1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd 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 )

MONDAY, JUNE 14, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

8163 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Land Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 54). Hon. Mr. Chabot

Introduction and first reading –– 8163

Oral Questions

Forest industry layoffs. Mr. King –– 8163

Mortgage foreclosures. Mr. Gabelmann –– 8163

Photographs of Energy minister. Mr. Lea –– 8163

Mr. Barrett

Cutbacks in health care. Mr. Cocke –– 8164

CNIB residence replacement. Mr. Gabelmann –– 8164

Use of government aircraft. Mr. Passarell –– 8164

Inquest into Clifford Olson case. Mr. Macdonald –– 8165

Home Purchase Assistance Amendment Act –– 1982 (Bill 46). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Chabot)

Mr. Barber (continued) –– 8165

Mr. Gabelmann –– 8166

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 8166

Municipal Amendment Act (No –– 2), 1982 (Bill 49). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 8167

Mr. Barber –– 8167

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 8169

Mr. Howard –– 8170

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 8171

Waste Management Act (Bill 52). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Rogers)

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 8172

Mr. Skelly –– 8173

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 8176

Division –– 8177

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Forests estimates. (Hon. Mr. Waterland)

On vote 42: minister's office –– 8177

Hon. Mr. Waterland

Mr. King

Mr. Lockstead

MONDAY, JUNE 14, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of

Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) and myself, I take great pleasure

introducing a group of students who have come down from Prince George

for Operation Trackshoes. If theHouse will permit it, I'd like to read their names, because they are special

people. The students from Harwin Junior Secondary School are Cheryl Tymko, Shelley

Dunn, Brenda Kelly, Stephanie Dix, Dean Cotts, Rachel Baptiste, Coral Watters,

Desma Romanin, Michael Berube, Leanza Daniel, Leverne Auger and Darlene Heavysides.

Their chaperones are Marjorie UIrquhart, Emma Bulmer, Dorothy Allen, Fran Miki,

Jean Lunden and Lorna Burgart. I'd like the House to give these special

students and their chaperones a very special welcome.

MR. MITCHELL:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to join me in welcoming three people

who are visiting the House today. They are Linda Hoon, who is the power

behind the president of the NDP in the Esquimalt–Port Renfrew riding;

her mother, Avis Linberg; and her aunt, Jenny Linberg, who are both

from Sorrento.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, in

the precinct today, and hopefully with us a little later, is a group of

31 grade 7 students from the Cloverdale Catholic School. On behalf of

myself and the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), I would ask

everyone here to extend a welcome to them,

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Speaker, I have two special guests in the gallery today. With my

wife Joan is her friend visiting from Sidney, Australia, Colleen

Bryant, and I hope that the House will give then, a warm welcome.

Introduction of Bills

LAND AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

Hon. Mr. Chabot presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Land Amendment Act, 1982.

Bill

554 introduced read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

FOREST INDUSTRY LAYOFFS

MR. KING: Speaker, a question to the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations

(Hon. Mr. Gardom) or the minister acting on his behalf. Has the minister decided

to refer to the Select Standing Committee on Environment and Resources the subject

matter relating to the critical depression in the B.C. forest industry so

that that committee might convene mectings and offer some assistance to our

depressed forest industry?

If there's confusion on the government's side as to who might be responsible,

I direct the question to the acting government House Leader, the hon. Attorney

General.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I'll be happy to take the question as notice.

MORTGAGE FORECLOSURES

MR. GABELMANN:

Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. Is

the minister ready today, after several weeks of doing apparently

nothing — and a reminder again on Thursday — to tell the House the full

extent of the mortgage foreclosure problem and what steps he has

decided to take to help people keep their homes?

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Mr. Speaker, First of all. that member makes a false statement in his

preamble to the question, suggesting that I am doing nothing in respect

to the very complex question that he asked me. I want to assure him

that the question was put to me approximately two weeks ago, and I am

attempting to secure the information that he has requested. It's not

that easy to acquire that information. I hope to have an answer for the

House within the next two or three days.

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the hon. minister whether or not he was attributing any improper motive to the member.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, I certainly wasn't, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. That's all we need.

PHOTOGRAPHS OF ENERGY MINISTER

MR. LEA:

To the Minister of Energy. Mr. Speaker, within the Ministry of Tourism

is a branch set up to take photographs of MLAs and ministers for

official use. Can the Minister of Energy recall bypassing that service

and going outside government service to have his photograph taken?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I can't recall such an occurrence. It's possible. I'll check it out,

and I'll be happy to bring the proofs back to the member at some later

date.

MR. LEA: Has the minister ever heard of Miss Kate Williams of Victoria?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I don't recall the name. Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEA:

I have in front of me a sheet of paper. On this sheet of paper it says:

"audit control 384280.'' It is not a photocopy, but has been copied

from a transcript of a voucher from government service. This voucher

indicates that the minister went outside the government service to a

Miss Kate Williams of 107 Beechwood Ave., Victoria, and had 500

pictures of himself taken at a cost of S2,853, Can the minister recall

that?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: First of all, I'm not

aware of any directive which describes how government pictures get

taken. I'd be quite surprised if there were such a directive. Secondly.

we get requests in the office, almost daily, for copies of pictures — I

suppose all ministers get them to be included in programs, news

releases and a number of other places. I'd be very happy to come back

and have a very

[ Page 8164 ]

exhaustive list for the member of where our pictures have been sent at the request of various people around.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. I assume that when we ask a question, we wish to hear the answer.

MR. LEA:

Can the minister explain why, in his opinion, the official government

photographers who take these publicity photos for all of us were not

good enough? What is it that isn't good enough about that service that

the minister had to go outside of government to have pictures of

himself taken to the tune of almost $3,000?

MR. BARRETT:

On a supplementary to the minister, when the minister ordered the

photographs to be taken of him, did he inquire as to how much it would

cost the taxpayers to have these photographs done for the minister?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I have taken the question as notice. It is very unlikely that I would have ordered the photographs personally.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, hon. members.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It is obvious that they don't want the answers to the questions, so forget it.

MR. LEA:

While the minister is looking into the questions asked, I wonder if he

would also bring back to the House the reasons why it was necessary to

have pictures taken of ministerial assistants with himself, because the

voucher says: "photographs of minister and assistants." I also think it

would be beneficial for us and the public to know what the pictures

were used for and why the minister found it necessary to go outside of

government service, and spend over $2,800 to have pictures taken of

himself, some of which included him and his executive assistant, I

guess. Would he endeavour to bring those reasons back to the House?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Leader of the Opposition please come to order.

CUTBACKS IN HEALTH CARE

MR. COCKE:

This is a question for the Minister of Health. People everywhere in the

province are concerned, as we know, about the government's cutback in

health care. There are long waiting lists for admission into hospitals

and so on. The people in Quesnel are worried and are talking about

large user fees, as people are elsewhere. The people in Dawson Creek,

however, have decided to do something about this crisis. They are

encouraging people to wear a red ribbon as a symbol of their protest to

the cutbacks in health care. Has the minister decided what he is going

to do to stop the chaos in health care in this province'?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: It could be that people are simply wearing the appropriate colour of their political stripe. I don't know the circumstances.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, that was an interesting reply from a minister who really

doesn't care about his particular obligations. In Dawson Creek we don't

find that much support for any party other than the Minister of

Industry....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. No debate, hon. member.

MR. COCKE:

I ask the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development why he is

not wearing, in support of his constituents, the same red ribbon he was

sent in the mail last Friday.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Well, I was very interested, Mr. Speaker, to have the critic for the

socialists opposite ask questions about health care in Dawson Creek.

Maybe I could inform that member that I am quite capable of looking

after all the problems in my constituency. I've had the opportunity and

the honour of doing so for a number of years, and I look forward to

doing so for a number of years in the future.

I have had

meetings with the hospital board; they have attended here in Victoria.

Certainly it was very interesting for me to find out that the Dawson

Creek Hospital last year had been running at 69 percent occupancy and

that the board and the medical profession there had seen fit to almost

close the hospital for a couple of months during the summer, and it

didn't seem to be any great crisis. However, Mr. Speaker, I would like

to inform the member for New Westminster that I am concerned about the

health of my constituents; that's why I was so pleased not too long ago

to open a new long-term care hospital in Pouce Coupe, which was built

under the long-term care hospital program of this government —

something they talked about and never implemented. We will be having

further meetings, Mr. Speaker, with the people who attend to the health

of that area, and I'm talking to the Minister of Health. If necessary,

we'll send a special team there to work with the hospital board and

with the medical profession in that area. But I'd like to inform the

member that I'm quite capable of looking after my own constituents.

CNIB RESIDENCE REPLACEMENT

MR. GABELMANN:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Lands, Parks and

Housing. Has the minister decided to assist in the funding of

construction of an alternative housing facility to replace the CNIB

residence at 35th and Main in Vancouver?

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Your substitute does a better job than you. I'll have to take that

question as notice, but I don't believe I've had any such request.

USE OF GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT

MR. PASSARELL:

To the Minister of Transportation and Highways, have any B.C.

government aircraft travelled outside Canada since January 1, 1982, and

if so, will the minister provide all the details?

HON. MR. FRASER: I'm not sure, but I believe they have, and I'll give you the details.

[ Page 8165 ]

INQUEST INTO CLIFFORD OLSON CASE

MR. MACDONALD:

To the Attorney-General, relating to the victims of Clifford Olson, on

May 14 the Attorney-General wrote to the Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm): "I have no authority to direct him" — that's

the coroner — "to hold an inquest, and it would be entirely

inappropriate for me to interfere with him in the exercise of his

quasi-judicial responsibilities." My question to the Attorney-General

is: in the light of

section 24 of the Coroners Act, which does allow

the Attorney-General to direct an inquest — that's the open one, not

just an inquiry — why did the Attorney General write that misleading

letter to his ministerial colleague, and why was there no open public

inquest and not just an inquiry into these victims of that terrible

crime?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it was not a

misleading response to the member. The decision with respect to the

conduct of affairs with respect to the Olson victims was made by the

chief coroner in the manner in which similar matters are dealt with

when they have become the subject of criminal prosecutions and trials.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 46.

HOME PURCHASE ASSISTANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

(continued)

MR. BARBER:

Mr. Speaker, as you will recall, I rose on Friday as the designated

speaker on this bill. During the course of that debate I indicated that

we had obtained, through the sheriff's office at the court registry in

Vancouver, foreclosure figures indicating the rate of personal and

business bankruptcies in this province. I want to make it clear to the

House that the figures I was quoting were cumulative and not single,

and that the figures as of June 8 of this year — totalling, if I

recall, 1,403 foreclosures — were, in fact, a record unprecedented in

British Columbia since the time of the Great Depression.

indicated to the House as well that the official opposition will

support this bill, and we do so because it does a little for a few.

This is better than nothing for anyone. It does a little for a few, and

for that much we are grateful. What it does not do is address the real,

structural problem. and it does not use the power and authority of the

province of British Columbia, at its own initiative, to bring down

interest rates on behalf of homeowners in this province.

As I mentioned on Friday, we made four positive proposals to this administration. I will reiterate them briefly.

First,

we ask for the immediate proclamation of the Savings and Trust

Corporation of British Columbia Act. Secondly, we ask the minister to

consult with his colleagues....

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a

point of order, the member is repeating the arguments that he put

forward in the House on Friday, which were completely out of order at

that time and which are completely out of order at this time. My point

is that this bill, which has a minor amendment to the Home Purchase

Assistance Act, is narrow in scope. Essentially, it allows the minister

to reduce interest rates on second mortgages...

MR. BARBER: That's not a point of order. You're debating the bill.

HON. MR. CHABOT: ...to

a select group of people who qualify under the Home Purchase Assistance

Act. It has nothing to do with the B.C. savings and trust organization,

with HCBC, family collapse or people coming from the wrong side of the

tracks.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the member remain relevant in his debate on this minor amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. minister.

Hon.

members. the debate on second reading must be held to within the scope

of the principle of the bill itself. Although passing references can be

made to related subjects, certainly a debate on those related subjects

is not in order. As I was understanding it, the member was merely

recapping by title those things to which he had referred. If he strays

too far I will seek to guide him.

MR. BARBER: Thank you. Mr. Speaker.

Continuing,

in order, we first of all ask that the government immediately proclaim

the Savings and Trust Corporation of British Columbia Act. Secondly, we

asked the minister to consult with his colleagues, provincially and

nationally, to ensure that the principle of this bill, which is to

reduce interest rates by a little for a few, will be enunciated as a

national policy at the earliest opportunity. Thirdly, we ask the

government to give serious consideration to and make legitimate study

of the proposals made by the chief executive officer of MacMillan

Bloedel, Mr. Knudsen, who, in addressing the same question of lowering

interest rates, last week said that unless the national government acts

within 90 days to bring down interest rates to the level of variously 8

or 10 percent, we face genuine economic collapse in Canada. We ask the

government to give us their view of Mr. Knudsen's recommendations and

to consider the urgency of that. Fourthly, and finally, we ask the

government as well to recognize that the housing industry, which will

be benefited to some small extent by this amendment — not nearly enough

but better than nothing — is one of the fundamental engines of the

economy of British Columbia. When you get housing onstream, you employ

people in the forest industry, plumbers, electricians, persons who work

within permit offices of municipalities. contractors, bricklayers,

stonemasons and all the others.

The official opposition

believes that one of the major keys to the revival of our economy in a

time of collapse is a revival of the housing industry. It is on that

basis that we support this — as the minister himself described it —

"minor amendment." What we regret is that it is not a major amendment,

a major effort to deal with the problems of interest rates faced by the

people of British Columbia.

To repeat again. there is a triple tragedy facing the people of British Columbia today: foreclosure and bankruptcy

[ Page 8166 ]

caused

by high interest rates; unemployment caused by economic collapse; and

finally, the failure of Social Credit to depart from the right-wing

ideology which has for so long held that there is something wrong about

intervening in the marketplace during a period of downturn. There is in

fact nothing wrong with it. It is highly necessary and urgent.

did also have questions for the minister. When he winds up, after my

colleague for North Island speaks in this debate, perhaps he could

advise the House what interest rate he proposes to set. The amendment

does not specify that rate. I think the House is entitled to know

because of the cost via appropriation of it. The people generally might

be interested in it as well.

To reiterate and conclude, we

support the bill. It does a little for a few, and this is better than

nothing for anyone. Nonetheless, the New Democratic Party is deeply

disappointed that the Social Credit government of the day is not

prepared to deal more seriously with the problem than by means of a

minor amendment on the question of interest rates. We need a government

of boldness, of vision. and a government that genuinely cares about

people who lose their homes because of unaffordable interest rates. We

care; we argue; we've made positive proposals; and we hope for positive

results.

MR. GABELMANN: I welcome this opportunity to

participate in the debate on the entire legislative program presented

by the Housing minister this session.

MR. KING: And last session.

MR. GABELMANN: And last session and the session before.

After

promising for years that housing policies would be announced in two

weeks, it took him a year to finally bring some small program into

place. As a result of the year-long promise of, "it will be two weeks,

my friend," we get this legislative action. What do we get after three

years in office since the last election and after obvious public

concern about what has been, for some people, the greatest political

issue of the day in this province? While for others it's not a great

political issue because they're well housed, it still ranks up among

the two or three most serious and important issues to face this

province and government in terms of its legislative program, and what

do we get? We get a self-admitted minor amendment that deals with the

interests of those few people who manage to qualify for second

mortgages through the provincial government.

It's a good

program that we support. It's an amendment that we support. But is this

all that can be produced for debate, discussion and action by this

government at this time of major crisis in the housing industry? When

the whole question of affordability for thousands of British Columbia

families is reducing them to living in substandard rental accommodation

and when the B.C. Housing Management Commission's lists for subsidized

housing are more than 10,000 people long and many other thousands are

not even bothering to get on the lists because they recognize that

there's no building going on and that they will never get into that

housing, what do we get? At a time when foreclosures are up, what do we

get? We get a minor amendment.

MR. KING: We get a minor amendment from a minor minister.

MR. GABELMANN:

I'm not so concerned about categorizing the role that that minister

plays within the cabinet; obviously it's a minor role. What I am

concerned about is that within his own ministry he treats Housing as a

minor responsibility. It's not the part of his ministry that he cares

about. The minister stood up today to introduce legislation. I thought

that at long last we were going to get some housing legislation, and

instead it was an amendment to the Land Act. The only housing

legislation we have is this minor amendment which allows the

government, in these times of high interest rates, to possibly reduce

the rate. They don't say they will; it just gives them the right to do

it.

My colleague from Victoria suggests that we'll support

the bill, and we will. He suggests that it will be of some benefit to a

few people. We don't even know from this bill whether it will be of

benefit to some people, because all it does is give the minister power

to reduce the rates for second mortgages for people who do qualify and

are fortunate enough to own and still maintain their own home.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm not going to speak very long on this bill. We're going to

get to the Housing estimates, and that's the appropriate time to have a

wide-ranging debate on housing. But I don't think we can let this bill

go through, even though we're going to vote for it, without first

making it as clear as we can to the public that this is the entire

legislative program from that minister for the term of office that

they've had. I don't understand why it is that that minister, even in

the face of a sustained attack from his allies in the community — those

private developers, builders and enterprisers in the organization

called HUDAC — still hasn't awakened to the fact that what this

province needs is a full housing program and legislative package and

not just this minor amendment,

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'll just respond to the questions that were in order that were put by the members from across the way.

First

of all, I was rather surprised to hear the first member for Victoria

(Mr. Barber) suggest that we should be escalating the upper limit to

which the second mortgages will apply. Within his area in the city of

Victoria, the mortgages apply to homes that have a value of $140,000 or

less. I want to suggest that the average price of housing in the city

of Victoria is substantially less than $140,000. Is he pleading the

cause of the moneyed people of British Columbia, those people who don't

need help? I'd suggest that this kind of program and the grants that

come under this legislation go to help those people who need help. It's

not there to help those people who can afford half-million dollar

houses or $600,000 houses. Maybe that's the cause for which that member

is pleading. I'd suggest to you that this legislation that is in place

is at its upper limit right now. It will go to help those people who

need help. This program is not intended to help those people who can

help themselves.

For him to suggest that they have pleaded

before that the upper limit be escalated.... I want to say without any

reservation that I have never heard from any member of the New

Democratic Party regarding the upper limit to which these mortgages

will apply. We haven't heard from the New Democratic Party on that

issue.

The other point is that in British Columbia we have

38,000 second mortgages which have been made available to people who

have not before had assistance from the provincial government for their

first home. Under the legislation at the moment.... We're making the

change because it's

[ Page 8167 ]

tied

to the National Housing Act, which prescribes that second mortgages

will be about 21 percent. In British Columbia we say that's too much.

This change will be in the amount of interest that will apply to second

mortgages. It will create the lowest interest rate on second mortgages

in Canada. It will not only do that, but it will also make the second

mortgage rate lower here in British Columbia than any first mortgage

interest rate anywhere in this country today. I can see why those

members in the opposition are critical. But in the same breath they are

saying, "Yes, we will support that legislation," because they know

there are 38,000 families out there in British Columbia who will

benefit from this amendment that will effectively reduce interest rates

— from 21 percent to 15 percent in some instances. That's the rate for

the time being. As time goes on, these rates can be adjusted by

regulation. But the projection right now is that the interest rate will

be 15 percent. It will be of substantial assistance to those 38,000

families in British Columbia, who will enjoy these second mortgages

that have been made available by the government of British Columbia.

The

member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) is anxious to leave, so I'm

just bidding him goodbye; and as I do that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill

46, Home Purchase Assistance Amendment Act, 1982, read a second time

and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 49.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2), 1982

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in moving second reading of Bill 49.

Basically the bill addresses three matters that have been discussed

here and elsewhere from time to time, especially over the last number

of months.

First, it provides an opportunity for municipal

councils and regional boards to enter into agreements with Indian bands

for municipal services. Many valuable, useful lands are located in

regional districts within or near municipal boundaries. Those lands

have the potential of providing a location for industry, for commercial

development, housing or for any number of good options that perhaps

ought to be pursued for the benefit of the Indian community as well as

for the larger community. We think this is a very positive move. It

receives much support from the UBCM and from most, if not all,

individual municipalities and regional districts.

Second is

the matter of interest rates on unpaid taxes in municipalities and

improvement districts. As you are aware, the interest rate in rural

areas has been established annually by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, but the interest rates that could be

charged on outstanding taxes in municipalities or improvement districts

have been established in the act and remained fairly constant for the

last while, with a maximum of 12 percent. As much as all of us here and

everywhere regret the rate of interest which appears to be prevalent

everywhere now and though we are totally disgusted with the interest

rates at the level they're at, it seems only fair that the rates on

unpaid taxes approximate the rate charged by the banks when someone

goes to borrow — particularly. of course, a municipality.

Theoretically, if everyone decided not to pay their taxes because they

could use the money at a rate of 12 percent, and the municipality was

forced to go to the bank and pay possibly 18 percent, you could find

all of the resources in a municipality going toward the payment of

interest. So it's only right and just that this be amended and changed.

Frankly,

I appreciate the difficulty that may be encountered by many businesses

and industries which have seen a considerable increase in their tax

bill. I can understand where, if the opportunity were available for

them to leave the taxes, especially at times of economic recession such

as we're experiencing now, this would be an attraction. There is

nothing wrong with that: I can well understand it. However, it's up to

us as legislators to ensure that any inequities are addressed.

Thirdly,

Mr. Speaker. there has been a problem with the ability of a citizen to

challenge a regional district bylaw, to quash it in the same manner as

a municipal bylaw, and that has presented some difficulty for

ratepayers in various areas. They brought it to our attention a number

of times and we once more have addressed that in this particular

Municipal Amendment Act. Mr. Speaker. It gives me pleasure to move

second reading.

MR. BARBER: This bill was introduced

as recently as June 9, and it's some measure of the speed with which

the official opposition does its business that it's here today on the

14th. I hope the government won't complain that the NDP is holding up

legislation by examining it too closely. However, when we examined this

one closely, we discover how this bill has come to earn its colloquial

title. This bill is known to the general public as the McCarthy

amendment, because it was, after all, the husband of a famous Social

Credit politician who apparently has so embarrassed the government that

they have now decided that they have to bring in a statute that forbids

businesses and other property owners from equivalently ripping off

their municipality by deliberately refusing to pay their property taxes

when due and as due, in order to profit from the difference between the

low rate the municipality charges and the high rate that they can get

out of banks.

The McCarthy amendment has been prompted

because for the last two years now we've discovered that the husband of

a well-known politician — presumably with the absolute knowledge of

that politician — has been doing just this. It's a pretty low standard,

Mr. Speaker. After all, how do you expect businesses in the province to

understand their obligations to the community if famous families decide

clearly to exploit an unfair and unreasonable situation for personal

profit, for family profit, for private profit that has not been earned

at all? This bill is known as the McCarthy amendment because a

gentleman by the name of McCarthy got caught and criticized, and that

is why we have the bill today.

What he got caught doing was,

of course, nothing illegal — the minister was quick to point that out

in his opening remarks — but just because it's not illegal doesn't mean

it's acceptable; in fact, in this case it’s completely unacceptable, I

think, to most people in British Columbia. On that basis we're going to

support the bill. We support it because we believe municipalities

should be empowered to catch those unethical persons who would attempt,

for the sake of private profit, to exploit a municipality, to diminish

their own communities' revenues by refusing to pay their property taxes

[ Page 8168 ]

time.

We support this bill because it will put a stop to that kind of

unethical behaviour; we support his bill because it gives

municipalities power to look after the interest of the whole community

rather than be exploited by the self-interest of just a few people.

The

McCarthy amendment is a useful amendment. I expect in the long run to

the government because they're sick and tired of the questions that we

raise in question period about why a few unethical people will try to

take advantage of this loophole for the sake of personal and private

profit in order to make a gain at the expense of the community in which

they live. I don't know why someone would try to profit from such a

loophole. I can't imagine why someone would try to exploit his own

community in order to make a fast buck on this basis. I think most

members of this House pay their property taxes on time, and they do so

even though they know they could make a few quick bucks — not earn

them, but make them by failing to pay and by exploiting the difference

between the interest rate that a municipality can charge and that which

they could get at a commercial bank. You have to wonder what sort of

ethics that kind of person would practise.

Why would people

want to take advantage of their own community like that? Why would they

do that? The only reason we can find is apparently greed — greed,

selfishness, and private profit. It obviously hurts the community in

which these people are resident, because it denies that community

revenue to which they are otherwise entitled — lawfully entitled, I

should emphasize. Surely nothing is set by way of a public standard, so

that can't be the motivation either. I also presume that the motivation

surely would not be, at least in the case of the McCarthys whom we've

identified, an attempt to embarrass Social Credit. That's obviously not

in their interest, even though that has been the result. I don't

understand the motivation of such a person. I don't understand what

would drive them to exploit their own town by exploiting that loophole.

We're glad the loophole's being closed, but we condemn those who

exploited it. We're glad the loophole is finally being shut down and

we're pleased to support the bill, but we condemn vigorously those

greedy, selfish people, motivated by private profit who would try tried

to exploit this loophole.

Most businessmen are honest. They

pay their taxes. They pay what is required when it's required. Most

citizens are honest and pay their taxes when they're required to be

paid. Most people don't sneak around in the dark furtively looking for

loopholes to exploit. The kind of people who do that set an ethical

standard that we on this side of the House don't find acceptable.

Sneaking around in the dark to find a way to get out of municipal taxes

in order to make a quick buck that you haven't earned is not

acceptable. On that basis, the McCarthy amendment that is before us is

better than what was here before. On that basis we support it.

There is a related issue that I'd like to raise briefly, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: The name is Hyndman, I'm afraid.

MR. SPEAKER: If the name refers to any member in this House, of course we refer to members here only by their official designation.

MR. BARBER: Yes, that's right. On May 10 of this year I wrote

a letter to Mrs. Bodkin, Deputy Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs, in which I observed that there is yet another loophole. I wish

by way of notice now to indicate briefly to the government that we do

not accept the double standard here. The McCarthy loophole is being

closed down, and that's good, even though we deplore the behaviour of

those who would exploit that loophole. However, there remains a

loophole for landlords, one that could have been addressed by this bill

but is not, let me observe in passing.

I wrote to Mrs. Bodkin on May

10. It is very short, only three paragraphs:

"I write regarding the question of percentage of

interest that must be paid by landlords on funds received through the

security deposit provisions of the Residential Tenancy Act.

note that there has been no increase in this percentage rate since June

of 1980, even though bank interest rates have escalated well beyond the

12 percent provided at that time. Would you be prepared to consider a

policy that would see this feature of the act tied to a percentage

above prime rather than to any fixed figure? If not, would you be

prepared to entertain an amendment to the law that would see it fixed

at, say, 18 percent, or some other suitably high figure?

"It

seems unfair to me that landlords are able to take advantage of this

unearned money, and I would appreciate your speedy review and early

comment."

Slightly less than 30 days later, which is pretty good, I got a

reply back from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It is

five paragraphs, but also short:

"Dear Mr. Barber:

"Your letter of May 10, 1982 to my deputy minister, Mrs. Bodkin, has been referred to me for consideration and response.

"The

interest rate paid on security deposits is currently set at 12 percent

by order-in-council. This amount is reviewed periodically, as is the 10

percent annual rent increase limit for controlled tenancies and the 18

percent allowable increase for renovations. Any change in the interest

rate for security deposits would necessitate an examination of the

other rates, since the same economic conditions would apply.

"On

balance, I believe the current rates being applied to security deposits

on controlled units and renovations are appropriate and require no

change at this time."

The minister went on to say:

also cannot support a floating interest rate paid on security deposits

since this would be difficult to administer and would implicate the

other rates mentioned.

"I am constantly

reviewing the legislation and the adequacy of your policies and will

ensure your suggestions are given careful consideration. Thank you for

taking the time to write and inform me of your proposals."

What

I observe here is the double standard we are faced with when we are

asked to support this bill. Commendably, the government is saying that

municipalities may now have an interest rate fixed by cabinet and that

it may be changed by cabinet from time to time, upon regulation. This

is good. That will take into account far more rapidly than often this

[ Page 8169 ]

Legislature

can, in this instance, the real interest rates they are facing so that

the McCarthy loophole can be closed. We commend that.

What I

am concerned about, though, is that the government continues to allow

landlords to take unearned profit by forcing them to pay only 12

percent on the security deposits. Let me read again what the Minister

of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) said in regard to

this same question of how you set interest rates on moneys that are

being held in trust or being owed, say, for taxes. The principle

remains the same. The problem of public policy remains the same as

well. How do you affix a fair interest rate on that? "On balance," the

minister said, "I believe the current rates being applied to security

deposits on controlled units and renovations are appropriate and

require no change at this time." The public record holds that the last

time the rates were changed was in June 1980. They were changed at that

time to 12 percent. The 12 percent that landlords have to pay for

security deposits is totally inadequate. I would like the same standard

applied to them that this bill will apply to municipalities. For public

policy to succeed it must be eminently and obviously fair, It is not

fair to allow landlords to continue to exploit the McCarthy loophole

while at the same time you shut it down for those who would exploit

municipalities. It is not fair to do that. If the principle the

minister has enunciated is good enough for municipalities — and it is —

then I think it has to be made good enough for landlords — and it isn't.

was disappointed in the reply of his colleague. In second reading I

served notice to the minister that the opposition would welcome and

support an amendment that would require landlords to pay interest on

their security deposits in the way that this bill now requires the

McCarthys of the world to pay their taxes according to the current

interest rates. Private profit must be earned to be honourable. Private

profit that exploits loopholes is not honourable. Private profit that

is earned on the basis of real work is honourable. We agree with it,

and we also agree that it should be taxed for public purposes.

There

is a bit of a double standard here, though. I would be happy to table

the letter with the House if a copy is requested. The letter, as I

said, was written to me by the minister on June 8, which isn't very

long ago.

We support the bill because it removes one

objectionable feature that municipalities currently have to suffer and

because it closes down the McCarthy loophole and will save time in

question period. We wish, however. that the same rule were applied to

landlords that municipalities will now be able to apply to a few of

their thievish-minded taxpayers who don't pay the money when it's due

and try to exploit — because of the peculiarities of the interest-rate

structure — a situation that is not ethical to exploit, in our view. On

that basis we support the bill but, again, would ask the minister when

he closes debate if he would indicate whether or not he is prepared to

review the circumstance faced by tenants who have to receive far below

market value interest rates on their security deposits. If it is unfair

for municipalities to suffer that victimization it is equally unfair

for tenants. In the name of a fair public policy we ask the government

to address both questions.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: We

have just been treated, once again, to a holier-than-thou dissertation

from the member for Victoria. He has done it in his usual style. I get

a kick out of the clichés that the socialists give us from the other

side. They always put together the good old socialist clichés. It is

great to play with words like "fast buck." It is great to talk about

high standards or low standards. They love to play with those

destructive words in terms of personal tax on people. It is interesting

that it was only a very few days ago, and the whole tenor of the

address to this particular amendment which this member has just put

forward is totally on a personal attack of somebody who is not in this

House to protect himself. But it is fair game, of course, to attack

another member of this House, through me. That is fine and fair game

and I don't mind even taking it. In fact, I am going to be very pleased

to vote for this amendment. But I do want to say that it is also

another example of what the member for Victoria has called a double

standard. It was only ten days ago, in this very House. when the very

tenor of the House was called into question by the hon. Leader of the

Opposition. It had to do with personal attack and personal innuendo and

it had to do with people who took people's personal lives. I recall

that there was a great deal of concern expressed by the Leader of the

Opposition about the hon. member for Skeena's (Mr. Howard'

s) personal

life that was called into question on the floor of this House. There

was a great deal of concern on that side of the House — a great deal of

concern expressed throughout this Legislature.

But isn't it

interesting that the member for Victoria thinks that to be treated in

high-dudgeon should be taken for granted by people on the government

side of the House: those who get so terribly concerned and uppity about

personal tax on the socialist side of the House do not get at all upset.

MR. BARBER: Did he pay his taxes?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Speaker. you may remind the member who has just taken his seat that

I listened to his address, and I think that he could give me the very

same kind of attention that I gave to him — without interruption, if

you don't mind.

So let it be on the record today that the

socialist opposition that feels so terribly put upon when anyone says

anything at all, even in jest, even in a quick retort that sometimes

happens in this House.... Tempers wax thin; people get a little

facetious sometimes, no matter what the mood — whether it be one of

anger or one of overtiredness or whatever. Not one second of criticism

can the people on that side of the House take. I suggest to you that

the high standards which the member has suggested should be carried out

on this side of the House, and on both sides of the House, are carried

out both in the McCarthy household and in the households of the members

on this side of the House. I hope that that can be said of all sides of

this House. I can't speak for the socialist side of the House. but

there are many people in the business community.... One has to wonder

what kind of ethics those people on the other side of the House have,

who would in one week call for no personal attacks in the House, and

then within 24 hours, if that — in fact, that very day, there were

personal attacks made in this very chamber....

It's a

typical form of debate, and one which the member has put forward in

this House on many an occasion. I would suggest that the member look to

his own life and ask if there is anything there that perhaps he would

be a little bit concerned about. I hope the member is not implying in

any way unethical behaviour of the husband of one of the members in

this House — namely, me. I hope that you are not implying that in

[ Page 8170 ]

any

way, because I think we are protected against that kind of attack in

this House. Surely that sense of ethics should also extend, if it is to

be clear and honest in this House, throughout all of the debate, not

just on one occasion.

Now to return to the bill itself, I'm

sure that the Victoria member wouldn't suggest in any way that any of

those delightful socialist clichés which he has attempted to put onto

my husband are ones than can or will stick to a person who has, through

paying taxes in this province for many, many years and through good

business ethics, been responsible for much employment in this province.

I'm proud of that fact. I can stand in this House and be proud of that

fact over and over again; I could do so in years gone by and I know I

can do so in years ahead.

So I don't need the hon. member

for Victoria to try to bring the debate in this House down to a level

to suit his particular brand of politics and the brand on that side of

the House. But I do suggest to you that there are some people in the

province who, because there has been this possibility for them not to

have paid their taxes.... It may have been for that. You can smear any

amount of people by name or by a whole block of people, whichever. Let

me say once again, because the member has chosen to make this debate a

personal attack, that it should be noted for the record that the NDP —

the socialist opposition in the House — want to bring the debate down

to that kind of level. But I don't think that people in general out

there in the public buy that kind of debate, and I don't think they buy

that type of concern that is expressed. I think they know full well

that the people who are the doers are the ones who are paying the taxes

in this province. They work very hard indeed for the dollars they make

and the employment that they create for others.

I would just

say that I'd be very pleased to support the minister's amendment and

all the government initiatives that he is bringing in through these

amendments, and I do so with a great deal of pleasure. I would also

like to say, because I presume that I can't respond to the member who

will now get on his feet, that I think we're going to hear more from

the mud line.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon.

members, in debating second reading of the bill, it is in order, of

course, to refer to the principle of the bill. Passing observations can

be condoned, but certainly a full-fledged debate on the passing

observation is not in order.

MR. HOWARD: Goodbye,

Gracie. Hit and run, Gracie. Mr. Speaker, that is very typical of that

hit-and-run minister. She engages in all the scurrilous accusations and

innuendo that she can muster to her command — and she can muster a

great deal — and then scuttles out of the House like a rat deserting a

sinking ship. I regret that she is gone, because you will notice that

her parting reference was to me. You will notice that her opening

reference was to me, and I do wish that she had the courage of her

thoughts to be able to stay in the chamber and listen to a comment in

reply. Having been maligned by her on more than one occasion, and more

particularly in the last few minutes, it would be nice if she were here

to listen.

She talked of ethics and I find that an

unacceptable phrase to escape the lips of a minister who went the

length and the breadth of this province accusing people in this party

of developing a secret army, amassing a cache of weapons and using

public funds to buy bullets and gunpowder to visit a war upon the

general public in this province. It has been proven time and time again

that the reference that the minister made at that time was patently

false and was developed by her for an unethical political reason.

Secondly, eight or ten days ago the minister made some comments about the Leader

of the Opposition, saying that he had made some mention, as she put it, of the

private life of the member for Skeena. If you check the record you will find

that the Leader of the Opposition made no such reference. If there is something

of that nature that deserves to be examined, it's solely in the imagination

of the Minister of Human Resources. It indicates that she's not the least

bit interested in dealing with the truth in this House, but only with smear.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member will soon relate his remarks to the bill.

MR. HOWARD:

Exactly. I'm about to do that. In fact, I had not wanted to make any

comments at all had it not been for the parting shot of the scurrying

minister.

I listened to what the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) had to say about the bill.

MR. KEMPF: Hang your head in shame.

MR. HOWARD: Could you protect me from two-story Jack from Omineca, please, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It sounds like protection is needed on both sides. The member for Skeena has the floor. Please proceed.

MR. HOWARD:

I listened to the minister outline the purpose of the bill and say that

he recognizes that some businesses may have difficulty paying their

taxes in these economic times and that nevertheless the change had to

be made, and I agree with him. I would point out to the minister that

he knew of the manner in which the provision of the Municipal Act

limited the interest charges to 12 percent on unpaid taxes. He knew of

that some time ago, and he deliberately refused to bring the matter

before the House for an alteration because one of his colleagues was

involved in a family way with businesses.

I won't bore the

House with a litany of the extent of the unpaid taxes of the companies

with which that family is associated, except to say that one of them or

some of them are in my home town. The municipality wherein I pay my

taxes suffered as a result of the failure of some corporations with

cabinet connections to pay their taxes. If only the minister had

brought this or a similar change to the House when it first came to his

attention a couple of years ago that there were people deliberately not

paying their taxes in order to make a greater amount of money by

putting the money in the bank, then we wouldn't have been faced with

having to do it during tough economic times — the earlier done, the

better, Mr. Speaker.

I have a sense of authorship in the

bill, because I'm quite sure in my own mind that if I, as a

representative from Skeena and living in Terrace, had not brought to

the attention of the minister a few weeks ago the fact that a

particular company having cabinet connections and cabinet associations

had not paid taxes to the municipality of Terrace, and if a few days

later the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) had not

[ Page 8171 ]

also

raised the point about the same cabinet-connected companies not paying

taxes in his municipalities in Nelson-Creston, this would have been

permitted to go blindly on. Even though the minister in answering the

questions which were posed to him was terribly defensive about it, he

did finally come to the House with an alteration which makes it

somewhat more in keeping with the ethics which should apply in the

imposition and the expectation of receiving municipal taxes.

also want to touch on a question in the bill that, I think, shows that

there is a deficiency — and this is in an entirely different direction

than we've been discussing up until now. There is a provision in the

bill that says a council may enter into an arrangement with the council

of a band of native Indian people to provide municipal services.

Another

section says that, notwithstanding all of that, any agreement

about the provision of those services will still leave intact the

provisions of

section 409 of the Municipal Act. That's the section,

because it's referred to in the bill, I want to deal with.

When

a band of native Indian people seeks to lease property to non-Indians

by virtue of a provision in the Municipal Act — and that is founded on

an earlier court decision in this matter — that band loses its right

under the Indian Act of Canada to impose a level of taxation upon that

non-Indian occupier of reserve land. Many Indian people, many Indian

bands, have engaged in the practice of trying to increase income to the

band, increase their participation in an economic way, and have been

trying to earn a few dollars for themselves through the process of

leasing reserve land to non-Indian people for a variety or purposes.

Some of it is cottage land or recreational land; in another instance it

may be a housing development or whatever the band perceives to be the

best use to which it can put its reserve land. But once it does that,

it then, unlike any other group within a municipal structure, cannot

levy taxes on that land; all they can extract are the lease or rental

fees for the land itself. They are faced with a difficulty in trying to

get full value from the non-Indian lessee, because the non-Indian

lessee comes along and says: "But I have to pay this relevant amount of

land tax and improvement tax to this outside group called a

municipality, regional district or whatever it is that's doing the

taxing, and because I have to pay those taxes over there, I can't pay

you any additional rent." So the Indian band finds itself in a

compressed position and unable to act as an organization of that nature

should act. Indian bands, many of whom have been engaged in these lease

arrangements — and some of them go back quite a number of years — find

themselves in a very restricted position. They consistently ask — and

the particular request comes predominantly, of course, from those bands

which had entered into lease arrangements: "Why can't we have this

right of taxation on the person who is occupying our reserve land?"

They

can't do it, Mr. Speaker, because

section 409(5) of the Municipal Act

says that this

section applies — the taxation of land, etc. — to land

held in trust for a band of Indians and occupied, other than in an

official capacity, by a person not an Indian. "Other than in an

official capacity" perhaps has relevance to a reserve where there might

be an Indian day school under the federal Indian Act, and a non-Indian

teacher occupies a teacherage residence on that particular reserve and

is therefore on that reserve in an official and sanctioned capacity.

What we are talking about is land which is leased to non-Indian people

and bands who are now unable to realize any amount of income and are

unable, thereby, to realize to themselves and to the band any

reasonable income from both leasing and taxation because the taxation

part of it is excluded. I wish the minister. having brought in an

amendment relating to relationships with native Indian people and band

councils, would have taken the step of removing

section 409(5) and

putting native bands in a position similar to that of municipalities

insofar as levying land and improvement taxes are concerned.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

First of all, the member is obviously not aware that I first discussed

this matter of interest on outstanding taxes with the UBCM in September

of 1981. I mentioned during my address to the UBCM that this whole

question of interest rates and their level would be addressed in this

session of the Legislature. While I certainly don't fault him for

wishing to take some credit for having raised it about a month ago. It

was already discussed in September of 1981 and we made a promise then

to make some adjustments.

We have also heard mentioned

several times that it is exploitation to take advantage of this

particular provision in this legislation as it now exists with respect

to outstanding taxes, First, I should point out for the members

opposite that if they really had done some research they would find

that if you do not pay your taxes on the due date there is an automatic

10 percent penalty, So, actually, for the first year the interest rate

is probably the equivalent of about 20 percent in any case.

Aside

from that, however, there are matters that affect the people in the

business community and the municipality in a variety of ways. This

provision of the Municipal Act has certainly meant in the past —

especially during the last year — that those who weren't able to meet

their obligation with respect to the immediate paving of taxes were

getting a favourable interest rate. That was not the intent of the

legislation when it was first devised,. I am sure, nor was it the

intent of the municipality when they put the message on the tax notice

that people really should not pay their taxes on the due date but

continue to have them carried by municipal taxpayers at large. However,

as I said, It works both ways. We have municipalities, for example,

using licensing as a way of raising revenues,

whereas licensing was

also intended to be a means of ensuring that there was an opportunity

to police business within a community in some fashion. It was not

intended to be a source of revenue. We have many businesses paying

licence fees much in excess of what the intent had been. It is

something that the businesses have accepted, so it is the same in

reverse.

To suggest that people in businesses, if they

cannot pay their taxes immediately — or, for that matter, if they

decide instead to leave them outstanding — are exploiting the

municipality is an overstatement, to say the least. But it is up to

government to address these sorts of things, I agree. It is not for us

to sit here and find fault with those who would take advantage of a

particular provision in legislation and call them exploiters. I think

it is more up to us, as members in opposition, to bring the question

forth and, as members in government, to try to address these very same

problems. The word "exploiters" has been repeated many times. and I

think it’s wrong to let that term go unchallenged. However. I realize

that people's view of exploitation depends upon where you sit and the

matter you're faced with.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

[ Page 8172 ]

The

first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) will recall the early seventies,

when groups were lined up everywhere, seeking LIP grants and grants for

all sorts of projects. In the eyes of many people, those particular

groups weren't necessarily obtaining earned income, but were taking

advantage of LIP and other programs and abusing them to the limit. I

say again that the first member for Victoria should be most aware of

that, because he too, I think, was one who obtained much of what I

would consider to be unearned income. During his days in the early

seventies perhaps he considered that as one thing, but now when someone

obtains what he considers to be unearned income, to him that person is

an exploiter. So it's all a matter of where you sit. When you talk

about earned income, one might question, for example, whether the NDP

party itself is involved in using what some might consider to be

unearned income when they have little booths in shopping centres, where

they have some of their elderly supporters selling lottery tickets, or

they give somebody a slice of it and then they use those moneys for

their own purposes. So unearned income, Mr. Speaker, can mean different

things, depending on the person and the circumstance.

I note

that little mention was made of the other provisions in the

legislation. The critic for municipal affairs made no mention of the

fact that we're providing an opportunity for agreement with native

Indian band councils, which has been requested by the UBCM. I notice

that no mention has been made with respect to the quashing of regional

district bylaws, about which he and others must have received

correspondence. Instead, as is so often the style of this particular

opposition, they go on a mud-slinging attack by attempting to single

out someone who is probably not here to present his side of the

issue........ To use mud is all they seem capable of. Unfortunately, we

don't get suggestions with respect to other aspects of the legislation.

This

is progressive legislation. We're pleased to have support from all

members on both sides of the House. I regret that some of the

statements made by opposition members in debate are not really worthy

of the sort of debate we would expect in this House.

I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill

49, Municipal Amendment Act (No. 2), 1982, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Second reading of Bill 52, Mr. Speaker.

WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT

HON. MR. ROGERS:

Perhaps during debate on the principle of this bill I could reflect

very briefly on the history of pollution control in this province and

the Pollution Control Act. The act was first introduced in 1956 by the

then Ministry of Municipal Affairs, at which time the pollution control

board was created. In 1967 the Pollution Control Act was transferred to

the Ministry of Lands and Forests, at which time the director of

pollution control was created to carry out technical and legal

administration of the act and the Pollution Control Board was empowered

to act in the public interest a well as to prescribe standards and to

hear appeals from order of the director. In 1967, with the creation of

the Ministry of Environment, the responsibility was transferred

to the Ministry of Environment. We now feel it is necessary to expand

our activities into waste management itself, rather than strict

regulatory control under the Pollution Control Act.

Interjections.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Perhaps these two could go to a committee somewhere, Mr. Speaker, and have their debate.

The

new Waste Management Act provides a new approach. It provides for

direct participation in the development of waste management plans for

municipalities and the control and storage of special wastes, powers to

require spill prevention work as provided with municipalities, and to

regulate the users of municipal sewage systems.

There are

several new features to this act which are bringing us up to date in

pollution control. The one which we neglected the longest is what we

have termed "special wastes" and which some of the editorial writers

have had some fun with, in describing this as a euphemism for either

toxic or hazardous waste. Indeed it is euphemistic to some extent, but

wastes neither toxic nor hazardous may still require special treatment.

This is a word that the British use in all their legislation and one

which we are incorporating in this legislation. Many of the things that

we use every day, in and around our homes and in business and industry,

are neither toxic nor hazardous in and of themselves in the

concentrations that the average person uses them in, but simple things

that could be used around a home can easily become a hazard or a toxic

substance if they are handled in such volumes and quantities as would

make them deleterious to the environment. I might point out that we've

never done this in the past. Things either went down the drain into the

liquid waste disposal, they went to the sanitary landfill and

subsequently found their way back into our watercourses, or they went

up a smokestack and found their way into the atmosphere. With some

wastes, none of those three routes is particularly satisfactory, so in

this legislation we have introduced a manifest system — first of all

for identifying the wastes which require special ways, which will be

done later by regulation — which tracks the wastes from the cradle to

the grave so that the producer, the shipper and also the final

destination and method of disposal are known. In this way we will

address this fourth waste, the waste that we haven't been able to

dispose of in normal ways as in the past.

Another thing in

this legislation — I know that my colleague opposite has called for

this before and will probably support at least this

section if he

doesn't support the whole bill — is the matter of source control. In

the past we have not had source control legislation, and under this

legislation we will be entitling ourselves to have source control. The

interesting part here is that while one particular chemical substance

is diluted into the regular sewage system of a municipality or city, to

take it out at the sewage treatment plant is an extremely expensive

proposition because of the dilution with regular domestic and

commercial wastes. Where that pollutant is the subject of most of the

effort in the sewage treatment plant it would seem much more

appropriate that we endeavour to take the substance out at source. With

this new legislation we will be able to do that. This is especially

applicable in the Capital Regional District and the Greater Vancouver

Regional District, as well as others. Probably Prince George would

apply as well. For those areas with high concentrations of industries

which tend to produce these byproducts, this

[ Page 8173 ]

will be a major step forward, one that I think will be welcomed by the officials in the GVRD and my constituency.

this legislation we are raising the fines very substantially, up to

$50,000 a day for pollution and up to $2,000 per offence for littering.

I think that that is partly because of inflation and partly because of

the fact that we have a much greater awareness of environmental

dangers. I must say that the courts, in recent convictions, seem to be

taking the higher side of fines rather than the lower side, as they did

in the past. This is quite encouraging for those of us who are trying

to work on the enforcement side of it.

There is a

decentralization in this bill, part of the ministry's decentralization

program, which will allow our regional managers to issue permits. That

is just one way of speeding up the procedure in those areas so that all

permits don't have to come to Victoria.

One of the main

features is the business of developing a waste management plan, which

is a new way of dealing with municipal problems. In the past we have

waited until the municipality came to Victoria with their problem. At

that point they would have identified the problem because they were

outside their permit or approaching the edges of their permit. They

would go to some consulting engineers, have a plan drawn up and bring

it down to Victoria. Only then were the experts in the ministry even

consulted or advised. We are changing that program quite drastically.

We are going to be involved right from the beginning in identifying the

problem, identifying alternative methods of disposal, including

financing and the various costs, and involved in full consultation with

the public, which at the present time doesn't happen until long after

the permit is issued. We think this is a much more progressive way of

dealing with municipalities. That won't be the situation with

industries, because we have no idea what industries' development plans

are. They will remain under the existing umbrella of the standard

appeal procedure and the business of going before the Pollution Control

Board.

We also include in this new act a provision for

issuing of variance orders by the minister. This is probably the most

controversial

section of this bill but one which I will defend quite

vigorously because we often find ourselves in situations where either

the public interest or delays from extensions from various permits

cannot be met by industry and we are faced with a Hobson's choice of

laying off people and shutting down the industry because of the

rigidity of our permits. While we will always strive to meet the

maximum amount of pollution reduction that we can in any one operation,

we think it is necessary that a variance order provision be allowed. It

is included in this bill. The reason for any variance order will be

made public by the minister and published in the Gazette .

the past we haven't had a spill reporting system nor have we made the

development of contingency plans in the event of spills mandatory. One

of the sections in this bill deals with that. We make it mandatory for

industrial users to develop spill reporting response teams, We can

actually require them to put their particular plan into practice. In

certain cases this will help coordinate our efforts when we do have the

unfortunate spills that occur from time to time within the province.

this bill we have also amalgamated the Litter Act and the Pollution

Control Act. The reason for this is that the Litter Act — originally

passed some 20 years ago, I believe — was fine when the container sizes

and the container materials did not change very much. The state of the

art was that soft drink bottlers and other people put their product out

in relatively consistent container sizes and fees and charges and other

regulations could be kept in place. The recent changes in the container

industry has meant that things have changed very quickly. Last year we

were almost caught out by the container industry moving into a

non-deposit soft drink bottle which would have caused some chaos in the

market. We still endeavour to encourage them to use refillable

containers as we think that is environmentally the right thing to do,

but we will insist that all containers will still carry a deposit.

Whether or not they are refillable is the choice of the consumer and

not just the choice of the manufacturer. We have decided to move these

particular regulations from the act to the regulations because of the

speed with which the container industry changes.

The final

thing I would like to mention before moving second reading of this bill

is that for the first time we will be allowed to charge for pollution

control permits. There are some 3,500 pollution control permits in the

province held by industries and municipalities and there is a cost to

the government of servicing and policing these particular permits. They

are not always done in the best interests of the community at large and

in many cases are just in the interest of the industry. It is our

proposal, once this act is passed, to begin a process of charging fees

for pollution control permits. which we hadn't been able to do under

the previous act in the past.

This act brings pollution

control and waste management in the province into the eighties. It is a

substantial improvement, in my opinion, over the act that we have at

the present time. I recommend it to the members and I move second

reading.

MR. SKELLY: I think the question is a little

less black and white than the way the minister puts it. For example,

maybe I should begin with the way the bill has been dealt with by the

minister. We are concerned that the bill as presented to this

Legislature on June 4 and within 10 days — on a very important bill —

we are being required to debate the bill and make it the law of the

land. It is significantly different than the approach the minister has

taken with the Wildlife Act, for example. The Wildlife Act was drafted

in White Paper form and the proposed bill was included with the White

Paper and circulated around the province to all groups who were

interested and to anyone who requested it. A large amount of public

debate and public input was generated around that paper. which is

valuable to legislators in this House in informing them how they should

be dealing with the bill.

On the other hand. this bill was

circulated secretly within the Ministry. We"re told that 18 or 19

drafts were circulating around in the ministry for the last few years,

and none of them saw the light of day unless by accident. There's been

very little input sought from the general public — those who will be

affected — and from citizens' groups who are concerned about the

quality of environment and the way that pollution and wastes are

managed in this province. It's a very different approach. I question

the difference in approach between this act and, for example, the

Wildlife Act.

In this act there are large amounts of money

involved, and that money is extracted in this way. For example. If a

regulation is passed by the government, the effects of that regulation

upstream, either in the industry or the municipality involved, could

cost tens and hundreds of millions of dollars. So there are millions of

dollars at stake in the regulation of wastes and pollution. It seems

that whenever millions of

[ Page 8174 ]

dollars

are at stake the government prefers to deal very quietly with the

legislation, to keep their own counsel and talk to the people in the

ministry and possibly to their friends in industry about it, but very

little circulation of legislation extends beyond that group of

regulators and people who benefit from less stringent regulation.

our analysis, this bill doesn't put us ahead into the requirements for

a waste management strategy of the eighties. It leaves us roughly where

we were back in 1956 and 1967. As far as I can determine, there's been

very little in the way of substantial change in this legislation, and I

think that's unfortunate.

I think that the opposition is

going to deal with this bill basically in committee, because there are

so many diverse aspects of the bill that it's going to be very

difficult to discuss it in principle in the Legislature at this point.

Also, as a result of the short time that we've had between the time the

bill was presented and the time that debate on the bill has taken place

in the Legislature on second reading, we've contacted a number of

organizations who were extremely concerned, who had received no prior

warning from the government and who would wish to make comment on the

bill and make suggestions as to how the bill should go and what

amendments should be proposed. They have not had sufficient opportunity

to analyze the bill itself, even though a number of copies have been

sent around the province by my office. I understand that at least one

organization that contacted the minister's office three times still

does not have a copy of the bill from the minister's office. It was

extremely difficult for that organization to get a copy of the bill,

although we did courier it over to that organization at, in this case,

personal expense.

As a result of the speed which the

minister is using to rush this bill through the Legislature, we'll

spend most of our time on second reading of the bill in order that the

opinions of those organizations will have an opportunity to be dealt

with during committee stage. We are concerned about a number of issues.

As the minister said, there are going to be aspects of this bill that

we will support, and I'll get to those later. He mentioned one of them

already.

We are concerned about the new process that has

been developed for the processing and issuing of permits. The old act

mentioned a process that objectors could follow to pollution control

permits and a procedure by which these permits were dealt with at the

same time that the objections of certain people were heard. So there

was a discretionary type of hearing process. The director had the power

to hear objections and to specify which objectors had standing in that

process. We were hoping that there would be some improvement in the

public involvement procedure along every step of the way and that when

a permit was asked for by somebody who wished to dispose of a waste

within the province of B.C., that notice would be filed in the Gazette ,

as is the present case, so that objectors would be notified or people

would be notified of their right to object and the possibility of a

hearing would remain open. As far as we can see in the current act,

that process has been eliminated and we have now seen the bill

reconstructed along the lines of the pesticide control permit process,

which has been unsatisfactory and has been criticized by almost every

group in the province that's concerned about the due process in

considering the pollution control permitting process.

what happens in the pollution control permit process? Everything takes

place in secret. The application is made, an interministerial committee

deals with the application, and a permit is granted. A very short

period of time remains for an appeal once the permit is granted and

posted. The minister has now made the problem even worse by imposing a

$25 fee on those who wish to appeal pesticide control permits. The

reason for the $25 fee is to deter appellants. Another step taken to

deter appellants is in restricting the subjects that can be dealt with

in a hearing before the Environmental Appeal Board. We see it as a

retrograde step to put the Pollution Control Act in the Waste

Management Act. Virtually no one in this province is satisfied with the

pesticide control permit process as it is currently structured;

thousands of complaints are received every year as a result of that

process. During committee stage we will be objecting to the new process

that has been developed in the Waste Management Act, and will suggest a

new process, or attempt to amend the process in a way that we hope the

minister will accept, a way that will allow the full involvement of the

public.

I can recall when the Pesticide Control Act was

first presented to this House in 1977 by the current Minister of

Health. He had such difficulty explaining that act to the Legislature

that he pulled it during second reading. He took a number of people

from the opposition, at that time myself and Scott Wallace, who

represented Oak Bay, up to his office, where we endeavoured to change

the act a little so that it made more sense. But every attempt we made

to incorporate more public involvement and to get more information out

to the public in that pesticide permitting and appeal process was

blocked; we were stonewalled every step of the way by the Ministry of

the Environment.

It appears that the same people in the

ministry who counselled the current Minister of Health have provided

similar counsel to the current Minister of the Environment. That's

unfortunate, because the little avenue for public involvement that was

available to us in the old Pollution Control Act is now virtually

eliminated, and the new procedure definitely is not acceptable. We hope

the minister will re-examine that between second reading and the

committee stage, and possibly take a look at providing amendments to

that process.

We do welcome a number of things in the new

act. One is that for the first time it does discuss the subject of

special wastes, although we are concerned that it isn't treated as

broadly as it should be, and as we expected it to be. It appears there

are provisions in the act for the transportation, storage and handling

of special wastes, but the act is silent on the disposal of these

wastes, on how that is going to be handled. The minister could have

explained this during opening of second reading debate, and hopefully

he will do so when he winds it up.

We would like to know

exactly what the plans are for the disposal of special wastes in the

province of British Columbia. In this area we are particularly

concerned. I know it is a difficulty for whatever government is in

power, whether the government changes and the minister changes. Whoever

is the government of the day will have difficulty dealing with the

question of disposal of special wastes. If, for example, the minister

and I changed positions at some time in the future....

HON. MR. ROGERS: God forbid it ever happens.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: It'll never happen.

[ Page 8175 ]

MR. SKELLY: We all gamble this way and that.

by chance that happens, it would be as difficult for me to deal with

the issue as it is for the current minister. Nobody wants a solid-waste

disposal site in their back yard. Nobody wants special wastes treated

in their back yard. It's going to be an extremely difficult

consideration regardless of which government is in power, All I can do

as an opposition member at this point is to sympathize with the

minister, but I don't intend to go too far in doing that. We did

expect, however, that something in this legislation would give us an

idea of where the minister was going in the way of treating and

disposing special wastes. Unfortunately, none of that is here.

Another

thing we are concerned about is that when the requirements take effect,

when you announce that you're going to have a manifest system, when you

announce that you're going to be tracking special wastes from the

cradle to the grave, so to speak, there is a grey area. There are a lot

of those special wastes sitting out in the environment right now,

sitting on the lots and in the warehouses of industries that are

currently producing them in British Columbia. It would seem to me that

the minister should, under some emergency statute, have immediately

frozen those wastes and required an inventory of them even before this

legislation comes into effect. That way you prevent the problems that

have occurred in some of the states in the United States and in some of

the other provinces in Canada where, in order to avoid the manifest

system and the regulation of wastes that have been building up over the

years, you dispose of those on farmers' fields, you dispose of them

beside the roadways, you dump them in the rivers and in the municipal

solid-waste sites. It becomes a very difficult problem then to know

what kind of chemicals have been dumped around the province.

know the minister addressed that at a meeting at Richmond recently and

at least is concerned about the problems. So what we think should have

happened is that some special ministerial or cabinet order should have

come down freezing those wastes, requiring an inventory, and then the

minister would have been able to use the manifest system under this act

to track those special wastes in such a way that the interests of the

people of the province were protected by their transportation,

handling, storage and disposal.

We're also concerned about

the proposals that the minister has sent out all over North America

seeking technologies to dispose of special wastes in British Columbia.

I read a number of papers like the Los Angeles Times ,

where he's had ads seeking information. I understand the minister will

be announcing what proposals have been made sometime around July 1.

It's unfortunate that this act is coming down in the Legislature

without members having the opportunity to refer to that procedure as

well. We should really be looking at all aspects of the question. I can

recall when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon.

Mr. McClelland) was dealing with the question of uranium mining in the

province of British Columbia. At that time he gave members the courtesy

of reading in the Legislature the regulations that would be promulgated

by cabinet — at some time after the act came into effect, but at least

we had been given the courtesy of knowing what the plans were for the

future for those regulations dealing with uranium mining in British

Columbia.

So it's unfortunate that we don't have the benefit

here. along with the bill and the plans for the special-waste disposal,

of the regulations that are going to come down with this legislation. I

think that's unfortunate, because in this legislation — and I've never

seen it to this extent before, Mr. Speaker; there are something like

two pages which grant the minister or cabinet or whomever the right to

make regulations pursuant to this act most of the legislation that is

going to be governing pollution control; waste management: special

waste transportation, handling. storage and disposal; and management of

littering in the province.... All of those things are going to be

handled behind the closed doors of cabinet and we aren't aware of the

bulk of the legislation with respect to waste management in the

province of British Columbia. That's unfortunate. because every time

that happens, this Legislature — the representatives of the people of

this province — is deprived more and more of the rights of

representative democracy that have been granted to us down through the

ages in this British democratic parliamentary system.

It's

unfortunate that more and more of the powers that previously existed in

legislation are now being ripped out of the legislation and, in an

authoritarian way, turned over to the minister or to cabinet to

exercise behind the closed door of the cabinet room and away from the

view of the general public. That's an unfortunate loss. not simply from

the point of view of the administration of wastes and the protection of

the environment in the province of B.C.; it's important and significant

because of the fact that a part of our democratic heritage is being

taken away from us. In every single bill that comes through this House,

that aspect is characteristic of that bill: we're losing more and more

of the public's right to deal with issues that affect them on a

day-to-day basis.

But in any case, the fact that the bill

deals with special wastes is something that we 're pleased with, and

we'd like to propose again some amendments to those sections once we

have an opportunity to deal with the bill in committee stage.

are also pleased with the

section that sets up the areas where you can

control what goes into a sewage system. One of the problems that

municipalities experience now is that they only find out about what

goes in at the top end of the system when it reaches the treatment end

of the system. Then it could not only destroy the treatment system that

they have, because they are not expecting that type of material to be

dumped. but it could also cause serious problems in receiving waters or

lands, as the case may be, because they may not have treatment

facilities to handle that type of waste. Again, we welcome this type of

legislation included in the Waste Management Act. There are also the

problems the minister mentioned of spill-prevention and the required

reporting of spills.

In general, I would have to say —

because of the fact that it deprives the public of the involvement they

had before under pollution-control legislation and because of the fact

that it gives the minister and cabinet so much legislative power behind

the closed doors of cabinet — that the New Democratic Party will be

voting against this bill in principle. In committee we will be

proposing certain amendments which we hope will improve the bill and

bring it up to a standard that we would like to see in waste-management

legislation in this province. It is possible that in third reading we

could support the legislation. In any case. we will be making

constructive proposals during committee stage to improve the

legislation. With those words, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you

for the opportunity to debate this bill and look forward to the

minister's response to my suggestions.

[ Page 8176 ]

HON. MR. ROGERS:

In comparing the Wildlife Act and the waste act — because we went to

the Wildlife Act with a white paper and haven't on this one — just

consider, if you will, what kind of coverage this bill got when we

introduced it last week. There are certain people who are terribly

interested in waste management and.... We all pollute every day. If you

haven't polluted by about 11 o'clock, you should have a coffee and a

prune Danish. If you haven't done it after that, go and see your

doctor. But you still can't get people interested in waste management.

MR. SKELLY: You're practising medicine without a licence.

HON. MR. ROGERS: That is right.

every little hamlet, in every village, in every place there is a rod

and gun club of people who really wanted to have some involvement. I

see quite a big difference there. We are dealing with professional

waste managers and interest groups that are involved. I didn't tell any

interest groups ahead of time, nor did I talk to industry ahead of time

and give them a copy of the bill. I don't think that is appropriate. We

discussed the principle of the bill with different groups, but the

message from His Honour comes as a message from His Honour.

You

dwelt quite a lot on the objectors and public involvement. When it

comes to a private industry waste-management permit, the same procedure

applies now. The industry decides what they want to do and they apply

for a permit. If the director issues them a permit, the permit is

subject to appeal and the appeal is brought before the environmental

management board. That is the situation that applies now.

MR. SKELLY: That is not what the act says.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

That is what it is intended to say. There is no change at all. There is

no intention to have any change for the private sector. There is an

intention to change it for municipalities, but that is where the public

has an input at the first instance, not at the last instance. We have

no idea what industry is planning, but we do know about municipalities,

so we can put some collective wisdom into it. We don't want five

communities around the province all designing different systems, all

very expensive, when the collective wisdom of all the people dealing

with this problem may have a cheaper and more effective way of doing

it. In that case, the minister insists on public involvement ahead of

time. If the act says that the public has no involvement or there is no

appeal of the private pollution permits, then I give you my assurance

that that will be changed.

You mentioned pesticides. I guess

we'd better save those for my estimates, because there is nothing in

here that deals with pesticides.

MR. SKELLY: I was comparing the procedures.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I understand that.

want to congratulate and thank you for being honest about disposal of

special waste, because there are not too many politicians who are

really going to get down there. You do enough study of this subject to

really know the business. Everybody wants somebody to deal with it, but

you are right: it is the "not in my backyard" syndrome that exists

everywhere.

When we proposed bringing this legislation

forward and identifying special wastes, at the same time we said: "What

are we going to do about them?" We currently export our special wastes.

We export some to Alberta and some to Arlington, Oregon. We probably

wouldn't accept importation of other people's wastes, nor should we

really expect, on a long-term basis, to be able to export ours. It is

only by virtue of the fact that the people in Oregon know we are

working on the problem that we are still allowed to use that avenue. I

think it is incumbent on British Columbia to deal with its own problems

in the province. In fact, the very best thing to do is to look after

them in the plant or, if one person's waste is someone else's

feedstock, we have a waste exchange program starting within the

ministry now. That's secondly. The third thing, of course, is to

neutralize it and try to ensure that it becomes a non-special waste.

The fourth thing is to find some method of entombing it until we either

know how to dispose of it or have a use for it. If somebody has any

other realistic suggestions or if there are jurisdictions that do it

any better.... You may want to get into my travel in my estimates, but

I can tell you that I've been through three of these special waste

disposal facilities — one in London, one in California and one in

Oregon — and they all use a different technique. There is a little bit

that's successful to be gathered from all of them. You're right that

nobody wants one. Everybody wants the problem solved, but no one wants

it in their area.

When we called for proposals from the

private sector, I felt we had to bring legislation along at the same

time. There's no point in saying to someone: "We want you to build a

special waste treatment facility in the province but, by the way, it's

not mandatory to get there." So we have called for proposals, and we've

had 41 people reply. About 22 of them appear to be serious, and we hope

to have it short listed in July. If there are some that are aren't

going to meet our standards and they're still spending money, we think

we should cut them off at that point.

We've had a number of

proposals from a number of different companies on ways of doing it. I

believe that it should be run by the private sector, because I think

industry should pay for the facilities if they use it, and we should be

in the regulatory business. If we were running it as a Crown

corporation and passing the regulations, the temptation to crank the

regulations up to make sure you get enough volume through the plant is

one that just doesn't wash well with me. I think the thing can be run

by the private sector and policed by the ministry. So that's the reason

that the waste disposal facility proposal and the legislation have come

along at the same time. If you are interested in seeing them, I'd be

more than pleased to have you come down and look at them.

you have some amendments — if you don't want to be political about

them, but if you think you have some improvements — I'd be more than

pleased if you would come and talk to me about them. If there's a

better way to improve the act, I don't have a problem with it.

MR. SKELLY: After what happened last year, I'll do that.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, the ones last year were a little frivolous.

You

mentioned orders-in-council. It's ironic that one order-in-council that

we passed was adding a chemical to the list of chemicals that needed

treatment, and the other one

[ Page 8177 ]

involved

the soft drink bottlers trying to introduce a bottle that wasn't going

to have a deposit on it, and that just creates a litter nightmare. The

reason you have to do that by order-in-Council is that eventually this

House is going to adjourn, and if we have a product on the market for

six months and cabinet can't move an OIC, we are never going to get

back to it.

I recall about six or seven years ago that a

Minister of Environment in Saskatchewan made a statement that liquor

and wine bottles were going to have a deposit on them. He even

announced what the deposit was going to be. Then they had a cabinet

shuffle, he was defeated in the subsequent election and then the whole

government was defeated. Well, I talked to Ted Bowerman, who was the

Minister of Environment just before the last election and, you know,

there are people who are still holding wine and liquor bottles in

Saskatchewan waiting for that order-in-council to be brought forward.

MR. SKELLY: That solves the disposal problem.

HON. MR. ROGERS: That's right. But you shouldn't announce these things until you know what you are going to do with it.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 52, the Waste Management Act.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Mussallem

Brummet

NAYS — 22

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Hall

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

Bill 52, Waste Management Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee

of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

On vote 42: minister's office, S170, 140.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Chairman, at the start of the debate of the estimates for my

ministry this year, I will make a few remarks. The past year has been a

rather busy one within the Ministry. As the members well know, we have

all but completed our ministry reorganization. After some vacancies are

filled I believe our ministry will be set up to manage in a

decentralized way for many years to come.

The greatest

concern that we in British Columbia have these days is the recession in

the forestry industrial sector. together with a serious recession in

our mining industry. There certainly has been a levelling and a

continuing decrease, in some cases, of the prices received for products

and of the volumes that can be sold in our normal marketplaces. I think

we're all aware that the basic reason for this is the terribly high

interest rates currently in place in the United States, in Canada and

in some of our other market areas. Because of this during the year we

in the ministry and other ministries of the provincial government have

been making a tremendous effort to expand the market areas into which

we sell, as we have done over the last five or six years. I think it is

standing us in good stead today to consider that only six or seven

years ago over 60 percent of our manufactured products in British

Columbia were marketed in the United States. Today that figure is down

to just over 50 percent. Had it not been for that effort — and for his

effort I thank the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development

(Hon. Mr. Phillips) — we would be in much worse shape today than we are.

The

long-term prospects for the forest industry in British Columbia are

relatively good. We have a good supply of fibre in this province, and

through the management efforts that we have been undertaking over the

last number of years, I think we can look forward to a continuing

adequate supply of raw material for our industry. I'm sure that as soon

as the current recession begins to recover, our industry will be in a

position to take advantage of it. The state of the industry at this

time is such that equity is being lost at a very remarkable rate by

most sectors of our industry. Our large and small companies and

individual proprietors are losing equity at a rapid rate. Their

position with financial institutions is becoming more serious each day.

Once this recession has ended, we in the provincial government will

have to continue the sympathetic type of administration that we have

been carrying out for the better part of a year in order to give that

industry a chance to get its balance sheets back in order and begin to

again invest capital in the industrial plant of that industry so it

will be ready to carry on into the balance of the eighties.

This

year we have completed our analysis of the various timber supply areas

in the province. We have established annual allowable cuts for the

various TSAs. One of the most difficult tasks ever undertaken during my

term as Minister of Forests has been the allocation plan for that

resource. We had to recognize the licensees in existence and the terms

spelled out in the Forest Act for renewing licences or rolling them

into the new forest licence. At the same time, we have saved a very

substantial volume of wood from long-term commitment in the form of the

small business enterprise program. That program continues to build. As

we phase in the full allowable cut that we are able to put into that

small business program, in the short term, over a five-year period.

you'll see remarkable expansion by those independent operators with

[ Page 8178 ]

access to Crown timber in providing supplies to existing industry.

Our

public involvement process in the ministry is carrying on and

expanding. In most areas of the province I think there is recognition

of our efforts in trying to involve the public and having their input

prior to decisions by the ministry. The program is working well, and we

have received congratulations from many sectors on the nature of our

public involvement process. We plan to continue this process, even

though Dr. Fraser — who was with us for a number of years — has gone to

another job; but we will replace him, and that effort will continue.

During

the past year, ending March 31, we planted about 90 million seedlings

in British Columbia, which is an all time record. As part of our plan

to expand planting and reforestation in British Columbia, this year,

barring climatic problems, our nurseries will produce some 97 million

seedlings. If we can get them all into the ground this year, it will be

another record. We will continue to expand artificial reforestation in

British Columbia at the same time as we continue our efforts to

encourage natural regeneration.

One problem that was spelled

out in our resource analysis a few years ago was the problem of the

shrinking forest base in British Columbia. As we know, there are many

demands, many of them quite legitimate, placed on land by the people of

British Columbia. However, usually when lands are alienated for other

single uses we lose some forest land. For that reason, we have

continued in the establishment of provincial forests. Currently before

me are a number of provincial forests which require passage of

orders-in-council to establish them as such. I think that by the end of

this year we will have quite a large number of additional provincial

forests established. Provincial forests identify those lands on which

we can practise forestry in the long term.

As I said, our

forest industry in British Columbia is having a very difficult time

now. I think it will survive. With sympathetic administration both by

the provincial government and also by the banking institution, the

basic structure of our industry as it exists today will remain much the

same after the recession. Providing we allow for the rebuilding of the

financial resources of those companies, I'm sure we will again have the

reinvestment and modernization that was carried out over the last five

or six years.

Mr. Chairman, I'm sure members of the

opposition have many things they'd like to discuss regarding my

estimates. I'd be very happy to try to answer their questions. If I

can't answer them at the time, I will certainly make every effort to

get whatever information they need and bring it to the House.

MR. KING:

I'm appalled that the minister has so little to say regarding the

forest industry at the moment in the province of B.C. We have the most

severe economic downturn in the forest industry that we have ever

witnessed in this province. I must say I'm disappointed that the

minister did not have anything to say regarding any plans for more

positive assistance to the forest industry. There were no specifics

whatsoever. I think everyone appreciates that our primary problem is a

very soft housing market in the U.S. There's no question. Everyone

understands that we rely on the export of our lumber to the United

States. But it's not quite good enough for the minister, when

introducing his estimates, to note that the economy is indeed soft and

the industry is suffering, without his accepting some responsibility

for alternative programs that might assist the industry and its workers

to survive over the next period of time. This recession has been upon

us now for one year, really. It's been deepening with resultant higher

unemployment.

Fortunately there have not been many major

failures in the forest industry yet, but the minister himself is

calling plaintively on the banks to carry the industry and show

restraint with respect to any foreclosures on those who cannot meet

their payments. I know the minister's heart is in the right place, but

I wonder if those kinds of public utterances don't do more to create

panic throughout the industry than to persuade the banks and community

that there's a need for some pulling together and suffering together

under these circumstances. It sounds very ominous when the Minister of

Forests publicly calls upon the banks to continue to carry the debts of

some major forest industries in the province, intimating and implying

that if they proceeded by the letter of the law, indeed there would be

foreclosures at hand. I think that kind of approach, rather than a

private approach to the banking system of the province, does more to

generate panic and psychological depression in the forest industry than

any good it might do.

Where are the policies to generate

some employment and to try to get some business going in the short term

that might assist companies and their workers to survive over the next

six months to a year? We're facing a very long, hard winter, when

literally thousands of workers in the forest industry will have been

out of work for over a year. They will have exhausted their

unemployment insurance benefits and lack adequate employment to

replenish their stamps and qualify them once again for unemployment

insurance benefits. This government and minister are relegating them to

a winter of social assistance as a method of survival.

think it's pathetic that the minister introduces his estimates this

year by simply noting that we have a depressed state of the economy and

are going to plant some trees, but offers no emergency program, not one

alternative to generate some employment and offer some hope to the

industry, and not one innovation or new idea. What we have seen is a

major reduction this year in the financial allocation under the five

year forest and range resource plan that would have generated some jobs

in silvicultural treatment. For the minister to then introduce his

program in this fashion, without any contingency program whatsoever to

try to assist those people who are suffering so desperately in the

forest industry, is a bit of a shock.

I want to remind the

minister what his colleague said back in 1975 when we had a slump in

the forest industry as well. We on this side of the House were in

government at that time. The recession was not nearly as deep as it is

now. The number of unemployed was about half what it is now. Certainly

the outlook for the industry was not nearly as bleak as it is at the

moment. The member for Cariboo, now the Minister of Transportation and

Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), had this to say. It's recorded in Hansard on April 22, 1975, on page 1579.

There

are 12,000 IWA members out of work at the present time; there will

probably be more due to the pulp market happenings. There are millions

of acres of public land which are not reforested because they are taken

over by non-productive weeds. There are miles of fishery streams that

can be cleared of obstruction. What specific programs will the minister

initiate to put these out-of-work citizens back to work for the benefit

of the public land'? Surely a program like this would be responsible

stewardship.

[ Page 8179 ]

draw to the minister's attention that in that year, aside from

increasing the allocation for silvicultural treatment, $30 million was

allocated to the student summer employment program, much of which found

its way into programs in the forest industry. But the member for

Cariboo, at that time, was so concerned and was asking for a special

program when we had 12,000 people unemployed in the forest industry. I

don't know what the figure is today, It's certainly around twice that

many unemployed. Here we have the minister introduce his estimates with

a very mild little introduction. I'm not sure he was going to get up

and speak at all, Mr. Chairman. had the opposition not moved to rise on

the occasion of his vote being called. I'd like to hear from the

minister what, if any, contingency plan he has.

I'm aware

that the federal government has put up some money for the so-called

bridging program, but as I have suggested previously to the minister in

the House, that's a case of too little too late. I don't think there

are any firm regulations and rules in place by which applicants can

know what the ground rules are and qualify for any program. I believe

that not one single program under the bridging policy has been approved

yet. If I'm wrong, I wish the minister would provide me with the

information. I stand subject to correction, but it is my information

that not one program has yet been approved, and accordingly, not one

job has been created in the forest industry flowing from the bridging

program.

But even if it does get on track late in the season

with a minimal opportunity to offer any major benefit to the workforce

or the forests, it is so restrictive in its terms that the very people

who need assistance most desperately are completely excluded from the

program. The bridging program provides for a subsidy to those people

who are drawing unemployment insurance benefits. Obviously, many people

have exhausted their benefits, so the people who fail to qualify for

unemployment benefits at this time are denied access to any job under

the bridging program in the forest industry. That's totally ludicrous.

Presumably, under that program, if someone who is on unemployment

insurance benefits qualifies and obtains a job and his unemployment

stamps run out after two weeks on the job, then there's no base rate to

subsidize any more and he's laid off. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that that

hare-brained. half-baked approach to offering assistance to the forest

industry is just not adequate in any way. So I appeal to the minister.

If he disagrees and thinks it's a good, viable program, to explain to

me where my understanding is wrong and explain to the Legislature where

there is one program under the auspices of the bridging arrangements

that has been approved and the number of jobs created by it. I would

appreciate that from the minister. I ask him, in all sincerity, to let

the House know what he has in mind in terms of some assistance to the

industry over the next period of time, both to the workforce and to

those people in the industry who are having a very difficult time in

meeting their payments on equipment.

I was in Revelstoke on

the weekend, and I talked to one logging contractor who has $2 million

invested in equipment, skidders and logging trucks. He has worked five

weeks this year. You don't have to be a genius, Mr. Chairman, to

understand that you cannot keep $2 million worth of equipment tied up.

It has to be working if you're going to meet your payments and if you

are going to be able to afford to retain your business and retain that

equipment. He observed to me that it's futile to try to sell it;

there's no market for the equipment at this time. It would be fire-sale

prices if he did try to put his equipment up for auction. Surely the

minister and the government have some contingency plan in mind to help

the small operators that will be forced out of the industry if we don't

act and do something. Sure the main problem is the U.S. market, but we

can't look to the U.S. to solve our problems for us, Maybe we can't

solve them all, but at least we can be imaginative enough to try.

Has

the minister got anything in mind whatsoever to offer hope to the

industry over the rest of this summer and going into the winter? I'd

appreciate hearing from him.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr.

Chairman, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke pointed out, as I did, some

of the problems in the forest industry, and indeed it is serious.

However, since last summer when the bottom really fell out of our

market and prices plummeted, we have been using as sympathetic an

administrative process within the ministry as we possibly can in order

to attempt to relieve the industry of many costs that can perhaps be

deferred. Of course. the more you reduce the cost of operation, the

better the opportunity companies in the industry have of carrying on

and selling into the depressed markets, We've made a lot of moves in an

administrative way to help the industry. By helping the industry, of

course, we certainly help those people who work in the industry. Many,

many thousands of jobs are continuing today that otherwise, had we not

taken many of the actions that we have, would not.

Some of

the actions we've taken have been specific to certain areas of the

province and have helped people who otherwise would not have been able

to carry on their manufacturing and harvesting. Some of them are of a

more general nature. For example, the Fort Nelson area of British

Columbia has a number of disadvantages in addition to that of low

markets. They have a very short logging season. they have difficult

transportation routes to contend with and other disadvantages. We have

made a number of moves to help them. We've allowed them to spread their

stumpage payments out over a year rather than pay for it as harvested,

as was the case in the past. We've established a special appraisal area

for that part of the province, one that recognizes the actual costs

they have to deal with, rather than the average of a larger appraisal

zone. We have allowed special transportation risk factors in our

appraisal and increased their normal risk factor.

In more

general terms provincially, we have attempted to allow people to move

their harvesting areas closer to the point of manufacturing so as to

cut down on transportation costs. We have allowed them to move into

higher quality stands of timber that had been passed over in the past,

as we move our harvesting around. Of course, they can harvest the

higher quality timber,. and the closer they are to town, the lower will

be the cost of harvesting and the higher the value of the log. This, of

course. will be an advantage to the industry and will allow them to

carry on and maintain their employment base, more so than would

otherwise be possible.

Over the last few years, we in the

ministry have had a tremendous expansion in the silvicultural

activities that we carry out. That expansion in itself has assured us

that hundreds and thousands more people are working today in forest

management than would have been the case if we had not initiated these

programs. I am meeting with banking institutions and with people in the

industry, and we are discussing ways to offer them encouragement and to

satisfy the banking institutions that indeed they will be viable once

the depressed

[ Page 8180 ]

lumber

markets have picked up a bit. This will allow them to carry on and will

cause the banks to have more confidence in staying with them.

won't underestimate the seriousness of the present situation, but

wringing our hands is not going to help the problem. We are taking

action in many areas. The employment bridging assistance program —

EBAP, as we call it....

Interjection.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

No, we do not have people actually working on projects yet, but a

number of projects have been approved by our staff and the regional

staff of CEIC, who are our partners in this program. The master

agreement was signed by the Minister of Labour of British Columbia

(Hon. Mr. Heinrich) and myself several weeks ago; the master agreement

is still not signed in Ottawa. The programs cannot actually get

underway until the agreement is signed. For the information of the

member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), I understand that the

appropriate authorization in the form of orders-in-council was passed

last week in Ottawa; the agreement only awaits the signature of the

responsible ministers there. However, those ministers apparently have

been on a conference somewhere and have not yet signed it. We have

programs approved and we're in the process of selecting people to work

on them through CEIC at the local level. All that is required is the

signature of the regional director of CEIC for British Columbia and the

Yukon, and our first programs will get underway.

Although it

appears to have been slow starting, I must congratulate all those who

have been involved — the people from the federal government and CEIC,

the Canadian Forest Service, our ministry people, the industry and the

prospective participants — for their tremendous cooperation in setting

up this program. And it's no small task; there are many administrative

problems to overcome. A tremendous amount of work has been done, with a

great deal of cooperation shown on all sides. I anticipate that as soon

as the master agreement is signed in Ottawa, we will have projects

actually underway within a few days.

Under

section 38 of the

Unemployment Insurance Act, the program is unfortunately restricted to

those people who are currently drawing benefits. If they have exhausted

their benefits, means will have to be found to re-qualify them, and

such means are available. We have been discussing again with CEIC some

of the re-qualification projects that they can get underway in various

parts of the province. A person requires anywhere from 10 to 15 weeks

of work on these requalification programs in order to go back on the

employment bridging assistance program. Once on that program, they're

eligible for a maximum of 58 weeks of benefit. In any case, anyone who

is on unemployment insurance can extend their benefits up to 58 weeks

regardless of the level to which they were previously eligible. The

maximum benefit, as the member knows, is 52 weeks. Even if a worker

were only eligible for 30 weeks, under this program his benefit will be

extended to 58 weeks. I hope that by that time — once the program has

been exhausted — we will have a recovery in our industry. If not, we

will have to search for other means of helping unemployed forestry

workers.

I will point out that this prog