1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th 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, DECEMBER 10, 1987

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 2953 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Motions Without Notice

Commonwealth Games. Hon. B.R. Smith –– 2953

Mr. G. Hanson

Tabling Documents –– 2954

Oral Questions

Funding for ministers of state. Mr. Blencoe –– 2954

Mr. Harcourt

Mr. Williams

Open Learning Agency Act (Bill 58). Second reading

Mr. Vant –– 2955

Hon. S. Hagen –– 2956

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 1987 (Bill 63). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Rogers) –– 2958

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Miller

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 4), 1987 (Bill 59). Third reading

–– 2960

Mineral Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 51). Third reading –– 2960

Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Compensation Act (Bill 61). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Couvelier) –– 2960

Mr. Miller

Hon. Mr. Parker

The House met at 2:11 p.m.

MR. MOWAT: In your gallery today we are very honoured to have

two special friends of my wife and me, Janet and Reuben Horwitz from

Fort St. James. British Columbia. They actually live on Stuart Lake.

They have been pioneers up in that area for 32 years. When they

originally moved up there, there were only three families on their side

of the lake, and I understand now there are 150 permanent families on

that side. I would ask the House to please make them welcome today.

MR. HARCOURT: I'd like members of the House to greet some

visitors from Vancouver Centre. They are the volunteers who help in our

constituency office who keep the minister busy on human services issues

and the Minister of Labour busy on Workers' Compensation Board issues.

They are the ones who really help out: Don Reekie, Ken Barrass, Thelma

McDonald, Evelyn Fertig, Nancy MacLean, Brian Cooper. We also have two

staff people, our constituency assistants who have made it the model

constituency office in the province: Rick Smith and Thelma Pankiw, who

has served the people of this province for over 12 years. I'd like you

to give them a very warm greeting.

HON. MR. PARKER: Joining us for a first visit in the members'

gallery today is the new consul-general of Korea, newly moved from

Ottawa and a month now in Vancouver, Mr. Kie Ok Chung, and with him

Miss Hwang, vice-consul of Korea also located in Vancouver. Would the

House make them welcome, please.

MR. MILLER: In the gallery today are three people from the

United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union: Jack Nichol, the president

of the union; Burma Lockett, a fish plant worker from Steveston; and

John Malm, a fisherman from Delta. They were here this morning for a

meeting with the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Hon. Mr.

Savage) to impress upon the minister the importance of our B.C.

fishprocessing industry and the need for B.C, to fight aggressively to

protect that industry in the face of the preliminary GATT ruling. I

would ask the House to join with me in making them welcome.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: It is indeed a pleasure to rise in the House

today to introduce from the great constituency of Delta a number of

grade 11 students from Seaquam Secondary School. Also with the students

today is a dedicated instructor, Mr. John Kelly. Would this assembly

please make them very welcome.

[2:15]

MR. S.D. SMITH: In your gallery today is a gentleman who is

here representing the central North Thompson area of the

Thompson-Nicola Regional District — at his own expense, I might add —

doing his duty on behalf of his constituency. Would the House please

join me and my colleague the Minister of Social Services and Housing

(Hon. Mr. Richmond) in welcoming Paul Caissie.

MR. PELTON: I have the very distinct honour this afternoon of introducing

three very delightful ladies to our assembly: Mrs. Marjorie McCaig and Mrs.

Barbara Rowell from Victoria, and my wife, Louise. I would ask you all to make

them welcome.

MR. CASHORE: Visiting in the gallery today are Mr. David

Gosse of North Vancouver, and Mr. Art Rippon of Victoria. I would ask

the House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. LONG: Mr. Speaker. In the precincts today is a good

constituent of mine and one of Canada's finest, Const. Bruce Denniston,

and his son Matty, who are here visiting us. I'd like you to make them

welcome.

Motions Without Notice

COMMONWEALTH GAMES

HON. B.R. SMITH: I would ask leave to make a motion which I will move and the first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson) will second.

Leave granted.

HON. B.R. SMITH: It is moved and seconded that the members of

this Legislature strongly support the decision reached by the Canadian

Commonwealth Games Committee in selecting Victoria as the Canadian

nominee for the 1994 Commonwealth Games and urge the government of

Canada to confirm its commitment to support Victoria without delay, and

that the members of this House are confident that Victoria will host

the most outstanding Commonwealth Games in the history of this event.

Speaking briefly to the motion, which the first member for Victoria

and I are presenting at the request of the Victoria Commonwealth Games

committee, I want to say that the Commonwealth Games bid has been a

community endeavour and has been supported by both sides of this House.

When the crucial meetings were held last month, I'm happy to tell the

House that both the first member for Victoria and the second member for

Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Huberts) went to Montreal and worked long

hours to help persuade the Canadian committee to give the successful

bid to Victoria. It was against considerable odds that that was brought

about. It was brought about because people could see that not only was

Victoria the best place for the bids, in terms of climate and

geography, and not only did Victoria offer the only real legacy that

the games can offer — which isn't buildings and tracks, but the

commitment to high-level performance sports in the future — but it

offered a united front in the community. All elements in the community

— the provincial government, the municipal governments. both parties in

this House — support it.

So what we say now in this motion is that we're proud that Victoria

won the bid. The Canadian government is now going through some process

to try to assure other parts of the country that it was a fair process;

we believe it was a fair process. Let's get on with confirming that

commitment, so that now Victoria as the Canadian nominee can win the

bid, and not lose the bid due to bickering in Canada or to people with

their noses out of joint in other communities. Let's get on with it and

confirm that commitment.

MR. G. HANSON: It's an honour to second this motion. On behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus in this House,

[ Page 2954 ]

I wish to pledge our wholehearted support for Victoria as the site for the 1994 Commonwealth Games.

Mr. Speaker, the reasons for the choice of Victoria will become more

evident in the next few days. It is clear that the Victoria bid was the

most meritorious bid. As the Attorney-General stated, the compelling

reasons for the choice Of Victoria, aside from the most creative

opening and closing ceremonies that the selection and executive

committees had ever seen, is really the legacy of the games. The legacy

of the games will establish forever and a day that Victoria and this

region will be the Olympic training centre for high-performance

athletics for all of Canada. It will serve Canada well, and it will

allow Canadian athletes to be the best they can possibly be. So it's a

pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to join with those opposite in our wholehearted

support. We are confident that we will put on the best Commonwealth

Games that ever have been in the history of the Games.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Savage tabled the annual report for Agricultural Aid to Developing Countries from the Province of British Columbia.

Oral Questions

FUNDING FOR MINISTERS OF STATE

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the Premier on his centralization plan.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, we don't have that; you've got it wrong.

MR. BLENCOE: His centralization plan. Yesterday the Premier

stated, in an extraordinary public condemnation of his cabinet, that:

"I think the cabinet might have been a little bit too generous with the

amount allotted." A little too generous.

Now leaving aside the unbelievable attack on his own cabinet and his

own colleagues, can the Premier explain how on earth cabinet members

can be accused of allocating too much money for centralization, when it

was the Premier himself who announced the million dollars per region on

September 24, over a month before cabinet signed the warrant?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: When the program was first talked about

by me and my colleagues back in March or April, certainly then already

we recognized that such a program would definitely need some resource,

although obviously since the program was to be influenced much by the

views of people within the regions, no one could accurately estimate

just exactly what might be required for the year.

So I think perhaps until we have some experience with respect to the

demands from the various regions — and they may vary from region to

region — we won't know just exactly what the amount is. I am sure,

however, that the million dollars is most generous and will well

accommodate even the most ambitious of regions.

MR. BLENCOE: Let me refresh the Premier's memory. In a press

release on September 24, Mr. Premier, you publicly announced that $1

million would be allocated to each region to start up an operational

funding. Over a month later, on October 28, the cabinet signed a

special warrant for $8 million, consistent with the Premier's

announcement on September 24. Yesterday, December 9, over a month after

the cabinet order, the Premier publicly stated: "They were a bit too

generous." Which is it, Mr. Premier? Did the cabinet follow your

instructions, or did they cook up the $8 million themselves?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm very pleased to say that the

cabinet was fully involved in the decision with respect to the amount

of resource that would be provided each region. We certainly are

grateful for the fact that we have in our province a government where

people collectively consider the needs of the regions and people

throughout this province and where such decisions are made by a

cabinet. Obviously, from time to time my own views with respect to the

amount required may not be in keeping with the cabinet decision, but

I'm very pleased that we have that resource available, and I'm hoping

that at the end there may be something left. But certainly each region

will have the potential to really develop for itself a variety of

initiatives, which will make us a better province.

MR. BLENCOE: Let's go to October 7 and refresh the Premier's

memory again. The Premier, on October 7, in an attempt to resolve

confusion around his September 24 centralization announcement, publicly

stated: "When I announced our new policy initiative, I said it would be

an orderly and planned process." Yesterday the Premier publicly stated:

"There is no detail. Everybody is sort of groping and guessing now."

Mr. Premier, my question is: are they groping and guessing now because your

promise about an orderly and planned process was totally incorrect?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It's unfortunate that the member's research is entirely from the Times-Colonist .

I would suggest that the article, particularly since it quoted several

members of the opposition, was badly distorted. However, I certainly

concede that we did want to see a planned approach.

Yes, I said, and I certainly agree, that it ought to be a planned

approach — not in such detail that we would deny local people the

opportunity to be involved. Certainly we too had a lesson in why we

needed a reasonable approach, because I was reminded of a former

government, commonly referred to as the Dave Barrett government, which

in 1974 had its own version of decentralization when it appointed Alf

Nunweiler as the minister responsible for the region of Prince George.

I can quote from Hansard of

April 29, 1975, when Mr. Nunweiler said: "We are just tired of being a

colony of the lower mainland." He further said: "We want to share a

little more of the good things that this province has with the people

in our region. Therefore, it has been a basic policy of this government

to provide meaningful recognition of the right of the people living

outside of the population centres of this province to determine their

own needs and to be a part of the development of their own area."

The 1975-76 estimates provided this minister of the region of Prince

George with $402,657. This translates into almost $1 million in 1987

dollars, so I think perhaps we had

[ Page 2955 ]

something to fall back on when we were looking at the process of decentralization.

[2:30]

We don't deny that there might have been a few things that happened

during that term of 1972-75 that had some benefit for the people — very

few, but a few — and we had a lesson from that. This is why I thought

the process was wellprepared by us.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the Leader of the Opposition,

I'd just like to remind members — as I have the odd time — of standing

order 47A(b), where it says that questions and answers are to be brief

and precise and without argument or opinion. I think the Chair allows

great leeway, but we see what happens when members from both sides....

If the questions are long and argumentative, the answers tend to be the

same way. If that happens too often. other members will not get on in

question period.

MR. HARCOURT: My question is for the Premier. Mr. Premier,

despite your promise of an orderly and planned process, your program of

decentralization is a shambles. As you yourself said, you're just kind

of gropin' and guessin'. Can the Premier assure British Columbians and

this House that not another dime of the $8 million is spent until

guidelines that show an orderly and planned process are tabled in this

Legislature?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, the process of

decentralization in this province is coming along extremely well. But

until the NDP travels beyond the downtown cores of Victoria and

Vancouver, they'll really never have the feel of what's happening out

there in the rest of the province.

MR. HARCOURr: Well, I've been to 110 communities since February, Mr. Premier; where have you been?

What we have, Mr. Speaker, is a Premier who publicly admits that

there is no orderly and planned process, that he's groping and

guessing. We have no guidelines for expenditures of tax dollars. We

have a Premier who ignores parliamentary democracy and, worse, the laws

of this province. My question to the Premier is: will the Premier quash

the special warrant and bring in legislation if he plans to spend

another dime of the public money on this scheme?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We are concerned about the progress,

the future, the development and the opportunities in all regions of

this province, and we intend to provide the resources to make things

happen in all the great regions of this province.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's intriguing. Yesterday the Premier said

that the urgency for the $8 million was for industry and so that

decisions could be quickly made in the regions. Could you advise the

House where the regional officer is located for the lower mainland

region?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We have staff people, both in Victoria and in the regions, who address all of these. In the case of the lower mainland,

it's a very large and populous region, but it will be headquartered in Burnaby.

MR. WILLIAMS: Is the Premier unaware that the political hack who was

appointed is down in the Rattenbury Room in the Parliament Buildings in Victoria?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't know what office the person may

be working from today or yesterday, but I can assure you that we've had

a lot of activities already in the lower mainland region. As a matter

of fact, the minister of state for the area is in the region today,

along with the parliamentary secretary, and they're meeting with a

number of groups, including those that are looking to provide economic

activity in the various parts of the lower mainland region.

Mr. Speaker, we're making great progress; we haven't been at it too long but already we're seeing very positive results.

MR. WILLIAMS: To get a job in the lower mainland, I'd like the public of British Columbia to know that you must apply in room 139 in the

Parliament Buildings in Victoria.

The Premier has confirmed that the purpose of these regions is economic development.

Why then would you not appoint the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mrs.

McCarthy) as the minister of state for the lower mainland?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The purpose of the decentralization,

Mr. Speaker, is not only as it applies to developing economic

initiatives in the different regions. It is also to ensure that people

have a voice with respect to priorizing health services, social

services, or other services of government. In effect, we're working to

ensure that people in all of the regions will have a greater voice in

each and every decision made by government affecting their particular

region. I know that might be difficult to understand, for the

representative from Vancouver East, but there are many vast regions of

this province where they're seeking not only economic development but

also a greater voice in the other services provided to people. It will

provide a more efficient service, and one more responsive to the

people. That's as necessary, hon. member, in the Nechako. Cariboo,

Peace or Kootenay areas as it is in Vancouver East.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 58.

With respect to standing order 42(3), the orders of the day indicate

that the minister adjourned debate. However, a careful review of the

Blues from this morning indicates that he was adjourning just for

adjournment purposes, and certainly not with respect to closing debate.

With that said, accordingly it's the government's position that debate

can continue on second reading of Bill 58. The minister has not closed

off any opportunity for members who wish to speak.

OPEN LEARNING AGENCY ACT

(continued)

MR. VANT: I rise to take

part in this ongoing debate on Bill

58. Being from the central interior, one of the great achievements of

the Social Credit government since the Dark Ages between 1972 and 1975

was to found the Knowledge Network. Believe me, this is the key to open

learning in each and every region of our great province. It creates

equal educational opportunities for all, regardless of where they live.

I do know from firsthand experience in the Cariboo that shift workers, nurses and many other professionals have

[ Page 2956 ]

managed to continue to upgrade their skills, mainly

through the Knowledge Network. The key to equal opportunities in

university and college, and indeed Institute of Technology courses, is

the Knowledge Network, which is very widespread. It's still expanding.

I still get inquiries regarding expansion of the satellite coverage

system, and this is taking place. It allows education in our great

province, despite its geography.

I want to emphasize that we can't all be city slickers. Indeed, in

my own constituency, which is the size of the province of New

Brunswick, right now two-thirds of our population live outside the

incorporated areas. Only one third live in the two cities and two

villages in the Cariboo.

So through this excellent Bill 58 new opportunities are offered to

our people which go far beyond the good old correspondence courses

through the Ministry of Education. Although I must echo the sentiments

of other members who, looking back.... Many young people did manage to

complete their education through correspondence. Now this excellent

Open Learning Agency Act uses new technology to greatly expand the

educational opportunities for all. After all, the reality is that we

can't have an actual post-secondary educational institution in every

place where our people live, because they do live all over in many

remote areas.

I am very pleased to make those comments in support of this act.

MR. SPEAKER: I advise the House that the minister closes debate.

MR. ROSE: Is he the designated speaker? He gets two hours.

HON. S. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, I'm informed that I have two

hours. I'll have to go back to the training that I started 25 years ago

to become a minister, and finally made it after 25 years.

MR. ROSE: Have you been ordained?

HON. S. HAGEN: No, not yet. But it is a great pleasure for me

to speak on this motion and to talk a bit about how I feel about

education and, more specifically, the Open Learning Agency Act.

I appreciated what was said this morning by the members for Burnaby

North (Mr. Jones), Kootenay (Ms. Edwards) and Prince George North (Mrs.

Boone) and the Leader of the Opposition, and this afternoon the second

member for Cariboo (Mr. Vant). I can relate a great deal to what

they're saying because I also live outside of the lower mainland and

have had some personal contact with the necessity for different methods

of education. I know I always get into trouble when I brag about my

wife, but I'm going to anyway. She was a charter student at Simon

Fraser University but completed her degree while living in Courtenay

through all of the different methods that are available — the Knowledge

Network, OLI, the extension program at UVic and the DISC program at

Simon Fraser — and finally graduated with a bachelor of arts and

history degree from Simon Fraser.

So the opportunities are there, and what we want to do is improve on those

opportunities. I'm pleased that basically everything that was said this

morning by the hon. members who spoke is really supportive of this bill and

supports the need for this legislation.

I have answers, I think, to the specific questions that were posed;

and in support of what has taken place in the Open Learning Institute

and with the Knowledge Network, this act, Bill 58, is really going to

bring into being what has been taking place over the last two years or

so with the Open Learning Institute.

Interjection.

HON. S. HAGEN: Well, the two agencies exist. The Knowledge

Network exists and the Open Learning Institute exists. So this is

formalizing and constituting these things that are already in existence.

The purpose of the agency is that in collaboration — so that it does

not replace any of the other methods of delivering education — with the

universities, institutions, boards of school trustees and other

agencies, we want first to provide an education credit bank for

students. Those of you who are or have been involved with education

know that this is important. It's important for our students to be able

to go to the various colleges, institutes and universities, even if

they don't stay at the same one, and know that they've got the credits

that they've taken the courses for.

This agency will coordinate the development of open learning

education. I know that you realize that there's a lot of development

taking place in education, not only in this province but in the entire

world. This agency can not only contribute and assist in that but learn

from other areas where this is taking place.

[2:45]

This agency will have the ability to carry out research related to

open learning education. In fact, I think that we can brag a bit about

our Knowledge Network and our Open Learning Institute. I would love to

take credit for what has gone on in the past, but I can't because I

wasn't here. I've only been here for a year. But I can tell you that

there are many people who can take the credit for the work that has

gone on in the past.

It was because of this hard work and because of the developments

that have taken place in this province with regard to distance

education that we were able, just a few months ago, to make a

presentation on distance education to the representatives of the

Commonwealth nations while they were in Vancouver. The member for

Burnaby North made reference to this, and I would like to discuss it a

bit myself.

The purpose of the presentation was to show the representatives from

the 47 or 48 Commonwealth nations what we have and what we've been

doing in distance education, and to prove to them that the distance

education headquarters for the Commonwealth should be located in

British Columbia. I had the opportunity, as the minister, on that

Friday morning just before the conference ended, to participate in the

presentation. We had a 75 percent turnout of the Commonwealth nations

that were here, and gave an excellent presentation on what we're doing.

They were convinced and the decision was made, and has been announced a

couple of times, that the Commonwealth headquarters for distance

education will be located in the province.

This is very significant, not only because it recognizes where we

are in the world with regard to the delivery of distance education, but

it's significant in that I understand that it's the first time in

history that an agency of the British Commonwealth has been located

outside of Great Britain. I think that that's good for us. It's good

for British Columbia.

[ Page 2957 ]

It's good for education and, as the hon. member opposite said, it

will provide economic opportunities and opportunities for our educators

who develop programs in this field, and production and technical work

to be developed. I think it will be a real winner for British Columbia.

In fact, a working committee has been established and has already met

in London and in Ottawa to put a plan in progress.

We worked very hard on this because there was a thrust by some of

the nations that this should be tabled and discussed for another two

years. We didn't feel that it needed any more discussion. We felt we

could be working on it and carrying out discussions at the same time,

but at least we could get on with the activity.

I do want to pay tribute to the people who have helped develop the

open learning process in British Columbia and I want to assure the

members opposite that there is no intention on my part or on the part

of the government that. this will replace conventional methods of

delivering education.

I too have had the opportunity to travel the province. I have

traveled particularly to the colleges that have participated very

strongly in distance education, and I think specifically of North

Island College and of Northwest Community College. I've spoken there

and at other colleges, and they told me about the concerns that there

were probably five years ago with regard to the possible threat that

television delivery would take over or play a substitute role in the

delivery of education. Those people tell me, and I believe what they

say, that this is not a concern to them now: they realize how distance

education, how technologically designed delivery systems, can interface

with the existing methods that we have.

As I say, there is no plan here to replace college instructors or

university professors with television instruction, but the plan is to

use it as a part of assisting to deliver education to all regions of

the province.

Also you mentioned the discussion being carried on with school

trustees. There is no plan to use this as some method of instituting

home instruction. As a matter of fact, I hadn't even thought of that

until you mentioned it. The reason that we have discussion with school

trustees in here is that there are a lot of students, as you know, who

don't complete grade 12 — and this goes to the adult basic education

discussion that we had. We feel that there is need for discussion with

the school trustees to assist in helping those students. particularly

the students who live in the remote regions of the province, to also

have the opportunity to participate in access to educational

opportunities.

Addressing some of the specific questions.... Well, I just addressed

one which had to do with home schooling, and I hope that that answers

your question.

One of the other specific questions related to

section 2(2) with

regard to the Company Act. I am advised that this is the same clause

that exists in the University Act and the College and Institute Act,

and that there are some provisions of the Company Act that we would not

want in this act, such as winding down, reporting procedures and that

sort of thing. So that's the reason it's there.

The comment was made with regard to providing a much larger bureaucracy. I

couldn't quite figure out where that came from but there is certainly no

intention on my part, and those of you who know me, I think, will know that

I have no intention, of allowing a larger bureaucracy to accumulate here. I

don't exactly know where that would come from.

There was a discussion of boards, and I am sensitive to the request

of the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone). I think that if you

look at the boards that I have appointed around the province, I've

attempted to get a good cross-section of people on those boards, and I

will do the same with the Open Learning Agency. I can tell you that it

will be a priority to have people from the regions where the needs are,

where the needs exist, on the boards to tell the agency where the

thrust should be. I will see that that is done.

MR. JONES: Political spectrum?

HON. S. HAGEN: Political spectrum. That was a question?

Moving to some of the questions that the member for Prince George

North had, I appreciated her comments with regard to the need to

provide educational opportunities in the various regions of the

province, such as the central area or the Okanagan or the Kootenays,

and I'm sensitive to that. We've been moving in that direction ever

since I became minister.

I guess one concrete example — and I kind of hate to use that term —

that I can give is that when I was in Prince George the first time, the

arguments with regard to providing education in the various regions of

the province were made very clear to me. At that time I was being

pressured as to where I should enlarge or increase the size of the

dental hygiene program — whether it should be at Vancouver Community

College or at Prince George.

I made the decision to increase it at the College of New Caledonia

because I was convinced — and, in fact, it has happened — that all the

students who graduated from that program not only get jobs very quickly

— they have them probably four months before they graduate — but they

get them in the region. They are able to work in the region in which

they live.

To me it's important, but it's also important, obviously, to the

people who are getting that education. It doesn't only work for dental

hygienists, but we're doing the same thing, as you know, with teacher

training at the Northern Lights College. At the Chetwynd, Fort St. John

and Dawson Creek campuses, we have 42 individuals enrolled in that

course who will graduate with a teaching degree from SFU, and hopefully

— and I believe they will — stay in that area and work.

I think that there is a benefit to the region; there is also a

benefit to the whole province. I often use the example of that old song

that I used to sing: "How are you going to keep them down on the farm

after they've seen Paree?" You may remember that one.

MR. JONES: Before my time.

HON. S. HAGEN: Yes, right. The member for New Westminster

(Ms. A. Hagen) reminded me that when OLI was started here it was

patterned after the system in England, and she made the point that the

people in the British Isles needed to get that education. I am reminded

that the first education they got was when the Norwegians came down and

educated them, but thev needed some more after the Norwegians taught

them what they had to know.

Interjections.

HON. S. HAGEN: The point was made that I might be introducing this bill too quickly, that there should be more

[ Page 2958 ]

consultation and that we were trying to rush it. I

must admit I was a bit amused by that because this bill has been pretty

common knowledge for the year that I've been minister. Certainly the

people at Knowledge Network and the people at the colleges and

universities have been asking me ever since I got to be minister when

it's going to be brought forward.

I think an incredible amount of consultation has taken place,

probably for about a year and a half, and people have been waiting for

it anxiously so that they can get on with the job of coordinating the

delivery of education to the regions. I just can't accept that

statement that there hasn't been consultation. I really believe that

there has. There has been a tremendous amount of discussion about this

bill.

The Leader of the Opposition made a comment on the need for

opportunities in the regions outside of the lower mainland, and I was

really pleased to hear that. It sounds like there is some recognition

coming there that certainly the regions outside of the greater

Vancouver and greater Victoria areas are important and deserve to have

more equality of access to education than there has been in the past.

He also expressed the concern that this sort of thrust would not

take away from the continual addressing that we have to do to the

facilities of the existing universities and colleges. I can assure him

that that will not happen, that our thrust will continue there. I would

remind him that within the last few months we announced a new

chem-physics building at UBC, which is a major commitment. We will be

continuing to address the needs of the facilities at the universities

and colleges and institutes.

He made reference to the number he loves to use of 8,000 students

who were turned away from colleges in September. I would remind him

that that number he has gotten somewhere is a number that is not

supported by the colleges or the registrars. As a matter of fact, I am

told by the registrars that the number of students that didn't have

access this year is about the same as last year, and it's somewhere

between 500 and 700.

The number 8,000 comes up because they're duplicated. They are

continually double-registering and triple-registering in not only

courses but in institutions, universities and colleges, particularly in

the lower mainland. Because of the extra sections we were able to fund

in August and September, we were able to address the vast majority of

the requests that came to us.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I think I've addressed the issues that were

raised on the other side of the House this morning. I move second

reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 58, Open Learning Agency Act, read a second time and referred

to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting

of the House after today.

[3:00]

HON. MR. ROGERS: Committee on Bill 63, Mr. Speaker.

MOTOR VEHICLE

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1987

The House in committee on Bill 63; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, to expedite the process, I can say

that we on this side of the House have no difficulty with sections 1,

2, 3, 4 and 5.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

section 6.

MR. LOVICK: During second reading debate we had some

discussion of this, and the minister explained the intent quite

carefully and clearly — and the notes he shared with me provided a

fairly detailed explanation of the purpose.

What I want to do, however, is ask if I might receive any kind of

assurance from the minister that this provision of authority to the

superintendent of motor vehicles to unconditionally exempt particular

vehicles from specified construction or equipment standards will in

fact be used only for the purpose enunciated by the minister earlier —

namely, that we're talking strictly about particular modifications to

vehicles. Can we have the assurance that that is indeed the only reason

for this?

HON. MR. ROGERS: In discussing this with the superintendent of motor

vehicles.... There are a number of cases. The one I used the other day in

the House, which is the one about exempting transit buses from having locks,

is one that met the point. We want to give the superintendent the flexibility

for — what shall we call them? — peculiar and oddball vehicles that we, for

whatever purposes, may wish to have operating in a limited way in British Columbia.

However, at the present time there's a blanket exclusion of them. It is

not intended to be anything other than that; that's what the addition is

for.

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

MR. LOVICK: First, a very direct question. When we discussed

section 7 last time, we had some discussion regarding the black box,

which sounds very ominous. I recall that the minister had a very good

answer to explain that, and suggested that one needn't have any fears.

A point that the minister made in the course of that debate was simply

that he would check into the possibility of this provision applying to

private vehicles. That was not the intention, and perhaps an amendment

would be in order. I wonder if the minister can tell us if that has

indeed happened.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I have checked into it, and it is only to

cover vehicles for hire. Private vehicles for hire — and there are some

occasions when a specialty private vehicle goes out for hire.... I

personally own a 1929 Ford, and occasionally people want to use it for

weddings; it's a lot cheaper than hiring a Cadillac. I just let them

use it on my insurance. But some people who have that kind of vehicle

occasionally get special coverage. We now have the ability to make

regulations pertaining to those things. After all, that's not a very

nice day to have a tragedy.

That's what it's about, in terms of the regulatory-making powers; it

has nothing to do with the great black box being put in the private

motor vehicle. That's been tried in some countries, by the way.

[ Page 2959 ]

Just a little bit off the thing, in Switzerland they now have these

photo-radar setups so regularly that nobody exceeds the speed limit

anywhere. I suppose that works well in Switzerland; I'm not quite sure

that we have the same temperament here.

MR. LOVICK: Just if I might, a couple of questions, again

searching for some specific information. I am looking at the existing

Motor Vehicle Act and the amendments to it, and I am trying to

understand and determine where

section 7 either fits into the existing

Motor Vehicle Act or complements it. I'm wondering if the minister

could answer that for me.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I might need legislative counsel for this.

It really provides the authority for regulatory powers, new safety

measures, fitness of vehicles and drivers, regulating the hours drivers

may operate, and inspection requirements of owners, drivers, vehicles

and private for-hire carriers. In some instances drivers were driving

for excessive lengths of time, and there was no method for us to check

it. It's a new

section of the act,

section 211.3; it's just to give the

superintendent that power to go into these little areas that we've

missed before.

MR. LOVICK: My apologies to the minister. As a matter of

fact, I see now that that was obvious if I had looked a little more

closely. This is 211.3, then, and 211.1 and 211.2 are still there.

The other temptation I have, of course, talking about

section 7,

given that this is about testing.... I'm referring to (4)(b), where the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations concerning

"promoting and securing road safety...prohibiting the use on highways

of any motor vehicle falling within a prescribed class of motor vehicle

unless the owner or other prescribed person having use or possession of

the vehicle holds in respect of it a subsisting safety certificate

issued by the superintendent...." Obviously that opens the door to a

whole range of motor vehicle safety inspections: testing facilities

again.

As I say, what I'd like to do to begin with is see if I can just get

from the minister, for clarification's sake, whether it is the case

that the Premier has said recently that he anticipates the return of a

testing program — that this kind of legislation is planned. Is that the

case?

HON. MR. ROGERS: We are examining a number of options in terms of motor

vehicle testing. That's out of order, but I'm answering your question,

since the Chairman allowed it. I would also tell you, out of order, that we

do not require legislation to do that; we can do that within the existing legislation.

This particular legislation deals only with those commercial

vehicles. So the debate that you may wish to have about the necessity

or lack of necessity for motor vehicle testing should best be in the

estimates of the minister or in the throne speech or in the budget

speech, but not in committee at this stage, which really just broadens

it for that. I don't need to coach you on that issue, but it's my old

habit from being the Deputy Speaker for too long. That's what this

section deals with, and nothing else, and there is no legislative

requirement for doing that.

MR. LOVICK: Well, I had no idea the minister was capable of

that rather schoolmarmish approach to things. How intriguing! It seems

clear to me that we could indeed have a debate apropos of just this

subject, Mr. Chairman, because clearly

section 211.3(4)(

b) talks about

testing, and therefore we could go crazy with that. I don't intend to

do so.

Instead, what I want to do, for the record, is to make just a brief

comment. Given this fascination with the wonders of privatization and

the private sector's capacity to perform things more efficiently and

more cheaply, I'm wondering if the minister would have ever considered

entertaining an amendment of some kind whereby we suggest that we

should reintroduce compulsory motor vehicle testing by the private

sector, but this time we'll make it, say, $4.50 per visit as opposed to

$5 — given, of course, that the private sector could do so more cheaply

and effectively, as we know. But I won't do that, Mr. Chairman, because

clearly that's facetious. Instead, I'll let my colleague the member for

Prince Rupert speak.

MR. MILLER: With reference to the minister's remarks about

the Swiss, I've been trying to find some holes in your argument but I

haven't been able to.

I'll try not to be too testy in my questions, but testing. My

question relates to an issue that I had done some research on when I

was a critic of Transportation and Highways, and that's the general

concern that has been expressed with regard to the whole safety area in

trucking, as a result of the moves to deregulate the trucking industry.

I suppose the free trade deal doesn't really impact on that. If Canada

proceeds with C-18 and C-19, we will see a deregulated industry, and if

the minister honours the commitment of the previous holder of that

office, we will see an all-party committee examine deregulation prior

to its introduction in legislation in British Columbia.

But as part of the federal parliamentary committee hearings on

deregulation, one of the issues they examined was safety, and there

were various announcements — I believe it was January '88 — that there

would be a comprehensive safety program in place in Canada to deal with

those concerns. Is this bill purporting to deal with that?

Secondly, although the bill allows for certain things to be done, it

does not in fact say that they will be done. It simply allows for them

to be done, and we don't know exactly when they will be done. Could the

minister perhaps advise the House of what's happening with respect to

that announcement that was supposed to be made in January '88, in terms

of an overall Canadian program that the provinces all fit into?

Secondly, when does he see the provisions in Bill 63 being turned into

actual regulations that will be applied in the industry?

HON. MR. ROGERS: This bill brings into effect in British

Columbia the changes to the National Safety Code as it handles

commercial vehicle transport, so this would go hand in glove with the

points you made.

The regulations and when they would be in place: early next year

some time. I can't give you a specific answer on that, but I'm told by

the superintendent of motor vehicles that there shouldn't be any delay.

There is no question that when you have a deregulated industry, people

who have always been convinced that the industry was one where it was

easy to make money often go into that industry, sometimes not with the

newest equipment, and once they find out that most

[ Page 2960 ]

businesses are difficult and require a lot of

diligent work, they start to skimp on things. If you're going to have a

deregulated industry, let's at least make sure that they can compete in

the marketplace but that they will also compete on a level

playing-field — which means they will all meet the same safety

requirements — and that safety won't be the padding in th balance

sheet. That's what we want to do.

We want to make sure this happens nationally, especially for

vehicles coming from other provinces into British Columbia. Under a

deregulated scheme, we will be getting more vehicles traveling on the

Trans-Canada Highway and other highways in the province. I don't want

to be derogatory about the flatness of Saskatchewan, but some of the

hills in British Columbia do require a better braking system than they

have in the province of Saskatchewan. We would like to make sure that

all the commercial vehicles that operate in this province meet the same

safety standard that's imposed across Canada, and for that purpose the

National Safety Code has been brought into place.

I believe that answers the member's questions.

MR. MILLER: Just very briefly, then, to confirm that you

expect that some time early next year the regulations will be put into

place.... Although the two jurisdictions of British Columbia and

California are not exactly comparable, it's interesting to note that

California, in terms of its experience in deregulation, is now looking

very closely at reregulating, because of those problems it encountered,

particularly in safety. So I would urge the minister to exercise some

diligence in getting those things into place.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Just to follow along on that, you're right

about California, but what they found was that it was a different set

of players that was causing the problem, and some of the old-line

players who had been protected by some of the regulations had gone out

of the business, and some of the new players had been the ones who had

forced them out by running a better class of service. So in some cases

it works.

My only concern in the whole matter is: level playingfield,

mandatory safety inspection. How they run their business, and how they

work with their competitors and their customers and their supplies,

isn't my problem. My problem — in terms of this

section of the act,

anyway — is the safety of the vehicles.

[3:15]

MR. LOVICK: Again, just to clarify, I take it from what the

minister said during second reading debate, plus his comments here,

that he still draws the distinction between the commercial sector and

the private sector in terms of testing. That's your own position, is it

not?

HON. MR. ROGERS: This particular thing is to deal with

commercial vehicle safety testing. At the same time, the Cabinet

Committee on Traffic Safety is looking at the whole realm of traffic

safety and traffic safety problems. The unsafe vehicle is one of the

least important problems in the whole vehicle safety thing; alcohol and

drugs are the number one problem, which we'll debate another time. If

you want to make a move to reduce the carnage on the highways, the most

important move is not to check everybody's lights and licence plates;

it's to check the person behind the wheel, not the one in front of it.

MR. LOVICK: And following right along from that observation,

of course, is to also maintain control of the liquor distribution

system and accept the recommendations of the Jansen committee, rather

than take a different track.

Having said that, I would just point out that my colleagues and I do

not have any difficulty beyond what we have enunciated thus far with

section 7, and

section 8 is consequential amendments. Therefore we are

prepared to cease our comment on this particular measure and to say to

the government that we think the intention of this legislation is good

and we're supportive of it.

Sections 7 to 11 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 63, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 1987, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call report on Bill 59.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 4), 1987

Bill 59 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call third reading on Bill 5 1.

MINERAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

Bill 51 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I ask leave to go to committee on Bill 61.

Leave granted.

SOFFWOOD LUMBER PRODUCTS

EXPORT CHARGE COMPENSATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 61; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. MILLER: I have a couple of questions arising out of

section 2. Noting that unfortunately we're waiting for the U.S. lumber

producers to give approval to our forest policy, perhaps the minister

might like to briefly give us a report on the situation with regard to

those negotiations or discussions.

With regard to

section 2, perhaps the minister could explain the

significance of the January 15 date as the first date the province may

receive funds. Does that mean that no refunds will be granted until

that date?

[ Page 2961 ]

Third, in terms of the refund program retroactivity: although I

would assume from my reading of the bill it's November 1, I don't see

in the bill where it specifically states that. If the minister could

respond to those three questions.

HON. MR. PARKER: Within the hour, I have been discussing the

state of negotiations between Canada and the U.S. on the amending

appendix to the memorandum of understanding on behalf of British

Columbia. I am advised that discussions are still underway in

Washington, and I cannot report anything further than that.

Moving on to the question on the dates stated in

section 2(l),

January 15 is the earliest date that we could expect transfer payment

from the federal government on wood exported from November 1 on. That's

the purpose of stating that particular date. It ties into.... If we go

back to

section 1,

Interpretation,"federal Act" refers to the Softwood

Lumber Products Export Charge Act...and the time required for funds to

flow through. "Explanatory notes" on the facing page tries to explain

that. I hope I addressed the question of the member for Prince Rupert.

MR. MILLER: Further to my questions, in terms of the

application of the new British Columbia stumpage system applied on

October 1, if I'm not mistaken. Is there a period of time between

October 1 and November 1 when producers would have paid the 15 percent

and will not be rebated for it, or is it a fact that their

payments were due on November 1 or after? If the minister could clarify

that point.

HON. MR. PARKER: The liability accrued for stumpage payable

during the month of October is not refundable under this agreement. The

discussions with the licensees and the exporters delayed our

arrangements, and when we were able to get together with the Canadian

and American representatives, the earliest date we could get into

effect was November 1. That's the one we've stood fast upon in our

negotiations.

MR. MILLER: Could the minister advise what amount he is

talking about? Or how much revenue, or double payment, if you like, did

the producers shell out for the month of October — which under the bill

becomes provincial revenue? It's a double whammy for the month of

October, and we're talking, I guess, a considerable amount of money.

What is it, $25 million or more? Perhaps the minister could advise me

of what amount of revenue the province will keep as a result of not

applying this compensation rebate until November 1.

HON. MR. PARKER: I am unable to provide that information in

specifics. I may not be able to do that until next month, the reason

being that the shipments were curtailed by industry in that period of

time. So we couldn't extrapolate from the average shipments, because of

the.... The reason they did that, of course, was to avoid the impact of

a double whammy, so to speak — double taxation. Just to give an

approximation, it's probably in the neighbourhood of $20 million. And

yes, it does accrue to the province. It will wind up in general revenue.

Wood that is actually scaled during the month of October is reported on a scale

return early in November. This is standard procedure every month. On or before

the tenth day of the following month the scale return has to be submitted to

the Forest Service. It's then processed, and the billings normally go out

within two weeks. barring any unforeseen difficulties. They generally arrive

in the licensees' hands a week or ten days later. depending on mail service,

and go into their payables system. That would make December.... So just

about now things would be processed through the various treasury branches of

the licensees, probably paid during January and probably received by us by the

end of January or early February. So that's the way it flows through. They

have to accrue for that. So it is booked as a liability, but cash-out hasn't

occurred yet.

MR. MILLER: I am amazed, and I suppose I should say I'm

pleased, that from an industry that was really howling about stumpage —

"We didn't want it increased, and these charges are onerous: we

certainly went through some tough times" — there's been verv little

reaction or complaining about the new stumpage formula, or even about

this little scoop of $20 million for the month of October. I suppose

that's good news for the province. It must mean the industry is healthy

and able to pay these additional revenues that the minister is

requiring of them.

[3:30]

HON. MR. PARKER: Do you want to see my scars?

MR. MILLER: Well, no. I've talked to some industry

representatives, and they haven't complained to me, so I assume they

have no complaints. Okay, we can pass on this. We'll get onto the next

section.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

MR. MILLER: Just with respect to the authentication of the

export charge payments. does the minister anticipate any difficulty in

approving those? Are the forest companies submitting authentication?

Does the ministry feel they will be able to monitor that in a

successful manner so that there are no extra payments by the province?

I understand from some of the readings I've done that it's a very

complex system in terms of lumber producers selling to exporters,

sometimes for.... You know, you're sending it to the Prairies. You're

getting mixes of various dimensions. In fact, I think one of the

northern writers claimed that anybody who wasn't sophisticated in his

computerization would have a great deal of difficulty tracking

production that did go across the border. Does the minister anticipate

any difficulties that either the ministry or the producers may have in

complying with this authentication provision?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, the member for Prince Rupert

is correct: it is a very involved, complicated process. We don't

anticipate any problems, but should we have problems, the act addresses

how we address that situation.

MR. MILLER: Two questions then in terms of that

authentication. You will simply receive the prescribed forms and so on

from exporters, and then make the payments accordingly? You have no

plans then to, for example, do some spot audits just to make sure that

you're not paying out where you shouldn't be?

[ Page 2962 ]

Secondly, with regard to the rebate, as the minister indicated

earlier, we're talking about a considerable value per month that

accrues as a result of the 15 percent. Will interest payments be added

to the rebate compensation payments to exporters?

HON. MR. PARKER: In reply to the member's concerns, there

will be spot audits, and the documentation will be verified. The

process is established.

Old age is setting in; I've forgotten your second question.

MR. MILLER: Interest.

HON. MR. PARKER: Interest will be accrued from the time that

the moneys are transferred into British Columbia treasury from the

federal government. Once we have the money, then interest will accrue

to the exporter of record. Once we are holding the money on behalf of

the exporter, we will pay interest on that money to the exporter.

MR. MILLER: You're going to get money after January 15, and I

don't know if it's going to be a lump sum transfer. Does the federal

government transfer in that manner? Perhaps the minister could

elaborate on that. That money would then be deposited, and interest

would accrue on it.

My question is: would interest be payable to producers claiming

rebates for the period of time preceding, from November 1 until January

15 or January 30, or whenever you're in a position to fully implement

the program? You're obviously going to accrue interest on whatever

money you've got in the bank that you get from the feds. Are you going

to pay these guys interest for the money that they've shelled out?

HON. MR. PARKER: We're not accumulating any interest on

payments due from the federal government. Once we have the cash in our

hands, collectively speaking for British Columbia, then interest will

accrue and be payable to the exporter who is seeking the refund.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

MR. MILLER: On the adjustment, obviously the director has the

power to change. I would think that would be required in terms of the

process we talked about in

section 3 — auditing and making sure that

all the billings are correct.

If it's reduced, and the overpayment is a debt due and owing back to

the Crown, is the money that would be paid back as a result put back

into the fund? Or would that be money paid into general revenue?

HON. MR. PARKER: The moneys would be repaid to the fund

because it was the fund that disbursed the amount. As we will learn in

later sections, any surpluses in the fund will accrue to general

revenue.

MR. MILLER: Another question. Perhaps I should have asked it earlier.

I realize that this is a finance bill, and yet you're dealing with it in

the absence of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) because it does

deal directly with the activities of your ministry. Is it the Finance ministry

that will be doing the basic work with regard to the application of the bill,

or your ministry? How is that relationship going to work between the two ministries?

There have been comments made by people I've talked to in the

industry — in fact, with some annoyance, since they see that the

Finance ministry seems to be more and more involved in considerations

in the forest industry with respect to gaining revenue in other areas.

There are complaints that the Finance ministry seems to be taking over.

Is there conflict there? Are the Finance ministry officials going to

be dealing with this question, checking with forestry officials to see

if they're doing the right job, or is it viceversa?

HON. MR. PARKER: This act and the regulations arising out of

it will be administered by the Minister of Finance and Corporate

Relations. The reason for that is the nature of the transaction between

the province of British Columbia and the federal government in the

matter of softwood lumber charges.

MR. MILLER: So really, in terms of judgments about payments,

payouts, rebates, paybacks and all the rest of it, it's the judgment of

the Ministry of Forests that is paramount. You can see that, where

you're dealing with two ministries, it's conceivable that producers

could be confused. Where do they go? The Ministry of Finance? Are you

the last word?

HON. MR. PARKER: Just like at home, no, I'm not. Money is

paid out by the exporters of record. It is generally paid by cheque or

bank draft, made payable to the receiver general of Canada, and because

the payment is made to the receiver-general of Canada, the

documentation is done on federal forms. Copies of that documentation

are acquired by the provincial Ministry of Finance, and that's the

means of determining the refund due the individuals — the exporters of

record.

So the transactions are basically between the receivergeneral of

Canada and the Minister of Finance at British Columbia, so the person

that has to exercise final judgment is the Minister of Finance, and the

Minister of Finance is free to consult with whichever ministry he sees

fit, and certainly he'll be consulting with Forests and Lands should he

need any information from us on these matters.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

section 6.

MR. MILLER: Again, it brings into question the relationship

between the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Finance. You might

have a lot of people beating on your door, Mr. Minister, wanting you to

go to the Minister of Finance, who doesn't understand the forest

industry, and I'm not certain that that's the best situation.

With regard to the fund, of course, surplus amounts in the fund can

be paid into general revenue. My question is basically the same. Is

that a decision that you would make, or is that a decision really that

the Finance ministry is going to make?

HON. MR. PARKER: The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council would make those decisions. The tax is a tax charged

[ Page 2963 ]

on commodities being sold into the United States. It's a tax matter, so it's best handled by the Ministry of Finance.

MR. MILLER: Would the minister advise, not in complex detail,

what kind of rationale you're going to use? Is it that the fund has to

be maintained at a certain level? Do you anticipate that this would

ever happen? Presumably things would balance out. The amount of double

taxation, if you like, of producers, because of the new stumpage and

the 15 percent, would be completely offset. In other words, you would

eventually arrive at a zero or a balance in terms of one offsetting the

other. Can the minister foresee where that fund would grow to such an

extent that you'd have to cream money off and put it into general

revenue?

HON. MR. PARKER:

Section 6 is a contingency plan.

Should we have to move at all on the implementation date, away from

November 1, then the funds we would have received would be surplus to

those that are rebatable or refundable. For example, if the

implementation date moved from November 1 to November 15, then the

export tax paid between the 1st and the 15th would not be refundable;

however, because it would be transferred on or after January 15, it

would be accruing in the fund. It would eventually, after all claims

were settled, be determined to be a surplus and most likely return to

general revenue.

[3:45]

MR. MILLER: Does this not bring up another point? It

unfortunately relates back to a previous section. You've already said

that you are taking the month of October, and now, quite possibly, you

could be taking two weeks in November and retaining that for the Crown

as opposed to rebating it back to producers. So now, we're up from $20

million, which was the minister's estimate, it may be $25 million a

month, and we could be looking at the Crown in fact scooping $30 or $35

million. Is there some assurance? Why would there be some problem, if

you like, in terms of the implementation date? If it's clearly spelled

out that it's November 1, why would you then say it might not be until

the 15th?

HON. MR. PARKER: The negotiations are still underway, and one

of the items being negotiated is the date of implementation. Our stand

in British Columbia is November 1, but what the outcome of those

negotiations are I have no way of knowing yet. As I said previously, I

was on the phone earlier this afternoon to learn that our

representatives were still in discussions in Washington.

MR. MILLER: The minister has announced a new policy that, among other

things, contains means of getting new revenue out of the forest industry, specifically

to satisfy the U.S. lumber lobby that was successful in getting.... Canada,

as a last-minute resort to save revenue going out of Canada, put on a 15 percent

export tax. They are, I suppose, either going to approve or disapprove of, or

possibly suggest amendments to, the policy, but why would that make any difference

once they've agreed? Are you suggesting that they would have the power to

prevent British Columbia from deciding when we would compensate producers for

double taxation? Could they conceivably say: "No, we're not going to

let you do it until December 15"? Is that what the minister is saying?

HON. MR. PARKER: What's arguable in the negotiations is, at

what point in time do our forest policies kick in as full replacement

for the softwood lumber tax? That's what is in negotiation and that's

how the implementation date can be impacted. It can be a date other

than November 1. It is something that is negotiable under the

memorandum of understanding.

MR. MILLER: So it's not simply a question of whether or not

they're satisfied with the measures you're proposing to increase

stumpage rates in British Columbia. They also have the authority to

decide in their opinion when that becomes.... I don't quite follow,

because if they agree it's a replacement measure. what has time got to

do with it? Once it's implemented. what's the difference between

November 1, November 15 and any other day after its implementation?

It's either a replacement program or it's not. So why could they force

an additional period of time of double taxation on B.C. producers? I

don't quite follow that. Surely that's a cause for concern in terms of

a Canadian province's ri-ht to make some sovereign decisions about

their forest policy.

HON. MR. PARKER: The memorandum of understanding provides

that neither party can make a unilateral move. So because it's an

aereement between Canada and the United States, you meet with your

counterpart and discuss the items of concern. One of the items of

concern is whether or not our policy is full replacement for the

softwood lumber tax. Another item of concern is: when does it truly

impact as a replacement? That then becomes the implementation date. We

are saying, effectively, November

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

MR. MILLER: With regard to the $1 million appropriation for

administrative expenses. wouldthat laterbe deducted from the moneys

paid by Canada to British Columbia? Eventually it all ends up in the

bag if moneys from the fund go into general revenue. But that's an

appropriation now from general revenue, or it will be when it's taken.

That's number one.

The

section mentions refunding moneys paid in error by Canada to the

province. I don't quite follow how that could happen. Are there any

instances to date where Canada has paid moneys in error to British

Columbia?

HON. MR. PARKER: This provides for some contingency planning.

If for some reason we get some overpayment from the federal government

on some account, it has to be reimbursed to the federal government. It

has to be paid back, and we have to be in a position to do that. So

this million dollars will be in there at the proclamation of this act

to provide for dealing with those kinds of contingencies. Once the

matter has been settled — we have replacement and all accounts settled

— that, along with any other surpluses, will be returned to general

revenue.

MR. MILLER: I congratulate the minister for being prudent.

Has that occurred to date? How Iona now have we had the 15 percent

being rebated by Canada in place? Have they overpaid at any point? Have

there been those kinds of administrative problems?

[ Page 2964 ]

Obviously, I would think, even without the authority of this bill —

if, for example, as you originally wanted, not to implement a new

stumpage system but to rather continue to receive the 15 percent from

the federal government — there would still be provision if they

overpaid. I don't know why it specifically has to come in here, and

really my question is: has it happened to date? Since the 15 percent

has been implemented and Canada has been paying moneys to British

Columbia, have those kinds of administrative problems occurred?

HON. MR. PARKER: To the best of my knowledge they haven't,

but I think Murphy's law is as applicable to the Ministry of Finance as

to anybody else. Like I say, this is contingency planning just to make

sure we're covered.

Section 7 approved.

section 8.

MR. MILLER: I have a quick question in terms of the

regulations, and it may be just something the minister wants to

explain. The regulations say: "define the extent of compensation to be

made available to members of categories of persons." Why would there be

a provision to define the extent if, presumably, those people now

paying the 15 percent will have higher costs as a result of the new

stumpage formula that is, in fact, comparable to the 15 percent? Why

would there be different categories? Does that involve different kinds

of producers? Maybe if the minister would just explain, it would be

sufficient.

HON. MR. PARKER: There has to be some flexibility here — and

that's what the regulations provide for — to deal with the outcome of

the negotiations with the U.S. I'm not clear on the intent of your last

question. Could you run that by me again, please?

MR. MILLER: The regulations may define the extent of

compensation to be made available to members of categories of persons.

What I wanted the minister to do was explain what that meant in

practical terms: why, for example, are there different levels of

compensation, and what members of categories of persons does the

minister really refer to in this section?

HON. MR. PARKER: It's a means for providing for remanufacturers as well as primary producers.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

Title approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister, members, moves the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 61, Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Compensation Act,

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It has been an expeditious day, Mr. Speaker — good progress. Accordingly, I move the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 3:55 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright 1987, 2001, 2008: Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada