British Columbia Hansard — Thursday, November 6, 2003 (37th Parliament, 4th Session) (H1106am-04) (H1106am 04)

H1106am-04

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

4th Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Thursday, November 6, 2003 Morning Sitting Volume 18, Number 4 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 Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.

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 Thursday, November 6, 2003 Morning Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Petitions ...................................................................................................................... ............................................................... 7859 Hon. M. Coell Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 7859 Private Managed Forest Land Act (Bill 88) W. Cobb Hon. S. Hagen D. MacKay B. Suffredine J. MacPhail T. Christensen G. Trumper R. Hawes R. Harris B.

Bennett J. Wilson B. Belsey M. Hunter D. Hayer Report and Third Reading of Bills .............................................................................................. ........................................... 7871 Private Managed Forest Land Act (Bill 88)

7859 THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2003 The House met at 10:03 a.m. Prayers. Petitions Hon. M. Coell: I wish to table a petition from the Active Manufactured Home Owners Association, with 1,363 names, regarding Bill 72 and regulations affecting manufactured home owners. [1005] Orders of the Day Hon. G. Plant: I call committee stage debate of Bill 88. Committee of the Whole House PRIVATE MANAGED FOREST LAND ACT The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 88; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 10:07 a.m. On

section 1. W. Cobb: My questions are fairly general and not on sections. I have four questions, so I'll start off to the minister, then. As we know, there's a huge amount of outside pressure for the forest harvesting operators to be certified. I'm wondering why we feel it's necessary to control activities when the outside forces are basi- cally doing that for us. Hon. S. Hagen: There's a greater public good issue here. British Columbians really do care about the en- vironment.

The government feels it is necessary to have this bill, which actually takes over the responsi- bilities that were once under the Forest Land Reserve Act. There are things like streamside protection and those sorts of things that the public really does care about. W. Cobb: I understand this is a voluntary thing. So if the owners choose not to register and it's actually non-managed forest land, will we have any control or any way of regulating their activities? Hon. S. Hagen: Yes, the other acts do apply — the Fisheries Act and other acts administered by Water, Land and Air Protection. W.

Cobb: In the act, it also says that we have the ability to penalize or levy penalties against it. If it's voluntary, how are we going to administer it? If it's a voluntary process, how can we in fact enact penal- ties? Hon. S. Hagen: When a company voluntarily agrees to enter the program, they also agree to abide by the regulations. [1010] W. Cobb: But also in here it suggests that they can opt out. As an individual, if I had a penalty levied against me, I guess I would just fill out the forms and opt out of the process. So would that not preclude…? Hon. S.

Hagen: If they were to opt out, the penalty would still apply. So they'd have to pay the penalty before they opt out. W. Cobb: Yes, I understand that. I guess the pen- alty could be far worse than the tax. I mean, you'd have to pay the taxes on it, as I understand it. Then you could opt out, and there's a fee for opting out. Are you saying that the penalty would still be there plus the taxation and the fee to opt out? Hon. S. Hagen: That's correct. D. MacKay: Looking at the definition of "exit fee" in the

interpretation, I wonder if I could have some clari- fication at this time. Or should I wait until we get more into the act? I am confused about the exit fee because I understand that the majority of the people…. If the approximately 170 different landowners that now have privately managed forest classification wish to exit the program, the process to exit the program…. What is the exit fee? How do you determine what the exit fee is for those that choose to leave now? And will the fee change if they decide to leave the program a year from now?

Will the structure still be the same for those that wish to leave now and those that wish to leave a year from now? Hon. S. Hagen: If they choose to opt out in the first year of the program, then they won't pay the penalty to opt out. D. MacKay: So there's no fee attached to leaving within the first year. How do they determine what the exit fee will be should they decide to leave a year from now or after the passage of this bill? Hon. S. Hagen: There will be a formula devised as part of the regulations, which are not yet done but will be done, I think, by June of '04. B.

Suffredine: When I spoke to this bill at second reading, I raised an issue that had happened near Nel- son, where logging had occurred on some private lands just outside the community and there was really no ability under statute to require the rehabilitation of that property. Apart from the concerns about fisheries and whether they polluted streams, there really wasn't any ability to go and make them reforest or guide them in any way. If they're not, under this statute, is there any way to control them? Or does this statute have a way of

7860 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2003 dealing with private owners who behave that way in the future? Hon. S. Hagen: The other statutes will still apply, the statutes administered mainly by Water, Land and Air Protection. B. Suffredine: I take it that's a way of saying that if the Forest Act didn't apply before, it still doesn't apply now. Hon. S. Hagen: The Forest Act does not apply now, but the other statutes do apply. [1015] B. Suffredine: With respect to things like woodlots, when the ministry now issues a tenure for a woodlot, there is a term.

If a private land owner comes to gov- ernment and says, "I'd like to be governed by this act, and I've filed a management plan," is there an expiring term under which they're released unless they renew? Hon. S. Hagen: The answer is no. They're in until they decide to withdraw. I want to take this opportunity. I neglected to in- troduce the staff I have with me. I apologize for that. I also want to say that I'm pleased to see the Leader of the Opposition back and in one piece, and I hope that you're okay.

To my left, I have Brett Hudson, acting manager with the policy, legislation and assessment branch of the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. To my right is Gary Hall, who is a policy analyst with the Agricultural Land Commission.

Section 1 approved. On

section 2. J. MacPhail: Thank you for those kind words from the minister. I have a few technical questions about

section 2. Sec- tion 2(1) of Bill 88, the Private Managed Forest Land Act, says: "Nothing in this Act restricts a person from carry- ing out fire suppression activities in accordance with the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act and the regulations under that Act." What happens to this legis- lation when the Forest Practices Code is replaced — I think it's just about five short months from now — in April of 2004 by the Forest and Range Practices Act? Hon. S.

Hagen: There's a consequential amendment at the back of this act which is called the wildfire act, and that will take over the responsibilities that were once under the Forest Practices Code. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry, I'm missing it. Can the min- ister please…? Is it

section 60 of this bill to which he refers? Hon. S. Hagen: It is

section 60. J. MacPhail: Well, okay. These are technical ques- tions. I note that there are several references to the old Forest Practices Code in Bill 88 — for instance, in sec- tions 48, 52 and 60. This was interesting. I was going to wait and ask it when I got to

section 60. This is an amendment, a consequential amendment, amending the legislation that's before us right now. Perhaps the minis- ter could explain to us why part of this act is amending another part of this act. And what will happen when the Forest and Range Practices Act comes in on April 1? How does that work technically in transition? Hon. S. Hagen: The amendment will be done by regulation so that there's a seamless transition and so that the wildfire act will come into place sequentially after that. [1020] J.

MacPhail: Perhaps the minister can just describe for me briefly the Wildfire act — how long it's been in existence and its purpose. Hon. S. Hagen: The wildfire act has not yet been brought in by the Minister of Forests. It is under devel- opment and will be brought in by the Minister of For- ests to replace the fire suppression act. J. MacPhail: I wondered, because I'd never heard of the wildfire act, but that doesn't mean that it didn't exist. But I guess it doesn't exist.

I have struggled with this issue in terms of the amount of legislation that's been brought in by this government that affects forestry, land use, the Forest Practices Code. It's like the old Abbott and Costello: "Who's on first? What's on second?" It's very difficult to follow. But how is it that we now have an amend- ment…?

Section 60 is an amendment to the act in which it is contained, and it amends this act and refers to legislation that is not yet passed — is not even intro- duced. How does that work? Who's in charge? How do we know what happens if there's a forest fire? Hon. S. Hagen: This allows us to pass this amend- ment even though the wildfire act hasn't been intro- duced. Bill 88 will not be brought into force until the summer of '04, and the regulations will be developed between now and then. J.

MacPhail: As we prepare for the next forest fire season, which will be the spring-summer of '04, how does one know how to manage fire suppression on either private land or public land, given the fact that we actually don't know what legislation applies? Hon. S. Hagen: If the wildfire act has not been passed by that time, the code will still apply. J. MacPhail: And how would we know that from this legislation? Hon. S. Hagen: Because the legislation in

section 2 refers to the Forest Practices Code.

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7861 J. MacPhail: Yes, I was trying to note the com- mencement proceedings under

section 63, where there's no designation of an orderly transition of how this act comes into force by regulation. Is it that we will be notified by regulation from the cabinet? Hon. S. Hagen: That's correct. J. MacPhail: I'm wondering whether the minister could tell me if this procedure for fire suppression ac- tivities — either under the current Forest Practices Code, the Forest and Range Practices Act or this new, as yet unheard-of Wildfire act — is subject to review by Gary Filmon, the commissioner reviewing the forest fires of this past summer. Hon. S. Hagen: To my knowledge, Mr. Filmon is reviewing what happened in the past. I don't know what recommendations he will bring forward.

Section 2 approved. On

section 3. [1025] D. MacKay: Looking at

section 3, it indicates that exempt from this act are tree farm licences, a woodlot licence area or community forests. I wonder if the min- ister could explain to me why…. My understanding of a woodlot licence is that there is private land as well as Crown land tied to a woodlot licence. Why does this act not apply to that portion of the woodlot licence that is Crown land? Hon. S. Hagen: Because that particular forested land would be governed under the Forest Practices Code. D. MacKay: Okay.

Following on that, does that mean the current woodlots are presently classified un- der the Assessment Act as managed forest land? Do they get that break on the designation under the as- sessment? Hon. S. Hagen: I am informed that they will get the tax break they're entitled to, depending on what their classification is. D. MacKay: I take it that they are not classified as managed forest land currently. Hon. S. Hagen: It's actually not a tax break, but it would be a lower property valuation. D. MacKay: Just reading

section 3, it says that it does not apply to woodlot licences. However, could a woodlot licence owner apply for membership under this piece of legislation if he chooses to do so? Hon. S. Hagen: They couldn't be both. They would have to exit the woodlot licence program if they were to enter this program. T. Christensen: I've just got a few general ques- tions. It seemed appropriate to ask them in respect of the application of the act. Just as an overview, could the minister explain why the government is regulating private forest land? Hon. S.

Hagen: The reason government needs to have this legislation is actually to protect the public values that are associated with that private forest land, which revolve around the environmental concerns that are outlined in the act. T. Christensen: It's my understanding that previ- ously there was some regulation of private forest land through the Forest Land Reserve Act. Can the minister explain how this differs from how land was being regulated under that legislation? [1030] Hon. S. Hagen: This is basically the same as what was required under the Forest Land Reserve Act, ex- cept for the council.

The nuance here is that the council is a combination of two people from industry, two people from government and an agreed-to chair. The vast majority of the costs of this council, of the admini- stration, are paid for by the industry. T. Christensen: Will non-managed forested private lands be subject to this legislation at all or be regulated otherwise? Hon. S. Hagen: The answer is no, but the other acts will still apply. D. MacKay: Just to follow up on that woodlot li- cence.

The minister indicated that the woodlot licence owner could exit from the woodlot licence program should he choose to be under this new legislation. This may not be a fair question to ask the Minister of Sus- tainable Resource Management, but would that mean he would have to give up that portion of Crown land that is part of his existing woodlot licence in order to do that? Hon. S. Hagen: That question should be directed to the Minister of Forests. T.

Christensen: Given that it's only managed forest lands that are subject to this act, not all private forest lands, what incentives are there that would incent me — as a private land owner with forest on it — to want to manage those lands? And what obligations would a private forest landowner take on in falling under this legislation? Hon. S. Hagen: Probably the biggest benefit is the lower value of the assessment, and also a 50 percent reduction in school taxes. T. Christensen: For that benefit, what are the corre- sponding obligations on the landowner then?

7862 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2003 Hon. S. Hagen: They're required to abide by the regulations that will be set by the council as far as envi- ronmental protection is concerned, and they will also be compelled to reforest. T. Christensen: To give me some idea of what kind of land base we are talking about here, can the minister give some idea of how big the managed forest class is currently? Hon. S. Hagen: The size of the combined managed forest is roughly 900,000 hectares in the province. T. Christensen: How many landowners does that include?

Are we talking about two or three big land- owners, or is this a large number of small landowners or a combination? Hon. S. Hagen: There are about 170 landowners now, and it's a mix of large and small pieces of property. T. Christensen: In terms of some of the consultation around this proposed legislation, is it the minister's ex- pectation that we should see growth in the number of owners or the amount of land that is actively managed private forest land as a result of this bill? Hon. S.

Hagen: I'm advised that it is unlikely for there to be any significant increase, because the com- panies that were involved under the Forest Land Re- serve Act are now being shifted under this act. [1035] G. Trumper: I h a v e i n m y r i d i n g a l a r g e a r e a o f private lands. In one particular area they were looking at trying to become a district municipality. There's a huge amount of private land involved in that. I wonder if you could tell me what sort of impact this act will have on municipalities. Hon. S. Hagen: I am advised there is little impact.

The tax revenues will not be impacted because they were in place under the forest land reserve. This is just a different model of delivering what was delivered under the Forest Land Reserve Act. G. Trumper: I asked the question…. It was cer- tainly raised by one of the companies situated there as this discussion is taking place about becoming a district municipality. They are most concerned, if the munici- pality process moves forward, about just what impact it might have on them. So that's the reason I ask the question. The other general question, if I could ask, Mr. Chair, is….

You talk about the two members of the council. What level of government representative are we looking at? Is this deputy ministers or ADMs, or who would it be? Hon. S. Hagen: Good question. The Minister of Sustainable Resource Management will make those two appointments, and it's expected they will come from senior management in the ministry. R. Hawes: Two quick questions that follow on the line the previous two members were questioning. You mentioned, minister, that the benefit would be a 50 percent reduction in school taxes.

Do you know what impact this is going to have — how much in total we would see reduced in school tax collection? Hon. S. Hagen: That will not change. There would b e n o i m p a c t f r o m t h i s a c t a s f a r a s r e v e n u e s t o m u - nicipalities. R. Hawes: I realize that, but I'm talking about the school tax portion, which is really not a revenue to a municipality. It's collected by municipalities, I guess. Maybe I'm missing something. If they're paying 50 percent less school tax, how can there not be a change in the revenue that's collected? Hon. S.

Hagen: That is already in place; that's not changing. There is no impact. R. Hawes: I must have misunderstood the previous member's question, then. I thought he asked what the incentive is for someone to sign on and to have man- aged forest lands. I thought that part of the incentive was a 50 percent reduction in school tax. Did I get that wrong? Hon. S. Hagen: The roughly 170 companies that are already in the program, because they're now under the Forest Land Reserve Act, are going to move in a seam- less transition over to this act.

If there are new compa- nies that come in under this act, then there will be an impact because there will be an addition. My advice is that the companies that want to participate are already participating. [1040] R. Hawes: Further to the regulatory regime they'll follow under this act — and you mentioned that a big part of this is that we want to get some environmental protection behind this — those lands that are not cov- ered under this act are already subject to a regulatory regime to protect the environment.

Is there a difference between those lands and those covered under the act as far as environmental regulation? Hon. S. Hagen: If the member is talking about pri- vate forest lands, then they are regulated under the Fisheries Act and other acts administered by the Minis- try of Water, Land and Air Protection. R. Hawes: Would the lands that are covered under other regulation than this act…? I mean, we're looking to improve the environmental control — I think that's how it's worded here, or something like that — with those that are in the managed forests. Correct?

If that's so, what's the difference from an environmental per-

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7863 spective between those lands covered under this act and those private lands not covered under this act? Hon. S. Hagen: For those companies that voluntar- ily come under Bill 88, the regulations will cover water quality, fish habitat, critical wildlife and soil conserva- tion developed under the regulations of this act. All of those regulations come under this act. Under the other lands, you're looking at the Water Act, the Fisheries Act — several different acts. What this does is consoli- date the requirements for environmental purposes. R.

Hawes: That then goes to the heart of what my question is. Would the regulation developed under this act be more stringent, less stringent or the same as the regulation that would apply to non-managed forest land? Hon. S. Hagen: They would be more stringent. R. Harris: I've joined this a little late. I apologize if my question has already been asked. There's already a significant amount of evidence that shows that private forest lands…. There's a tre- mendous incentive already for owners to take care of it. In fact, the evidence is pretty clear that we actually sometimes get better silviculture results.

We actually get second growth that comes in at volumes that are significantly better than the first rotation. I guess the basic question I have is: why are we getting into the business of regulating private lands? Hon. S. Hagen: It's because there actually are pub- lic values out there that the public cares about. What happens on private land often determines what hap- pens on Crown land. There is a public good that's be- ing achieved here under Bill 88 with regard to what the public cares about as far as environmental issues. R.

Harris: That being said, then I would assume that one of the purposes of getting into this is to sup- port the harvesting of fibre off private lands as one of the objectives. In that vein, are landowners going to be required to harvest trees in order to retain that man- aged forest class? Hon. S. Hagen: No, they're not.

Section 3 approved. On

section 4. [1045] B. Bennett: I have a question around

section 4. I'm curious as to exactly what this council will be as a legal entity. It's referred to in this

section as a corporation. I understand that it's being created through this legisla- tion. It indicates that there are going to be members appointed under

section 6. Not to get ahead of our- selves, but that will be the two plus two plus one, so you'll have five members in this council, this corpora- tion. I'd just like an explanation of how this is going to be structured. Will the regulations determine how the entity works, how council members come and go and that sort of thing? Hon. S. Hagen: Just like any other corporation, there will be bylaws developed that will determine the role and the time limits the council members will serve. B.

Bennett: Does the legislation manage the situa- tion where, in the best interests of private forest land- owners, a rogue council has to be replaced — you know, in a situation you run into sometimes with pri- vate companies where it's necessary to take drastic steps with the directors of a corporation? Does the leg- islation deal with that? Will there be regulations deal- ing with that? How does that situation get managed? Hon. S. Hagen: I have the ability as the minister to audit how these folks are doing their jobs, and there would be a lot of public pressure created if they weren't doing their job well.

I also appoint two of the members, and if they can't agree on their members, I can appoint the other members as well. B. Suffredine: M y q u e s t i o n i s a l s o o n t h e c o u n c i l . Can the minister explain what the impetus was that resulted in the creation of this as a concept? I know that in other sectors there has been a move to self- governance of, say, professionals. Does this concept of coming to a "self-governance almost" model come from industry, come from these 180 companies that are do- ing managed forests?

What's the driving force that re- sults in the minister wanting to do it in this fashion? Hon. S. Hagen: T h i s i s a r e s u l t o f c o r e r e v i e w , which was done about two or two and a half years ago. As I said before, this is an alternative method of deliv- ering what we were delivering under the Forest Land Reserve Act. Industry is fully supportive of what we're intending to do here, and also, of course, there are the cost savings that go along with that.

Section 4 approved. On

section 5. B. Bennett: I understand that the Private Forest Landowners Association had indicated at some point during the long period of consultation that they would like in the objects of the act — I guess that would per- haps have been in

section 5, "Object of council" — a ref- erence to promoting economic conditions that would be favourable to the private forest land industry. I'm just wondering where that request went, if it was a formal request from that association, and why we didn't include that kind of objective in the legislation. [1050] Hon. S. Hagen: The reason that wasn't done is that it would have greatly expanded the scope way past what core review had determined we should be doing.

7864 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2003 T. Christensen: I recognize the act provides a broad range of objectives that the council will oversee. Will landowners that fall under this scheme be required to actually harvest trees in order to maintain their man- aged forest–class status? Hon. S. Hagen: No. We're not imposing that on them. J. Wilson: I see that the minister will appoint two of the council members. Will the remuneration for those two members that will sit on this council come from government sources, or will it be paid for through the assessment or the levy? Hon. S.

Hagen: The government will pay for what- ever costs there are associated with the two govern- ment appointees.

Section 5 approved. On

section 6. J. MacPhail: I have a series of questions on the makeup of the council — just to pursue it a little bit further from the member for Alberni-Qualicum asking questions on that as well. The structure of the council is outlined in

section 6, but my questions are about the makeup. Will there actually be members designated, appointed, to the council that will represent community groups, local government or the general public? I know they have to have expertise in matters relating to those, but will the appointments actually come from those groups? Hon. S. Hagen: In answer to the Leader of the Op- position's question, government — the minister — ap- points two members, and those members are there to represent the public good. They may not be civil ser- vants. They may be from the public.

The two members that are appointed, whose names come from the Pri- vate Forest Landowners Association, will be chosen by that association to represent them at the council, and the chair will be mutually agreed to. J. MacPhail: The minister earlier referred that there may be assistant deputy ministers or higher-level gov- ernment public servants appointed. Would they be appointed in addition to the public interest members, or would they possibly be the public interest members? Hon. S.

Hagen: There will only be two appointed by the minister, and they will be there to represent the public good — whether they are appointed from the senior civil service or whether they are appointed from elsewhere. J. MacPhail: Will there be any requirement through regulation or policy from the minister that the council consult public and local governments on decisions it takes? Hon. S. Hagen: As far as the requirements of the council, the answer is no.

But what I've found in my experience in dealing with private forest landowners, particularly more recently, is that they do their own consulting with the local municipality if there's going to be an impact on the local municipality. J. MacPhail: Will this Private Managed Forest Land Council be subject to freedom-of-information laws? Hon. S. Hagen: The answer is yes. [1055] J. MacPhail: Thank you. I appreciate that. Under the Forest Land Reserve Act, there were re- quirements, as I recall, to consult local governments when applications to remove the private land from the reserve were being considered.

I think I remember that correctly. So are there any requirements for local gov- ernment participation in the new method by which development of management plans and their approval by council are carried out? Hon. S. Hagen: If land is being removed from the private managed forest land, it will then no longer qualify under this act and would be subject to the zon- ing bylaws of either the local regional district or the municipality. J. MacPhail: O k a y .

S o j u s t t o c l a r i f y , w h e n i t ' s r e - moved, it will be up to the local government to then impose requirements through their local bylaws or zoning regulations, to impose public oversight? Hon. S. Hagen: That's correct. Of course, part of that process is public hearings and that sort of thing. J. MacPhail: M y l a s t q u e s t i o n i n t h i s s e c t i o n a l s o refers to changes, inquiring of the minister on changes from what used to govern private land, which was the Forest Land Reserve Act, to this new legislation.

Under the legislation, the Forest Land Reserve Act, the com- mission — the Agricultural Land Commission, as it's now called — also had the authority to provide notice to the public and to hold public meetings on the issues around the reserve. I'm curious now about the front end of decisions, before the land is removed. Is there any role in the new process at the front end for the public to be involved? Hon. S. Hagen: The public consultation or in- volvement will only take place if the land is being re- moved. B.

Belsey: I have a couple of questions on the makeup of the council members, the two appointed council members for the ministry and the two ap- pointed council members from the owners. Is there an anticipated term length for these appointments? Hon. S. Hagen: That will be determined by the bylaws that are structured around the council.

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7865 B. Belsey: My second question: does the ministry have the opportunity to, or can they, veto an appoint- ment by the owners if they are not satisfied or assess that appointment? Hon. S. Hagen: In the normal course of events, no. We would not interfere with their appointments. Only if the council becomes what I would call dysfunctional would the minister get involved. [1100] B.

Bennett: With respect to the two council mem- bers who would be appointed by the minister, there doesn't seem to be anything in the legislation — unless I've missed it — that requires the minister to canvass private forest landowners in any way or consult with private forest landowners on those two appointments. I can see that there might be some concerns that the min- ister might appoint perhaps a couple of council mem- bers inadvertently who might not be representative of the private forest landowners in the province.

I won- dered: will the bylaws to this council or the regulations to the act include any requirement that the minister consult with private forest landowners on the ap- pointment of the minister's two members? Hon. S. Hagen: Industry gets to appoint two mem- bers that they choose. The minister gets to appoint two members that the minister chooses. R. Harris: On the same section, dealing with the appointees by the minister, subsection (4)(

a) talks about knowledge in matters relating to forest manage- ment practices. Is there going to be a limitation in who you appoint? What I want to know is: is this going to be restricted to people who are professionals — regis- tered professional foresters or technicians? When we talk about knowledge, are you actually expanding that to be non-professionals? In other words, what do you mean by that? I come from this perspective.

I know a lot of people in the industry that are significantly knowledgable about the harvesting and reforestation of timber, who are not professionals, and I'm wondering what the in- tent is in terms of how you select the people you'll ap- point to the board. Hon. S. Hagen: This part of the act does not restrict me to appointing professionals, but it does require that I appoint people who are knowledgable about the in- dustry.

Section 6 approved. On

section 7. D. MacKay: In dealing with the staff of the council, I notice: "The council may appoint employees neces- sary for its purposes and may determine their duties and remuneration." Given the fact the minister is going to be appointing two of the four, and between the four they will be determining who the chair is…. If govern- ment is going to appoint two, it's my understanding you're going to pay for any salaries associated with the minister's appointments. Does that go down to the coun- cil support staff as well?

As an example, if somebody on staff that has been appointed by the government deter- mines they want to have a biologist on staff, is the gov- ernment going to cost-share in that cost to the council? Hon. S. Hagen: The only costs that are applicable to government are the costs of the two people that are appointed. The rest of the administration costs are borne by the council and, therefore, borne by industry. D. MacKay: I'm assuming the consultation process w a s a g r e e d t o .

W h a t c o n c e r n s m e i s g o v e r n m e n t a p - pointees telling the council that they have to make sure the water crossing the private managed land is going to be protected or the wildlife is going to be protected, and it requires a biologist or somebody else that's an expert in the field that the government appointees may feel necessary. I want to ensure the council agrees with that and is willing to pay those costs, without government contributing their share to have those people on staff. [1105] Hon. S. Hagen: I think the member has it right.

Any of those costs would happen only if they were agreed to by the council — okay? A government mem- ber on the council could suggest something, but if the council decided not to support that, then it wouldn't happen. In the case of the example of hiring a biologist, if the council agreed that was necessary, then they would agree to do that, and the costs would be borne by industry.

Section 7 approved. On

section 8. D. MacKay: I'm just a bit confused when I look at

section 8(4), and it talks about the passing of resolu- tions and bylaws by the council. When I get down to subsection (4), it says: "The council must not refer the making of a resolution, bylaw or regulation to a panel of the council." I wonder if the minister could explain that to me. I would have thought that if a resolution or bylaw had been passed by council, they would in fact run it by a panel of the council to make sure everybody is in agreement with it. I'm confused as to why. It's pretty specific, because it does say: "The council must not…." That

part is confusing to me. Hon. S. Hagen: The panel would be made up of council members — a smaller number — and it would- n't be appropriate for a group of the council or a panel of the council to be making those sort of decisions without bringing it back to the council. D. MacKay: I apologize. I missed that. The panel is part of the council? So why would the council not vet

7866 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2003 any regulation through the group to make sure that we're in agreement? I don't understand that. I'm sorry. I may have missed your answer, and I just want to get some clarification to that. Hon. S. Hagen: If you go to

section 8(2), it says: "Subject to subsection (4), the council may refer a mat- ter that is before the council to a panel established by the council consisting of one or more council members as determined by the council." I'm not exactly clear on w h a t y o u ' r e a s k i n g , b u t t h e p a n e l i s m a d e u p o f t h e council. D. MacKay: Well, that's where the confusion…. I'm having a bit of a problem understanding that, because it says: "Subject to subsection (4), the council may refer a matter that is before the council to a panel…." That's what subsection (2) says.

Then subsection (4) says the council must not refer the making of a resolution back to the panel. Those two seem to contradict one another. Maybe it's just my misunderstanding and not being able to grasp what is being said there, but it is confus- ing. Hon. S. Hagen: I'm hoping I can clear this up for the member. The panels would be dealing with minor day-to-day responsibilities. The council would be deal- i n g w i t h b y l a w s o r t h a t s o r t o f t h i n g . S o I ' m n o t s u r e how else to attempt to clarify it for you. I don't think there's any contradiction there at all.

Section 8 approved. On

section 9. J. Wilson: Remuneration for the council — is it based on a per diem and the days worked, or is it a salaried position? Hon. S. Hagen: That has yet to be determined, and it will be determined by the bylaws. [1110] J. Wilson: The remuneration, I would assume, paid to the members appointed by the minister would be taken care of. Is the remuneration that is paid to the other three appointed members, paid for by the fund- ing that would come through the percentage of the assessment rate, decided by those three members of council as to what they would get for pay? Hon. S.

Hagen: The money that pays those ex- penses comes from the fees that are charged to the membership. J. Wilson: Yes, I understand where the money comes from, but who sets the amount of remuneration that will go to the other three council members? I un- derstand that the two the minister appoints will be taken care of, but do the other three have the ability to set their own salary or remuneration out of the money that's collected to run the organization? Hon. S. Hagen: The answer is yes. They are ac- countable to the membership for those costs. J. Wilson: I see in (4)(

b) that should they run short, they have the ability to collect more money from the members at any given time. They must work on a per- centage of the assessed value, I see, as to what they collect for the money that goes to running this council, and they can have a staff hired as well. Other than the general membership, and I assume there would be an annual general meeting, are there any restrictions put on the amount of money that could be assessed to the membership to run this organization? Hon. S.

Hagen: There are no restrictions on how much can be charged, but I'd like to remind the mem- ber that the council and certainly the members ap- pointed by the member organizations are responsible to those members.

Section 9 approved. On

section 10. D. MacKay: Just one quick question dealing with subsection (3) of

section 10. This is the annual report- ing. It says: "The council must submit the report under subsection (2) to the minister and publish it." Nowhere in here does it indicate that the report is to be distrib- uted to the members of the association. I'm just won- dering: is it assumed that that's going to be done? It's specific that it must be delivered to the minister, but nowhere in there does it mention that it should be dis- tributed to the members who are paying for the admin- istrative fees. Hon. S.

Hagen: The effect of the publication of the annual report means that it's available to the members and to anyone else who's interested in it. M. Hunter: Can the minister point out or indicate where there is an obligation placed on the council to hold an annual general meeting? Corporate govern- ance normally requires that, but I don't see it in the bill. [1115] Hon. S. Hagen: That will be worked out through the policies that will come out from the council.

Section 10 approved On

section 11. D. MacKay: I'm just looking at the provisions un- der which a minister may order an audit of the coun- cil's performance, and I have a couple of questions re- lating to that. First of all, it says: "The minister may order an independent audit by the board…." It doesn't

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7867 say he must; it says he may. I wonder if the minister could explain to me under what conditions the minis- ter would order an audit of the performance of the council. Hon. S. Hagen: I f i t c a m e t o m y a t t e n t i o n , e i t h e r through an inquiry by the public or through the media or through a member organization, that the council wasn't doing its job or functioning, then I may require an audit. D. MacKay: Following up on that, if the minister orders an audit on the council, who pays for the audit that the minister is going to order?

Does the council pay for that, or does the minister responsible pay for the audit? Hon. S. Hagen: That would come out of the minis- ter's budget.

Section 11 approved On

section 12. J. MacPhail:

Section 12 switches to a different theme under this bill. It begins to talk about manage- ment objectives. I've got some questions under

section 12, but they also really relate to sections 13, 14, 15 and 16, which all describe the management objectives on private managed forest land. I referred to these sections in my second reading, and I must say I'm pleased about the language in here, because they do include some fairly specific prescrip- tions for objectives on critical values of land manage- ment — values like fish habitat and soil conservation, just to mention a couple. I also note that these values are not new, and they did exist under the old regime. What I am curious about is how this relates to the Forest and Range Practices Act.

Again, this minister is the minister responsible for land use in this province. Of course, the Forest and Range Practices Act will re- place the old Forest Practices Code, and it will be actu- ally a new results-based forest code. So here we have what I consider to be a very prescriptive or a substan- tially prescriptive approach to land values, critical val- ues, when it's on private land. But when we look at the Forest and Range Practices Act, which applies to the values to be upheld on public land, the government moves to a results-based or outcomes approach.

Why is the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management im- posing a fairly prescriptive regime on the management of private lands; yet his counterpart, the Minister of Forests, refused over and over again to define any spe- cific objectives for public land? What's the difference? Why the discrepancy? Hon. S. Hagen: There is no discrepancy, first of all. We don't consider these to be overly prescriptive, and they are basically, from a structural point of view, the same as those requirements under the Forest and Range Practices Act. [1120] J. MacPhail: Well, I beg to differ with the minister.

I was actually in extensive debate with the Minister of Forests when I was trying to pin him down on defining objectives. I asked him very specific questions like: does the soil conservation involve any of the issues related to minimizing the amount of area occupied by permanent roads, landings and excavated or bladed trails? I asked questions related specifically to those intrusions on land and soil conservation. He said to me: "Oh, I'm not going to tell you. That will all be determined by regulation." Whether they will be determined by regulation — or if or how — was how he responded to me….

I must say I have to dis- agree vehemently with the minister that somehow these values attached to the management of private land are no more prescriptive than those attached to the public lands. There is nothing in the public or pri- vate debate to support the minister's assertion. Another one, Mr. Chair. I link them together be- cause my concern is also in sections 13, 14, 15 and 16. I asked specific questions about land use objectives re- lated to drinking water, streamside trees, riparian zones — all of that. The Minister of Forests said: "Oh no.

All of that will be determined by regulation, and we haven't decided what areas to regulate yet. That will be all by public consultation." Then that's certainly true of fish habitat as well. Let me put this to the minister. In those public con- sultations…. Actually, he wouldn't commit to public consultations; he did say stakeholder consultations.

In those stakeholder consultations related to regulation of land use objectives under the Forest and Range Prac- tices Act, if a person comes forward and says to the minister, "I want you to replicate the objectives out- lined for private land in the Private Managed Forest Land Act for publicly owned land," will the minister have to say, "Absolutely, they're included," as this min- ister asserts? Hon. S. Hagen: The objectives under this act are different than the objectives under the Forests minis- ter's act. I think that question should probably be di- rected to the Minister of Forests, not to me.

We're talk- ing about governance under private land here. J. MacPhail: Actually, when I probe the minister a little more deeply, he backs off completely from his assertions that they're basically the same and then tries to punt the question to a minister who isn't part of this d e b a t e a t a l l . T h e m i n i s t e r s a i d t o m e t h a t t h e r e i s n o difference between the objectives outlined for privately managed land and publicly owned land, because I'm saying they are different.

These objectives, these values listed for privately managed land, are prescriptive and are the way it was under the old regime, but the old regime applied to both the privately owned lands and the publicly owned lands. But this government has changed it. Now, for some reason, the great free enterprise government is being very prescriptive with the land

7868 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2003 values, the objectives and critical values applying to private lands. But they refuse to even say whether they're going to have objectives — such as protection of fish habitat, protection of drinking water, soil conserva- tion — for publicly owned lands. What I'll do is…. Well, I won't have to do it. There will be people who will be part of the stakeholder process for determining the objectives on publicly owned land, who will take this minister at his word and say there is not a difference.

Then they will be able to assert — by his own words — that the very specific critical values and objectives listed in a prescriptive fashion under this legislation should also, and will, apply to publicly owned lands. [1125] Hon. S. Hagen: I just want to reiterate. I don't con- sider these objectives to be prescriptive, because they don't lay out when and where and how. They are results-based. The objectives will be set by regulation, and the objectives, in fact, are different between private and public lands. Sections 12 and 13 approved. On

section 14. M. Hunter: First of all, on the fish habitat section, I think the private managed forest landowners I have become familiar with would say — and I would agree with them — that the objectives set out here are objec- tives they endorse and which many of them, if not all of them, achieve and surpass on an ongoing basis in their day-to-day operations and the husbandry of their private lands, so I don't have a particular difficulty with the objectives set out.

I also think the minister knows I have had a great deal of difficulty understanding and accepting some of the prescriptive measures set out by the previous gov- ernment under the streamside protection regulations. I think I understand — and I'd like him to confirm — that by setting these objectives, we are not making the mistake the last government did of pretending that the writing of words actually means that kind of prescrip- tion. I'd like the minister just to confirm that these objec- tives are not trying to replicate the bad management of the streamside protection regulations under the Fish Protection Act.

Hon. S. Hagen: The answer is no. These don't repli- cate those prescriptive regulations. M. Hunter: Having established that and listening to the discussion between the Leader of the Opposition and the minister, I understand there will be regulations that will define the fish habitat issues, amongst others, a little more carefully. Can the minister explain to me where in the bill — or is it going to be in a regulatory structure? — these objectives are translated into part of the commitment we are seeking and expecting from the private forest landowners under this bill? Hon. S.

Hagen: The members who participate un- der this will have to sign an agreement when they join under Bill 88. They will have to sign an agreement to abide by the act, which is Bill 88, and by the regulations that will be developed between now and when the act goes into force. M. Hunter: Okay, so there will be a set of regula- tions and an agreement that the council members will sign on willingly.

Aside from the minister's audit func- tion, which I think has more to do with corporate gov- ernance than performance on the land, how will the council measure the performance of its members in achieving the commitments they enter into willingly? Hon. S. Hagen: The council has the authority to en- ter on the lands to make sure the owners are abiding by the rules they agreed to abide by when they signed on. M. Hunter: And does the minister foresee that when he says the council will do this, the council will hire professional foresters or biologists or whatever the discipline might be that's appropriate?

Is this going to be part of the council's structure — a professional staff that will have that audit capability? Hon. S. Hagen: My expectation or the expectation of the minister would be that the council would hire people who are professionals or have the knowledge about what they're looking for or at — the knowledge to carry out those duties. [1130] R. Harris: Just a comment, first of all. I do disagree quite a bit with the Leader of the Opposition's com- ments about this being a prescriptive framework.

As a matter of fact, as someone who worked in this industry for a long time — and a lot of that under the Forest Practices Codes — I understand very clearly what pre- scriptive really means and especially how it translates into this industry. These actually do reflect values and objectives and allow people the opportunity to use their expertise to actually achieve them. There was more than one occa- sion I can remember, working in this industry, where we followed prescriptive measures that we had a pretty good idea were not in fact going to protect the value we were trying to protect.

In fact, it was going to harm it. Because of the nature of the code and the na- ture of the directions, we actually did things that didn't work well for riparian zones, didn't work well for fish specifically, and went through a number of regimes. This is the way to do it. When I listen to the Leader of the Opposition, it really reconfirms that when you have people talking about this who actually don't know what it looks like on the ground, you sometimes do a lot more harm than you do good. It just sort of struck me as I was listening to the previous member

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7869 asking questions. At the end of the day for these coun- cils, is their goal as a council around private lands to achieve certification for themselves from a marketplace perspective? Maybe you can talk a little bit about how that could work or how these councils could set some long-term visions that actually work for them. Hon. S. Hagen: That's an excellent question. It won't be a goal of the council to do that, but it certainly, I'm sure, is the goal of the individual members — the com- panies that are members.

I mean, we all know the impor- tance of certification as it relates to market and being able to sell the product. The rules and the regulations that will be there will, I think, assist the companies to be able to say what they do to get that certification. R. Harris: Maybe just a little follow-up on that. Within the private lands there are certainly some signifi- cantly large private landholders who will be pursuing that kind of tack on their own just because, from a com- mercial point of view, that is in fact their business.

I guess I was thinking in terms of the smaller opera- tors — people that actually, in another world, may work in the small business program with the Forest Service. Is there a role for the council to play in assist- ing that collective group to achieve some kind of certi- fication? I go to that because as government, we're ap- pointing two appointees, and in a broader marketing campaign it probably works to our advantage to help these smaller guys reach that level of certification.

Do you think there will be a role for us to play in helping to guide councils for smaller landowners who want to mix harvesting along with possibly what else they do with their land base in achieving certification? Hon. S. Hagen: The member makes an excellent point. I think the answer is that what the council does will assist those companies to achieve what they have to, but I see the role the member is looking for to be a role of the association that they belong to more than a role of the council. [1135] Sections 14 and 15 approved. On

section 16. B. Belsey: The reforestation. We've talked a little bit here about prescriptive versus what we're trying to do with results-based. In the reforestation process…. Cer- tainly, in the past it has been very prescriptive. We've gone and had the elimination of certain types of trees and planted others, looking at local markets and looking at what kind of tree we can sell into the various markets. My concern is how much freedom the landowners will have under this legislation to plant trees of their choice, or maybe a variety of trees of their choice, on their own land. Hon. S.

Hagen: Actually, I could see that question being asked of a different government, who may or may not believe in the private ownership of land. We believe in the private ownership of land, and the people who own those lands will be able to plant the crop they think they should be planting and that they can market. The Chair: Member for Cariboo North on

section 16. J. Wilson: Mr. Chair, actually,

section 15. I got missed there, so if I could go back…. The Chair: Proceed. On

section 15. J. Wilson: "Critical wildlife habitat" is something we should, I think, take a pretty hard look at here, be- cause in some instances we tend to get bogged down with this. Can the minister give us a definition of what they would mean by critical wildlife habitat? Hon. S. Hagen: The habitat that is talked about here would be described under the Forest Practices Code or the new act. It would be for land required to maintain critical wildlife that might be endangered as described under the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. J.

Wilson: Then I am led to believe that the habitat that would be necessary to preserve an existing species or population in an area is what we're looking at in this case. We would want to harvest trees in accordance with the requirements of that set population there. Hon. S. Hagen: The member is, I think, more or less correct in his assumption. There is an opportunity, though, for the owner of the land to enter into an agreement with the minister responsible to determine how much would have to be set aside for the critical wildlife habitat. Sections 15 and 16 approved. On

section 17. D. Hayer: I'd like to ask the minister what impact this will have on local government. Will this affect their revenues? Another part of the same question is: will the local governments be able to put undue restrictions on these lands? Hon. S. Hagen: The answer is no, there would be no impact on revenues in municipalities. The members who join under Bill 88 will be protected from undue restrictions placed on them by municipalities. [1140] B. Belsey: It's laid out in here that there is a fee for applying, with your application to fall under the act, and that there's a fee for withdrawal.

Is there any fee for amendments that might be made during the time between the application, or being a member of this, and the withdrawal?

7870 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2003 Hon. S. Hagen: The only fee is the fee charged to come under the program. B. Belsey: Then I'm to understand that there's no withdrawal fee? Hon. S. Hagen: I think the member is a bit ahead of h i m s e l f . I f h e t u r n s t o s e c t i o n s 1 8 a n d 1 9 , i t d e s c r i b e s the exit fee. B. Belsey: It's not often I get ahead of myself. But thank you — through the Chair to the minister. I wonder if the minister would share with us some of how they've consulted with local governments, landowners and the public. Are they supportive? Hon. S.

Hagen: Bill 88 was drafted in consultation with Water, Land and Air Protection; Ministry of Forests; Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Ser- vices; agencies including the Forest Practices Board, Forest Appeals Commission, Treasury Board staff, Crown agen- cies secretariat; the UBCM; administrative justice project; and the membership of the Private Forest Landowners Association. We have the support of those groups. B. Belsey: My second-to-last question.

I wonder if the minister would share with us how this legislation will prevent landowners from using the managed for- est class as a temporary tax shelter. Hon. S. Hagen: I'll refer the member to

section 19 in particular, which describes the exit fee. One of the pur- poses of the exit fee is to prevent that. B. Belsey: My last question: what penalties will apply to the landowners that contravene the act or the regulations? Hon. S. Hagen: The council can issue stop-work orders, remediation orders and up to $25,000 in fines.

Section 17 approved. On

section 18. D. MacKay: I might be jumping ahead of myself here, because these questions dealing with sections 18 and 19…. I have two questions — a question on each one of those sections. I think it may be premature to ask the question, but I'm going to ask it in any event. The first one deals with the exit time that will be determined for someone to leave the program, should they decide. Is that something that will be determined by the council itself?

In other words, if somebody de- cides to get out of the program, I don't want to see a situation where he's going to be stuck for two years while they determine whether or not he should be al- lowed to leave the program. Hon. S. Hagen: The exit fee will be calculated by the council according to regulations that are to be drafted for this act. [1145] D. MacKay: Okay, that's fine. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sections 18 to 21 inclusive approved. On

section 22. D. MacKay: My final question in committee stage on this bill. Dealing with

section 22, it says: "The coun- cil may require that an owner or a contractor, an em- ployee or an agent of the owner submit records in that person's custody…." My question is: how will they collect those records? Will it be by a written request to the owner? Will it be by an order from the council or a mix of those two? Hon. S. Hagen: It's probably going to be a mix of those two. Don't forget that as these companies join under this, they agree to abide by the act. That gives the council the right to require them to supply records. Sections 22 and 23 approved. On

section 24. B. Belsey: The right of entry by government onto the private land — will those rights be the same on the land that falls under the Private Managed Forest Land Act as on land that's not covered under this act? In other words, is there any difference in the rights…? My concern is that someone who doesn't join this — to have their private land managed under this act…. Will there be any differ- ence in who can come on their land or who can…? Some- body within the Wildlife Act…. Any critical habitat con- cerns that might differ from one to the other? Hon. S.

Hagen: T h e M i n i s t r y o f W a t e r , L a n d a n d Air Protection will have the same rights to enter these lands as they have to enter other lands. Sections 24 and 25 approved. On

section 26. B. Belsey: Can landowners appeal decisions and penalties under the act? Hon. S. Hagen: Yes, they can appeal to the Forest Appeals Commission. Sections 26 to 63 inclusive approved. Title approved. Hon. S. Hagen: I move that we report the bill com- plete without amendment. Motion approved. The committee rose at 11:49 a.m.

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7871 The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. Report and Third Reading of Bills Bill 88, Private Managed Forest Land Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed. [1150] Hon. G. Plant moved adjournment of the House. Motion approved. Mr. Speaker: The House is adjourned until 2 p.m. today. The House adjourned at 11:50 a.m.

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H1106am-04
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H1106am 04
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	da8371915b9bd03cd8f017293a1afe5a8400a24c

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