Debates of the Legislative Assembly

Fourth Session, 39th Parliament

official report of Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, November 1, 2011 Morning Sitting Volume 27, Number 3

the honourable bill barisoff, speaker

ISSN 0709-1281 PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871)

LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR His Honour the Honourable Steven L. Point, OBC

Fourth Session, 39th Parliament

SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Bill Barisoff

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

Premier and President of the Executive Council...... Hon. Christy Clark Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance...... Hon. Kevin Falcon Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation...... Hon. Mary Polak Minister of Advanced Education...... Hon. Naomi Yamamoto Minister of Agriculture...... Hon. Don McRae Minister of Children and Family Development...... Hon. Mary McNeil Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development...... Hon. Ida Chong Minister of Education...... Hon. George Abbott Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister Responsible for Housing...... Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Environment...... Hon. Dr. Terry Lake Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations...... Hon. Steve Thomson Minister of Health...... Hon. Michael de Jong, QC Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation...... Hon. Pat Bell Minister of Labour, Citizens' Services and Open Government...... Hon. Dr. Margaret MacDiarmid Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General and Attorney General...... Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Social Development...... Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Minister of State for Multiculturalism...... Hon. Harry Bloy Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure...... Hon. Blair Lekstrom

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Leader of the OfficialO pposition...... Adrian Dix Deputy Speaker...... Linda Reid Assistant Deputy Speaker...... Dawn Black Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole...... Douglas Horne Clerk of the Legislative Assembly...... Craig James Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees...... Kate Ryan-Lloyd Clerk Assistant...... Robert Vaive Law Clerk and Clerk Assistant...... Ian D. Izard, QC Clerk Assistant...... Roderick MacArthur, QC Clerk Consultant...... E. George MacMinn, OBC, QC Sergeant-at-Arms...... Gary Lenz ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING

Abbott, Hon. George (BC Liberal)...... Shuswap Abbotsford-Mission...... Randy Hawes Austin, Robin (NDP)...... Skeena Abbotsford South...... John van Dongen Bains, Harry (NDP)...... Surrey-Newton Abbotsford West...... Hon. Michael de Jong, QC Barisoff, Hon. Bill (BC Liberal)...... Penticton Alberni–Pacific Rim...... Scott Fraser Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal)...... Cariboo-Chilcotin Boundary-Similkameen...... John Slater Bell, Hon. Pat (BC Liberal)...... Prince George–Mackenzie Burnaby–Deer Lake...... Kathy Corrigan Bennett, Bill (BC Liberal)...... Kootenay East Burnaby-Edmonds...... Raj Chouhan Black, Dawn (NDP)...... New Westminster Burnaby-Lougheed...... Hon. Harry Bloy Bloy, Hon. Harry (BC Liberal)...... Burnaby-Lougheed Burnaby North...... Richard T. Lee Bond, Hon. Shirley (BC Liberal)...... Prince George–Valemount Cariboo-Chilcotin...... Donna Barnett Brar, Jagrup (NDP)...... Surrey-Fleetwood Cariboo North...... Bob Simpson Cadieux, Hon. Stephanie (BC Liberal)...... Surrey-Panorama Chilliwack...... John Les Cantelon, Ron (BC Liberal)...... Parksville-Qualicum Chilliwack-Hope...... Barry Penner, QC Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP)...... Vancouver–West End Columbia River–Revelstoke...... Norm Macdonald Chong, Hon. Ida (BC Liberal)...... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Comox Valley...... Hon. Don McRae Chouhan, Raj (NDP)...... Burnaby-Edmonds Coquitlam–Burke Mountain...... Douglas Horne Clark, Hon. Christy (BC Liberal)...... Vancouver–Point Grey Coquitlam-Maillardville...... Diane Thorne Coell, Murray (BC Liberal)...... Saanich North and the Islands Cowichan Valley...... Bill Routley Coleman, Hon. Rich (BC Liberal)...... Fort Langley–Aldergrove Delta North...... Guy Gentner Conroy, Katrine (NDP)...... Kootenay West Delta South...... Vicki Huntington Coons, Gary (NDP)...... North Coast Esquimalt–Royal Roads...... Maurine Karagianis Corrigan, Kathy (NDP)...... Burnaby–Deer Lake Fort Langley–Aldergrove...... Hon. Rich Coleman Dalton, Marc (BC Liberal)...... Maple Ridge–Mission Fraser-Nicola...... Harry Lali de Jong, Hon. Michael, QC (BC Liberal)...... Abbotsford West Juan de Fuca...... John Horgan Dix, Adrian (NDP)...... Vancouver-Kingsway Kamloops–North Thompson...... Hon. Dr. Terry Lake Donaldson, Doug (NDP)...... Stikine Kamloops–South Thompson...... Kevin Krueger Elmore, Mable (NDP)...... Vancouver-Kensington Kelowna–Lake Country...... Norm Letnick Falcon, Hon. Kevin (BC Liberal)...... Surrey-Cloverdale Kelowna-Mission...... Hon. Steve Thomson Farnworth, Mike (NDP)...... Port Coquitlam Kootenay East...... Bill Bennett Fleming, Rob (NDP)...... Victoria–Swan Lake Kootenay West...... Katrine Conroy Foster, Eric (BC Liberal)...... Vernon-Monashee Langley...... Hon. Mary Polak Fraser, Scott (NDP)...... Alberni–Pacific Rim Maple Ridge–Mission...... Marc Dalton Gentner, Guy (NDP)...... Delta North Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows...... Michael Sather Hammell, Sue (NDP)...... Surrey–Green Timbers Nanaimo...... Leonard Krog Hansen, Colin (BC Liberal)...... Vancouver-Quilchena Nanaimo–North Cowichan...... Doug Routley Hawes, Randy (BC Liberal)...... Abbotsford-Mission Nechako Lakes...... John Rustad Hayer, Dave S. (BC Liberal)...... Surrey-Tynehead Nelson-Creston...... Michelle Mungall Heed, Kash (BC Liberal)...... Vancouver-Fraserview New Westminster...... Dawn Black Hogg, Gordon (BC Liberal)...... Surrey–White Rock North Coast...... Gary Coons Horgan, John (NDP)...... Juan de Fuca North Island...... Claire Trevena Horne, Douglas (BC Liberal)...... Coquitlam–Burke Mountain North Vancouver–Lonsdale...... Hon. Naomi Yamamoto Howard, Rob (BC Liberal)...... Richmond Centre North Vancouver–Seymour...... Jane Thornthwaite Huntington, Vicki (Ind.)...... Delta South Oak Bay–Gordon Head...... Hon. Ida Chong James, Carole (NDP)...... Victoria–Beacon Hill Parksville-Qualicum...... Ron Cantelon Karagianis, Maurine (NDP)...... Esquimalt–Royal Roads Peace River North...... Pat Pimm Krog, Leonard (NDP)...... Nanaimo Peace River South...... Hon. Blair Lekstrom Krueger, Kevin (BC Liberal)...... Kamloops–South Thompson Penticton...... Hon. Bill Barisoff Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP)...... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Port Coquitlam...... Mike Farnworth Lake, Hon. Dr. Terry (BC Liberal)...... Kamloops–North Thompson Port Moody–Coquitlam...... Vacant Lali, Harry (NDP)...... Fraser-Nicola Powell River–Sunshine Coast...... Nicholas Simons Lee, Richard T. (BC Liberal)...... Burnaby North Prince George–Mackenzie...... Hon. Pat Bell Lekstrom, Hon. Blair (BC Liberal)...... Peace River South Prince George–Valemount...... Hon. Shirley Bond Les, John (BC Liberal)...... Chilliwack Richmond Centre...... Rob Howard Letnick, Norm (BC Liberal)...... Kelowna–Lake Country Richmond East...... Linda Reid MacDiarmid, Hon. Dr. Margaret (BC Liberal)...... Vancouver-Fairview Richmond-Steveston...... John Yap Macdonald, Norm (NDP)...... Columbia River–Revelstoke Saanich North and the Islands...... Murray Coell McIntyre, Joan (BC Liberal)...... West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Saanich South...... Lana Popham McNeil, Hon. Mary (BC Liberal)...... Vancouver–False Creek Shuswap...... Hon. George Abbott McRae, Hon. Don (BC Liberal)...... Comox Valley Skeena...... Robin Austin Mungall, Michelle (NDP)...... Nelson-Creston Stikine...... Doug Donaldson Penner, Barry, QC (BC Liberal)...... Chilliwack-Hope Surrey-Cloverdale...... Hon. Kevin Falcon Pimm, Pat (BC Liberal)...... Peace River North Surrey-Fleetwood...... Jagrup Brar Polak, Hon. Mary (BC Liberal)...... Langley Surrey–Green Timbers...... Sue Hammell Popham, Lana (NDP)...... Saanich South Surrey-Newton...... Harry Bains Ralston, Bruce (NDP)...... Surrey-Whalley Surrey-Panorama...... Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Reid, Linda (BC Liberal)...... Richmond East Surrey-Tynehead...... Dave S. Hayer Routley, Bill (NDP)...... Cowichan Valley Surrey-Whalley...... Bruce Ralston Routley, Doug (NDP)...... Nanaimo–North Cowichan Surrey–White Rock...... Gordon Hogg Rustad, John (BC Liberal)...... Nechako Lakes Vancouver-Fairview...... Hon. Dr. Margaret MacDiarmid Sather, Michael (NDP)...... Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Vancouver–False Creek...... Hon. Mary McNeil Simons, Nicholas (NDP)...... Powell River–Sunshine Coast Vancouver-Fraserview...... Kash Heed Simpson, Bob (Ind.)...... Cariboo North Vancouver-Hastings...... Shane Simpson Simpson, Shane (NDP)...... Vancouver-Hastings Vancouver-Kensington...... Mable Elmore Slater, John (BC Liberal)...... Boundary-Similkameen Vancouver-Kingsway...... Adrian Dix Stewart, Ben (BC Liberal)...... Westside-Kelowna Vancouver-Langara...... Dr. Moira Stilwell Stilwell, Dr. Moira (BC Liberal)...... Vancouver-Langara Vancouver–Mount Pleasant...... Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Sultan, Ralph (BC Liberal)...... West Vancouver–Capilano Vancouver–Point Grey...... Hon. Christy Clark Thomson, Hon. Steve (BC Liberal)...... Kelowna-Mission Vancouver-Quilchena...... Colin Hansen Thorne, Diane (NDP)...... Coquitlam-Maillardville Vancouver–West End...... Spencer Chandra Herbert Thornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal)...... North Vancouver–Seymour Vernon-Monashee...... Eric Foster Trevena, Claire (NDP)...... North Island Victoria–Beacon Hill...... Carole James van Dongen, John (BC Liberal)...... Abbotsford South Victoria–Swan Lake...... Rob Fleming Yamamoto, Hon. Naomi (BC Liberal)...... North Vancouver–Lonsdale West Vancouver–Capilano...... Ralph Sultan Yap, John (BC Liberal)...... Richmond-Steveston West Vancouver–Sea to Sky...... Joan McIntyre Vacant...... Port Moody–Coquitlam Westside-Kelowna...... Ben Stewart

Party Standings: BC Liberal 48; New Democratic 34; Independent 2; Vacant 1

CONTENTS

Tuesday, November 1, 2011 Morning Sitting

Page

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House...... 8549 Bill 6 — Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2011 (continued) B. Routley Hon. S. Thomson B. Simpson N. Macdonald

8549

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2011 coming as part of this debate, so I was wondering if the minister could prepare a response to the questions that The House met at 10:02 a.m. were asked yesterday. Rather than getting it in written form, I remember I asked whether I could be cc'd. Could [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] I now ask the minister to respond in full to the questions that we asked yesterday? Prayers. Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, I've got some additional infor- Orders of the Day mation in response to the questions. If I can just make sure, I'll rephrase the question that was being asked so that Hon. M. Polak: I call continued committee stage de- I am clear that I'm responding to what was requested. bate on Bill 6, intituled the Forests, Lands and Natural [1010] Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2011. My understanding of the question is it's around the suc- [1005] cessful phase 2 bioenergy proponents — how many, where they were located. The question, I think, was in terms of Committee of the Whole House how much volume capacity might be needed or is being contemplated to support those particular projects. Bill 6 — Forests, Lands and Natural As you know, there are four successful proponents. Resource Operations Statutes The areas are Chetwynd, Fraser Lake, Merritt and Fort Amendment Act, 2011 St. James. The capacity of those projects is different: two (continued) smaller projects with a 12-megawatt capacity and two larger projects with a 40-megawatt capacity. The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 6; D. So as the member opposite knows, we're in the pro- Black in the chair. cess now of negotiations with respect to those projects in terms of the volume supply, and obviously, it will be The committee met at 10:06 a.m. within a range, depending on the capacity of the project. The smaller capacity projects would require — and this On section 4 (continued). is still in negotiations, so to be able to say exactly what volume is contemplated is…. You can't say particularly B. Routley: Does the minister have an idea as to how at this point, because it will depend on a combination many B.C. jobs are created per 1,000 cubic metres of of how much volume may be provided, how much they harvest from woodlots? may be able to provide in terms of some of their own business-to-business relationships and things. Hon. S. Thomson: I'm pleased to continue the com- Two of the projects are contemplating a non-replaceable mittee stage on Bill 6. I want to apologize to the Chair forest licence that would meet their requirements. Two for being behind her all day. I understand that last night of them, as part of their proposals, don't require that she was complaining a little bit about a stiff neck, having because they've made the arrangements within their to turn around to see when I get up. That's whatI get for own business-to-business relationships. It will be a being in the corner here. I apologize for that. range. I think somewhere between, at the bottom end We don't have a specific conversion factor for jobs per in terms of the smaller projects, something in the range cubic metre or per 1,000 cubic metres. The woodlots are of 50,000 cubic metres and the larger projects, which all of varying sizes and varying types of operations in would make something over 350,000 cubic metres or terms of family operations and things. So some would something like that. have additional staff and additional jobs during peak Again, to be clear, those processes continue, the nego- harvest periods, when they're harvesting, and others tiations continue, in order to provide the volumes. Once will do it with family labour, which may not necessarily those negotiations complete and there's a process for show up as a specific job. First Nations consultation, the specific volume requests In terms of the specific conversion, we would not would then become known. But at this point, as you have a number other than to say that we know that know, facilities have to be built. We're a couple of years woodlots provide for good family employment, provide away from those specific numbers being known, but for additional jobs in communities. They're an import- that will provide the members opposite with the range ant part of creating economic activity in rural areas of and provide them with the information on where those British Columbia. projects are located.

B. Routley: We had a commitment yesterday that B. Routley: Okay. Thank you, Minister, for that there would be some additional information forth- response. 8550 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, November 1, 2011

The government has become very, very proficient and and I think that we need to go deep on some of these certainly is exporting a lot of raw logs and raw materials issues. Given the Auditor General's position on the last that create jobs in British Columbia to overseas. removal of private land, one of the things that I'm sure Could the minister break out the information on how the minister would want to consider is public interest much timber is exported as raw logs in the last couple of and community interest. years from woodlot licences? Is there any way to break So my question is: which specific items of community that information out? interest were clearly considered as part of the decision- [1015] making to bring forward this bill? [1020] Hon. S. Thomson: The specific number of that would take some research in order to be able to provide that in- Hon. S. Thomson: This carries on the discussion that formation. It would be true to say that there will be some we had yesterday on this — you know, the public inter- from woodlot operations, but we would have to do some est consideration, the community interest consideration. specific analysis, and research would be fairly detailed Clearly, one is ensuring that we have continued viable in terms of work that would have to be done in order to woodlot operations. provide that number. The ability to remove a portion or some of the pri- We can undertake to do that as quickly as possible, vate land, in order to make sure that you can continue but in terms of being able to provide that specific num- to maintain the balance of the woodlot operation with- ber now, we would not have that number with a degree out having to surrender that operation, contributes to of accuracy that I would like to state at this point. the ongoing viability of the operations, the ongoing commitment of that woodlot to the community — par- B. Routley: Well, I have to say that I'm really quite ticularly as many of the woodlots are dealing with the surprised that woodlots throughout British Columbia economics relating to mountain pine beetle impact in have, as a core purpose, set out to establish community their operations — to provide for intergenerational stability. So the thought that they're creating commun- transfer of the operations. ity stability seems to be out the window, but we're now Again, as I stated yesterday, it's part of our policy, a ramping up log exports all over the province, not only provision around public notice for any proposed appli- on our Crown land but on woodlot licences or some cations that would come forward for partial removal of portion. private land. That will ensure that the community - in The number has become so great it's clearly hard terests are known and taken into consideration when for the minister to keep track of specific items such as applications are being considered. woodlot licences. I think that's a tragic story that we've ended up in such a place that what used to be a manu- B. Routley: This one, section 4 — clearly, one of the facturing mecca for people all over the world to come to community interests is the issue of land that was once British Columbia and manufacture logs and, certainly, set aside for woodlots and now is going to change. I can create value-added wood supply…. Now it's simply lost, see that if I was a woodlot owner and had put my pri- like it's so much spare change to have log exports rush vate land in…. I'm aware of one particular case where out of the province and even from our woodlot licences someone has private land as part of a woodlot licence, that were once there to create community sustainability apparently, in Ladysmith, yet they have the Crown por- and community stability. tion, actually, on one of the islands. Getting to the next item, does the minister have any It sounds like under this bill the regulations are not idea or has he done any research on the potential fibre clear yet. It sounds like a person could literally come to supply loss or the job loss as a result of this contemplated the minister and say, "I want the option to take all of legislative change? my land out of the community forest licence," and as I understand it, you would have the ability to have a Hon. S. Thomson: I think we addressed this question lower tax. When your private land is included as part yesterday in our responses. What I said at that point was of a woodlot licence, you're going to be taxed on a lower that the total, if — and this is a significant "if" — all the tax basis than if you were part of a community plan and current private land that was in woodlots was removed, part of a municipality. which clearly is not going to be the case, is less than 0.16 I'm aware of all kinds of lands, for example, in the percent of the AAC. Cowichan Valley, where people have taken land out of F-1 forest land use and put it into other kinds of uses, B. Routley: Okay. Thank you for that response. and of course, there's a major change in the tax but also The issue of public interest or community interest in the value of that land. It goes up dramatically. was canvassed a little bit yesterday, but I want to dive a In some cases, I'm sure, if you were a woodlot owner little deeper. My partner talked about the pod concept, and you had the opportunity to take a huge chunk of Tuesday, November 1, 2011 British Columbia Debates 8551

land and maybe develop it into 20 or 30 lots or whatever with Bob here," or whoever comes to the door and says — if that's what's on your mind — I can see the attraction they want to take their private land out. of coming to the government and saying that you think There's no requirement, any process, in this bill con- it's a real good idea to have the option to do that, to take templated whatsoever. It's all at the minister's discretion that land out and do those kinds of things. and the government's decision to bring in regulations. If you simply had the special interest of the individ- It's not a comforting situation at all for the community ual woodlot owner on your mind, I can understand, and for the public at large. There are no protections for again, why someone might think that way, because the community or public interest, much like what we things change in terms of values. You put land, maybe went through with the last major land withdrawal. in the 1950s or '60s or even '70s, into a woodlot licence, In preparation for dealing with this private land with- and at today's values, you find yourself bumping up drawal from what was clearly focused on primarily forest against a thriving community. The values have changed land use, has the minister reviewed any or all of the dramatically. recommendations of the Auditor General with regard to You know, if I can think of this, I'm sure that the minis- the similar issue about removing private land from tree ter's staff — he's got all these capable staff — could come farm licence in preparation for dealing with woodlot li- up with these options when you're looking at something. cence? It's a straightforward question. Have you reviewed People are clearly saying: "I want to be able to take this the Auditor General's recommendation? land out for a different use." [1030] So my question to the minister is: has the government even considered the option of any kind of compensation Hon. S. Thomson: The answer is, yes, I have. That is or some kind of substitute land being provided to the why we've said that there will be a number of policy cri- Crown in return for providing what is a very profitable teria under which applications would be considered. I option to remove private land from the current woodlot think that you have to recognize in this situation that owner's land base? Is there any thought at all, what- we have everything, from very small applications that soever, to some compensation to the Crown or some would have a very minimal impact in terms of…. You benefit to the Crown? know, small ones. We have situations where forestry [1025] land has been combined with agricultural land, and Really, I think that's your job: to be concerned about they may want to be separating that. We will, potentially, the Crown and the public interest rather than just some- have some larger applications. one else's interest. One of the ways to do that would be But that's why we've said that there will be some cri- substitute land. So any consideration to that? teria to measure it against and that there would be public notification around any applications. So we've discussed Hon. S. Thomson: I think what we've said here is a number of those with the woodlot association. There we've got 700 different woodlot operators — 700 differ- will be continued discussion around refining that policy ent individual situations, individual families, different under which applications would be considered. circumstances — and the process would be that applications would be made, and there would be core policy B. Routley: Could the minister, just for the record, be around how those applications might be considered. clear that the public have no say in this bill whatsoever? By the fact that we have public disclosure in the pro- I don't read any rights for the public or for the public cess and community opportunity to provide comment interest in here. Does the minister suggest that there is — or public notification for community opportunity to some public review or public process in this bill? I can't provide comment — it is conceivable that, depending on find it. So for greater certainty, are there any rights what- the circumstances, that might be something that would soever for the public? need to be considered in approving an application. So not saying: "No, it would not ever happen." What Hon. S. Thomson: The bill is designed to provide the we can say is that there may be circumstances, depending discretion for the minister to keep the basic policy — be- on the individual application, depending on the area, ing able to do it — within the bill. What we've said clearly where there may need to be some of that consideration, is that there would be a set of policies that would be put but that would be considered on a case-by-case basis, in place in order to guide the decision-making process depending on the nature of the application. around that, and it includes public notification. But again, we've said that because of the great divers- B. Routley: I have to say that I'm not at all comforted ity in the number of operations, the size of operations by the words "may" this and "may" that and "could be." and the individual circumstances and things, those pro- The words in the bill give the minister ministerial discre- visions would be provided for in policy. The intent of the tion, and all he really needs to do is to decide, "Well, I've legislation is to provide for the basic ability for removals got nothing else to do this afternoon.I 'm going to agree of part or all of the private land to be done. 8552 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, November 1, 2011

B. Routley: That answer just reminds me of the fact woodlots, and as I said previously, over a period of time that, effectively, this government has taken a sledgeham- in terms of discussion with them over successive years as mer to community interests. They've been squashed. we looked at the policy. During those discussions there There are no rights whatsoever. were other interests as part of some of those meetings in I'm happy to learn that the minister has thoroughly terms of community forests and those kinds of groups. reviewed the Auditor General's recommendations. One There's some crossover there. I know that some local as- of them that stood out for me…. I'm sure the minis- sociations would have referenced their discussions with ter will have a thoughtful response on this one. What some local interests in those areas as this policy is being the Auditor talked about is that there needed to be discussed, but the specific consultation was directly with monitoring. So what impacts of the previous private the Federation of B.C. Woodlot Associations. land removal decision has this government monitored — which was specifically one of his recommendations B. Routley: This is a pretty straightforward question — and what were the results of any of those monitoring that really deserves a thoughtful and reasoned response. reviews or reports? That is: what are the government's reasons for agreeing [1035] to these changes?

Hon. S. Thomson: With respect to the woodlot re- Hon. S. Thomson: I'll state, as I've stated previously, movals and the proposed approach to it, what we said that the basis for the decisions is to recognize the unique clearly is that there would be public notification on those circumstances of woodlot operations, to be able to pro- as part of our assessment and consideration of applica- vide for the removal of a portion or a part of the private tions when they are made. If they are approved under land in order to address specific circumstances that may the policy that will be in place, we will be continuing be related to intergenerational transfer, may be related a process of monitoring the removals and the potential to ensuring continued viability of their woodlot oper- impact of those removals, although as I've stated pre- ations; to be able to address economic impacts related viously, given the fact that in our view this maintains to mountain pine beetle impacts in terms of the ongoing viable woodlot operations, we don't see those impacts viability of their operations; and to be able to restore a to be significant. policy that was previously in place in terms of the social I think, clearly, as we move forward with the policy of contract with woodlot operators. considering these applications…. As I stated previously, When they brought private land in before this, they the ability to do this was there previously, a number of previously had the ability to have consideration for re- years ago, before we went into a process where we gener- moval of it. So what we've done is brought back the ally didn't do it. Now we're recognizing the concerns of clarity in the bill that we can do that, and then we will woodlot operators, and we will monitor the process as continue to develop criteria under which the applica- we move forward. We'll make adjustments to the policy tions would be considered and adjudicated. if necessary, and that's, again, why we're recognizing the diversity of the nature and range of woodlot operations. B. Routley: Were there any other considerations that That's why we are taking the approach that we would de- were reviewed, or were there any well-thought-out op- velop that through policy. tions provided to government? I'm sure the ministerial staff would review the bill and give options. Were there B. Routley: I'm not sure that I heard an answer any other options prior to the government making this about any monitoring that was done or any reports or decision, and if so, what were they? reviews. However, given the amount of time that we've now Hon. S. Thomson: There were basically two options had since the development of this bill…. I'm sure the considered — to amend the act to be able to provide minister would acknowledge that with 700 owners that for the ability to deal with applications for private land have private land in there…. They would be interfacing removal or not to do it. Given that the option not to do with communities throughout British Columbia. So one it meant that the only way to do it would be to have a of my questions is: were there any potential stakehold- complete surrender of the woodlot licence, which was ers that were missed in the consultation process by this the only option currently that woodlot owners would government prior to making this decision to bring for- have, the decision was made that recognizing the ward this bill? legitimate requests of the federation woodlots…. The [1040] option was made to be able to provide the ability for applications to be made and to continue to work with Hon. S. Thomson: This process and this proposal the Federation of B.C. Woodlot Associations to develop within this bill was brought forward based on discus- the criteria and policy under which that would be con- sions with the broad community of the federation of sidered and adjudicated. Tuesday, November 1, 2011 British Columbia Debates 8553

So two options — yes or no. Our decision was that we the minister, when he has this discretion, in every case would provide the option for private land applications, to grant authority. removal, to be made. I'm assuming that's correct. Could I just get greater [1045] certainty and clarity on that? Is that the case? [1050] B. Routley: They say the devil is in the details. The word "discretion" is found in relation to the minister hav- Hon. S. Thomson: In consideration of the applica- ing discretionary authority. I would like to drill down a tions, you're obviously guided by the overall principles bit and understand what would be some of the kinds of of administrative law and fairness. You would be guided minister's discretionary considerations. I'm sure that it by the policy criteria that is in place. Under the majority wouldn't just be political considerations. I'm sure there of those situations, given the similar circumstances — would be other considerations. Could the minister de- the policy considerations being the same — you would scribe for us what kinds of discretionary considerations not end up in the situation where you would refuse one would be included in the meaning of the word "discre- and not the other, all other things being equal and all the tion" as drafted? Or what's the real intent of the word circumstances being equal. "discretion"? There may be cases where there are unique -cir cumstances that might mean you would, for those Hon. S. Thomson: The wording of the legislation circumstances, not approve an application. But those simply provides for the ability for the policy to be in circumstances would be taken into consideration as place that would allow for decisions to be made. The part of the decision-making process, referencing policy, legislation clearly says: "In accordance with the regula- administrative law and fairness. So theoretically, you tions, if any…." That process is there specifically to say may have two applications that look similar. One may there can be, potentially, regulations that would be in be approved; one may not. But there will be circum- place that would help guide that. It would also provide stances that have to be taken into consideration. for policy. Generally, if the policy framework is there, and if the We favour the policy approach, given the unique 700 administrative processes are followed, then similar ap- different families and different circumstances and things plications should get the similar consideration. like that, as I said. In order to have a less prescriptive approach to it, it would be in policy. B. Routley: My discomfort in one person having Some of the policies that we've considered and would such vast discretionary authority with no checks and be in place…. For example, the private land would have balances…. I'm used to processes where there are either had to have been held in that woodlot for a minimum appeals or a person in a labour relations context can put number of years. The person would have to have all forward a grievance or take the matter to arbitration or the obligations to the Crown current, so that whatever appeal a decision if they feel that it's wrongly made. I their obligations may be in place. There would be public know the minister may have been contemplating a lot notification. A number of conditions like that would all of yeses and not any noes in his…. I know that I'm far- be part of it. The policy will clearly guide the decision- reaching in assuming here. But in the event that there making process for the minister. was a no, has the minister contemplated any rights for the person who's being denied, to in any way appeal? Or B. Routley: Regarding the intent of the word again, is there another process? this discretionary authority…. When I contemplated that Notionally, I guess, you could cover things off with and thought about the future and potential issues that regulation, but shouldn't the bill be thought out far could arise, one of the potential future outcomes could enough ahead to have drafted some language to include be…. Just let me think ahead for a moment. Because he the ability to appeal the decision of a discretionary au- has discretionary power, he can determine yes or no in thority of this kind to cabinet or to some tribunal or some every circumstance. Could the minister, under the use public process? Certainly, when we're concerned about of discretionary authority, refuse to grant the removal the public process, I would think that there should be of a woodlot owner's private land removal even if the some concern for community needs, and the commun- circumstances in the request were relatively equal to the ity ought to have the option to appeal or whatever. requests that had already been approved? So again: what is the perceived or real need for the So you've got two different woodlot owners. You've ministers to have such vast discretionary powers only in got this vast area of the province. Could the minister, be- the minister's hand? cause of community interest or public interest or some [1055] other outside influence…? Could that affect his discretionary authority? Even though some woodlot owners Hon. S. Thomson: Again, the applications and the may be granted the authority, there is no obligation for process of exercising the ministerial responsibility here 8554 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, November 1, 2011 will be judged against the policy, judged against the Currently it's not a requirement to have to bring rules of administrative fairness of things. That would private land in, but certainly it is one, when you're provide all those opportunities for the applicant to be considering applications, that helps benefit those ap- heard, for the decision — to be able to give fair notice, plications and gives them favourable consideration. We and in terms of the reasons for your decisions — and the think this will enhances the overall woodlot program. opportunity, as we talked about, for public notification, public input into that process. B. Simpson: I'll apologize to the minister in ad- In the end, if the applicant doesn't agree or accept the vance, because I do need to circle back to some of the decision that has been made in the judging of all the questions, but hopefully in a tighter manner, just to policy in the circumstances, then the option would be clarify for the public record. As the opposition critic a judicial review. has pointed out, I think this is all occurring against the backdrop of tree farm licence releases. That's really B. Routley: We're down to my last question in this sec- what the issue is here. tion. At least I think we are. The last question deals with As has already been pointed out, the Auditor General the…. I'm glad the minister had reviewed the Auditor gave a pretty scathing indictment of how that process General's statements. Clearly, he reported about decades was undertaken. For the public record, I want to be crys- of various legislation dealing with the public interest. tal clear that the Auditor General…. I mean, his report Let's just zero in on the issue of public interest in the was entitled Protecting the Public Interest? minister having the single authority and power in the His overall conclusions indicated that the removal ministry. What was the ministry's thinking on why the of private lands from tree farm licences "was approved minister should have these discretionary powers, and without sufficient regard for the public interest…. The how do they fit in with the concept or notion of public decision was not adequately informed." The whole pro- interest in removal of private lands? I know it's some- cess was in the interest of the licensees — hence, some what similar to the earlier question, but I'm seeking an of the questions that are being asked here — with too understanding of specifically what the thinking was on little consideration given to the impacts on other key how this met the public interest. stakeholders. Consultation was not effective, communication with Hon. S. Thomson: Again, I think that as the mem- the stakeholders was not effective and not transparent, ber opposite has said, this question has been canvassed and "the impacts of previous land removal decisions a number of times. But just to restate: the reason for pro- were not monitored to help inform future decisions." viding the provision within the bill to be able to do it Regardless of some of the claims around the removal and to have it based on regulations, if any, or policy, is of private lands from woodlots, it is against that context to be able to recognize the unique circumstances of a that it is being measured. I have spoken with the wood- very diverse sector in terms of over 700 different types lot federation. This is: "If the big guys got their private of operations of varying sizes and regions and to be able lands out, we want to have the right to have our private to address the criteria and the process under which you lands out too." would make those decisions in policy so that we can deal with all of the unique circumstances. [L. Reid in the chair.] Again, we've talked about the public interest and the overall interest in doing this in terms of maintaining vi- In listening to the minister last night and today, what able woodlot operations, being able to recognize unique the government is saying is that they inadvertently, in family circumstances, to be able to address specific a previous amendment, removed the discretionary needs of individuals. I think that's in the public interest authority of the minister in exigent circumstances to re- and ensures that we can continue to have a viable and move private lands. The minister indicated that in case ongoing woodlot sector in British Columbia. of divorce or various other things, there were exigent cir- [1100] cumstances where there was some flexibility to remove There is continued interest in the woodlot sector. private lands. We now have, in the minister's own words, There's continued interest in applications in terms of ex- a deliberate policy to enable the removal of private lands panding the overall number of woodlots. for what is effectively a private benefit. We feel that by having this policy — knowing that I agree with the opposition members that all of the in terms of bringing private lands into woodlot man- words that the minister has used to explain what's going agement, after a number of years you would have the on are exactly what the Auditor General pointed out — option of being able to remove some of that or a portion that this is a private benefit. of it — it will actually enhance and assist in bringing I have a proposed amendment to this bill that the forward new woodlot operations, because there won't minister is aware of. It's on the order paper, and I will be that hesitation. call that at some point in the next few minutes. Tuesday, November 1, 2011 British Columbia Debates 8555

I wonder if the minister, for the public record, could and puts cash on the table with the view towards making state why people apply for woodlots in the first place money as a result of that encumbrance. and why they encumber private land in a woodlot. What What's happening now is that they're saying: "We is the point of somebody applying for a woodlot in the don't want that encumbrance there, but we still want to first place? continue to enjoy the financial benefits of having sole [1105] rights over a portion of the Crown land." That's what the issue is. That's what the issue is with private land remov- Hon. S. Thomson: Thank you for the question. The als from tree farm licences. This may be a smaller scale, whole concept or the approach to woodlots is the desire but the issue is the same. of individuals to enter the industry. It's one of the few To the minister: when land was taken into account in entry points for an individual to be able to enter the in- the obtaining of a woodlot, was that land not regarded dustry. It allows them the opportunity to manage private in lieu of cash? If they went straight to cash and it was land along with Crown land for those economic oppor- cash only, then the cash had to be bigger to get a wood- tunities. It provides the access to timber on our Crown lot, to be successful on the bid, than if you had cash and land. It provides them the opportunity with a steward- land. The cash was reduced if the land was brought into ship approach to managing those lands. the equation. Is that a fair statement? The interest is as a result of individual interest, want- ing to be able to be part of a very important industry and Hon. S. Thomson: There is an evaluation formula to be able to manage Crown and private land together. when applications are made based on contribution of That's why, in many cases, they bring private land into land, based on contribution of cash and residency that the equation — although, as we've pointed out, it's not go into the evaluation framework. You can shift within a requirement. that evaluation between more cash and less land or more land and less cash, so there's an overall evaluation B. Simpson: To be fair to the minister, I know he's framework. got a job in the House today, and this is a decision of Again, though, in terms of making the application, government to release these private lands. There are in- there's not a requirement to have to put private land in. dividuals — foresters and others — that love the idea of I think the other important point in considering this — getting access to a little bit of Crown land to manage it and it's recognized that there is a benefit to being in the properly. There were also educational reasons that some program in terms of being able to have an economic woodlots were issued — so that schools could get access model that works and things…. to a piece of Crown land, etc. That's why one of the criteria we are having in place, At the end of the day, don't these individuals want in terms of consideration for removal of that land when to make money off of Crown land? Part of the reason it's put in, is to hold it for a significant number of years for putting cash up, or private land in lieu of cash, is before any application can be made, so that it isn't a because over the term of owning that woodlot there's process of being able to get the access to the benefit of an intention they are going to make money off of the Crown timber and then being able to turn around and Crown asset. Is that not one of the desirable outcomes take it out. that people have in putting cash and private land on the Clearly, one of the policies in the consideration will table — to get access to Crown land for timber? be to have that land as part of the contribution to be made into the program within the woodlot for a signifi- Hon. S. Thomson: I think the short answer to cant number of years. the member opposite's question or assertion is yes. [1115] Obviously, people enter the woodlot opportunities as a business, looking forward to making a return for that if B. Simpson: I appreciate that the minister keeps re- things go well. That helps contribute to economic activ- ferring to policy, and we'll get to that in a second. That, ity and, as the member from Cowichan pointed out, to I think, is the issue, whether it's policy regulation or jobs in those operations. So it helps to create activity in legislation — that the criteria and the core criteria are the areas in rural British Columbia. transparent. [1110] A couple other questions just to set the context for Clearly, people entering the operations or entering that. I just want to be clear that the minister indicated into it do so with the hope of making a return that sup- in a previous question that the only consultation the ports their families. government has had or the minister has had is with the B.C. woodlot federation on this matter. Is that the B. Simpson: That shouldn't be shocking. I mean, it's only group that they've had the direct consultation part of what's going on. But the principle, again, at play with, with regard to removal of private lands from here is that an individual encumbers their private land woodlots? 8556 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, November 1, 2011

Hon. S. Thomson: Yeah, as I think I stated in re- the minister has indicated is a reason for allowing these sponse to the previous questions from the member from removals? Cowichan, the consultation process was with the federa- [1120] tion of B.C. woodlots. It had taken place over a number of years. So the direct consultation process was with the Hon. S. Thomson: You know, I think that the ques- federation. tion here is…. That was, as I stated earlier, the options that were considered in terms of looking to bring this B. Simpson: The reason for raising that is because, amendment forward, to provide the ability to do it or to again, there's an inherent conflict in that relationship not. On balance, given the wish to be able to recognize on two fronts. One, that federation, acting in the inter- unique circumstances in many of the operators, it's not ests of its members, is actually facilitating the interests to have to force them into a position to surrender the of only its members by asking the private land to be woodlot. released. So I find it intriguing that the government What it may mean…. By being able to remove a por- hasn't gone broader to ask — especially in light of the tion of their private land, it means they can stay in the Auditor General's report and the release of private woodlot business to continue to provide that sound lands from tree farm licences, that the government management and stewardship of the resource, to be able didn't learn from that and go a little bit broader and to recognize those circumstances, to not provide total inform their decision by talking to other stakehold- disruption within those operations, to be able to provide ers. It's an explicit recommendation from the Auditor that option. General as a result of the private land removal in the That's, again, why we'll have the process of a number tree farm licence case. of policies that will have to be considered in doing that Secondly, the woodlot federation of British Columbia and why we have public notification to make sure that has donated directly to the political party of British the consultation process occurs at the community level Columbia, B.C. Liberal Party, in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, when applications are made. 2011. Throughout that time that federation, whom the So there was a choice. The choice was, since the op- government has admitted is the only entity they're talk- tion to be able to do it was removed, to be able to put ing to, is donating to the Liberal party, asking for the that option back in place or not. The decision of the release of the private lands. It's one of the reasons I think ministry and of the government was to be able to put we need election finance reform, so that kind of poten- the ability back into the legislation to be able to do that tial conflict doesn't occur and, also, that the perception and to be able to deal with those circumstances for — that money buys policy changes does not occur. in total — over 700 different operations and families in The minister indicated that a rationale the govern- British Columbia. ment has under questions about the public good…. The Again, as I said, we're not expecting at all that we're only answer that I heard from the minister, and he can going to get 700 applications. There are many individ- correct me if I'm wrong, is that if they force the woodlot ual circumstances, and we will address those under the licence to be surrendered in order to release the private policy as they come forward. lands, which is what the minister has the right to do…. If a woodlot owner wants to get his private land out to B. Simpson: I know that the minister has a huge file divvy it up for his kids in estate planning, or get the pri- under Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. vate land out on the coast, to jump into the development This is a very small portion of that. I am not suggesting game in the urban interface in many of the communities that he was necessarily aware of that direct conflict with that are expanding and get direct and substantial finan- respect to donations to the party he represents. But the cial benefit from that higher and better use…. issue remains — even in the minister's answer — that The minister's only response to questions about "what we are going to allow individuals to continue to bene- is the public interest?" had to do…. Well, if we force sur- fit from a Crown asset while they get their private asset, render, then we diminish the woodlot program. We take which allowed them to get that Crown asset, released in Crown land that's currently in the woodlot program out order to get further benefit from that private asset that of that program, and that's a diminishment of the over- they wouldn't have gotten if they stayed with the ori- all program. ginal contract. My question to the minister is this: if you simply say, Secondly, the government does have the ability to just "No, we are not going to allow the removal of private simply say, "Surrender the licence," and take the wood- lands; you're just going to have to surrender," couldn't lot Crown land and allow somebody else to manage it the Crown land under licence just simply be rebundled sustainably — for benefits and so on — who is willing to and put out for more woodlots? Isn't that an option put money on the table, and so on. for the government to keep that land in the woodlot Thirdly, I think the minister is indicating, again, that licence and, therefore, meet the only public good that this is a correction of a previous amendment. But as Tuesday, November 1, 2011 British Columbia Debates 8557

I've indicated already, that correction of that previous There are some significant elements of those policies, amendment was really for exigent circumstances. That's but it's also fair to say that there may be continued re- how it was used. It didn't come with a comprehensive finement of that and adjustment to it as we implement policy of: this is how you come to us and deal with your the policy. Anticipating the upcoming questions, that is succession planning and all of the other stuff that the one of the reasons why we're proposing that this be in minister is indicating needs to be done. policy as opposed to regulation. So this is a substantive change. I don't think that it That's why we will not be supporting the amend- should be diminished. Government is making a choice ment that is being proposed — because the amendment to address the woodlot federation's issue about the quid provides some of the policies in the form of regulation, pro quo with the tree farm licences. They want a mech- which provides for that prescriptive approach to it. We anism that they'd get their private lands out too. feel that it is better to have those criteria and things in So I'd like to move the amendment that I have on the policy. It allows us to deal with those unique circum- order paper in my name on section 4 and speak to that stances, allows us to adjust the policy. now. Also, as I've said previously, the bill does provide for [SECTION 4 is amended key elements to potentially be put into regulation at (a) in subsection 47.1 (1) by adding "providing criteria in sub- some point. That would be after due consideration and section (3) have been met." after "licence" (b) by adding the following subsection: finalizing the policy. (3) In order to remove private land from a woodlot licence But at this point it's our position that we would deal area with this in policy, potential regulation. Bringing the (a) the woodlot licence must have been operative for a specific criteria into regulation at this point does not pro- minimum of 10 years; (b) the cut under the woodlot licence must be in bal- vide us that longer-term flexibility to deal with the unique ance and all regulatory requirements must have circumstances of over 700 different families and oper- been met, or compensation has been received by ations and scale of operations across the province. government for any non-compliance; (c) notice has been given to the public of the application to remove the land and a period of not less B. Simpson: I know the minister must feel he's re- than 90 days has been provided to the public to give peating himself over and over again. That's how these feedback to the Minister on the potential removal; debates go. But the reason for putting this amendment (d) notice has been given to local governments of the forward is that the government has an option when it application for removal; and (e) compensation to the Crown has been negotiated brings forward legislation, particularly legislation in commensurate with the relative value of the private which there may be some questions about how the gov- land’s contribution to the original licence. ernment is going to operate in the case of ministerial (c) by adding the following subsection: discretion, where the minister has the discretion to do (4) Following a removal of private land under section (2), the Minister must notify the public of the change in something. boundaries.] This language in this bill says by regulation "if any." The government has the opportunity to do things by On the amendment. legislation. As the minister has indicated, there's a loss of [1125] flexibility in that, but it's clear and explicit, and if there are going to be any changes to it, it has to come back into B. Simpson: The minister has spoken at length in pre- this chamber to be changed. vious questions about this policy that he's got for the Most governments don't like that these days. Most removal of these private lands. I wonder if the minis- of the legislation we get here is enabling legislation, be- ter could point to where that policy currently exists — a cause the government will argue it doesn't give them web page, a policy paper — something that we could flexibility. But in the case that we have here, the min- actually go to and look at to address, to compare that ister has indicated a number of times some core or key policy against what I've got in front of me by way of requirements, and he has indicated them a number of amendment. times in the debate. [1130] Hon. S. Thomson: The policy is under develop- I've heard him say, for example — and I've got it in ment, has had discussion with the federation in terms this amendment — that in order to remove the private of significant elements of the policy, although it is not land from the woodlot area, the woodlot licence must complete. It has not been posted, so there is not a web- have been in operation for ten years; the cut and the site or a process where I can point you to, to find at that obligations under the licence must be met, or the gov- point, because it isn't complete. The step here is to get ernment has sought due compensation; and notice to the ability within the provisions in this bill and then to the public has been given. The minister has indicated continue to work to finalize the policy considerations that would be one of what he is saying are core criteria. under which the applications would be considered. And notice to local government is given. That addresses 8558 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, November 1, 2011

the issue that the Auditor General has indicated needs Amendment negatived. to be addressed. Then the final part. Under questioning the minister B. Simpson: I forgot to even vote on my own amend- admitted that in some cases this dialogue must occur ment. That shows you how little faithI had that it would — that the Crown indicates that some compensation be accepted by the minister. back to the Crown would be required, given the ori- Really, that amendment was put forward to try and ginal circumstances for giving the woodlot licence in make the case…. I understand the minister's conten- the first place. Then it adds another section that states tion that it doesn't give flexibility, but I wanted to put clearly that once private lands have been removed, no- on the public record what I think are reasonable core tice is given to the public of that removal so nobody gets expectations. caught by surprise. [1135] I move that this amendment to put this in legislation I have given an alternate amendment to the Table on be put forward now, to call the vote. section 4, and I've got another copy here. Sorry, my apologies. A member wanted to speak to it. [SECTION 4 by deleting the text shown as struck out: 47.1 (1) In accordance with the regulations, if any, and with N. Macdonald: These amendments have been on the the consent] order paper for a number of days. We've had an oppor- On the amendment. tunity to look at it. In terms of the thrust of the argument that's being made, the measures that are talked about are B. Simpson: It's to get to what the opposition critic measures that the minister has referred to as things that has pointed out. Legislation does bind a government. would likely be in policy, although the minister has also indicated that policy is still being put together and may It is an onerous process to change. As I indicated, that be flexible from one discussion to the next. amendment went forward to simply say: "Here's what I would agree with the member who put forward the I think are the core requirements." It gives the minister amendment that there are problems with that. Stronger the flexibility he wants in order to go out and deal with than policy is regulation — right? At least, as an oppos- the 700 potential cases. ition, it's easier to find out regulatory changes. Stronger But there's another way of doing this. The minister still would be legislation. So in terms of watching what's has indicated that at some point the government may going on, this is something that would make sense. move to regulation. All this amendment does is on sec- However, the opposition is not going to support this tion 47.1(1) — a removal of the language "if any." The section. We will not be supporting it. We don't think way it stands now, it says: "In accordance with the regu- the case has been made that this is in the public interest. lations, if any…." Then the minister has discretion. Therefore, it would not make sense to support anything I'm suggesting that this is too important to be done that tried to improve it. With that, we will be voting by way of policy. Because policy is at the discretion of against the amendment, and we will be voting against the minister and his staff, policy does not have to be the section as well. put out in the public domain. In fact, the minister has indicated the policy that's being discussed is policy be- Hon. S. Thomson: To be clear, our position on this ing discussed with the federation, which represents the will be not to support the amendment to bring these members who benefit from the decision. policies into legislation. Clearly, some of the policies So by removing "if any," it says that the government that have been articulated in the proposed amendment will, in good faith, post the core regulations. What are ones that are under consideration as part of policy or happens for the general public then…. If the min- regulation, but we're not prepared to have the prescript- ister does it by regulation, then an order-in-council ive approach by having it in legislation that won't allow must be passed. The regulations for the core criteria us to make the adjustments in as timely a manner as we that would determine whether the minister is going to may wish to do So we will be opposing this amendment allow release — it still gives the minister flexibility — for different reasons than the member for Columbia is decided by cabinet, not the minister. It's public for River–Revelstoke and the opposition. everybody to see, and if there are changes to be made I do want to again state for the record that a number to it in order to deviate from that core, the minister of the criteria listed in here are criteria and policy that is protected because he's got to come back in to his will be part of our consideration in developing the policy. cabinet colleagues, have the discussion, make the case These are approaches that we have discussed with the fed- and get it changed. eration of B.C. woodlots and will continue to do so. I think this is a reasonable intermediate between policy with too much flexibility and too little transpar- B. Simpson: Madam Chair, I do wish to have this ency, and legislation with too little flexibility — to go by amendment voted on now. regulation. I'm just asking if the minister would consider Tuesday, November 1, 2011 British Columbia Debates 8559

just simply removing "if any" and committing today that I think even for the minister, whether it's this minister this will be done by regulation, at least on the core cri- or another minister, to simply have the protection of a teria for removing private lands. course of regulations that still gives…. You can still de- sign policy around the regulations. If the core is simple Hon. S. Thomson: I want to speak in opposition to and straightforward, you can still have flexibility around the proposed amendment, simply for the reason that it. So I think that's unfortunate, and it certainly forces we are dealing with a great diversity — a wide range my hand in terms of the overall section. of types of operations, scales of operations, 700 differ- I move that the amendment vote be taken now. ent families. We need to continue to have the ability for policy to be part of having a flexible approach to deal- Amendment negatived. ing with this. We have said, and I have said on the record, that a Section 4 approved on division. number of core principles could be included in regulation. But I think if we don't maintain the flexibility to On section 5. have some policy considerations around it, we'll find ourselves not being able to deal with the process and the N. Macdonald: Section 5, as we understand it, is a unique circumstances and will be very constrained by section that we've seen before. It's one that was ren- being only able to judge applications with specific refer- dered inoperative. This whole section, which deals ence to the regulation. with overlapping tenure, is something that was first This provision of the bill contemplates some regula- brought in with the Greenhouse Gas Reduction tions, but it also contemplates having a policy framework (Emissions Standards) Statutes Amendment Act in that would allow you to make decisions based on 2008. That's my understanding. I guess the first ques- unique circumstances. So I'd speak in opposition to the tion is: what was the mechanism that rendered this amendment. section inoperative? [1140] Hon. S. Thomson: The amendments to this section, as N. Macdonald: Once again, it's an improvement on was pointed out by the member opposite, restore amend- what's there. The advantage to regulation, of course…. ments that were made by Bill 31 previously, which were This change would not mean that everything had to be rendered inoperative by the Forests and Range (First in regulation, but it does say that there needs to be some Nations Woodland Licence) Statutes Amendment Act regulation, that some has to be put in a form that's easier in 2010. My understanding is that inadvertently, with for the opposition to see what's actually happening in the passage of that statutes amendment, we rendered policy. It's very difficult to follow. sections inoperative. This process here is simply to cor- The idea is an improvement, but as I said with the rect that and bring those provisions back in through other amendments that were put forward, in section 4 these amendments. the case has not been made to the satisfaction of the op- It gets a bit complicated when you go between dif- position that this is in the public interest. Whether it's ferent pieces of legislation, but we made an inadvertent improved or not improved, the fact remains that it's not change that now we need to correct. a direction that's going to be supported by the opposition. So on the opposition side, as well, we're going to N. Macdonald: There's a tremendous amount of be voting against the amendment. complexity with this. Not only was there the accidental removal of this, which we are now putting back in, but B. Simpson: I find this quite unfortunate. It actually this has been problematic. Since changes that go back ends up forcing me to vote against this section because I maybe to 2003, there have been waste issues that the don't understand why the minister would not want to be government has struggled to deal with. I mean, this is protected from the clear charge that I think is going to part of the background. be made when you look at Elections B.C., and somebody [1145] goes on there and finds out that the federation is donat- There was a study done by the Canadian Centre for ing to the party the minister represents. Policy Alternatives that indicated that in a five-year per- When you understand that the minister has indicated iod, the amount of waste that was left on the forest floor on the public record that the only group that is being — this is good merchantable timber that was left out — consulted on this is the group that represents people if you put them on logging trucks, would stretch from who will benefit from the release, and when you look at Vancouver to Halifax and half the way back. This is at what the Auditor General has indicated about what was a time when we also knew there were opportunities for wrong with the tree farm licences, this shows that gov- some of that fibre, if it was brought in and available for ernment is not learning from that. use in bioenergy. 8560 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, November 1, 2011

For the past three years my understanding is that B. Routley: It is an important issue, and I just want to there's been an attempt to work with this legislation and comment for a moment on this. First of all, the fact that get it to where it's actually functioning. Even though, we're putting something back in. I guess when you get inadvertently in 2010, it was removed, there still was a the chainsaw out and start cutting up pieces of legisla- struggle and continues to be a struggle with these over- tion…. We cut a little too deep, and now it's one of those lapping tenures. Is that the case? Is the minister still in things that we've got to patch back in. But we're support- a place where, three years on, the details on how this ive of the concept of putting back in something that for would work have not really been figured out? years should have been dealt with. I've got to tell this story. Years ago I actually pro- Hon. S. Thomson: Thank you for the question and tested…. I know you might find it hard to believe that I the comment. I think it is fair to say that with the com- was involved in a protest about so much waste wood — plexity of the legislation and some of the inadvertent mountainsides of wasted wood. In the early travels that adjustment that was made, we're diligently working to our Forests critic and myself took around Vancouver get the overall tenure options and tools in place to be Island, we visited a site where there were huge volumes able to deal with this. This is an important piece of it in of waste wood today yet again. dealing with that overlapping tenure. The supervisor of that operation said to us that he This fix here allows us to complete that process and wanted to provide a small pellet operator with the op- make this tool available as one of the tools in address- tion to take that wood waste and use it. He just thought: ing the concerns and the issue that the member for "Well, it's better to have one or two jobs in town than Columbia River–Revelstoke raised. to just have this stuff sit here and waste." In some cases, we're hearing of huge volumes of wood all over N. Macdonald: In terms of what we're trying to ac- the province just being burnt up. Again, I've seen this complish here, I think it's a worthwhile objective. far too long — mountains of wood waste, wood being Nobody wants to see the resource wasted. I understand burnt or left on the side of the road — and it really is that the government has been working on it and that completely unacceptable. this is part of it. Maybe for the public's interest and for The notion for years that we talked about out in the my interest, could the minister explain how far along we woods is that there should be some kind of "use it or are to being able to describe exactly how these overlap- lose it" option. If a company that owns a licence to our ping tenures would work? valuable public asset, our timber, goes out there and I know, and the minister has told us, in 2010 this has their way with the forest and takes what they see as section was removed. But between 2008 and 2010 the value…. There's been far too much cherry-picking, by government was not able to put it in place because there the way, taking out the best timber because the market were portions that still needed to be figured out. I can understand the complexity too. Whenever you have the was such that they could leave it by the side of the road overlapping tenures, you have existing roads, and you — not severe enough penalty. Then to have that wood have wildfire obligations. You have a whole host of obli- just wasted to the community and no plan whatsoever gations that an initial tenure holder may have. Then how to deal with it…. do you put another tenure over top? Who is responsible The notion of having some kind of a licence defin- for what? Things like that. itely appeals to me. I would encourage the minister So can the minister explain? Are they at a place where to really push back on the industry stakeholders who they can explain exactly what this type of tenure would I know for years have talked about insurance issues. look like? They're concerned about that but also the fact that they [1150] pay for the roads and the bridges and all the rest of it. I heard that ad nauseam about all of their costs. While Hon. S. Thomson: This change in legislation, ref- it's all true, the truth is that if you're going to waste erencing back to the 2008 bill, provides the overall it…. framework. As the member opposite referenced, it is [1155] complex in terms of dealing with a situation where I'm sure the minister and others would agree that we have overlapping tenures. But what I can advise is some kind of use for a product that's otherwise just go- that with this change and having the legislative frame- ing to be burnt up or wasted…. Notionally, that's totally work now fixed in terms of being able to deal with it, unacceptable to the people of British Columbia. So I the regulatory and the implementation process for this want to know how close the minister is to a solution. tool is well underway and is, as I'm advised by my staff, Has the minister found a way to deal with the major li- very close to completion. We should have the regula- censees that appeases their issue? Is it more or less a "use tion and the implementation to be able to do this in the it or lose it" type of clause, or how will this work? How very near future. will the licence work? Tuesday, November 1, 2011 British Columbia Debates 8561

Hon. S. Thomson: First of all, let me say I agree with Motion approved. the member opposite in terms of this is a very important issue to address. We need to make sure we get the regu- The committee rose at 11:57 a.m. latory framework in place. I think we need to be careful about the connotation of the "use it or lose it" approach. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. It has implications for other key policy issues particularly related to some softwood lumber considerations The Committee of the Whole, having reported and things like that. progress, was granted leave to sit again. I think what is clear with this provision, with this type of licence, is that we will have the ability to put the licensee Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House. on notice that we're prepared to issue the licence and make it available to people who want to utilize it for those bio- Motion approved. energy purposes. That's the intent.I t will be another one of the tools in the suite of policies we will have to be able to Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 address the issue that the member opposite talked about. this afternoon. Noting the hour, I rise to report progress and ask leave to sit again. The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

Hansard Production

Acting Director Robert Sutherland

Post-Production Team Leader Christine Fedoruk

Editorial Team Leaders Laurel Bernard, Janet Brazier, Robyn Swanson

Technical Operations Officers Pamela Holmes, Emily Jacques, Dan Kerr

Indexers Shannon Ash, Julie McClung, Robin Rohrmoser

Researchers Jaime Apolonio, Mike Beninger, Polly Vaughan

Editors Aaron Ellingsen, Deirdre Gotto, Jane Grainger, Betsy Gray, Iris Gray, Linda Guy, Barb Horricks, Bill Hrick, Paula Lee, Donna McCloskey, Bob McIntosh, Anne Maclean, Constance Maskery, Jill Milkert, Lind Miller, Lou Mitchell, Karol Morris, Dorothy Pearson, Erik Pedersen, Peggy Pedersen, Janet Pink, Amy Reiswig, Heather Warren, Arlene Wells, Glenn Wigmore

Published by British Columbia Hansard Services, and printed under the authority of the Speaker.

Printing Agent Crown Publications, Queen's Printer for British Columbia 563 Superior St., Victoria, B.C. V8W 9V7 www.crownpub.bc.ca

Daily and annual Hansard subscription information is available from Crown Publications.

www.leg.bc.ca

Access to on-line versions of the official report of debatesHansard ( ), webcasts of proceedings and podcasts of Question Period is available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television.