1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JULY 7, 1994

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 17, Number 12

[ Page 12901 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

H. Lali: Visiting us in the gallery today is a friend of mine, Kamal Singh, who is a constituent of the hon. member for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows. With her is her friend, Rosa Van der Zwan. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: During the course of this session the House has had within it not only one representative from Saanich South but also 14 additional representatives from the constituency of Saanich South. I'm referring, of course, to the legislative Pages who have been serving us very ably throughout the session. They are from Reynolds Secondary School in my constituency: Celine Anderson, Andrew Renton, Layle Larusson, Carly Russell, Sarah Board, Melanie Maxwell, Freddy Shave, Luke Miller, Lizete Teixeira, Michael Keep, Nisha Moodley, Monica Walczak, Ryan Reda and Nathan Wells.

In the hope, and perhaps the expectation, that this may be the last opportunity, I know the House will want to join with me in expressing our appreciation to the Pages for the excellent work they have done throughout this session.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Today we have some very special guests, elected colleagues from Portugal. Dr. Mota Amaral, president of the regional government of the Azores, Portugal, is visiting Portuguese communities of Azorean origin in Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia. He is accompanied by members of the Legislative Assembly of the Azores and by Mr. Miguel de Calheiros Velozo, the consul of Portugal in Vancouver. Would the House please make these people welcome.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Joining us in the gallery today are a number of representatives from Airspace. Many members may know that Airspace is a non-smokers' rights society. Later in this session they will be witnessing the tabling of a petition by the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain calling for the increased restriction of smoking in public places. Would the House please join me in welcoming Deborah Wotherspoon, Korky Day, Errol Povah, Dr. Peter Coy, Pam Brambell and Dianne Stephenson.

E. Conroy: In the gallery, coming from the constituency of Rossland-Trail, it gives me great pleasure to introduce my daughter Jennifer Jones and my niece Jana Tedesco, and let everyone in Victoria know that they have certainly made a contribution to the local economy this week at my expense. Would the House please make them welcome.

D. Mitchell: I don't know how many independent riding associations there are in British Columbia, but in the riding of West Vancouver-Garibaldi we have a very strong independent constituency association, and I am pleased to say that my president, Caroline Meredith, is in the gallery today. Would members please welcome her.

J. Beattie: There's a great old song that says that in Chicago they do things they don't do on Broadway. I'm not quite sure what those things are, but there are a couple of people in the gallery today who might be able to help us. We have two visitors from Chicago who are with AT&T Global Information Solutions. Eileen Dougherty is the director of Health Care Industry Consulting, and Mary-Jo Peters is the senior consultant for Health Care Industry Consulting. They are accompanied by Brad Zubyk, who is well known to many of us here. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

T. Perry: Seeing no one else rising, and as this may be the last formal opportunity of the year to do this, I would like to make the traditional introduction of all those visitors to this wonderful city who are in the gallery today who have not yet been introduced. Would members please join me in making them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

PROTECTION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA HERITAGE ARTIFACTS ACT

K. Jones presented a bill intituled Protection of British Columbia Heritage Artifacts Act.

K. Jones: This bill is intended to rectify a situation which occurred as a result of the closing of the British Columbia Transportation Museum in Cloverdale and the resulting disposal of artifacts and automobiles without an opportunity for the donors to have the first choice to take back the items they had gifted to the province. Some were given without any benefit to themselves under the assumption that they would be permanently held as a piece of tangible history available to the future generations of British Columbia. This bill provides the means to accommodate the fair and proper disposal of heritage objects.

[2:15]

I would like to acknowledge the assistance and guidance provided by our research department in 1993 when this member's bill first appeared on the order paper. Their input was invaluable.

Bill M218 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

B.C. TRANSIT CORPORATE SECRETARY

D. Symons: My question is to the minister responsible for B.C. Transit. The official opposition has learned that soon after Lecia Stewart, a longtime friend of the NDP, was appointed to her position as secretary at B.C. Transit, she received an additional favour. She attended a course at Harvard University, courtesy of B.C. Transit, resulting in a cost to the taxpayer of thousands of dollars. How can the minister justify this taxpayer-funded gift to yet another party hack?

Hon. G. Clark: It's a different party, first of all. But let me deal with the question.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: No, seriously.

First, when the government took office there was a corporate secretary's position. The individual in that position was making in excess of $100,000. That's when the Leader of the Opposition was on the board of directors of B.C. Transit. The corporate secretary reported to the chair of the board. That individual moved to another

[ Page 12902 ]

position, and Lecia Stewart became the corporate secretary. The board had a bit of a problem, because the wages were reduced from what existed under the previous administration, and the position was filled by a woman. That caused some consternation, so there was some adjustment. Nevertheless, the position of corporate secretary that Lecia Stewart held made less money than in the previous administration. After she was hired.... I believe she was working with the previous administration in the Ministry of Native Affairs. She has now moved to be general manager for the new commuter rail

opportunities -- this exciting opportunity to provide commuter rail all the way to Mission from downtown Vancouver.

The Speaker: Does the member have a further question?

D. Symons: I'm wondering if the minister is talking the clock out. Nevertheless, B.C. Transit...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

D. Symons: ...was apparently letting taxpayer dollars flow freely on behalf of this special NDP insider. Will the minister confirm today that on top of her salary and taxpayer-funded education...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. Please proceed, hon. member.

D. Symons: ...the taxpayer also paid family travel expenses and day care? Will he inform the House of the total cost of this, yet another, special favour?

Hon. G. Clark: I resent the questions. The individual in question, Lecia Stewart, is paid less than the previous corporate secretary of the board, as I understand it. Secondly, her pay is now consistent with all the other executive compensation. She's doing a superb job initiating a significant improvement in public transportation from downtown Vancouver all the way to Mission.

CUTS TO ADDICTIONS PROGRAMS IN B.C. PRISONS

L. Reid: The Minister of Health has cut funding to all but two alcohol and drug treatment rehab programs in British Columbia's prisons. According to the Elizabeth Fry Society, the value of these programs is undeniable. While this government is giving million-dollar pensions to NDP hacks, how can this minister justify cutting successful programs that reduce crime in our communities?

Hon. P. Ramsey: This program, like others, is obviously very valuable. The members opposite have increasingly called for restraint and the wise management of tax dollars. I regret that this was one of the programs that had to be reduced.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

L. Reid: Indeed we have called for a wise sense of priorities, and it's definitely lacking in this government.

The Young Offenders Act stresses the need for increased drug and alcohol programs that are rehabilitative in nature. These are the very programs that this Minister of Health has eliminated. Did the minister look at the human costs to community safety and to victims in this province, or did he simply decide to make the cut?

Hon. P. Ramsey: It's good to see that even on what is potentially the last day of this legislative session and the last question period, the Liberal opposition still can't decide whether it wants to spend, spend, spend or cut, cut, cut.

CALL FOR PROVINCIAL REFERENDUM ON GAMBLING

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Attorney General. The referendum on gambling held on the Kahnawake reserve this week should send a message to this government. Will the minister commit today that there will be no major change in gambling in this province without a provincewide referendum, similar to the opportunity the Mohawks gave their people?

Hon. R. Blencoe: The member is aware that there is an ongoing exhaustive review of all gaming and gambling policy in the province, and all options are open in terms of public consultation. That issue has not been resolved, and that is an option, hon. member.

The Speaker: The member has a further question?

J. Weisgerber: There are at least six major Las Vegas-style casino gambling proposals on the table in British Columbia. I believe those proponents wouldn't be going ahead unless they believed that this government planned to change policy. Will the minister commit to a provincewide referendum on gambling before there's any change in policy in the province?

Hon. R. Blencoe: The proponents and the ideas and suggestions for casinos are there, and people are discussing them. They're doing it totally on their own. My advice to those who are suggesting ideas for casinos is that they should recognize that Las Vegas-style casinos are against the law in British Columbia.

PUBLIC SERVICE APPEAL BOARD CHAIR

F. Gingell: Once again the NDP is finding solutions to fit their friends. The Joy Leach whitewash by Treasury Board is the lowest form of justification of any NDP decision. The Minister of Finance based her decision on a briefing note which itself states that other cost factors, such as the anticipated number of appeals and hearings, are as yet undefined. This note deals solely with the relocation issue. My question is to any minister on Treasury Board. Why did Treasury Board allow the Minister of Finance to make this decision based solely on a very small portion of the necessary information?

Hon. G. Clark: I will take the question on notice for the Minister of Finance.

[ Page 12903 ]

The Speaker: The question is taken on notice. The hon. member has another question?

F. Gingell: Perhaps the minister will add this to it, then. Clearly the minister was unable to say no to her friend. The briefing note bases what little analysis it does on the maximum relocation costs. The minister knows that this is false and a biased....

The Speaker: Order, hon. member.

F. Gingell: Why did the minister, when it first came to light, not tell Ms. Leach up front that if she wanted the job, she had to move to Victoria at her own cost?

CLEARCUT LOGGING PRACTICES IN B.C.

W. Hurd: I have a question for the Minister of Forests. Yesterday in a Vancouver courtroom New Democratic MP Svend Robinson pleaded guilty to criminal contempt in connection with an illegal blockade at Clayoquot Sound. Mr. Robinson called clearcut logging a betrayal of future generations in the province of British Columbia. In light of the fact that the Premier is visiting California to convince California to continue buying newsprint made from clearcut logs, will this minister stand today and condemn the statements of Svend Robinson and reaffirm clearcut logging in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. A. Petter: Well, I suppose it's appropriate in the final question period of the session that the official opposition would once again demonstrate its misunderstanding of the sub judice rule, as it has throughout this session. Sentencing in that case is still pending.

However, it's even more outrageous that this member would stand up and ask a question about forest practices two days after that member and his caucus voted against enforcement measures in the Forest Practices Code that will ensure the best forest practices in this province. That is truly outrageous.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

W. Hurd: Mr. Speaker, a member of the New Democratic Party has called clearcut logging a betrayal of future generations in British Columbia. This minister's Premier is visiting California to belie that statement. Will the minister stand in the assembly today as Minister of Forests and tell the people of the province and the people of California that clearcut logging is a responsible logging and silvicultural method in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. A. Petter: It's rather sad that after debating forestry throughout this session, this is the only issue on which this member seems to have a position. This is the member who voted against the forest renewal plan and against enforcement measures in the Forest Practices Code. This is the member and the party that voted against a secure forest base for forest workers through a forest land reserve. I lament the fact that this is the only question he can come up with in the dying days of the session.

FAMILY MAINTENANCE DEFAULTERS

R. Neufeld: I have a question for the Attorney General. The minister is quoted as saying that they are considering a policy that would confiscate driving privileges from deadbeat dads. Has the minister taken into account how those deadbeat dads are going to get back and forth to work if their driving privileges are removed?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: This minister has never made such a statement. In fact, this House earlier this session considered amendments to the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act which did not include any reference to those kinds of changes. If those kinds of changes were to be contemplated they would have been in that bill, and they weren't.

STUDENT LOAN DEFAULTERS

R. Neufeld: It is my understanding that the Minister of Women's Equality, who is not in the House today, has had representations made to both ministers on this issue. We pointed out several months ago that the total value of defaulted student loans soared by 174 percent since this government was elected. If the government is considering taking driving privileges away from deadbeat dads, would they be in favour of taking driving privileges away from students who are behind on their student loans?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I am not the minister of advanced education, so I can't answer that part of the question. I want to make it very clear to the members of the House, so there can be no misunderstanding of this issue, that there has been no suggestion by this government that we are going to tie driver's licence privileges to family maintenance enforcement payments. There is no connection whatsoever, and we are not doing it. The fact that some lobbyists or interest groups may have made that presentation to ministers doesn't mean we agree with it.

KILLING OF ELK IN CHILLIWACK RIVER VALLEY

R. Chisholm: My question is to the Minister of Environment. On December 8, 1993, it was reported in the paper that four female elk in a protected herd were shot and killed in the Chilliwack River valley. In response to recent inquiries about this incident, concerned citizens were informed that an investigation is underway. Could the minister explain why this investigation is still ongoing after six months, and why no action has been taken against the individuals responsible?

Hon. M. Sihota: The matter the hon. member refers to is under investigation. There is a process which I'm sure the hon. member would benefit from being informed of, and I will inform him of that process. First of all, the process involves an analysis by conservation officers, collection of the evidence and then forwarding the material to the Attorney General's office for assessment. That process normally takes somewhere in the neighbourhood of six to nine months. That is why, I would suspect, no charges have yet been laid in this case.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

R. Chisholm: It has been six months and, as we stated, the investigation into this matter has not been completed.

[ Page 12904 ]

The minister's refusal to demand a prompt investigation into this incident is causing much consternation and tension in the Chilliwack area. Could the minister explain what this ministry is held up on with this investigation that has warranted such an unnecessary time lag?

[2:30]

Hon. M. Sihota: I think you would agree, hon. member, assuming there's a desire on your part to ensure that the anxiety in the community is attended to, that conservation officers and others should be given the opportunity to collect, collate and develop the evidence that they need in order to have a successful prosecution. Second, they should follow through with the Attorney General's ministry to determine whether or not the evidence is sufficient for the laying of a charge. Those are necessary ingredients before a charge is laid and that's why there's been a delay in this case.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

M. de Jong: Hon. Speaker, I rise today on a point of order.

The Speaker: Please proceed, hon. member.

M. de Jong: I believe a matter has arisen which this House is obligated to act upon. I refer the House to standing order 90, where it states: "If it shall appear that any person has been elected and returned a member of this House...by bribery, or any other corrupt practices, this House will proceed with the utmost severity against all such persons...."

My submission has two components. First, as a result of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society scandal, there is an appearance that some members of the House may have been elected with the assistance of unlawfully or fraudulently withheld funds. I want to add at the outset that I'm not at this time dealing with matters with....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Please proceed, hon. member.

M. de Jong: I'm not speaking of matters that are presently before the courts. Standing order 90 sets out the obligations this House has to examine the conduct of members where there is an appearance of corrupt practices. That question is not before the courts. There is a prima facie case, in my submission, for this House to consider, which rests on the following facts.

I will refer to a letter written by a former Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Stupich, in which he states: "In

summary, all of the organizations listed above -- that is, the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society, the Harewood Social Centre and the B.C. Tomorrow Committee -- exist to further the political interests of the New Democratic Party." Second, I would refer to the financial statements of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society for the years 1989, '90 and '91, wherein it's revealed that political contributions of thousands of dollars were made. Third, I would refer to comments of the member for Nanaimo that were reported in the June 10, 1994, edition of the Vancouver Sun.

The member is quoted as saying: "Years and years ago, everyone who was a New Democrat in Nanaimo had some connection with the Commonwealth Society. Their purpose in existing was to help the party...in that sense, yes, I may have benefited. No question." I will table the letter, the financial statements and the newspaper

article with the House upon my conclusion shortly.

The second and final submission I would make on the point is that this appearance of impropriety in the election of members compels this House -- and I again quote from the standing order -- to "proceed with the utmost severity." It is our belief, and my belief, that those words are not to be taken lightly and that they compel -- and I make that submission respectfully -- this House to deal with the matter in a timely and public fashion, prior to this House adjourning.

In conclusion, if the House and the Chair find that action by this House is called for pursuant to standing order 90, I would be prepared to move the following motion: that pursuant to standing order 90, the question of the conduct of NDP members who may have benefited from fraudulently obtained moneys such that their election to this House may have been the result of "corrupt practices" be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform and Ethical Conduct, and that such committee be required to hold public hearings on this matter and that they be provided the right to subpoena witnesses. That is my respectful submission.

Hon. G. Clark: It is perhaps fitting, hon. Speaker, as we near the end of the legislative session, that we see a pattern having developed over this session in which all members of the opposition other than those in the Liberal Party have asked substantive questions on matters of public policy;

whereas Liberal Party members, right to the end, have chosen to wallow, it seems to me, in the gutter and degenerate the level of debate to a level which we have never seen before.

This is not a point of order. This is an attempt at political grandstanding at the end of the session, and it is a desperate attempt by the Liberal Party to rescue what really has been a failed session for them.

D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, speaking briefly to the point of order raised by the member for Matsqui, when the Chair rules on whether or not there is a point of order here -- and I don't know if there is or not -- there's only one way, in my mind, for the Chair to determine whether there is a valid point of order. A special prosecutor looking into the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society affair wrote a report. That report has never been made public, and officially, the details of that report are not public knowledge. The Attorney General may have a submission to make on this, as well.

The only way to know whether or not there is a violation of standing order 90, as the member for Matsqui has submitted, is to know if the special prosecutor, Mr. Ace Henderson, indicated in his report whether or not any sitting member of this assembly has benefited from the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society activities. If in fact there is such an indication in Mr. Ace Henderson's report, then I think it will be possible to judge whether or not the member has a valid point of order.

The only way to determine this is to seek a commitment from the Attorney General, or from the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, that Mr. Ace Henderson's report will be made public in a timely fashion, so that kind of determination can be made. Until

[ Page 12905 ]

that report is made public, I would submit that there is no way of ruling on this point of order.

G. Wilson: The point of order raised by the member for Matsqui is one of the most severe in nature, because it goes to the very heart of corruption. It suggests that in fact there are sitting members of this House who should be removed from office as a result of that corruption. Because this is such a grave accusation and charge, and implies that material in Mr. Henderson's report that has not been made public may impact on the ability of a member to serve, I believe that the member who has raised this matter should, outside this House, name those members who he believes are in violation.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. members, for your submissions, and the hon. member for raising the matter. I will take the matter under consideration and bring back a ruling as soon as possible.

Presenting Petitions

J. Tyabji: I rise to seek leave to table a petition.

The Speaker: The nature of the petition, hon. member?

J. Tyabji: This is a petition bearing approximately 1,500 signatures from the communities of Winfield and Kelowna with respect to chiropractors' fees. It has to do with an increase in cost. I'll read the prayer of the petition:

"To the hon. the Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia in the Legislature assembled: the petition of the undersigned chiropractic patients of Dr. R.A. Kobayashi of the Okanagan Valley states that the actions of the NDP government in reducing the amount paid for chiropractic treatments by $2.50 is unfair to patients and not cost-effective. Your petitioners respectfully request that the hon. House retract this decision and adopt the recommendations of the British Columbia Chiropractic Association to pay the full cost of chiropractic visits and x-rays, as you do for medical patients, and to provide unlimited visits for chiropractic care, as you do for medical patients."

The petition is dated April 19, 1994.

T. Perry: I rise to present a petition from members and supporters of the Airspace Non-smokers' Rights Society. Earlier this afternoon the Minister of Health was courteous enough to introduce members of the society who are in the gallery. Though I can't espy them, I think they're up there somewhere. They are there, and I hope they can hear.

The petition reads:

"We, the undersigned citizens of British Columbia, petition the government of British Columbia to legislate a smoking ban in all public places, workplaces and all places that are open to the public for business, including restaurants, bars, shopping malls, bingo halls, etc."

Interjection.

T. Perry: I don't know whether, in deference to the member for Burnaby North, it includes taxicabs or not.

It is signed by 4,400 citizens from various parts of the province. Many people did a great deal of work to collect those signatures, and I would like to ask permission of members to table the petition.

The Speaker: It's not required, hon member.

Hon. A. Petter tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Forests for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1993.

Hon. C. Gabelmann tabled the 1992-93 annual report of the Motor Carrier Commission.

Presenting Reports

F. Gingell: I have the honour to present the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the third session, and I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

F. Gingell: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit moving a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

F. Gingell: It is a pleasure to table this report. I'd like to point out to members that one of the issues that was dealt with by the Public Accounts Committee this year was the tardiness with which ministries and other agencies tabled their reports. This report, hon. members, brings us up to 9 o'clock last Tuesday morning, so it is most timely.

Mr. Speaker, the committee met 12 times this year, and I would like to publicly acknowledge the commitment of the members of this committee on both sides of the House and thank them, particularly the member for New Westminster, the Deputy Chair, for her support.

The work of the Public Accounts Committee is important, as the Ministers of Municipal Affairs and Employment and Investment have stated in the past. The work of the committee is a critical ingredient in the accountability process, which we all support.

The committee has not been able to finalize its work. There is still one more report by the auditor general that the committee has not been able to deal with. I am sure that it comes as a great deal of surprise to all members that I have written to the Premier asking that all members of this House support a motion to allow the committee to sit out of session so that at least the auditor general's reports can be dealt with and we don't go into next year with a backlog of work.

[2:45]

I ask for the support of all members of this House, and I anticipate that the Government House Leader will move that motion very shortly. With that, I thank you for your time and indulgence.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: Report on Bill 40, hon. Speaker.

FOREST PRACTICES CODE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

Bill 40 read a third time and passed on the following division:

[ Page 12906 ]

YEAS -- 56

Petter

Sihota

Marzari

Cashore

O'Neill

Perry

Dosanjh

Hammell

B. Jones

Lortie

Giesbrecht

Smallwood

Gabelmann

Clark

Ramsey

Blencoe

Lovick

Pullinger

Janssen

Randall

Beattie

Conroy

Lord

Streifel

Simpson

Sawicki

Jackson

Wilson

Mitchell

Hanson

Weisgerber

Stephens

Gingell

Hurd

Farrell-Collins

Campbell

Reid

Dalton

Chisholm

Kasper

Krog

Brewin

Copping

Schreck

Lali

Hartley

Boone

H. De Jong

Neufeld

Fox

Symons

M. de Jong

K. Jones

Warnke

Evans

Jarvis

NAYS -- 1

Serwa

Hon. G. Clark: I wonder why it took so long to pass if everybody was in favour of it.

I call committee on Bill 56, hon. Speaker.

FOREST LAND RESERVE ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 56; D. Lovick in the chair.

section 2.

W. Hurd: I would like a brief clarification with respect to

section 2, which "binds the government." Does this

section mean that the government will be responsible for approaching the Forest Land Commission if it chooses to develop or redesignate Crown land within a forest management unit?

Hon. A. Petter: This

section means that the act in its entirety applies to the Crown, and when we get to the particular sections, the member will discover that with respect to Crown lands in the forest land reserve, the presumption is that the commission would first pass judgment on the exclusion before it is referred to cabinet for decision. But we will deal with that, I'm sure, when we get to that section. This simply overcomes the presumption in the

Interpretation Act, and reverses it in favour of a presumption that the Crown is indeed subject to the act.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

W. Hurd:

Section 3, which deals with the establishment of the commission, makes reference to the commission being established as a corporation consisting of members appointed under

section 5, and says that the commission is an agent of the Crown. To my knowledge, this is clearly a different type of commission than the Agricultural Land Commission, based on the fact that it appears to have corporate status. I wonder if the minister could clarify whether we are dealing with a corporation such as a Crown corporation, or whether it is a commission or agency of government.

Hon. A. Petter: I hope the member's research capacity is more consistent for the rest of the debate. Let me read him

section 2(1) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act: "The Provincial Agricultural Land Commission is continued as a corporation consisting of not less than five members...."

W. Hurd: I'm trying to anticipate how the commission will work in terms of its capacity. When we're dealing with a Crown corporation like Forest Renewal B.C. and a commission such as the Forest Land Commission, and now the Agricultural Land Commission, I'm assuming that it's a different type of reporting structure to the Legislative Assembly. Or are we involved in exactly the same type of process here, in the minister's judgment? As the minister knows, Crown corporations have an appointed board of directors and a chairman.

Clearly, the Forest Land Commission and the Agricultural Land Commission members are known as commissioners. There appears to be a different definition to the word "corporation," and I am seeking clarification from the minister on that point.

Hon. A. Petter: The corporate status that's envisaged here is simply to make clear the legal entity, the legal identity, of the commission. It is not presupposed that the commission will act as a commercial Crown corporation might act. It's just that in order to give the commission legal status, it is necessary that it be established as a corporation, as is commonly done with other such commissions, like the Agricultural Land Commission.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

[3:00]

[ Page 12907 ]

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, I am. Remembering that there's a range of economic activities that can take place on reserve land and allowable uses that can be approved by the commission, this speaks to what I think has been an overriding concern that has brought about the depletion, or threatened depletion, of the forest land base in parts of the province -- that is, both urban development and rural area settlement. If those kinds of pressures do not exist, then the other pressures can be accommodated within the reserve designation.

Hon. A. Petter: Remembering that an important component of the land reserve is Crown land and recognizing that over that Crown land -- at least components of it -- first nations have asserted certain rights, flowing from that the courts have recognized an obligation for consultation with first nations by government. It's only appropriate that there be a mechanism for first nations to be consulted where they may have particular direct interest in the land.

This just recognizes that as local governments are consulted, so too should first nations within those areas, and potentially other communities of interest that have a stake in the decision-making, thereby assisting the commission in rendering its decisions.

W. Hurd: As the minister knows, however, something like 130 percent of the land base in British Columbia is under some form of active claim. Clearly, if the decision is made to put land into a forest land reserve -- particularly around urban areas -- if it's Crown land, there is a potential to diminish its value for purposes of commercial and residential development.

I think the question is pertinent, because if at some future point the government were to award compensation in the form of access to or title over Crown land, then the consultation the minister talks about would be more than might be required with any other type of local government or other concern. I assume that we might deal with some

section in the act which talks about it being without prejudice to the notion of title or claim under the Treaty Commission Act. I'm just trying to clarify it. For example, under

section 4, one of the objectives of the commission is obviously to minimize the effect of urban development and rural settlements. In doing so, it would be ruling on whether land should come out of the forest land reserve, whether taxes should be paid or whether to turn it down. I wonder if the minister could just be a little more specific on what types of consultations will be undertaken with respect to the Crown land component of the forest land reserve.

Hon. A. Petter: We can discuss this in some greater detail when we get to the question of the designation and exclusion of Crown land. But I do want to distinguish for the member between two situations. With respect to first nations rights, which he referred to, I think the kind of consultation he's talking about would have to take place in the context of treaty negotiations. This act is referring to talking to groups that have an interest in land use decisions, outside the context of treaty negotiations.

Within the context of treaty negotiations, there may well be discussions about all sorts of issues around valuation, land, etc. What we're simply talking about here is the fact that in making decisions, the commission will want to take account of the views of those in the area who have some interest and some information to offer, and that includes local governments, first nations and other communities of interest. This is not a vehicle for first nations to express their treaty aspirations; there are other vehicles for that.

W. Hurd: I realize that we may want to address this at a future time in this bill. But before leaving this section, I would just point out that when we were dealing with the Commission on Resources and Environment, there was a clear implication that none of the recommendations or decisions that cabinet might make with respect to CORE would in any way prejudice the rights and titles of aboriginal people in the province. Since we spent considerable time this morning in the

definitions

section of the bill addressing the issue of valuation of land within the reserve, clearly there's potential here for the

interpretation that without a similar designation for first nations rights in this particular act, there could be the potential to diminish the Crown land that might be awarded to first nations by way of compensation for unextinguished title. I just point that out, and maybe we can deal with it further on in the bill.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

W. Hurd: On the appointment of no fewer than three individuals as members of the commission, is there any particular reason why the government has decided on that particular number? Or are we anticipating here a larger contingent on the commission? Having reviewed the bill, I haven't been able to determine what the optimum number of commissioners would be. Could the minister clarify for the committee how many individuals he envisages will be serving on the Forest Land Commission? Given the fact that there are so many different classifications of forest land in the province and different bioclimatic regions, it seems like an onerous task for three individuals.

Hon. A. Petter: This reserve is going to grow as the land use planning process is completed. Initially, the land base for the reserve we envisage consists of the private managed forest land, 96 percent of which is located in two geographic regions of the province -- over 73 percent on Vancouver Island and over 23 percent in the Kootenays -- plus the Crown land on Vancouver Island.

Initially I would envisage about three members on the commission, but as we add further lands, particularly Crown lands, we may want a commission that will have a broader membership that is familiar with conditions on Crown land elsewhere in the province. So I think three is an appropriate number as a starting point. Beyond that, we may wish to expand the commission to make sure the commission has the expertise to deal with what will be an

[ Page 12908 ]

expanding reserve as land use planning processes are completed.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

W. Hurd: I just have one brief request on

section 6 -- and 7 and 8, for that matter. A comparison is being drawn between this commission and the Agricultural Land Commission. With respect to the staff, operations and financial and corporate matters of the commission, I just wonder whether it would be appropriate to ask one question with respect to all three -- namely, do any of these requirements vary in any degree from the Agricultural Land Commission model on which the Forest Land Commission has been based?

Hon. A. Petter: In essence, they are the same. The only substantive difference is apparently in

section 8, where we've moved to 30-day reporting, which is now the standard time period contained in legislation. I think that's a slightly longer period than the Agricultural Land Commission. In all essential elements, it tracks the Agricultural Land Commission. Indeed, as the member is aware, the administration for this commission is the same as for the Agricultural Land Commission.

Sections 6 to 8 inclusive approved.

section 9.

W. Hurd: I just have a brief question for clarification with respect to

section 9. This gets us into the definition of the forest land reserve. Obviously we're dealing with the opportunity of a private land holder who has not had his land designated -- in other words, it's not attached to an existing forest management unit -- to make an application to add the land to the reserve. Is this an issue that we could more appropriately deal with in a future section?

Hon. A. Petter: This

section foreshadows the fact that a component of the reserve can be private land that is added by an individual's application to the commission. That would probably be more appropriately discussed under

section 11, which deals with that procedure.

Section 9 approved.

section 10.

W. Hurd: Just a brief clarification with respect to 10(2)(b), which refers to: "...the owner of the land applied before October 31, 1993 to have the land classified under the Assessment Act as managed forest land...." Can the minister indicate the relevance that particular date might have to the owner of land who is making application? Why should that date exist in this particular section?

Hon. A. Petter: It refers to a statutory date in the Assessment Act for applications for inclusion in the following year.

W. Hurd:

Section 10(3) indicates that "private land is not designated under subsection (1)(

b) as forest reserve land if...." -- and then it lists the conditions. It seems to imply a responsibility on the part of a private land owner that if he doesn't take specific action, his land may be designated. Is that the intent? Is the minister satisfied that as soon as this bill passes into law, the owners of every portion of private land so designated will be knowledgable and aware that their land has now been redesignated, and that there will be no need for them to take any action to have it not designated?

[3:15]

Hon. A. Petter: What we're seeking to do here is take account of those owners who took action subsequent to the 1993 year to have their land removed from the existing classification. The 1993 year is used because it is the last authoritative roll, if I can use the term, in that it is not subject to ongoing appeals and changes, as the current 1994 roll would be. We want to take account of those who, subsequent to the 1993 year, took some affirmative action to notify the Assessment Authority that they no longer wished to have their land classed as managed.

If they have done that, their land is not included within the reserve. This is to make sure we do not prejudice those who took action in respect of the Assessment Authority prior to the introduction of this legislation to make sure their land was not within the classification of private managed forest land, and it therefore will not be included in the reserve.

W. Hurd: This may be another question that can be dealt with later, and I seek the minister's clarification in that regard. There have been concerns expressed on Vancouver Island that the Assessment Authority itself is often the triggering mechanism for taking forest land out of production. I assume it is an initiative of local government that causes that to happen.

We're communicating here through a series of nods and shakes, hon. Chair.

I wonder if

section 10 in any way limits the Assessment Authority in undertaking that, and if that problem has existed in the past. Could the minister explain that? I'm referring to the Assessment Authority taking the initiative of reclassifying forest land and forcing the owner to redesignate it, simply because the taxes can no longer be sustained. Does

section 10 now prevent the Assessment Authority from taking that kind of action?

Hon. A. Petter: This

section sort of addresses it, and it's dealt with elsewhere. For the sake of clarity, we might as well deal with it now, because I think it's an important point. It's one of the real benefits of this legislation.

Right now, once a land owner has had land designated as private managed forest land, then that designation is maintained and cannot be altered by the Assessment Authority, except under two conditions. One is if the owner ceases to maintain the management plan for the land, and the other is if there is a change of ownership. In either of those two cases, the designation automatically becomes unmanaged forest land.

At the point that it's unmanaged, the Assessment Authority will come in and re-evaluate it and determine whether its highest and best use remains forestry. In that case, it would stay as unmanaged forest land, and the owner could then apply to have it redesignated as managed. Alternatively, and this is the problem the member is alluding to, the Assessment Authority can come in and say it believes the land has a higher and better use. Notwithstanding the owner's intention to continue it in forest production -- and that's perhaps the new owner, who has taken over from the former owner --

[ Page 12909 ]

our view is that its highest and best use is for some other purpose.

It has been very frustrating for companies that have acquired land within the reserve to find that, despite their intentions to continue to manage it, the Assessment Authority -- doing the job we've asked it to do, I might add -- says that the land can no longer stay in the managed forest classification because it has a higher and better use.

The effect of this act will be to remedy that. The effect will be that, once you are in the forest land reserve, you're maintained within the reserve. If you cease to manage the land, it will come under the classification of unmanaged, but it will not be subject to the Assessment Authority converting it into some other, higher-and-better-use classification.

This means that when there are transfers of ownership, for example, the new owners can be assured they will continue to enjoy the same tax benefits as the previous owners, which is an assurance that cannot be had now. One has to foreshadow what the Assessment Authority might do. This will thereby increase stability for those who acquire land within this reserve with the intention of managing it for forestry purposes, and provide a measure of stability they do not now have.

W. Hurd: Where the managed forest land has fallen behind on its management and working plan and has become an unmanaged stand, and has possibly even changed ownership, can the minister advise the

committee who makes the determination that the stand is not current with its plan? Is that a function of the Ministry of Forests? Or does the Assessment Authority have any jurisdiction in making that determination? Do the two agencies confer? As the minister knows, the Assessment Authority is an independent creation, and it is deemed necessary that it be so in order to reach a fair evaluation for tax purposes.

Hon. A. Petter: That is currently done by the Assessment Authority, and they have foresters on staff to do that. That will continue to be done by the Assessment Authority through its staff.

Section 10 approved.

section 11.

Hon. A. Petter: I'd be happy to provide an example from my own constituency. In the Highlands area of my constituency there are small owners of forest land. I think this

section will largely be of benefit to small owners, because most of the unmanaged forest land in the province is held by smaller owners -- the larger owners already have the managed-category designation. They have been trying to get themselves included within the managed forest land category, but have been frustrated for the reason we discussed earlier -- namely, the Assessment Authority does not agree that the highest and best use of the land is forestry, even though the owners wish to use it for that purpose.

From a purely economic point of view, even though the land is good growing land and has forestry potential, the Assessment Authority, under its independent mandate, has determined that forestry is not currently the highest and best use.

This

section will enable owners of those small portions of land to apply through the commission to have their land included within the reserve. In exchange for that inclusion, those owners will get the tax benefits of managed forest land if the commission agrees that the land is suitable for forestry use.

W. Hurd: I can understand the minister's example in an urban setting, where property taxes are punitive or at least onerous, based on current assessments. I am thinking of more of a rural taxation model where the land already used for forest practices, which is subject now to the Forest Practices Code, might be land on which ranching is part of the activity and there's a limited amount of harvesting going on. When the taxation issue is really not a relevant factor, I just don't see what inducement, if any, there would be for someone to come forward and achieve this designation. Or is this particular bill not intended to address private forest land on which taxes are simply not a huge issue?

Hon. A. Petter: First, with respect to grazing, that land would be classified as farmland, not forest land for most purposes. It's true that taxation-wise there may be not much incentive in areas where there's not much difference, although there is the opportunity to benefit from the tax reduction from unmanaged to managed forest land, which provides some inducement. There certainly would not be as strong an inducement in far-flung rural areas as there would be in areas closer to settlement land or which have recreation potential.

R. Neufeld: I also have some difficulty with what the official opposition critic was talking about with regard to some of the small landholdings. I don't have any problem with the larger landholdings. There are 4,200 folios taken into account on private managed forest land in British Columbia. I didn't add up the amount of acres or hectares, but some folios are as small as seven acres.

Can the minister assure me that all of these people -- disregarding the larger companies like MacMillan Bloedel -- with the smaller holdings, including people with seven acres in Vernon or Kelowna, have voluntarily requested to have their land put in managed forest land. Can he assure me that we will not hear from any one of these people because of what is transpiring here today with the removal of.... I call it an assault on private property rights. The minister and I differ there, and I have to get that on the record. I have difficulty believing that someone with

[ Page 12910 ]

14 acres would designate it as forest land for only forest purposes. It is just beyond me.

Hon. A. Petter: This probably isn't the

section in which to discuss this, but it is an important issue. With the Chair's indulgence I will do so, because this

section deals with those who wish to add into the reserve, not those who are already there.

Interjection.

Hon. A. Petter: Yes. But let me answer the question. The number of folios is one thing. The number we are talking about is 121 owners of all the private managed forest land in the province. I can give the member an absolute assurance that every single one of those owners made application to the Assessment Authority to have that land designated as private managed forest land, and made the commitments that were appropriate to that designation. I can tell the member that there are many others who would like to have done so but couldn't because they couldn't get into the unmanaged category to make the application, because of the tax benefits.

I don't want to pretend to the member that means they will all necessarily be happy with the creation of a reserve, which imposes some additional restrictions that I believe are consistent with the commitments they made. But they may disagree with that. I can give him an absolute assurance that each and every one of those owners made application and indicated their intention to manage that land as managed forest land.

W. Hurd: To follow up the point made by the member for Peace River North, the issue is whether those owners will now be made aware -- or have been made aware -- that while they may have applied with respect to managed forest land under the previous rules, they will now have to go before a commission to apply to have the land taken out, and may in fact have to pay back taxes.

It seems to me that there is a risk here that a lot of small land owners who have holdings as small as seven hectares will wake up tomorrow -- or perhaps two or even ten years from now -- and still be unaware that a significant change has occurred with respect to their fee simple land. I think that was also part of the assurance that was being sought here.

Hon. A. Petter: I can assure the member that all 121 owners will be informed of the status and of its implications. I am sure that those who made the commitment in good faith to manage it for forestry in the long term will not be the slightest bit perturbed. But there may be some who disagree with my assessment.

H. De Jong: I have a question on this. I don't deny that the minister is speaking the truth in terms of these people being aware of the fact that they have applied for this special classification. But suppose there is a 40-acre parcel within a regional district that the regional district, through its community plan, has seen fit to designate into five- or ten-acre minimum lot sizes. Can the minister explain whether the five- or ten-acre designation would continue? Would the individual be able to subdivide on that basis, considering, of course, that the land use was relatively maintained?

Hon. A. Petter: We're straying from this

section -- and there is a

section that deals with subdivision -- but the short answer, to clear these up now, is that if it's in an official community plan designation, but not an actual subdivision that currently exists, then the owner would not be permitted to subdivide without first seeking the approval of the commission.

Section 11 approved.

section 12.

W. Hurd:

Section 12 implies that over the course of time the cabinet may designate forest land to be part of this forest land reserve. I wonder whether there's any requirement for public input or involvement with respect to this type of initiative from cabinet. Would it be a normal order-in-council, or some other measure, by the Crown?

[3:30]

I have a series of additional questions, but they might better pertain to

section 13. One question I asked the minister earlier was whether the Crown land designated as part of the forest land reserve would in fact be subject to a full review by the commission, which could then theoretically turn down a cabinet order to designate land or to take land out. I'm just wondering, and this may not be the appropriate section, whether the Crown, if it makes application to remove land or add it, is subject to a full review by the commission and the decision by the commission.

Hon. A. Petter: We should leave the question of removal until we get to that section. This

section deals with addition and enables the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, through cabinet order, to designate land or add Crown land to the reserve. There is also a power that enables the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to refer that proposal to the commission for its comments, where that's appropriate.

We've certainly made it clear that our policy will be to make those designations following land use planning processes in which the public is fully involved. This includes the kind of planning processes that have occurred on Vancouver Island, culminating in the Vancouver Island land use decision, or the LRMP processes that are taking place in communities and areas like Kamloops, where again the public is fully involved.

What this enables us to do, and what we intend to do, is use this as an instrument to secure the forest land base on Crown land that is identified as a result of those planning processes, so that the designation can be given the same kind of legislative footing through cabinet order that parkland, for example, now enjoys. On Vancouver Island we will be proceeding to designate that component of the land base that will be available for commercial forestry, which is 81 percent of the land base and which will then, under the Forest Practices Code, be further designated for particular commercial forestry uses.

The intention is to designate, following land use planning processes, in order to give the same kind of legislative status to the commercial forest base that is enjoyed by agricultural land or parkland.

W. Hurd: The member for Abbotsford has raised a sound point with respect to how local communities or governments may be affected by such designation. Clearly, if the Crown were to designate an area adjacent to

[ Page 12911 ]

an urban centre as forest land reserve, it would in essence be introducing a much lower rate of taxation for that land, one would assume.

Hon. A. Petter: It's Crown land.

W. Hurd: Oh, it's Crown land. That's correct.

I'm wondering whether this designation would be subject to any form of local hearing or planning initiative by the municipality. Or would the Crown basically make a decision to designate the land based on its forestry values? The implication is that once placed in the reserve, there would be virtually no chance that the Crown would seek to redesignate the land at a future date.

Hon. A. Petter: Again, the situation may be a little different when we get to the exclusion side. But on the inclusion side, I would point out that the land to be included is land that is already within the provincial forest, under the Forest Act. It is Crown land. Certainly municipalities and local governments are important voices involved in all the land use planning processes that are taking place and that will lead to this designation, be it through the regional planning process that has been established by CORE or the LRMP process that is ongoing in a number of areas of the province.

[J. Pullinger in the chair.]

R. Neufeld: Just a little further along, on municipalities and regional districts, I am trying to picture in my mind the constituency I represent, specifically Fort Nelson. It's a little different situation than what you might find in Fort St. John or some place on the Island. All the land is Crown land; there is very little privately held land around Fort Nelson. In fact, the forest land encompasses that community very closely. The community has had difficulty expanding, trying to get land away from Lands for rural-residential use -- and that's presently, before this bill comes into effect.

We know that the object of the commission is to minimize the impact of urban development. When I relate my memory back to what takes place in the Agricultural Land Commission and the difficulties there, I can see that this may make it a little more difficult for communities to expand. Specifically, that is one.

Maybe the minister could help me with another thing that happens in that constituency. There are people who are still farming or who want to start farming in that part of British Columbia, and they've always had difficulty with the forest designation. It encompasses a huge area, but that doesn't mean the whole area is best used for forest purposes. There are lots of areas around Fort Nelson that are better used for agricultural than for forest purposes.

What is going to happen there, Mr. Minister? I think that is going to be a real difficulty for those people who still want to try to clear land and farm. That may not be common in the lower mainland around Vancouver or on Vancouver Island, but there are a few hardy souls in the north who still want to clear land and farm. It's on land owned by the Crown and designated for forests. I think this bill may make it a little more difficult.

Hon. A. Petter: There are three components to the member's question that I want to answer.

First, just to be clear, we are aware of no private land whatsoever in the member's region that would come in here as private managed forest land -- just to set that concern aside, if there was one.

On the question of Crown land, our policy will be to only include Crown land within the reserve once there has been a local or regional planning process in which the views of the municipalities and others have been heard. If there is a need to provide for land for urban expansion, that presumably would form part of the proposed plan, and the designations would take account of that.

There are two other points to be made. Once a forest land reserve on Crown land is created following such a planning process in any region of the province, including the region the member represents, there is a process for exclusion, which we will get to. One of the indicators for exclusion has to do with the need for urban expansion or community expansion, and an evaluation of highest and best use.

Beyond that, as we'll see when we get to the definition of forest land reserve, there is the opportunity for other activities -- like grazing, for example -- to take place within the forest land base. There's no reason to remove land from the forest land base to provide for grazing. Through regulation, one could provide for other forms of agricultural activity as well within the forest land reserve base. While forestry is certainly the primary economic activity within the forest land base, other resource base activities, including grazing and potentially other agricultural uses, could be accommodated within that base.

H. De Jong: The minister made a slight reference to park reserves. As I understand it, the 23 new parks that have been established or are intended to be established here on Vancouver Island are not going to be within the forest reserve, but in a park reserve. Given the situation, though -- and I experienced it when I was in municipal office from time to time with a rather densely treed park -- there needs to be some trimming within the parks.

Some trees need to be cut from time to time because of age, dead treetops and so on to protect the safety of the individuals who may be using the parks, and to let some sunlight into some areas. Would it not make a lot more sense to allow for some selective tree-cutting, if I may call it that, or logging to be done within the parks, which would only enhance the parks, and keep those areas within the forest reserve? It would allow for a far broader use of the parks. It was mentioned earlier during the debate that some of the wetlands may be included in the forest reserve.

Why are the wetlands in the forest reserve? Why not the other parks as well? I think it would lend to a much clearer understanding that, yes, when a tree becomes too old -- like any other crop, it outgrows itself -- it has to be either thinned out or cut down in a reasonable way, and trees will be replanted. After all, new growth has to occur from time to time.

Hon. A. Petter: The intention of the reserve is to designate the land base that is available for commercial forestry. That does not mean that there might not be some removal of trees within parks for reasons of safety or biological reasons that are allowed within the Park Act. But that is not a land base that is available for commercial forestry. It's a land base from which trees that have some commercial value -- or not -- may be removed, but for different reasons. For that reason, it is appropriate in our

[ Page 12912 ]

view to not dilute the concept of the forest land reserve to include incidental cutting of trees in areas outside of the reserve that can and may go on in accordance with the requirements of the Park Act, but rather to designate that component of the land base that is secured for commercial forestry and other renewable resource activities and natural resource activities on that land base. That's what's intended here.

Section 12 approved.

section 13.

W. Hurd: I think this is an important

section as well, because it designates the permitted uses of Crown licence land within the forest land reserve. I want to specifically address my questions to 13(2). First of all, can the minister advise how the designation of "forest or wilderness oriented recreation, scenery and wilderness purposes" under subsection (

c) would...? Would that apply to the entire managed forest unit if there is an attachment of private and Crown land? I'm thinking specifically of some tree farm licences, for example. Is this a master designation that applies to all land, public and private, within the reserve, or is this

section specifically aimed at establishing standards for the Crown land portion of a managed forest unit?

Hon. A. Petter: Subsection (2) deals with land other than Crown land or Crown licence land, which would be private land within tree farm licences. It's subsection (1) that deals with Crown land and Crown licence land. As the member will note, it simply says that it "must not be used except as permitted by or under the Forest Act." There's no change there. The reserve permits uses that are consistent with the Forest Act.

Hon. A. Petter: There's no change in terms of the use; the change is in terms of the designation and the fact that the land cannot be removed from the forest land base as represented by the forest land reserve except through a new, extraordinary process. In terms of the uses of that land within the reserve, that will be governed by the Forest Act and the tenures and licences created under it and by the Forest Practices Code. This does not alter that.

What this does is provide a vehicle for designating Crown land as reserve land, by making it more secure and more difficult to exclude land from that base, by protecting that land base from encroachment and by providing a degree of stability around it.

[3:45]

On the Crown land side of the equation, the use of that Crown forest land is governed by other acts, such as the Forest Act and the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia when that becomes law.

W. Hurd: Just so I have this clear, for all Crown land and Crown licence land that falls under the jurisdiction of the Forest Act, an application must be made to the commission in order to redesignate it. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Petter: No, the act establishes a procedure whereby cabinet can designate the current Crown forest land to be part of the forest land reserve. I've indicated that our intention as a government is to make that designation, following the completion of land use planning processes.

Once that designation is made by cabinet, then it can only be reversed by cabinet and, as we will see when we get to the appropriate sections, in most cases only following the advice of the commission. That means the political impetus to maintain that land as forest land is much greater, and the land base is secured and identified in a very different way than it has been in the past -- a way that is really analogous to the identification of parkland under the Park Act.

W. Hurd: If and when this bill becomes law and the Crown were to decide that an existing

section of land in this reserve that is subject to the Forest Act should be used for another purpose -- whether it be back-country recreation, a tenure or licence arrangement or some such measure -- it would not have to reference that through the commission in any way.

Hon. A. Petter: Provided that it was a purpose that was consistent with uses that are permitted under the Forest Act. If it was a purpose that was not consistent with uses under the Forest Act, then the Crown would presumably have to seek to have that excluded through some of the extraordinary mechanisms we will get to later in the afternoon.

Section 13 approved.

section 14.

G. Wilson: I have questions on

section 14 and

section 15 with respect to non-conformance and specific permitted uses.

Section 14(1) specifically, starting at "subject to the regulations, on application," talks about the necessary reference to local government and authorization, if it's affecting the OCP or some other kind of local bylaw on zoning. It suggests under 14(1) that there may in fact be authorization of activities other than those included in 13(2)(

a) through (f); 14(2) says this can be done by application to local government. I wonder if the minister can tell us what other uses he's referring to. I'm specifically wanting to know, first, whether those uses could be ones that would create an alienation -- i.e., an erosion -- of that land base. Second, what if the owner is the local government? Does it permit the local government, strictly through OCP changes or amendments, to move an alteration to lands that ordinarily would be in the reserve, and which would then erode the base by permitted uses through this exclusion?

Hon. A. Petter: On your second question, if there were municipally owned land that formed part of the reserve, and if that land were to be excluded from the reserve or some other use was required, then the approval of the commission would have to be sought by local

[ Page 12913 ]

government. Local government would, of course, have an opportunity to provide its advice as part of that.

On the first question the member raised, what's envisaged is that there may be other uses permitted on the land base that do not compromise the continuance of the total land base as forest land, and it therefore makes sense to allow those within the reserve without requiring exclusion.

One can imagine different examples. If there is to be a mine on private land, it may be that some mining operation associated with the mine would be such a permitted use. If there were a need to provide for some basic processing facility associated with the resource extraction, that might be a permitted use. One can imagine a number of different examples. It will be up to the commission to determine what those uses might be, as they come forward.

The commission will have to take account of the basic purposes, which are to maintain a forest land reserve, and determine whether the recommended use can be accommodated within the reserve without compromising its overall purpose and without necessitating exclusion from it.

There's one other little point I want to add, in case members are wondering. Where a use is permitted on the forest land reserve that is other than a forestry use, the assessment value of that component of the land base corresponds with that use. The land would be assessed according to its use, not as forest land, if it were not a forestry use.

G. Wilson: It's interesting that the minister should use the example of a mine. What I was actually thinking of was gravel extraction. I'm thinking of a couple of sites I know where local government has an interest in zoning, and where gravel extraction is now becoming a more significant land use than it has been in the past, yet it is within a reserve that has been already cut. It is under silviculture now and, in years to come, there's presumably likely to be a harvestable forest again.

Yet if priority is given to the extraction of gravel in some of those areas, the roads that are going in and the claiming of that gravel is going to have a detrimental effect on the

long-term value of the land as forest land. In one instance, it's private property, but it's large amounts of private property held by a corporation, which may in fact move fairly quickly to attempt to get an exemption by virtue of the fact that that operation is underway. The second is land that is zoned and permitted through a regional district, which is now looking to put in place, through the development of an OCP, a change in land use status that would, I think, eliminate the opportunity for long-term forest management in that area.

Hon. A. Petter: First of all, when we get to

section 15, we'll find that nonconforming uses are already grand-parented, so that should not be a concern in the case that's raised. Second, there may be some uses that will occur so regularly that by regulation under

section 13(2)(f), they will be anticipated by regulation, and gravel may be one of those. Third, yes, the commission will have the power to grant specific nonconforming uses on presumably small components of the land base and to attach conditions. So if reclamation were required, for example, that could be attached as a condition to ensure that the future use of that land is consistent with the overall purpose of the reserve, once, in the member's example, gravel had been removed from the area.

G. Wilson: Just a last question on this. In the event that there is a conflicting point of view -- let me put it that way -- between local government and the commission with respect to the provision of local land use bylaws, who has supremacy in that question? I've looked through this act to see, and it would seem that the commission does. But I'd like the minister to tell us that is so just for the record.

Hon. A. Petter: For the record, unless it's a permitted use under

section 13, and that could be accomplished through regulation under 13(2)(

f) as well.... If it's not that and it's something, say, the local government wanted to see happen on the land base and had zoned accordingly, and the commission felt that it was not consistent, then the commission would ultimately have the authority to decide.

I want to give the member the answer for the record. What we envisage is a more cooperative relationship than is suggested by that answer, particularly on this issue, because we believe very strongly that local governments should be partners in this exercise. I hope the commission and local government could work it out.

H. De Jong: The minister mentioned the other day that the two commissions would be in the same building, in Burnaby, I presume, and I suppose that makes sense to some degree. But if a person owned 100 acres or whatever, which was initially in the forest reserve, and he had cleared the land and applied to have it in the agricultural reserve instead, could the commission deal with an issue like that -- to move it from one reserve to another? Can the minister see that there may be a lot of tugging of one commission over the other, while it may be in the best interests of the individual to apply for agriculture rather than forestry status?

Hon. A. Petter: The member's example intrigues me, because, in fact, I think the more likely example would go the other way -- those in the agricultural land reserve wanting to come into the forest land reserve. But it could happen in the way the member envisages. You could apply to have land excluded from the forest land reserve and included in the agricultural land reserve. I suppose having the same offices in Burnaby would mean you could include both applications in a single envelope.

H. De Jong: Just on the lighter side, then, would the minister perhaps see a problem having both commissions in the same building?

Hon. A. Petter: No, it makes good sense. It's administratively more efficient. While they are different and the commissions will be different, there are sufficient similarities in the procedures that it makes sense to use the same staff and to build on the resources already there.

Section 14 approved.

section 15.

G. Wilson: The minister has actually partly answered my question on

section 15. But I just want to, because there is a specific issue I know I'm going to have to answer when I go back to my riding.... If there is a gravel operation and there's a non-conformance in place,

section 15(2) suggests, as is normal language with a

[ Page 12914 ]

non-conformance, that it has to be maintained at a scale consistent with and no greater than the degree of operation at the time referred to in that subsection. The problem with a gravel operation -- the very nature of it, at least in terms of area -- is that if it's under licence, you're going to have a continued expansion of it. Does scale refer to the volume being extracted at any given time? Or does it talk about the land area under extraction? How do we define that? It could be a real problem if it means you can't complete the extraction as per your licence.

[4:00]

Hon. A. Petter: It's a good question. It's one of those questions the commission will have to deal with. I could offer you my sense of it, but I think at the end of the day it will be a question the commission has to deal with. If it's a highly contentious question, I suppose, ultimately the courts could determine it. One can't foreshadow every situation.

R. Neufeld: Just to continue on with what the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast talked about, I had the same issue in mind about gravel. I'm trying to grapple with something else that could come forward under this. If we go down to subsection (4)(b), it's grandfathered, and I appreciate that; but subsection (4)(

b) states that "the non-conforming use is discontinued for a continuous period of 6 months." A lot of uses, I guess, may be discontinued for six months, one being gravel where I come from -- guaranteed. Often it's very seasonal. Or it may be left for a number of years before you come back to it. Some issues in that might be nitpicking a bit. But it's an issue that will come forward later on, and I think we should be dealing with it now.

Hon. A. Petter: I'm informed by staff that to their knowledge there are virtually no nonconforming uses on private managed forest land that they are aware of.

Interjection.

Hon. A. Petter: However, the member says he knows of at least one. It's always the exception that proves the rule, too. The six-month provision and the provision the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast referred to about scale and extent are language found in the Municipal Act. If we had time, I suppose there's probably some judicial

interpretation on that language that might assist as well. In both cases it's language borrowed from the Municipal Act. It's consistent with the basic regime used by municipalities, and will be familiar to municipalities for that reason.

R. Neufeld: In that case, then, obviously you've just used the six-month period from the Municipal Act also. Would it maybe be advisable to lengthen that time? If there are not a lot of nonconforming uses now, as the minister said -- other than the two the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast mentions that he knows of -- and if it's not going to make that much difference, maybe that time should be lengthened to a year or something to that effect.

Hon. A. Petter: Well, I guess I can argue it both ways. If it's insignificant, you can make it longer. If it's insignificant, you can maintain it where it is. I think six months is appropriate. It's a time period that is used in a standard way in the Municipal Act, and the fact that there has been a prior nonconforming use will make it much easier for a person who wishes to come back and continue that nonconforming use beyond six months, albeit requiring the approval of the commission.

W. Hurd: I'm just curious, with respect to

section 15(1), why it would be the decision of the government, first of all, to provide an exception as of the introduction of this bill in the Legislative Assembly, and why the government would choose to have a nonconforming-use designation continue for an indefinite period. Why wouldn't it just provide for the commission to recognize that the use was different from that of forest land and simply redesignate it for other uses? I don't quite understand why the feeling here is that there needs to be a nonconforming use continued for an indefinite period.

Is that because there is always the opportunity for the land to be returned to forest production in the future? Is that the aim of the exercise?

Hon. A. Petter: The reference to the date is to clearly take away an incentive from those who may be aware of this legislation to rush out and suddenly have a proliferation of nonconforming uses on their land, which would then compromise the reserve.

The answer to the second part of that question is: remember, this is land that the owners themselves have designated as suitable for long-term forest management and have committed themselves to that form of management on. Presumably, if there are nonconforming uses, they see them as being of only temporary duration, or they would have sought to exclude that component of the land base from the private managed forest land. In short, therefore, yes, to protect the long-term integrity of the reserve, the owner is free to seek to have it excluded on a permanent basis.

But given that the land is currently zoned by the owner's own initiative as forest land, the assumption is that the non-conforming use is of a temporary nature.

Section 15 approved.

section 16.

W. Hurd: I'm curious with respect to

section 16, which places a restriction on subdividing private forest land, because clearly this doesn't apply to Crown land. Would this subdivision be applied for under the auspices of a local or regional government? Is this strictly a

section related to an application by a land owner to appear before a municipal government? What other type of subdivision might there be with respect to

section 16?

Hon. A. Petter: What's referred to here is the subdivision process that currently exists within each area. In the case of organized areas, it would be municipalities, and in unorganized areas, it would be the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. It's the regular subdivision process that currently occurs throughout the province.

H. De Jong: Suppose someone has a home that is not a permitted use under the forest reserve or a machine shop on his private land, and it's all within the reserve. Would he be allowed to subdivide that portion of the property in order to avoid being nonconforming to the reserve policies?

[ Page 12915 ]

Hon. A. Petter: Again, given the character of most private managed forest land, we don't envisage this as being a major concern. Certainly the home can be maintained as a nonconforming use. It might be a tax advantage to do so, I suppose. Failing that, someone could come forward and seek to have it subdivided, with the commission's approval. If it became a major concern -- and certainly we as a government wouldn't want to put hoops in the way of people who obviously have a use that's not consistent with the continuation of a forest use -- we could, through regulation, provide for subdivision under those circumstances.

H. De Jong: That answer isn't all that comforting, because the minister doesn't seem to be so sure that that may be of concern to a person. When a person has a building that becomes nonconforming.... The Municipal Act states that it can't be rebuilt after a fire. If a building is not used for a particular period of time -- for instance, the machine shop may not be used for four or five months -- it would be in jeopardy. It would seem to me that in order to avoid problems for people who may be affected that way, it should be very clear that when it's put into that reserve, they will be given the opportunity to subdivide portions that may be nonconforming.

Hon. A. Petter: I want to discourage the member from extrapolating from the agricultural land experience, because there is a major difference here. The land being designated private managed forest land should not include any, let alone many, examples of the kind the member has given. Land that's used residentially should be zoned residential, or land used for machine shops should be zoned in an appropriate way, and that would not normally form part of the private managed forest land classification. We're only talking about 121 owners here, remember; it's not a huge area. Most of those owners are corporate.

But if some anomaly arises and it turns out that there is a residence or machine shop on this land base, I'm sure that the commission would not want to see that continue to be in the forest land reserve; it wouldn't make sense. We could also deal with it through regulation.

I did suggest earlier -- and I just want to correct this -- that there might be some tax advantage to staying in the reserve. That's not the case. I was incorrect to suggest that, and I want to withdraw that suggestion.

Section 16 approved.

section 17.

W. Hurd: I just have a brief clarification with respect to

section 17, which contains a restriction on the local government authority. I can certainly understand that the adoption of a bylaw or the issuance of a permit would be areas of concern. I wonder if there's any reference made to an official community plan. My first question would be: is it anticipated that an official community plan designation would in any way be restricted here?

My second question would relate to other ministries of the provincial government. The member for Peace River North raised the issue of Crown land that entirely surrounds the town of Fort Nelson. Were the Ministry of Highways to designate an area for a long-term highway expansion, for example, and then have to exercise some sort of need to have the land excluded, would that have to go through the rather lengthy processes anticipated under

section 17? And then, as we move on to sections 18 and 19, does the restriction on government also include the province, and does it also include an official community plan designation by a local government?

Hon. A. Petter: This is basically the current law in terms of the ability of local government to determine the use of private managed forest land. It does not have any of the further consequences for the Ministry of Highways that the member seems to be suggesting. Right now, there are restrictions on the ability of local government to regulate private managed forest land, and this basically grandparents those restrictions.

W. Hurd: A community plan designation, which I recognize has no legal standing under the Municipal Act, may act as a disincentive for a private land holder to include his land in the reserve. Alternatively, it might act as a disincentive for a major investment in forest management on that particular parcel that may be designated for another use under the official community plan.

Hon. A. Petter: No, it doesn't preclude a municipality having an official community plan.... If the member is looking for the current provision in the Municipal Act, it's

section 943(2), which is repealed through the consequential amendments of this act. That is where this

section derives from.

D. Jarvis: How would this apply to a watershed area, for example? Would the municipality be able to stop all logging in a watershed area or commence logging in a watershed area if they were doing selective logging?

[4:15]

Hon. A. Petter: Let me give you the situation right now, as I understand it, and then the situation following this. If it was privately managed forest land in a community watershed -- which occurs on Vancouver Island. I'm not sure if it occurs in the member's constituency -- right now the municipal government would not be able to regulate logging activity on that land. That will continue to be the case. What has changed is that through the provisions of the Forest Practices Code we will be able to ensure that the logging that takes place on private land within watersheds is conducted in accordance with the requirements of the code. That's one of the real benefits that the code affords us.

Section 17 approved.

section 18.

W. Hurd: This question could actually be referenced in both sections 18 and 19. With respect to

section 18, I wonder if the commission submitting an application to local government for its consideration -- and approval, I would assume.... Clearly, that represents a different process than the agricultural land reserve. Is that a correct assessment? Is there a role for local governments under

section 18 -- and

section 19, for that matter -- that requires the local government to sign off on an exclusion from the forest land reserve?

Hon. A. Petter: My understanding of the Agricultural Land Commission and the way it operates in practice is that it tends to involve local governments in decisions. But the member is absolutely correct: this legislation

[ Page 12916 ]

envisages a formal role for local government that goes beyond that involved in the agricultural land reserve. One of the reasons for that is that the agricultural land reserve deals with a fairly small component of the land base; it is based largely on soil capability. Here we're dealing with a potentially larger component of the land base, and one in which there are a number of variables -- urban growth and uses that need to be weighed....

Therefore there is a larger role for policy here, and local government is probably in the best position to provide some of that policy, particularly on its needs for urban expansion, as referenced by the member for Fort Nelson. So yes, there's a larger, more formalized role recognized here for local government.

W. Hurd: Sections 18 and 19 get us into a bit of philosophy on the removal of land. It's my impression that in the agricultural land reserve there's an important social value in retaining land for food production that outweighs many other considerations for development. In the case of forest land, the opportunity exists through enhanced growth and yield to make up for area-based removals around urban areas. Would the minister anticipate it to be somewhat easier to remove land from the forest land reserve adjacent to communities where the developer was clearly willing to pay the six years in back taxes?

The local government might be exerting considerable pressure on the Crown because of a need to expand its tax base to build a community recreational facility or due to some other limitation on its boundaries. I wouldn't anticipate that the same sort of urgent social need exists with respect to the forest land reserve as would be the case with the agricultural land reserve.

Therefore I can't conceive of too many situations where the local government would actually decline to see the land taken out of the reserve, perhaps sold and then redeveloped for a use that would result in a considerable enhancement of the tax base in that municipality.

Hon. A. Petter: I was ready to be very agreeable until the member's last comment. Many local governments have been very concerned about the depletion of forest land. They felt they did not have adequate powers as municipal governments to deal with that, and for that reason the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities, as I referenced in second reading, has gone on record as asking for this kind of reserve, because they wish to have a mechanism that can better secure the forest land base on which many of those communities depend for their long-term economic survival.

I disagree with the member's last comment that local governments will not be resistant to exclusions. I think they will be resistant where those exclusions compromise their economic future.

But the member is correct in saying that soil capability will not be as great a determinant here, or not be the same determinant as in agricultural land. There is greater room here for recognition of the needs of municipalities to facilitate necessary growth. Where the municipality indicates that land is needed for necessary growth and the land has been designated such and is logical for such, there is a greater opportunity for exclusion, in my view, than would be the case in agricultural land. In the case of agricultural land, the capability of the soil is the predominant determinant,

whereas here it is one of a number of determinants.

W. Hurd: As we proceed through the chronology of land removal or withdrawal from the reserve, I would assume that the owner would obviously make application to the commission and the commission would make a ruling, such as is the case with the agricultural land reserve. Is there any mechanism for the commission to determine the wishes or aspirations of the local government before it decides to make a ruling? Having received the blessing of the commission, the owner of the land may then find himself running up against local government in a

re-enactment of some of the rezoning and subdivision battles that occur. I wonder whether the commission has to be sort of legally blind in terms of what the local government may wish. Or would it simply decide that it would exempt the land and let the local government decide whether it was going to approve of it or not?

Hon. A. Petter: The Chair will forgive me if I feel like I'm in one of those old Bob and Ray routines where I thought I answered the question, only to have the question asked again. There is a very formal role here for local government, and when we get to

section 20 we will see that local government is required to consider applications that are made, review those applications, and then provide its advice to the commission. The commission is then required to consider that advice. Far from being blind to local government, what is envisaged here -- as I said earlier -- is a partnership with local government in which certain aspects of the decision are informed by the input of local governments and certain aspects by the input of the commission. Taking those two inputs -- if I can use that unfortunate expression -- the commission then makes a determination.

W. Hurd: With respect to

section 18(4), which is the point we are referencing here, just so I have it straight, would the commission then consider the application and refer it to the local government before it made a decision? Is that the chronology here? Would it wait for written input from the local government and then make its announcement? There is no need, then, for the applicant to liaise in any way with the local government or undertake any sort of activity on behalf of his application at the local level before it's received by the commission, because that type of thing will all be done in a package arrangement with the Forest Land Commission.

Hon. A. Petter: The procedure is that the applicant will apply to the commission, and the commission then has the obligation to engage local government. They would forward the application to local government, and it would come back to the commission with their advice. The only thing I would add is that that does not mean the applicant would not want to deal with local government. Presumably the applicant would want to go before local government and make the case based on the criteria the local government is charged with considering under

section 20.

Sections 18 to 20 inclusive approved.

section 21.

W. Hurd: This is potentially a very contentious part of the bill: the recapture of a tax benefit that has been deemed to be forgone by the Crown over a period of.... I

[ Page 12917 ]

believe we talked about the period of six years in second reading, and I'm looking for some indication here. Regardless of that, there is a provision here for the Crown to recapture an unclaimed tax benefit. I wonder if the minister could just briefly expand on what kind of consideration is going to be made here. Is there going to be a surrogate tax notice prepared for the previous six years assuming a value of the land? What would that be based on? I'm trying to determine how the Crown will valuate this clawback provision.

Assuming, for example, that someone applies in 1995 to remove the land from the reserve and is successful, and that means that the Crown would be recapturing an enhanced value of the land from 1989 to '95 or so, how will the Crown make the determination about how much is to be recaptured? What kind of assessment will they use on the land to make that determination?

Hon. A. Petter: We're foreshadowing other sections, but maybe it's useful to deal with it all at once at this stage. This builds on the notion I explained earlier. I do want to explain this again, because there is the danger of it being misunderstood. This is a very different circumstance from when a zoning designation is imposed on a land owner. In this case, we're dealing with an assessment category that the land owner seeks and achieves in exchange for a long-term commitment for the management and regeneration of that land.

In the event that the owner does not carry through on that commitment, the policy reflected in the act is that there should be some repayment of the benefit that was received, because the purpose for which the benefit was received has not been fulfilled.

That recapture takes place at the time at which the land is removed from the reserve. An assessment is done, the difference between that assessed value and the forest land value is determined, and then a rate of tax is applied to capture the applicable tax on that difference for a period of six years. One could argue that it should be a much longer period than six years, but one can't be sure how values may have fluctuated. The six years is a proxy, and I'd say it's a fairly conservative proxy. By that I mean that it's one that gives the benefit to the land owner for the tax benefit the land owner received in exchange for a commitment that is not now being fulfilled.

R. Neufeld: Actually, further on,

section 24 deals with a formula. But

section 21 deals with the recapture charge. If someone is successful.... I assume from what the minister told me, with only 121 land owners.... But some people with property as small as seven hectares are not going to be very happy with what's taking place. I'm not going to say that there will be a lot of them, but some of them are not. But if a person is fortunate enough to get it out of the reserve, as I read this, he only has 30 days to pay the recapture tax difference.

Section 21(2) says: "If the recapture charge is not paid within 30 days after the commission gives the applicant notice that it has approved removal of the land, the recapture charge payable is increased by interest at a rate prescribed by regulation." Okay, then they can go to 90 days. They're charged interest for 60 days, I would assume. It reverts back if that person is not able to pay that amount of money. I'm not sure whether that's going to be a significant amount or not, because it's hard to tell unless you were to take a test case and you went and found out. But it may be onerous on someone....

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: The minister says no, but I'll just get that clarification. It may be onerous on some smaller property owner if he or she had to pay that amount.

The other question I have is about subsection (4)(b). Subsection (4) says: "A recapture charge is not required to be paid in the following circumstances...(

b) the removal is for circumstances prescribed by regulation as circumstances in which a recapture charge is not required to be paid...." Can the minister elaborate on that a bit and tell me what he envisions, or what the drafters envisioned, as properties where the recapture tax would not have to paid?

[4:30]

Hon. A. Petter: With respect to the last question, I think that here we're looking at something that would be a demonstrable public good -- the creation of a sewage treatment plan -- which the community needed, and it would be unfair to request a recapture charge under those circumstances.

In respect to the first question, the only way in which the charge would be of tremendous significance would be if the value of the land in its non-forest use was much greater than its value as forest land, in which case there should be no difficulty in the land owner paying the charge. Once it's removed, its value in terms of its ability to raise funds for any number of purposes will be far in excess of what it was previously.

So we're talking about six years of tax rate -- not six years of total value -- on the difference in value, which is not going to be a large amount, frankly, unless the difference in land value is gargantuan. In that case there's plenty of security there for the land owner to pay the tax and realize a very great profit, as well.

R. Neufeld: The minister agrees with me that it could happen. Just because you change the value of a person's property -- and I think we had those arguments a number of years ago about assessment and people living in homes where the value is going up tremendously, specifically in Vancouver, and they cannot afford to pay the taxes -- and the value of their land increases horrendously doesn't mean that they specifically have the hard, cold cash to pay the difference. That's what's inherently wrong with what you're thinking, and that's probably where we disagree.

Hon. A. Petter: Again, I just want to say that this is a different situation than the one described by the member. I don't disagree with the one described by the member. This is not a case of a value going up while the property owner does nothing. The tax benefit is gained because the land owner makes a commitment. The recapture charge is imposed because the land owner takes some affirmative action to change the use of the land and by doing so gains a value.

It isn't just that the land's value has suddenly grown due to natural forces; it's because the land owner has taken some affirmative action -- presumably because they have some very specific plans to realize that increased value -- and in doing so is abrogating the commitment made earlier to utilize that land for forestry purposes. It's a very different situation than the one the member describes. Indeed, it's very different from a situation where the value of the land goes up with a change of use, but there has been no prior commitment by the owner.

[ Page 12918 ]

Here the fact that the owner's commitment is not going to be fulfilled provides the policy basis for the tax recapture, not simply the change in use. If it were simply a change in use from unmanaged forest land to some other category, which occurs now and will continue to occur, there is no tax recapture. It's only because the owner made a commitment and said: "I intend to manage this for long-term forest use; I would like a tax benefit because of that." The public, through government, said: "Yes, that's fine." Now the owner comes back and says: "Oops, I changed my mind.

I'm going to do something else." The government is saying: "That's fine, you can do something else if the commission agrees. But given that we gave you this benefit because of your commitment, it's only fair that you return at least a portion of it."

R. Neufeld: I guess we could argue this all day. You're assuming that the person who's taking this out of the reserve has some other use for it immediately. That may not be case. Some of those small property owners, with five or seven hectares, may want to have it out just for themselves. That's exactly what I'm saying. It's not to subdivide and sell it. Who the heck are you going to sell seven acres to, anyhow? That's not possible. But this person, because of the rules and regulations that now apply on a five- or seven- or even 30-hectare parcel, may not want to continue with those original intentions.

So they remove it from the forest land reserve. Now, all of a sudden, government says: "Hey, it's increased in value that much." And probably it has; I'm not going to dispute that. But unless that person has an alternative use -- where they're going to sell it or start a commercial business -- they have no revenue to pay the recapture. That's what I'm saying -- and that could happen. If any person with seven hectares wants to take it out of the reserve, I don't think they're immediately going to sell it. As the member next to me noted, they may have a house on it; I don't know. But they may not want to do that, and that's the difference.

Section 21 approved on division.

Section 22 approved.

section 23.

W. Hurd: I briefly want to review this valuation process with the minister. I suppose the question could be just as appropriately asked on

section 24, but I want to determine in my own mind exactly what kind of work the Assessment Authority is going to be doing to identify the recapture charge. I assume they are going to look at the evaluation as at six years previous....

Interjection.

W. Hurd: They're not. Okay, that helps. How are they going to determine, for purposes of that recapture charge, how much the land would have gone up in value had it not been in the forest land reserve? How do they make that determination? Perhaps, with the minister's direction, I could ask whether or not we need to pass

section 23 and discuss this under

section 24.

I think this is clearly an important principle, though I may not be grasping exactly how the formula works. Clearly the Assessment Authority will be going back six years for purposes of identifying a recapture charge. I would assume that they will be determining that the land will occupy a higher value, once it comes out of the reserve, than it did six years ago. Can the Assessment Authority make that kind of determination? Does it have to do a surrogate tax form? Does it have to make one tax notice on the assumption that the land was out of the reserve and then compare it with the tax notice while the land was in the reserve? Is that how they will have to perform that function?

Hon. A. Petter: The recapture charge is one that operates as a proxy. What one might do if one wanted to fully recapture the tax benefit is go back a half-century and try to calculate what the tax benefit has been since then. That would require one to make a determination as to what the highest and best use of that land has been for each of the last 50 years, and that is unrealistic and would be administratively cumbersome.

Rather than doing that, what has been established here is a tax recapture provision that is a proxy to some extent, but a reasonable one. It will certainly not recapture the full tax benefit, but it does at least require some repayment. It does it by saying that the Assessment Authority will do the job it would be doing anyway, which is to go out and reassess the land based on its highest and best use, without being constrained by its designation as forest land.

It would then calculate, at the time of the exclusion, the difference between that value and the forest land value, which is what it would do in any event, and then apply to that the tax difference times the past six years. In that way, it would recapture a portion of the tax benefit -- in many cases, a small portion -- in recognition that the land owner who received the benefit is not living up to the commitment made in exchange for that benefit.

W. Hurd: Is there not a risk? If the land is in an urban setting adjacent to a fast-growing municipality where land values are soaring, is there not the potential for the Assessment Authority to come up with a huge additional valuation on the property when it comes out of the reserve?

For the sake of argument, suppose there's a new college or a series of subdivisions around the land, and the assessor makes the determination that had the land not been in a forest reserve six years ago, it might have had subdivision potential, and then reassesses the land based on that use. That would seem to imply a potentially huge increase in assessment when the land comes out of the reserve. I'm asking whether the assessment would soar in a scenario like that, which really describes some of the

fast-growing Island communities.

I understand what the minister is saying. If it's surrounded by houses, lots and subdivisions, the land owner will obviously be realizing a huge profit. By the same token, as the member for Peace River North pointed out, the owner would then be forced to develop the land. There would be literally no option for him but to pursue development, because he would have the huge recapture charge and an ongoing tax bill in addition to that, which would make retaining the land as a green space totally prohibitive. Is that a realistic assessment of what would occur over a six-year period?

Hon. A. Petter: The situation the member is describing is the norm. If it were not for this private managed forest land category, the Assessment Authority in the normal

[ Page 12919 ]

course of events, as we've discussed earlier, would be assessing the value of the land to its highest and best use not constrained by forestry use. That very often does impel land owners to seek uses providing a rate of return that allows them to pay the tax. That's the essence of the assessment system.

What has happened here, though, because we have the special category of private managed forest land, is that owners can insulate themselves from that effect, provided they're prepared to make a commitment. The commitment is that they have a

long-term intention with respect to the future of the land to maintain it for forestry use. If they made that commitment with respect to land that would have a much higher value if it were put to another use, and then they change their minds and thereby shelter themselves from the tax that their neighbours pay -- because of a commitment they are now making clear they're not prepared to live up to -- then it's only right that they don't continue to enjoy that sheltering.

It would be a most inequitable situation for them to get a tax benefit by making a commitment they haven't kept, which their next-door neighbour didn't get because they didn't go through the exercise of making a commitment. This ensures that some of that tax benefit will be returned. It will not return the full tax benefit -- it may be that land value went up 20 or 30 years ago, and all this will recapture is the past six years -- but it provides for some equity.

Let me personalize this a little bit. If the member were a property owner paying a high tax rate and living next to another property owner who was paying a low tax rate, because they had said, "I'm going to manage this for long-term forest purposes," but then turned around a few years later and said, "No longer," I think you as a land owner would be rightly upset that your

next-door neighbour got a tax benefit by making a commitment that they didn't live up to. You'd want some equity. Thanks to this legislation, you're entitled to that equity. By virtue of this legislation, that contiguous taxpayer will be paying at least some proportion of the taxes that you had to pay all along.

W. Hurd: What we've seen here is the elimination of the owner's option to do that. If the land is in a managed forest reserve, and this would affect a small land owner, he's automatically captured when this bill goes through the House. He doesn't have the option to redesignate or rezone the land, or to do anything else. It's locked in, and this recapture charge applies. It's been said by many members -- and I'm not convinced that small land owners, who put their land into a forest reserve because of the tax implications.... Obviously, that is a tremendous inducement.

It's like running a small hobby farm in an urban area. If you grow $2,500 worth of produce each year, you take advantage of a lower rate of taxation. I understand that is an inducement. If the trees on the land are ready to be harvested, the owner has invested some money in that. After they are harvested he may decide: "Well, having harvested the trees and invested the money, I now want to see urban growth and designate the land for other use." The fact is that he's captured by this legislation and would be eligible for huge clawback provisions.

He would then basically have to sell the land; he would have no choice. What is he going to do -- plant another crop of trees on the land and seek to...?

Interjection.

W. Hurd: He says "Forest companies." Large land holders like MacMillan Bloedel and Fletcher Challenge, where the land is attached to a forest management unit, are in the business of harvesting timber and developing pulp products and are in a position to pay that. But there are many small land owners who are going to be shocked by this legislation, because they will see their options reduced.

[4:45]

The minister has said "It's buyer beware. They came forward and put their land into this reserve because they wanted to scam the Crown in some way or take advantage of low tax rates, and if they want to get it out, they have to repay." I can understand that in the case of large corporate land holders -- and we talked about this in second reading -- where they have made a long-term commitment. Their private land is part of a working forest zone; it's a key part of a sustained yield unit.

But I remain skeptical that the private land holders in the province are aware of the implications of this bill and of the fact that they may be subject to an onerous clawback when the Assessment Authority moves in and decides: "Had they not achieved this designation over the previous six years, there could have been houses sitting on it, and its best and highest use over that period may have been houses. Therefore we're basically going to drive them off the land by forcing them to sell and redevelop it."

Hon. A. Petter: Every one of the 121 land owners who own this land made a commitment to submit a management plan for long-term forestry. The essence of that plan is to regenerate trees for future production. Contrary to the member's assertion, I don't assume that any of those land owners did that to scam anyone; I assume they did it in good faith. That was their intention, and that continues to be their intention. For that reason, I feel very comfortable that this bill respects that intention and gives effect to it.

H. De Jong: This is an interesting debate this afternoon. I just want to remind the minister -- because he's talking about highest and best use -- that it is a dangerous term. Back in 1972-75 when the NDP was in government, they created the ALR. I was serving on a local council as an alderman at that time. The mayor of the town at the time said all the farmers should be compensated for their land being put in the ALR, against the highest and best use. The question was: what is the highest and best use? I consistently argued with him that it should not be compensated on the highest and best use; in fact, there should be no compensation.

Now the minister says we will recover a tax against the highest and best use. That assessed value difference for the past six years, in order to go into that highest and best use, is what it will be taxed on. Is it going to be put against the designated use or the application he applies for? That would make sense. But when the minister says against the highest and best use, it could be against a highrise, high-density development or whatever is the highest land use in that particular area.

I would like to have some more comfort expressed by the minister that it is not the intent to do it against the potential highest and best use but rather against the designated use either that the person is applying for or that has already been designated under a community plan.

[ Page 12920 ]

Hon. A. Petter: I can't give the member that comfort, because the assessment will be done in the way any other assessment is done on land in this province that falls outside of the agricultural land reserve or the forest land reserve. It will be assessed for the land value, as the Assessment Authority does, subject to appeal.

The only other thing I mention is the distinguishing feature -- I want to come back to this -- between what we're doing here on our recapture and the situation the member talks about. The benefit here was derived because of a voluntary action by the land owner, who chose to go beyond the normal benefits conferred on those who hold forest land in the unmanaged category by undertaking some further commitments. That's a distinguishing feature here that we cannot lose sight of.

Sections 23 and 24 approved.

section 25.

W. Hurd: This is a very important

section of the bill and certainly one of the areas I had serious concern about during second reading. I just need to clarify a couple of things with respect to the removal of Crown land from the forest land reserve.

Section 25 seems to imply that the commission's approval is not necessarily required for land to be removed from the reserve by cabinet. Is that a correct reading of this section?

As I look through it, I see that the removal must be referred to the commission for its comments, and I see that the commission must provide the minister with comments and recommendations, which I assume the minister then takes back to cabinet. But I don't see any portion of this

section that allows the commission to say: "No, as an independent body and despite the wishes of cabinet, we do not believe this land should be excluded." Is that what we're dealing with in

section 25?

Hon. A. Petter: This has to be evaluated against the current situation and also against the fact that potentially we're dealing here with a very large component of the province's land base that is Crown land -- unlike the agricultural land reserve, which in large part deals with private land. Given that it is a large component of the land base, at the end of the day it is felt that government must maintain political accountability.

The situation right now is that land can be excluded from the provincial forest by the minister alone. That, it is felt, does not provide the measure of security that communities are looking for in order to have some assurance that Crown land designated as forest land is in fact available for long-term forestry. There needs to be a stronger political commitment and imprimatur than that. So we are saying two things here: first of all, that exclusions can take place only by cabinet order -- a more difficult process.

Not only must it come from the minister, it has to go through cabinet in a formal order in the same way that parkland would be deleted from parks. In addition, the commission's advice will normally be sought on the deletion process. At the end of the day, though, the member is correct in that if government decides that land is required for the construction of a highway, for example, or some necessary piece of infrastructure on Crown land, the provincial government, through cabinet, retains that jurisdiction.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

But we are significantly changing the procedure through which land is deleted, once designated as forest land within the forest land reserve, to make it much more difficult to delete it and to bring it into a similar kind of process as parkland -- indeed, going beyond that insofar as it presumes the involvement of the commission under normal circumstances. Political accountability in cabinet is maintained with respect to Crown land, but there has been a significant shift that I think speaks to a very different status and greater protection for forest land in the reserve that is Crown land.

W. Hurd: I think this is an important point, because the only way that cabinet might involve the commission in an order to remove land from the reserve is if it were deemed to be in the public interest. But that obviously is a matter of wide

interpretation by cabinet, which may put the narrowest of political considerations on the public interest or the widest

interpretation on that.

Despite the minister's assertions, I don't see any accountability here at all. I see the possibility of the Crown -- with respect to a managed forest unit like the ones we see on Vancouver Island, where you have a component of private land and public land -- deciding on the basis of public interest that the Crown portion of that management unit should be redesignated for other purposes in the public interest.

In the meantime, the effect of that may be to compromise the area-based forest management unit and cause the harvesting plans not to be current and cause there to be an overcutting of the forest management unit because of the land withdrawals. I don't see any accountability at all. Would cabinet be mandated to take into account the effect of the lan