H0506am 03

H0506am 03

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

4th Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Tuesday, May 6, 2003 Morning Sitting Volume 15, Number 3 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Honourable Iona Campagnolo 4TH SESSION, 37TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Claude Richmond EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council................................................................................. .........................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations.............................................................................. ..................... Hon.

Greg Halsey-Brandt Deputy Premier and Minister of Education ....................................................................................... ..................................Hon. Christy Clark Minister of Advanced Education................................................................................................. ...........................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.................................................................................... ..............................Hon.

John van Dongen Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations.............................................................. .................... Hon. Geoff Plant Minister of Children and Family Development.................................................................................... ..............................Hon. Gordon Hogg Minister of State for Early Childhood Development.............................................................................. .................................Hon.

Linda Reid Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services......................................................................... .................. Hon. George Abbott Minister of State for Community Charter........................................................................................ .................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Minister of State for Women's Equality ......................................................................................... .................................... Hon.

Lynn Stephens Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Minister of State for Deregulation ............................................................................................. ............................................ Hon. Kevin Falcon Minister of Energy and Mines................................................................................................... ....................................... Hon.

Richard Neufeld Minister of Finance ............................................................................................................ ....................................................... Hon. Gary Collins Minister of Forests ............................................................................................................ .................................................. Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Health Planning .................................................................................................... ............................................ Hon.

Sindi Hawkins Minister of Health Services.................................................................................................... ................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Minister of State for Mental Health ............................................................................................ ...................................Hon. Gulzar S. Cheema Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care ............................................................................. Hon.

Katherine Whittred Minister of Human Resources.................................................................................................... ............................................Hon. Murray Coell Minister of Management Services................................................................................................ .........................................Hon. Sandy Santori Minister of Provincial Revenue................................................................................................. ................................................Hon.

Bill Barisoff Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Skills Development and Labour...................................................................................... .............................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Minister of Sustainable Resource Management.................................................................................... ..................................Hon.

Stan Hagen Minister of Transportation..................................................................................................... .................................................... Hon. Judith Reid Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection..................................................................................... ....................................Hon. Joyce Murray LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................. ..............................................................

John Weisbeck Leader of the Opposition ....................................................................................................... ...........................................................Joy MacPhail Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ........................................................................................... .............................................. Harold Long Clerk of the Legislative Assembly .............................................................................................. .........................................E.

George MacMinn Clerk Assistant ................................................................................................................ ................................................................... Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk .................................................................................................. ........................................................ Ian D. Izard Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees........................................................................................ ............................................Craig H.

James Clerk Assistant/Committee Clerk................................................................................................ ............................................ Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms ............................................................................................................... .........................................................A.A. Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ..................................................................................................... ........................................

Anthony Dambrauskas Legislative Librarian.......................................................................................................... ............................................................. Joan A. Barton Legislative Comptroller ........................................................................................................ .................................................................Peter Bray Published by British Columbia Hansard Services, and printed under the authority of the Speaker by the Queen's Printer, Victoria.

Rates: single issue, $2.85; per calendar year, mailed daily, $298. GST extra. Agent: Crown Publications Inc., 521 Fort St., Victoria, B.C. V8W 1E7. Telephone: (250) 386-4636. Fax: 386-0221. www.leg.bc.ca/hansard In addition to printed transcripts, Hansard Services publishes transcripts on the Internet and broadcasts Chamber debates on television.

Party Standings: Liberal 75; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 2. ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ....................................................................... Shuswap Anderson, Val J. (L) .............................................................Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)............................................. Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Pat (L).........................................................................Prince George North Belsey, Bill (L).................................................................................

North Coast Bennett, Bill (L) ........................................................................... East Kootenay Bhullar, Tony (Ind. L) ................................................................. Surrey-Newton Bloy, Harry (L).................................................................................. Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).........................................Prince George–Mount Robson Bray, Jeff (L)......................................................................Victoria–Beacon H ill Brenzinger, Elayne (L) ...............................................................

Surrey-Whalley Brice, Susan (L) ............................................................................Saanich South Bruce, Hon. Graham P. (L)................................................ Cowichan-Ladysmith Campbell, Hon. Gordon (L)............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Cheema, Hon. Gulzar S. (L) ..........................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Chong, Ida (L)................................................................ Oak Bay–Gordon Head Christensen, Tom (L) .............................................................

Okanagan-Vernon Chutter, Dave (L) ........................................................................... Yale-L illooet Clark, Hon. Christy (L) ..................................................Port Moody–Westwood Cobb, Walt (L) ............................................................................. Cariboo South Coell, Hon. Murray (L) ........................................ Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L) .............................................. Fort Langley–Aldergrove Collins, Hon.

Gary (L).........................................................Vancouver-Fairview de Jong, Hon. Michael (L)....................................... Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) .......................................................... Surrey-Cloverdale Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ................................................................... Comox Valley Halsey-Brandt, Hon. Greg (L) ..................................................Richmond Centre Hamilton, Arnie (L)............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin Hansen, Hon.

Colin (L) .....................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Harris, Roger (L)......................................................................................Skeena Hawes, Randy (L) ............................................................ Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Hon. Sindi (L).......................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ................................................................... Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Hon. Gordon (L) ........................................................

Surrey–White Rock Hunter, Mike (L) ...................................................................................Nanaimo Jarvis, Daniel (L)...................................................... North Vancouver–Seymour Johnston, Ken (L)............................................................ Vancouver-Fraserview Kerr, Brian J. (L).............................................................. Malahat–Juan de Fuca Krueger, Kevin (L).................................................

Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ...............................Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lee, Richard T. (L).......................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L)................................................................. Peace River South Les, John (L) .......................................................................... Ch illiwack-Sumas Locke, Brenda (L) ...........................................................

Surrey–Green Timbers Long, Harold (L) ...................................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast MacKay, Dennis (L)....................................................... Bulkley Valley–Stikine McMahon, Wendy (L).............................................Columbia River–Revelstoke MacPhail, Joy (NDP) ..........................................................

Vancouver-Hastings Manhas, Karn (L) .............................................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Masi, Reni (L) ...................................................................................Delta North Mayencourt, Lorne (L) ..........................................................Vancouver-Burrard Murray, Hon. Joyce (L) ........................................................... New Westminster Nebbeling, Hon. Ted (L) .......................................... West Vancouver–Garibaldi Nettleton, Paul (Ind. L)..................................................Prince George–Omineca Neufeld, Hon.

Richard (L)...................................................... Peace River North Nijjar, Rob (L)...................................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Nuraney, John (L) ...............................................................Burnaby-W illingdon Orr, Sheila (L) ...........................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L)....................................................................... Ch illiwack-Kent Plant, Hon. Geoff (L) ......................................................... Richmond-Steveston Reid, Hon.

Judith (L)............................................................Nanaimo-Parksv ille Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................... Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L) ................................................................ Kamloops Roddick, Valerie (L)..........................................................................Delta South Sahota, Patty (L).....................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Santori, Hon. Sandy (L)..............................................West Kootenay–Boundary Stephens, Hon.

Lynn (L) ........................................................................ Langley Stewart, Ken (L)...................................................... Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Stewart, Richard (L) ...................................................... Coquitlam-Maillardville Suffredine, Blair F. (L) ................................................................Nelson-Creston Sultan, Ralph (L)....................................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Thorpe, Hon.

Rick (L) ..........................................................Okanagan-Westside Trumper, Gillian (L)................................................................Alberni-Qualicum van Dongen, Hon. John (L) ................................................Abbotsford-Clayburn Visser, Rod (L).................................................................................North Island Weisbeck, John (L).........................................................Kelowna–Lake Country Whittred, Hon.

Katherine (L) ...................................North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wilson, John (L)........................................................................... Cariboo North Wong, Patrick (L)............................................................Vancouver-Kensington LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn....................................................... Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman ..............................................Hon.

Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum.......................................................................G illian Trumper Bulkley Valley–Stikine ..............................................................Dennis MacKay Burnaby North..............................................................................Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds............................................................................Patty Sahota Burnaby-Willingdon......................................................................

John Nuraney Burquitlam ........................................................................................ Harry Bloy Cariboo North ..................................................................................John Wilson Cariboo South .................................................................................... Walt Cobb Chilliwack-Kent ............................................................................. Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas .................................................................................

John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke....................................................Wendy McMahon Comox Valley .......................................................................... Hon. Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville .............................................................Richard Stewart Cowichan-Ladysmith .......................................................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Delta North.......................................................................................... Reni Masi Delta South................................................................................

Valerie Roddick East Kootenay .................................................................................. Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin...................................................................Arnie Hamilton Fort Langley–Aldergrove ..................................................... Hon. Rich Coleman Kamloops ....................................................................... Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson ........................................................Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country...............................................................

John Weisbeck Kelowna-Mission ................................................................ Hon. Sindi Hawkins Langley ............................................................................... Hon. Lynn Stephens Malahat–Juan de Fuca .....................................................................Brian J. Kerr Maple Ridge–Mission ................................................................... Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows .............................................................Ken Stewart Nanaimo..........................................................................................

Mike Hunter Nanaimo-Parksville ...................................................................Hon. Judith Reid Nelson-Creston.......................................................................Blair F. Suffredine New Westminster ..................................................................Hon. Joyce Murray North Coast ........................................................................................Bill Belsey North Island........................................................................................Rod Visser North Vancouver–Lonsdale.......................................... Hon.

Katherine Wh ittred North Vancouver–Seymour .............................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head .......................................................................Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon .................................................................... Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside.................................................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Peace River North .............................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South .......................................................................

Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley ....................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.................................................... Karn Manhas Port Moody–Westwood......................................................... Hon. Christy Clark Powell River–Sunshine Coast.......................................................... Harold Long Prince George North................................................................................Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson................................................Hon.

Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................Paul Nettleton Richmond Centre......................................................... Hon. Greg Halsey-Brandt Richmond East .......................................................................... Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ................................................................ Hon. Geoff Plant Saanich North and the Islands ............................................... Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South...................................................................................

Susan Brice Shuswap .............................................................................. Hon. George Abbott Skeena.............................................................................................Roger Harris Surrey-Cloverdale ................................................................. Hon. Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Brenda Locke Surrey-Newton ............................................................................... Tony Bhullar Surrey–Panorama Ridge................................................. Hon.

Gulzar S. Cheema Surrey-Tynehead .......................................................................... Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley ...................................................................... Elayne Brenzinger Surrey–White Rock ...............................................................Hon. Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard................................................................. Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview............................................................... Hon.

Gary Co llins Vancouver-Fraserview ...................................................................Ken Johnston Vancouver-Hastings .......................................................................Joy MacPhail Vancouver-Kensington...................................................................Patrick Wong Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Rob Nijjar Vancouver-Langara....................................................................Val J.

Anderson Vancouver–Mount Pleasant............................................Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ................................................... Hon. Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena............................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill.............................................................................Jeff Bray Victoria-Hillside.................................................................................. Sheila Orr West Kootenay–Boundary.................................................... Hon.

Sandy Santori West Vancouver–Capilano ..............................................................Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi ................................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Yale-Lillooet .................................................................................. Dave Chutter

CONTENTS Tuesday, May 6, 2003 Morning Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members....................................................................................................... ............................................... 6511 Petitions ...................................................................................................................... ............................................................... 6511 Hon. S.

Bond Tabling Documents .............................................................................................................. .................................................... 6511 Workers Compensation Board, annual report, 2002 Workers Compensation Board, service plan, 2002 Petitions ...................................................................................................................... ............................................................... 6511 Hon.

J. van Dongen Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 6511 Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 27) (continued) J. MacPhail Hon. M. de Jong P. Bell D. MacKay Report and Third Reading of Bills .............................................................................................. ........................................... 6521 Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 27)

6511 TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2003 The House met at 10:03 a.m. Prayers. Introductions by Members P. Bell: I would just be very pleased to tell the House today that it is the birthday of my eldest daughter down in Pullman, Washington. She graduates from university later this week and is 22 years old today, which is making me feel much, much older. I would ask that the House please congratulate Donna on her birthday. [1005] Petitions Hon. S. Bond: I a m p l e a s e d , o n b e h a l f o f m y c o l - league the member for Prince George North today….

We would like to table a petition with just under 3,000 names urging the provincial government to fully fund hospice houses. Tabling Documents Hon. G. Bruce: I'd like to present the annual report for the Workers Compensation Board for the year 2002 and the service plan for the Workers Compensation Board for the year 2003. Petitions Hon. J. van Dongen: I have three petitions to table. Mr. Speaker: Please proceed. Hon. J. van Dongen: I rise to present three petitions today. One is signed by 82 people asking that aquacul- ture be kept out of the agricultural land reserve.

The second is signed by 61 people and urges the federal government to take a stand against genetically engi- neered wheat in Canada. The third is signed by 1,410 people asking that B.C. be declared genetic engineering– free in agricultural production. Orders of the Day Hon. M. de Jong: I call committee and, for the informa- tion of members, continued committee debate on Bill 27. Committee of the Whole House FORESTS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 (continued) The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 27; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 10:07 a.m. On

section 2 (continued). J. MacPhail: I'm wondering whether the minister or his staff had a chance to get the information I asked for last night. Hon. M. de Jong: I think the information the mem- ber is referring to relates to stumpage data. It's still being compiled, and I don't have it for her yet. J. MacPhail: Okay. We're on

section 2, Mr. Chair, and I'm looking at the part of

section 2 that deals with special forest products. I want to just say that the minister also addressed t h i s d u r i n g s e c o n d r e a d i n g . H e s a i d d u r i n g s e c o n d reading that there was much confusion that arises, ap- parently, around when a telephone pole is truly a pole and when it's just a log. I recall him using that example. I thought I'd better not be my city-centric self, because telephone poles are pretty old-fashioned, but maybe out in his riding that's the way they do things.

What he then went on to say was that this bill will alleviate the confusion around when a pole is a pole is a log is a telephone pole, but it seems to me that the way the minister has eliminated the confusion is by repealing the definition of special forest products in the current act and then now leaving what a special forest product is up to the regulatory-making powers of cabinet. [1010] Let me just say that in the previous legislation that's now being repealed, special forest products were very specifically designed. Then there were even regulations behind the special forest products.

Can the minister tell us if he will be introducing a regulation that clarifies the dif- ference between a telephone pole, a pole and a raw log? Hon. M. de Jong: The answer to that is yes. J. MacPhail: Why this change? Hon. M. de Jong: The reason for addressing this — as I did allude to in, I think, second reading in this dis- cussion — is that a situation has developed at the bor- der in a number of circumstances where it is unclear to those charged with applying the law what is or isn't captured by the restriction around log exports.

There are provisions in regulation presently, and there are provisions in the statute, and they do not individually or collectively provide the kind of guidance that en- forcement officers at the border have claimed they re- quire to make a decision. The scenario I described in second reading is, I am told, becoming far too common. A load of logs shows up at the border and is presented as telephone poles, which are exempt, and the suspicion in many quarters is that they are heading not to the telephone pole yard but straight to a mill on the U.S. side of the border for further processing. J.

MacPhail: Well, let me just read into the record what the definition of special forest products is, which

6512 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 6, 2003 this government is now repealing. The previous act said: "'Special forest products' means poles, posts, pil- ings, shakes, shingle bolts, Christmas trees and other similar forest products designated by regulation as special forest products." That's now gone. The regulation attached to that definition was this: "Designated special forest products…. The following are designated to be 'special forest products' in addition to those specified as special forest products in

section 1 of the Forest Act: building logs; mining timbers, props and caps; cribbing; firewood and fuel logs; hop poles; orchard props; car stakes; round stakes, sticks and pickets; split stakes, pickets, palings and lagging; shake bolts, blocks and blanks; shingle blocks." What created the confusion, and how is the minis- ter going to rectify that? Hon. M. de Jong: Two things. One, there was an interpretive issue that is probably not more compli- cated than providing the guidance necessary for an official to determine whether something is actually a hydro pole or not. That's an operational matter.

Second is the fact that you've got descriptives both in the regu- lation and in the act, and we want to bring all of those things together in one inclusive regulation that enu- merates precisely what a special forest product is. J. MacPhail: What is the status of raw log exports, 2001 and 2002? Hon. M. de Jong: When the member asks the ques- tion, is she referring to the status of the legal regime that guides it or the quantum of logs that have been exported? J. MacPhail: Quantum, and I'd like to know from public lands and private lands, please. [1015] Hon.

M. de Jong: I'm going to ask the member if I might get the specific numbers for her. I don't have them at my fingertips at the moment. There are, for 2001-02, specific numbers available. At this point, I would be talking about between 3 and 4 percent, but I think she wants something more specific than that. J. MacPhail: Yes. I want specifics from the years ending — I think they're calculated on a calendar year — '00, '01 and '02. I am curious to know how the minis- ter is monitoring, for instance, the 35 percent allowable export of raw logs for the…. Interjection. J. MacPhail: Okay.

Well, I'll let the minister, on record, clarify what it is. In the sale of Skeena Cellulose to a private owner who paid $6 million, he was also granted a huge in- c r e a s e i n t h e p e r m i t t o e x p o r t r a w l o g s . N o w , i t ' s m y understanding that he hasn't opened any part of Skeena Cellulose and that there are no jobs there, and yet the export of raw logs continues. What proportion of the annual allowable cut is he using on his…? Is it a TFL? The minister could clarify all of this. What pro- portion of his annual allowable cut is he cutting, and how much of that is he exporting? Hon.

M. de Jong: As I did last night, I'm going to try and answer as many of these questions as I can. I am struggling to draw the connection between a spe- cific licensee and

section 2. Nonetheless, I can confirm for the member that there was an OIC, which the member is aware of, that was signed and that covered the northwest of the province — not any particular licensee. That was far different from the situation we inherited at the change of government, where the pre- vious government had actually provided a series of log export approvals — some as high as 50 or 60 percent — to individual licensees as part of certain job plans, eco- nomic plans.

This was all done very quietly, of course — not by OIC, because presumably the previous gov- ernment didn't want anyone to know they had issued those approvals. There was, in my view, a disparity, an inequity created. The economics in that area, as I think the member knows, are particularly poor. The decision was made to provide regional approval for exports.

The last time I examined figures — which, admittedly, is several months ago now — the numbers I saw indi- cated that slightly less than half of the timber that was eligible for export had actually been exported — more than we like, more than we want to see happen but, as I have explained to this House before, a situation ne- cessitated by the economics in the area and the desire to have some activity in the woods. J. MacPhail: I'll just say this one statement. Some- times, in debating with this government, these state- ments come across as extremely machismo, but this is not the case.

I will match the record of the 1990s in terms of raw log exports any day compared to this government. [1020] Nothing was done in secret. The job protection commissioner — yes, absolutely — used to get in there and figure out how they could save jobs. That, of course, is gone. The job protection commissioner doesn't exist anymore under this government. Yes, there was all sorts of work done to try to protect communities and maximize the benefit of the social contract with the use of public lands. That was absolutely the case.

I will match the record any day, because we actu- ally have a value inside the NDP that abhors raw log exports. We were held to account for that every month by those who supported us. That's not true of this gov- ernment at all. Just the way the minister stood up and said that less than half of those eligible for export have been exported as raw logs…. But how many have been cut? My information from up in the northwest, with the devastation of Prince Rupert and that area, is that every single log cut is exported. Does the minister have different information?

TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6513 The Chair: Leader of the Opposition? J. MacPhail: I want to make the link about why we're having this discussion, because the ability for an official to determine what is a raw log and what isn't is being removed by this section. We don't have any lan- guage whatsoever to determine what is not a raw log. Oh, we'll rely on the government, I guess. Sure, the government's going to do it by regulation. Yeah, just the same way that they were going to make the new proponent of Skeena Cellulose open up and create all of those jobs. And what do we have now?

In the un- employment area of which Prince Rupert is the centre, the unemployment rate is 55 percent. Hon. M. de Jong: If I recall the member's question, the answer is no. As I just explained to the member, nowhere near — and I believe it is 35 percent — that amount is being exported. In fact, as I said to her…. J. MacPhail: That's not my question. Hon. M. de Jong: Well, the member says it's not her question, but before I let her ask her question again….

I am reminded, as well, that in addition to the eight eco- nomic plans, which the member wants to gloss over as if they didn't exist, which provided for much higher volumes of log exports — she doesn't want to ac- knowledge that — there was a standing OIC in place during the term of her government in the Nass region. So before we get too high and mighty on the subject, the member may want to consider her own record. No one wants to see logs exported unprocessed from British Columbia.

But when you assess — presumably for the same reason that her government signed off, wanting to see some people put to work, understanding the economics of the area — that in order to achieve the use of 65 percent of the harvest, in order to gain access to that, the argument is that present economics dictate the ability to generate some revenue from log exports. No one likes it. The workers that signed off and asked the government to approve the OIC don't like it, but they like not working even less. So the member can ignore the eight economic plans that her government approved, which provided for higher volumes.

She can approve…. J. MacPhail: And jobs. Hon. M. de Jong: Apparently, in this member's mind it's different. And I suppose it is different when the government quietly and secretly approves log ex- ports than when the government openly, through on OIC and in a very public way, says: "Yes, as much as we dislike doing this, we're going to provide a blanket equitable approval in the area." That's fine. The member and her government had their way of doing things. We have ours. I prefer ours. [1025] J. MacPhail: As I said, I'll match the record of the 1990s in lower raw log exports any day to this govern- ment.

Just get the statistics. Just come up with the statis- tics. Isn't it interesting how during these discussions, this government — there's only one of me — never seems to have the troubling statistics available when we debate these matters? Did they think raw log exports wouldn't come up when the government is repealing the defini- tion that would include raw log exports? Let me be clear. There was nothing done in secret during the 1990s — nothing. Let the minister, just the same way that he didn't know that it was 35 percent of the raw log exports…. He didn't have that right.

He doesn't know what he's talking about in the other areas. But prove it. Just put it on the table. I'll tell you that all of those 55 percent unemployed in the north- west corner, of which Prince Rupert is the centre, say that every single tree cut by the man who now owns Skeena Cellulose is for export. I didn't ask what percentage of the annual allow- able cut in the area is being exported. I asked what percentage of the trees cut is being exported. They go into the forest. They cut down a tree. What happens to it? My evidence from the local people is that every sin- gle log felled is exported.

Now they can do it, because there's no definition — no definition whatsoever of what a special forest product is. Maybe the member who represents Prince Rupert, the member for North Coast, will come in here and say: "Oh no, our commu- nity's much better off under this government. We're happy that all those raw logs are being exported. We like a 55 percent unemployment rate." Can the minister table the regulation now? Hon. M. de Jong: The regulation is in the process of being drafted to ensure that it provides the clarity that has not been present to this point.

I will say this, and the member will stand up and repeat over and over again — a s i f i t w e r e t r u e — her version of this. The motivation for this is to close a loophole that people have allegedly been using to skirt the log export rules. I know that's not what the member wants to hear me say, but that is the fact. It will remain the fact. That's why we are taking this course. It is to close a loophole that has allegedly been used to skirt the restrictions around log exports. J. MacPhail: Whatever. The proof will be in the pudding, but it is an interesting way to close a loop- hole.

You remove the actual language that people can go to, to determine whether it's a raw log or a tele- phone pole. That's this government's way of closing a loophole. Take the language away, so no one can look at it whatsoever; no one can be guided by it. The loophole will be closed via regulation. We don't have the regulation in place. The government's going to pass this legislation, so we're left with a…. It's not a giant loophole. It's a goddamn big…. Oh, sorry, Mr. Chair. My apologies. It's big enough that you can drive a logging truck through now, because there's nothing in place — absolutely nothing in place.

Of course, we know that the Americans, who this government is trying desperately to appease, want

6514 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 6, 2003 greater raw log exports from British Columbia. So, gee, wouldn't it be interesting if we have no language in place — no legislation? The government's busy draft- ing a regulation. They're just so busy that they don't have time to get around to drafting this regulation.

Oh well, then we can ship raw logs from British Columbia to America at a pace that would appease the Ameri- cans and maybe, just by quiet happenstance, get a deal on the softwood lumber file. [1030] Other than telephone poles — and I'd be really in- terested to know what modern city, what modern con- struction company, what modern telecommunications group is using telephone poles these days…. But other than that, what are some other examples of loopholes that need to be closed? Hon. M. de Jong: For the member's information, we have entire companies in British Columbia dedicated to the production of hydro poles.

They are a commonly used product in Canada, in North America and else- where around the world. Hon. G. Plant: Apparently not in Vancouver. Hon. M. de Jong: Apparently not in certain neighbourhoods. But we live and learn, and perhaps the member, as I have, learns every day on the job. They are a common product, as are pilings, which is another product that we produce here in British Columbia with our resource and is available for export but, again, a product….

The difference between a piling and a raw log — a log that's been debarked and is heading to a process- ing facility on the U.S. side of the border — can be very difficult to discern. It is an issue. If the member wants to speak with some of the people in the Kootenays, in par- ticular, where it has been an issue, then I'm happy to di- r e c t h e r t h e r e . S h e i s a p p a r e n t l y s a y i n g i t ' s n o t a n i s s u e . I'm here to tell her that it is, and we're trying to address it. Insofar as the scenario she's described occurring, it won't.

The intention is to have the existing provision remain in effect and repeal it only when the replacement

section and the regulation are fully enacted. J. MacPhail: Could the minister point me to that in the legislation, about the repeal? Hon. M. de Jong: The mechanism is to bring the

section into force by OIC at the time the regulation is available, and in the interim, the existing structure will remain in effect. J. MacPhail: The transition, the commencement clause here, says sections 1 to 10, which would capture this section, will come into force by regulation of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Is the minister com- mitting that the

section will not be proclaimed until a new regulation is in place? Hon. M. de Jong: The member only had to ask. Yes, that is the answer. J. MacPhail: Well, thank God I am asking. The min- ister — I know that he gets less and less effective at doing this — tries to spin my words as if somehow asking questions means…. Hon. G. Plant: As if you never try to spin our words. J. MacPhail: W e l l , s o m e o f u s a r e g o o d a t i t a n d others aren't. He tries to spin it as if by raising a question, some- how I am discarding a problem.

My position here is that if there was any problem at the border, the legisla- tion and the regulations could easily have handled it with proper enforcement and proper commitment to t h a t . W h a t d o e s t h i s g o v e r n m e n t d o ? T h e y r e m o v e both. There's no regulation, and there's no legislation. Thank God I'm standing here asking for a commit- ment that the legislation will stay in place until there's a new regulation. Will the new regulation be subject to public scrutiny and consultation before being put into force and effect? [1035] Hon.

M. de Jong: I can advise the member that the work is ongoing with respect to the regulation and that the work is being conducted in close collaboration with the Timber Export Advisory Committee.

Section 2 approved. On

section 3. P. Bell:

Section 3. I wonder if the minister can de- scribe for me the utilization and how a permit will be issued under

section 12(1)(

h) for free use permit. Hon. M. de Jong: To the member, the process is unchanged from what it is presently where someone will make application and, if qualified, have the permit issued. P. Bell: Who would approve that permit, and what products would be allowed under the dispensation of that permit? Hon. M. de Jong: I j u s t w a n t e d t o v e r i f y w h e t h e r there had been any change. The district manager would be the approving au- thority, and I'm referring — excuse me — to

section 49 of the Forest Act.

Section 48 lists the products or the items that are available or can be captured by free use permit. They include things like a personal use Christmas tree, firewood for domestic purposes, school board's re- quirement for firewood for school purposes and a per- son who requires Crown timber for scientific investiga- tion. Those are traditional and cultural activity items — fibre required for those purposes. It is generally re- stricted without special exemption to 50 cubic metres. Sections 3 to 7 inclusive approved.

TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6515 On

section 8. J. MacPhail: I forgot to ask the minister if he could introduce…. There's staff going. Interjection. J. MacPhail: Sorry. Under

section 8, it amends

section 23 of the Forest Act.

Section 23 of the Forest Act is "No advertising re- quired." It talks about sections where advertising won't be required "in the form of a timber sale licence if…." And it amends subsection (1)(

f) of a list of areas where no advertising is required. [1040] Now, on the face of it, this amendment seems to be much clearer than existing provisions, but the amend- ment removes from the existing provision an example of an activity. Let me just put it in context by reading the old

section into the record. The old

section of the Forest Act, under "No advertising required," says: "Despite sections 20 and 22 the regional manager or district manager, without advertising or accepting applications from other persons, may enter into an agreement in the form of a timber sale licence if" — and then you go down to (f) — "the timber sale licence is with the person that, in conjunction with the small business forest enterprise program, is contracted by the government to construct major works, for example, a forest access road, and in the opinion of the regional manager or district manager, it is desirable to remove timber from the contract area in coordination with the works contract…." That was a case where they gave a very specific exam- ple of an activity that would allow the timber to be cut without any advertising.

That

section has been repealed, and here's what the new

section says. It says that no advertising is required if "…the timber sale licence is with the person that is contracted by the government to carry out an activity funded through the B.C. Timber Sales Account and a timber sales manager considers it desirable to remove timber from the contract area in conjunction with the contract…." As the minister can see, there's no example of an activity. For instance, the construction of a road was an example, and no one would have problems with it. But that example of an activity being the build- ing of a forest access road is now gone. What is con- templated by this change?

Hon. M. de Jong: The first and obvious change, of course, is the changed reference to the B.C. timber sales account as opposed to the previous small business for- est enterprise program. Beyond that — and I should say the objective here is not to change in practice what is taking place — the advice from legislative counsel is that the language adopted here is better drafting than was previously the case and incorporates, by virtue of the language used, those activities set out, for example, in

section 109, which relates to what the timber sale program is authorized to conduct. There's an incorporation of the activities contained in

section 109. At the end of the day, I am probably going to rely on the advice — relay to the member the advice — that I have received from the legislative draftsperson that this represents better statutory lan- guage to accomplish the same goal. J. MacPhail: Will there be any activities that will funded under the B.C. timber sales account that were not necessarily permitted or funded under the small business forest enterprise program? [1045] Hon. M. de Jong: I w a n t e d t o e n s u r e t h a t I w a s conveying this accurately.

At the end of the day, the objective behind the timber sale program is on par with the objective of the previous program, which is to make timber available for sale and to sell that timber. The purposes to that extent are the same. J. MacPhail: Will pine beetle control be funded either in whole or in part through the timber sales ac- count? Hon. M. de Jong: I want to be clear. If the question is whether the timber sale program will be allocating money to combat the beetle, the answer there is no.

But like any licensee, the timber sale program will perhaps engage in some fall-and-burn activity and will certainly try to harvest strategically in the beetle area, so that licence offerings will, for example, exist around the leading edge of the infestation. So, yes, the timber sale program will be part of the strategy around combatting the spread of the infestation, but, no, it's not contem- plated that money out of the account will be sent else- where to combat the beetle. Sections 8 and 9 approved. On

section 10. D.

MacKay: To the minister: dealing with the new subsection (10.1), where it states that: "If the person whose application is approved under subsection (8) or whose tender is approved under subsection (10) ne- glects or declines to enter into the woodlot licence or becomes ineligible to enter into the licence, the regional manager or district manager may approve the next best woodlot application or tender, or, at the direction of the minister, may refuse to approve any of the applica- tions or tenders." I wonder if the minister could advise me under what conditions the minister would override the dis- trict manager or the regional manager. [1050] Hon.

M. de Jong: The first important issue here is the fact that what the

section does is create an option where the person or group that has originally been awarded the licence, in this case the woodlot licence, opts not to exercise that option. In the past we've been

6516 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 6, 2003 confronted by a situation where you essentially have to start the tender process all over again. There is an op- tion now to award to the runner-up. What the sentence that the member has referred to does is provide us with something of an override in a situation where there has been a significant passage of time, where perhaps circumstances have changed or government policy, general policy may have changed, and that has elicited widespread interest of the sort that wasn't present when the original tendering was created.

The option to award to the runner-up exists in extraordinary…. It is not, however, an obligation to award to the runner-up. In extraordinary circum- stances the minister retains the ability to essentially direct that the process start again.

Section 10 approved. On

section 11. P. Bell: In

section 11, item (2)(

a) identifies woodlot licences entered into before January 1, 2003, and talks about how the Crown land portion of woodlot licence may exceed the limit specified in subsections (1)(b)(ii)(

A) or (

B) and so on. I'm wondering if the min- ister can just outline the impact of this particular sec- tion. I don't understand what it means. Hon. M. de Jong: I am advised that as a result of some advanced techniques in mapping that we now rely upon, about 40 woodlots were identified as not quite fitting the requirements under the existing wood- lot legislation — that is, not exceeding the 400 hectares on the coast or 600 hectares in the interior that, through advanced mapping techniques, the boundaries, al- though they actually do slightly exceed those in the 40 examples…. What this

section does is validate those 40 woodlots.

Section 11 approved. On

section 12. J. MacPhail:

Section 12 amends

section 46.1 of the act. It strikes out any reference to production capacity in relation to woodlot owners. What necessitated this change? Hon. M. de Jong: There is a significant impact to this

section for woodlot owners, although time will tell how many people it directly impacts. Under the previ- ous regime, a woodlot owner was restricted around the ownership or construction of a processing facility and restricted to the size of that facility. I think the meas- urement related to production numbers. This

section removes that restriction so that a woodlot owner now can own an interest in or own themselves a production facility with no restrictions as to the size. J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could say, in or- der to explain why this is being improved upon: what was the purpose in monitoring the production capacity of woodlot owners previously? [1055] Hon. M. de Jong: The answer to that question, I think, lies in the history of the woodlot program itself.

I am told and have learned that initially there was great concern, as that program was born and evolved, that it not represent in any way, shape or form competition for the processing sector. The motivation to making the change is if someone that owns a woodlot, or a group of woodlot owners, wants to coalesce to establish some manner of processing facility or value-added facility, then that's good on them. They'll have to compete like everyone else, and they'll compete with everyone else. J. MacPhail: In the past, were there obligations on woodlot owners to process? Did they have any processing requirements? Hon.

M. de Jong: No. Firstly, there was no obliga- tion, and in fact, the motivation behind the original statutory regime was quite the opposite. The govern- ment of the day did not want woodlot owners in the processing business. J. MacPhail: Just to clarify, this

section allows woodlot owners to get into the processing business. Are there any limits now on that? Hon. M. de Jong: The answer is no — beyond, I suppose, local zoning requirements, nothing within the Forest Act regime. [H. Long in the chair.] Sections 12 to 19 inclusive approved. On

section 20. P. Bell: On

section 20, I've had a number of ques- tions around the time it takes to acquire a timber mark for access to private lands. I believe this

section allows the B.C. timber sales program to issue those timber marks. If I am correct in that assessment, I would ask: is there an opportunity to put a time frame on the de- livery of those timber marks and ensure that they are done in an efficient manner? I'll just explain, if I may, the purpose for this ques- tion. In my end of the world certainly, most of the tim- ber marks that are issued on private land are issued for larger volumes of timber.

In many cases, individuals don't mind waiting for the delivery of that licence, but I am told that in urban communities where there are smaller components of timber harvested — perhaps half a truckload or less — the wait to get a private tim- ber mark can be into the six- or eight-week period. That doesn't coincide, perhaps, with the necessity to remove some blowdown from an area that is currently causing problems for a road or something like that. I just won- der if the minister can comment on the ability to de-

TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6517 liver that timber mark. Is there a willingness to put a time frame on the issuance of private timber marks? [1100] Hon. M. de Jong: The

section is actually designed to address an issue that presented an even more diffi- cult problem and obstacle than the one the member has described. It arises in this kind of situation. Under the existing law, the timber mark was only available for issuance to the owner of the private land upon which the timber is situate.

In fact, in what I wouldn't say are an overwhelming number of instances but in several instances now, the registrar of timber marks has been confronted by a situation where the owner of the land is different than the owner of the timber, and the law has not allowed for the issuance of that timber mark. This addresses that problem by creating an ability for the registrar of timber marks to issue the timber mark to someone other than the owner of the land. With respect to the other issue the member has raised, the

section does nothing to address that issue. But by raising it here today, he has alerted me to the fact that it is an issue, and I will endeavour to ascertain what can be done procedurally to alleviate the situa- tion he has described.

Section 20 approved. On

section 21. P. Bell: I just wanted to be clear on this section. My sense is that it puts the B.C. timber sales program on a competitive footing and creates an environment where the B.C. timber sales program will be managed almost like a company where there is revenue and expenses, and that ultimately the B.C. timber sales program is, I gather, responsible to perhaps Treasury Board — or to the Crown, anyway — for a net return to government. Can the minister confirm that I'm reading this cor- rectly? Hon. M. de Jong: I think that is an accurate descrip- tion of what our intentions are. P.

Bell: Given that, does the minister then have the flexibility to, if he sees an opportunity…? Or does a B.C. timber sales manager then have the ability to make a decision if they see an opportunity to increase the expenditures of their particular portion of government in order to recover more revenue? In other words, if there is an opportunity to make two dollars by spend- ing a dollar, who has the authority to make that deci- sion, and how is that managed? Hon. M. de Jong: Two scenarios, I think, arise out of the member's question. One exists within the timber sales program.

If a particular timber sales program manager was confronted by the kind of scenario the member has described, there is flexibility within the program to move the budgeted amount of money around. However, if as a whole the program wished to exceed its allocated budget, that would require a visit to Treasury Board. P. Bell: So even if the shift was to create additional revenue and thereby deliver more dollars to the Crown, it would require Treasury Board approval, then? That would be the case, according to the minis- ter's nod, so I'll just let him answer that formally. Hon.

M. de Jong: Right, and I'll just use straight- forward numbers. If the budget is for the expenditure of $50 million and you can realize $100 million, and the timber sales program said, "Ah, but for the expenditure of $75 million — $25 million above our budgeted amount — we can realize $150 million," the expendi- ture of that additional amount would require Treasury Board approval. [1105] P. Bell: I'm just curious. That being the case, then what would the purpose of this be?

If the B.C. timber sales program still has to go back to Treasury Board, why would we not simply have one allocation for revenue and one allocation for expenses and two sepa- rate votes? If we haven't given the flexibility to make decisions on the ground, then why would we consoli- date? What's the thinking there? Hon. M. de Jong: What I don't want to do is leave the impression that the kind of discussion that the member is describing doesn't take place. There is a business plan. That business plan, on an annualized basis, lays out what the anticipated expenditures for the program will be.

It is a compelling discussion for the government to hear that with an investment of X a m o u n t o f d o l l a r s , t h i s m u c h m o r e c a n b e r e a l i z e d . That discussion can and does and will take place, but it does require formal sign-off from that agency of gov- ernment responsible for tracking expenditures. Sections 21 and 22 approved. On

section 23. J. MacPhail:

Section 23 repeals

section 120 of the Forest Act.

Section 120 of the current Forest Act is "Right of way across private land." That

section set out a process whereby a right-of-way could be granted across private land in order for an owner of standing timber to have access to that timber. Now, the explanatory note that came with the bill suggests that this

section in the act is being repealed because it's unworkable. Can the minister provide an example of how this

section is unworkable? Hon. M. de Jong: I'll start with this, and we may n e e d t o g o f u r t h e r . T h e a d v i c e I h a v e r e c e i v e d i s t h a t the provision was used on only two or three occasions i n t h e p a s t . O n e a c h o c c a s i o n t h a t i t w a s u s e d , i t w a s successfully challenged. I will have to determine whether or not that successful challenge came via the

6518 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 6, 2003 courts or some other process. That, in a nutshell, is what has given rise to its repeal. J. MacPhail: There are situations — I am familiar with one — where there is a private owner standing in the way of standing timber, with no access between the standing timber and the highway. In this particular case, there is a highway, there is private land, and then the standing timber is behind it, and there's no access. Those situations do exist. How will they be handled now? Hon. M. de Jong: T h e m e m b e r i s c o r r e c t .

T h a t i s a scenario we can be confronted by. The avenue that has been used and will continue to be used is the next sec- tion of the Forest Act,

section 121, which does provide a Crown-based power to gain access. That apparently has been the mechanism that has been successfully used. J. MacPhail:

Section 121, which says "Road and Trail Construction," allows for the minister to provide access even across private lands? Hon. M. de Jong: Yes.

Section 23 approved. [1110] On

section 24. J. MacPhail:

Section 24 of this bill amends the sec- tion of the Forest Act that we were just talking about, which is "Road and Trail Construction." It amends sub (9) of that clause. This amendment, I would say, is easier to read and understand than the current

section of act. I would also say this rewrite makes it easier for the public to be made aware of the closure of a right-of-way or a Forest Service road. That's the good part of it, but I want clari- fication, if I could. In this amendment the notification is an either-or statement, so you have to serve notification of a closure of a right-of-way or Forest Service road either in the Gazette o r t h e l o c a l n e w s p a p e r . N o w , t h e Gazette, for those of you who are not familiar, is very interesting reading but obscure, I would suggest.

I expect that the minute any of us leaves this job, we probably won't be reading the Gazette much after that, but we do read our local newspapers. They make fascinating reading. Interjection. J. MacPhail: Well, there are exceptions. There are people who will have no lives even after they leave this place. Hon. M. de Jong: W e r e a d t h e Gazette or your speeches. J. MacPhail: Yeah, one of the two. I know. I know. So why is it the either/or? I would almost…. Well, I'll let the minister answer that question. Hon. M. de Jong: I don't disagree with the premise behind the question.

What I've just been reminded of is that in a number of circumstances, notices of this sort may have application or relevance outside the local area. In those cases, rather than running ads in a whole host of newspapers, the best legal avenue available is the Gazette. But I don't dispute what the member is saying at a practical level with respect to something of purely local concern. The preferred route would obvi- ously be the local paper. J. MacPhail: I do acknowledge that the previous sec- t i o n o n l y p r o v i d e d f o r n o t i c e i n t h e Gazette.

I thought when making a step in the right direction, we could make it a full adult step rather than just a baby step. I'll take the minister's assurances that there will be as much notice as possible provided for the closure of a right-of-way or a Forest Service road, because it does have implications. It has legal implications and liability implications. The current provisions under

section 121(9) now being amended allow for the ministry to return the right-of-way to the original owner. The current language says "convey," so it can convey the land, the right-of- way, to the original owner. Now, this bill changes that language to "dispose." I'm wondering whether the min- ister could help me with this. The old wording seems to me to suggest that the land would be returned without charge — i.e., you can convey it back to the original owner. This language suggests there might be some sort of sale back to the original…. Is that the case? Hon. M. de Jong: I'm reminded that the term "dis- pose" is a defined term within the

Interpretation Act and includes the term "convey." In fact, when I think of the terminology and what it means, it is the term "convey" that elicits in my mind some notion of a sale, and that is not what we intend to convey through the language. The drafter has drawn out the word "dispose," given its meaning and definition within the

Interpretation Act. [1115] J. MacPhail: Does the

Interpretation Act preclude a sale back? How does this work — perhaps a practical description of how this works, both in taking the right- of-way for Crown purposes and the return? How does it work, practically? Hon. M. de Jong: The section, as it appears, would allow for either circumstance. In a situation where the Crown has acquired a right-of-way to gain access to other lands, the

section incorporates the provisions of the Ex- propriation Act. It is quite conceivable that the Crown will have paid compensation at the time of the taking. It is therefore conceivable…. The

section would allow for and contemplate a sale back, as opposed to a simple return or disposition back gratis. Either situation is possible. In a case where for a limited period of time a right-of- way had been obtained and there had been no compensa- tion payable by the Crown to the landowner, I suppose the landowner would be of the view that he or she wouldn't want to pay anything for the return of that land. The act and the

section contemplate either situation.

TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6519

Section 24 approved. On

section 25. J. MacPhail:

Section 25 of this legislation we're de- bating amends

section 127 of the Forest Act, and the amendment moves the processing requirement into regulation. Now, the current act defines what it is that B.C. timber must be manufactured into. I'll just read that

section of the current legislation. "Crown timber to be used in British Columbia. Unless exempted under this Part, timber that is harvested from Crown land, from land granted by the government after March 12, 1906 or from land granted by the government on or before March 12, 1906 in a tree farm licence area, and wood residue produced from the timber must be (

a) used in British Columbia, or (

b) manufactured in British Columbia into (

i) lumber, (ii) sawn wood products, other than lumber, manufactured to an extent required by the minister, (iii) shingles or fully manufactured shakes, (iv) veneer, plywood or other wood-based panel products, (

v) pulp, newsprint or paper, (vi) peeled poles and piles having top diameters less than 28 cm and fence posts, (vii) Christmas trees, or (viii) sticks and timbers having diameters less than 15 cm, ties and mining timbers." That's what the current act says. This legislation will now move all of that into regulation. Again, we have a situation where the full light of day will not be shone o n w h a t p u b l i c l y o w n e d t i m b e r h a s t o b e u s e d f o r ; i t will be done in regulation. Does the minister commit that this

section will re- main until the new regulation is made public? [1120] Hon. M. de Jong: I can offer that assurance and in this case can offer to the member, as well, the work in progress that represents the replacement regulation, which I am looking at and which I can send across to the member. J. MacPhail: I would appreciate a copy of that, please. Perhaps the minister could, just for the record, say what's contemplated being added that's not now in the current act. Hon. G. Plant: I seek leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members Hon. G.

Plant: I believe we've been joined in the gal- lery by some or all of a group of grade 5 students from Lord Kitchener Elementary School. Just in case members on the floor think I'm confused, I'm not. Lord Kitchener Elementary School is not in the riding of Richmond- S t e v e s t o n ; i t i s i n f a c t i n t h e r i d i n g o f V a n c o u v e r - Quilchena — a l t h o u g h i t ' s j u s t d o w n t h e s t r e e t f r o m where my mom lives, so there's a bit of a connection.

There is also a connection in that we will be joined by a young man who happens to be the son of the Deputy Attorney General of British Columbia. I'm sure I'd em- barrass him forever if I said that his name was Adam Seckel, but there you have it. I've just done that. There are apparently 62 grade 5 students and five adults with the group, and they're supervised by their teachers, Ms. Bains and Ms. Peterson. I hope that all members of the House will make them very welcome. Debate Continued Hon.

M. de Jong: As the member will see when I get this over to her, there is much greater definition around things, like what a cant represents. The utility pole definition is expanded upon, and in a number of different areas there are dimensional measurements — a degree of specificity that just hasn't existed within the legislation thus far. J. MacPhail: Could the minister please describe the consultations that have led up to this regulation? Hon. M. de Jong: Again, the Timber Export Advi- sory Committee, in all of its various components, has been involved, and the federal enforcement agencies.

Sections 25 and 26 approved. On

section 27. [1125] J. MacPhail:

Section 27 amends

section 136 of the Forest Act. Again, I think it's safe to say that this amendment cleans up some of the legislative language in the current act. However, it also adds these words, "constructing and maintaining logging roads and bridges" to a list of costs that are to be reported. Now, why is this addition here? Hon. M. de Jong: The member is correct that it does represent an addition.

It is designed to give the timber sale program manager the authority to request addi- tional information that is relevant — from the point of view of calculating the costs being incurred by holders of timber sale licences — with respect to the adminis- trative component of calculating stumpage. J. MacPhail: That's interesting, because I was curi- ous to know whether the industry will now be receiv- ing credit for a cost that it did not receive in the past when it comes to calculating stumpage. Hon.

M. de Jong: The stumpage system has always taken into account the costs associated with road con- struction and bridge construction. This will provide us, we hope, with a better bank of data upon which to base that administrative component of stumpage. J. MacPhail: In what form did they get credit for it previously, because it wasn't part of the legislation? Hon. M. de Jong: It's always been recognized as a cost in the appraisal manual as long as anyone here can remember.

6520 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 6, 2003 P. Bell: I just wonder if the minister can outline the purpose in this subsection (1.2), the reporting require- ments for processing facilities to report back to the Crown all the various purchases of timber and pricing and so on. If the minister can just kind of outline the objectives of this section. Hon. M. de Jong: Actually, the member is correct in identifying this as a holdover from the existing provisions, which for the moment — as we run through the cycle of some of the non-replaceable forest licences — has rele- vance.

But it is a holdover from the existing regime. [1130] P. Bell: I actually was very encouraged to see this added into the section, because I think it may be relevant and helpful, perhaps, as we go down the transition to a market pricing system. I just wonder if that's been con- templated at all — the ability to utilize data that's gener- ated from processing facilities on a variety of purchases, whether it be private timber or woodlot volumes and so on. Has that been considered as an opportunity for the development of the data required to implement MPS? Hon.

M. de Jong: I think I agree with the member, and I think I will repeat, in part, something I said yes- terday by way of verifying that the specific model we are in the process of developing relies upon the data generated by the timber auction. I think there's a very sound argument that says, in addition to that, it is relevant and legitimate to examine data that comes from other arm's-length transactions involving fibre logs, and the challenge is finding the proper methodology or mechanism by which that addi- tional data can be factored into the calculation process. I think the member and I agree. P.

Bell: I think it just gives us one more opportunity to validate MPS as we move down that road, and I think it's a very constructive road to move down. Just before we close off this section, I want to make sure that I'm clearly on the record saying that I under- stand that forestry drives the economy of this province. Certainly, if it wasn't for forestry, we wouldn't have the ability to fund education and health care. We all know — the folks from the heartlands — t h a t i s w h e r e o u r hospitals and our schools come from — through the revenues from forestry. That concludes my remarks on this section.

Sections 27 to 35 inclusive approved. On

section 36. J. MacPhail: Well, I'm more than happy to have the member for Prince George North join our caucus; our caucus did double in size today. He repeats exactly the speech I gave yesterday, and therefore wanted to con- firm that the revenue would continue to flow.

Section 36 is an interesting one, Mr. Chair. I'm ever s o g r a t e f u l t o t h e m i n i s t e r f o r g i v i n g m e t h i s c o n s o l i - dated version of the Forest Act, but I still can't figure out what

section 36 is about.

Section 36 repeals

section 8 of the Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2002. I didn't have time to do the research, to go back to the Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 to figure out what sec- tion 8 was. But let me just be clear. It was introduced and passed by this government in May of last year. The explanatory note gives me no greater help. The explanatory note accompanying this

section says that this

section is necessary to repeal…. It's an obsolete, not-in-force amendment. Perhaps the minister can walk us through what happened here. They introduced a

section to amend the act last year; this year they're repealing it because it's obsolete. There are lots of things that this govern- ment has done over the last year that I would deem obsolete, out of touch and bad, but on this one I can't follow the paper trail to figure out whether I'm going to levy that accusation. [1135] Hon. M. de Jong: The tortuous route this follows goes something like this. The original provision that is referred to here purported to move the term "small business agreement" into the

definitions

section of the Forest Act from where it then appeared, in

section 78. That has now become redundant by virtue of the re- placement of the small business agreement with the timber sale agreement. Sections 36 and 37 approved. On

section 38. J. MacPhail:

Section 38 is interesting. It's a transi- tional section. No, it repeals sections 7 to 10 of the For- est Act and then puts in its own transitional language. This is, I assume at least — I love reading the explana- tory notes — so the government can enact regulations to more effectively bring into operation the amend- ment made by this bill and "to remedy any difficulties encountered in doing so." Hon. M. de Jong: Are we on 38 or 39? The Chair: We're on 38. J. MacPhail: Sorry,

section 38. I think I'm reading the…. Mr. Chair, I'll sit down for a moment, and let me just…. It may be the way this bill is…. Sorry. It says here that

section 38 — "Sections 7 to 10 are repealed" — is the new transitional

section 39, then, of the…. Oh, okay. Then my comments are thus for

section 39. My apologies, Mr. Chair.

Section 38 approved. On

section 39. J. MacPhail: Okay. Again,

section 39 is the transi- tional section, and it allows for the government to….

TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6521 I'll just read it: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations considered necessary or advis- able for the purpose of more effectively bringing into operation the Forest Act as amended by this Act, and the amendments made by this Act, and to remedy any difficulties encountered in doing so." I'm not familiar with this language. There may be other examples of where it's existed before, but it has come as a new kind of legislative-ese for me. It does ap- pear at first blush that it's a pretty big loophole.

Well, let's just say: how is the government going to determine any difficulties encountered in doing so? Are they actually going to go out and talk to the public, in which case I'd be happy for this new language to be in place? [1140] Hon. M. de Jong: I w i l l p u r s u e t h e s e c o n d p a r t o f t h e member's question in a moment if she wishes. The first thing I s h o u l d s a y t o t h e m e m b e r i s t h a t I h a v e … . T o a l l a y a n y suspicion that this is a new legislative drafting technique, I have been referred to

section 151.2 of the Forest Act, which was an enactment of 1998 which utilizes virtually identical language. Now, the member may still have the same ques- tion, but the first thing I wanted to establish is that this isn't something new, and there are apparently other examples of the language being used in the past as well. J. MacPhail: So how is the government going to fig- ure out and counter any difficulties? This is pretty major legislation.

Is he going to go out and talk to the public about how forests should be managed to the benefit of all of us, or is it going to happen where the "difficulties" are determined by a small group in a back room? Hon. M. de Jong: Well, in fact, as the member would expect, there are differing circumstances, and when regu- lations are made, they impact on different stakeholders to various extents. A regulation pertaining to issues around private land owners would necessarily engage us with that constituency within the forestry community.

Other issues, of course, have much broader application and would see us engage with that broader constituency. I don't think I can offer the member a blanket response that says that in every instance we will consult with all of these individuals. We will consult with those people who are impacted and have an interest. In many cases there is a broader public interest that is engaged, and where neces- sary, we will take advantage of the views, opinions and expertise that exist in the broader public. Sections 39 and 40 approved. Title approved. Hon. M. de Jong: Mr.

Chair, I move that the com- mittee rise and report the bill complete without amendment. Motion approved. The committee rose at 11:44 a.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, just allow me to take this opportunity for the House to welcome back the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. The question before the House, hon. members, is third reading of Bill 27.

Report and Third Reading of Bills Third reading of Bill 27 approved on the following division: [1145—1150] YEAS — 58 Falcon Coell Hogg Hawkins Cheema Hansen Bruce Santori Barisoff Roddick Wilson Masi Lee Hagen Plant Collins Clark Bond de Jong Nebbeling Stephens Abbott Coleman Chong Penner Jarvis Anderson Orr Harris Nuraney Belsey Bell Long Mayencourt Trumper Johnston Bennett R. Stewart Hayer Christensen Bray Les Locke Nijjar Wong Bloy Suffredine MacKay Cobb K.

Stewart Visser Lekstrom Sultan Hamilton Sahota Hawes Kerr Hunter NAYS — 2 MacPhail Kwan Bill 27, Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, re- ported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed. Hon. G. Collins moved adjournment of the House. Motion approved. Mr. Speaker: The House is adjourned until 2 p.m. today. The House adjourned at 11:54 a.m.

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0506am 03
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0506am 03
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	d86f9f7fcbcdaa5564dfeea161e759e5ef2d77a6

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).