carry out a measure other than timber harvesting, then

to the extent provided in the regulations, the expenses of the measure are to be

paid by the government." I just heard the minister say that pesticide

management may not work. So does this mean…?

What

expenses will the government be picking up?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Again, I am advised that we are, by and large, talking about a

situation that would arise in a pest infestation of one of the types of beetles.

As a general rule, if the licensee were ordered to harvest and there were

recoverable values, the government doesn't have a rule. If, on the other hand, a

licensee was ordered into an area and there was no recoverable value and there

was an order to fall and burn the timber, then the Crown, by virtue of this

section, is incurring a liability to cover the costs associated with that.

MacPhail: What has the government budgeted for this?

Hon. M.

de Jong: It is a new tool, and I can tell the member that at the moment our

ability to utilize that tool is constrained by the fact that we have not

budgeted specific funds.

MacPhail: Well, if the minister hasn't budgeted specific funds this year, is

there…? I was at the Union of B.C. Municipalities convention where the Premier

announced he was going to set up a committee to examine solutions to the pine

beetle infestation and that he would do whatever was necessary when they

reported back.

Will this

be a budget-planning item for '03-04?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Use of the instrument will obviously be dependent upon resources

being identified to devote to the particular task. The member is correct when

she alludes to the magnitude of the problem and the desire on the government's

part to ensure that whatever tools are required are available. She is also

correct in pointing out that the use of those tools comes at a cost.

MacPhail: If the government allows a licensee to log infested trees and the

government pays for that logging, who then owns the logged trees?

[ Page 7260 ]

[1620]

Hon. M.

de Jong: In the circumstance that I think the member is describing, the

government wouldn't pay for the logging. If there are recoverable values there,

the licensee would proceed as per the regular course. The issue arises when the

government says to a licensee, "Chop down those trees and burn them,"

and there is no recoverable value for the licensee.

Section 16

approved.

section

MacPhail:

Section 17 goes on to talk about costs of forest health strategy.

Section 27.4 is new. It says:

"The

government and (

a) all holders of replaceable forest licences, and (

b) all

holders of agreements under the Forest Act that are in a category or

subcategory of agreements that is prescribed for the purposes of this section,

which licences or agreements grant rights to harvest Crown timber in a timber

supply area, are jointly responsible for the reasonable costs incurred jointly

by the timber sales manager and the holders referred to in

section 27.2

(1)."

this particular case the timber supply manager is a public servant — an

employee of the Forest Service, as I understand it. Given that, there will be

joint responsibility between the company and the government. Does

"joint" mean equal?

Hon. M.

de Jong: This gets back, in part, to the discussion we had previously about

defined forest area management. Just to slightly correct the member, it is the

timber sales manager which is that person who has responsibility in a particular

area for the timber sales program. For the purpose of this discussion, the

timber sales program is one of the licensees within a timber sales area, so when

we talk about apportioning the costs for some of these matters, they will be

apportioned in a way that is consistent with the various licensees' holdings or

entitlements within that timber supply area as a percentage of the AAC. Within a

timber supply area, the timber sales program has certain entitlements, a certain

percentage of that AAC, so they will share in the costs, as any other licensee

would.

Sections

17 to 53 inclusive approved.

section

MacPhail: Madam Chair, I just have to find the

section I'm dealing with

here, if I might.

Hon. M.

de Jong: Madam Chair, with your indulgence, I wonder if we might just take

three minutes.

The

Chair: If the committee agrees, we'll recess until 4:30.

The

committee recessed from 4:24 p.m. to 4:31 p.m.

[G.

Trumper in the chair.]

section 54 (continued) .

MacPhail:

Section 54 of the amendment act deals with changes to

section 149

of the original act. We've had a little bit of discussion on that, but I want to

pursue it more.

The

previous

section 149 was pretty broad. It said:

"Objectives

set by government. The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations

respecting objectives set by government, including but not limited to

regulations (

a) authorizing the minister to establish objectives set by

government in relation to specified subject matter, or (

b) respecting

procedures and criteria that are to be followed by the minister when

establishing objectives set by government."

The

new

section 149 says, "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make

regulations prescribing objectives in relation to one or more of the following

subjects," and then actually now lists the subjects that were not there

before. I note the new list is almost an exact duplicate of the forest

stewardship plan list that's contained in

section 5(2) of the bill, that it's

the same list of items that forest stewardship plans must contain. But there's

a difference — one difference. The new

section 149 setting out objectives

includes recreation resources, but forest stewardship plans don't include the

requirement to address recreation resources. Why the difference?

Hon. M.

de Jong: The member is correct in pointing out what would be a discrepancy

except for what I will alert the House to. In fact, the provisions of 5(2) —

the list the member referred to — have been repealed by this legislation and

are replaced by a statutory cross-reference to this section. So the forest

stewardship plan now incorporates the criteria set out in 149(1).

[1635]

While the

member is confirming that fact, I will tell her that the route by which that

occurs is

section 2 of the bill we are dealing with today.

Section 2(

b) repeals

2(

a) and incorporates the objectives referred to — objectives being something

of a defined term pursuant to 1(b) — and that incorporates

section 149. So the

thing that ties it all together in this bill is

section 1(d)(a), which refers

specifically to

section 149(1).

MacPhail: So in

section 5 now, the only term that we can rely on for the

list is "Objectives set by government," and when one looks at the

definition of objectives set by government, it refers to

section 149. Is that

it?

Hon. M.

de Jong: That is correct.

MacPhail: When will there be a complete act, which has all of the work that

the minister and I have so diligently done over the course of the last year and

a half, published? When will it be published?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I am advised that following passage and proclamation of this bill,

a consolidation will take place fairly immediately thereafter.

[ Page 7261 ]

MacPhail: Okay. We've already explored a little bit the concept that the

government is moving to ask for greater detail from licensees and enforced

stewardship plans and in woodlot licence plans. I think it's safe to say that

the minister has acknowledged that greater detail will be required, and I have

defined that greater detail as the government moving to being more prescriptive

in the code as opposed to results-based — moving in that direction.

What I want

to explore with the minister now under this

section — this

section that talks

about objectives set by government — is how it all comes together in terms of

what the licensees have to provide, to whom they answer and who in the

government signs off if there's contradiction or confusion.

[1640]

The

minister and I had a substantial discussion about this on November 18 and 19 of

last year. This was a debate around the objectives set by government. I'm going

to read back a little bit of that debate only for this. I want to ask the

minister what has changed since November 18 and 19. I was asking the minister

about who sets the objectives, and that's what I want to discuss again, given

these changes.

I had asked

the question: who sets the objectives?

The

minister: "I think the second part of the member's original question, which

I didn't answer" — some things never change — "related to the

process. That process is now contained within the ambit of the Ministry of

Sustainable Resource Management."

Me:

definition, is going to be applied. Who's in charge? What does it mean?"

The

minister: "The member will know that this relates to the establishment of

higher-level plans, as is presently contemplated. That process won't change. The

ministry that has responsibility for the establishment of those higher-level

land use plans is now, and has been for some time, the Minister of Sustainable

Resource Management."

Me:

"…the government has removed much of the prescription under the Forest

Practices Code. They take great pride in that, absolutely great pride, and then

say it's going to be a results-based code. But the objectives set by government

will determine what the results are that the companies, the stakeholders, have

to comply with. Or am I wrong?"

Minister:

"…she is correct that the forest stewardship plans must be consistent

with general land use objectives."

Me:

"The minister has said that the objectives set by government will be under

the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. He's not here to answer the

questions. We have the objectives being set by government, meaning objectives

established under sections 3 to 5 of the Forest Practices Code by a person or

persons authorized under those sections. I'm just trying to figure out what it

is the government wants to achieve. Where would we turn? Where would an ordinary

citizen turn to find out what are the objectives around soil, let's say, that

the government is setting?"

The

minister: "The member will know that pursuant to a process actually

initiated by her government, there are a series of higher-level land use plans

that either have been set or are in the process of being set. The objective —

and I don't know that this is particularly or should be at all mysterious — is

that harvest activity and, specifically, stewardship plans should be formulated

in a way that is consistent with the objectives that emerge out of that land use

planning process. It's not much more complicated than that."

Me:

"Couldn't agree more, except that: what's the status of land use planning

in this province? Is the minister committed to completing the land use process

before proclaiming this code?"

I'm almost

finished.

The

minister: "In fact, that land use planning process is ongoing. This act,

and we will come to the relevant sections…. This bill makes provision for the

establishment of interim objectives in those areas where the planning process

has not been completed, but the member will know that the process is ongoing via

the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management."

Me:

"Let me just give you an example. Here we have a situation where the key to

the application of the whole new act is the term 'objectives set by government.'

I'm told by the minister the objectives will flow from a land use plan. I

couldn't agree more. What's the state of land use planning in this province? The

minister says it's ongoing. Well, no, it isn't, actually. The government has

completely reversed at least two land use plans that were agreed upon and is now

deliberating at the cabinet table about what those land use plans will be."

[1645]

That

was a discussion the minister and I had about how this stuff, this act, applies

in land use planning. At that time I took it to mean, because the minister was

on the basis of a results-based code, that whatever happened in the Ministry of

Sustainable Resource Management in land use planning prevailed. But now it looks

like — and this is where I need help…. I need to ask the minister where we

are going on this. It now looks like this act, the Forest Practices Code, will

prevail in land use planning. Who is the final approver of land use planning

now, given that — it seems to me — this particular

section gives

superiority, primacy, to the Forest Practices Code over the Ministry of

Sustainable Resource Management and the Ministry of Water, Land and Air

Protection?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I'll try to answer the member's question this way, and there may be

other questions that flow from that. A licensee will prepare a forest

stewardship plan, and we've established that the plan must be consistent with

the objectives as set out pursuant to this

section and the regulations that may

flow from that.

addition, that forest stewardship plan will need to be consistent with any

objectives that are contained within a higher-level plan. To the extent that

there is an inconsistency, the objectives as set out in that higher-

[ Page 7262 ]

level strategic plan will take priority. Pursuant to the statute,

responsibility for administering that priority falls, in the case of the

higher-level plan, with the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. There's

my first kick at it anyway.

MacPhail: Could the minister name the statute for the record?

Hon. M.

de Jong: The authority that derives to the Ministry of Sustainable Resource

Management exists and derives from the Forest Practices Code.

MacPhail: Okay. So it is the Forest Practices Code that will guide and then

mandate higher-level land use plans or that will prevail if there's

inconsistency.

Let's take

a practical example now. Land use planning is ongoing. What's happening out

there with land use planning in terms of the real and practical application of

the Forest Practices Code now?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Hopefully, I'm answering the member's question. There are certainly

areas in the province where higher-level strategic land use plans are not yet in

place, although the hope, expectation and objective is for that to change in

fairly short order.

[1650]

In areas

where that is in fact the case, however, the objective set out in

section 149

would operate as the default objective. They would operate exclusively there in

the absence of those higher-level strategic objectives. I'm not sure I've

answered the question.

MacPhail: Well, I assume the government is going to have higher-level plans,

that the government hasn't abandoned land use planning completely. It seems to

me that with this legislation, in order for a forest company now to complete its

forest stewardship plan, it has to have some idea about what the higher-level

plans are, or else it's going to have to redo them. Now, what the minister did

say in the last debate was that he would set interim objectives. Has that

happened?

Hon. M.

de Jong: If we accept as a fact that there are parts of the province where

there are not yet higher-level plans in place and accept as a fact that it is

government's objective to remedy that situation and complete the land use

planning process, it is conceivable that in an area like that, a forest

stewardship plan could be prepared in advance of the completion of that land use

planning process consistent with these objectives but thereafter find itself in

one way, shape or form inconsistent with the objectives set out in that

higher-level plan. In those circumstances, that would trigger the need for an

amendment for which there are procedures set out elsewhere in the legislation.

But the basic premise that the member has identified is, in fact, correct.

MacPhail: Well, this is all going to come to a big crunch, because in April

2004 this is all going to be in force and effect, by the Liberal government's

own deadline. I mean, the train is coming down the track. We're six months away

from not only having everybody know about this, not only having every ministry

understanding what their contribution is to this, but then companies themselves

having to abide by this law.

Now, the

change here is the addition that the government can now prescribe objectives.

With the government now saying they can prescribe objectives, I'm unaware of any

interim objectives being set. So does this mean that in the very near future,

companies will have new prescribed objectives for which they have been unaware

prior to now?

[1655]

Hon. M.

de Jong: It's a fair question. What I can advise the member is that over the

course of the past number of months, work has been taking place around

finalization of the regulations that are contemplated in this section. That has

involved oversight by the public advisory council that was established,

stakeholders.

The

intention there is to have those regulations ready for enactment in December, in

a month and a half or so. There is then a period of time within which people

will have to familiarize themselves with those regulations. But in addition to

that — and the member identifies the intention around ultimate proclamation

date — the legislation contemplates from December a two-year transition

period, during which time licensees will have the option of submitting to the

regime contained in the Forest and Range Practices Act or continuing along under

the Forest Practices Code. So that transitional period exists for two years from

December, during which time they'll have the option and the ability to make that

transition in a way that makes sense operationally.

MacPhail: Well, the crunch is coming. It's coming as of December. Very

specifically, where forest stewardship plans mesh with land use planning —

higher-level plans — who prescribes the objectives for forest stewardship

plans? Is it the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management, or is it the

Minister of Forests, pursuant to the Forest Practices Code?

[1700]

Let me put

another thought on record so the minister can contemplate this. It's a

continuation of the same line of questioning, so just for time's sake, let me

put this to him. I want now to also bring in Bill 75, the Forest Statutes

Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002, which was passed last year as well. In

section 6 of

that act, it said it replaces the existing provisions to enable a single

minister to establish and administer resource management zones, sensitive areas

and objectives for resource management zones and sensitive areas. That's what

section 6 of the Forest Statutes Amendment Act said.

Then last

year this Minister of Forests said: "What is done and what is being done

very purposely is to reduce the decision-making process from three ministers to

one, and that minister and ministry is the Ministry of Sustainability Resource

Management." Then the Minis-

[ Page 7263 ]

ter of Forests later said that the approval of forest stewardship plans was

the lone responsibility of the Minister of Forests, and that's being confirmed

today.

The reason

why this becomes even more important is because the addition to

section 149 of

the act that we're dealing with today adds prescription, the ability to

prescribe objectives by this government now, so it becomes even more key about

who's in charge. Who's on first, basically? Who's going to be doing the

prescribing? If it's the Minister of Forests, then I would assume that the

Minister of Sustainable Resource Management is out of play. If he isn't out of

play, then who's in charge? If he is in play, does he have an opportunity to

determine whether the forest stewardship plan meshes with the objectives set in

the land use plan?

Let's be

clear. We're often talking about exactly the same tracts of land. In fact, we

are talking about the same tracts of land.

[1705]

Hon. M.

de Jong: Hopefully, again, I've captured the essence of the question.

It seems to

me that what can fairly be said is that in the

section we are dealing with, the

legislation contemplates the possibility that there could be an inconsistency

between the objectives set out here or in a forest stewardship plan and the

objectives contained in a higher-level plan. We know what happens if that is

found to be the case.

The

question is: who determines whether there is an inconsistency? I think the

answer to that is it becomes apparent at the time the plan is accepted and that

becomes a function. The determination of whether there is that inconsistency

would flow from the Ministry of Forests.

MacPhail: In the absence of a complete land use plan and where there are

interim objectives set, then will the forest stewardship plan be given final

approval by the Ministry of Forests, given that it seems to me that this act now

has primacy amongst legislation?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Dealing with the circumstance that I think we're involved with

here, if there is not a higher-level strategic plan in place, then I guess it

follows that we wouldn't find ourselves in a situation where there is an

inconsistency between the forest stewardship plan and that higher-level plan. In

those circumstances, assuming the forest stewardship plan that has been

presented meets all of the requirements including addressing the objectives set

out here and the regulations that flow from it, it would flow through the

approval process. It would then exist in a world where a forest stewardship plan

existed in the absence of the yet-to-be-completed higher-level strategic plan.

MacPhail: I'm trying to figure out — and we're getting there — where

companies and woodlot licensees can take comfort that the deal is done. In the

absence of a land use plan the minister will approve forest stewardship plans.

Will that be final approval, or is there a possibility those stewardship plans

can be changed once the final land use plan is approved? There are higher-level

plans that have not been completed substantially, covering substantial tracts,

so this isn't hypothetical. Come January of this year it will be a reality.

Hon. M.

de Jong: The member is right; it's not a hypothetical. In fact, there are

sections within the Forest and Range Practices Act that contemplate the need to

make amendments, so that mechanism exists. I will tell the member candidly that

it is my hope and my belief that we can do this in a way that doesn't require

wholesale changes, but as I acknowledged earlier, until such time as that

higher-level strategic planning is complete across the province, we do need to

contemplate the possibility that it will be necessary to change a forest

stewardship plan.

[1710]

MacPhail: So will the minister be putting in place clear, direct

instructions to licensees and to the public about what ministry they should be

going to, to look at objectives and talk about these matters and determine who

is the decision-maker? Will the ministry be publishing guidelines?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I think the question was from the perspective of a licensee. How do

you acquire the certainty that you're looking for?

It probably

isn't an issue in situations in areas of the province where that higher-level

strategic planning has been completed. You'd look to the plan and then conform

with the other requirements. It's probably more of an issue in those parts of

the province where that process hasn't been completed. You would look to the

regulations. You would look to the objectives set out under the act.

There are

two realities or, certainly, one reality. It is the one we've already talked

about. That is the possibility that you may file, and have approved, a forest

stewardship plan that meets all of those objectives. At the completion of the

higher-level strategic land use planning process, an inconsistency is identified

and would require amendment. That is one potential reality. That will be

something a licensee will have to consider particularly over, I would say, the

next eight months and, I suppose, particularly over the first three months that

the act is in force.

It may lead

some of them to decide that in that particular area of the province, they will

rely upon the previous Forest Practices Code regime, as opposed to the regime

provided for here. They may simply take the approach that says: "I'm not

going rely upon this until that lingering question around the higher-level

strategic plan has been resolved."

[1715]

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

Section 54

approved.

[ Page 7264 ]

section

MacPhail: I have questions that overlap into

section 56 too.

One

question. Sections 55 and 56 give regulatory powers to the Ministry of Forests,

to the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, and to the Ministry of

Sustainable Resource Management — regulatory powers with regard to ungulate

winter range, community watersheds, stream and lakeshore management. We've

already discussed my view that this is moving to more prescriptive regulation,

but of interest — which we've also discussed a little bit — is the

prohibition of the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection and the Minister

of Sustainable Resource Management to establish, through regulation, objectives

unless those objectives are "consistent with the objectives set by

government."

I'm taking

from the debate we've had so far that the objectives set by government pursuant

to this act are done by the Minister of Forests. What's happened that this needs

to be clarified, that this prohibition by those two ministries needs to be

added? Has something occurred inside government that's given rise to this

prohibition?

Hon. M.

de Jong: The best way I can describe the

section we're dealing with here,

section 55, is that it is, for those various departments of government, on the

one hand enabling. It contemplates the issuance of an order or a regulation, but

it once again confirms that from whichever agency of government that order or

regulation derives, it must be consistent, first of all, with the higher-level

strategic plan and the regulations contained herein.

Sections 55

to 116 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. M.

de Jong: Hon. Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 5:18 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[1720-1725]

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Third

reading of Bill 69 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 43

Falcon

Coell

L. Reid

Hawkins

Whittred

Hansen

Bruce

Santori

Wilson

Masi

Lee

Hagen

Murray

Plant

de Jong

Stephens

Abbott

Coleman

Chong

Penner

Anderson

Orr

Harris

Brenzinger

Chutter

Mayencourt

Trumper

Johnston

Christensen

Bray

Les

Locke

Bhullar

Wong

MacKay

Cobb

K. Stewart

Sultan

Hamilton

Hawes

Kerr

Manhas

Hunter

NAYS — 2

MacPhail

Kwan

Bill 69,

Forest and Range Practices Amendment Act, 2003, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G.

Plant: I call committee stage debate on Bill 37.

Committee of the Whole House

SKILLS DEVELOPMENT AND LABOUR

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

(continued)

The

House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 37; J. Weisbeck in the

chair.

The

committee met at 5:29 p.m.

section 15 (continued) .

[1730]

J. Kwan:

Section 15 repeals

section 64(b.1) of the amendment of the Employment Standards

Amendment Act, 2002, which repeals this section: "establishing conditions

that must be met before a person may employ a child under 15 years of age and

establishing different conditions for different industries or classes of

industries." Sub (b.2): "delegating authority to the director to

impose on the basis of prescribed criteria conditions of employment in relation

to children under 15 years of age." And sub (b.3): "prohibiting the

employment of children under 12 years of age, providing for exceptions to the

prohibition in respect of children employed in a prescribed industry and

prescribing an industry for that purpose…."

This has,

in my view, direct impact with respect to children and their employment in the

workforce. Why is the government repealing the

section that actually in

legislation calls on the government to set out conditions?

Hon. G.

Bruce: It's because these provisions, (

a) and (b), provide greater authority

to cabinet to bring in the regulations, which applies back to

section 9.

[ Page 7265 ]

J. Kwan:

What I heard yesterday in debate from the minister, though, is that he says

nothing has changed, everything is the same, and conditions will be in place.

This provision actually calls on the government — if the government did not

repeal it — to set out those conditions in legislation here.

It's

consistent with government's point of view that they are going to bring in

conditions, so he claims. So why would you repeal this section? What are the

ramifications, then, by repealing this

section for children who are now going to

be 12 to 15 entering the workforce?

Hon. G.

Bruce: The sections being repealed do not provide for government to bring in

the regulations, and that's why we have changed that so it is there in the new

section as written.

J. Kwan:

The

section that's being repealed reads as follows: "(b.1) establishing

conditions that must be met before a person may employ a child under 15 years of

age and establishing different conditions for different industries or classes of

industries; (b.2) delegating authority to the director to impose, on the basis

of prescribed criteria, conditions of employment in relation to children under

15 years of age…."

legislation it actually says that conditions must be set out. So how is that not

requiring the government to set out conditions, and why would the government…?

Is this not weakening the government's authority to set out conditions relative

to child labour in B.C.?

Hon. G.

Bruce: In the sections you allude to, what we've done is add much greater

strength to allow for government to bring in those regulations. That's what

we're doing with

section 14. It is a strengthening.

I believe

those that drafted this didn't feel what was in place — although it sounds

good and looks good — would do the job that was necessary, that we're looking

to do, and so have strengthened that by first of all repealing sections 4 and 64

and bringing in the new

section which gives us greater strength to do what we

intend to do.

J. Kwan:

With all due respect to the minister, I would disagree with the minister,

debated this yesterday with respect to the issue of regulations — the draft of

which I asked the minister whether or not would be made public. He said no.

I asked

whether or not consultation would be done before the regulations are done, and

he said no. So nobody would actually get to see it. With the stroke of a pen,

changes will be made, and nobody would actually get to see it. Then people have

to go, after the fact, and look for the order-in-council to see what changes

have been made. That doesn't strengthen, in my view, protection for children

with respect to child labour.

[1735]

Here you

have a prescribed clause in the legislation that says the government is to

establish these conditions. It actually enshrines it in law to say that

conditions must be set.

I fail to

understand this minister's logic and in fact this entire notion under

section 9,

where this minister claims that by lowering the threshold, by bringing forward

child labour legislation that is now the worst in the country, it's somehow

better protection for children. I fail to see that logic. It's a mystery to me;

it's a mystery to the opposition. It seems to only make sense to this minister.

To that end, Mr. Chair, the opposition will be voting against this

section on

division.

Section 15

approved on division.

section

J. Kwan:

Section 16 changes some wording, although it's interesting. As an example,

it recognizes psychologists as diagnosticians in the mental stress provision.

I'm just curious about it. Why the addition of psychologists specifically? Why

not psychiatrists? Why not medical personnel, medical practitioners, to perhaps

broaden the net? I'm not sure what the purpose of this change is. Could the

minister please advise?

Hon. G.

Bruce: I'd just like to introduce two members of staff that are with WCB,

Susan Furlong and Pam Cohen, who are here to give me a hand to be able to answer

the questions that you pose.

This

actually broadens the number of people that can be brought in for these types of

issues. A psychiatrist is considered a physician, so in that aspect

psychiatrists are part of this already.

Interjection.

The

Chair: Through the Chair, please. Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

J. Kwan:

Sorry. I was trying to expedite the discussion. What about counsellors? I'm

just curious. If the idea is to broaden the categories of people who could

provide support in this regard, then perhaps broader terminologies as opposed to

specific professions would make sense. I just don't understand.

Hon. G.

Bruce: It's because it has to be somebody that is recognized, if I've got

this correct, under the American Psychiatric Association's diagnostic and

statistical manual. That's a mouthful for a guy like me. Counsellors are not.

What we've done is made sure those that can broaden the reach still fit the

definition, as is allowed. That's why these changes were made.

Section

16 approved.

section

The

Chair:

Section 17, I believe, has an amendment. Minister of Labour, would

you like to present that amendment.

[ Page 7266 ]

Hon. G.

Bruce: I move the amendment to

section 17 standing in my name on the orders

of the day.

[SECTION 17 (d), in the proposed

section 17 (3) (

d) of the Workers

Compensation Act by striking out "$879.11" and substituting

"$889.32".]

On the

amendment.

J. Kwan:

If I could get a copy of the orders of the day, I can see the amendment.

Then I'll begin the discussion relative to

section 17. Just to facilitate the

discussion, while I quickly look at this, could the minister please advise what

the significant change is in terms of the amendment to the bill that's being

introduced?

Hon. G.

Bruce: What this amendment does…. The bill was introduced in July, and

there are adjustments made for minimum amounts that are payable. Because we are

now some five or six months later, we're adjusting that amount to reflect what

it is, which is an upward.

Amendment

approved.

section 17 as amended.

[1740]

J. Kwan:

Section 17 deals with, I think, important changes — ones that the opposition

agrees with — and is relative to the Workers Compensation Act. The amendment

ensures that surviving partners, including those without children, are entitled

to lifetime benefits. Under the existing WCB regulations, survivors under 40

without children receive a one-time lump sum, which I believe is about $41,800,

when a partner dies. Those who are older or under 40 with children receive a

monthly benefit for the rest of their lives.

Bill 37

here proposes to base the compensation on a portion of the monthly benefit the

deceased worker would have received for a permanent total disability. With the

percentage increasing according to the survivor's age, the maximum compensation

is 60 percent. Surviving partners up to 20 years of age will receive 30 percent

of what the deceased worker would have received, and the amount increases by 1

percent for each year of age. Surviving partners of 50 and over will receive the

maximum of 60 percent, and this

section also, as I understand it, increases the

age at which benefits paid for dependent children end to 19 years old from 18

for children not attending school and to 25 from 21 for children in school.

The changes

also ensure that a separated spouse who was financially dependent on the worker

at the time of death would receive compensation in accordance with a court order

or support agreement, even if the worker had not been in compliance. It allows,

further, surviving dependents to keep half of their Canada Pension Plan survivor

benefits instead of losing that 100 percent, and it clarifies that a surviving

partner keeps his or her own Canada Pension Plan retirement benefit rather than

having it deducted from the WCB benefits.

This change

is a positive one, and it's long overdue. I'm glad to see it here in this bill,

and the opposition supports that. Could the minister, though, advise: how was

the cut-off date chosen? How many people are being affected? How much would it

cost to include the survivors if it were to go retroactive?

Hon. G.

Bruce: The reason the June 30, 2002, date in retroactivity was considered

was that it was the date that Bill 49, which changed the overall aspect of

benefits to WCB, came into effect. We thought it was appropriate — albeit this

was another piece coming in later — that it be still tied, really, to the

benefits side. Those changes being made, then coming into force on June 30,

2002…. Those people that found themselves in difficulty going forward, even

though this piece hadn't been passed, should receive those benefits.

J. Kwan:

How much would it cost the government to include those survivors, and how

many people would be affected? Does the minister know?

Hon. G.

Bruce: Excuse me. Just for clarification, are you speaking about those from

the date of June 30, 2002, to now?

Interjection.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Retroactively, like all the way back to the beginning?

Interjection.

The

Chair: Member, would you address the Chair, please.

Hon. G.

Bruce: It would be in the neighbourhood of $152 million to $192 million.

J. Kwan:

How many families would that be, approximately?

Hon. G.

Bruce: There would be 5,100 beneficiaries.

[1745]

J. Kwan:

I'd just like to simply say that I understand, particularly from the survivors

who have lobbied long and hard for this change…. Now that the changes are

here, albeit too late, it would not benefit them, and I think it's a big

disappointment for those people who worked hard for the change. It is good that

the change is here for future claimants or families, if you will, from June on,

but my heart does go out to people who struggled long and hard to earn this

recognition.

I want to

ask the minister this question. The youth who becomes injured in the workplace,

where no previous income or wage rate has been set — what kind of disability

benefits would this youth receive under this provision, or would this youth be

eligible to receive benefits under this provision?

Hon. G.

Bruce: A couple of points. In respect to this

section and as an addendum to

your comments just

[ Page 7267 ]

prior to this question, I would like to point out that we would all love to

be able to go way back. This recommendation actually came out of the royal

commission that was sponsored — I think it cost about $7 million — by the

government of which you were part, and then these changes weren't dealt with. I

want to make sure we understand the full scope of what we're talking about here.

In regard

to your question, I'm not sure I heard it clearly. What we're talking about here

in this instance is survivors of fatalities, of people killed in the workplace.

What was it specifically you were looking for — benefits for young people?

J. Kwan:

Benefits for a young person, a youth who's been injured or perhaps killed on the

job, before the rate had been established…. Would the person be eligible for

benefits, or the family?

Hon. G.

Bruce: I don't think it pertains to this

section at all, or at least not as

I'm understanding your question. Anybody in the workforce is covered by workers

compensation, so I'm at a little bit of a loss there.

J. Kwan:

Perhaps I can just put this on the record, and I could ask the minister to have

his staff respond to me in correspondence at a later time.

Here's the

issue I want to raise. Let's use an example. A student might have come from out

of province to B.C. for a summer job and got a job with, let's say, a

subcontractor in the district of Delta doing garbage cleanup. It's actually a

real case. What had happened in this instance was the youth had slipped and got

his feet caught under the dump truck when he was loading. The youth got $1.52

and two broken feet and was dumped from the job — was not able to complete the

job — and did not get any support from WCB. The youth needed a lot of further

medical treatment.

The

question becomes: what kind of benefits or compensation would this youth get? To

take it one step further, if the young person was killed on the job, would the

family in that instance be eligible for any benefits?

I am noting

the time, so I would appreciate it if I could get a response from the minister,

perhaps through his staff in writing at a later time. Then we can move on.

Section

17 as amended approved on division.

section 18.

[1750]

J. Kwan:

I want to make a quick comment on

section 18, which also relates to

section 19.

The Business Council of B.C. has stated that the cost to the compensation system

should be at least break-even because of a proposed cap on the inflation

indexing formula used to calculate benefits. Sections 18 and 19 eliminate the

alternate indexing factor and use a different formula. I'm wondering why that is

and what the effect for the survivors of this inflation cap is for calculating

the benefits. Once again, I could get that in writing from the minister, from

his staff, as well.

Hon. G.

Bruce: I think I can answer that. This is a continuum, if you like, of the

legislation that was in Bill 48, where we changed the benefit section. This just

reflects what is currently in effect, so that all things are consistent. I'd be

happy to get a more detailed response to you from staff.

Sections 18

to 22 inclusive approved.

section 23.

The Chair:

Section

23 has an amendment.

Hon. G.

Bruce: I move the amendment to

section 23 standing in my name on the orders

of the day.

[SECTION 23, in the proposed

section 35.2 (2), (5), (6) and (7) by

deleting "Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2003" and substituting

"Skills Development and Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2003".]

Amendment

approved.

Section 23

as amended approved.

section

J. Kwan:

Section 24, just to raise a quick concern. The Law Society of B.C. is concerned

about this section, which adds a new provision allowing lay advocates. This

could, of course, simply be an issue with respect to the profession. I am

curious, though: why this change? Does the minister feel that it's adequate for

people without, perhaps, the adequate training to be able to do the work?

Hon. G.

Bruce: As the member may know or not, lay advocates have always been

available to represent workers and employers for WCB, for a number of years.

What this amendment does is actually ensure that lay advocacy can continue to

provide assistance to WCB parties. We're trying to make the entire workers

compensation system much more friendly, if you want to put it that way, in all

of how it undertakes its business and also in how it treats and deals with folks

that find themselves injured and having to go through the system.

There is a

code of conduct that will be established for lay advocates. What this does is

try to take away, hopefully once and for all, the friction that has been there

between the Law Society and whether or not lay advocates ought to be able to

assist people. It's our view that with what's put in place and what the practice

has been to date, this is a valuable way for people to be able to get the type

of assistance they need in what can be very difficult times.

J. Kwan:

I'd like to just bring forth some concluding remarks. Instead of this labour

legislation — legislation

[ Page 7268 ]

that opts to relax the rules on child labour — the government could have

put into place a system to protect children who are wanting to work, a system

that meets the requirements in the UN convention on the rights of the child. The

government could have accepted the amendments the opposition put forward

yesterday, amendments that would have at least brought child legislation in line

with Ralph Klein's right-wing agenda in Alberta and other provinces in this

country.

That could

have been one thing that this bill could have accomplished for children, but for

some reason there was no interest on the part of this B.C. Liberal government to

provide those protections for children aged 12 to 15. The minister instead likes

to talk a lot about the role of parents.

I just want

to be clear on the record here that we in the NDP opposition agree with the

minister that parental involvement is important and that parents, like every

other group in society, are very diverse. Some parents will think a few hours of

work a week will be an excellent experience for their 12-to-15-year old. Some

parents will tell their children that they have a lifetime of work ahead of them

and to focus on school instead. Some parents, perhaps parents under tremendous

economic pressures or with language barriers, are not well-informed about the

workplace. Finally, the sad exception is those parents or guardians who are

irresponsible or even unscrupulous and might approve employment that to a

reasonable, fair-minded third party would put their children in harm's way.

We would

not have a Minister of Children and Family Development if all parents were

equally equipped to care for and make decisions for their children. That is why

having an objective third party, such as the employment standards branch, is a

critical part of the check and balance in the system. The minister now says —

and this was news to just about everyone, perhaps even his staff and cabinet

colleagues — that he is considering addressing all these concerns by

regulation. Well, that is certainly an improvement, and all the groups and

individual British Columbians who have been working so hard fighting this

government's total deregulation of child labour should pat themselves on the

back for the impact they have clearly had on the minister.

[1755]

The

minister knows very well that regulations can be changed with the stroke of a

pen without any public input or any kind of open, transparent process that this

B.C. Liberal government says it is committed to.

The

protection for children needs to be spelled out in specific legislation that's

subject to public scrutiny and debate. The removal of the protection for

children from the Employment Standards Act and in some rare but — let's be

clear — not unheard of cases from the protection against unscrupulous parents

or guardians is a regressive and deeply troubling development.

That's why

so many people have contacted us, the opposition, about this bill. That is why

there is a vigil on October 15 sponsored by the Anglican Church. This is why the

minister himself and all of the government MLAs continue to receive letters,

e-mails and faxes imploring this government to pull back these changes and in

the face of this minister's obstinate refusal to listen. That is why my

colleague will be voting against this bill on third reading.

These are

my closing remarks. I know it's not necessarily in the context of the

section

we're discussing, but I wanted to just finish off debate with these closing

remarks.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Just very briefly to bring this whole thing into context, there are

159,000 young people between the ages of 12 and 15. On average, for the past

three years and probably beyond that there were 300 permits issued by the

director of employment standards, so there were literally thousands of young

people who were given no protection in the workplace and who, with the

legislation we're bringing forward today, will now have some protection.

Sections 24

to 28 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. G.

Bruce: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with

amendments.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 5:57 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 37,

Skills Development and Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, reported complete

with amendments.

Third Reading of Bills

Mr.

Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as read?

Hon. G.

Bruce: By leave of the House, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave

granted.

[1800]

Third

reading of Bill 37 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 36

Falcon

Coell

Whittred

Hansen

Bruce

Santori

Wilson

Masi

Lee

Hagen

Murray

Plant

Abbott

Coleman

Chong

[ Page 7269 ]

Penner

Anderson

Orr

Harris

Brenzinger

Chutter

Mayencourt

Trumper

Johnston

Christensen

Bray

Les

Wong

MacKay

Cobb

K. Stewart

Sultan

Hawes

Manhas

Locke

Hunter

NAYS — 2

MacPhail

Kwan

Bill 37,

Skills Development and Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, read a third time

and passed.

Hon. G.

Plant: I move that the House do stand recessed until 6:45 p.m.

Motion

approved.

Mr.

Speaker: The House is recessed until 6:45.

The House

recessed from 6:04 p.m. to 6:45 p.m.

[Mr.

Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. R.

Coleman: I call committee stage of Bill 49.

Committee of the Whole House

PENSION STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 49; G. Trumper in the chair.

The

committee met at 6:46 p.m.

Sections 1

to 4 inclusive approved.

On

section

Hon. S.

Santori: I move the amendment standing on the order paper.

[SECTION

5, by deleting the proposed

section 5.]

The

Chair: Shall

section 5 pass?

Some

Hon. Members: Nay.

The

Chair: The

section is defeated.

Section 5

negatived.

Sections 6

to 34 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. S.

Santori: I move that the bill pass with amendment.

The

Chair: The motion is that the committee rise and report completion of the

bill with amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 6:49 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

Bill

49, Pension Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, reported complete with amendment.

Third Reading of Bills

Mr.

Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as read?

Hon. S.

Santori: By leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

[1850]

Leave

granted.

Bill 49,

Pension Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, read a third time and passed.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I call second reading of Bill 57.

Second Reading of Bills

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ACT

Hon. J.

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

The bill

titled the Environmental Management Act will implement a new service model for

environmental management in the province. The new model is the result of

extensive consultation and a complete review of the existing legislation, which

includes the Waste Management Act and the Environment Management Act.

The Waste

Management Act is the main environmental protection and management statute in

British Columbia. It regulates industrial and municipal waste discharge,

pollution, air quality and contaminated site remediation as well as other

general matters. The 20-year-old act does not adequately use results-based and

risk-based systems. It does not include modern-day tools for environmental

management. It results in inconsistent decision-making, and it fails to

adequately address remediation of contaminated sites.

The

Environment Management Act is another environmental protection and management

statute in British Columbia. It provides the power to correct detrimental

environmental impacts and to handle environmental emergencies. It also

established the conservation officer service and the Environmental Appeal Board.

This act, however, is also over 20 years old and does not include modern

environmental management tools. The Waste Management Act and the Environment

Management Act both address issues of environmental management.

[ Page 7270 ]

The new act

will combine the two acts to provide a more organized and well-written single

piece of legislation. In addition to this consolidation, the act introduces

seven new components that achieve the following major objectives. It will

regulate