2015 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 40th

Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for

informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 27, Number 4

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Orders of the

Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 20 — Election Amendment Act, 2015 (continued)

Reporting of Bills

Bill 20 — Election Amendment Act, 2015

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 20 — Election Amendment Act, 2015

A. Weaver

V. Huntington

G. Holman

Hon. S. Anton

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 25 — Forests, Lands and Natural Resource

Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2015

Hon. S. Thomson

H. Bains

B. Routley

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 25 — Forests, Lands and Natural Resource

Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2015

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 5 — Government Information Act

Hon. A. Virk

D. Routley

D. Routley

Hon. A. Virk

Reporting of Bills

Bill 5 — Information Management Act

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 5 — Information Management Act

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir

Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health (continued)

Hon. T. Lake

J. Darcy

A. Dix

J. Rice

V. Huntington

K. Corrigan

G. Heyman

[ Page

8737 ]

TUESDAY, MAY 26, 2015

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Polak: In

Committee A, I call continued estimates of the Ministry of Health, and in this

chamber, I call continued committee stage debate on Bill 20.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 20 — ELECTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 20;

R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 1:35 p.m.

On the subamendment to

section 21.1 (continued) .

Subamendment negatived.

Amendment approved.

Sections 22 and 23 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Anton: I move that

the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 1:37 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 20 — ELECTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

Bill 20, Election Amendment Act, 2015, reported complete with

amendments.

Madame Speaker: When will

the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. M. Polak: With leave,

now.

Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 20 — ELECTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

A. Weaver: It is with a

mix of frustration and desperation that I rise to table a hoist amendment of

this Bill 20, the Election Amendment Act. The hoist amendment is this:

[I move that the motion for third reading on Bill 20, The Election Amendment Act be amended by deleting the word “now” and

substituting the words “6 months hence”.]

Madame Speaker: Hon.

Members, the member was on his feet, and I apologize.

Please proceed.

On the amendment.

A. Weaver: I feel that

this bill is fundamentally at odds with what is in British Columbia’s best

interest. We’ve seen amendments brought in at the last possible moment to

address concerns of the Privacy Commissioner. The Commissioner’s concerns have

been public knowledge for over a month. Yet the government’s amendments are

circulated the day before the final debate on this bill is due to take place,

preventing a proper view of the proposed changes.

[1340]

The Privacy Commissioner first wrote a letter to

government regarding Bill 20 on April 13, 2015, expressing serious concerns with

aspects of this bill, and urged the government to withdraw sections which

amended

section 51(2) of the Election Act. These provisions would give political

parties the ability to receive information on who voted at the end of an

election.

Her concerns were related to how this information

would be used, especially since making the information available after the

election runs contrary to the government’s stated purpose that this information

was to be used for getting out the vote. Far from providing new tools for

political parties to increase voter turnout, in my view, there are legitimate

concerns that provisions in this legislation could be used to do the

opposite.

The members of the official opposition have spoken at

great length during committee stage about the importance of our democratic

reform and the need to reinvigorate our democracy.

Over the course of this session, for example, as well,

they’ve introduced the Parliamentary Calendar Act, 2015; the Legislative

Standing Committee Reform Act, 2015; the Fixed Fall Election Amendment Act,

2015; the Youth Voter Registration Act, 2015; the Whistleblowers Protection Act,

2015; the Members’ Conflict of Interest Amendment Act, 2015; the Open Government

Act, 2015; the Lobbyist Registry Reform Act, 2015; the Electronic

[ Page 8738 ]

Petitions Act, 2015;

the Fairness in Financing Local Government Elections Act, 2015; and the Campaign

Finance Reform Act, 2015.

According to the members who tabled these bills, each

is intended in one way or another to help enhance our democracy by, for

instance, improving how we finance our elections, hold our governments

accountable and engage British Columbians. Over the course of the debates on

Bill 20, carried through to committee stage, the members of the official

opposition have raised several concerns.

I would like to take a moment to dial in on one in

particular, because it is of the utmost importance for the point I am about to

make. The members of the official opposition have spoken substantially about the

declining voter turnout that we have seen over the past several decades. To

quote the member for Vancouver-Fairview: “When many of us were growing up, it

was not uncommon to see voter turnouts in the 70s and 80s. When we now see voter

turnouts of 54 percent called an increase in voter turnout, we should be

alarmed.”

Similarly, to quote the member for Port Coquitlam: “I

think all of us in this chamber — and in fact, people outside this chamber —

have expressed concern about the decline in voter participation over the last

few decades. There’s a constant desire to look at how we can increase voter

turnout and how we can encourage voter turnout.” They are not alone. Almost

every opposition speaker who stood up to speak to this bill and who raised

questions during committee stage spoke about this concern.

One of the key solutions that members of the official

opposition proposed was to register youth as voters as early as 16. This came up

several times, both through official opposition questioning and my own

questioning to the minister during committee stage. I, of course, have been

actively promoting this idea also for quite some time. However, I think there’s

an important point here. The members who spoke in favour of this solution also

generally recognized that on its own, it’s not enough. It’s certainly a step in

the right direction, but increasing voter turnout requires much more. It

requires giving voters something to vote for.

In fact, the three ridings with the highest voter

turnout in the 2013 provincial election were, one, Oak Bay–Gordon Head, the

riding that I represent; two, Saanich North and the Islands, the riding that the

member behind me here represents, and a riding that my colleague Adam Olsen ran

in, in a very close three-way race; and third, the riding of Delta South, where

68 percent voter turnout existed. The member is just to my left here, sitting

off camera. I welcome the member for Delta South.

What these three ridings have in common is that all of

them had a strong, credible and viable third candidate who inspired people to

get out to the polls, who gave them something to vote for, as opposed to vote

against, traditional in our vote-splitting arguments.

This brings me to the point at hand. In its current

form, Bill 20 would make a significant change to laws surrounding the voter

list. This came out time and time again during questioning in the committee

stage. Time and time again, it appeared that this bill had not been thought out

to the level of detail that we had expected for a bill like this to be brought

before us. This bill would give political parties and any candidates access to

information about who votes and who does not vote.

The opposition has spoken about the privacy concerns

surrounding this change. They have, as I have, highlighted the concerns of the

Privacy Commissioner.

[1345]

In fact, the member for Saanich North and the Islands

quoted the Privacy Commissioner specifically by saying this: “There must be

clear limits on the use and disclosure of this personal information by political

parties. For example, permitted uses of this information for ‘electoral

purposes’ as set out in

section 275 of the Election Act should be clearly

defined, and political parties should be prohibited from using the information

for commercial purposes or disclosing this information to any other organization

or public body.”

During questioning during committee stage we were

certainly unsatisfied that the steps have been taken to ensure that this would

be the case. Now, while I agree with these concerns, I believe that both

government and the official opposition have missed a key point. There has been

no consultation about whether a political party or candidate should even have

the right to know if somebody has voted or not. Until such a time that that

question is actually asked and discussed, in my view, the information is the

purview of the voter and the Chief Electoral Officer and no one else.

Putting aside the questions of privacy that I’ll

discuss a little later, I want to turn to a separate issue that is the core of

the government’s stated purpose of bringing this bill forward — voter turnout, a

statement that we explored in great detail during committee stage. We’ve seen

very clearly from other jurisdictions where voter turnout information is already

available that more often than not, it’s used to slice and dice voter lists so

that political parties can get more bang for their buck.

They do this by focusing more of their resources on

targeting people who have a tendency to vote, because they know, as we do, that

one of the biggest indicators and predictors of whether or not a person will

vote in the next election is if they voted in the last election — a question I

explored in some detail during committee stage. Contrary to all of the talking

points about how this change will help increase voter turnout, the evidence

shows quite clearly that it will actually support political parties to focus

more than ever on the subset of registered voters who actually vote.

Non-voters will run the risk of being neglected, as

parties focus their limited resources on those people deemed

[ Page 8739 ]

most likely to be

worth the investment. This isn’t idle speculation. It’s found in study after

study into how political parties in North America compete in elections. This is

especially relevant in our first-past-the-post system where, rather than seeking

a majority, parties only need to seek a plurality of voters, greatly reducing

the number of voter contacts some parties feel are necessary to win.

It goes even further. Once parties know who actually

votes, they can then layer their own support data on top of this and ascertain

who their opponents’ supporters likely are. We saw this very clearly in the last

election. In fact, we see this in almost every election — the use of tactics

that border on voter suppression, in trying to convince your opponents’

supporters to stay home and not vote.

We saw this when the B.C. NDP phoned voters in my

riding telling them that if they voted for me, they would split the vote and

elect a Liberal, despite no evidence at all to back up that claim. We saw the

same message when Liberals blanketed B.C. with messaging designed to undermine

voters’ confidence in the NDP so that those voters who would never vote Liberal

would perhaps be less motivated to vote at all.

In second reading of this bill, and explored further

at the committee stage, the Minister of Justice dismissed suggestions that

parties might use this information to “essentially badger non-voters through

repeated and unwanted communications” by saying: “…why would a party do that?

The goal for any political party is to gain voter support. The last thing you

want to do is to alienate voters through unwanted contact.” Oh, the naivety of

the minister for quoting such fine, fine words that I obviously agree with. But

in practice, they do not play out, as the evidence I showed before suggests.

It’s clearly seen in the above two examples. This

claim that political parties would never act in abusive ways is simply not borne

out by the evidence. A more publicized example, of course, is the robocall

scandal in the last federal election. In this instance, supporters of certain

parties were called and told that their polling had changed. The caller

purported to be from Elections Canada but was in fact a partisan attempt to

suppress votes from other parties.

Now, the relevance of that, of course, is that, as I

raised in committee stage, the sections that were being brought into the

Election Act here in British Columbia mirror those sections that were brought

into the Elections Act federally as an attempt to actually find ways, I would

argue, to skirt around the election financing requirements that were brought in

by successive governments federally. We’re seeing the trend here as well. That

was clearly evident from the questioning during committee stage.

[1350]

By giving political parties and candidates access to

the voters list, including information on who voted, we will be allowing those

parties to run more targeted and effective voter suppression campaigns. No

longer will they need to waste resources blanketing a riding or an entire voters

list. Now they would be able to target just that subset of voters that they know

for a fact are more likely to vote, and they can throw even more resources at

them, thanks to the savings they receive from not spending resources on

non-voters.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

This change is not about increasing voter turnout or

reinvigorating our democracy. If the members of this House truly care about this

goal, they will agree with me that we need more time to consider the changes we

are about to make so that we can find other ways to truly increase voter

turnout. For example, we could read again the report provided in the fall of

last year from the Chief Electoral Officer, which clearly outlined his top two

priorities: (1) voter registration of youth at the ages of 16 and 17; and

(2) introducing, on a trial basis, innovative ways of actually conducting election

voting.

The member for Vancouver-Langara also rose

courageously in this House to speak against the provisions of the act that she

feels “do not improve our democracy and do not improve our ability to increase

voter turnout nor produce better oversight of election results.” This is not a

common occurrence to see a government MLA speak out against a piece of

legislation, and I believe it demonstrates the seriousness of what we are

considering here.

The member laid out an elegant critique of these

provisions. “I stand to speak out,” she said, “against these changes because I

know that they do not have anything to do with improving voter turnout or

improving our democracy. Quite simply, these changes are in the interests of

political parties, not in the interest of individual British Columbian

voters.”

The member for Vancouver-Langara talked to her

constituents, listened to her constituents and recognized that her constituents

did not support this bill. I wonder if others in this House, on that side of the

House, have done the same.

There are a lot of ways to improve voter turnout, and

the member noted that these don’t involve violating people’s privacy. The member

went out and talked to the constituents, as I said. She discussed it with them.

Again, to quote from her speech: “Voters do not want political parties to have

more information about them, including whether or not they voted. When asked,

people mistrust political parties and politicians and believe, in the majority,

that political parties, if they could, would manipulate election results.”

Wow. Is that not a testament to the reason why voter

turnout is actually declining — the increased lack of trust, the increased

belief by people that politicians are not trustworthy, that if they could, they

would manipulate election results? This is why the member for

Vancouver-

[ Page 8740 ]

Langara spoke out against it, and it’s why I have spoken out against

it. It’s why the member for Delta South has spoken out against it. It’s why the

members in the official opposition have spoken out against it.

The member for Vancouver-Langara’s concern was that

this change would only make people more cynical, more guarded and more skeptical

about their relationship with politics. It was not the commercial uses that

worried her constituents but the use of the information for targeted political

pressure.

I would not for one moment presume to know whether the

member for Vancouver-Langara feels that the government’s last-minute amendments

address her concerns. What I do know is that I listened closely to her speech

and found myself sharing many of her original concerns, and these last-minute

amendments that we discussed and explored in committee stage only amplified my

concerns for the political occurrence of abuse.

Despite claiming that these amendments address the

Privacy Commissioner’s concerns, the Minister of Justice “did not feel it was

necessary” to run the amendments past the Privacy Commissioner when asked if she

had consulted with the office. This has as much to do with the content of the

amendments as the manner in which they have been introduced into the

Legislature. They have been slipped in at the last possible moment.

Before the break, the Office of the Privacy

Commissioner issued a statement on these amendments. While acknowledging that an

attempt had been made to address her office’s concerns, I reiterate that in her

original letter she commented that the best course of action would be to

withdraw the provisions of this bill related to providing voter turnout

information.

As I stated earlier today, I do not think this is a

thoughtful manner for government to propose amendments to legislation,

especially when it concerns fundamental issues of privacy. I feel that this is a

clumsy attempt to put political interests ahead of what is best for British

Columbians.

[1355]

It’s in our own best interests to postpone this debate

and gather the necessary information from the public, those who are affected,

and from a variety of experts, those who have explored other jurisdictions,

before proceeding with this bill.

I now wish to turn to addressing a secondary concern

of this bill that was revealed extensively during committee stage and why I

believe it’s in our best interest to hoist it.

The debate has so far centred primarily around what

the government’s stated intentions are with this information — namely, the claim

that these provisions are to facilitate “get out the vote” efforts. There is, of

course, another area of concern: privacy.

In order to properly evaluate the privacy concerns

that exist within this bill, I think it’s important that we understand how

British Columbians feel about their privacy and whether political parties are

acting responsibly to those concerns. Through thorough questioning at committee

stage, it became clear to me that government has not sought input from British

Columbians.

Let me give you such input. In the 2014 Survey of

Canadians on Privacy , a report that was prepared for the Office of the

Privacy Commissioner of Canada, nine in ten Canadians expressed some level of

concern about the protection of their privacy, with 34 percent saying they are

“extremely concerned.” This is an increase from 25 percent in 2012.

Furthermore, 73 percent of Canadians, the largest

proportion since tracking began, feel that they have “less protection of their

personal information in their daily lives than they did ten years ago.” A third

statistic that is relevant to this debate: 56 percent do not feel they have

sufficient knowledge about how new technologies affect their personal

privacy.

This is the context in which we must evaluate Bill 20,

as explored in detail through committee stage — a massive majority feeling they

have less control over their personal information, a growing number of people

expressing serious concerns about their level of protection and a majority

feeling they do not possess sufficient knowledge to evaluate how new technology

affects their privacy.

What’s fascinating is that this study found that those

people with low knowledge tended to be highly concerned, compared to 16 percent

who were unconcerned. That is, the highly concerned percentage was 33 percent,

compared to 16 percent who were unconcerned. However, gaining knowledge about

the privacy implications did not make these people less concerned. Those with

knowledge still were overwhelmingly “highly concerned” — that’s 26 percent — as

opposed to being unconcerned, 6 percent.

Within this larger Canadian study, British Columbians

as a group were the least informed about how technology affected their personal

privacy, with only 34 percent saying they feel confident that they “have enough

information to know how new technologies might affect my personal privacy.”

That’s compared to 48 percent in the Atlantic, 46 percent in Ontario and 41

percent in the Prairies.

We have heard in this session the Minister of

Education tout repeatedly — and I concur — the exceptional nature of our

education system. Yet these statistics are very revealing. Only 34 percent of

British Columbians feel confident they have enough information to know how new

technologies might affect their personal privacy. That’s very troubling, and it

suggests that the government has not engaged British Columbians, has not

informed British Columbians. This is why this bill must be delayed through

another six months — to give the government a chance to actually consult with

the people of British Columbia.

Let’s have a look at how Bill 20 fares when looked at

through this lens of privacy. Bill 20 would provide political parties with a

complete set of data on who in the province is voting. It would also, due to the

last-minute

[ Page 8741 ]

amendments moved by the government and passed at committee stage,

allow candidates in an upcoming election and people who were candidates in a

past election to receive the information about who voted in the riding. That

certainly constitutes more information about British Columbians that may be used

in unforeseen ways.

As I stated above, despite the government’s suggestion

that the information would be used responsibly, I think it’s imperative upon us

that we consider the possible abuses permitted by the legislation. It’s my

opinion that the legislation before us contains a number of areas of such

possible abuse, which is why we need time to explore this further and to

actually close any loopholes that would allow such abuse.

[1400]

This, then, may rightly feed the growing number of

Canadians expressing serious concerns about their level of protection. This is

an important point. There is nothing in this legislation that outlines any

enforcement regime to ensure privacy rights — that they are not violated.

Certainly, we have the government’s new addition of a privacy policy

requirement. But with such a lack of detail about how this will work, with no

legislated enforcement and with no clear involvement of the Privacy Commissioner

in the legislation, it’s hard to assess the level of protection afforded British

Columbians.

In response to a specific subamendment to actually

replace the Chief Electoral Officer by the Privacy Commissioner, to actually

approve the policy requirements, I was given an answer that essentially said:

“They work together. Trust us.” Well, there has been too much of this trust-us

in this Legislature for quite some time. Sadly, trust-us just is not

working.

We want to see the details. We want to know that the

details have arisen from consultation with British Columbians. We want to see

the evidence behind those details, not a trust-us approach, as this government

is taking on this particular bill and everything else of late, it seems, to be

coming through this House, whether it be the education amendment act or whether

it be LNG and the fantasy that British Columbia lives in as to its wealth and

prosperity for one and all.

This approach may rightly feed the growing number of

Canadians expressing serious concerns about their level of protection. Again,

this is an important point. There’s nothing that outlines any enforcement to

ensure the privacy rights in this bill. I re-emphasize that.

Another important point is the total lack of

consultation concerning the change. Providing voter information was not

recommended by the Privacy Commissioner but was instead expressed by political

parties as worthy of exploration. At no point has there been any attempt to

properly assess whether British Columbians support this change or, indeed,

whether they are even aware this change is taking place. Looking at privacy

concerns, then, this legislation only feeds feelings of a loss of control by the

electorate. It constitutes a change whose full implications we cannot rightly

assume British Columbians are aware of.

To sum up this argument, then, this legislation is

being considered without addressing the overriding privacy concerns that are

being expressed by British Columbians. It does not clearly lay out a regime that

British Columbians could feel confident about and, in fact, is being brought

forward in a rushed manner where amendments and subamendments are brought to

bear at the last possible moment. I think it’s important that we consider

additional evidence and analysis of privacy considerations for political parties

as I make my argument that this bill needs to be hoisted.

What else does the evidence tell us about privacy? A

critical concern for political parties should be that Canadians feel more

confident giving personal information to organizations when they feel confident

in or trust that organization. As the member for Vancouver-Langara pointed out,

“trust” in political parties from the electorate is depleted. We regularly see

the reports of cynicism about politics.

The minister’s own talking points cite the lack of

engagement in political parties as a key reason this is being brought forward.

Yet the manner in which it has been brought forward would refute this, as

amendments have appeared at the last moment, appearing to have skirted a proper

review from the Privacy Commissioner. Is this the best way to bring legislation

forward concerning privacy, when transparency and expert opinion are so critical

in building trust? I think not.

I want to look at this bill from another angle as

well. This is the angle from the Canadian Standards Association’s model code for

protection of personal information. It’s particularly important to look at it

through the lens of this model code in light of the evidence that arose during

committee stage.

There are ten principles in this code:

(1) accountability; (2) identifying purposes; (3) consent; (4) limiting collection;

(5) limiting use, disclosure and retention; (6) accuracy; (7) safeguards;

(8) openness; (9) individual access; and (10) challenging compliance. After going

through committee stage, it’s clear to me that there are provisions in Bill 20

pertaining to privacy that do not fare well according to these standards, and

I’ll expand here.

For accountability. The government’s last-minute

amendments that require a responsible person to bring forward a privacy policy

may go a small way in addressing this area certainly. But the manner in which it

was brought in and the questions that still remain suggest there’s still a large

gap that needs to be filled.

For identifying purposes. In my view, Bill 20 fails to

align the stated purpose, which was increasing voter turnout in an election,

with the manner in which the information is gathered by “request” after the

election has taken place.

[1405]

[ Page 8742 ]

It seems like a stretch to link this to voter

engagement, for the reasons I have given earlier, during committee stage. We

don’t today, as of this date, have an invention called a time machine to use

such information to increase the voter turnout in an election that has already

happened.

For consent, Bill 20 fails spectacularly. Not only are

the provisions related to privacy advanced by the political parties and not

Elections B.C.; there have been limited attempts to actually inform or educate

British Columbians as to what information may become available. This is one of

the more important issues concerning privacy, in my view.

As politicians, we are in a unique position to

legislate ourselves access to more information. It is shocking that we’re taking

advantage of this. I feel it’s therefore our responsibility to ensure that we

have adequately consulted with the public. While we cannot expect everyone to

take time from their busy lives to read up on the privacy policy and inform

themselves about Bill 20, we, thankfully, have created an independent office to

look after these concerns. However, if we skirt around this office, limiting its

ability to do its job, I feel we are failing to ensure the consent for this

change.

With limiting collection, I have similar concerns to

identifying purpose. The collection of this information is not limited in such a

way that it is clearly used only for increasing voter turnout. The fact that

this information is gathered by political parties after an election limits the

applicability of the data to its stated purpose — to increase voter turnout. I

retract all of this once a time machine is invented and we can actually go back

and use this data in an election that has already occurred. But as of this

point, such a machine does not exist.

For limiting use, disclosure and retention, I feel

that we can legitimately question the retention aspect of the voter information.

I attempted to address this with amendments to earlier sections of the bill

during committee stage to require the destruction of this information once the

election was over. Not to belabour the point, but if the purpose is to drive

voter turnout up, why are we receiving this personal information after an

election, and why would parties need to retain this information?

They wouldn’t. They wouldn’t need this information.

That became very clear during questioning at committee stage. For accuracy, this

bill would ensure that parties can keep this information up to date, although

I’m not sure that that is exclusively a good thing, as I think there are

legitimate concerns this information could be misused.

With regard to safeguards, I’ve spoken earlier about

my concerns that this bill does not lay out a legislative regime where

information is being adequately protected. This really comes down to two points.

The Privacy Commissioner does not have a legislated role in the act, despite the

clear triggering of her jurisdiction and despite the fact that we tried, in

amendments, to get that legislated role included.

Two is that there is nothing in the legislation that

speaks to enforcement of the “privacy policy” that must be created to access

this data. We’re left with a “trust us; it’ll work out” kind of approach to

this. We’ve given examples — in committee stage, and here I’ve given others — to

show that “trust us” simply is not good enough.

In looking at openness, it remains to be seen whether

these privacy policies will contain a requirement that they be made publicly

accessible. I don’t know. You don’t know. We haven’t been told. “Trust us” is

the answer we get.

With individual access, British Columbians should

expect to be made aware of the existence, use and disclosure of their

information. To a certain extent, technology is changing the rules about data

acquisition, but we must be careful that we don’t swing that pendulum too

far.

Finally, with challenging compliance, I feel that Bill

20 provides no guidance except that a privacy policy must be accessible to the

Chief Electoral Officer of Elections B.C. There is no guaranteed specificity

about how compliance can be assured, and this was ever so evident during

committee stage.

The Canadian Standards Association’s model code for

protection of personal information may or may not be the appropriate tool to use

in analyzing this piece of legislation. It is certainly one that would look

favourably upon certain provisions in this bill. However, without an ability to

adequately consult the Privacy Commissioner to ascertain whether amendments that

are tabled at the last minute address all of her concerns or whether other

amendments that were put forward by members of this Legislature would have

addressed them even better or completely or not at all….

[1410]

Without this information, I am left to find whatever

other tool I can. It is the use of the Canadian Standards Association’s model

code for protection of personal information.

In conclusion, it’s fitting to conclude this

section

by quoting directly from the Privacy Commissioner’s letter to the minister on

Bill 20 so that it is clearly on the record what it is that we are voting

on.

“The amendment to

section 51(2), however, extends

beyond the objective of increasing voter turnout. This is because it authorizes

the release of voter participation information to political parties after an

election or by-election.

“Unlike the disclosures discussed in the previous

paragraph which codify an existing practice and are directly tied to getting out

the vote on voting day, the purpose of this disclosure is for political parties

to receive personal information in a comprehensive and accessible format after

voting day in order to perform analytics and other uses.

“This disclosure was not recommended by the Chief

Electoral Officer, and the purpose of this disclosure is not directly tied to

getting out the vote. It is also not a disclosure allowed by most provinces in

Canada.”

These aren’t my words. These are the words of the

Privacy Commissioner. These are words that should have

[ Page 8743 ]

been adhered to. Yet

“Trust us. It’ll work out” is the answer that we get.

The original reason the Legislature authorized

Elections B.C. to compile a list of voters was for the purpose of administering

elections. I’m deeply concerned that the proposed amendments allow for other

uses and expand the already broad ability of political parties to collect

information about voter participation.

It would also certainly exceed what British Columbians

anticipate when they provide their names to Elections B.C., given that I do not

believe there has been any public consultation on this expanded use of the

voters list. If this act were to proceed, Elections B.C. would be disclosing

personal information that is likely to be linked with other information in

political party databases and elsewhere.

This linking and the associated analytics can be used

for creating voter profiles, targeting voters, fundraising, sharing data across

systems for secondary purposes, collecting non-consensual information,

inappropriate communication from parties and other intrusive uses. This became

absolutely apparent during committee stage as members in the opposition probed

the minister on various sections in the proposed bill.

I’m not persuaded that any of these uses are

consistent with the foundational purpose for which the compilation of the list

was originally permitted. Given the above, I urge government to withdraw the

proposed amendment to

section 51. Personal information compiled for efficiently

administering elections should not, from a privacy point of view, be provided to

political parties for their broader use. People are not data points, and they

should not be treated as such.

I urge members on all sides of this House to recognize

that this bill was brought in prematurely and that additional time — six months

in particular — is required and necessary to actually go to British Columbians,

the voters of our province, and ask them what they think, whether they support

this and what they believe the role of the voters should be in terms of

enhancing, or not, voter turnout.

Hon. Chair, with that, I thank you for your attention,

and I certainly hope the hoist motion is supported.

V. Huntington: I rise to

support the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head’s motion to delay third reading of

this bill for six months.

We received the amendment to this bill that attempted

to resolve one of my very deep concerns. That was the lack of a level playing

field for all candidates in an election. The minister, I think, expected the

motion to be successful. However, it did not resolve that problem, and it did

contain the provision that the Chief Electoral Officer be required to provide a

list of individuals who voted during the election, a requirement which I have

consistently felt is a direct invasion of British Columbians’ privacy.

We examined the proposed amendment from the minister

and felt that it was lacking. I did go and speak with the minister and was

grateful that she was receptive to my concerns.

[1415]

Nevertheless, my staff and I drafted subamendments to

the proposed government amendment and delivered those subamendments to the

minister’s office about six o’clock on a Wednesday evening. At seven o’clock we

received the revised amendment, the one that was ultimately tabled by the

minister in this House and which did, to my satisfaction, address at least the

issue of a level playing field for all candidates.

My point in laying out this timeline is that there are

a lot of problems with this bill as it was initially presented. The Information

and Privacy Commissioner, IntegrityBC, the members for Vancouver-Langara and Oak

Bay–Gordon Head, myself, the official opposition, constituents of mine and

others all outlined our concerns with Bill 20. At the 11th hour, before

committee stage, we still had the government proposing amendments and then

amending its own amendments.

I appreciate that the minister and her staff responded

to my concerns about levelling the playing field. I am very grateful. But that

does not excuse a lack of adequate time devoted to considering this bill.

The member for Saanich North and the Islands said

earlier in the debate that this was a sign of government doing legislation on

the fly, and I completely agree. The bill as a whole is rushed. The change

allowing political parties to access a list of voters was subject to

consultation only with six or so political party operatives. The public never

had a chance to comment.

The bill has been dissected to a certain extent by the

media in recent weeks, and British Columbians have had a modest opportunity to

inform themselves about the contents of the bill. But they haven’t been

consulted on it, and many of those who did find out about the changes aren’t

happy with them.

Here are some comments from an individual who was

watching Hansard as I spoke at second reading. This individual is not a

constituent of mine, just a concerned British Columbian. “I caught your speech

about the identification of who does or does not vote. I totally agree with you.

It’s just voting info today, the names tomorrow and how we vote after that —

small increments so that the stupid public doesn’t notice.”

Is that the way we want the public to believe an

amendment to our Election Act goes forward? They don’t trust it. They don’t want

the amendment. They want us to stop it. And I agree wholeheartedly that this act

deserves more attention and more study by this House and by the public.

I am confident that the more the public learns about

this bill, the less they will like it. The motion to delay third reading of Bill

20 by six months would allow the government to go out and consult, to find out

what people really think about these changes and to stand down or modify its

legislation accordingly.

[ Page

8744 ]

They could take a meaningful look at the opposition’s

proposals to preregister young voters. They could take a second look at spending

totals in the pre-campaign period. And they could do a proper analysis of the

components in this bill that threaten both voters’ and non-voters’ privacy

alike.

There is also the issue of the latest government

amendments, which we as legislators and, certainly, the public have had even

less time to observe. Did the privacy amendments address the Information and

Privacy Commissioner’s concerns? Has her office had an adequate amount of time

to analyze the government’s newly proposed amendments?

Let’s look at what the Information and Privacy

Commissioner had to say when presented with the government’s amendments to its

own bill on May 14.

“I acknowledge the efforts of the Minister of

Justice to make amendments to Bill 20 to address the privacy concerns of

citizens and those of my office. I also wish to acknowledge members of the

Legislative Assembly for their contributions to the debate and their commitment

to the protection of privacy rights with respect to voter information.”

The Information and Privacy Commissioner acknowledges

the efforts of the Justice Minister. She didn’t say that she approved of the new

changes or that she’d had time to analyze them in detail.

Earlier in her statement, she outlined what the new

changes were, not that she agreed with them. The commissioner went on to say

that she would “pursue discussions with the Chief Electoral Officer to offer her

perspective as to how new regulations can protect the personal information of

B.C. voters should this bill pass.” I’m glad that the commissioner has

volunteered her expertise, because we need it.

What we see here is another example of the government

leaving important legislative changes to regulation. What will the proposed new

privacy plans look like, the ones that government will require before anyone can

access this new information?

[1420]

Not a single person in this House knows what that will

look like. We don’t know. It’s yet another reason why the House should support

the motion to delay third reading of this bill.

Six months would give the Information and Privacy

Commissioner and the Chief Electoral Officer a chance to sit down and work out

what these new rules might look like. It would let them identify any outstanding

privacy concerns and any procedural concerns. Maybe what they find in their

study will warrant withdrawing the legislation as it stands.

With a six-month break, we could come back in the fall

to debate a new and better bill. Any additional protections or changes suggested

by our independent officers could be incorporated into the text of the

legislation instead of rushing through an incomplete and problematic law.

This bill was introduced without public consultation.

It has been opposed by the public and many members of this House, the

Information and Privacy Commissioner and by IntegrityBC. Important details will

be left to regulation.

Let this House take another six months to examine the

proposed legislation and come back with a bill that truly amends the concerns

expressed by the Information and Privacy Commissioner, the public and the Chief

Electoral Officer. I wholeheartedly support the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head’s

motion to delay third reading of this bill for six months.

G. Holman: I want to

express our support, the support of the official opposition, for the hoist

motion. I couldn’t agree more with many of the points made by my colleagues from

Delta South and Oak Bay–Gordon Head. Also, I do want to mention the MLA for

Vancouver-Langara, a member of government who actually stood with us, voting

against

section 6 because of very deep concerns that she had about the privacy

implications of this legislation.

I don’t want to take too long, but I just wanted to

summarize quickly the approach of the official opposition to this legislation. I

do want to say I very much appreciate working with the independents and with my

colleagues in opposition on this legislation. It’s not that we agreed entirely

on every aspect of the bill, but fundamentally, we are on the same page: that

this legislation is taking us in exactly the wrong direction that we need to go

in British Columbia.

Our approach to this act, which is so fundamental to

the workings of our democracy in British Columbia, has been to try and introduce

amendments, subamendments, working with my colleagues in opposition to try and

improve the legislation — albeit on the fly, but doing our best to try and make

amendments that would at least address some of the concerns around privacy and

other issues.

That’s been our approach. We have tried with respect

to this piece of legislation to be as constructive as we can and, despite some

minor disagreements around specific aspects of the bill, to work as

constructively as we could with our opposition colleagues.

There are two reasons why we can’t support this bill

and feel so strongly that it needs to be hoisted, that it needs to be put out

for public consultation and also consultation with the independent offices of

the Legislature — for two reasons.

One reason is for what’s not in the bill in the first

place. What’s not in the bill and what we find surprising is that two of the top

three recommendations made by the Chief Electoral Officer of British Columbia,

who reviews elections legislation after every provincial election in B.C., were

completely ignored by government — namely, the youth voter registration and also

the pilot testing of new technologies in voting. Both of those recommendations

ignored.

Early voter registration. On this side of the House….

And I do appreciate, again, the member for Oak Bay–

[ Page 8744 ]

Gordon Head summarizing some of the

private member’s legislation that we brought forward in the House.

[1425]

We are trying to turn this ship. We do feel there are

a number of very important legislative amendments that need to be made to

strengthen the effectiveness and the accountability of this place and also to

make elections fair. I very much appreciate my colleague’s

summary of some of

that legislation that we presented in the House. One of them, of course, was a

private member’s bill brought forward by a colleague in the opposition around

early voter registration for students. The Chief Electoral Officer indicated,

recommended, this approach, which has actually been implemented in a number of

Canadian provinces, in a number of jurisdictions in North America and

elsewhere.

The reason the CEO recommended it is because research

indicates that it does work. It does increase voter turnout among young people.

That’s why we presented a private member’s bill to initiate this process — of

course, completely ignored by government in Bill 20.

As pointed out, we’ve proposed another private

member’s bill to make elections fair, including the banning of political

donations from unions and corporations to try and take big money out of

elections and address concerns that the public have that large organizations and

the funding they have available to them have undue influence in the electoral

process. That is why we presented that legislation as private member’s

legislation. This bill takes us in the exact opposite direction — 180 degrees

opposite.

Of course, we are proposing to put electoral reform to

voters again to ensure that no votes are wasted, that voter preferences are

reflected in this place, to ensure that the Green Party gets its fair share of

MLA representation in the House — we feel very strongly about that — and to

encourage a more collaborative dynamic in the House. These are all of the

initiatives we’ve proposed to try and make elections fair, to try and make this

place more accountable. Bill 20 takes us in exactly the opposite direction.

In good faith, and working with the independents in

the House, we proposed a number of amendments and subamendments to the

legislation. For example, we tried to strengthen the privacy provisions applying

to voter turnout information. The legislation does not address the deep concerns

expressed by the Privacy Commissioner — who, in fact, was only consulted after

the fact, as pointed out by the member for Delta South.

This again points to the fundamental problem with the

approach to this legislation, which is that it is being done willy-nilly. It’s

being done, we fear, for partisan gain, quite frankly. It’s being done without

appropriate public consultation and without appropriate consultation with

independent offices of the Legislature.

We proposed amendments, particularly to

section 6, to

try and strengthen the privacy provisions. As read out by the member for Oak

Bay–Gordon Head, the Privacy Commissioner basically did not support

section 6.

If we were to go ahead, if government was determined to go ahead, she

recommended that the uses of that voter turnout information be restricted quite

significantly. We proposed amendments to

section 6 that would have done exactly

that. The amendment was supported by my independent colleagues but voted down by

government.

For example, this bill would allow any individual who

requests voter turnout information, as long as they provide a so-called privacy

policy to the Chief Electoral Officer…. It also provides voter turnout

information to candidates in previous elections, even if they’re not running in

the current election. This seems absurd and bizarre to us, and again reflects

the ill-considered nature of this legislation.

The most serious problem that the official opposition

has with Bill 20 is the elimination of spending caps in the 60-day pre-election

period. This would allow political candidates and political parties to have

unlimited spending available to them running up to the dropping of the writ.

[1430]

This moves us closer to a U.S. style of politics,

where it takes millions of dollars for candidates to run at the state and higher

levels to even be competitive in elections. Rather than constrain the undue

influence of big money, this will actually exacerbate it. It will make it

worse.

To the minister’s credit, I would say that she has

tried to respond, at least to some degree, to the privacy concerns and has

introduced amendments in this House — albeit on the fly, albeit with very

little, if any, notice to this side of the House or to the Privacy Commissioner.

But I do give the minister credit for at least making some amendments. There

haven’t been many pieces of legislation in this House in this session that have

been put forward by government in response to opposition concerns. This is an

exception.

It didn’t go far enough. We still can’t support the

section 6 amendments brought forward by the minister, but I do give her credit

for at least trying that.

In

summary, Bill 20 does not address public concerns

about undue influence of big money or about the integrity of the political

process. It does not address two of three of the Chief Electoral Officer’s

primary recommendations, his top priorities. It does not address two of three of

those. It does not address the concerns of the Privacy Commissioner, who wasn’t

even consulted before this legislation was presented, despite obvious, very deep

concerns by the public and ultimately herself, when she reviewed the

legislation, about this issue.

Again, as indicated by my colleagues in opposition, we

find it unbelievable that legislation of this importance, that’s so fundamental,

is being brought forward, being amended on the fly, without consulting

adequately, never mind the public, even with the independent offices of this

Legislature. That’s their job. That’s why they’re there. This legislation could

have been so much stronger, might even

[ Page 8746 ]

be, ultimately, supportable by this side of

the House but for a lack of that.

Rather than address concerns about big money in

elections, the elimination of pre-election spending caps actually makes it

worse, drives us to a U.S. style of politics, and it’s simply not

supportable.

In conclusion, this legislation has been

ill-considered. It takes us in the opposite direction that we need to go. The

public was not consulted. I doubt that any member of this House has received

correspondence from the public supporting Bill 20 and, certainly, supporting the

privacy concerns raised by Bill 20, the provision of voter turnout lists.

I certainly have been getting e-mails. I know my

colleagues have. I suspect that members of government have also been receiving

those e-mails. There’s no public support for this legislation, and there was

absolutely no consultation with the independent offices. The Chief Electoral

Officer was essentially ignored in his recommendations. The Privacy Commissioner

— ignored and only given the legislation after the fact.

For all of these reasons, the official opposition will

be supporting the motion made by the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

Hon. S. Anton: Just a

couple of short remarks, because I think that everything that has been said was

said several times during the committee debate.

The general purpose or the overall purpose of the

changes to the act is to increase voter turnout and to give the public

confidence in the election process. So we have increased the advance voting

days. Those two advance voting days…. We’re proposing with the bill to increase

the advance voting days to the Saturday and Sunday prior to the previous advance

voting days. These advance voting days are very popular with the public. We are

confident that they will encourage people to vote.

So it’s increasing voter engagement and formalizing

the process that is already in place, by which scrutineers and candidates can

get information about who has voted, by allowing the Chief Electoral Officer the

ability to give that information to candidates, to political parties.

[1435]

At the same time, listening to the concerns raised

here and elsewhere, there are obviously significant privacy concerns,

significant concerns about how that information may be used. Therefore, we have

tightened up

section 275 of the act to allow for those concerns to be

addressed.

I am, of course — as I’m sure everyone in the House is

— very confident in the Chief Electoral Officer and his ability to make sure

that there are privacy policies in place and make sure that the information is

treated with the respect which it deserves.

We are dropping the 60-day pre-writ period, which was

really of no great value any longer, given that the courts have determined that

it was not appropriate — twice when we tried to limit the ability of third

parties in the pre-writ period. Given that we have tried twice to do that and

have not succeeded, we are proposing that everybody have equal access to

spending in the pre-writ period, just like people can in the rest of the

country. We are like the rest of the country in this.

We are proposing some other changes which are perhaps

less controversial and less minor, but as I said, we have listened to the second

reading debate. We made changes in response to that debate. And at the same

time, overall, our goal is, as I think everyone’s goal is, to increase voter

turnout to make sure that voters do vote, to increase the fairness of the

process, to increase the public confidence in the process so that we do, in

British Columbia, have an excellent voting process through our Election Act and

through the office of the Chief Electoral Officer.

With that, Chair, I am proposing that the motion be

defeated and that we move to third reading.

Deputy Speaker: Hon.

Members, the amendment to the motion is, and I will read: “I move that the

motion for third reading on Bill 20, the Election Amendment Act, be amended by

deleting the word ‘now’ and substituting the words ‘6 months hence.’”

[1440-1445]

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 35

Hammell

Simpson

Robinson

Horgan

James

Dix

Ralston

Corrigan

Fleming

Popham

Kwan

Conroy

Austin

Chandra Herbert

Huntington

Macdonald

Karagianis

Eby

Mungall

Bains

Elmore

Shin

Heyman

Darcy

Donaldson

Krog

Trevena

D. Routley

Simons

Fraser

Weaver

Chouhan

Rice

Holman

B. Routley

NAYS — 41

Horne

Sturdy

Bing

Yamamoto

Michelle Stilwell

Stone

Fassbender

Oakes

Thomson

Virk

Rustad

Wilkinson

Pimm

Sultan

Hamilton

Reimer

Ashton

Morris

Hunt

Sullivan

Cadieux

Lake

Polak

de Jong

Coleman

Anton

Bond

Bennett

Letnick

Barnett

[ Page 8747 ]

Yap

Thornthwaite

McRae

Plecas

Kyllo

Throness

Larson

Foster

Dalton

Martin

Gibson

Bill 20, Election Amendment Act, 2015, read a third time and

passed on the following division:

YEAS — 41

Horne

Sturdy

Bing

Yamamoto

Michelle Stilwell

Stone

Fassbender

Oakes

Thomson

Virk

Rustad

Wilkinson

Pimm

Sultan

Hamilton

Reimer

Ashton

Morris

Hunt

Sullivan

Cadieux

Lake

Polak

de Jong

Coleman

Anton

Bond

Bennett

Letnick

Barnett

Yap

Thornthwaite

McRae

Plecas

Kyllo

Throness

Larson

Foster

Dalton

Martin

Gibson

NAYS — 35

Hammell

Simpson

Robinson

Horgan

James

Dix

Ralston

Corrigan

Fleming

Popham

Kwan

Conroy

Austin

Chandra Herbert

Huntington

Macdonald

Karagianis

Eby

Mungall

Bains

Elmore

Shin

Heyman

Darcy

Donaldson

Krog

Trevena

D. Routley

Simons

Fraser

Weaver

Chouhan

Rice

Holman

B. Routley

Hon. T. Stone: I now call

Bill 25, intituled the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes

Amendment Act, 2015.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 25 — FORESTS, LANDS AND

NATURAL RESOURCE

OPERATIONS

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 25;

R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:50 p.m.

section 1.

The Chair: Minister, do

you want to make introductions before we start?

Hon. S. Thomson: Thank

you, Chair. I’ll just take the opportunity to introduce the staff that are here

with me: Adria Fradley, who’s our manager of legislation and regulatory reform;

and Shawn Hedges, who’s our senior manager with B.C. Timber Sales.

H. Bains: Thanks to the

minister. I think there will be a number of questions as we proceed through this

act. The first question to the minister would be if he could outline the main

theme behind this bill. What is the purpose of this bill? Why are we making the

changes, and who asked for them?

Hon. S. Thomson: The main

purpose of the amendments to the legislation…. The member opposite will know

that there are a number of aspects to the legislation. There’s the Forest Act

pieces, the Land Act, Land Title Amendment Act.

With respect to the forestry changes, which I think is

where the initial part of the discussion and questions are going in the first

part of it, these are to…. Primarily, the changes result from the effectiveness

review of B.C. Timber Sales, which was asked for by industry. It was a process

that we went through, a two-phase review of the effectiveness of operations at

B.C. Timber Sales.

The changes are to help increase the competitiveness

of the sector, support the accurate pricing, improve the marketability of

lower-quality beetle-kill timber. The changes will generate revenue for B.C.

Timber Sales by allowing them to recover unamortized value of Crown assets and

provide forest management services to licensees and to government organizations,

and support sustainable forest management and market access through B.C. Timber

Sales certification programs.

All of these changes that are essentially captured in

the amendments have come through as a result of the effectiveness review and

requests from industry to ensure that we can continue to have B.C. Timber Sales

be an effective operation, contributing to the market pricing system in an

effective way to preserve the key goal of B.C. Timber Sales.

H. Bains: Thank you to the

minister. I would also like to welcome the staff, and I neglected in my first

introduction here. So thank you very much.

I think the question, then, as the minister said it

was the industry that asked for this, was there any consultation? There are a

number of stakeholders out there. These forests belong to the people of British

Columbia, and those are the people who expect a return on their assets. Those

are the people who will be expecting the govern-

[ Page 8748 ]

ment to show some leadership so that we make

these forests, which are one of the key economic drivers for the last 150 years

in this province….

What is there for the benefit of the public? Which

stakeholders were consulted? Was the public at large consulted? Were the workers

who get affected by these changes consulted? And who in the industry was

consulted that said that these changes are needed?

[1455]

Hon. S. Thomson: Through

the effectiveness review — as I said, most of the recommendations result from

that review — there was an extensive consultation, a broad consultation with

industry, with key stakeholders, with groups like the professional foresters,

Community Forest Association, woodlot associations, First Nations Forestry

Council. There was a broad process of consultation input. From that process

developed the recommendations.

Once the recommendations were received, then there was

further consultation as we looked at the response to those recommendations with

the majority of those organizations and with additional organizations that may

not have had as much consultation in the initial part of it as needed —

community forests, for example, the professional foresters association, woodlot

associations and First Nations — in the process. So extensive consultation in

generating the recommendations and our response to them.

H. Bains: I did not hear,

among the list of those who were consulted, the workers — the unionized

workforce and the non-union workforce. Was there any process where they were

officially or formally consulted, and what was their reaction? That would be one

question.

The second question is: the process of consultation —

how did that take place? How did that unfold? Was that in some of the boardroom

meetings? Who attended those meetings? Can the minister elaborate how this

consultative process was managed, where it took place and who all was

involved?

Hon. S. Thomson: The

consultation process through the review, as I said, was extensive. It occurred

in a number of different ways, and that was through direct meetings and

engagement, through telephone consultation, I understand, at times, depending on

the ability of the organizations to meet with elected representatives of the

associations.

I can recall through the process that in many cases

organizations and groups who knew that the process was underway contacted our

office to ask for the opportunity to provide input into the process. Those

requests were provided to Mr. Allan, who was leading the process, and he

followed up on all of those requests for opportunity to provide input.

H. Bains: Perhaps the

minister could specifically answer some of the questions that I asked. Who on

the workers’ side, which unions representing these workers, were consulted?

[1500]

Hon. S. Thomson: I don’t

have the specific detailed list with me of all the organizations, all the

groups, all the individuals that would have had input into the process. As I

said, everybody who asked for an opportunity to provide input…. That was

conveyed to Mr. Allan, who is carrying out the review, and I know that he made

every effort to contact every organization who asked for input.

In terms of specifics, I would have to be able to get

that list and look all the way down through that list to see whether or not,

with respect to those organizations, and at what level they had input into the

process.

H. Bains: But I think that

if there was a consultative process to arrive at this bill, there’s got to be

some prescribed process which would include contacting the stakeholders. I mean,

did that take place? Were all stakeholders contacted that there was a process —

that if they had anything to say about this process, about the changes that are

being looked at, they asked for their input?

Is there any list? Was there anyone the minister could

name from the industry side or from the workers’ side who was contacted? How

were they contacted? The minister in his opening said that the industry was

consulted and that the industry asked for these changes. So perhaps the minister

could say who on behalf of the industry asked for these changes and what the

input from the workers’ side was.

There is the industry, there are the workers, and

there’s the community. These are the key stakeholders, and within those

communities there are a number of different subgroups. But I think those are key

— the workers who depend on their paycheques and the communities that depend on

the forestry in their community as far as economic activities are concerned.

Then the industry that depends on their investment, to get a return on the

investment that they have on behalf of…. What was the real process, and then who

was actually contacted? If the minister could give us some names from the

industry, from the workers’ side and from the community side.

Hon. S. Thomson: The

review process and the fact that the review of BCTS was being undertaken was

well known. It was part of the mandate provisions that were provided to me as

minister.

It was undertaken for a number of reasons and a number

of circumstances that B.C. Timber Sales was encountering. One was to clarify the

role of B.C. Timber Sales, to ensure that the mandate and the role that was

established for it were confirmed and maintained — that was the outcome of the

first phase of the review — and then to look

[ Page 8749 ]

at operational effectiveness aspects of B.C.

Timber Sales — customer confidence in it, reliability of the market pricing

system, maintaining compliance with the legal and trade obligations, as the

member opposite well understands, and to increase direct and indirect revenue

from the sector.

[1505]

There was an extensive consultation process. All in

the industry knew that it was underway. As I said, anybody who wanted to provide

input and contact in the review process had the opportunity to do so. Our timber

supply advisory committee was consulted extensively. Our TSL holders — over

1,100 TSL holders in the program — were consulted. Many of those took the

opportunity to provide input. Organizations like the Truck Loggers Association,

Interior Lumber Manufacturers — all organizations that represent contractors and

workers in the industry — had provided input.

Again, an extensive consultation process in which all

parties in the industry knew the review process was underway and had the

opportunity to provide input.

H. Bains: Was Coastal

Forest Products Association consulted? Was COFI consulted? Were those the two

organizations that asked for these changes?

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes,

those two organizations — along with, as I’ve said, many, many others — provided

input into the process. The rationale and the basis for the review being

undertaken were broadly supported and broadly requested by the industry, by

participants, by registrants in the program across the sector.

Everybody understood the important role that B.C.

Timber Sales plays in the industry, the significant volume that they have within

the BCTS mandate, the important role that it plays in our market pricing system,

the important role it plays in our trade and legal obligations. In an extensive

process, those two — along with many, many other organizations — provided input

into the process.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

H. Bains: Was United

Steelworkers consulted?

Hon. S. Thomson: As I said

earlier, I don’t have the complete list, an extensive list, of organizations and

individuals that provided input. I advise that I would need to provide that

information subsequently to the member opposite.

H. Bains: I think the

minister would be surprised to hear this. The United Steelworkers Local 1937,

the local that largely represents all of the coastal forestry workers in logging

and in manufacturing…. The first time they heard about this was when myself and

the member from Cowichan approached them. They didn’t even know that these

changes were contemplated.

I guess the minister…. I just want to put it on record

that you may have consulted — and the minister confirmed that they consulted —

COFI. They consulted the coastal forest employers association and, perhaps, many

other employers associations and the business side of it. But the government did

not feel any obligation to the workers or their representatives to consult on

some of the changes that are being recommended here that will affect their

jobs.

Can the minister explain why they were neglected and

why they were left out of the consultative process when you’re talking about a

piece of legislation that will affect them, their communities and their

jobs?

[1510]

Hon. S. Thomson: First of

all, I have indicated that we’ll undertake to provide the list of everybody who

inputted into the review process. I would be surprised that during that process

all in the industry were not aware — all in the industry knew — that the review

of B.C. Timber Sales operations was underway. It had extensive communication and

information that the process, including the fact that it was in the

mandate….

I know we will go through the changes. These changes

are primarily technical in nature and implement recommendations coming from the

review and, first of all, confirm and strengthen the role of B.C. Timber Sales

operations in meeting its mandate, which is of benefit to all of the

industry.

H. Bains: Perhaps the

minister could tell us now if anyone from the First Nations community was

consulted on this, and who.

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to

confirm, as I indicated earlier in my comments, the First Nations Forestry

Council was consulted in the elements of the legislation. In terms of the

specific input into the review process that led up to the recommendations —

again, an extensive consultation process. As I said, we’ll undertake to provide

everybody who provided input into that process. It occurred in many ways, as I

said, through meetings, through outreach by Mr. Allan to interested parties.

Anybody who wanted to provide some comments or some input on how they thought

BCTS was operating had the opportunity to do so through his work.

H. Bains: I don’t think

Mr. Allan should be brought into this discussion. Of course, he conducted the

review of BCTS. Of course, he went through a process that he had to go through.

That report will never be available.

I think the question here is this. When we put this

piece of legislation together, it’s the government who did this. It’s the

ministry who did this. It’s their responsibility, considering the Tsilhqot’in

decision; considering that there are workers who will be affected; considering

that there’s

[ Page 8750 ]

a community who will be affected by these changes; considering that

there is a number of community forests — and those communities, as a result —

that will be affected.

If I could summarize this from the answers that the

minister has given us, very little consultation, if any, took place outside of

the industry. I clearly understood from the beginning that the minister went

directly to the industry. It was the industry who asked for this, but there are

a number of other players.

[1515]

People who actually own these forests are left out of

the consultation process. The communities that are dependent on forestry — there

are so many of them in B.C. — are left out and the First Nations.

Again, the consultation that Mr. John Allan may have

taken place…. Well, where was the government? Did the ministry or the minister’s

office consult the First Nations that would be affected by these changes? I

could assume that very little consultation took place outside of the

industry.

I think I’m going to leave it at that, because I think

this whole process to arrive at this Bill 25 is flawed. I think it’s not the

right approach, considering all those court decisions that we have. I think, at

the same time, the workers who depend…. Their livelihoods and their paycheques

are dependent on the forestry industry. Those are the people who care about the

forests that they work within and they live around. I think those are the people

who will be affected by many changes that we will talk about specifically, as

different changes are being proposed here.

Had you consulted the workers and those communities,

you may not have had some of the provisions that are in there. I will leave it

at that.

We’ll go, as the Chair asked, to

section 1. Perhaps

the minister specifically could explain. This is a

section that “is amended by

repealing the definition of ‘allowable annual cut available,’” and there are

some different meanings given to it.

Can the minister explain what it was before, what the

intent would be and what the outcome of the changes that are being proposed is

compared to what was already in the act?

Hon. S. Thomson: This

section repeals but reinstates, essentially, the definition for the annual

allowable cut available but adds in the First Nations woodland licences and

community forest agreements where there may be in the future, based on a future

section here, by agreement and by cooperation, a volume reservation on a

community forest or a First Nations woodland licence.

What it means is that the annual allowable cut as

defined for that First Nation woodland licence or that community forest would be

less the volume reservations that have been agreed to in that process. It simply

brings those two type of licences into the definition of annual allowable cut

available.

H. Bains: If I understand

this, then, allowable annual cut applied to tree farm licences, forest licences

of different kinds, now is expanded to community forests and to the First

Nations and the woodlots. Is that the whole purpose behind this?

[1520]

Hon. S. Thomson: It’s

important to point out that under this change there are no changes to how the

annual allowable cut available is defined for TFLs under…. As the member

opposite will know, they can include reservations for timber sales, for pulpwood

agreements, for woodlot licences, for free use permits. Then the holder of the

TFL does not have access to the AAC associated with those reservations.

This simply moves those volume reservations to an

area-based licence, a community forest agreement or a First Nation woodland

licence to provide those same provisions of having those reservations recognized

in the allowable annual cut for those specific licences. It’s consequential to

changes that are being made in further provisions of this bill that provide for

those opportunities for those volume reservation arrangements to be made between

the community forest holders and First Nation woodland licences with B.C. Timber

Sales.

H. Bains: Again, I’m just

trying to understand this. AAC, for short, has been around for a number of

years, for decades. But now to change the definition, is it covering the area

that would be talked about later on under the reservation? Is that what we are

trying to do — to bring them under AAC? Or what is the purpose, then?

Hon. S. Thomson: This is

not the definition of AAC. This is the definition of, for these purposes,

“allowable annual cut available” for those forms of area-based licences,

including TFLs, community forest agreements and First Nations woodland licences.

It is set for the entire area of the licence.

The available amount to the holder of the community

forest agreement First Nation woodland licence would be calculated by

subtracting from that amount set for licences the allowable annual cut available

of BCTS reservations and any other reductions that the chief forester under

section 70 of the act might make on those area-based licences. It simply

extends…. It’s consequential to changes that are coming forward further on in

this proposed legislation.

H. Bains: I’m looking at

the old act and the definition and what’s being proposed here. The old act

talked about how “‘allowable annual cut available’ means the portion of the

allowable annual cut in respect of a tree farm….” That’s the wording being

changed to “in relation to a tree farm” — so “in respect of” versus “in relation

to.” Is it, again, as we go forward in this bill…? The tree farm licence

holder,

[ Page 8751 ]

for

example, will be allowed to sell back to government or through BCTS the unused

portion of their AAC.

Is the intent here to adjust that AAC, because the

unused portion now is bought back by the government to adjust back, reflecting

what they actually would be harvesting? Is that what we’re talking about

here?

[1525]

Hon. S. Thomson: I’ll see

if I can explain this. First of all, this definition provides no changes as to

how it is defined for TFLs. Currently under TFLs there are the existing

provisions for a B.C. Timber Sales reservation in a TFL. This simply takes those

same provisions consequentially, as a result of proposals in the legislation to

apply those same provisions to a community forest agreement and a First Nations

woodland licence.

H. Bains: Maybe we’ll go

clause by clause here, then. I thought there would be an answer that would fit

this entire section.

Perhaps the minister could talk about (a)(i) —

1(a)(i). It talks about “a reservation referred to in

section 35 (1) (

h) or

(n).” Can the minister explain? What does that mean?

Hon. S. Thomson: This

section, 1(a), when the reservation referred to in

section 35, those sections….

I can just refer to the act. That provides the reservations: “…having regard to

reservations made by the minister for (

i) B.C. timber sales enterprises, (ii)

pulpwood agreements, or (iii) woodlot licences….” And (

n) refers to: “reserve to

the government the right to enter into a free use permit on the tree farm

licence area with a person other than the holder of the tree farm licence….”

H. Bains: Is there a

definition of “reservation”?

Hon. S. Thomson: This is

provided for in

section 35. This is the content of the tree farm licence, and

this can require that the timber on a tree farm licence be “an amount directed

by the minister, having regard to reservations made by the minister for,” as

we’ve listed, Timber Sales enterprises, pulpwood agreements, woodlot licences or

reservations for free use permits. The definition simply means that when you

have those reservations, the annual allowable cut available is less those

reservations.

[1530]

H. Bains: Does that

reservation mean some volume, or is that a percentage of the overall?

Hon. S. Thomson: This

reservation, I believe, has been around for a long time. My understanding is

that it goes back to 1988 or 1989 with some of the takeback provisions. With

respect to B.C. Timber Sales, it’s been a volume reservation.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

H. Bains: It again, I

think, is used as consequential to the amendments made, but can the minister

explain what is being changed when you change the words “a lump sum dollar

value” and substitute “an amount of money”? What’s the difference?

Hon. S. Thomson: This

section is a technical change. It relates to future provisions again. This

clarifies the ability to pay bonus offers by instalments and provides

opportunity for smaller businesses, which comprise a very high percentage of

B.C. Timber Sales clients, to compete on cruise-based timber sale licences. It

simply clarifies that the payment can be by installments rather than a lump

sum.

Sections 2 to 5 inclusive approved.

section 6.

H. Bains: Under

section 6,

section 22 is amended. The explanation that was given to us during our briefing

session with the ministry…. It was explained that, through these changes, it

will allow better enforcement of the environmental and compliance. Can the

minister explain: what was not working that you were forced to make these

changes to make the environmental enforcement and compliance better?

[1535]

Hon. S. Thomson: It’s

particularly in

section (e)(iii): “specifying the manner in which the holder of

the licence must conduct operations….”

This was a provision that was suggested and flagged

during the review by legal counsel as providing greater clarification and

greater authority in terms of specifying the standards in the program that was

in place. It’s not a reflection of the fact that things weren’t working or

needed. When the review process went through in terms of the operational

effectiveness, it was one of the ones that was flagged as: “When you get the

opportunity to strengthen the provision, you should do it.” It doesn’t reflect

the fact that there were significant problems in implementing the environmental

or sustainability systems in BCTS, just legal advice that says strengthen your

ability.

H. Bains: If you look at

what’s happening there, the primary certification body used by B.C. Timber Sales

is the sustainable forestry initiative, SFI, which certifies — my understanding

is — about 80 percent of BCTS volume. There are also some reports by

ForestEthics which accuse SFI of “greenwashing.” Is that the concern that the

minister has?

We do have a couple of others which are used for

cer-

[ Page 8752 ]

tification. The Canadian Standards Association certified about 19

percent, and the Forest Stewardship Council certified about 1 percent. Was there

some issue with those certification bodies — that through these changes you

could actually monitor and do a better job than what those agencies were

doing?

Especially considering when you look at ForestEthics

saying to the agency that certifies about 80 percent of BCTS volume…. They call

it greenwashing. Was that the concern, or was there something else?

Hon. S. Thomson: No. As I

pointed out, this was an internal review of the legislation and advice from

legal counsel to strengthen the provisions. It was not at all in terms of a

response to a report or assertions around certification bodies. It was simply a

strengthening of the provisions of the legislation.

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

H. Bains:

Section 7,

22.1(1) talks about: “The holder of a timber sale licence for which a bonus

offer was tendered is not required to pay the bonus offer if the licence is

surrendered or expires before any Crown timber is harvested under the timber

sale licence.”

My understanding is that…. Under the current system

there was a bonus offer. Based on the bonus offer and other requirements, the

licence is awarded to the successful bidder. Now my understanding is that they

don’t have to put a bonus offer. As a result of that….

[1540]

My concern there would be that if there is no bonus

offer, then anybody could abuse the system — put an offer, be successful and

then feel that they don’t have to harvest that timber and walk away from it. And

there’s no penalty. How is that going to benefit the system here and benefit

British Columbians and our forest industry?

Hon. S. Thomson: This

section is to align or to make the provisions between a scale-based licence and

a cruise-based licence the same. What’s important to point out is that in both

respects the penalty remains: if there is not harvesting or if the licence is

surrendered, the full deposit is kept or required to be paid. So the incentive

is maintained for the harvesting to take place. It simply aligns the policies

that are applied to a scale-based licence to be the same as those applied to a

cruise-based licence.

H. Bains: Would it not

have made sense to bring both of them under the bonus bid rather than removing

it for both? Now there’s room for abuse. I mean, that’s what the big concern is.

Somebody could frivolously put a bid in and be successful, knowing that they

could walk away from it.

Rather, bring both scale-based and cruise-based under

the old system, which means that they would be required to put in a bonus bid,

and if they chose to walk away and chose not to harvest, they held on to this

timber.

Now, others who otherwise could have harvested it, who

weren’t successful because this one entity was able to put in a bid, thinking

that they would be harvesting it….

Don’t you think there’s the chance for abuse with

this? Now they could just walk away, and that timber will be just standing

there.

[1545]

Hon. S. Thomson: No. What

the provisions, the amendments here, do is equalize the risk associated with

both cruise-based and skill-based timber sale licences. This enhances the

competition for both. It potentially leads to higher bonus offers on average for

the cruise-based lump sum timber sale licences.

It’s also important to point out at the same time, as

well, that with changes to the B.C. Timber Sales regulations now — not done in

the legislation but in the regulations — if a person allows a timber sale

licence to expire or surrenders it, they pay a higher deposit in the future.

That’s the disincentive to undertaking the kind of speculation that the member

opposite is talking about. If you operate in that way, you pay future higher

deposits.

H. Bains: My question

still remains: what was the need to change this? I mean, you bring them both

together, both of them on the same level playing field. I understand that. But

why go to the lower standard than bringing them both to the standard that had

existed? That would keep those who would choose to bid and then had no intention

of harvesting…. I think that’s the real concern.

Before I sit down, hon. Chair, I’d like to get your

ruling — my co-critic is sitting with me — if it’s permissible to have him ask

questions from this chair, or does he have to go back to his own chair?

The Chair: With leave of

the committee, that would be possible, although Hansard would have to make a

quick change on the fly. If we could arrange for that, I will….

Leave granted.

[1550]

Hon. S. Thomson: The

rationale for this, as I pointed out, is to balance the risk; to treat both

symmetrically or equally; to maintain the marketability, particularly of the

more value skill-based, to make those more attractive; and to make sure that

both systems get the best potential for supporting, through the offers, our

market pricing system. That’s why the decision was made to balance and to

equalize the risk.

I have just been advised, too, by staff that I should

correct the record. I talked about the provisions for in-

[ Page 8753 ]

creasing the deposit

on surrender or allowing a TSL to expire without harvest. The surrender process

is a no-fault process. If you allow it to expire, that’s when the higher deposit

is applied to any future opportunities for that person who allows that TSL to

expire.

B. Routley: Yes, there is

clearly some confusion with this section. Going back, we’ve already talked about

an amendment to the bonus bid to allow it to be paid at different times or in

different manners. I gather that’s to allow people to pay over time. But the

trouble that we’re having with this

section 22.1 is….

Let me use this example. Down in the United States,

they don’t have all of the Crown timber, and they don’t manage it in the same

way that we do here. The U.S. Forest Service puts ribbons on an area of land. As

I understand it, we actually went down and talked to, at one point, some

Weyerhaeuser employees. We had Weyerhaeuser employees from Canada go down and

talk to Weyerhaeuser employees in the United States. We were talking about

tenure and the way that it works.

One of the differences in it — and as you may know,

this becomes an issue for the softwood lumber dispute — is that the American

model is to have people bid. They

section off an area, have a group of

contractors come in, and everything is done on this bid basis.

There is some history in the U.S. Forest Service where

the market changed dramatically. People would go in. They would bid so much a

cubic metre. Let’s just, for the sake of argument, say that they bid 80 bucks a

cubic metre for something. Suddenly, the market crashed, and now you can only

make money at $35. So they would forfeit their timber licence. But in any case

where there was some kind of bonus bid or anything like that, that would

potentially be forfeited.

We’re trying to struggle with and understand what it

is you’re trying to accomplish by having words that say: “…for which a bonus

offer was tendered is not required” — not required — “to pay the bonus offer if

the licence is surrendered or expires before any Crown timber is

harvested….”

Maybe you could describe the problem we’re trying to

solve. Is the problem that we’re trying solve the market conditions that I just

related? Is this about dramatically changing market conditions, where they bid

and suddenly there is no value in harvesting? In fact, if they go out and

harvest, they’re going lose money. Is this to avoid those kinds of

circumstances?

Maybe a better example yet is: could the minister tell

us how many times this problem has come forward in the past? You’re obviously

saying that you’re trying to deal with cruise versus scale. Has this been an

ongoing problem? How many times has the minister offered letters to allow people

to do what you’re now trying to deal with in legislation?

Maybe you can try to clear up some of the grey area of

what it is exactly you’re trying to resolve, because there is a difference

between trying to resolve market conditions….

[1555]

One of our concerns is: why would you have a system

where people go and bid? You can’t even go to the community auction and bid and

then say: “Well, you know, gee, I put in a bonus offer, but I don’t want to do

it anymore.” So you forfeit and don’t have to pay anything. That’s going to

defeat, in my mind, the whole purpose of a bid process if somehow you can walk

away from any challenges.

Maybe there are some other penalties, in another

section of the act, that you believe apply. I guess, back to the question, could

you kind of describe what problem it is we’re trying to resolve? How often was

this a problem in the past?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to

advise or to provide the rationale for the change that is being proposed here,

as I pointed out earlier, it is to balance the risk between the two systems, to

have a consistent process for both types of licences.

We’ve heard through the Timber Sales Advisory Council

that having the additional risk is a burden of risk that does impact the bid.

Therefore, that potentially flows through to the market pricing system. We, in

reviewing all of this, felt that it was best to balance the risk between the two

systems.

There still are, as we pointed out earlier,

significant disincentives to surrender or to let the licence expire. You lose

the deposits, which can be significant. If you allow them to expire without

harvest, as we pointed out, the deposit rates go up in the future for that

particular operator.

This was all about recommendations that came out of

the review process to strengthen or enhance the market pricing system by

balancing off the risks.

H. Bains: I think what

we’ve heard so far is that there hasn’t been any problem, and the cure that is

being suggested here would be worse than the problem, if that ever existed. The

minister hasn’t convinced anybody in this room that there was a problem. No

examples given — nothing.

[1600]

I want to say this. What this change will lead to is

that if the amendment would establish that if a timber licence is surrendered or

has expired before any Crown timber is harvested, the licence holder is not

required to pay the bonus offer.

When you put this side by side with

section 6 that we

just talked about, no lump sum money is asked to be paid up front. It could be

installments. Then you look at this — that no bonus offer is required. What it

could lead to are adverse selection problems. It means that it would give people

incentive to put in a high bonus offer in order to win an auction, with the

knowledge that they can aban-

[ Page

8754 ]

don the licence without penalty if they never get around to

actually harvesting the timber because it is not profitable or for whatever

reason.

So it could be a race to the bottom in business

practices if the higher bidder thinks that they can afford the high bonus offer,

because they don’t pay their workers well, for example, or don’t treat the

environment with care.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

When you read this along with

section 6, which we

talked about, what does this mean? It means that they don’t pay, because they

don’t pay up front. If they never get around to actually using the cutting

rights, they can abandon the licence without consequences. Meanwhile, they may

be putting a more responsible company out of business by preventing them from

using those harvesting rights. Those are the consequences of these changes in

section 6 and

section 7.

I don’t see what is the purpose behind these two and

what you are trying to fix. We don’t see that anywhere here. It may be a

recommendation that came from John Allan’s report. But where is the problem? We

don’t see that, and the minister has not convinced anyone so far with his

answers.

We have identified the problems it could bring.

There’s a potential of putting some real responsible companies, leaving them out

of business. In the meantime, those with no intention of harvesting could put in

a high offer because they don’t have to pay the offer, the bonus bid, up front.

I think it’s a serious problem the minister probably should seriously think

about and see what the minister’s reaction is to that.

Hon. S. Thomson: The

ultimate rational reason for doing this, and it comes out of the

recommendations, is to ensure processes are in place that strengthen the market

pricing system. The analysis has shown that there is, with respect to the risk

that that…. Because of the risk premium, it does have an impact on the bid

process, which can flow through to the market pricing system.

We have, as we point out, a number of policies that

create the incentive to undertake the harvesting — the forfeiture of the

deposits, future increasing in deposits. This is all designed, coming out of the

recommendations, to ensure that we support B.C. Timber Sales in getting the

volume out by balancing the risks between the two systems and supporting the

market pricing system.

Section 7 approved.

section 8.

[1605]

H. Bains: Perhaps the

minister could explain

section 8. In a nutshell, what does this

section mean,

and what is the minister trying to achieve by making these changes?

Hon. S. Thomson: This

section provides the authorization for the minister to enter into disposition

agreements. It sets out the framework for those agreements.

All of this is a streamlining process to provide a

more effective way of achieving these disposition agreements. They are already

provided for in

section 61 of the Forest Act and under the BCTS account

regulation. What this is designed to do is to have this provision be more

streamlined, to be more effective. It will provide incremental volume through

the BCTS program to get more volume out, increase revenue and increase the

pricing points for the market pricing system.

H. Bains: Perhaps I could

go back here. In a number of the sections following, the words “BCTS disposition

agreement” are used. It says it means “a BCTS disposition agreement referred to

in subsection (2)”. What does that mean — BCTS disposition agreement?

Hon. S. Thomson: This

disposition agreement refers down to

section 22.2(2) where it talks about how

you can enter into a disposition agreement. As I pointed out, these are

provisions that were in place under

section 61 of the Forest Act. They have been

called different things over time — called incremental fibre agreements

previously.

Again, this is a provision that currently exists both

section 61 and in the account regulation. This brings it into a more

streamlined process to provide the opportunity for the minister to enter into

those disposition agreements, which provide that incremental fibre through

agreement with TFLs, with First Nations woodland licences, with community forest

agreements. It provides that incremental volume to BCTS to support both revenue

and market pricing objectives.

[1610]

H. Bains: What it is, in a

simpler form, is that this

section will allow the minister to enter into an

agreement with those with a forest licence, tree farm licence, community forest

agreement, First Nations’ woodland licence and woodlot licences, which will

allow the minister to purchase back the unused portion of their AAC. Is that

correct?

Hon. S. Thomson: This is a

process where, by agreement, a portion of the volume in that can be released

back to B.C. Timber Sales for auction and for providing both revenue volume and

market pricing capacity for B.C. Timber Sales. It’s important to recognize that

when that volume, by agreement, is released back in, in the form of a licence,

the entity providing or releasing that volume can’t bid on the timber sale

licence option that would be provided by B.C. Timber Sales.

[ Page 8755 ]

H. Bains: Let’s use, as an

example, if Western Forest Products decides…. Well, let’s see. Their total AAC

is six million cubic metres. They want to enter into agreement with the

minister, and they decide that two million cubic metres is available. Then that

two million will become part of the BCTS system, through which they would put

that two million cubic metres up for auction, and the successful bidders will

bid on the two million cubic metres. It could be bidder or bidders,

plurally.

Then they will be harvesting and entering into

agreement with the BCTS, and the regular system of the BCTS will apply. Then

that volume is harvested under the BCTS system by successful bidders. Is that

correct?

Hon. S. Thomson: The

process is that the holder can, through agreement, through voluntary

arrangement, provide volume to BCTS through that agreement. BCTS would then

competitively auction that volume as part of their operations and process.

As I pointed out, the holder — whether it’s a

community forest, a TFL holder or a First Nations’ woodland licence — would not

be able to bid on that competitive auction process.

[1615]

H. Bains: I think that’s

what I asked, and the minister is basically agreeing with what I suggested.

My question then is: under the BCTS system, can the

minister explain that the successful bidder…? When that portion that is entered

into an agreement from a tree farm licence holder through the ministry and made

available to BCTS so it becomes part of the BCTS system…? Is a successful bidder

then awarded that licence for four years? Isn’t it a minimum of four years?

Hon. S. Thomson: The

maximum — and it is the maximum — term is four years. The term is set by the

timber sale manager, and that is set taking a number of factors into

consideration — size, location, season. I guess the average or the general term

is usually 14 to 18 months.

H. Bains: When you are

talking about, Minister, this

section giving the minister the right to enter

into an agreement with a tree farm licence holder…. So if they have six million

cubic metres, their AAC, can they enter into with the government for the entire

six million cubic metres?

Hon. S. Thomson: First of

all, this is some of the volume. It’s voluntary. From BCTS’s perspective, this

is incremental fibre source. BCTS still has the mandate to sell their full AAC

over the business cycle. That’s where the focus of their operations are. In

circumstances there are opportunities for some incremental volumes — certainly

not in the kind of volumes that the member opposite is asserting or referring

to.

[1620]

Just for example, we’re currently in discussions on

Haida Gwaii with the Misty Isles Development Society around this kind of an

opportunity there. Volumes in those kinds of discussions are in the range of

25,000 to 80,000 cubic metres.

H. Bains: The concern is:

is there a cap? Is there a floor? According to the minister’s answer, if the

BCTS is willing to add on an incremental volume — as the minister put it —

whatever that amount could be, then government can enter into an agreement with

a tree farm licence holder. So there’s no cap. There’s no cap as far as….

What percentage of AAC of a tree farm licence holder

can be made available to the government through this system? Is there any cap or

is there any limit to how much of their AAC can be made available? If the

minister could answer…. Technically, if all the circumstances are right and

everything works well, they can actually, under this section, make the entire

AAC available through the minister to BCTS. Is that not correct?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again,

the provisions required and, as we pointed out, some of the volume for…. Through

a voluntary process, the process has been designed. Quite frankly, this is not

designed for the type of circumstance that the member opposite is using as an

example.

This has been designed to provide opportunities

primarily for community forests, for First Nations woodland licences, for First

Nations who have TFLs where there are opportunities to provide that on a

voluntary basis, that incremental volume. B.C. Timber Sales would not have the

capacity to deal with a volume in the magnitude or the approach that the member

opposite is referring to. This is designed to provide those opportunities in

those kinds of arrangements.

It’s also designed for when we have a constrained land

base, when we’re looking for opportunities to have additional community forests,

additional First Nations woodland licences placed in regions and in communities

where there are constraints. In many cases the only way to do that is impacting

BCTS volumes by having these voluntary agreements and arrangements with

BCTS.

[1625]

Providing that approach through the pricing system

actually gives us a future opportunity to expand opportunities for those kinds

of opportunities in communities.

H. Bains: The problem with

that answer, Minister, is this. If it was only mentioned — community forest

agreement, First Nations woodland licence and woodlot licence — we probably

wouldn’t have such a serious problem with this. But under “non-BCTS licence,”

this section, it includes forest licence and tree farm licence as part of the

non-BCTS licence, in addition to the community forest agreement, First Nations

woodland licence and woodlot licences. I think that’s where the concern

is.

[ Page 8756 ]

Technically, a tree farm licence holder can make the

entire AAC available, and if the minister is willing and the BCTS says, “I’ve

got a capacity to sell,” then the entire AAC under this

section can be sold back

to the government. That’s the concern here.

I think the next question that I have is…. These are

the forests that belong to British Columbians, through the government. Tree farm

licence holders are given the right to harvest, to have economic activities.

What is the purpose of buying back assets that belong to us in the first place?

What is the purpose behind that?

Hon. S. Thomson: As I’ve

pointed out, under

section 61 we already have this authority,

section 61 in

combination with B.C. Timber Sales account regulations. What we’re doing here in

these amendments is providing a more streamlined process to undertake this to

provide B.C. Timber Sales the option to access additional incremental

volume.

It is those opportunities where there are those

incremental volumes arranged. As I said, the capacity — because B.C. Timber

sales still has the obligation to market its full AAC across the business cycle.

That was one of the other key recommendation that came out of the process.

This is providing a more streamlined process for where

there are opportunities to get that incremental volume to be able to provide

additional data for the market, for the pricing system, to help build capacity,

particularly in community forests, in First Nations woodland licences, in First

Nations TFLs, where there is the opportunity to get additional volume, make that

volume available to mills, getting that fibre available.

This provides a more streamlined process to do that

for provisions than the cumbersome process we already had previously. The member

opposite’s concerns that this is going to have large licence holders, large

volumes, brought into this process — from the perspective of those

organizations, it wouldn’t make sense.

[1630]

BCTS retains a portion of the revenue generated. The

monetary consideration will be less than the revenue that the company would be

able to generate from their stand-alone operation.

It really is about a process that is already there and

about being able to get incremental volumes into the BCTS system, which helps

strengthen both market pricing and making fibre available and provides those

opportunities in communities where we are, at this point, constrained. When we

have those situations, we’re looking for ways to help strengthen the process in

those communities, in those regions by being able to have these disposition

agreements in a more streamlined manner than currently is the case.

H. Bains: There’s that

concern. There’s no limit. There’s no cap. If all the circumstances are right,

the entire AAC can be purchased back. That’s concern No. 1.

The government is saying that we’ll buy back something

that belongs to the government in the first place. That timber does not belong

to those companies. It belongs to the people of the province, through the

government, and the companies are given the right to harvest to create economic

activities. That’s concern No. 2.

Concern No. 3 is that even if a portion of the AAC is

made available to the government, the question that the unions have — and I

would agree with them — is that they could easily make the area that is normally

harvested by a unionized contractor…. The company could decide they do not want

to harvest that portion now themselves and make it available to the government,

and it goes to BCTS. Now a non-union contractor could bid successfully.

It means that the unionized jobs are being transferred

over to a non-union company. How do you fix that problem? There could be a

contractual obligation that the union has with that company. This could also be

seen to be a deunionization process through this bill.

Can the minister assure those unionized workers that

their work will not be transferred through this process to a non-union

contractor?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again,

I’ve tried to provide assurances to the members opposite that this is in

situations where there are incremental volume opportunities in a voluntary

process, by agreement, to help support communities and First Nations woodland

licences, First Nations TFLs and TFLs generally, by being able to provide a

portion or some of the volume.

It’s a voluntary arrangement. B.C. Timber Sales is not

obligated to accept any offer to enter into an agreement. As you know, B.C.

Timber Sales maintains…. They’re an integral presence throughout our

communities. They would be sensitive to the concerns and needs of those local

communities, the local labour force in those communities, and would not

knowingly put a strategy in place or participate in a strategy that was designed

to circumvent those labour agreements.

I’m confident that given the intent of what we want to

achieve here in terms of strengthening the BCTS operations that came out of the

review process…. We need to make sure that BCTS maintains those levels of volume

and contributes to the market price system. To meet our trade obligations, we

need to make sure that we have those data points. These provisions here in the

legislation provide for those incremental opportunities that will assist in

that.

[1635]

As I said, the discussions we’re having to date…. A

number of opportunities are there in those smaller volume ranges in communities

and with First Nations. On a go-forward basis, I believe that this will help us

look at additional opportunities for community forests, addi-

[ Page 8757 ]

tional opportunities

for First Nations in the province and, at the same time, make sure that we can

strengthen and support BCTS’s important role in our industry.

H. Bains: For me and many

of my colleagues here…. I can’t speak for them, but for me to support this

particular section, the minister has to do better than what he has given us.

You’ve got to assure those unionized workers employed by major tree farm licence

holders, on the coast especially, that their jobs, the unionized jobs, will not

be transferred through this system to a non-union workforce.

Can you give that assurance to the unionized workforce

on the coast, that their jobs will not be shifted, transferred, through this

section, to a non-union workforce?

Hon. S. Thomson: I’ve

indicated the intent of the provisions here. I’ve said that B.C. Timber Sales is

not obligated to accept an offer to enter into a disposition agreement. The

member opposite knows the role that BCTS plays throughout the province —

integral presence in the communities.

I’m confident that they would not knowingly be part of

any strategy or process to circumvent labour agreements. I think the concerns of

the member, in this case, are unfounded.

In addition to a number of the other provisions, the

person putting the disposition opportunity forward on that incremental volume is

not able to bid on those. It has to work from a financial perspective for B.C.

Timber Sales. It has to contribute to the market pricing system.

I’m confident that the scenario or the circumstance

that the member opposite is asserting here would not take place under BCTS

operations.

H. Bains: I think the

minister could have easily said that the BCTS will not enter into agreement to

allow a tree farm licence holder to have the unionized workforce work

transferred over, through BCTS, to a non-union workforce. Can the minister give

that assurance, that BCTS will not enter into that agreement?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again,

what I’ve said is that BCTS, given their role in the communities, would not

knowingly be part of a strategy that would circumvent those agreements. BCTS’s

role is to provide auction and opportunities and price data for the market

pricing system to make fibre available. They don’t dictate to the people bidding

to the process — the independent contractors, companies — how they manage their

labour requirements for those.

[1640]

But again, I’ve said I’m confident that they would not

knowingly be part of a strategy that the member opposite is asserting, which

would see these opportunities being utilized to circumvent those labour

agreements or circumvent union opportunities. Again, given the nature of the

opportunities that are being provided through how these amendments are designed,

I’m confident that that would not be the case.

H. Bains: That was my

concern No. 3 that hasn’t been addressed by the minister.

If I may ask the minister…. The next one, (4)(b),

talks about: “…must specify the consideration to be provided by the government

to the holder of the non-BCTS licence for the value of the rights released to

the government.”

How will the government set the price for the rights

that are released by the tree farm licence holder, First Nations agreement or

woodlot agreement? How would you set the price for your consideration?

Hon. S. Thomson: The

process is a negotiated monetary consideration that’s determined through the

normal processes. The normal considerations that B.C. Timber Sales would go

through would take into account the economic viability of the harvesting

opportunity, the development costs and others — you know, road construction,

harvesting costs, timber grade species, values that are in the opportunity. It

is a negotiated process.

Based on the voluntary nature of the arrangement, we

would enter into those. It would be senior timber sales managers that would

undertake that discussion and determine the appropriate process, recognizing

their need to provide that consideration but then also, from B.C. Timber Sales’

perspective, needing to assure that the volume that is part of that disposition

agreement can be put into the auction process and both contribute to the market

pricing system and make sure that that timber can be made available through

harvest opportunities.

H. Bains: What the

minister is saying is this: government will offer or specify consideration. No

one knows what that price is going to be. It’s all up to negotiations. Again, we

are putting a system in place — it may be available before — to purchase back

something, to purchase back the right to that timber, the right that belongs to

us in the first place.

[1645]

Something’s wrong with that picture. If they do not

want to harvest the timber licence or the volume that they are authorized to

under AAC, what is the purpose of buying it from them? The whole purpose of

awarding them the AAC or the tree farm licence is for their use. I’ll get into

that later. It used to be to process that timber in their own facilities. That

is no longer the case now.

Now, in my view, you’re saying that they are not

required to utilize that timber, to process in their facilities or to harvest

and make that available to other operators. We’re saying: “We’ll buy it back

from you.” Something’s wrong with that. Why would you even consider that?

[ Page 8758 ]

a result

of that…. I gave you my reasons why I cannot accept those three or four serious

concerns.

I have amendments to propose to

section 8 of the bill,

placed under my name, to amend as follows:

Section 8, 22.2(1) is amended by

deleting “forest licence, tree farm licence,” from the

definition of “non-BCTS licence”.]

On the amendment.

The Chair: Member, do you

want to speak on it?

H. Bains: I think this

amendment is in line with what the minister has been saying. The minister has

said that, largely speaking, it wasn’t to apply to the tree farm licence holders

or to the forest licences, that the whole intent here was to make incremental

volume available to BCTS from community forest agreements, First Nations’

woodland licences or woodlot licences.

If that’s the case, that’s what this amendment will

do. If the minister does not agree, if the government does not agree to go along

with this amendment, what we see here is that this is a final nail in the coffin

of what used to be the social contract that existed for 150 years in the

province of British Columbia.

[1650]

If this bill was to pass without this amendment, what

it means is that it does everything that goes against the grain of the intent

that was placed in the Forest Act for 150 years: the social contract that

required that the government will make tree farm licences — and through tree

farm licences, the forest — available to the companies so that they could

process them in their own mills to create economic activity in those

forestry-dependent communities, provide jobs for the workers who live there and

make contributions to the well-being of British Columbia.

That was the whole purpose behind tree farm licences.

There’s a history behind it going back to 1800 to 1911, when we started to

formally utilize our forests for economic uses. The early regulations of 1912 to

1946 established the system that we call forest reserves, an area officially

designated for timber harvesting.

Then we moved on. In 1943 the forest industry expanded

the limits of its timber supply under existing tenures and sought greater access

to Crown timber. In response, the government appointed a royal commission to

analyze the tenure system. We go back over 100 years.

Then the next era started, from 1947 to 1978. It

basically was the implementation of the Sloan commission’s recommendations that

led to the major changes in the tenure system, including amendments to the

Forest Act of 1947. The key among the changes was the establishment of forest

management units that would be managed for long-term sustained yield of timber

through the use of regulated harvest rates.

When you continue to look at the new forms of tenure

and the forest management licence, it gives companies long-term harvest rights,

but with a critical difference. These were the area-based lots, not the

volume-based licence at that time. This provided a single licensee with

exclusive rights and responsibilities over a specific area. These licences were

only issued on the condition that the companies who held the tenure invested in

processing facilities and took on forest management obligations such as

reforestation.

That’s the basic tenet of how we manage our forest for

the benefit of British Columbians. That went on to…. You know, it was a very

successful system.

Then we brought in, in 1976, integrated forest

management. Up until that time the tree farm licence, through the appurtenancy

clause, was tied to a sawmill or a processing facility. But in 1982-83, I

believe, the previous Minister of Forests, Mr. Tom Waterland, watered down — no

pun intended — the appurtenancy clause by making it that the tree farm licence

must utilize the equivalent volume in their own facilities or facilities owned

by their affiliates. That was the change.

Again, there was a requirement. There was a social

contract that existed, including cut controls. Cut controls mean that a minimum

of 50 percent of the AAC must be harvested in any given year — a minimum of 50

percent — or 150 percent, depending on the market conditions. But over a

five-year cycle they must be within 5 or 10 percent. That made a lot of sense.

That kept all those grocery stores, the gas stations and many other businesses

in those smaller communities operating.

There were some forest activities in those

communities. The workers had jobs to go to, although at a lower scale, and the

businesses had someone who would come in and invest in their businesses. That

system worked.

Then, in 2002-2003, the government brought in the

so-called Forestry Revitalization Act. I call it so-called forestry

revitalization because that was the beginning of destruction of our forest

industry. As a result, we