1988 Legislative Session: 2nd 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, JUNE 23, 1988

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 5329 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Mineral Tenure Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill

58). Hon. Mr. Davis

Introduction and first reading –– 5329

Oral Questions

PCB dump in Victoria inner harbour. Mr. G. Hanson –– 5329

Matsqui dump. Mr. Rose –– 5330

Vancouver Community College funding. Ms. Marzari –– 5330

Long-term-care user fees. Ms. A. Hagen –– 5331

Vancouver Community College funding. Mr. R. Fraser –– 5331

Conflict-of-interest guidelines. Hon. B.R. Smith –– 5331

Mr. Sihota

Tabling Documents –– 5331

Forest Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 28). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Parker) –– 5333

Mr. Miller

Mr. Jacobsen

Mr. Williams

Ms. Edwards

South Moresby Implementation Account Act (Bill 57). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Parker –– 5348

Mr. Miller –– 5348

Mr. Williams –– 5349

Mr. Clark –– 5349

Hon. Mr. Parker –– 5350

Employee Share Ownership Act (Bill 61). Hon. Mrs. McCarthy

Introduction and first reading –– 5350

Income Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1988 (Bill 62). Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Introduction and first reading –– 5350

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1988 (Bill 36). Second reading. (Hon. B.R. Smith)

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 5351

Mr. Lovick –– 5351

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 5351

Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 53). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Dueck –– 5351

Mrs. Boone –– 5352

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 5353

Ms. A. Hagen –– 5354

Mr. Sihota –– 5356

Mr. Clark –– 5358

Hon. Mr. Dueck –– 5359

Nursing Statutes Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 56). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Dueck –– 5359

Mrs. Boone –– 5360

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 5361

Mr. Mowat –– 5361

Mr. R. Fraser –– 5361

Ms. A. Hagen –– 5361

Hon. Mr. Dueck –– 5361

Nursing Statutes Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 56). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Dueck) –– 5361

Hydro and Power Authority Privatization Act (Bill 45). Second reading

On the amendment

Mr. Sihota –– 5362

Mr. Barnes –– 5365

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 5368

Mr. Clark –– 5370

Mr. Miller –– 5372

Ms. A. Hagen –– 5375

Mrs. Boone –– 5376

Mr. Lovick –– 5377

Appendix –– 5379

The House met at 2:09 p.m.

HON. MR. VEITCH:

Today in the gallery are three good friends of mine from the British

Columbia Institute of Technology: the president of the staff society,

Mr. Mark Angelo, who is accompanied by Chuck Spong and Andy Ellingsen.

I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. SIHOTA: It's always a pleasure to

follow the person who is rumoured to be the person I'm supposed to be

focusing in on next.

I want to introduce in the gallery today two good friends, people who

have worked actively for the New Democratic Party in Esquimalt-Port

Renfrew and elsewhere across this country. These two people volunteer a

considerable amount of their time to our caucus with respect to a

number of our activities and have served, in the past. as volunteers in

my office in Esquimalt. Would all members of the House join me in

welcoming Bob and Peg Close, who are here with us today. Just to show

that all of us on this side of the House have friends from Kelowna,

joining Bob and Peg are Bill and Doreen Pryce from Kelowna.

HON. MR. REID:

It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce in the House today my

daughter Sheila and her husband Dirk Faulkner from the constituency of

Delta, with the two members, Walter Davidson and John Savage, being her

hosts.

HON. MR. PARKER: I'd like to introduce to you

today and ask that we make welcome Mrs. Marylynn Davies from Terrace,

who is president of our Skeena Social Credit constituency association.

Joining us from Cranbrook are Mr. Sye Hosaka, chairman, and Mr. Stuart

Lang, president of Crestbrook Forest Industries. Would the House make

them welcome please.

MR. JACOBSEN: On behalf of the

member for Chilliwack (Mr. Jansen), who is unable to be at the

Legislature today, I'd like to ask the House to join me in welcoming

Mr. J. Bleker and about ten grade 7 students and their escorts from

Chilliwack Christian School. Please make them welcome.

HON. S. HAGEN:

I too would like to add my welcome to the three gentlemen from BCIT, to

congratulate Chuck Spong on his election as the new president of the

BCIT staff society, and to thank Mark Angelo for the service that he

has performed as the president last year.

I also want to

take this opportunity to welcome to the House Paula Peterson and Waldo

Ejtel from Vancouver. Would the House please bid them welcome.

MR. BRUCE:

In the Cowichan Valley we have a very active seniors' advisory group.

Here in the House today is Mrs. Florence Best, who is a representative

and a director of the seniors' advisory group in Duncan, and I'd ask

that you make her welcome.

Introduction of Bills

MINERAL TENURE AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

Hon. Mr. Davis presented a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Mineral Tenure Amendment Act,

HON. MR. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now. It contains several technical changes to

an act passed at the end

of the last session. It clarifies certain

definitions, expands the

provisions for resolving disputes concerning title to minerals, ensures

that existing regulations establishing mineral reserves also apply to

placer minerals, and clarifies the provisions for bringing mineral

substances under the Mineral Tenure Act. These were worked up in

consultation with the industry.

Bill 58 introduced, read a

first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[2:15]

Oral Questions

PCB DUMP IN VICTORIA INNER HARBOUR

MR. G. HANSON:

I have a question for the Minister of Environment and Parks. Yesterday

the people of this region were shocked to learn that we have a massive

PCB dump in the inner harbour of the city of Victoria. We were doubly

shocked to learn that knowledge of that dump has been apparent for at

least seven years. Since 1981, people have been well aware of the

hazards and the dangers of the PCB.

I'd like to ask the minister why there was a seven-year delay

in identifying this hazard.

HON. MR. STRACHAN:

I'll be brief, and there's more to the question which I'll provide to

the member later if he wishes. It was an area closed off in the 1950s

by the old B.C. Electric Co., and they buried equipment down there.

Because PCBs were not known in the 1950s — as a matter of

fact, they weren't even outlawed until 1979 — it was not known

if the area covered over and bunkered in by B.C. Electric did have

PCB-laden transformers.

1981 B.C. Hydro did do soil tests, because they thought that there was

a chance that the cement bunker might have contained equipment

containing PCB oils. They did five test holes. They found there was no

significant presence of PCBs, so they left it that way. Recently,

they've come to be in the position to sell the property. Because B.C.

Hydro are of the position that any land they sell must be totally clean

and uncontaminated, they began the excavation work. At that point, they

found out the day before yesterday at five o'clock in the afternoon

that they were dealing with transformers dating from the 1950s and

containing some PCB-contaminated oil.

That really is all we

can say at this point. B.C. Hydro is, of course, right on top of the

clean-up. They probably have more expertise than any other company in

British Columbia in terms of handling this type of equipment because

they deal with it all the time.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Not the electric

division. Didn't you read the amendment?

We're quite positive — on behalf of the Ministry of

Environment — that they're well prepared, well trained and

well equipped to clean up this potential contamination problem.

[ Page 5330 ]

MR. G. HANSON:

I visited the site this morning, and at the bottom of a relatively

shallow hole is a hand shovel. a spade. It doesn't exactly look like a

high tech recovery project that's underway.

I'm expressing

some annoyance, Mr. Speaker, because this is a very serious problem. I

understand that an examination of air photographs — readily

available — as a result of the proposed sale identified where

the site was and that

interviews with previous employees also identified exactly where it

was. In two days they were able to find something that had been missing

for seven years, just because it's on the auction block. That's not

good enough, Mr. Minister of Environment, so I have some specific

questions here. Can the minister tell us where these leaking capacitors

will now be stored? What guarantee do people have that Hydro won't

simply rebury them? If they are to be moved around the province, what

guarantee do we have that they can be transported safely?

the Minister of Environment and Parks, you are responsible for the

health and safety of the people of this province. It is not good enough

to ask those who own PCB sites to report them voluntarily. My question

is: will you now direct your ministry to carry out a complete

inventory, not to ask Hydro to look at its own situation?

HON. MR. STRACHAN:

First of all, I'd like to comment on the remark of the shovel. The

member is right, and he should know the answer, because he studied

anthropology. If you put heavy equipment in there, there is a chance of

further damaging the transformers. As a matter of fact....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's right —

well-dressed, well-protected people, trained in handling that. But if

you've done anthropology, you know that when you ate in sensitive

areas, you don't use backhoes or power equipment; otherwise you will

cause more damage. That's why they are in there with hand shovels.

terms of guarantees, we are quite convinced that Hydro can move these

transformers safely. They do it all the time and have been doing it

since 1979. As a matter of fact, they did a major move out of Victoria

last summer. So we are quite convinced that they have the expertise,

transportation equipment, manpower and training to handle this with no

problem, in which case they will take the material to a safe-handling

storage area where they have all their PCB-laden transformers now and

where they will remain in storage until shipped to and treated at our

new special waste treatment facility.

MR. G. HANSON:

A question to the Minister of Energy in his dual responsibility as

energy minister and minister of privatization. I would like to ask him

if he, as the Minister of Energy, was aware of that PCB dump in the

Inner Harbour?

HON. MR. DAVIS: No, I wasn't aware of it

ahead of time, nor was B.C. Hydro, I believe.

MR. G. HANSON:

To the same minister. Hydro was not interested in cleaning up this site

until now. They left these dangerous and leaking capacitors to rot,

which put the health and safety of this community at risk. Will the

minister now confirm that the only reason Hydro is now interested in

cleaning up this site is that it is being sold and Hydro would be

liable for clean-up costs?

HON. MR. DAVIS: I am

tempted to argue that privatization made this discovery possible, but I

doubt very much whether that is the case. B.C. Hydro would have engaged

in the clean-up in any case. I believe it is undertaking the cleanup at

its own expense, and we are endeavouring to sell a clean property to

five interested parties.

MR. G. HANSON: I am sure

all members of this House are hopeful that the liquid at the bottom of

the hole that I looked at this morning is not PCB-laden and leaching

through the gravel into the Inner Harbour. It's obvious that we have a

serious problem with clean-up of PCBs in this province, and it was

Hydro's research and development division that developed the technology

to remove PCBs from oil. Will the minister now reconsider selling off

the R and D division of Hydro, which is the only group in B.C. that has

that expertise.

HON. MR. DAVIS: It's true that the R

and D division, which is separate from the electric division, did carry

out some of the basic research leading to the process for successful

disposal, but that knowledge is now in the electric division and they

will continue to use it as part of the electric operation.

MATSQUI DUMP

MR. ROSE:

This seems to be the day for dumps. I'd like to direct a question to

the Minister of Health. It concerns a dump in his own constituency on

Ross Road in Matsqui. The Agricultural Land Commission advises that the

type of waste debris there is totally offensive — and,

incidentally, excessive — to the commission's standards and

that the material is affecting

neighbouring lands. I'd like to ask the minister what action he has

taken to order clean-up of the land in accordance with the Land

Commission's recommendation, and if a plan of rehabilitation and

clean-up will be formulated before the fall wet season.

HON. MR. DUECK:

I understand that there is no more material being dumped in that area

at this time. That was the latest that I heard. However, if that is not

correct, I will bring back a report.

MR. ROSE: It's still there.

HON. MR. DUECK:

The material that has been dumped there is still in existence, but

there is no continuation of using that area for a garbage site.

MR. ROSE:

I wonder if the minister could clarify whether this stuff is going to

be removed according to the Land Commission's recommendations.

HON. MR. DUECK:

You seem to have more information on exactly what the current situation

is. All I can tell you is that I'll have to bring you back a report.

VANCOUVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE

FUNDING

MS. MARZARI:

A question to the Minister of Advanced Education. Is the minister aware

that Vancouver Community College has turned down its share of the $8.3

million offered

[ Page 5331 ]

to the college a few weeks ago because

of the strings attached to that $8.3 million? What alternatives does

the minister propose to help colleges meet the crush of student lineups

when September comes?

HON. S. HAGEN: No, I'm not aware of that.

LONG-TERM-CARE USER FEES

MS. A. HAGEN:

My question is to the Minister of Health. My file on senior couples is

getting pretty full, and the stories it tells are quite desperate. A

typical story of a couple with income of $1,150 a month, with no

eligibility for GAIN — I repeat, no eligibility for

GAIN — have outgo of fees for a care home of $1,150 to $1,190

a month. The

Minister of Health has repeatedly promised in this House that no senior

will have less than $150 in discretionary income, and couples will be

protected from a $19.20 fee per day.

On behalf of seniors,

Mr. Minister, and particularly of senior couples, would the Minister of

Health please advise us what he has done to deliver on these promises?

I would ask him to be very specific, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. DUECK:

Well, Mr. Speaker, she mentioned one particular couple, and to be very

specific, I would have to know the exact circumstances. I have said in

the House before, and I will repeat, that the residual for any

individual is a little better than $150 a month. You give me the

particulars. You could have found this out this morning. I could have

given you the information or sent someone down to talk to those people.

But, Mr. Speaker, again. If all we want to do here is try and find

fault with the system and try to put fear into seniors, then, of

course, you perhaps win.

Interjections.

HON. MR. DUECK: But I'm telling you, I've

met hundreds and hundreds of people in your area — and you

know that, Mr. Member — and every case that I ran into....

Perhaps there's misunderstanding;

but other than that, I can assure you that the $150 a month is the

residual for every individual living in a facility.

MS. A. HAGEN:

Mr. Speaker, I have talked to care home operators and I have talked to

the families of seniors who are affected by the very circumstances. I

am not going to take responsibility, as the opposition critic for

seniors, to ensure their rights, except to ask you, Mr. Minister, to

give us a date when you will inform care homes and seniors, as you were

very prompt to do on March 25 after the budget came down, about how you

will deliver on these promises. I tell you, Mr. Minister, that there

are couples in the exact circumstances that I have described: they have

no information about the promises that you have given, and the care

home operators do not know. On what date will you ensure care home

operators and senior couples that those persons living in care homes

will not have to leave because they cannot pay the $19.20 fee? It is

still in place, and they have no information whatsoever that it will be

changed. When will you deliver, Mr. Minister, and ensure that the

promises you've been making in this House will be manifest in the

province? Don't talk to me, Mr. Minister....

HON. MR. DUECK: It is very nice to get up

in the House and talk innuendoes and speak of situations and not

mention any specifics. Without specifics, it's very difficult to zero

in on any situation. How can I give you an answer when you're talking

in general terms?

However,

I was with you in your constituency talking to seniors. We've sent a

letter to every facility. If there's a situation in which one couple

lives in a better-than-average facility where there are extra costs for

rooms, that may be the case. I've said again and again: if you look

after your constituency, it is your responsibility to let me know if

someone is not getting his fair share. You are a member of the

constituency, and you represent that constituency. It's up to you to

tell me if there's someone not getting by and getting less than the

$150. I've told you before and I'll say it again: the minimum residual

anyone will have from any income is $150 — that's the

worst-case scenario.

VANCOUVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE FUNDING

MR. R. FRASER:

To the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training. A minute ago

you said you did not know that the guidelines for funding for the $8.3

million prevented Vancouver Community College from applying for the

funding. Given your answer, would you commit yourself to reviewing that

formula?

[2:30]

HON. S. HAGEN:

I'm not aware of any need to review the formula. I've not heard

anything from any of the colleges except that they were very thankful

to get the extra funding.

MR. ROSE: Point of order. It has to do with

House business, and I'd like to direct my question to the government

House Leader.

The other day, when I asked when my motions — Motion

70, about urban super mailboxes: and Motion 71, closure of rural post

offices — would be called for debate, the minister informed me

that they were

handled sequentially and therefore, since we only had a few days, it

might be a long time. I can appreciate that, but this House can call

any resolution at any time by leave: the Provincial Secretary's was

called, and it's even further down the list. I wonder, if I traded 70

and 71 for his 60, which is the fiftieth anniversary of Ducks

Unlimited, whether we could make a deal, because a lot of people are

very concerned about this, both in the urban and rural areas of this

province.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: , Don't get in a flap.

[Laughter.]

The

motion called the other day was a government motion, and they don't

have to be called sequentially, because they're under government

business. But I think it's something we can discuss with my colleague,

and I'm sure we can get to those before the end of the session.

Hon. Mr. Dueck tabled the Ministry of Health annual report.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, may I have

leave to give a further answer to a question asked of me yesterday?

Leave granted.

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES

HON. B.R. SMITH:

Yesterday the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) asked a

question of the Premier concerning conflict-of-interest guidelines, and

[ Page 5332 ]

question

was deferred to me. The question concerned Thernis Program Management

and Consulting Ltd., the successful bidder in a contract with the

family maintenance enforcement program, and one Brian Pollick. After I

was in possession of further information, I thought I should bring a

full answer back to this House.

The allegation made by the

member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew in his question was that there was a

breach of the ministerial guidelines, in that Mr. Pollick, a senior

public office-holder, had, within the preceding six-month period,

access to information not available to the general public which he

could use for personal gain. I'm happy to advise the House that that

interpretation of those guidelines is absolutely erroneous and not

supported by the facts.

The facts are, just very briefly,

that Mr. Pollick worked in my ministry as director of a maintenance

enforcement pilot project during 1985, resigned in July 1986 and then

became director of the special projects division of my ministry. During

that period he did not have responsibilities for maintenance

enforcement. Maintenance enforcement was separate, and a new

maintenance enforcement act was put into planning stage in 1987, and

was introduced and passed in late 1987.

The process to find

out who would do the bid in this contract was in accordance with the

exemplary guidelines of the privatization program. I say exemplary

because everyone in my ministry was told that if they wished to bid for

anything like this, they would have to announce it, take leaves of

absence and step down when they prepared their bids.

Pollick,

who had nothing to do with and no special knowledge of this program for

over a year and a half, followed those guidelines. He went forward and

submitted his credentials to the privatization branch, and he made his

bid. All proper procedures were followed by him. He took a leave of

absence to make his bid in November 1987, the day the request for

proposals was issued. He had no special knowledge of the tendering

process. He had nothing to do with the drafting of the legislation, and

no special considerations were given to him. In fact, every effort was

made during the whole thing to avoid the appearance and fact of any

conflict of interest.

I state those things not to try and

justify my role as a minister under that guideline, because I don't

think that guideline applies at all to someone in this position. I

stand to simply set the record straight for Mr. Pollick, because I

think that when good public servants like Mr. Pollick and Miss

Gifford — who had nothing to do with this project, but is a

partner in it — come forward with creative bids to try and do

things in the private

sector that we may sometimes do in government, they should be

encouraged and not have slurs thrown at them. They should be encouraged

in that process, and we should not be using good public servants like

that as sticks to beat the privatization program or for some argument

about ministerial guidelines, because it's not applicable. I hope the

member — because I know he's fair-minded — will

correct the statements he made.

MR. ROSE:

I just wondered, since it was full of bombast and argument, whether

this was really a ministerial statement or was in answer to a question

taken on notice.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister asked

leave to answer a question. The minister has also invited the

opposition member to make a statement. If he wants to seek leave to

answer, is leave granted?

Leave granted.

MR. SIHOTA: I'd like to answer that because

there are two elements....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to

speak until they settle down over there. It's indicative of what we

come to expect from....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. SIHOTA: Thank you. Now that the members

opposite have chosen to behave and settle down, maybe I'll be

afforded....

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: I guess it's indicative of the

kind of style we've come to expect from members opposite.

want to deal with a couple of the points that were raised by the

Attorney-General, because the points really relate to two matters:

whether or not the individual was a senior official; and whether or not

he was in the position within the six-month period that the rules

prescribe.

I just want to put on the record the information

that was provided to me yesterday from the ministry itself. The

information indicated to me yesterday, when I called the ministry at

the policy branch and asked for Mr. Pollick, was that I was told of

another number that I could reach him at, which happened to be the

project for maintenance. I was told by the ministry personnel that I

talked to that he had left that position a matter of weeks ago. If

memory serves me correctly, it was three or four weeks.

was as a consequence of that information that I was led to believe that

it fitted within the six-month provision that's called for in the

rules. If that's not the case then, of course, there is no conflict,

and there is no violation of

section 7(b). That's why I went very

carefully yesterday to say in this House that there was an apparent

matter that ought to be investigated, and we've now had a report back

from the government. That's fair enough.

It was on the

information that the ministry had provided to us that we were acting.

Since I was the one that secured that information, I think I can say on

a firsthand basis what was told to me. If it's necessary, I can produce

the phone number that I was provided with to contact. The matter of the

six months — to deal with that element of it — came

from information provided to me by the ministry. If that's correct, and

the Attorney-General is correct, fair enough.

the second matter, as to the capacity.... Those who heckled the other

day are now of course looking to gain revenge on another issue, I hear

from that side.

On the matter of the seniority of the

official, I guess that is a term of art, as to whether or not the

individual met the standard of seniority that was within the

contemplation of the Premier when he drafted the rules. But who knows

what it is? It is in the contemplation of the Premier because these

rules, with respect to conflict of interest, seem to slide depending

[ Page 5333 ]

the situation that we are faced with. I think, in fairness, that it's a

matter of argument whether or not this person had achieved the status

of the senior official that is contemplated under the rules. I don't

know that, but certainly the Premier, as the adjudicator of this, is

quite capable of deciding whether or not he does.

I think

he does. He was a director of a policy position within the Ministry of

the Attorney-General; he was a director of a pilot project with respect

to maintenance, and he is now president of the company that is

involved. All of those positions were management positions and are

senior capacities in the ministry. If the Attorney-General and the

Premier want to attach a different definition to the term "senior,"

that is their prerogative. It is our responsibility to raise these

issues when the evidence suggests that they fit within the rules, and

when they tend to meet the provisions of the rules. Hence, our

initiative yesterday in question period.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee on Bill 28.

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 28; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

section 8 as amended.

MR. MILLER:

We canvassed the issue of performance and cited some instances where

licences had been granted conditional upon certain production

facilities being built. I asked the question about how performance was

to be ensured, since it's integral in this

section that the matter of

the zero to 10 percent of the previous licence that is going to be

rolled into the tree-farm licences could be recaptured by applicants if

they fill one or more of the criteria laid down in

section 8. Could the

minister advise what specific devices are available to ensure

performance under this section?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, provision

will be made in the contract language, the licence document.

MR. MILLER:

Would those provisions follow what seems to be the normal provision?

I'm not familiar with all of the provisions in licences. Is it a

monetary provision? Is it a posting of a bond of a certain amount of

money? Could the minister outline specifically or in general terms what

provisions he is contemplating?

HON. MR. PARKER:

There is performance bonding in all licences, but there can be a

further requirement, depending on the magnitude of the obligation that

the licensee has undertaken.

MR. MILLER: Would those

generally fall under what you would call monetary penalties, as opposed

to, say, the forfeiture of the allocated timber or lands? Would they

generally be monetary penalties?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, it could be

monetary, a penalty on the annual allowable cut amount, or a

combination.

MR. MILLER:

With respect to the rollover provision and the policy announcement of

the government and their stated desire to achieve 67 percent in TFLs,

could the minister advise...? There is a bit of complication in here

because, I suppose, unknown in this calculation is how much of the AAC

will be taken under the various applications that will be made.

Obviously it ranges from zero to 10 percent in each case. So there is a

variable in there. But there are currently, I believe, 171 forest

licences. I don't have my figures from second reading on what that

constitutes in terms of AAC. Could the minister advise what number

would have to be rolled over in order to achieve...? Is the minister

looking at virtually all of those 171, or 50 percent, or 70 percent?

Roughly what are we looking at in terms of the existing forest licences

and the amount that would have to be rolled over in order for the

minister to achieve that policy objective?

[2:45]

HON. MR. PARKER:

Whether a licence is rolled over from a forest licence to a tree-farm

licence depends on the public hearing process, among other things, and

the numbers could be anybody's guess. To get to two-thirds of the

provincial cut, I couldn't say exactly how many forest licences would

have to be rolled. I imagine we could get that statistic if it's

important to the debate and provide it to the member.

MR. MILLER:

I think it's important. There is a level of concern about the basic

change in tenure. I will accept the fact that the minister doesn't have

the figures. Could the minister advise how many current applications

there are awaiting the passage of the legislation'?

HON. MR. PARKER: Prior to this, we had

about three dozen. With the amendments to the Forest Act, those will

have to be resubmitted.

MR. MILLER:

There are about three dozen. One would assume, providing they don't

think the zero to 10 is an impediment, that they would.... I know of at

least one that is current.

That satisfies me on

section 8, Mr. Chairman.

MR. JACOBSEN:

To the minister, I would just like clarification on one point that I

don't think has really been covered. It's my understanding of Bill 28

that much of the discussion has centered around the 15 percent becoming

available to the small business program. I understood that a

considerable amount of that wood for the small business program would

be achieved on the rollover policy of going from forest licences to

tree-farm licences.

I'm particularly interested in the

amendments that have come in. It seems to me that there will be very

few, if any, forest licence holders who will give up any cut in order

to become a tree-farm licence, because there are a number of approaches

that can be used to achieve the retention of the cut. You cannot use

that 10 percent to achieve two objectives. You can't use it to achieve

the objective of enhancing the small business program, and at the same

time use that same 10 percent to achieve the objective of better forest

utilization, better silviculture or value-added products.

view of the fact that the option is there that it may be, and likely

will be, used to retain the cut, how will you then bring that allowable

cut for the small business program up to 15 percent? Where will you get

the wood?

[ Page 5334 ]

HON. MR. PARKER:

The 15 percent of the provincial allowable cut that is to be set aside

for the small business enterprise program will be recovered by the 5

percent recovery of cut from all renewable tenures in the province,

from the Forest Service reserves and from the transfer of licences. We

recover 5 percent of the allowable cut in each one of those

transactions.

We didn't count on the rollover to tree-farm

licences to make the 15 percent. Whatever is recovered from rollovers

to tree-farm licences will go into the small business program, and may

have to go into Forest Service reserve in some areas, and possibly may

go into new enterprise opportunities. But the up-to-10-percent recovery

from allowable cut in rolling over from forest licence to tree-farm

licence was not part of the small business 15 percent.

MR. JACOBSEN:

Well, Mr. Minister, it certainly is mentioned in the legislation, as a

matter of fact, and it was certainly mentioned in the discussion

previous to it, because it talks about this 10 percent going into the

small business program. I don't think that's really disputable.

Anyway,

there is one other question that I'd like to ask, and I guess it's

appropriate to ask it here because we're talking about the rollover of

forest licences into tree-farm licences. I have some difficulty

understanding how that process works, because as I understand forest

licences, it's a right to harvest on a chart area. I know how the

company works out a chart area in a given region and says: "This is

where we'll apply our cut." Essentially, it's a right to harvest.

When

we get to tree-farm licences, we're talking now about a geographic

area, as I understand it, as that's what most of the other tree-farm

licences that exist are. Of the forest licences that I know of on the

coast, and I know of several, I'm not sure that there are

any — there may be one or two at the most — that have

a timber reserve with them that allows for a continuous operation.

seems to me that if you roll these forest licences over, you're going

to have tree-farm licences that will have a supply of ten years or five

years or maybe 20 years of harvestable wood on them, and then there

will be a gap of 40 or 50 years when they will have virtually no

logging on them. Is that a conceivable type of tree-farm licence for

the future?

HON. MR. PARKER: Simply replied to, the

answer is no. A tree-farm licence can have several cutting areas or

blocks to it, as the member is aware. Whether or not harvesting is

continuous in any one or all of those blocks depends on the stocking

and on the age of the stock. It's quite possible to have a block that's

harvested over a period of time, and then no harvesting takes place for

another indefinite period of time until the stock is ready. It depends

on the management of the working plan.

The management of

the working plan is examined in a public viewing process, but before

you get to the rollover process, through a substantial public hearing

process that permits everybody to take a look at the proposed chart

area for the tree-farm licence, there's substantial opportunity to

examine and constructively criticize the presentations for rollover to

tree-farm licence.

MR. JACOBSEN: I can appreciate

that, and I know that they are difficult questions to ask. My purpose

is not to criticize; it's just to clarify it. I am, as you know,

interested in this matter. I have people ask me questions about it, and

I'd like to be able to provide them with answers.

I can

understand what you've said, that tree-farm licences don't need to be

in one block. I think the point here is that at the present time we are

talking about a rollover that would presumably take effect now or in

the near future, and that somebody would apply for it. I don't think

that many of the people that hold forest licences, that I know of, know

where they will be cutting in ten years or 15 years from now. They know

where they will cut for the immediate foreseeable future, but they

don't know where they will apply their cut in the future.

What

we really would have then is a situation where people would apply for

tree-farm licences on the area they were cutting on now, to roll that

over into a tree-farm licence, but some time in the not-too-distant

future they would have to add to that tree farm because they would have

to go someplace else to find a cutting area that they could work in. My

personal feeling is that those areas will be hard to find. I don't

think there's a surplus of mature wood available, and I don't know how

that would work.

I appreciate that that's a difficult

question to ask and probably takes a lot of research in order to be

able to determine just how that will be done. The final thing that I

would like to say on the matter is that as a member of this Legislature

I have a great deal of concern about the rollover process of forest

licences into tree-farm licences. I have a concern because I see that

as a major concentration of the cutting rights in British Columbia and

I'm not sure what the problems with that may be in the long term. I'm

concerned about future flexibility in forest policy once that has been

done. I would like to urge the minister.....

I know that

when tree-farm licences were established in the beginning.... In the

1940s they were discussed, and there was the Sloan royal commission

that talked about it. Then the first tree-farm licences, I believe,

were implemented in the early fifties, and there was another Sloan

commission called because there were some problems relating to it.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

may well be that it's the right approach to go; that's not for me to

judge that. I think it's a very major decision, and I would certainly

urge the minister to take advantage of consultation with the very many

good, highly qualified forestry people throughout the private and the

public sector that we have in British Columbia, have the advantage of

their input into this, along with his knowledge and his staff's

knowledge, before proceeding on it, because I think it's potentially a

very important move for future generations of British Columbia.

just leave you with that. I would certainly urge you to take advantage

of the opportunity to consult with a broad range of people before a

final decision is made on that rollover policy.

HON. MR. PARKER:

We will certainly consult before moving on rollovers, and we will

consult the constituency that the member for Dewdney has outlined to

us, most definitely.

The matter of the forest licensees and

the fact that they are not sure beyond about a five-year horizon where

their operations will be is correct. They only know that their

operations will be within the timber supply area for which they hold an

allocation of allowable cut.

[ Page 5335 ]

far as determining what blocks may be sought by the licensee in a

rollover, those have to be presented before it even gets to the Forest

Service. It's the sort of thing that the licensees have to discuss

among themselves. They will have conflict, and it will have to be

resolved through process, and the process includes not only Forest

Service review but also review in the public venue in the hearings

process.

Whether or not it comes to pass depends on

consideration of a number of factors submitted not only by the licensee

but by the public in general and other interested parties who will be

affected. It's not a decision made solely in isolation by the minister

or the Ministry of Forests and Lands.

[3:00]

MR. MILLER:

Just a couple of further questions have occurred to me with regard to

the rollover. As the minister indicated in response to the last

question, a TFL need not be a single geographic area currently, but in

fact can occur in various pockets, if you like, throughout the TSA and,

indeed, across the TSA or into other TSAs, and that really centres in

on my question. One of the concerns expressed, and I don't know how

much this is applicable to the interior because I'm not familiar with

the interior tree-farm licences, but certainly on the coast we have the

example of TFL 39, which covers a wide are of coastal British Columbia,

the Queen Charlotte Islands, parts of the mid-coast and Vancouver

Island. In each of the areas, or at least in the area that I'm most

familiar with, one of the main concerns at the community level is the

question of stability.

In other words, the view of the

people in the community is that the block of the TFL located in their

region should be managed as a separate TFL, in effect, so that we don't

get into.... I believe the minister's words were that in terms of the

planning and the question of sustainability, some cutblocks or some of

those pocket areas of TFL — if they're not large enough for

sustainability — would simply be left for some period of time,

and no logging would take place.

That's

fine if you're doing that planning on that entire area; but if you're

concerned about community stability, then it's not fine. If you happen

to have a community located near the block or the portion of the TFL

that is not sustainable in itself and has been logged and left, you're

going to encounter one of the serious problems: the problem of

sustainability or a community stability, because communities do spring

up in some of these locations.

In terms of rolling over

forest licences, which are volume-based, into an area-based tree-farm

licence, particularly on the coast, could we have that situation

develop? If, in order to achieve the required volume in a tree-farm

licence, you have to break it up in the manner described by the

minister, it seems to me that you could be setting up a situation where

community stability would be threatened. I assume that there would be

no restriction, for example, on licensees, who may have forest licences

in more than one TSA, being able to apply to roll them either

separately or collectively into a tree farm licence. So it's an

important question for some of the smaller communities.

HON. MR. PARKER:

Mr. Chairman, until we get the forests of British Columbia out of the

wild forestry and into a normalized and managed forest situation, we'll

have those variations in the cropping; that's a natural phenomenon. It

can be mitigated somewhat, and in some instances — in many

instances, I imagine — it can be dealt with. The opportunity

arises in the public hearing

process to share the concerns of the communities involved —

whatever they may be — and to what extent they are involved,

and what extent the impacts would be of the proposed initial management

and working plan.

The

public hearing process is a means for various communities to express

their concerns and to have their concerns considered as to whether or

not there will be a rollover, and if there is a rollover, what ensues

by way of contract language and by way of the first management and

working plan.

MR. MILLER: Okay. As far as the last part

of the statement.... It really wasn't a question; I didn't put it in

the form of a question.

it possible for forest licence-holders who have forest licences in

adjoining TSAs to apply to have those collectively rolled into a

tree-farm licence that would cover areas in both TSAs?

HON. MR. PARKER:

Mr. Chairman, yes, it's possible to be looking at a larger area than

that of the TSA in which the forest licensee has an allocated cut. That

too is examined through process, both in-house and in the public

process.

MR. MILLER: I want to be clear on that.

Then the holder of a forest licence in a particular TSA, in making an

application to have that rolled over to a tree-farm licence, would also

be able.... The ministry would consider allocating that tree-farm

licence not only in the TSA where the forest licence is currently held,

but in adjoining TSAs as well? Am I correct? Is that what the minister

said?

HON. MR. PARKER: I'm in an interesting

situation here, Mr. Chairman.

guess in most cases it wouldn't happen. But it is possible to have to

pick up.... It might be part of a drainage; it might part of an inlet.

It might be a situation where you're overlapping into another TSA. But

whether or not that takes place, the ministry has to determine whether

that can happen without a substantial negative impact on the adjoining

TSA. But I can't say black-and-white that things will never happen.

We're managing a natural resource here, and we have to move within the

natural order of things.

MR. MILLER: A policy consideration has been

arrived at in the ministry to change one form of licence into

another — volume-based into area-based.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: I said policy.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER:

I realize that, but the minister has indicated in his press releases

and the government in its announcements that this is now policy. As far

as I'm aware, there was no major policy thrust in 1983, 1979 or

whenever that

section was amended. It was not the intent of the

government of the day to achieve this particular objective; it's now

the intent of this government to achieve it. So I submit that questions

are in order regarding the impact of achieving it, if I can put it that

way.

To get back to it, you had arrived at this stated policy

objective, and I assume there was some understanding of the

[ Page 5336 ]

difficulties

that would be encountered in changing from a volume base to an area

base. Have any strategic studies been done into the current forest

licences, the volumes in them and how they relate to the volumes

available and the geography of particular TSAs? If that kind of work

has not been done, it would seem to me awfully difficult for the

ministry to come up with a policy first and then look at the maps,

timber cruising, volumes and all the rest of it to see if the policy is

achievable. Were those strategic studies done prior to the policy

announcement?

HON. MR. PARKER: The answer is yes.

There were several levels addressed. First off, there's the timber

supply analysis that's done on a five-year rotating basis. There are 35

or so timber supply areas in the province, and each one has a ten-year

plan and a 20-year plan. On top of that, we have the management working

plan of each of the licensees plus their short-term development plan. A

considerable amount of energy has gone into planning and forecasting.

It's done in short term by the licensee, in mid-term by the licensee

and the Forest Service, and in long term by the licensee and the Forest

Service.

MR. MILLER: Were specific studies

undertaken in TSAs? I assume that the minister is aware of the truck

loggers' most recent submission on the Strathcona TSA, the information

they presented and their view that to allow the forest licences in that

TSA to be turned into tree-farm licences would, in effect, have to

occupy a considerable percentage of the current TSA — I don't

have the actual percentage here. Because of the nature of the TSA, the

volumes, terrain and all the rest of it, they claim that an additional

64 percent of the net productive land will be required to shift from

the volume base to the area base. An additional 64 percent is really

considerable and leaves the non-TFL areas very much in a minority. I

realize your answer regarding the timber supply analysis, but have

specific studies been done TSA by TSA to see what the actual impact

would be of trying to apply the forest licences that might exist in a

TSA and converting them into tree-farm licences? And if those studies

have been done, have any problems been identified, such as those the

truck loggers identified in the Strathcona TSA?

HON. MR. PARKER:

No such study can be done without a specific case at hand. We need a

specific application that outlines a specific chart area so that we can

measure the impact accordingly. If you don't know what land masses

you're talking about, then there's nothing achieved by trying to

analyze it. The Truck Loggers' Association used the Strathcona TSA as

an example, and it's a what-if case — if everything happened

the

way they think it might. The whole process is very involved.

Substantial in-depth analysis is done by the licensees in the area, be

they forest licensees, timber sale licensees, small business operators

and other tree-farm licensees and the public at large. It's a very

involved process. Rollovers are not and will not be done lightly, and

probably in many cases there won't be a rollover, where the integrity

of the other operators in the area is threatened.

MR. MILLER:

I reject the response, in that I don't think it is difficult. Surely,

prior to setting down policy objectives, some analysis is done about

whether or not there will be difficulties in achieving it. It seems to

me that that's fundamental. I hope I'm not wrong in suggesting that it

is fundamental to the operation or the administration of government. I

don't think it is good enough to say you have to wait and see who

applies. "We have to wait and see who is going to apply for a tree-farm

licence — which forest licence holders are going to apply —

and

then we'll look to see if we can fit their application into our policy

objective." It's a bit of a backwards way of approaching it.

The truck loggers — I think it was wise of them to do

it; they are responsible players in this industry — decided to

choose the Strathcona TSA for doing some fundamental

analysis. They show that in that TSA the TFL land base is 24 percent

and the timber supply area land base is 76 percent. Under the

policy....They can only assume that when the government announces a

policy with.... I'm not going to say fanfare. In other words, an

integral part of their forest policy, the new directions policy, is to

shift the volume to the area base. Then it is logical for them to look

at what that impact might be. It is entirely logical and entirely

responsible for them to look at particular areas. In doing

that — in looking at the Strathcona TSA and applying the

policy as enunciated by the government — they show that under

the new directions, 12 percent of the land base

will be TSA lands and 88 percent will be TFL lands. As you can see by

the graph on page 10 of their report, it is a radical shift in terms of

the tenure on the land base.

[3:15]

I would have thought that the ministry would have run some

models

through. You don't have to wait for somebody to apply. I would have

thought it would have been logical for the ministry to run some models

through in particular TSAs and use the computers to plug in the numbers

on volume and current volume assigned to forest licences and do a

couple of "what if" scenarios to see what you come out at. You may

indeed, having done that, come out with.... You might have been able to

determine that in some TSAs it was simply not logical to apply the

policy. That may indeed be the case. It may be that the truck loggers'

information is accurate and it would not be logical or desirable to

apply the rollover policy in particular regions or TSAs of the province.

Maybe

the minister could advise the House why that kind of simple, basic

analysis wasn't undertaken prior to the announcement of the major

policy shift.

HON. MR. PARKER: I need not go back

over everything that we talked about today, because all the concerns

raised by the member have been precisely what we have been discussing

since the session got underway this afternoon.

The Forest

Service has substantial information on the forest resource of the

province. The first inventory was completed, I think, in 1937.

Following the Second World War there was a continuous forest inventory,

and that continues to be updated. We no longer have a forest inventory

division. We have forest inventory officers in each of the districts in

the province. We have 45 districts. We have about 35 or 36 timber

supply areas. Information is kept up to date.

The planning

process, as I outlined before, is on a two-year horizon on a

development plan basis; a five-year horizon on the basis of TSA

analyses and on the management and working plans of the forest

licences. There is a ten-year plan and a 20-year plan for the timber

supply area. The analyses are there, but whether or not we run

scenarios on "what if" situations in case licensee A decides to apply

for a certain

[ Page 5337 ]

geographic

area for a tree-farm licence or maybe he is going to change it a

little.... There are an infinite number of permutations and

combinations.

We will deal with each rollover application

on its own merit, and whether or not it proceeds to the public hearing

stage depends on whether or not we're going to allow such an

application. Once it gets to that stage, then finite analyses will take

place. The process is ongoing, it's dynamic, and continues to be so in

each of the province's TSAs. I might add, for the information of the

House, that tree-farm licences are not part of the timber supply areas;

tree-farm licences stand alone from the TSAs.

MR. MILLER: I think that's the point I was

trying to make — that tree-farm licences are indeed outside

the TSAs. The policy now is

to take forest licences, which come out of the TSAs on a volume basis,

and turn them into tree-farm licences, which are area-based. Obviously

that's going to require taking some of the area. It may be in pockets,

or it may be in one area, depending on the capacity of individual TSAs

to accommodate that, but that's what's going to happen, as I indicated.

The truck loggers' analysis of a what-if scenario — what if

the policy were completely applied to a particular TSA — has

found that if all of the licences were rolled over, 88 percent of

the land base in that TSA as presently defined would end up in

tree-farm licences, leaving 12 percent of the TSA land base available

for other, normal licence applications issued by the ministry.

wasn't quite sure whether the minister said they did some studies. He

did indicate that in some TSAs it may not be appropriate to allow

rollovers. Has the ministry done any studies to indicate that, or is

that just the minister's feeling? Has it been looked at? Has there been

any attempt to apply volumes to area? Or is it just the minister's view

that in some TSAs it may not be applicable?

HON. MR. PARKER:

Every one of the timber supply areas in the province has been analyzed,

and continues to be analyzed. The analyses come up with a number of

options on different harvesting scenarios. No modelling has taken place

on what-if situations as to whether or not a bi,. a little or an

in-between — or some combination thereof, or whatever might

evolve into an application for a rollover TFL.... It won't take place

until we receive applications, and unless we decide to proceed to

investigate whether or not there should be a rollover in that

particular application.

There's a substantial amount of

information and analysis, but the studies that the member keeps talking

about will only take place on the basis of a specific application. He

alludes to the truck loggers' concerns about the Strathcona TSA as an

example. If everything were to happen exactly the way the truck loggers

present it, then that would probably be the result, providing all their

data was correct. If it doesn't happen the way the truck loggers

present it, then that isn't the way it will happen.

rollover from forest licence to tree-farm licence is not something done

in a heartbeat. It's a long and involved process. Maybe because it is a

long, involved, in-depth process, it escapes some people. I don't know,

but it appears to me that it does. It's not something done on the basis

of a snap decision. It's a long and involved process, and it involves

the public process.

MR. MILLER: It's just like these

debates are long and involved processes. Given that it's a long and

involved process, does the ministry have any target dates in mind in

terms of achieving its policy objective?

HON. MR. PARKER: The answer is no.

MR. MILLER:

So it could be five. ten, 15, 20, 25 years. It's quite open-ended then,

in terms of the major policy objective that the ministry wants to

achieve, and it could take 100 years, presumably. Is that correct, Mr.

Minister?

HON. MR. PARKER: There's no time-limit at

this time.

MR. MILLER:

It strikes me as fairly poor administration. We're talking about

allocating the resources of this province. We're talking about the

forms of tenure that are for the provisions we see in this act. They

may be expanded but are not retrievable by the Crown.

find, in terms of the responses by the minister, that no strategic

studies have been done to determine applicability. In other words, in

running some case scenarios just to see whether or not the policy

objective is achievable — in particular TSAs — we

find that

there is no specific timetable set for achieving the policy objective.

The minister's responses about some of & implications if

rollovers

occurred and the implications in certain TSAs.... There are no answers

to it.

It's quite puzzling to me how a government can

announce a major and significant change in policy without having any

answers to any of those questions. I don't know if the minister wants

to take the opportunity to respond to that, but certainly there are a

number of people in the industry who would like some answers to those

questions. He must have spoken to some of them himself; I am sure he

has. If he hasn't, that's a bit irresponsible. The truck loggers have

presented some very serious concerns. They have obviously done some

work on it. Has the minister not talked to them? Has he not attempted

to advise them how this policy change won't hurt them?

I am

really struck by the fact there don't seem to be any answers, yet this

seems to be a cornerstone of the government's policy. How did the

ministry arrive at this decision to roll over? Who decided that this

would be a good thing? Was it the minister's idea? Was it somebody

else's idea? Was it decided that yes, let's do this, and we'll look at

the consequences later?

Surely when you come up with these

decisions, you do it after some analysis and study. Was it a brainwave

somebody had? How did you come to the point where you announced that

you wanted to change from a 27 or 29 percent TFL to 67 percent? Was it

somebody's idea of something that would be good to do? You said that no

work has been done on it, so we're left — and I guess

everybody is left — with that conclusion. It's just a

brainwave that somebody had.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, before I recognize the minister, I am having a little

trouble. I think we're getting into what really is second reading

debate as opposed to debating

section 8 as amended in the bill. If the

minister wants to respond, I would certainly recognize him, but I think

we have to deal with these

section by section.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, you and I

are on the same wave length dealing with the amendment to

section 27.

Which provides for the recovery of up to 10

[ Page 5338 ]

percent

of the allowable cut on the rollover to a tree farm licence, which has

been provided for in the Forest Act since the Forest Act was

established in 1979.

MR. MILLER: I appreciate your

comments, Mr. Chairman. I always try to stick to the rules and the

topic; the last thing I would want to do is stray.

This provision has been in the Forest Act for some

time —

section 27.1: surrender of forest and timber sale

harvesting licences.

It has been there, but it was never put there, I submit, with the

intention of applying and actually encouraging that to the point where

67 percent of the AAC would be under tree-farm licences —

never. It's a major policy announcement of this government.

The

minister felt so strongly that it was a major policy announcement that

he actually put out a news release when he put out Bill 28.

Unfortunately it was read by some of the press, instead of doing some

investigative work. It was read by people to indicate that Bill 28 was

going to achieve that. It is a significant policy objective, and this

is the clause where we have an opportunity to canvass that. I submit

that my questions are entirely reasonable in terms of asking the

minister what studies he has done to indicate whether the thing is even

achievable.

If the minister chooses not to answer that, I

suppose it's left to others to draw the conclusion that I have: that

they really haven't done any studies, and that somebody somewhere

thought it was a great idea. Maybe it was the minister; maybe it

wasn't. I hear lots of people tell me that the minister is not the

originator of policy. That's unfortunate, but maybe it is fortunate.

Nonetheless, having valiantly attempted to get substantive answers from

the minister on this particular clause and having failed to do so, I

have no further questions.

[3:30]

MR. WILLIAMS:

I think it's interesting that the minister, when he talked about the

timber supply areas, talked about the tree-farm-licence areas as simply

terra incognito, not areas that were really part of the whole TSA, and

that the whole idea of the TSA was to rationalize and do some strategic

thinking about these large basins.

It betrays a pattern all

too prevalent in the ministry, and that is that once these land areas

become tree-farm licences, you have nothing to do with them; you

basically regard them as private property in the hands of the

corporation pure and simple. The strategic planning that was done in

the past by ministry staff clearly saw the TFLs within the TSA. I think

what you're doing is betraying a good corporate view, and that is, once

it's in the TFL, nothing to do with you to speak of because you don't

have any staff anyway, and that's for the corporation.

Maybe

the minister could reflect on that, because these are indeed public

lands, regardless of the form of tenure, and they should be seen as

public lands; and the planning and broad management goals and all the

rest of it should be established by the ministry and they should not be

seen as simply the private preserves of the corporate bosses of this

province.

HON. MR. PARKER: You see, Mr. Chairman,

exactly where the member for Vancouver East is coming from. It's his

constant hate for the licensees of the province, how disgusting they

are and how they might make a profit and might employ people.

Tree-farm

licence is a tenure that's area based. The area that is not in the

tree-farm licence is under a timber supply area. The management of the

tree-farm licence is the responsibility of the licensee. The management

of the timber supply area is the management responsibility of the

Forest Service.

What takes place on a tree-farm licence is

examined by the Forest Service and by the chief forester, and their

five-year working plans are subjected to public viewing. The timber

supply areas, the same way, except the Forest Service does it. In the

timber supply areas we have tenures including forest licences, timber

sale licences minor, timber sale licences major, whole temporary

tenures, woodlots, special sales. Those are all under the direction of

the Forest Service.

The forest licences are a major

licence. The licensees are responsible for a great deal of the

planning, and as we know by the policies set by this government and the

legislation set forth, they also have the responsibility for forest

renewal. The whole thing — any licence, whether it's a

tree-farm licence, forest licence or any one of the other

licences — is under the purview of the Forest Service. That's

established. That's

in the legislation, it's in the regulations, it's in the contract

language, it's in the timber supply area analysis. It's a matter of

public documentation, and the obtuse comment made by the member for

Vancouver East and his colleague for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) clearly

shows that the homework isn't being done.

MR. WILLIAMS: Perhaps the minister can give

us a definition of obtuse.

HON. MR. PARKER:

The apparent and quite transparent concerns of the members opposite on

the matter of

section 8 of Bill 28. Basically they don't understand the

process, and to criticize effectively on behalf of the people of

British Columbia they should really be doing their research.

MR. WILLIAMS:

What's extraordinary really is that the minister is basically saying:

"We can't do the job." He says no. You are the minister. What you're

saying is that you can't do the job. You're washing your hands of it.

You're saying,"We're tossing it over to the private sector," and this

is the biggest privatization scam in the province today where there is

tough competition in scams in privatization.

But buddy,

it's winner take all for you, because turning over the public lands of

British Columbia on this scale to these corporations, where they will

then demand compensation for the public lands when we want any of them

back, is indeed the biggest privatization scam in the modem history of

British Columbia.

You're basically gutting the Forest

Service. You don't have anywhere near the manpower, the people there

that you need in the ministry, to even begin to look at giving the

stuff away, in terms of analyzing all these lands and understanding the

implications of the giveaway. Even in terms of wildlife, of integrated

resource management and all the pieces you have to look at, you don't

have the talent to analyze what you're giving away. And you're

admitting it in a sense. You're saying,"We want it out there,"

controlled by this relative handful of corporations, to determine the

future of those lands in the real sense. You can talk about five-year

plans and five-year reviews, but the gate is closed. Once you make

those allocations, the gate is closed in terms of genuine public

control of those lands. That is the reality.

This is the biggest giveaway in the modern history of the

province. It is privatization without any money being paid.

[ Page 5339 ]

At least with some of the goofball

schemes like selling off the highway maintenance programs and so on,

they're putting some money up front for the equipment and all the rest

of it. This is turning over hundreds of thousands of acres of

provincial lands for free and then saying: "If we ever want it back, we

agree to pay through the nose."

That's

what you're doing in the Queen Charlotte Islands right now, where

they're demanding $100 million for land that was given away for free.

You say: "Oh, but that's necessary, because those are contractual

obligations." The more fool you. You know right now that we're getting

stung. You know the other minister there, the Minister of Environment

(Hon. Mr. Strachan), is trying to offload that $100 million onto the

federal government so that taxpayers pay it out of Ottawa. But when we

want any of it for British Columbia in the future, we'll have to pay,

and we'll have to pay handsomely. A hundred million now; what will it

be worth in a decade's time in a land-short and resource-short world

where softwoods are becoming more valuable day by day? It will be a

king's ransom that you have given away.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You didn't say that last

year.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You believed my figures

on Moresby last year.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, $31 million last year.

You're

the ones that are giving it away, Mr. Minister. Does it make any sense

to you? Can you talk any sense into your colleague there in terms of

the giveaway? You're stuck with negotiating with the feds right now on

South Moresby. You know that the $8 million the province is going to

contribute to get the lands back is a pittance compared to what they're

going to get in the end.

This operator over here, your

Minister of Forests, wants 67 percent of all the commercial forest

lands of the province put into the same giveaway tenure that locks us

up. You've simply got to be out of your head to be entertaining a

program like that. How many letters have you got on your desk or on the

ministry desks saying: "Dear Mr. Minister, I'm interested in rolling

over into a tree-farm licence, because it's the sweetest deal I've seen

since I crossed the border. I've never seen such a bunch of rubes in my

life. Put me on your giveaway list, Mr. Minister." How many letters

have you got, Mr. Minister, saying: "Hey, put me on the list. That's

the best corporate welfare I've ever seen in my life, and I want into

the tub." How many letters have you got, Mr. Minister, lining up for

the giveaway?

HON. MR. PARKER: The tree-farm licence

land base is not given away. The title is retained by the Crown, and

the timber is not given away. The obligation to renew the forest is

entirely at the cost of the licensee. That cost is somewhere between $3

and $6 a cubic metre. And the licensee continues to pay stumpage. And

the licensee continues to pay rent. And the licensee continues to put

up substantial deposits. As well, the licensee has a conversion plant

or plants that must be sustained and continue to add to the economic

well-being of the province. The ex-minister, the member for Vancouver

East, is misleading everybody once again. There are no giveaways.

Yes, timber has value. He told us that here just a few minutes

ago. Timber has value, and if you've allocated it to one purpose and

choose to move it to another, then it will probably cost you. That's a

fact.

MR. WILLIAMS:

The minister is saying that if you allocate for one purpose and you

decide later that that purpose is not the purpose that would best serve

the public interest at the time, we'll have to pay. Well. the evidence

is there now....

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS:

Pay what? The cost. Indeed. And Western Forest Products right now is

arguing that the cost is $100 million for South Moresby National Park.

You've already been suckered for S31 million, Mr. Minister, which I

find offensive, and it's very clear that we are not going to get off at

that level at all. Not at all.

Doesn't it strike you that

this, then, is a very serious matter and that the goal of rolling over

these licences into this tenure, where you have to pay through the nose

for what is ours — our public lands — simply doesn't

make

any sense; that it burdens all of the citizens of the future because of

the mistakes you might well make today? Doesn't that hang on you as a

burden in terms of mortgaging future generations of British Columbians

that might very well want to see these lands used in somewhat different

ways?

HON. MR. PARKER: The management and working

plans of forest and tree-farm licences have to be developed on the

basis of an integrated resource management approach, and that's the

only way they will be approved. The first member for Vancouver East

really surprises me in that he does not support an integrated resource

management approach and an effective and efficient means of managing

the forest resources of the province, where the title to the forest

land base — and without the land you can't grow trees — stays

with the Crown, but the obligations of forest management go with the

licence to the licensee, who undertakes substantial obligations.

But

then that shouldn't surprise too many of us, because they tend to like

what the Suzukis of the world have to say about preservation of the

lands of British Columbia, and things like 75 percent of the lands of

British Columbia should be preserved forever, as Dr. Suzuki has told us

in public before.

It's amazing that the members opposite

would espouse a program that basically takes away from the economic

wellbeing of the province, from the jobs, the employment. the

opportunities and the place in the commercial world that British

Columbia holds. I really have a problem. We have a responsibility to

the people of British Columbia to return them the best possible

economic rent on their resources, and across the way they are saying:

preserve. preserve, preserve.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's

more than a little offensive to hear this minister talking about

integrated resource management. I'd like to remind the minister that

there was indeed an Environment and Land Use secretariat that was in

the forefront of Canada, if not the western world, in integrated

resource management. It was your administration and the administration

before you that dismantled it. Some of the top professionals and civil

servants in Canada leading the way in integrated resource management,

who are now working at an international level with the United Nations

and others, long

[ Page 5340 ]

since

left British Columbia because of this impoverishment in terms of the

capability of the cabinet of this administration and because of their

commitment to giving the stuff away and being so shortsighted.

Mr.

Minister, you can dump on David Suzuki all you like. If you want to

test the public out there between yourself and Dr. Suzuki, you are

going to come out at one and he is going to come out at ten, and that's

if you are lucky.

[3:45]

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, again we seem to be straying somewhat from committee

debate on this bill, and I'd ask that we get back to debating

section 8

as amended.

MR. MILLER: I'm glad you have reminded us,

Mr. Chairman, because I do have some more questions on

section 8.

I think

we should appreciate the fact that if we occasionally stray from the

narrow parameters of the amendments, we are talking about a decision of

resource allocation that is momentous. It has been outlined even by the

second member for Dewdney (Mr. Jacobsen), who made it quite clear that

he was totally opposed to the rollovers into tree-farm

licences — quite opposed. I hope the minister doesn't consider

the second member

for Dewdney obtuse and not capable of understanding the logic of the

move initiated by this government.

I have spoken to people

in the logging industry who tell me quite openly that they have

supported your administration for years and years and they are quite

opposed to this change. I hope you don't consider them obtuse, Mr.

Minister. This is a major, fundamental change.

The only

other changes in terms of tenure, as has been pointed out, were

initiated as a result of royal commissions. There was Sloan's

recommendation on tree-farm licences to get those major industries up

and running, and Pearse's in terms of timber supply areas or public

sustained yield units that would be available to the smaller logger,

the small entrepreneur.

Presumably, the carrot, if you

like, of being able to maintain 100 percent of your cut will lead to an

increase in productive capacity in the province. There are other

measures in the bill that are intended to achieve that same end I'm not

aware — perhaps the minister could advise me —

whether

both the coast and the interior forest licences currently have

production facilities associated with them. Is there a difference

between the coast and the interior in that?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Again, I'm reluctant to engage in debate with the members over the

scope of our discussion, but the principle of the bill was in fact

passed by the House in second reading, and we are debating the

section-by-section discussion of the bill.

HON. MR. PARKER: Some forest licences do

have some contract language on conversion plants.

MR. MILLER: My question, put more

simply — perhaps the minister didn't understand —

was: is it normal for the holders of forest licences to also have

production plants, processing facilities? With regard to that question,

is there a difference between the coast and the interior?

HON. MR. PARKER: Most forest licensees have

conversion plants.

MR. MILLER: Just one final question. We

don't know what will be achieved, but throughout this — I

guess the question is applicable to all sections designed to encourage

processing or further processing — has there been any analysis

done about capacity as it relates to

supply? During the estimates I raised Prof. Reed's feeling that the

capacity is about 100 million cubic metres a year. Are we in any danger

in any provisions in the bill of increasing the capacity to the point

where we would not be able to meet that on a sustained yield basis?

HON. MR. PARKER:

Yes, we have substantial analysis on plant conversion capacity and the

timber production capacity of the various TSAs and TFLs in the

province. The matter of whether or not there's more capacity than there

is timber is a decision individual operators have to make. It depends

on what they have in mind at the time, what their strategy is. The

provincial allowable cut is well known, and the allowable cuts in the

timber supply areas and the tree farm licences. As to construction and

capacity, that's the decision of the business.

Section 8 as amended approved.

section 9.

MR. MILLER:

I notice the only thing that's added down in the corner there is the

occasional "aye." But we can't hurry these things along, because we are

talking about forest policy. As we all know, forestry is the

cornerstone of the economy of this province. If it takes some time to

debate it, then we're going to do that, and I would think all members

would appreciate that.

With regard to

section 9, again,

it's really a take-back provision. The notes in the bill indicate that

it provides "that some timber on all new tree-farm licence areas is

reserved and is to be available, without compensation, for small

business forest enterprises or for woodlot licences." I would

assume — and perhaps the minister could confirm

this — that also applies to tree-farm licences acquired under

the previous section.

HON. MR. PARKER:

Section 9 provides for the

distribution of the timber recovered on a rollover. It also

provides — just let me confirm this — for the

distribution of the 5 percent recovered in the general recovery

of cut for redistribution in the small business program.

MR. MILLER:

The minister may be able to correct me, and maybe it's just my

misreading of the section, but as I read it, it does say: "...which

provide that some timber on all new tree-farm licence areas...."

Presumably new tree farm licences can be granted or applied

for — I don't know; we may have exhausted that opportunity or

capability — quite apart from the provisions of

section 27.1. In that case — and this may be a

hypothetical argument, but nonetheless there needs to be an

answer — that tree-farm would be subject to a reduction.

That's the way I read

this section; I believe I've read it fairly thoroughly. Again, if the

minister could point out specifically how I'm wrong, then I'll be

satisfied with that.

Secondly, a TFL acquired under 27.1 would also be subject to a

reduction. Can the minister confirm?

HON. MR. PARKER: There is a 5 percent

recovery from existing tree-farm licences, and this

section provides

for how

[ Page 5341 ]

that

timber gets distributed. There is also a provision for any new

tree-farm licences for up to 10 percent to be recovered; this covers

that also.

MR. MILLER: Would the minister advise me

which particular part of

section 28 as amended by this bill refers

specifically back to the 5 percent? Because I just don't read it in

there. I read that "some timber on all new tree-farm licence areas...."

I have a further question, but I want to clarify this point at least in

my own mind. I could be mistaken in the way I am reading it, but I

don't see the reference in

section 9 of Bill 28 that relates

specifically to the taking of 5 percent. It says: "require that timber

on the tree-farm licence area, in an amount directed by the

minister...." That means, presumably, that the minister could take

whatever he wanted. Where is the specific reference back to the 5

percent?

HON. MR. PARKER: In the case of rollover,

that amount can be anywhere from zero to 10 percent. In the matter of

recovery of 5 percent, that is provided elsewhere in

section 28. The

provision for where that wood would be allocated is addressed in this

section.

MR. MILLER: I won't pursue it, Mr.

Chairman. I'm still not clear in my mind.... I don't think the minister

has pointed to the specific tie-in with

section

Section 28 in the

current Forest Act describes fairly extensively the content of the

tree-farm licence, and I don't see the specific reference back to the 5

percent. My concern here is that it would be open-ended, that the

minister would be able to be quite discretionary in terms of what is

under the new paragraph (g.2), which reads: "require that timber on the

tree-farm licence area, in an amount directed by the minister...." That

seems to me to be quite discretionary and open-ended, and I don't see

the qualification contained in there that it's limited to either the 5

percent currently being removed from current licensees —

forest licences and tree-farm licences — or the zero

to 10 percent that could possibly be removed from forest licences and

other small licences that are rolled over.

HON. MR. PARKER:

This

section provides for distribution of wood recovered either on

existing licences on a 5 percent recovery or on rollover to new

licences up to 10 percent, how that wood gets distributed: and it's

subject to the provisions of this act.

[4:00]

MR. MILLER:

Could there be a double-taking on the rollovers? Could there, for

example, be any number between zero and ten, and as well an additional

5 percent? Is it possible that there could actually be a 15 percent

take of a tree-farm licence?

HON. MR. PARKER:

Existing tree-farm licences will be subject to a 5 percent recovery.

New tree-farm licences in rollover, where it's approved, will be

subject to up to 10 percent. There won't be double.

Sections 9 to 14 inclusive approved.

section 15.

MR. MILLER: Under this

section a TFL holder

will lose 5 percent if the licence is transferred — or there's

a provision for a payment. But under the terms of this

section, with the TFL losing 5 percent when it's transferred, under the

terms of

section 8 it's possible for a licence rolled over into a TFL

to get up to 100 percent of their cut. Again, it's a question of

whether or not this 5 percent would apply to those TFLs and in fact

limit their recovery to 95 percent.

HON. MR. PARKER:

Mr. Chairman, this

section provides for a take-back of allowable annual

cut when a licence, whatever licence it may be, is assigned to a new

licensee. In the case of a tree-farm licence, that would affect only

the

schedule B lands, the Crown lands that are within the tree farm

licence. In the case of a forest licence, it's the total allowable cut.

In the case of a timber licence, it's the cut. In the case of a

timber-sale licence, it's a cut. So it provides for 5 percent recovery

from the allowable annual cut applicable to Crown lands in the licence

that's being transferred. If a new tree-farm licence has just been

created and there's been 10 percent recovered, and now this licence has

been considered and approved for transfer to a new party, another 5

percent is recovered, yes.

MR. MILLER: And the

payment then could be used to eliminate the need to take the 5 percent.

In other words, the minister is prepared to accept 5 percent of the

higher value of the following amounts: the value that the holder of the

licence declared when he applied to transfer; or 5 percent of the

higher of an independent current appraisal. In other words, on an

application to transfer, the person to whom the licence would be

transferred could in fact pay that 5 percent and retain the full cut.

HON. MR. PARKER:

The provision for paying in cash value for timber alludes only to the

old temporary tenures. These are tenures that were issued at the turn

of the century — things like timber leases. timber licences, special

timber licences, pulp leases. pulp licences. They're scattered

throughout the province. They're on a liquidation basis. Some are

incorporated in tree-farm licences. Once they're harvested, they revert

to the Crown; those that are in tree farm licences, once they're

harvested, revert from

schedule A lands, alienated lands, to

schedule B

or Crown lands. The old temporary tenures just provide for the timber

crop that's on there at the time, and once it's liquidated, the land

goes back to the Crown. So it's only old temporary tenures. Most of

them will be gone by the turn of the century. There are a few that will

hang on to about the year 2005. but by then they'll all be retired, and

then this

section wouldn't apply.

Sections 15 to 19 inclusive approved.

section 20.

MR. MILLER: This

section basically has to

do with disqualification of persons in a small business operation. As

in many of the sections of the bill, there is a fair amount of

discretion. I don't know if the minister has considered that in terms

of legislation. Normally it's something one would like to keep to a

minimum, but nonetheless this section, along with many others, is

fairly discretionary. A person can be disqualified if he "(

a) makes a

material misrepresentation, omission or misstatement of fact in his

application for registration...." I can

understand "(

b) fails to perform an obligation...." but the

first section. 6 1.1(a), is pretty broad

[ Page 5342 ]

scope, and I think the minister should take the time to elaborate to

the House what reason his ministry saw for including it in this

amendment to the Forest Act and just generally outline the kinds of

situations that gave rise to this change and how the ministry intends

to apply or interpret it.

HON. MR. PARKER: This

section provides for disqualification of small business operators who

are operating in contravention of the regulations arising out

of this

legislation. We hope that it will help offset things such as the

surrogate bidding problem that the member for Prince Rupert (Mr.

Miller) and the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) allude to from time to

time. We also hope that it will ensure that the small business

operators pay attention to the regulations and operate according to the

regulations under the Forest Act.

Yes, it is discretionary,

because sometimes we find that what some people might think is a

material misrepresentation, on closer scrutiny by people within the

ministry turns out to be an honest mistake, and if we don't have the

discretion to deal with it, then the person could be inadvertently

disqualified for up to two years before he could bid again. So we have

to have some discretion there. If there are misrepresentations,

omissions or misstatements or if they're failing to comply with the act

or the regulations or fail to perform under the terms of the licence,

they're subject to disqualification and, of course, cancellation of

their licences.

MR. MILLER: I appreciate the

minister's response in terms of the issue of surrogate bidding. I would

think it would be fairly difficult to prove one way or another. I don't

know if the minister has any views on that or any new views the

ministry may have in terms of trying to control it now that they have a

section 1n the bill that allows them to control it. I would like to

hear the minister outline his ministry's views on actually finding

people who are doing that and having them suffer the penalties under

the act.

Secondly, as with any

section of any piece of any

legislation we pass, we have to be mindful of its impact. Normally

there is a process of appeal, and even more particularly where a piece

of legislation is highly discretionary, because the combination of the

two is quite deadly. Where law is laid out in very exact detail....

For example, when you park in front of a no-parking sign, chances are

you don't have much of an argument. The penalties are laid out and most

people accept that. Occasionally, I suppose, someone might argue that

they didn't see the sign or something like that — there was a bush in

the way — but generally it's pretty laid out. But where you

have a

provision that's highly discretionary, it seems even more appropriate

that there be an adequate mechanism whereby appeals can be made.

Two

questions. What approaches does the ministry intend to make with regard

to the surrogate bidding, given the fact that they now have a clause

that allows them some measure of control? Second is the question about

appealing.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, the

regulations are very clear on registration under the small business

program. Where decisions are made under this

section of Bill 28, the

small business operator has recourse to appeal to the district manager

and on up to the regional manager. That's provided for further on in

the bill.

Section 20 approved.

section 2 1.

MR. MILLER:

Again, Mr. Chairman, the

section 1s quite discriminatory and open and

has raised a number of concerns. As we go back over the application of

the new stumpage system — the comparative value

system — we've seen,

for example, that study by the minister that the system was implemented

satisfactorily. We see subsequent to that a decision to allow some

decreases in stumpage in certain parts of the province, and we

understand.... And perhaps the minister might wish to comment on the

allegation contained in a story in the Vancouver Sun of Saturday, June

4, in statements made by the northern interior lumber sector in Prince

George with regard to this particular

section of the bill —

and another

section further on — that in fact the

section allows broad

discrimination.

When we compare it to the previous or the

existing act,

section 84, we see that there are a number of provisions

the Crown has to undertake with respect to stumpage. Policies and

procedures used in arriving at stumpage rates shall be posted or filed

with the regional manager, who shall make them available for inspection

by any person. That, I presume, is in there because anybody in a

particular region who has some concerns about how their stumpage was

arrived at would be able to go in and inspect those policies and

procedures and arrive at an understanding and, indeed, if they had a

disagreement they could pursue that disagreement through the

appropriate channels. Now the amendments to

section 84, as I read them,

remove that requirement to publish the policies and procedures. They

are no longer required to be filed with the regional manager.

Further

to that, changes can be made by directive. I want the minister to

comment on (1.2),"A directive issued under subsection (1.1) is not a

regulation within the meaning of the Regulations Act," and advise the

House specifically what that means and why it's there.

[4:15]

Rather

than fill it up at this point, I'll stop. I have some other questions

with regard to this. But specifically with the filing of the policies

and procedures, in my view under this change they no longer will be

published.

HON. MR. PARKER: Everybody involved in

the business subscribes to the appraisal manuals for the area in which

they work, and these appraisal manuals are updated with stumpage policy

changes. In this

section of Bill 28 these policy changes are defined by

the term "directive," and each one of those changes will be registered

with the registrar of directives in the head office of the Forest

Service, and each subscriber to the appraisal manual will receive a

copy of that directive. All appraisal manuals are available in the

regional offices and district offices for those people who do not

subscribe, and they can view them at any time. So it is public

information.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Just alluding to (1.2) of

section 84 as amended,"A directive

issued under subsection (1.1) is not a regulation within the meaning of

the Regulations Act," it's because we're talking about policy. We're

talking about stumpage policy changes, and the directive that goes out

saying that this policy is now changed.... We don't use stump height

of, whatever, 18 centimetres; we're going to use a height of 14

centimetres. That's a change. It goes out in a directive. It's

registered with the registrar of directives, so everybody

[ Page 5343 ]

knows that it indeed took place at

such-and-such a time on such-and-such a date and that it's in effect

from that point on. All the people who subscribe to the manuals will

get copies of that, including our people in the Forest Service and the

licensees subscribing to the manual.

MR. MILLER:

Is it currently the case that those policies and procedures...?

Specifically, the minister mentioned that the diameter of a tree is a

regulation now?

HON. MR. PARKER: No. Mr. Chairman, they're

policies; they're not regulations under legislation.

MR. MILLER:

There is really no substantive difference, then, in terms of the

paragraph (1.2). There's nothing different now in filing that

information than what previously existed. We're not changing from a

position where information that was filed or requirements that were in

place were regulations and we're now moving to a different system;

we're really being consistent with what existed.

HON. MR. PARKER:

The only real change is the fact that we are registering these policy

directives now, so that it becomes a matter of record when it goes into

force.

MR. MILLER: I want to deal now with the new

criteria for determining stumpage and the four criteria listed in the

amendment. I want to read it: "A regulation or directive issued under

this

section may establish different criteria or rates for one or more

of the following. Then it lists different persons, different places,

different classes of timber and different circumstances. One could

appreciate, perhaps, (

b) and (c), different places and different

and type of timber, but "different circumstances," it seems to me, is

completely wide open and discretionary, and "different persons" appears

to be quite discriminatory — I don't even know if it's legal.

Can you

put into legislation that you can discriminate against or in favour of

different persons? Even though you may not be talking about

individuals, but you may be talking about companies, the act says,

nonetheless, that you can discriminate between different persons.

HON. MR. PARKER:

Under the

Interpretation Act,"persons" means individuals and

corporations. We have to recognize the fact that there is a great

diversity in circumstances.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PARKER: Well, circumstances other

than what we're talking about here in paragraph (1.3).

have to clearly define the fact that different criteria or rates can

apply for one or more of different persons, places, classes of timber

and circumstances. Circumstances may be emergent. There may be a flood;

there may be a fire; there may be insect problems. "Circumstances" may

be severe market problems, as we've seen in the past. There has to be a

means for somebody in the future to deal with unusual situations, and

that's the purpose of this section.

MR. MILLER: I appreciate the need to

respond, and I'm sure that almost every Minister of Forests we've ever

had has been faced with those difficulties or challenges and has been

able to.... We don't necessarily agree all the time, and sometimes we

agree with some of & variations. But the broad phrases that are

used,"different persons" and "different circumstances," seem to me....

Does there have to be a justification? It's one thing to write in that

you can discriminate on the basis of circumstance or persons, but that

gives the minister so much power. And it's maybe not power that you'd

want to use; you might want to have that more defined. I don't know

what advice you've received from the Attorney-General or whoever writes

legislation about the advisability of using those broad discriminatory

terms in a

section that is so important because it deals with the

amount of money owing to the Crown for stumpage.

HON. MR. PARKER:

Mr. Chairman, our legal counsel advised us on the syntax here. the

definitions and the use of words as this

section 1s set up. The

diversity of the resource means that to be able to manage it

effectively you have to have discretionary opportunity to manage, and

that's what that provides for. Different persons, as I said earlier,

means, under the

Interpretation Act, corporations as well as

individuals. So you have to have the opportunities to deal with unusual

events and circumstances. This provides for it, and our forest council

tells us that this is adequate wording.

Section 21 approved.

section 22.

MS. EDWARDS:

I wanted to ask the minister, in

section 22, the revision of 87.

1(3)(b), when this small business forest enterprise account is expended

construct and to maintain logging roads and bridges, will those roads

and bridges be subject to similar rules of use and maintenance that

apply right now to forestry roads? In other words, who will have

access to them? That's the main thing I'm interested in.

HON. MR. PARKER:

They come under the purview of the district manager. They're public

roads. Access over them is open to the public, providing the public is

not endangered, and providing the fire hazards are such that it's

prudent to allow the public in at that particular point in time.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, perhaps you could

advise us. We're on 24?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No. 22, hon. member.

MR. MILLER:

Then that's the account, and basically allows revenue to be collected.

Revenues collected can be put into the account and can be taken out and

put into general revenue. I wonder if the minister would elaborate.

Will there be an attempt to maintain a minimum balance in the fund?

Could the minister advise what amount that might be? What kind of

contribution has been calculated to be made to general revenue from the

fund? Could you advise the House a little fuller on the kinds of

revenue that we're looking at, both in terms of coining in and going

out?

HON. MR. PARKER: This is reported in the

regular budgeting process, and was dealt with in the estimates. We can

look up in the estimates book and advise, but that information is

available in the 1988/89 budget. The purpose of the account is to make

sure the funding is in place to deal with

[ Page 5344 ]

access

protection and forest renewal of the small business operating areas.

The projection, for example, for the coming year is revenue of $123

million, and net revenue of $69.9 million, with some $53 million being

used in timber cruising. road construction, silviculture, protection

and administration of the small business forest enterprise program.

Sections 22 and 23 approved.

section 24.

MR. MILLER:

In dealing with roads, both in this and subsequent sections, I presume

as a result of the change made to the Forest Act — in terms of

companies not being responsible for roads that used to be paid for, at

least partially paid for under

section 88 — we now get into a situation

about ownership. The real substance of my question is what will happen

now in terms of expenditures made by the licensee, and not made by the

ministry. Will we get into a situation where roads that used to be made

available to the public will now be denied access to those roads?

HON. MR. PARKER:

permit issued against the licence. The language of the road permit

provides for the ownership of the road to be retained by the Crown. So

it is a public road; the ownership of the road built under that permit

remains public. However, the constructor of the road, as the user and

therefore the maintainer of the road, is entitled to remuneration from

other industrial users for assistance on maintenance costs. If the road

permitted is seen to be charging too high a fee, that can be

adjudicated by the district manager and, on appeal, by the regional

manager.

[4:30]

MR. MILLER:

Does this really tie in with taking 5 percent, and that 5 percent in

TFLs being made available to small business? The difficulties of

taking the 5 percent are manifest. Depending on where you are.... They

can be all over. I would assume that there would have to be some

system whereby a licensee who may have expended money to construct a

road would want to be able to recover moneys from a small business

operator, for example, who now has access to timber, either under the 5

percent or some of the other provisions whereby timber would be made

available.

HON. MR. PARKER: Yes, the small business

program licences that are established on or within tree-farm licences

as a result of the amendments to the Forest Act have to be serviced.

They are serviced by the road network of the tree farm licence, and the

small business operator will be looking at cost-sharing the maintenance

of the roads on the tree-farm licence. The capital costs of the roads

are the responsibility of the tree-farm licensee up to the small

business operating area; it's not the place of the small business

licensee to deal with the capital cost of the road on the tree-farm

licence. That's the responsibility of the Forest Service.

are to provide access to the small business program, so any assistance

on the capital costs of accessing the small business timber sale area

would be between the TFL licensee and the Forest Service. That saves

the small business operator from having to deal with that sort of

situation. That's in the tree farm licences.

Elsewhere,

where the small business sales are set up, we're responsible for

providing access to those sales for the small business operators,

whether it's going across somebody's private property or under some

other joint-use agreement.

MS. EDWARDS: I wonder if

the minister could clarify this for me, because there have certainly

been a number of problems in access for users who may be recreational

users; that may have sometimes been even clearer than those who may be

not recreational users. I suppose even if you called berry-picking a

recreational use.... I don't know.

I'm curious to know

if the minister would like to go into it a little more clearly for me

as to who he means by an industrial user. I'm not sure if that term was

used; I can't remember. If it's only an industrial user.... If we

have a recreational business, for example, that wants access to that

road, how does that fit in?

HON. MR. PARKER: A

regular user of the road system for commercial purposes would be

expected to pay a reasonable share of the maintenance cost of that road.

MS. EDWARDS:

If the use is regular, then the owner, who may be.... The owner is

still the Crown. The user would be the small business, perhaps, or even

a larger licence-holder, and would be able to then collect from that

regular user.

You say there is the possibility of an appeal

to the district manager or the regional manager. I didn't quite get how

that was decided. There is no dispute settlement mechanism. The old

district settlement mechanism is gone, and now am I to understand that

if the individual parties cannot come to a reasonable agreement, it's

an appeal process to the district manager and then to the regional

manager? If that doesn't work, is that the end of it?

HON. MR. PARKER: Go to your MLA.

MS. EDWARDS: Well, okay.

Would

you like to respond on the business of regular users? There are many

regular users who would probably dispute the requirement that they pay

for the use of that road.

HON. MR. PARKER: I said

"regular users for commercial purposes." Let's use as an example a

rafting company that may be using a forest road to access a part of the

river in order to place rafts in the river. They're a business; it's

fee for-service. They take the rafters up, drop them and pick them up

at another location, so their vehicles are moving up and down the road

on a regular basis and they're doing that as a business. They would be

expected to pay a reasonable amount towards the maintenance of that

road.

If you have a rancher who goes out from time to time

to check on his herd or some other installation that he may have

somewhere along that road —maybe just some drift fencing that he has

under contract through his grazing lease — no, he's exempt.

But if he

was moving cattle back and forth on a regular basis, if he was buying

cattle and bringing them out to a rail siding or something like that on

a regular basis, regular traffic, he would be considered to be a

commercial user.

MS. EDWARDS: There are no

particular kinds of regulations that try to define this kind of thing?

It's simply a matter of trying to agree and then going to appeal?

HON. MR. PARKER: You only go to appeal when

you don't agree with the decision. But once there is a commercial user

on the road, he is quickly identified by other commercial

[ Page 5345 ]

users on the road because they're all

using it fairly frequently. So it's easy to identify them. The

recreational user or occasional user is not interfered with at all.

MS. EDWARDS:

I wonder if the minister would give me an answer to something that sort

of turns around on this, and it's the whole business of closing off

access. It's a matter of considerable concern throughout the province,

and I think this is the place to address who decides ultimately that

some of these roads are going to be closed and at what point.

HON. MR. PARKER:

That's the district manager's decision. Road closures are for things

such as public safety, fire danger or damage to the road. On some road

systems, particularly in the spring during breakup periods, any traffic

can do severe damage to the roads and they may be closed for a period

of time until they can withstand the punishment of traffic.

MS. EDWARDS:

I'm talking about something a little more drastic than that, and that

is permanent closure. As you know, that is an issue of considerable

concern to wildlife managers and is of considerable concern to some

forest managers, who in fact see a whole lot of potential forest land

taken up in road acreage — or hectarage, whatever we say these

days.

Who makes those decisions, and is there some process or procedure that

the minister sees would happen within the ministry?

HON. MR. PARKER:

That's interagency, generally between the Ministry of Environment and

Parks and the Ministry of Forests and Lands. Some of our forest

licences require that certain classes of road be put to bed following

operations, in which case they are ripped and returned to growing sites.

Section 24 approved.

section 25.

MR. MILLER:

I just wanted to canvass the minister with respect to the removal of

what I guess could be interpreted as a dispute settlement mechanism in

the existing

section 97, where a person — and this is under

industrial

or timber use — who wishes to use a road deemed to be owned

under

section 95 but who is unable to reach agreement, may apply to the

regional manager or district manager for a determination.

The

new

section really doesn't have that in it. It does go through the

situations or stipulations where the deemed owner can request a

reasonable payment of actual expenses. A deemed owner shall not, in

respect of the use of the road by any person, require any payment from

that person other than a reasonable payment in respect of the actual

maintenance to reimburse the deemed owner for capital costs, etc.

Nowhere do we have the opportunity that was permitted under the

original

section 97 for the person who wished to use the road, but was

unable to come to an agreement, to approach the regional or district

manager for a determination.

It seems to me there is a loss there. What do the parties or

the person who wants to use the road now do? Are they required to go to

the courts or some other avenue in order to resolve any differences?

It's quite logical or likely that differences could arise. Could the

minister advise why that is, and would it not be preferable to maintain

section 97 that referral, or approach if you like. to the regional

or district manager?

HON. MR. PARKER:

Section 97(

l) of the act is repealed by this section;

section 97(2)

remains.

Section 97(1) as repealed and substituted for by

section 25

of Bill 28 is still appealable by parties in dispute, so the appeal

opportunity still exists.

Section 25 approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN:

On behalf of the Minister of Forests.... I understand the critic has

this, but I will read it. This is an amendment to introduce between

sections 25 and 26 a

section 1n the act which would be numbered

section

129.2. It reads, in that

section 129.2, by deleting "small business

revenue" and substituting "small business forest enterprise revenue." I

so move on behalf of the Minister of Forests.

[4:45]

MR. CHAIRMAN: This will involve another

section then — 25.1.

Section 25.1 approved.

section 26.

MR. MILLER:

The amendment removes references to lumber. I struggled with this one

to try and understand what it meant, and I think I finally do. I

believe that the minister can require wood products to be manufactured

to a further extent. This would give the minister the power to say, for

example, to a processing plant that manufactures, for argument's sake,

2-by-4s: "We think you can do better than that; we want to see some

further processing." Am I correct or incorrect in that assumption?

HON. MR. PARKER:

I guess that

interpretation can be made, all right. The purpose of the

exercise was to get away from those people in the industry who, just to

get around the log export regulations, were taking very light slabs off

of logs — just barely skinning them — and then

selling them as cants or

sawn timbers. It was to try and put a stop to that. The amended act

reads: "...manufactured in the Province into sawn wood

products...manufactured to an extent required by the minister...." It's

just

meant to curtail the abuses of the log export program.

MR. MILLER:

In other words, those people who were doing that — who were

taking the

cants off and shipping the squares — were claiming that their

product

was lumber under the existing act.

Sections 26 to 28 inclusive approved.

section 29.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, I move the

amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See

appendix.]

Amendment approved.

[ Page 5346 ]

section 29 as amended.

MR. MILLER:

Concerning appeals on stumpage, what recourse would people have if they

believed the ministry had made a mistake in applying the ministry's

stumpage rules?

HON. MR. PARKER: Licensees have the

right to appeal the application of the appraisal manuals, and that's

provided for in the legislation — in the act and in Bill 28,

which is

the amendments to the act. The licensees have the right to appeal the

application or applications of the stumpage appraisals and the

directives therein.

Section 29 as amended approved.

Section 30 approved.

section 31.

HON. MR. PARKER: I move the amendment

standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 31 as amended approved.

section 32.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There are three amendments on

section 32. Perhaps if the minister would introduce them, we'll call

them all.

HON. MR. PARKER: I move the amendments

standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendments approved.

section 32 as amended.

MR. MILLER:

Again, it's not that I take issue, but I seek clarification. One of the

concerns in terms of the take-back is that it could be applied to the

benefit of the licence-holder. Under

section 32(3), reductions made

must apply uniformly over the entire allowable cut, and every holder of

a licence referred to shall immediately enter into an agreement with

the Crown and a revised management and working plan. Is there some

difficulty in applying this reduction in a TFL uniformly over the

entire allowable cut? I see that there could be. Perhaps the minister

might elaborate to some extent on how he sees those reductions being

made.

HON. MR. PARKER: This alludes to the forest

profile and the recovery of cut from the licences existing: recover

forest profile and similarly market a forest profile, instead of taking

back just the best and selling just the best, or taking back the worst

and selling just the worst, but to give the small business enterprise

program an opportunity at the forest profile.

MR. MILLER:

Part 6: "Every holder of a tree farm licence shall, within 6 months

after the day this

section comes into force, submit to the chief

forester a revised management and working plan...." Will that plan

be subject to the normal provisions of the act with respect to public

viewing and the changes the minister has indicated that he would like

to see with longer public viewings?

HON. MR. PARKER: I haven't given that any

previous consideration. We can certainly take that under advisement.

MR. MILLER:

For people in the small business program who have some concerns about

the licensees trying to maintain the best and dispose of the stuff on

the mountain tops or the least accessible or the poorest quality, I

would think that they should have an opportunity to view the revised

plan, particularly the small business operators in the particular TSA

where the TFL might exist, so that they — given their local

knowledge

of the area — could comment on it. I would think that would

be.... I

would like to hear the minister say that he would make that commitment,

as opposed to taking it under consideration.

HON. MR. PARKER:

I'll certainly take it under advisement. As I said earlier, I'm quite

prepared to do that. But I'm not prepared to make a commitment

precisely on every tree farm licence in the province at this time

without further review. It's good advice, and it will be considered

seriously.

Section 32 as amended approved.

Section 33 approved.

section 34.

MR. MILLER:

I alluded to the northern interior lumber sector in the previous

section on stumpage, and it's more appropriate to this one because this

section, according to the association, really wipes out the appeals

they had initiated with regard to the implementation of the new

stumpage system. They say that their understanding of

section 34 is

that all existing appeals are terminated, all existing appeal board

decisions are null and void, and all stumpage rates set by your

ministry are deemed to be correct regardless of how gross the errors or

inequitable the rates might be. It seems to me that if they're correct,

we have a government which by legislation is wiping out its mistakes

and the right of this association or various companies to appeal. They

claim that they have spent a considerable amount of money launching

them. They felt their case was good, and now the legislation

retroactively eliminates the opportunity to do that.

don't think that's a good precedent for any piece of legislation to

set, and I would like the minister to respond first of all to the

allegation made by the northern interior lumber sector —

whether or not

they're correct in their

interpretation of

section 34. If that is the

case, why was it felt necessary to bring this

section 1n?

HON. MR. PARKER:

A good number of the appeals we have received of late attack the

philosophy of the comparative value pricing system, not the technical

aspects, This provides for focusing all appeals on the technical

aspects of the appraisal system, and we have advised all licensees in

the province that all pricing appeals currently in process will be

reviewed to determine those which are technical in matter. Those which

are technical in matter will be dealt with accordingly. So a number of

the appeals presently on the

schedule will fail because they are not

technical in matter; they're philosophical.

[ Page 5347 ]

There

is a process. They deal with it through discussion with the Forest

Service and the various MLAs and government members. The licensees are

not without recourse; it's been provided for. All new appeals will have

to be proven on their technical merit, not on a philosophical bent.

MR. MILLER:

The minister suggested that somehow MLAs play some

part in the process

of stumpage determination. I wonder if he could advise what part that

is.

HON. MR. PARKER: I was talking about the

philosophy of the comparative value pricing system. If licensees want

to do something about the philosophies of government, then the best way

to deal with that is by talking to the MLAs.

MR. WILLIAMS:

I wasn't here for the previous section, which allowed discrimination by

the minister. But as I read it, this is a mirror image that allows the

same kind of discrimination: "or shall be treated as invalid on the

grounds that (

a) the policies and procedures...were applied

differently for different persons, differently in different places,

differently in respect of different classes of timber or differently in

different circumstances.... Maybe the minister could elaborate on

exactly what the implications of that

section are.

HON. MR. PARKER: That's a matter of record

in the debate on

section 33.

MR. WILLIAMS:

Well, if you want to hold up the discussion, that's certainly the way

to do it, Mr. Minister. A reasonable question has been asked and a

non-answer has been received. Maybe you'll have to look up your notes

so we'll know whether you really know what it says. Maybe we could have

the benefit of your briefing notes, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. PARKER:

Mr. Chairman, a correction. It wasn't

section 33; it was

section 21.

The discussion of those items was dealt with under that section.

MR. WILLIAMS: The question is: could we

have the benefit of your briefing notes for this section?

HON. MR. PARKER:

Section 21 has been

discussed and passed.

MR. WILLIAMS: We're discussing

section 34.

I asked for the benefit of your briefing notes on

section 34. Is that

too much to ask for?

HON. MR. PARKER:

Mr. Chairman, I thank the member for the clarification of his question.

Section 34 is a transitional section. It ensures that timber-pricing

determinations made by the ministry to put into effect new stumpage

rates on October 1, 1987, under the new comparative value pricing

system, were done so under ministerial authority and, as such, valid.

I have already directed staff to undertake a complete

administrative review of all pricing appeals currently in process. I'm

sure that those which question some application of the pricing system

were given a fair and independent assessment.

[5:00]

MR. WILLIAMS: I can understand the concern

of the ministry in terms of proceeding with their existing program.

can argue about the program and its validity versus alternatives, but

that is the program. In trying to deal with that question and avoid

philosophical questions in terms of the appeal, it seems to me you have

established really draconian powers for yourself. It's one