1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1987

Morning Sitting

[ Page 3047 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Filing Documents –– 3047

Motions Without Notice –– 3047

Family Maintenance Enforcement Act (Bill 71). Hon. B.R. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 3047

Guaranteed Available Income for Need Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 72). Hon. Mr. Richmond

Introduction and first reading –– 3049

Presenting Reports –– 3049

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 5), 1987 (Bill 68). Committee stage.

(Hon. B.R. Smith) –– 3050

Third reading

Forest Amendment Act (No. 2), 1987 (Bill 70). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Parker) –– 3050

Mr. Rose

Mr. Miller

Mr. Williams

Tabling Documents –– 3055

Royal assent to bills –– 3055

The House met at 10:10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. REID: I'd like to introduce to the House today a

very special friend of mine. It's Mrs. Santa Claus, Mrs. Louise Pelton,

who's up in the audience.

HON. S. HAGEN: It gives me great pleasure this morning to

introduce to you, from the great riding of Comox, the president of the

Social Credit riding association, Joyce Fournier. Please make her

welcome.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: In the precincts today and I hope in the

gallery are some grade 11 students from Mount Douglas Senior Secondary

School in Victoria, and I would like the House to make them and their

teacher very welcome.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I file the public accounts

for B.C. for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1987, in accordance with

section 8 of the Financial Administration Act, and I refer that report

to the Public Accounts Committee.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I am requesting leave of the House to move two motions without notice.

Leave granted.

Motions Without Notice

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I move that this House

authorize the Select Standing Committee on Finance, Crown Corporations

and Government Services to examine, inquire into and make

recommendations on the matter of replacing industrial property taxes

presently imposed under the Municipal Act and the Taxation (Rural Area)

Act, with a single tax at a uniform rate, the proceeds of which would

be distributed to local government, and in particular to consider:

(1) the nature of industrial property to be included in such a tax, (2) the

basis for the assessment of such property, (3) the appropriate level of

taxation, and (4) the basis for distributing the proceeds of the

industrial property tax to local government; and to report to the House

as soon as possible or, following any adjournment, at the next

following session, as the case may be.

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the said

committee by the House, the committee shall have the following

additional powers: to appoint of their number one or more subcommittees

and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the

committee; to sit during any period in which the House is adjourned, is

prorogued and during any sitting of the House, and to adjourn from

place to place as may be convenient; and to retain consultants as

required to advise the committee generally and during its deliberations.

[10:15]

Motion approved.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I move that this House

authorize the Select Standing Committee on Finance, Crown Corporations

and Government Services to examine, inquire into and make

recommendations with respect to the regulation of the financial

planning and advisory industry and, without limiting the generality of

the foregoing, to consider: (1) the desirability of a regulatory regime

to regulate the financial planning and advisory industry; (2) the

objectives which regulation of the industry should attempt to

accomplish, and the principles upon which regulation could be

established; (3) the policy considerations inherent in regulating this

industry; and (4) alternative approaches which could be used to design

a regulatory regime; and to report to the House as soon as possible or

following any adjournment or at the next following session, as the case

may be.

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the said

committee by the House, the committee shall have the following

additional powers, namely: to appoint of their number one or more

subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters

referred to the committee; and to sit during any period in which the

House is adjourned, is prorogued and during any sitting of the House;

to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and to retain

consultants as required to advise the committee generally and during

its deliberations.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, in the matter of the last two

motions put forward by the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations,

I want to advise Your Honour that I may, in conjunction with the

opposition House Leader, be rising later today under standing order

69(2) to substitute names for the members of the committees so

mentioned by the Minister of Finance. This is simply a courtesy

announcement at this point, to advise members of the Legislative

Assembly that the government is not at all opposed to another list of

names that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition may wish to put forward with

respect to these committees.

Further, on another note, Mr. Speaker, I have a letter here

regarding the legislative dining room. It says, in part: "This is your

last chance to invite your friends and family to the members' dining

room." This sounds awfully terminal. I presume the members' dining room

will be open in 1988 — will it? I had a concern there.

Introduction of Bills

FAMILY MAINTENANCE ENFORCEMENT ACT

Hon. B.R. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Family Maintenance Enforcement Act.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Mr. Speaker. I know that my pleasure will be

shared by members opposite, in that we have long awaited the stage when

we could introduce the family maintenance enforcement bill. This bill

is being introduced today as an exposure bill, so that all members and

the public will have a chance to study its proposed operation. When we

return here in the new year, it will be one of the government's first

and major priorities to pass.

We are very anxious to have a fully automated system of maintenance enforcement operative in British Columbia as

[ Page 3048 ]

early as the summer of 1988, with the startup, and

to have it fully operative throughout the whole province. My colleague

the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) will be

introducing the tandem piece of legislation subrogating the rights of

income recipients.

Mr. Speaker, the government is very aware of the emotional and

financial problems faced by single parents who are unable to enforce

spousal maintenance or child support orders. It is estimated that there

are about 89,000 people in British Columbia who are single parents: of

those 89,000, about 34,000 are on income assistance. Of those 34,000,

only 35 percent have maintenance orders. Many have not bothered to have

maintenance orders; many have given up because of the cumbersome

process of enforcing them, and the cost and the delays. The vast

majority of those who have orders are unpaid as well; more than 50

percent of those who have orders are not receiving up-to-date payment,

or those orders are in arrears.

While enforcement remedies are currently available through the

courts, these remedies are frequently expensive, time-consuming and

ineffectual. If a former spouse wants to be difficult, he or she can

readily frustrate enforcement efforts. Moreover, single parents trying

to raise their children are often too intimidated by the process in the

court system to take the necessary action. They do not have the

necessary support system to do this, or they lack the financial and

emotional resources to do so. So the result is that they are forced

into social assistance, while their ex-spouses ignore their financial

responsibilities.

This bill will go a long way towards redressing these shortcomings:

firstly, by consolidating and streamlining existing enforcement

legislation into a new and separate statute; secondly and perhaps most

importantly, by introducing new administrative enforcement remedies;

and thirdly, by government's commitment to introduce a comprehensive,

provincewide maintenance enforcement program under the authority of the

bill.

The major provisions of Bill 71 are that it will provide for the

efficient and effective enforcement of maintenance orders, regardless

of whether an applicant chooses to participate in the program, by

streamlining the procedures for garnishment and reducing the need for

court hearings wherever possible. So the thrust will be to try to keep

it out of court, try to go directly by notices of attachment — signed

by a director who will be a public servant — to the employer, and try

to access far more sources of income and indebtedness than we've ever

been able to access before. Because now, once the new federal data bank

legislation is passed in the House of Commons, we'll be able to access

federal Crown corporations, federal government payments, and income tax

refunds eventually as well. And it will be a....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Does the minister have leave to continue? You've exceeded the normal period of time for this bill.

MR. ROSE: I know it's a very important topic, and I think

it's timely. In the spirit of charity and the Christmas season, I would

be pleased to grant unanimous consent for the minister to continue his

second reading speech.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: In response to that generous statement by

the member opposite, I would suggest we treat the rest of the

minister's statement as a ministerial statement and therefore allow the

critic to respond, if she wishes.

MR. ROSE: We would certainly accept that very generous offer

of this gift from the government House Leader, and I will have my

colleague primed to take a rebuttal. I would just like to say in

passing that I enjoy the minister in his new role as a TV actor, but I

don't think, in his commercials, that he really outshone Raymond Burr.

HON. B.R. SMITH: One of the benefits of free trade will be that Raymond's dulcet doomsday tones will be more available to us.

I will just very briefly outline the major provisions of this bill.

It will empower the director of maintenance to monitor and enforce

enrolled orders and to use a new administrative remedy called notice of

attachment, which will be much broader and more flexible and

far-reaching than the old garnishee provision, which is always tied up

with lawyers as well. It continues to provide for the capacity to

access information on the whereabouts, employment and assets of the

respondent for the purposes of enforcement, and it ensures the

respondent's disclosure of financial information — which I can assure

you will be compelled under the bill — again for the purposes of

proceeding with appropriate enforcement remedies.

The new program to be established will be available to all people

who have maintenance orders if they choose to register. Orders will be

monitored and, where necessary, enforcement action will be taken by the

program on behalf of the client. The program — and this is most

important, because this makes our scheme stand out over the other

provinces — will provide lawyers to enforce orders through the courts

where administrative procedures are not successful for single parents.

Unlike the programs operating in other provinces, we will provide

legal assistance to low-income participants to respond to applications

to vary orders brought on by respondents.

In closing, I would say that it is our aim to place the

responsibility for family maintenance where it belongs — on the

separated spouse. For too long those responsibilities have been

shirked. I commend this bill to your consideration and urge its speedy

passage as an exposure bill.

I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: By agreement, the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam.

MR. CASHORE: I wish to thank the government for bringing

forward this legislation and to say that one very important point that

all of us must recognize as we consider this issue is that it is not a

women's issue. It's an issue that involves all of us; it's a social

issue. Therefore I appreciate being able to speak on this with

permission of my colleague the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey

(Ms. Marzari).

My seatmate, the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno), who is a family

lawyer, whispered in my ear that he very much welcomes this and some of

the points the Attorney-General has made with regard to this

legislation — that it's going to be streamlined, that it's going to be

more readily available.

[ Page 3049 ]

One of the things that I very much welcome is that it is going to

make resources available not only to those people on income assistance

but also to those people who would not have the availability of certain

services by not quite qualifying for that program. Therefore we look

forward to the substance of the legislation when we have an opportunity

to go over it in detail.

I am very pleased to hear that legal assistance is going to be

provided, and I also look forward to the concomitant legislation that

has been mentioned during the comments of the Attomey-General with

regard to the Ministry of Social Services and Housing.

Bill 71 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.

GUARANTEED AVAILABLE INCOME

FOR NEED AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Guaranteed Available Income for

Need Amendment Act, 1987.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In introducing this bill which, as the Attorney-General said, is a companion piece of legislation to his bill, I just want

to make a few very brief remarks in case there is a point or two that the Attorney-General did not cover.

This bill deals with those who are on GAIN, or Guaranteed Available

Income for Need, and the three main purposes of the bill are as

follows. First, to permit the Crown to obtain maintenance for income

assistance recipients and to obtain reimbursement for income assistance

paid when a maintenance order is in arrears. This is to ensure that

family breakdown does not impoverish single parents or place an

excessive burden on public funds. Secondly, to relieve single parents

on income assistance of the struggle to secure financial support for

their families. Thirdly, to promote the financial independence of

single parents by ensuring that they receive adequate, regularly paid

maintenance orders.

One of the main features of this act is: where income assistance is

paid to a person with a right to maintenance, that right is transferred

to the Crown and the Crown may take action to secure adequate support

for that person from the responsible party.

This is a piece of legislation that I think is due, and I am very

pleased to move that it be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 72 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.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave for the Select

Standing Committee on Forests and Lands to meet for the purposes of

organization later today while the House is sitting.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Further, Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave for the Select Standing Committee on Labour, Justice and Intergovernmental Relations to sit later today, again for the purposes of organization.

Leave granted.

[10:30]

Presenting Reports

Ms. Marzari, Chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Public

Accounts, presented the committee's second report, which was taken as

read and received.

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Speaker, by leave I move that the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Leave granted.

MS. MARZARI: In presenting this report at the end of the

year, as it is — although not the end of this session — I would like to

draw attention to the work that the committee has done, most

particularly the excellent work that the committee's Clerk has done. As

you know, it's the first year that this committee has had clerical

assistance. I must extend the committee's and the House's appreciation

for the excellent job that Mr. Craig James has performed for this

committee at this point.

I would also like to draw attention to the very professional

presence that our acting auditor-general has given this committee over

the course of the year. Mr. Robert Hayward attended all the meetings of

the committee. He presented the previous auditor-general's report, with

many excellent presentations. In doing so, I think he built upon his

predecessor's reputation and professionalism, and gave our committee

strong insight into and a strong definition of the appropriate

professional role for the auditor-general to play in the process of

presenting reports through the committee to the House. I would like

this House to extend its appreciation to Mr. Robert Hayward for a job

well done.

I should also comment on the professionalism and the due diligence

and care of the reporting of the civil service. I report here on the

excellent work done by Mr. Brian Marson and his staff, and in fact by

all the witnesses that appeared before the committee in the course of

its doing its duties. They did an excellent job of presentation and

dealt with what I hope are incisive questions with care and great

competence.

I should also draw attention to the excellent work in stewarding and

helping to steer the committee done by Mr. Jim Hewitt, who has recently

retired from this House. I would like to welcome to the committee the

second member for Langley (Mr. Peterson) as the new Deputy Chair, which

we decided this morning.

Mr. Speaker, in presenting this report, I feel rather proud of it. I

feel that the committee has accomplished something — although minimal —

in the business of providing this House with a window on how our system

is operating. I'd like to see in the future, as this committee

continues its work, an intensification and an increased sophistication

in the accountability patterns inside our system, so that the committee

itself will be operating as partners with the auditor-general, the

comptroller-general and in fact our whole civil service, to ensure that

the House is properly served and that our services are properly and

financially accountable to the House.

I have some recommendations along that line. I hope that in the next year this committee might be allowed to meet

[ Page 3050 ]

outside the House being in session, and that it

might be permitted to meet during the course of the year and call

proper investigations, call witnesses and prepare more elaborate and

even better reports than the one I'm putting on the floor this year.

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure this is something that we will have ample

opportunity to discuss in the coming months.

I present the report as read today.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I want to echo the sentiments and

compliments of the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. The

acting auditor-general has done yeoman service for the province of

British Columbia, and he has carried on in the fine tradition that was

left by Erma Erma Morrison.

Along with the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, I want to

also thank the former first member for Boundary-Similkameen, Mr.

Hewitt, for the wonderful work that he's done. Mr. Hewitt and I were

respectively chairman and secretary of the original committee that

adopted the first auditor-general for the province, and he has done a

very good job. I want to tell the second member for Langley (Mr.

Peterson) that he also has a good pair of shoes to fill.

But again, I want to compliment the Chairman of the committee for

the good work that she has done. I remember when, just a couple of

short years ago, we spent two weeks discussing the price of pizza in

jails. We've progressed in quantum leaps since then, and we're doing

some interesting work on behalf of the people of the province. I echo

the sentiments, and let's hope that we can continue in the harmony and

good work that we have in the past.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: By leave, Mr. Speaker, I move that the proceedings

in regard to the third reading of Bill 68, intituled Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act (No. 5), 1987, be declared null and void, and that the bill be

recommitted forthwith with respect to

section 51.

Leave granted.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 5), 1987

House in committee on Bill 68; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, the Journals

will show that in debate stage of Bill 68, the Legislative Assembly

defeated

section 2, which dealt with the Child Paternity and Support

Act. Regrettably, we did not notice that

section 51 also dealt with the

same matter and therefore should have been defeated as well. So I would

ask now that we go to

section 51, as the motion by leave has indicated,

and if you could call that

section we will deal with it accordingly.

Section 51 negatived.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 68, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 5), 1987, reported complete with amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: With leave now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 68, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 5), 1987, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 70.

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1987

The House in committee on Bill 70; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

section 1.

MR. ROSE: Unless I'm advised otherwise, Mr. Chairman, I

believe that

section 1 is general enough that I might put a question

now that might more properly occur later in the bill, but because of

other things I have to do I ask you to be generous and tolerant with my

straying from order.

Before the House met I had a conversation with the Minister of

Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) over a concern expressed by one of my

constituents, who represents a group known as the forestry

technologists. I'm not certain that that is their precise title. Their

concern is that this new bill — which we've brought down very rapidly

as far as they're concerned, without much time for consultation — might

eliminate some of the work available to forestry technologists, and

instead, limit that kind of work which they did formerly to

professional foresters.

I'd like the minister to confirm his opinion, his idea or his belief

that this bill, because of requirements for plans in cutting,

silviculture and the rest, will actually provide greater work for

forestry technologists, rather than confirm their worst fears, which

means that the work which they do now will be taken over by

professional foresters and they will be replaced. In other words, I'd

like reassurance that the act does not become more restrictive of the

kind of work they do, but instead, enhances and increases their

opportunities to perform the work for which they are trained.

HON. MR. PARKER: The work opportunities for applied science

technicians and technologists in British Columbia will expand with this

amendment to the Forest Act. The professional forester reference in

this bill is to the preharvest silvicultural prescription, some of

which work will be done by other than professional foresters, but under

their direction, and they will have to authenticate that prescription.

So it's the professional forester whose professional standing is on the

line with that prescription. Otherwise, the work opportunities for all

people connected with the silvicultural part of the forest industry

will be substantially greater as a result of this bill.

MR. MILLER: I have a number of questions relating to the first two

definitions in

section 1: "basic silviculture" and

[ Page 3051 ]

"incremental silviculture." I made some remarks in second reading

about that, particularly about what work the ministry may have done in trying

to determine ahead of time what value will flow to companies who practise incremental

silviculture. I note, from a recent Renewal, which is a newsletter reporting

on FRDA, that an FRDA-funded study, report 014,"Impact of Intensive Forestry

Practices on Net Stand Values in British Columbia," prepared by Nawitka

Resource Consultants, investigates what increased value could flow. I'll

just briefly read the descriptive narrative here, and perhaps the minister would

comment on the issue.

"A study was done to indicate the economic impact of intensive

forestry practices on net stand values in B.C. The purpose of the study was

to develop a trail from treatment responses predicted by theory and demonstrated

research results, through changes caused by focusing on the merchantable part

of the stand, to further changes caused by applying treatments in operational

conditions. Results include operational yield tables for major species for second

growth managed stands...."

I guess the question, boiled down, is: what kind of increased value,

increased reforestation and thus, down the line, increased availability

of time does the minister expect to see through the inclusion of the

incremental silviculture incentive in the bill?

[10:45]

HON. MR. PARKER: Before any incremental silvicultural activity is undertaken,

the plan is defined and reviewed by representatives of both the licensee and

the licenser. The plan may or may not be approved. The reason that we get involved

as a ministry is that it is Crown land and we are responsible for it. Once the

project is underway, it would be monitored for any gains that the program might

effect. When you're doing that, you keep a control area where it's basically

status quo, and then the experimental area where you put in your extra work,

and over a period of time you do measurements to see what the impact has been.

It depends on what the activity was for. It might be a trial to see the resistance

to root rot or the effect of slow-release nitrogen fertilizers; or it might

be something on spacing or a particular hybrid species. It could be any activity,

but before anything takes place, the proposal has to be analyzed by both parties,

and it's done thoroughly.

MR. MILLER: I didn't really get the kind of answer I was

looking for. I appreciate that certain things will be done, will be

monitored, etc., and I also note, in commenting on the renewal

newsletter, that a fair number of tax dollars have gone into research

and development programs which will be of benefit to the industry.

In addition to that, I happened to be reading last night the Science Council

of B.C. report and noted that there have been significant contributions to academics

and industry in terms of research and development money, which — and I don't

recall; I didn't bring the document with me — was clearly aimed at getting

better utilization out of our forest industry, What can we get? What are we

going to get? Can the minister give me some kind of ballpark? Presumably this

incentive in the act will direct capital into the best growing sites. Can we

get twice the volume that we're getting out of some growing sites now, or

three times, or 20 percent more, or 10 percent more? Surely there must be some

anticipation on the part of the ministry of just what we're going to realize

by including the incentive for incremental silviculture.

HON. MR. PARKER: It's not possible to predict what sort of increments

there will be until we know what the program is for the specific area we're

talking about. There are very many variables, and a lot of the research that

has gone on to date, funded by public and private funds.... Public funds

have all emanated from private activity because, of course, they're taxed.

Those are the results you need in order to assess whether you're going to

undertake any sort of incremental silviculture activity. That gives you

the indication whether you should proceed further.

MR. WILLIAMS: It seems clear, from Jack Walters's work at the

UBC forest over the years before he retired, that there can be

tremendous increases on the best sites, the best soils, particularly

here in the southern coastal region. So the increments are very

substantial and, I would think, well beyond.... The cost-benefit ratio

is significant; that is, there's a very significant payback.

It kind of begs the question in a sense, it seems to me, in terms of

how that increment should be distributed. A chunk of it is just God's

bounty, if you will — nature's bounty — in terms of the soil and

conditions and all the rest, and if man does just a few minor things,

he gets a very positive response. So it seems to me to beg the question

about whether the whole amount should go to the companies involved. I

think there should be significant incentive, but when we're trying to

get the smaller sector with a chunk of the cut beyond what they

presently have so that new people can get into the industry, it sort of

begs the question about whether a chunk of that might well be part of a

broader reallocation. Not to discourage the people from doing this

worthwhile work, but in some of these sites, in terms of Walters' work,

we're talking about great leaps, in terms of AAC, out of intensive

management of these sites, which is really rewarding and encouraging. I

wonder if the minister or his staff has given some thought to that, or

if it's not entirely clear whether this might be redistributed in not

just that way but in a broader way as well.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, incremental silvicultural activities

funded by the private sector will accrue to the private sector, and incremental

silvicultural activities funded by the public will accrue to the public and

be available for distribution, as the member mentioned, through public offering,

either oral competition or sealed tender.

MR. MILLER: Just to pursue the same topic, it's clear that

the holder of land under whatever form of licence, the holder of land

considered, for example, a very good growing site, would be able to

reap much more of a benefit for his investment than the holder of a

licence that, let's say, is medium-to-poor growing. So for the same

investment, one company will reap much more. I think that that could

develop inequities in terms of the value which really could only be

straightened out by the ministry; and really the only way you could do

it is that the ministry would have to recapture some of that value. I

think that's what my colleague from Vancouver East was trying to get at.

In terms of the relationship between basic silviculture and incremental silviculture, again I have some concern. Basic

[ Page 3052 ]

silviculture has been defined as being these

things: harvesting operations, seed collection, etc. I think it's very

important that the line between these two

definitions be understood,

and that the definition of "basic" is not so basic that the Crown will

get less than the licence holder.

I don't know if the minister understands the point I'm trying to

make here. For example, fertilization is not included in basic

silviculture; yet it could be argued that in terms of modem forestry

practices fertilization is indeed a fundamental element of

silviculture. But the Crown is saying: "No, as far as our Crown lands

are concerned, we're not going to make that a requirement, even though

it's fundamental. We're going to allow the companies to decide for

themselves whether they want to do it; and if they do it, they're going

to get the value that ensues from that undertaking." Are we

shortchanging the Crown in that respect?

Does the minister understand the point I'm trying to make here in

terms of the importance of the definition of basic silviculture? The

first protection really is to the Crown, and the incentive should be

over and above what is basic to the Crown's requirements. If he hasn't

understood so far, I'll boil it down into one question and ask: why is

fertilization not included in the definition of basic silviculture?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, fertilization and application

of other chemicals is part of an incremental silviculture program.

Basic silviculture is as defined here. It brings the new forest to a

free-growing state, where it's above, and capable of withstanding, any

encroaching vegetation other than the crop trees.

When we talk about incremental silviculture, it will be done, in all

likelihood, by prioritizing the site capabilities: most effort will go

into the better sites; the least effort into the poorest sites, of

course.

MR. MILLER: I'm still not satisfied. I wonder if the minister

would comment on.... By laying down this basic definition now, we're

tying ourselves to the definition and really can only change it through

legislation. Would it not be preferable to have that definition in

regulation, or at least the ability to change through regulation the

definition of basic silviculture? It certainly would give much more

flexibility over time — I don't want to say "technology" but it is

technology — as new technology develops, as we get better at the

business of growing trees and managing forest land, rather than being

forever bound by the definition. And really the Crown might be the

loser over the long term if the flexibility is not there in the

ministry to amend regulations to suit the times.

HON. MR. PARKER: The definition of basic silviculture is included in

legislation because of the ensuing changes to the forest licence and tree-farm

licence documents. It's in legislation for that purpose and it will have

to be amended by subsequent legislation. It may be considered somewhat restricting

in the mind of the member for Prince Rupert, but I think you'll find in

the forests community that this definition of basic silviculture goes far beyond

what has historically been considered basic silviculture, in that we require

the new crop to be protected and tended through to a free-growing state. If

we want to consider any further effort, that would be under an incremental silvicultural

program. If the private sector puts up the money, then they will accrue the

benefits. If the public puts up the money, they'll accrue the benefits.

If we work on a joint effort, it will be on a pro rata basis equivalent to the

input from each party.

MR. MILLER: Would it be the Crown's intention to practise incremental silviculture on land that the Crown is responsible for?

HON. MR. PARKER: The answer is yes.

MR. MILLER: Moving to

section 1(6), perhaps the minister

first of all would give us a brief explanation of the.... Actually

(5) and (6) should be considered together, because it deals with the

expropriation of land, and some expropriation is central to the bill. I

have a number of other questions on the minister's plans with respect

to the taking of lands currently held by licence-holders. If the

minister would start with an explanation, then I think we could move

into some specific questions.

HON. MR. PARKER: This deals with the recapture of allowable

cut where licensees have failed to perform according to the terms of

the contract. They're not cutting the forest profile from a timber

standpoint or from a topographical standpoint. They're not performing.

We'll recapture. This provides that the Expropriation Act will not

apply in that case.

MR. MILLER: When the minister announced the new policy in

September, he said that a percentage of the licence would be taken by

the Crown as a component of the policy. I believe the minister also

announced that as of January 1, 1988, 5 percent of TFLs and forest

licences would be taken by the Crown. Is that still going to be done?

Is there a legislative change in this bill to override sections of the

existing Forest Act that may have prohibited...? For example, the

one-year notice provision.

HON. MR. PARKER: The points raised by the member, Mr.

Chairman, will be dealt with in a subsequent amendment to the Forest

Act this coming spring.

Section 5(

l) of this bill provides for the

implementation of penalties without invoking the Expropriation Act.

[11:00]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, if I may just interrupt the

proceedings for a moment, the member for Cowichan-Malahat has asked

leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. BRUCE: In the precincts today is a group of students from the Quamichan Middle School in my riding. There are 25 of them here...

AN HON. MEMBER: Name names!

MR. BRUCE: No, I won't name names today.

...with their teacher, Mr. Wood. I think it's very timely that they

are here listening to the debate on the Forest Amendment Act, something

that has a fair impact on my riding. So I would ask that you join me in

making them feel welcome and wishing them a very merry Christmas.

[ Page 3053 ]

MR. MILLER: With respect to

section 1(4), which I understand

to be simply for clarification purposes.... It does give rise to the

question — one of the things I pointed out in second reading — of the

monitoring and auditing ability of the ministry with respect to the

application of the new act. A fairly good ability to undertake those

monitoring and auditing functions is going to be required if the act is

actually going to work. Is it the minister's intention that these

functions that are performed by the ministry will be contracted out —

in other words, that the ministry will not undertake the auditing or

monitoring function and you could contract that to another company, for

example? Would that other company or contractor then fall under the

definition of the appropriate official of his ministry?

HON. MR. PARKER: No, the responsibility rests with employees

of the ministry. If there is any input from the contract firm — say a

forestry consultant or an ecological consultant — that report would be

submitted to the appropriate person in the ministry, who would accept

it or reject it. If he accepted it, then he would be presenting it as

his material and under his responsibility.

MR. MILLER: In other words, a licence-holder who undertakes,

for example, incremental silviculture could presumably then hire an

appropriate consulting firm, which would prepare a report to be

submitted to your ministry, which could be accepted at face value, as

opposed to your ministry being required to do the monitoring.

HON. MR. PARKER: That could only take place if there was a

prior arrangement between the licenser and the licensee. Such an audit

would have to be done by a professional registered in the province to

undertake such work. For all intents and purposes the audit will be

done by the licenser, not the licensee. The licensee will have an

internal audit system in most cases, I would expect, just from a

control standpoint. But to satisfy the licenser and the public in

general, that would have to be subjected to an outside audit, which

would be done either by the ministry as the licenser or a suitable

professional qualified in that specific field and hired by the ministry

for that purpose.

MR. MILLER: In terms of the audit then — because I really do

believe that these are very important questions — the policy we

support.... We think it's heading in the right direction, but it is

very important that in determining additional value that would flow to

a licence-holder, and in determining that the licence-holder has indeed

complied with the requirements of basic silviculture.... These are all

extremely important and vital to the performance of the act.

The minister yesterday talked about the capability to undertake

these functions resting in the districts. I wish that he would confirm

that. Also, because it is a new approach, are there plans to add any

additional branches of the ministry in terms of some specialty in

dealing with these questions? Are you simply going to leave it to

existing ministry personnel in the regions or the districts to grapple

with the complexities of this new act and its application? Or are you

developing a new branch, some expertise within the ministry that could

be used on an advisory basis for the regions or districts?

HON. MR. PARKER: In reference to the ability of district personnel to

audit the performance of licensees, I don't see any expansion in the ministry.

We may see some movement in qualifications of individuals holding certain positions

in each of the districts. Over the years we've been making the opportunity

available for employees within the ministry to upgrade their qualifications

and, in fact, to move from a basically unqualified situation right through to

being able to be registered as a professional forester through an extension

program offered by the Association of B.C. Professional Foresters called the

pupil program. A number of our staff have successfully completed that program.

It's possible that we'd be adding to staff, but we wouldn't be increasing

the number of FTEs. We'd be looking for additional qualified personnel.

The thrust in the ministry has been and will continue to be to present the opportunity

for staff to upgrade and improve their own career opportunities.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

section 5.

MR. MILLER:

Section 5, particularly paragraph (b), involves

the rollover of forest licences to tree-farm licences and, as I

understand it, the wording,"such incremental silviculture.... as is

required by the licence," is a device whereby the ministry will be able

to say to forest licence holders: "We're not prepared to roll this over

to a TFL unless you show us that you are prepared to do more than the

basic silviculture required under the act." The minister could confirm

that I am correct in that assumption and, secondly, outline how that

process will work. Is it a process of negotiation with the current

licence-holder? Is it a public process, where other companies can up

the ante and make a better offer in terms of what kinds of incremental

work they would be prepared to do in order to acquire a tree-farm

licence?

HON. MR. PARKER: In rolling over from a forest licence to a

tree-farm licence, the applicant will be seeking to apply his allowable

annual cut from a volume-based tenure called a forest licence to an

area-based tenure called a treefarm licence. In so doing, we can

recapture anywhere from zero up to 10 percent of that allowable cut.

The purpose of that is to gain additional allowable cut that can be put

out to competitive bid to support things like specialty manufacturers

that may be identifying one market niche — maybe bed-frame stock or

special items for some of these pre-cut furniture outfits...

Interjection.

HON. MR. PARKER: ... and as I hear growled down in the corner here, special timbers, probably for bridges for truck loggers.

In the proposal that the licensee would be making applying for a

rollover to TFL, he would be proposing certain utilization activities

and probably certain silvicultural activities. If they intend to do

incremental silvicultural activities, those would be proposed in the

rollover proposal: they would be considered by the licenser, and

determined by the licenser if in any way those extra activities, be

they further manufacture, further utilization or further incremental

silvicultural activities.... And they may serve to reduce the amount of

cut recaptured in the rollover process. Maybe it's the total amount.

[ Page 3054 ]

Once that's settled between the licenser and the licensee and when

we have a solid proposal, the matter goes to public hearing, and other

licensees in the area can't stand up and say: "I'm going to do this or

I propose to do that; give it to me." They have an accept or reject

opportunity. They either accept or they record their objections to the

application, and they'll have to substantiate why. As a result of these

hearings, the licenser will determine whether or not any or all of the

application will be considered. It could be a partial rollover; it

could be a total rollover; it could be total rejection of the

application.

MR. MILLER: I can see that this is going to require a great

deal of work and skill on behalf of the ministry in terms of this

rollover provision and the conflicts or possible conflicts between

licence-holders in a particular area. I'll briefly refer to a situation

in my constituency where a holder of a forest licence which carried

with it an obligation to construct a processing facility has been less

than diligent in meeting those obligations. Certainly, it's not my

intention to come down with both feet and attack that company, but it

has produced, I think, an unnecessary delay. We could have had jobs in

place before now. We could have been producing lumber before now. Is

that an exceptional case in terms of a licence-holder meeting an

obligation? If the premise for the rollover is that there is going to

be a commitment to do certain things, whether that's further

production, incremental silviculture, a combination, whatever, but

they're going to give more, it would require some diligence on the part

of the ministry to make sure that people actually do what they say

they're going to do. Could the minister comment on that situation? Is

that exceptional or outside the norm in terms of a licence-holder

meeting a requirement or an obligation that they said they would

undertake?

HON. MR. PARKER: The example the member for Prince Rupert

uses is a good example of such a situation where a licence is granted

provided the licensee meets certain requirements. As we go through the

developmental stages of the licence and into the management and working

plan, the communication between the licenser and the licensee is such

that the licenser is brought to understand the workings of the business

place. We may or may not grant leave to some variance on the terms and

conditions of accepting that licence by the licensee.

In the particular example he was using, that operator chose to

basically finance his operation through cash flow rather than incurring

a staggering debt. That has delayed his development somewhat, but he

has apprised the minister — my predecessors and subsequently me — as to

the developments in his business plan. It was up to the minister of the

day to accept or reject, and in every case the minister accepted it as

there was visible progress being made, although not at the speed that

many people in the municipality would have liked to have seen.

[11:15]

MR. MILLER: Not to belabour the point, but....

Perhaps the group in the corner might want to adjourn to the hallway

to have their meeting. It's delaying speedy passage of this bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You did well, hon. member.

MR. MILLER: Again, without belabouring the point, I've been

in a situation, for example, in a municipality where municipal land was

sold on the basis that the buyer was obliged to undertake certain

things, construction of a building or whatever. It's been my experience

that if you set a no-nonsense,"we expect performance" tone, then you

will be far better off in dealing with people who make arrangements

with the Crown. I would hope — and the minister doesn't have to respond

— that that tone is established, because it's critical in terms of the

application of the changes in the act. The minister is proposing to

make some pretty significant changes in terms of transferring a

significant portion of land from forest licence into TFLs. If that's

undertaken without the licensees knowing that there's no fooling around

on this.... If you say you're going to submit a bid to put up a

processing facility or do extra work, then you'd better perform,

because the penalty is that you won't be there.

If the minister wants to comment he can, but I've got no more to say on

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

MR. MILLER: Just a point of clarification, Mr. Chairman. The

wording in (

c) is: "in paragraph (

f) by striking out 'and' at the end

of subparagraph (

i) and by adding the following subparagraph (iii)." Is

that just a typo? Should that have been "'and' at the end of

subparagraph (ii)" as opposed to "(i)"? Why would we put a (iii) after

a (i) ? Usually you get a (ii) after a (i). I may be out of the

ballpark on this, but it struck me that the sequence of numbering was

incorrect.

HON. MR. PARKER: The act reads in

section 42(f): "(

i) determine a volume of timber to be harvested from the woodlot licence

area during each year or other period of its term; and (ii) contain

such information respecting the development, management and use of the

woodlot licence area as the regional manager or district manager

requires...." Because we're adding (iii), then we say "add." It's just

the syntax.

Sections 6 to 10 inclusive approved.

section 11.

MR. MILLER: In regard to the penalty for non-compliance, it

struck me that that could only be applied once. Maybe I'm reading it

wrong. Could the minister comment on the penalty of removal of 5

percent for non-compliance? Is that simply something that can only be

applied once to a licence-holder?

HON. MR. PARKER: There's no specific penalty for 5 percent,

but there are penalties of reduction in cut maybe much greater than

that, and maybe less. For any one instance, yes, it's a one-time

penalty.

MR. MILLER: So it's not one-time in terms of the length of

time the licence-holder may have. It's for each particular instance of

violation.

HON. MR. PARKER: If cut is withdrawn from an operator, if it's a cut-control situation, that penalty is imposed for

[ Page 3055 ]

that particular cut-control period. But if it's

something much more serious and the allocated cut is reduced, that

lasts for the term of the licence — unless the licensee has been able

to increase his AAC through incremental silvicultural activities. With

tree-farm licensees, they're under scrutiny every five years in public

hearings on their management and working plans, which report their

performances and intentions.

MR. MILLER: Specifically, then, part (5) of 129.7 states that

"a volume equal to 5 percent of the total volume of timber" can be

removed if the licensee fails to perform. Immediately following that,

part (6) says: "Where under subsection (5) a reduction in the annual

allowable cut under a major licence is effected in respect of an area,

no further reduction shall be effected under subsection (5) in respect

of that area so long as it remains subject to that licence."

Maybe I didn't pose my question clearly. Does that mean that you can

only penalize a licence-holder once during the term of the licence?

HON. MR. PARKER: We would only penalize the licensee once,

Mr. Chairman, for any infraction. We wouldn't continue to penalize him

for the same infraction. You get nailed once; I think that's a natural

justice approach.

Just to touch back on the 5 percent penalty on cut, I'm advised that

a 5 percent penalty does come into play if the licensee has not met his

obligation under the preharvest silviculture prescription within the

time limit prescribed.

Sections 11 to 23 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 70, Forest Amendment Act (No. 2), 1987, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There are a few other items to discuss, as

I indicated to the House earlier, by leave of resolution pursuant to

standing order 69 (2); however, we do not have all the details yet. We

understand His Honour will be in the precincts close to the noon hour,

and on that basis, I would ask that the House recess to the call of the

Chair and advise members that you will ring the bells.... Pardon me, I

leapt ahead of the Minister of Education.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I have the honour to table the report of

the Ministry of Education for the period July 1, 1986 to June 30, 1987.

Just a brief explanatory comment. These are advance copies from the

Queen's Printer. The copies for distribution will be ready probably

later today or tomorrow. I wanted to table it at this time so that the

report could become public before next spring.

The House recessed at 11:29 a.m.

The House resumed at 11:58 a.m.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that earlier

this morning, when accepting two resolutions from the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) with respect to select standing

committees, I indicated to the House that there would probably be some

discussion later on when the House was sitting, with respect to members

sitting on the Committee on Finance, Crown Corporations and Government

Services. So pursuant to standing order 69 (2), I want to ask leave for

the following nominees to be placed on the Committee on Finance, Crown

Corporations and Government Services: the first member for Vancouver

East (Mr. Williams), the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) and the

member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota). Two of the members so

mentioned are already there and I'm adding — substituting — a third

name, but I want that resolution to stand now with respect to that

committee.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I will out of

courtesy advise the Legislative Assembly that with respect to those

members so named, it is the position of the government that, although

the committee has two duties, its first duty will be to discuss the

business of financial planning and the resolution from the minister

that dealt with that aspect of their duties. So financial planning

would come first. This is a statement by the government to Her

Majesty's Loyal Opposition indicating that that would be the first bit

of business, and when the committee decided to entertain its second

item of business, we would expect that the Legislative Assemblv would

be reconvened and further substitutions could be made at that date.

Financial planning will be the first duty of that committee.

Secondly, pursuant to standing order 69(2), I wish to ask leave for

the names on the Labour, Justice and Intergovernmental Relations

Committee to be changed. We will add the name of the Attorney-General

(Hon. B.R. Smith) and delete the name of the Minister of Transportation

and Highways (Hon. Mr. Rogers).

[12:00]

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll call the motion on that second one, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I am advised the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precincts and shall be here shortly.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

FIRST CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1987

Insurance Amendment Act, 1987

Mineral Amendment Act, 1987

Open Learning Agency Act

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 4), 1987

Property Purchase Tax Amendment Act, 1987

Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Compensation Act

Pension (Public Service) Amendment Act, 1987

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 1987

[ Page 3056 ]

Assessment Amendment Act, 1987

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 5), 1987

Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Amendment Act, 1987

Forest Amendment Act (No. 2), 1987

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these bills.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I move that this House at its

rising do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of Mr.

Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public

interest requires that the House shall meet, or until Mr. Speaker may

be advised by the government that it is desired to prorogue the first

session of the thirty-fourth parliament of the province of British

Columbia. Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied or has

been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated

in such notice and as the case may be may transact its business as if

it had been duly adjourned to that time and date. And I do further move

that in the event of Mr. Speaker being unable to act owing to illness

or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the

purpose of this order. As in duty bound I do so move.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Let me wish all members a very merry

Christmas and happy new year, and extend our best wishes as well to

those who serve us in the legislative precincts.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to reciprocate the spirit

of the holiday season, particularly to our staff who make this

Legislature function so well. I would like to wish everybody a very

enjoyable holiday season, to not think about each other too much, but

when we do, to think fondly and, more particularly, enjoy your families

and your communities and spirit — not spirits — of the holiday season.

We'll see you in the new year.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:06 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright 1987, 2001, 2008: Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada