1986 Legislative Session: 4th

Session, 33rd 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)

TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 1986

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 8649 ]

CONTENTS

Ministerial Statement

Quesnel sexual assault case. Hon. Mr.

Smith –– 8649

Municipal Amendment Act, 1986 (Bill 38).

Hon. Mr. Ritchie

Introduction and first reading –– 8650

Cemetery (Solicitation Control) Act (Bill

M212). Mr. MacWilliam

Introduction and first reading –– 8651

Oral Questions

Conflict of interest. Mr. Macdonald –– 8651

BCDC appointment and Socred fund-raising.

Mr. Williams –– 8651

Omineca Enterprises Ltd. Mr. Lea –– 8652

Purchasing Commission appointment. Mr.

Stupich –– 8652

South access to Expo. Mr. Barnes –– 8652

Sale of Westar assets. Mr. Howard –– 8653

Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act,

1986 (Bill 3). Committee stage –– 8653

Third reading

Forest Stand Management Fund Act (Bill 6).

Committee stage –– 8653

Mr. Howard

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Rose

Third reading

Consumer And Corporate Affairs Statutes

Amendment Act, 1986 (Bill 35). Committee stage 11 –– 8662

Third reading

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No.

1), 1986 (Bill 28). Committee stage –– 8662

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Rose

Third reading

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No.

2), 1986 (Bill 36). Committee stage –– 8663

Mr. Rose

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Cocke

Committee of Supply: Ministry of

Agriculture and Food estimates. (Hon. Mr. Waterland)

On vote 5: minister's office –– 8665

Hon. Mr. Waterland

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Stupich

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No.

2), 1986 (Bill 36). Committee stage 8671

Mr. Cocke

Third reading

Appendix –– 8672

TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 1986

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in the

members' gallery today

are two dear old friends from Toronto, Ontario, Mr. and Mrs. Brian

Ferry. Marg and Brian are out here to visit Expo and to spend some time

in the beautiful city of Victoria. I'd like the House to welcome them.

MRS. JOHNSTON: In the gallery this

afternoon are two

visitors, Jeff Barnes of Lawton, Oklahoma, and Brett Niven of Victoria

B.C., who is the son of one of our caucus secretaries. Jeff Barnes, who

is visiting from Oklahoma, is attending Southern Methodist University;

Brett Niven will be attending Cornell University in New York in

September. I would ask the House to please give them a warm welcome.

MR. REYNOLDS: In the galleries today, in

different locations,

are a number of senior citizens from West Vancouver, and I wish the

House would make them welcome.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery

today we have some

very special guests. First, Mr. Raj Kumar Khanna and his wife, Mrs.

Sheshi Khanna; Dr. and Mrs. Baldev Khanna; Mr. Lat Singh Khokha and

Mrs. Rami Khokha, who have come from India to visit Expo. I would ask

the House to make them welcome.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I'd like you and

all those in the

House to welcome a group of 40 students from grade 8 to grade 10 from

the Shoreline Community School. They are not in the House right now;

they're in the precincts and will be in later on.

MR. MOWAT: I'd like to introduce to the

House this afternoon

Helen Patterson Marr from Newmarket, Ontario. She, like many other

visitors to B.C., is taking in Victoria after having enjoyed Expo. She

has a master's degree in education from Columbia University. She taught

for many years on the faculty of Memorial University of Newfoundland

and has spent many years in the education field in the province of

Ontario. She has also taught for many years in Kenya. I'd ask the House

to please make her welcome.

QUESNEL SEXUAL ASSAULT CASE

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

make a ministerial

statement. In the Legislature last week the second member for Vancouver

Centre (Mr. Lauk) asked me some questions and also made some

allegations concerning a case that occurred in Quesnel. I have

communicated with him that I'm going to make my statement today, and

it's agreed that he'll make his reply, if any, when he returns.

Very serious allegations were made in this chamber about the

conduct of a provincial court judge, Judge Cullinane. It was suggested

in this chamber that Judge Cullinane had in some way shown partiality

toward people who appeared before him arising out of an unfortunate

case of assault of a young native woman in Quesnel. The assault took

place in September of 1985, and it involved four accused. The four were

all dealt with differently by reason of the elections under the

Criminal Code. The first accused, Joyal, pleaded guilty in Quesnel

before Judge Cullinane on January 13, 1986, to common assault and

received a conditional discharge, two years' probation and 200 hours'

community service. The next accused, Larson, also pleaded guilty to

common assault before another provincial court judge, Munro, in Prince

George on January 29, and he received a conditional discharge and two

years' probation with 200 hours' community service. The last two

accused, Reimer and Lorntsen, were originally indicted for sexual

assault before a judge and jury in Quesnel, and on April 16, 1986, they

pleaded to a lesser and included offence of common assault and were

sentenced to one year in prison.

In relation to the comments I made on those cases, I indicated

the House and I repeat that in each of those cases there were different

strengths of evidence against those accused, Each of those accused came

from different circumstances in relation to previous record, and all

those matters were taken into account by the courts when sentencing.

The allegation against Judge Cullinane, though, is a more

serious

one. The allegation is that he dealt with an accused when he was a

friend of one of the children of the accused and that he gave the

accused a ride to the court on one occasion, and that he may have

discussed the case with the accused's father. I have looked into this

matter, and let me advise the House that what occurred was this: on

January 10, before the accused Joyal appeared before Judge Cullinane in

Quesnel, he was told, was cautioned, by the district court judge, Judge

Barnett, that he ought not to appear on the case of Reimer — that is,

not the case of Joyal but the case of Reimer — and it was said that

Reimer was somebody personally known to Judge Cullinane and therefore

that he ought not to sit on a preliminary hearing on January 29, the

case involving Reimer.

Judge Cullinane never sat on the case involving Reimer. It is

correct that one of Judge Cullinane's children knew Reimer, but there

was no discussion between Reimer and Judge Cullinane, according to the

investigations that have been conducted by the Chief Judge.

In a community the size of Quesnel it very frequently happens

that

those who come before the court are in some way known to a presiding

judge who lives in the district. But the allegation that there was a

friendship between the two young men has no relevant substance, because

Judge Cullinane never dealt with Reimer; he dealt with Joyal, whom he

didn't know personally and had never talked to about the case. The

friendship between the judge's son and Reimer was one going back many

years ago at school, and there had been no association for ten years.

There is no evidence to support that the accused Reimer had an

automobile ride with the judge, and the judge did not talk to Reimer's

father about any charges arising out of this incident.

Judge Cullinane then on January 13 dealt with the accused

Joyal and

gave his sentence. His reasons are perfectly supportable on the

evidence that was put before him, and the sentence is a reasonable

sentence. Unfortunately, in this case the Crown was limited as to the

charges it could prove. There were difficulties on the part of the

victim in identifying people and remembering whom she had been with.

There was considerable difficulty in identification, and the Crown's

case was in serious jeopardy in the jury trial after three days. So the

Crown counsel in each case did their best to try to secure some

conviction against each of these four accused, which they did.

The judge, I should say, really by these allegations has been

very unfairly pilloried, because the suggestion is that

[ Page 8650 ]

the judge, because of a public outcry,

sought a

disability leave and left the bench. I want to set the record straight.

This judge has been sitting on our court since 1972. He has been in

poor health for some time; he suffers from emphysema and other

ailments. He first endeavoured to obtain a long-term disability in

November 1982. His ill health was very acute through 1985, but he

continued to struggle and serve loyally on the bench with very bad

health. It wasn't until March 1986 that a long-term disability plan for

judges in that bracket was approved by the government, and Judge

Cullinane then was able for the first time to have his long-term

disability accepted and to leave the bench. His last sitting day was

March 21, 1986. He returned to hospital as a patient on that day. He

elected to take his long-term disability on May 7, by letter, and the

order-in-council was passed I think on May 29, granting him that

disability. His state of health is that he will probably remain on

long-term disability until his normal retirement age arrives, at which

time he will go on pension. He will likely not sit again.

[2:15]

I want to make it very clear, Mr. Speaker, that Judge

Cullinane did

not take his long-term disability leave because of the Reimer-Joyal

cases — not at all — and I regret any inference that may have been

drawn to that effect. I want to say most forcefully that in his

judicial capacity Judge Cullinane has rendered valuable service to this

province. Unquestionably in recent times his ill health has taken its

toll, and we must all regret that he has had to leave, but it is not

because of these cases and there is no suggestion of that.

I want to make one other remark as well, which I think is most

important, arising out of these questions and allegations. There has

been a strong suggestion, if not an outright allegation, that native

people in this province are in some instances treated differently in

the courts of the province than are other citizens. There may have been

a time and there may have been occasions when those complaints had some

validity. Indeed, whenever those complaints are made, those complaints

are addressed in the most serious way, and I can tell you that the

justice system in this province, the RCM Police, the court worker

service, the probation people and the judges themselves are most

diligent to ensure that there can be no suggestion that people who are

disadvantaged in any form receive a bad shake from the justice system.

But to say that in this case this unfortunate victim was treated

differently in the courts than some other citizens is to cast a very

wrong impression. If by differently we mean that she was dealt with

more or less harshly or unfairly vis-à-vis some other members of

society, that is categorically denied.

Justice in this province is delivered insofar as it is humanly

possible — and it is never absolutely humanly possible — with an even

and impartial hand. Every case has to be assessed on its own individual

facts. We don't have any computer-produced results, Mr. Speaker, and we

don't want them, because the hallmark of our courts is humanity. The

courts are presided over by men and women who live in the community

with the rest of us. They have integrity and honour. That justice is

dispensed fairly and evenly. There have been instances, I suppose,

where in some way a person who is disadvantaged may have received some

leniency in the courts. A person who came from an unfortunate and an

unhappy background and struggled against it may have appeared before

the courts as an accused, and may have been treated differently than

somebody born with a silver spoon in his mouth. More power to the

courts if that is done, but that is not treating one class of citizens

differently from another.

I want to dispel the allegation. It matters not whether native

Indians or non-Indians, new Canadians or old Canadians, appear before

the courts; they are going to be treated the same way.

I can tell you that we have an excellent native court worker

service

with a network of 30 locations across the province. That's an

association that does an admirable job for natives.

In this case, I carefully checked with the Crown prosecutor in

all

the cases, and the victim.... A great deal of time was spent with her

explaining to her the process, and indeed before the guilty pleas to

the reduced charges were taken before the jury, the victim in company

with her friends and family had it explained to her and concurred in

that step.

So I think the allegations in this case are unfortunate. They

are not correct, and I want to dispel them.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, I rise to

present a bill

standing on the order paper under my name, intituled the Cemetery

(Solicitation Control) Act.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment please, hon.

member. Before

recognizing the member, who I initially thought may have been standing

in order to respond, I must comment on the arrangement between the

Attorney-General and the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk).

While in this particular case a deferred response will be

taken

under advisement by the Chair, I will do so without setting a precedent

on the matter, and give an undertaking to review the entire matter

regarding deferred responses to statements.

Introduction of Bills

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1986

Hon. Mr. Ritchie presented a message from his Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Municipal Amendment Act, 1986.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I move that

the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I'd like to make a few brief comments in respect to this bill

concerning the question of liability insurance at the municipal level.

I'd like to point out to all of the members of the assembly that indeed

this bill is fully supported by the Union of B.C. Municipalities. It is

considered a measured solution — legislatively, that is — to the

question of liability insurance. I believe that all of our members in

this House will agree that it is well balanced: it gives protection to

our elected people; it gives protection to our appointed people; it

also protects potential purchasers of homes in a community. It also

recognizes the right of people to sue, should they feel so inclined;

that is protected.

Also with this legislation is a program that is well underway,

and

it is being led by the Union of B.C. Municipalities: that is, at the

local level we have a risk management program underway throughout this

province that, I believe, in itself is going to go a great way to

avoiding some of the problems that may have been experienced in the

past. Certainly it will prevent any such bad experiences in the future

in respect to liability.

[ Page 8651 ]

Mr. Speaker, I believe, as does the Union of B.C.

Municipalities,

that this legislation, given a 12-month period to settle in, taking

into consideration the efforts and the initiatives of all

municipalities and regional districts in respect to risk management,

should indeed attract the private insurers back into the field with

rates that are acceptable to the taxpayers of this province. Failing to

do that, I'm advised by the Union of B.C. Municipalities that indeed

they are in the midst of a study into the possibility of full

insurance, but that is something that would be considered at a later

date.

Bill 38, Municipal Amendment Act, 1986, 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.

CEMETERY (SOLICITATION CONTROL) ACT

Mr. MacWilliam presented a bill intituled Cemetery

(Solicitation Control) Act.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, this bill

seeks to redress a

growing problem associated with the use of telephone solicitation in

the cemetery services and funeral industry. The problem has become

manifest in the Okanagan area, where overzealous operators have abused

the spirit of present legislation in their conduct of business.

I recently presented evidence to this House of numerous

individuals

who were solicited by telephone for cemetery services within hours of

the death of loved ones. Evidence was also submitted of telephone

solicitations of terminal cancer patients shortly after diagnosis had

been made. As well, evidence was presented that the private Memorial

Society membership list had been copied and used for purposes of

solicitation by other firms. The problem has become so acute in the

Okanagan that Kelowna city council and the Okanagan main-line municipal

association have endorsed a resolution calling for the banning of

telephone solicitation in the cemetery industry.

Although particularly troublesome in the Okanagan, this

problem does

exist in other major centres throughout the province. Many reputable

funeral home operators concur that the present situation has been

damaging to the image and the reputation of the entire industry, and

some of them have requested such action. It is not the intent of this

legislation to restrict the conduct of business of reputable members of

this industry; rather, it is the intent of this legislation to prevent

further unethical conducts of those overzealous operators who are

damaging the reputation of an entire industry.

Bill M212 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

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have a

question for the Premier

about conflict-of-interest guidelines, which have long been promised by

the Premier. It is important now because we are about to elect next

month a Premier of the province, not just a party leader. There are no

spending limits and no disclosure rules, and the people will not know

who their Premier may be in hock to. Because he has promised this on

many occasions, will the Premier bring down conflict-of-interest

guidelines, so that the message that we are doing it as a public body

will also perhaps apply in the party area?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, with the greatest

of respect, there is the question of future action, and secondly....

MR. MACDONALD: Has he decided?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, that's a very

short answer from somebody who is trying to get out the door before I

do.

I put this question as a supplementary question.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: No, seriously. Up to half a

million dollars

may be raised, and who is going to own the Premier's chair? Peter

Brown? Murray Pezim? Dale Janowsky, the proprietor of Gramma's pub?

This is an important question, and I would like the Premier to say that

guidelines will be imposed, so that the people will know what has been

contributed, and that there will be limits.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member.

Again, the Chair would have some difficulty in relating a question

regarding party activities....

MR. MACDONALD: I've never been out of order

before.

MR. SPEAKER: We will make an exception this

time, hon. member.

BCDC APPOINTMENT

AND SOCRED FUND-RAISING

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister

of Industry. A

lawyer by the name of F Michael P. Warren has been sending out bagman

letters asking for donations from lawyers around the province for the

Social Credit Party. Can the minister advise us whether this is the

same lawyer who was appointed to the board of B.C. Development

Corporation last month?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I wonder

if the member would send me a copy of the letter, and I'll compare

signatures.

MR. WILLIAMS: I would ask the minister if

there will be an

embargo on decisions by this same lawyer with respect to lending by

BCDC or the hiring of legal personnel and consultants by BCDC. Clearly

there are links between the business of bagman and loans and

appointments. Or is this the beginning of a string of patronage

appointments by a departing Premier?

[2:30]

[ Page 8652 ]

OMINECA ENTERPRISES LTD.

MR. LEA: A question to the Premier. On

December 2, 1985, I

asked the Premier if he would ask his Minister of Forests to work up a

report in regard to Omineca Enterprises Ltd., a logging sawmill

operation in the Fort Nelson area. I outlined some of the problems, and

at that time, that is on December 2, 1985, the Premier said he would do

that.

On March 17, 1986, I went back to the Premier and asked him if

had received a copy of the report. On March 17 of this year the Hon.

Mr. Bennett said: "Mr. Speaker, I have not yet read it." I then asked:

"I understand, then, Mr. Premier, that you've received the report but

haven't read it yet." Mr. Bennett answered back: "Mr. Speaker, I can

only say that I have not yet read it." I'd like to ask the Premier

today: has he read it?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The answer is no.

MR. LEA: I'd like to ask the Premier

whether he's received the report.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm not aware if the

report has been received by my office. It has physically not been

received by me.

MR. LEA: I'd like to ask the Premier

whether he kept his word and asked the Minister of Forests to work up

such a report.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Any request that I made

to the Minister of Forests would be kept.

MR. LEA: That was not the question. I asked

the Premier

whether he kept his word, the word he gave me in Hansard on December 2,

1985, and whether he asked the Minister of Forests to do the report

that the Premier said he would ask for. Did he ask the minister for

that report?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I am certain, Mr.

Speaker, that if I told the member that I would undertake to look for

information, I would do it.

MR. LEA: I would like to ask the Minister

of Forests if he

would check the files in his ministry — I understand he wasn't the

minister at the time; it was the hon. member for Yale-Lillooet (Hon.

Mr. Waterland) — to see whether or not there has been any request by

the Premier's office for the report that I have referred to.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I will ask

to have the file

brought forward. I am aware, though, that that particular case is, I

believe, before the B.C. court of appeal at the present time. I really

don't know anything other than that.

MR. LEA: Final supplementary. Would the

Minister of Forests

undertake to send me by letter or some other means of communication —

other than in this House — confirmation that the Premier asked his

ministry for that report?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I don't

have any intention

whatsoever of looking into the files for the purpose of bringing back

information such as the member has asked for. It seems to me that

communications between members of the executive council occur on a

daily basis, many of which it would not be proper to publicly debate in

the House. What about confidentiality between members and people on

whose behalf they are making inquiries or whose interests are being

taken into consideration?

MR. LEA: Don't give me any details. I just

want to know whether he asked you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member,

just as a point of

interest for members, Beauchesne's rules of question period clearly

state that the minister to whom a question is directed is responsible

to the House for his present ministry and not for any decisions taken

in a previous portfolio.

PURCHASING COMMISSION APPOINTMENT

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I have a question

for the Minister

of Finance which is really a follow-up to the questions put by the

second member for Vancouver East to the Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development. The minister recently appointed his former

campaign manager to the Purchasing Commission. Can the minister give

some assurance to the House that Mr. Jack Waldie will be prohibited

from seeking contributions — as in the case of the other person

mentioned — from any firm which does business with the Purchasing

Commission?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Knowing Mr. Waldie as I

do, and knowing a

number of business people in the province of British Columbia, I would

think that it is not necessary for me to set down prohibitions. Mr.

Waldie has, does now, and will continue to operate in a most honourable

fashion.

SOUTH ACCESS TO EXPO

MR. BARNES: My question is to the Minister

of Tourism. The

Vancouver Chinese business community has suffered a terrible drop in

business this year because of a decision by the provincial government

to seal off the access to the south side of Expo.

AN HON. MEMBER: Talk to Mike about that.

MR. BARNES: Talk to Mike? I see. They're

playing politics

over there, Mr. Speaker, and I'm trying to make a serious inquiry. But

it's still not too late to remedy the situation, at least for the

Chinese community, which, as you know, is one of the economic

communities of the province. Will the minister remove the great wall of

Expo and allow the tourists to visit the Chinese community?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, what the

member asks, of

course, is absolutely impossible: that is, to put another gate into

Expo at this time. But there are two gates that are in reasonably close

proximity to Chinatown. It would seem to me that if Expo is attracting

hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of visitors to Vancouver, then

everyone in Vancouver will be benefiting from that. The gates I

mentioned, the stadium gate and the east gate, are in very close

proximity and easy walking distance.

MR. CHABOT: Filler question.

[ Page 8653 ]

MR. BARNES: It may be a filler question,

Mr. Speaker, but I

can assure the member that it's of serious significance and importance

to those communities that were anticipating the great increase in

economic conditions in this province and are finding that Expo is a

discouragement. Would the minister comment on the concern in the

Granville Island community and other parts outside the Expo site who

are concerned that they're not benefiting from the government's hype

that the economy would be improved by Expo?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It would seem to me that

if Vancouver is

benefiting from this influx of tourists and certain sectors are not

benefiting, then maybe they should be looking to their own devices to

find out why not. I have to date had none of these pockets, as you

describe, approach me for any answers or any solutions. They have not

made me aware that they are in any trouble because of an influx of

tourists into the province.

SALE OF WESTAR ASSETS

MR. HOWARD: A direct question to the

Minister of Forests. I

ask the minister, with respect to the sale of certain assets of Westar

to Repap, whether or not the sawmills in the Terrace-Hazelton area —

I'm talking about Kitwanga and South Hazelton — are included in that

sale, or excluded from it.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The sawmill, which was

incorporated within

the proposal.... Their letter of intent or agreement included the Pohle

sawmill only in Terrace. There was a term and condition incorporated

within the memorandum that the Pohle sawmill must be maintained under

its present complement of employees.

Now with respect to the other areas of operation of Westar, in

particular Kitwanga and Hazelton, I insisted under the agreement that

cutting permits numbered 32 and 35 — which won't mean too much to most

people here, but I'm sure it does to the member — will be severed from

TFL No. 1. They're at the north end, and they must be attached to the

mills at Kitwanga and Hazelton. One of the reasons for insisting on

their attachment to both of those mills was to preserve them.

Westar has given the commitment that they will construct a new

mill,

something in the order of $40 million, at Hazelton and therefore will

require a supply of fibre for it.

I think what we have done is the correct and proper thing to

do to

maintain the employment base and the existence of mills in both of the

communities to which you refer.

Orders of the Day

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1986

The House in committee on Bill 3; Mr. Ree in the chair.

Sections 1 to 8 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the

committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved on division.

The House resumed: Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 3, Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act, 1986,

reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on division.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Committee on Bill 6,

Mr. Speaker.

FOREST STAND MANAGEMENT FUND ACT

The House in committee on Bill 6; Mr. Ree in the chair.

section 1.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I filed an

amendment with

respect to

section I which deletes the word "management" and

substitutes "silviculture and other management, " and I so move. [See

appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. HOWARD: I just wanted to make a brief

comment about this.

There was a certain amount of misinformation provided earlier about the

bill. partly based upon the vagueness of it itself. But there was an

understanding given that this was a bill for silvicultural purposes.

That was the impression in the budget speech; it was the impression in

the minister's comments at the time. As a matter of fact, in a document

called "Likely Questions and Answers" which was prepared for the

minister giving him answers to certain question that might arise with

respect to it, the impression was that this would have to do with

silviculture exclusively.

But that's not the case, Mr. Chairman, and I think that needs

to be

noted, because funds under this bill.... And the introduction of the

amendment specifies that more clearly than was the case before. The

reference in the amendment to the words "other management" clearly

indicates that funds under this bill can be used for all operational

aspects of the ministry's mandate. I put that to the minister in the

form of a question. I maintain that the

interpretation that can be

placed and probably will be placed upon the bill or upon

section 1,

particularly with the amendment.... I ask the minister whether the

funds under the Forest Stand Management Fund Act can be used for all

operational aspects of the minister's mandate. I maintain they can be.

I want to know whether the minister sees it that way or not.

[2:45]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, first of

all, with the use

of the word " silviculture," I believe that the member for Skeena had a

point when it was raised; hence the inclusion and the amendment filed.

Now that's the purpose of suggestions made in the House.

Now the objective of the bill and the funding which will

eventually be secured is intensive forest management. I'm not talking

about tree planting; what I'm talking about is weeding and thinning and

fertilization and spacing. In the very short time that I have been here

with this portfolio, I have found on innumerable occasions a request to

have funds for this particular purpose. For example, last year, I am

told, a very successful program was in place using a number of

[ Page 8654 ]

young people over the summer months to

do some

intensive forestry work, and obviously funding will be used so that

that program can be maintained.

I believe that the member for Skeena had some concern about

the

utilization of funds for range management. It seems to me I read an

article, of which he was the author, about this. The objective really

is — and I repeat — for intensive management, and what I want is the

participation of others who are interested in doing the same thing. I

think that should cover it. As far as all areas of my mandate as set

forth in the Forest Act, I think that would be stretching it somewhat.

This is for reforestation, good forestry practices, including the

practice of intensive silviculture.

MR. HOWARD: There is no doubt that

importing into here the

word "silviculture" identifies what it should all be about. But what

the minister is now saying, as I understand him, when I asked him if

the fund could be used for all operational aspects of the minister's

mandate, is: "No, that would be stretching it some." Did I get him

correctly? It won't be used for all operational aspects of the

ministry's mandate. Could you say that?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Correct.

MR. HOWARD: Well, why then did he say the

opposite on March

25 of this year? Why on March 25 of this year did the minister say, and

I will quote his words to him: "The forest stand management fund can be

used for all operational aspects of the ministry's mandate, from

silviculture to range and recreation management?" Why did the minister

say that on March 25, and now he says no, he didn't mean that?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I raised a

moment ago the

concerns which were expressed by the member for Skeena involving range

management. My views....

And if I made that comment at that particular time, I

apologize for

it. The purpose of this bill is as I have outlined, and that is

intensive forest practices.

MR. HOWARD: It is good to have that on the

record, that the

minister was in error in having used those words, and he apologizes for

using them. I wonder how many other statements the minister made on

March 25 likewise need apologizing for. I want to know from the

minister.

The other statements which he made with respect to a variety

subjects on March 25, how many of those need apologizing for, if he is

now denying one and saying that really wasn't an accurate reflection of

the opinion of the ministry? I mean, how can one believe a government

that says two separate things about the same subject matter within the

space of a couple of months?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The comments that passed

on March 25 — I

can't remember what occurred on that particular day. I think what we

should remember, and I suspect this applies to both sides of the House

when we start talking about some statements, if I made a comment about

which I may have been incorrect, I have absolutely no reservations

about saying something if I was wrong on a particular date, and I have

no reservations about saying it in the House at all.

The point is that this particular bill is going to be used,

the

funds for it, for intensive forest practices. I think they have been

outlined. They're very clear, and I think that is the end of the matter.

MR. HOWARD: Why then, if that is the end of

the matter as far

as the minister is concerned, does he bring in an amendment that talks

about both silvicultural and other management? What does "other" mean?

That's a very broad, encompassing term. Other management could very

easily include what the minister said, which was that the fund could be

used for all operational aspects of the ministry's mandate. That's

other management. If the minister wants to be clear about this and

level with the people about what he is doing, I suggest he just take

out that word "other," or "and other," so that we end up with a

paragraph that would read "the silvicultural management and enhancement

of forests." That's what we're talking about, silviculture, not

everything else, and the word "other" in there includes everything else.

MRS. WALLACE: I am concerned about this

wording. I heard the

minister talk about silviculture and all the things that it meant — the

weeding, the spacing, the fertilization, all the kinds of things

included in silviculture. But then he talked about reforestation. Is

this bill to include reforestation? If I remember the debate that went

on earlier, this was to be a supplemental bill to the kinds of things

that are being done under the EBAP program; maybe it has a different

name now, but it's the money that's shared with the feds to do

reforestation, tree planting. Now the minister has thrown reforestation

in here as well as this other management thing which I share my

colleague's concern about, because that can be pretty broad.

I hope that what we're talking about here is intensive

forestry, but

when we talk about other management in this amendment we're saying

something quite different. We should be talking about silviculture and

intensive forestry, or simply intensive forestry. Is this to be

specifically for silviculture, which in my understanding of that word

is sort of separate from reforestation? We've sort of divided those

into two different categories. I'd like to know what this money is for.

Is it just for the narrow definition of silviculture, or does it

include reforestation?

I'm still not satisfied about the wording with the other,

because

whatever the minister says here may or may not be interpreted that way.

We've seen a chain of ministers going through this particular office.

What you're saying now might be interpreted by another individual, and

it could well be that.... I don't want to infringe on the rules of the

House, but in a further

section we know that all the decision-making is

left in the hands of the minister. So that could be interpreted very

broadly, and we could wind up with all this money going into the actual

operation of the ministry and none of it being spent on silviculture or

reforestation.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: As far as reforestation

is concerned,

funding is available to us under

section 88. Funding is available

through the federal-provincial agreement. There is also reforestation

practice by a number of the TFL holders. The object of this bill is to

provide funding for intensive reforestation. My understanding of

intensive reforestation makes reference to thinning, spacing, brushing,

weeding, fertilization. There's absolutely no mystery.

Interjection.

[ Page 8655 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Exactly, and that is

silviculture. That is

why the amendment is put on the floor of the House now: the utilization

of the word "silviculture." We know that. I think everybody has agreed

with it.

The argument that I think is really being advanced now is the

inclusion of the words "and other management." Funding may very well be

required under here to discharge the obligations that will be incurred

by the administrative branch and the finance branch of the Ministry of

Forests in order to implement these programs. That is part of other

management. I'm not hung up on other management, I can assure you of

that, but it seems to me that if some funding is required from the

ministry, it's to handle the administration; that is a function.

There's also a reference in the bill to range management. If we have

people in the agricultural community who have a serious problem,

perhaps with knapweed or fencing or whatever, and some of that is the

responsibility of the Crown, it may very well be that they would wish

to participate. It may very well be that a municipality having

particular problems may want to use it. But there are certain

administrative functions which I think you all recognize are critical.

By "other management," I don't think I'm really asking for too

much.

I think the important thing in here is the thrust for the utilization

of those funds into the area of.... Let's just call it silviculture,

instead of repeating what we all know it means.

MR. HOWARD: The minister raised a couple of

things that I

think need to be followed up. One, he referred to

section 88. Would any

of the money under this fund be available for use within tree-farm

licence areas?

[3:00]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, that's a

good question. I

know overtures have been made by TFL holders for the utilization of

funds in this area, but also by holders of other forms of tenure too.

When they see something available, everybody is going to want to

participate. For example, in the area that the member for Skeena

represents, Westar did have and still do have a significant holding.

They're interested in working out some kind of arrangement with this

where there is joint participation. They all make overtures, but what

I'm interested in knowing is just exactly what their participation is

going to be. My understanding is that when a TFL holder is awarded a

TFL, they should, I think, have greater obligations placed upon them

because they're given a land base of some magnitude to back up their

investment in plant and equipment. I accept the caution which the

member raises, but I think the overtures are coming from a number of

areas. There are two municipalities that are interested — they all are

— but we have not made any determination on that yet. I can also advise

the member that the regulations have not been completed either. I think

it's going to take a while to work them out.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. HOWARD: We can't prevent overtures, but

you can certainly

stop them by simply saying: "No." That's the answer. This fund is not

for silvicultural activities on TFLs that already have non-competitive

timber on a long-term basis and are contractually obliged to do the

proper silvicultural work. So I submit that you can't stop overtures

but you can very easily give the response to those overtures. I would

think a public response in the nature of "No" from the Minister would

stop the overtures. If he doesn't do that, they're going to continue to

come. He doesn't know, for instance, who his boss is going to be on

July 28, or whenever that date is. It may be somebody who is beholden

to a group of TFL holders. Now listen to me. It was raised earlier that

people make donations of money in political areas, and sometimes they

have been known to make overtures following the donations, saying:

"Well, I'm making this overture. Do you think you could recognize the

fact that we have a situation here that needs to be dealt with?" And

they might find a sympathetic ear. That's why I'm suggesting to the

minister that rather than get into that kind of potential difficulty —

because I'm sure in the minister's mind it's clear that he does not

want whatever may be available under this bill to go to doing the job

for TFL holders that they should be doing anyway — I think a simple

"No" to that one is all that's required. Would the minister say that

"No"?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The question you have to

ask yourself is

this: what happens for the Crown to get the fund fleshed out with more

dollars? Who then pays the assessment? It goes over. So if, for

example, somebody happens to be a TFL holder but they also happen to

have a forest licence, what do we do here? When the assessment is done,

the formula work-out may very well be on — and everybody looks to —

stumpage. So I'm not beholden to anybody, and I don't think you can

afford to be this way any more than I believe that the member opposite

can be beholden to a group of individuals supportive of his party who

may want a piece of legislation for a particular purpose, and we need

not even get into that. I don't think that you would be beholden to

that any more than we would. The job is that we have to do the right

thing, and my objective here is reforestation.

MR. HOWARD: That's holding out an

attraction to TFL holders.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. HOWARD: Yes. In fact, the five-year

forest and range

resource program, '86-'91, makes reference to that. It points out that

the federal-provincial five-year agreement does not fund intensive

silviculture — let me read it — on Crown land in tree farm licence

areas. The new forest stand management fund could be used to ensure

that a similar level of management is applied on all Crown forest lands

— that could be read to say all Crown forest lands including those

within a TFL. It's possible, so I submit that that's an open matter.

Can the minister, because range lands are involved here and

money

from this fund can be used for range lands under I (a)...? The past

level of management of range lands has not been adequate and is

expected to result, so the five-year range and resource program says,

in a 5 percent loss of capacity over the next five years, with further

losses in future years. It says we've therefore got to spend some money

on range management. Has the minister got an estimate — if they're able

to project this far, five years ahead of a loss, knowing what current

costs are...? "The loss of rangeland capacity can be prevented by

implementing adequate measures over the next five years." Could the

minister tell us what those adequate measures are, and how much money

he expects will be expended on range management

[ Page 8656 ]

even, say, in this year, or in the

first year of the operation of this particular bill?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I cannot give an answer

to that question.

The primary concern I had, which had been brought to me, was knapweed.

That was the major concern, and as I recall, the money under the range

section of the ministry was increased, but not very much, in this

year's estimates. I would doubt very much if anything at all will be

used, because the participation which we would like, not only from the

government of British Columbia but also from the federal government,

industry, local government and the unions, if they would consider

participating.... The thrust has really been in the area of

silviculture, and that's where I expect it to go. I can't be specific

in answering the question with respect to the amount that may in fact

move into that. I wouldn't hold my breath for very much.

MR. HOWARD: I wouldn't spend any on it

under this bill.

Everybody understood and appreciated that the purpose of the bill was

silviculture, the enhancement of forest land to produce a stock of

commercially valuable species of trees. All of the other stuff in

there, I think, just clouds that prime focus that we need to have.

That's all I'm saying to the minister, and the more he talks about

rangeland and other management being in it, and some other ministries

who provide some service maybe getting some funds out of it — maybe it

will be used for work on TFL lands and a lot of things like that — the

more he diffuses the necessary intensity of concentrating on one

subject matter, namely forest land and silvicultural enhancement of

that forest land.

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

section 2.

MR. STUPICH:

Section 2 is funding. When the

bill was first

brought out as part of the budget, it was mentioned that funds would be

coming from the federal government. At the time, the federal deputy

minister of forests was asked about the federal contribution, and he

said that no such proposal had been made to them. I wonder if any

proposal has been made by the Minister of Forests to the federal

government yet with respect to federal involvement in this fund.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I met with the federal

Minister of State

for Forestry, and I've raised this with him on at least one, probably

two, occasions. He is, I think, somewhat strapped. I don't know whether

or not any money will be forthcoming which will supplement the amount

they have under the federal-provincial agreement. I'm always hopeful

and always, like everybody else, trying to see whether or not I can

secure participation. But I can only leave with the House the fact that

I will continue to pursue it. When this bill was introduced, there was

not a commitment by the federal government, nor did we say that there

was a commitment. You sort of left me under the impression that we had

said that there was a commitment. No, there was not a commitment. An

overture was made, and we would like that participation.

I'll tell you why I raised that. When I look at the total

amount of money that comes under the federal-provincial agreement, and

I compare our province with Ontario and Quebec, and then I look at the

production, particularly the production of softwood lumber, it seems to

me that when the province of Quebec as compared with the province of

British Columbia and their respective productive capacities.... The

federal government might be able to see that we ought to receive more

than an equal share of those.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, they may not want

to do it, and if

the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) says they won't do it,

sometimes I begin to wonder if maybe we should try a little harder and

see if we can be a bit more persuasive.

MR. HOWARD: Try an overture.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: You know about

overtures. We've said no before.

I have to advise the House that there is no commitment from

the federal government to match our contribution to this funding.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I think the

minister is right in

saying that he did not indicate that the federal government had

committed $20 million to this. But it was announced as a $70 million

fund, and it was also announced that $20 million of this would have to

come from the federal government to make up the $70 million. But at

that point the federal government hadn't even been asked whether or not

they were interested in participating. The first information they had

about the fact that they were going to be asked for $20 million was

when they read it in the newspaper.

The second group that I wanted to ask about was the UBCM. They

were

also going to be asked, and I think hadn't been at the time the bill

was introduced. Richard Taylor, executive director of the UBCM, was

quoted as saying: "We are seeking clarification of the mechanism that

would set it up. We haven't actually got a copy of the bill."

Now, Mr. Chairman, is it right that the UBCM as well read

about the

bill first in the newspapers — and the fact that they were going to be

asked to contribute? If that is right, or even if it isn't, has the

UBCM been approached to this date with respect to their contributing

funds to this $70 million fund?

[3:15]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I met with

Richard Taylor in

my office on the fund. They left me with the impression that they were

somewhat encouraged by it. He has a number of members of the UBCM who

are interested, particularly one up-Island, and there is another in the

interior.

I also made the commitment to him, as I have to industry and

others

who wish to participate, that we will not get down to some serious

discussion for the utilization of the government funding as well as

those who wish to make contribution until the bill has been assented to

and the regulations are in place. Before the regulations go in place

draft regulations must be prepared. What I would like to do with those

draft regulations is to see the type of input from both the

municipalities and industry, which to date seem to be the only two who

are interested in participating — what they have and what they would

like to have incorporated within them.

[ Page 8657 ]

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I believe the

minister's response

was yes, the UBCM was not contacted in advance, and since then there

has been some discussion and two municipalities have indicated some

feeling of support. But in total it wouldn't add up to — was it $10

million for the UBCM — $5 million? So far two municipalities have

indicated some intention of proceeding, or that they would like to.

Mike Apsey, president of the B.C. Council of Forest

Industries,

wants the Forests minister to clear up some of his concerns about just

what the industry is expected to pay, and then goes on to ask one

question: does the existence of the fund depend on all parties

contributing their share? Now I gather from this.... I won't bother

asking the minister. It would appear as though COFI heard nothing about

it until they read it in the paper. But the question is whether the

fund will depend upon all parties participating to build up that magic

figure of $70 million, or will it go ahead if they can only get some?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, the idea of

this fund didn't

necessarily emanate from these halls. Industry have been talking about

having a fund for some time. The head of the IWA really had part of the

idea of bringing this fund forward. Both the IWA and industry are

interested in having a fund which will remain in perpetuity for the

purposes of reforestation and intensive practices.

Now somebody has to start somewhere to see if we can get the

ball

rolling. They support the concept; there isn't any question about that.

The Council of Forest Industries and Mike Apsey, to whom you referred,

support the concept. I'll tell you what they are concerned about, and

that is the method of funding.

Now I have found out in the short time since I have been in

the

portfolio that when you talk about funding for any particular item,

suddenly people get a touch gun-shy. I'll tell you what many of them

have said. As individuals, very supportive, but when they get together

as a group, I don't know what takes over, but they become a touch shy.

What they are all saying to me, every one of them, is do it; just do

it. We accept it, but I made a commitment to all of them that they

would have an opportunity to discuss the regulations, the contents, so

that they'll work. They've got to work. Also they may want to have some

discussion as to the amount of the assessment, since they're going to

pay. It's the same with the municipalities.

By the way, there are other people who are interested. I've

got a

proposal from Shuswap-Revelstoke coming in where there is a

considerable amount of money from a forestry association; they have the

funds available and they would like to have them matched by the

provincial government. So it doesn't have to be those parties who are

specifically named in the bill. We're talking about those whom we would

like to make a contribution. But you'll note the bill says "and

others." I think there's a great deal of interest in doing something

like this, particularly in community projects, and one way of bringing

it home to the public, in my view, is the interest in forests, and not,

as we have in the past and for so long, because it's been a land of

plenty and lots of trees, taking everything for granted. It's now

shrinking a little bit. Perhaps this is one way of imparting some

knowledge and getting some help from the community at large and all the

smaller communities who want to be involved.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, it adds nothing

to the debate to

say that people are in support of the concept. My 97-year-old mother

would support the concept, but she's not going to put any money into

it. She doesn't have any to put in, and a lot of the people you're

talking about don't have any money to put in.

My question was whether or not this bill or the concept had

been

discussed at the minister's initiative with the various people he

described as contributing to the $70 million fund. The last question

that I put to him was whether or not it would fly if not all of the

parties he suggested participated. Did it depend upon getting the S70

million? Now he got carried away in his rhetoric and didn't answer any

of the questions, and in particular that one.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman,

if giving some of

the background as to how it came about is rhetoric. But I will tell you

this, Mr. Member. It doesn't make any.... If the fund is not fully

funded to $70 million, it doesn't mean to say the moneys aren't going

to be utilized. The moneys are going to be available. Twenty million

dollars will be in the fund from the provincial government. There will

be funds from other sources. Before those funds come in from other

sources, whatever they may be, this money is going to be used for

silvicultural practices and intensive reforestation.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm not sure about that.

Mr. Chairman, I would just ask if the member for Nanaimo would

nod

his head to tell me. The fund will be utilized. It does not have to be

fully funded to the tune of $70 million before it will be encroached

upon. The moneys which come in will be used for this purpose.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, since the

minister did not discuss

this concept with any of the parties that I've asked him about to this

point, and since there's only one party left and that's the trade union

movement — the forest related unions — I think I can take it for

granted that he didn't bother to talk to them about it in advance, any

more than he did to any of the others.

He talked about some of the history of the fund, and it is

quite

correct to say that Jack Munro, on behalf of the IWA, did offer to

invest trade union pension funds in this kind of a fund and only backed

away from it when the Premier of the day used that offer for political

purposes. He realized then that he was being made use of, that his

whole trade union was being made use of, and he just was not prepared

to do business with that kind of a leader. Mr. Chairman, the minister

has said it will be used for these purposes, for intensive silviculture

and other purposes. He doesn't like that, but nevertheless it's in

there. It's in the legislation. But he says all of it will be used for

that general purpose.

Mr. Chairman, I don't know how he can answer this question,

but I

must ask it, and that is: how can we trust this administration to use

the funds for the purposes which everyone believes are laudable. When

that minister was a member of the cabinet that dealt with a similar

fund — all government contributions, $148 million — they took that fund

and brought it back into consolidated revenue in the second year of

that fund, and this particular minister was a party to that decision.

He was a member of cabinet. Yet now he stands up

[ Page 8658 ]

and says it won't happen again. Mr.

Chairman, how

can he say that he will last in the position as Minister of Forests?

Even then, what has made him see the light of day since he supported

that decision, not too many years ago, to take all the money out of the

forest and range resource fund and put it back into consolidated

revenue?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before recognizing the next

speaker, I would

remind the committee that we are discussing

section 2. Strict relevancy

in committee is the operative standing order to follow. I think

section

2 is quite specific, and I'm sure we can speak to it specifically.

Discussions of the executive council are not in order.

[3:30]

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I always have the

good fortune to

find you in the chair when somebody else is out of order and I want to

follow a similar line of questions. I would gladly give you permission

to go for a smoke, or something like that. I really wanted to follow

the same general theme on this, because I think it is a bit of a scam.

The minister is the one who invented the very successful $12.7 million

special funds for colleges last year. What this was essentially....

Bear with me, please. I would suggest that you not get your blood

pressure rising, and just listen for a minute.

The point is that that was a fund similar to the forestry

management

fund, in which money was allocated at the pleasure of the minister. Now

we have three others: we have the excellence fund in education; we've

got the health fund; and now we've got this forestry fund. At least

those other two funds, regardless of whether they're "steal and give

back" funds.... And I think they're slush funds; I think the whole

bunch of them are slush funds, and I've said that on a lot of

occasions. But there is the inventor of these special funds. There he

sits over there, formerly in Education. We know what happened there: we

got three more. We got Son of Special Funds, and we have three more of

them now.

It's announced as a $70 million fund. I don't know how it's

going to

be accounted for, or even accountable. The whole business and basis of

democracy is that the opposition's job is to make the king accountable

for public spending — or the Crown. The prince is sitting over there

with about $70 million at his disposal, except he hasn't. For all I

know, he's only got $20 million. So if this isn't an example of fund

inflation, when there's an announcement of $70 million regardless of

the purpose to which it is to be used.... There's no assurance that it

will even be used for silviculture or forest management enhancement;

that's what this side is concerned about.

We're doing our job as we see it, not to embarrass the

minister but

to make him 'fess up. Have you got the money? Did you ask for the

money? What were the replies? What are you going to do about it? If

this is just a press release fund of $70 million that might shrink and

will shrink to $20 million, and might shrink to even more, as it's

diverted as the time goes on, then it's a sham, unfortunately, and I

regret to have to say that. So what can the minister assure us, in

regard to how that money will be spent, in terms of accounting for it

as it is spent, aside from the usual spate of press releases, and what

steps has he taken to secure the cooperation of the other three

mythical partners in the fund?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, perhaps at

the expiration of

a year, when the fund becomes operative, I should have absolutely no

difficulty in advising the House, in the estimates next year....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: You mean I have to turn

this around? We

have, I repeat, the estimates next year, and you can ask all of those

questions, and I will assure you that there will be an accounting of

the utilization of those funds which are here. That's the first thing.

Secondly, the others who participate in the fund will all be

identified, and you will be totally satisfied as to where the money

came from and what was done with the money. You know, I think what I

ought to do is even get a slide show for you to do that, because I have

an extreme interest in ensuring that these funds are used for

silvicultural purposes, and I think you should be satisfied with that.

MR. ROSE: I realize that the minister is an

expert in show

business, but that's not really what we're after. Will there be an

annual report published publicly and tabled in this House? The minister

isn't accountable. He makes the decisions about how this money is to be

spent; will he publish an annual report so we can see what's happened

to it? Questioning the minister in estimates I don't think is really a

satisfactory method.

That isn't the main criticism though. The main criticism —

other

than the ones we've already made — and one which has been made several

times is the fact that it is not the ministry who makes the decision on

these funds which are not accountable to the Legislature, or only in

their total but not the individual awarding of the funds. It's the

school district stuff all over again. You can reward certain areas and

punish others. That was the basic criticism over the excellence thing.

We got $12 million last year for special funds. In the last three

years, colleges and institutes have dropped $33 million in funding, but

what do we get? We get $110 million for excellence. We need to be

reassured that this isn't just more of the same. Will there be an

annual report, and will we, as these funds are distributed or

disseminated, be able, other than through press releases, which is one

way of keeping an accounting of how they're spent.... Will they be

spent publicly and openly?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I think that goes

without saying. What

we're dealing with right now are public funds, and it seems to me that

for public funds such as the $20 million which the provincial

government puts in there must be a accountability, and, frankly, I

would want to have it public and those who participate as well. We

would want to have it to demonstrate what success we have had with the

investment of these moneys and those who wish to participate in the

fund.

I don't understand why there is so much concern when in fact

industry wanted to have a fund like this. When the IWA was interested

in having a fund like this, and forgetting about the political concerns

which you had raised — and whatever they are I am not familiar with —

surely some accountability for these would be in the interests of all

of us.

MR. ROSE: What really interests me is: have

there been put

into place guidelines, in contrast to the fund of $12.7 million last

year, and are the applications for these things, these various grants

of various kinds, going to be public?

[ Page 8659 ]

When they're awarded, will we have a prompt acknowledgement of

that

along the lines of the $12.7 million last year which spawned 42 press

releases, usually mentioning names if they were in ridings held by the

government?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're really straying, hon.

member. This is the

Forest Stand Management Fund Act. There has been ample latitude allowed

in second reading. We are on

section 2 now, which states that the fund

shall consist of money appropriated by the Legislature and other

revenues, and, really, that's about as far as we can go in discussing

this section.

MR. ROSE: I think I can ask the question

about the

guidelines. I'd like to ask questions on

section 4, and I'll wait for

that, but will there be guidelines, will they be public about the

nature and form of applications, and what kind of applications are

acceptable? For instance, we're both from the little town of Mission,

of shake and shingle fame — you know, the minister's got the shakes and

I've got the shingles. Nevertheless I know he's a decent man. Will

there be guidelines? Mission has a municipal forest, all right? Mission

might be interested, especially as it has been hit right in the solar

plexus on the shingle thing, in employing some of those idled workers

in the municipal forest. Is Mission in possession of information about

how the municipality might apply to take up the slack, for instance, in

a special forestry project within their forest? Do they have this? Are

there guidelines? Are there application forms, or do you just write a

nice letter?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I repeat for about the

third time that the

regulations in draft form have not yet been completed. When they are in

draft form, the UBCM will have a look at them. I'm aware of tree-farm

licence 26 in Mission, and I'm aware of the reforestation that is going

on in that very small TFL. They may very well want to participate. But

surely we can wait and see the regulations in final form, and then

they'll know what they wish to apply for.

MR. HOWARD: Listening to the interchange of

ideas it's

obvious that here is a government that hasn't had a clue about

silviculture in the last ten years, and hasn't got a clue now what its

projections are or its policy is. It has fumbled from one state to

another. Last year we were involved in negotiating with the federal

government for a $300 million federal-provincial program for

reforestation, for silvicultural work. All the government would do at

that time, through the former minister, was say: "All we're interested

in is the $300 million. We're not asking for any more. That's a

sufficient amount of money. All we need out of the feds for

silviculture is $300 million." No sooner was the ink dry on the

signatures on that agreement than along came this bill that says we

need more than $300 million. Now we need some more money. You've got at

least five separate structures dealing with silviculture. One is the

annual budgetary amount from the minister, another is the small

business program. Then there are

section 88, the federal-provincial

agreement and now this bill. Why in heaven's name can't you put them

all together? Why can't you have one overall concept about

silvicultural necessities and some commitment to the future?

There's no commitment in here. This is not a permanent fund.

It's a

simple piece of legislation that even puts in doubt whether the

province is going to put any money into it in future years, because

money from the province goes into this fund as is appropriated by the

Legislature on a year-to-year basis. There's nothing permanent or

projecting about it, no long-term commitment, just a simple lurching

from one public relations necessity to another to try to make it look

as if they're doing a good job.

For some years the only thing the government would talk about

was

the number of trees it planted. It never met its objective once, and

always overstated the results in any event. It only looked at the

planting of trees because that seemed to be an acceptable PR kind of

thing, and that's what's involved in the use of this fund. The fund

will consist of certain moneys for planting trees. Now they're

discovering that in some instances half the trees planted died because

there was no follow-up; there was no care and attention to the

necessary activities of a silvicultural nature to make sure those trees

got to a free-growing state.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we're discussing

section 2 —

funding. Silviculture and forest management were discussed under

section 1, and the amendment too.

Section 2 now, please — the fund.

MR. HOWARD: There's no guarantee. In fact,

the minister said

that they probably wouldn't get any more money out of the federal

government. They're probably strapped for dough. You should have been

approaching the federal government a year ago — that's when they were

dishing out the money; that's when they were prepared to put their

signature to the agreement. That's when you should have been talking

about a $600 million fund. The former minister blew it because he

didn't pay attention to the needs of this province. He was more

interested in his private investments and how they were faring than in

putting money into this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member

will come to order or take his place.

Section 2 of Bill 6, concerning

funding.

MR. HOWARD: It's a good thing you're

keeping those guys in their place, Mr. Chairman.

That's what happened — just a bungle from one day to the next

silvicultural questions. Now we have unknown factors. There's no

mechanism for municipalities to fit into the system. We've got

municipalities up north who say: "Yeah, it would be a good idea to

spend some money on silviculture. But this provincial government denied

us, the municipalities, proper access to financing ourselves. We got no

money to put into silviculture, into a silvicultural fund. We need the

work, we need the trees, we need the people planting them, we need the

people thinning them and weeding them and brushing them and all that.

We ain't got no money because of this niggardly government here that

took money away from municipalities, and there is no mechanism there."

Municipal officers that I have spoken with question whether

the

money in this fund supposedly for municipalities is going to come from

a shortfall in the resource stabilization account; whether moneys that

municipalities ordinarily would receive as resource stabilization money

will now be cut short and that money will be channelled into here —

just a diversion of funds. That's what they are wondering about.

It just indicates that for all the bland, nice, thoughtful,

"assuring" words of the Minister of Forests, I submit this government

doesn't really care seriously about doing something with respect to

this fund or silviculture itself. It likes the

[ Page 8660 ]

PR job. It likes telling people it is

necessary to

do it, but when it comes down to setting up a structure and a mechanism

to do it properly, they are found wanting. If you are not prepared to

get on with the job of silviculture, then I suggest the only thing is

to get out of the way and let somebody else in there that will be able

to do it.

MRS. WALLACE: I want to talk about 2 (a):

"…money

appropriated by the Legislature." Where is this money coming from?

There is no appropriation

section in here. Would the minister like to

tell us? There is no mention of any dollars. We know there are dollars,

but there is nothing in this bill to say that. The money is to go

apparently into general revenue. How are you going to get it out of

there?

What I am saying is that when we had a range and resource

management

fund, it was a separate entity, and there was a report each year

telling what was happening there and what was going on. Here we don't

seem to have anything. We've got something that says that it will be

appropriated by the Legislature. We have a bill here that has no

mention of dollars, no appropriation section. What are we really

talking about in this bill?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I think if

the member were to

examine the Ministry of Finance bills, you will find that there is an

amount of $20 million allocated which is to go into this account.

[3:45]

MRS. WALLACE: So the establishment of this

fund is really

under the Minister of Finance and not under the Minister of Forests.

That is what he is telling me.

What happens to the money, assuming you are successful in

getting

money from COFI or from the unions or from the municipalities or even

from the federal government? What happens to that money, and who is

responsible for that — you or the Minister of Finance?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The funding coming from

outside sources

will be deposited to this fund. The accountability for the utilization

of moneys under this fund will be in the Ministry of Forests. I can't

really make it any simpler than that.

The levy, if there is to be one, and no doubt there will be,

involving industry will be collected just as stumpage is collected or

as royalties are collected. It all becomes part of consolidated

revenue. The accounting for the levy comes in, and it will be deposited

in this fund. Further on, under

section 4, you will see the manner in

which it is to be injected into it.

MRS. WALLACE: Now the minister used the

word "fund," and that's okay. But actually it is deposited to an

account in consolidated revenue.

Now what you are telling me is that that account will have

anything

that comes in, any levies put in there, and I would assume anything

that you as Minister of Forests decide to spend will be written off

against that. Historically, in public accounts we do not get the same

kind of record of just an account of the Minister of Finance as we do

of a special fund. I really have some concerns about how this....

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order,

the member for

Cowichan-Malahat is revisiting a

section of the bill which has already

been passed,

section 1, which allows for the account to be established

under consolidated revenue. The

section to which we should be

addressing ourselves now is funding,

section 2, what the funds shall

consist of.

Section 1, Mr. Chairman, has already been passed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's a good point of order,

hon. member. In committee, debate shall be relevant to the particular

section under consideration.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, what I'm trying

to point out here

is that this bill is very loose in its wording; that the funding, as

outlined in

section 2, details funds that are going into those

accounts, which we have already dealt with — that's true. But there is

nothing there to specify who is accountable for dealing with this

funding. It's just a straight funding clause there that talks about

funding and what it shall consist of, and nowhere in this bill is

there.... I can't talk about where it isn't, so I'm talking about

funding, and what I'm saying is that there is nothing in this bill that

gives any assurance to anyone who is thinking about putting money into

this account.... There is nothing in there to ensure that it will be

adequately cared for, dealt with and accounted for.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

MRS. WALLACE: The Minister of Forests may

authorize payments

out of the fund. The minister spoke earlier about this being a

perpetual thing. I'm confused. Is he intending only to have a fund

established and use the income from that fund for payments, or is he

intending to use the capital base of that fund to provide this

reforestation? If you use the base of it, then you're not having the

continuing thing that he referred to earlier.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, payments

out of the fund

will involve an encroachment upon the capital sum, not the interest

which would accrue to the moneys which have been deposited. Why? A

municipality may have a program for one year. The municipality may wish

to make a contribution of, let us say for illustrative purposes, a half

million dollars. They may approach the government when the regulations

have been finally put together to the satisfaction of all, and they

say: "We would like a matching contribution." That matching

contribution will mean an encroachment upon that capital that is in

place.

The objective of the fund, a forest stand management fund, is

replenish it annually. It may be that any assessment on industry could

vary from year to year: it may go up, it may go down, depending on the

annual contribution of the provincial government. That is the objective

of this account: so that it will be there in perpetuity; so that we

always have a fund available to handle intensive forestry practices,

where the demand really is.

There is money available now, and it has risen considerably

over the

years. It may not be enough; that is conceded by both sides of the

House. But it's a far bigger improvement than what we had in the early,

middle and late seventies. We know that there has been a great deal of

money. All we need to

[ Page 8661 ]

do is look at the current Ministry of

Forests

estimates, which have the largest lift of all ministries. Blue book to

blue book, I'm advised, it now works out to something like 23 percent,

and as far as silviculture is concerned the lift is 47 percent. That's

a big improvement. However, there are areas which need particular

attention: those areas are intensive silviculture practices, and that

is what this money is to be used for. That is why it is to be

replenished, and that is my objective.

MRS. WALLACE: The minister is telling me

that he intends to

encroach upon the capital to make these payments, and replenish it each

year. You may be ruling me out of order, Mr. Chairman, but this is a

new piece of information that's just come up. Does he then intend to

ask for contributions from the various three or four other areas each

year? That's the first question. Secondly, what happens with the

interest on any unspent capital in this fund? We've had experiences

before where that interest has simply gone into general revenue and

hasn't gone back into the account that it was intended for, even when

it's been a special fund.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, the member

asks a most valid

question. As for the interest accruing on the funds made by the

provincial government, I would presume that the interest would remain

in consolidated revenue. But one thing is certain, as far as I'm

concerned: any contributions made as a result of assessments or levies

by outside participants — that is, outside of government — have every

right to ensure that the interest on those accounts should be part of

this fund and contribute to its growth.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

MR. ROSE: It appears to me that there's

sort of two tiers in

the stumpage here. Does the minister contemplate raising some of this

money not through general revenue but by an increase in the stumpage

where needed for the purpose of this fund? Would he explain

section 4?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, the

section reads: "…impose

a levy on stumpage bearing timber for which stumpage is determined and

payable under the Forest Act." That's very clear. Stumpage is now paid,

and all it means is that if we require a certain amount of money,

there's one method by which to secure those funds, and that is by

levying an amount — so many cents — on every cubic metre. We know that

in the province there's now about 75 million cubic metres harvested,

and I believe something in the order of about 60 to 65 million track

stumpage. The others can be on private lands or in old timber berths

where royalties are assessed. That's fairly clear. I don't see any

mystery there.

MR. ROSE: Then why is it part of this act

if you do it anyway?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I don't see anything

wrong with pointing

out to all involved, so that there are no surprises, that this is one

method — and probably the most utilized method — for generating

revenues. It's just being right up front about it.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I'm not trying to

be obtuse about

this. It's a genuine question; it’s not designed to embarrass anybody.

Since you can raise money through stumpage anyway, is this a method of

raising money for this fund if necessary? Is it yes or no? You can

raise the money anyway. You have the power to do this under the

Forestry Act, for whatever purposes you need to raise the money.

There's no appropriation for this $20 million; it's tucked away in a

finance bill somewhere, so presumably it's coming out of general

revenue. But that may not be true. It may be coming out of this

section

4, which is extra stumpage for a special purpose. That's the question

I'm asking.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The money raised through

the conventional

method of collection or taxation through stumpage goes to consolidated

revenue. Under

section 2 it says: "The fund shall consist of revenue

from a levy imposed under

section 4." We go to

section 4 and it says

that levy could very well come from a separate levy that we would

assess industry for the Forest Stand Management Fund, and it is

identified for that purpose.

MR. ROSE: Then the answer is obviously yes.

It's a special

way of getting money for this fund, and it gives you power to raise any

part of it that you don't wish to take from general revenue.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Right.

MR. ROSE: That's what I started out to ask

five minutes ago.

We did a sort of ring around the rosy on this for about five minutes,

which was perhaps not necessary.

Just let me say one thing in conclusion. The minister

mentioned that

he was ever hopeful of approaching his counterpart, the Minister of

State for Forestry, and getting some more money out of this, and I said

he wouldn't get it. This was just an aside. The reason I don't think

he'll get it is the fact that there are many more companies and small

mills and family properties in Quebec and the Maritimes, and the

political pressure will be intense that anything done for B.C. In an

extra way, even though we contribute far more.... They're scared

witless of us here. If this is a countervail in the softwoods.... Those

people down in the Maritimes just had a convention and they're really

scared, because they think B.C. will turn its tremendous production and

efficiency and productivity into their markets. That's what they're

frightened about. And the political realities, as all of us know, are

that when there's political pressure, central Canada and the Maritimes

are going to get the biggest share of it, or at least they're going to

make certain that we don't, regardless of how much we contribute as a

province to the overall forestry exports, Canada's greatest export in

terms of income. So it's quite serious, but I don't think that we'll

get any breaks no matter how cosy this government here is with the

current federal government.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

Title approved.

[4:00]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I move the

committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

[ Page 8662 ]

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Bill 6, Forest Stand Management Fund Act, reported complete

with amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read

a third time?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: With leave of the House

now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 6, Forest Stand Management Fund Act, read a third time

and passed.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Committee on Bill 35,

Mr. Speaker.

CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1986

The House in committee on Bill 35; Mr. Ree in the chair.

Sections 1 to 16 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, I move the

committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Bill 35, Consumer and Corporate Affairs Statutes Amendment

Act,

1986, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Committee on Bill 28,

Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 1), 1986

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

section 1.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: On a point of order, I

wonder if I may inquire

of the government House Leader who is carrying this bill for the

government side. I notice the Attorney-General is not present.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the

Attorney-General is on

his way. In the meantime, if the members opposite need further

information, we can either wait for a second or I can carry the

section. Here he is now.

Sections 1 to 22 inclusive approved.

section 23.

MR. COCKE: My question applies to the

preceding two or three

sections, I'd just like the minister to indicate the reason for this.

Is it so that if a person is lost or something along that line the

family can make a decision about their pension or superannuation?

HON. MR. SMITH: These various amendments

allow some

flexibility to the superannuation commissioner that he didn't otherwise

have to allow backdating of the commencement of a superannuation

allowance. Under the current act only an incapacity to manage one's

affairs may be considered by the commissioner as a basis for backdating

the commencement of a superannuation allowance to which somebody is

entitled. The present requirements can inadvertently create an unjust

situation and prevent the commissioner from commencing a regular

pension benefit where for any reason the qualified pension recipient

hasn't filed the forms at the proper time.

I'll give you an example. There was a Charter challenge on

retirement by one person, and he subsequently decided not to go forward

with that Charter challenge in the courts, only to find that he had

technically lost his entitlement under the legislation. This is

designed to give the commissioner the power to be more flexible in

those situations.

Sections 23 to 32 inclusive approved.

section 33.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, under practice

recommendations, I

would ask that we stand clause 33 until my colleague gets back with

some information.

MR. CHAIRMAN: By leave of the House, clause

33 is stood down.

Sections 34 to 37 inclusive approved.

section 33.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, will you stand

clause 33? Could the

House Leader go on to another bill and then come back to this bill? I

move we report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

AN HON. MEMBER: We'd like you to consult

with the Clerks for

a moment, because.... Anyway, we've talked long enough now that the

member is back.

Motion negatived.

section 33.

MR. ROSE: Do I understand, Mr. Chairman,

that we've passed

the bill but deleted

section 33? I just wanted to check about

something. This is an addition empowering the inspector to suspend in

independent schools a teacher for cause under recommendation of a

teacher's certification committee. I think it's a useful thing, and I

wasn't certain of the background of it, but it gives them disciplinary

powers which at the moment do not exist in terms of revoking the right

to teach at an independent school for whatever cause, whether it's the

kind we've just heard about in the celebrated case of the public

schools, or for whatever. I think it gives the

[ Page 8663 ]

inspector certain powers that he

needs, but he

cannot act without a recommendation of the colleagues in that same

institution or branch thereof, or somewhere else, and so that's fine.

HON. MR. SMITH: I appreciate those

comments. As I think the

member knows, about one-third of all the teachers in independent

schools now have these independent teaching certificates, and the

remaining two-thirds have B.C. teaching certificates which allow them

to teach in either the public or the independent system. The old

legislation states nothing about how an independent school teaching

certificate, once granted, can be revoked. There needs to be some power

for revocation. Without that power, a teacher who was dismissed, say,

for sexual abuse might use the credential to obtain a position in

another independent school. The amendment will simply bring the

independent school certificates into line with the B.C. teaching

certificates. I think the profession would welcome it, and I thank the

member for his comment.

MR. ROSE: I don't want to add too much to

it, but I would

like to say that I'm sorry that the word "certified" is used in the

same sense in the public schools and in the independent schools or

private schools, because it indicates that there is an equivalency

there, and very often there isn't. A person can become certified to

teach in an independent school — and I'm not saying it's always the

case; the minister has just said it's a two-third, one-third ratio —

without what we would regard as adequate certification or

qualifications. The big problem in teaching is that "certification" is

frequently assumed to mean qualifications. I wish some kind of

distinction could be drawn at some future date in terms of definition.

We've had a spate in the private members' committee of this

right-to-title legislation. I think that there should be some

distinction made between those who are qualified to teach in a

secondary public school — have the proper degrees and have been passed

through the teacher qualification service — and those who haven't done

that and do not have equivalency in terms of qualifications.

Section 33 approved.

Title approved.

[4:15]

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I move the

committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 28, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1986,

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, Committee

on Bill 36.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1986

The House in committee on Bill 36; Mr. Ree in the chair.

Sections 1 to 20 inclusive approved.

section 21.

MR. ROSE: Well, I would just like to say

that this is my

constituent's finest hour. Congratulations to the Attorney-General for

being flexible on this. I think it is worth some mention because this

is a change. The Land Title Act required that the originals of the

power of attorney of someone acting on behalf of an indigent or

incompetent person, once registered and settled in a particular land

titles office, could never be removed. This put a great number of

people at supreme disadvantage. If there was one original power of

attorney, the person was unable to grant further amendments, and

someone having to act on their behalf in a property settlement, bank

loan or whatever sort of transfer was put at a tremendous disadvantage.

The regulations were such and the act was such that there was no way

around it without this change. I think it is to the minister's credit

that he has brought this in, and I appreciate the fact that he did that

when I approached him on this.

Lo and behold, I was discussing this over the weekend one of

my few

conquests in changing legislation in 15 years — when my wife looked

over at me and said: "You know, I've been stuck on that same problem."

She does the business in our family, and frequently she has been

hobbled in her efforts to conclude some particular piece of business

because of this very thing. Now I wasn't doing it on my own behalf. I

was doing it on a constituent's behalf, and I want you to know that

there is no conflict here. But I appreciate the change, and I know my

constituent will. I am sure my wife will.

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, it is unheard of, of

course, to

incorporate wise suggestions from opposite sides of this chamber, no

matter which is on this side and which on that side. But in this case

you are to be congratulated for bringing something forward that made a

lot of sense. I'm delighted to put it in.

Sections 21 to 24 inclusive approved.

section 25.

HON. MR. SMITH: I move the amendment

standing in my name to

section 25. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I won't take

long on this section.

I would like to indicate that we obviously support this amendment for

very good reasons. Powell River is in financial straits, and the member

for that area and I brought this to the attention of the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) during his estimates. The

government has acted according to our requests and come up with a

proposal.

However, we are on record with the government, with the

Minister of

Municipal Affairs — unfortunately he is not here today — as suggesting

or advising that there are communities other than Powell River

experiencing these kinds of problems. We have suggested and advocated

that there be an emergency relief package developed for other

communities such as has been developed for Powell River. The member for

North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), who cannot be with us today,

[ Page 8664 ]

has the community of Tahsis, which

faces the same

predicament, but unfortunately thus far has had very little response

from this government. We support the Powell River amendment, but we

would also like to see the government come in with a global program, a

fair program that applies to all these small communities that have gone

under assessment rollbacks, a package that deals fairly with every

community. We would just like to go on record as making that request

today. We will support the amendment, but we would like a relief

package for other communities, such as Tahsis and Elkford and others.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I too, as the second member

for Victoria said,

spoke extensively on this problem that the

section deals with during

the debate on the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. However, since that

time the government has, through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, and

I believe the Attorney-General, certainly the Ministry of Finance,

reached an agreement with the municipality of Powell River in regard to

the repayment of what was originally a $10.4 million overpayment of

taxation by the MacMillan Bloedel company to the municipality, the

regional district and school district. Much of that money has been

repaid.

The reason, Mr. Chairman, I get to my feet this afternoon is

that

since this agreement was reached this proposal in front of us today was

put before the municipal council in Powell River and was accepted by

the council, as I recall unanimously but with great trepidation. The

mayor was quoted as saying that in accepting this proposal the

municipal council had a gun to its head.

The municipal council really only had two choices, Mr.

Chairman:

either to accept this proposal or have the municipality placed under

trusteeship. The trustee, of course, would have been named by the

Minister of Municipal Affairs, and then, of course, we would have had

no local representation at all.

What this means is an increase in taxation of $62 per year for

every

property owner within that municipality, plus a further tax increase,

Mr. Chairman, dealing with when the school board is forced to increase

taxes, which we're not talking about here. What I'm talking about is

taxation of property owners. This

section means basically a $62 a year

tax increase for every property owner in that municipality.

So I'm going to support the amendment, but only for the

reasons I

outlined a few minutes ago. The municipal council are very unhappy with

the situation, a situation brought on by the government in the first

place. I don't want to go through that whole argument again. Just to

remind the House very quickly of what happened, the B.C. Assessment

Authority provided the municipality with the figures on which they base

their annual assessment over the years of all the property owners,

including the MacMillan Bloedel company, which subsequently sued the

municipality and, after approximately a two-year court case, won the

court case. Now the municipality and the taxpayers have to pay back

that money. A large portion of the 74 has been paid back by the

provincial government.

So, Mr. Chairman, without extending this debate unduly, I can

tell

the minister that I will support this amendment under duress, if that's

the correct term — reluctantly.

Amendment approved.

section 25 as amended.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to

speak about.... I

think we should now segment this section. We should segment it as

follows: we have 259 under this section, we have 260, and now through

the amendment we have 261.

I'm interested in 260. I'm interested in the new Kelowna

convention

centre lease exemption. I don't know, but it appears to me that the

address here sounds like the Capri Hotel. Can the minister advise

whether or not we're exempting the Capri Hotel from taxation? Is that

going to be the new convention centre in Kelowna? I wonder if the

minister could answer that question first.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, I cannot. But the

Victoria one, as you

know, is land owned by the CPR; it's Empress Hotel property. I can't

tell you what the Kelowna thing is. If you want to stand that

section

down, we'll try to get an answer.

MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would ask

that that

section be stood down until such time as we have an answer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On

section 25 as amended.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I'm asking that

the

section be stood down. If you wish to....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Section 25 as amended be

stood down until completion of the bill.

Leave granted.

Section 26 approved.

section 27.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, this section,

because of the change

of name of the association, widens the definition of optometrist. There

would be nothing here, I would gather from the minister, that would

assist those optometrists who feel now that they are being offended

vis-à-vis their right to practise in department stores.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, the member is correct

that the changes

don't deal with that issue. This deals with the organization and

domestic rules and the rule-making powers and the powers of the board

of examiners, but there is nothing in there that deals with the other

question that you asked about.

MR. COCKE: Because of our long-standing

practice in this

House that when we allow a bill to go from second reading to

committee.... We practise that when we open a bill, then the bill is

open for discussion. Now I'm not going to make a long speech about it,

but I really think that it's absolutely absurd that particularly in

view of the fact that some of these optometrists have practised for

years and years in that environment.... I see no difference, for

example, in an optometrist being permitted space in Woodwards or Sears,

or wherever, and a doctor in a shopping centre. I don't understand why

they are being prohibited, and I think that I'd just like my name on

record as being one who feels that they're not being treated properly.

Sections 27 to 57 inclusive approved.

section 25 as amended.

[ Page 8665 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, I

have my staff now phoning the city of Kelowna for a physical

description of the land. We have only the legal description in the

bill. We can either report progress and come back to debate on that

section or, if the member would accept this, I can give you a full

report on the physical description of the land when it comes in. I'm

prepared to do whichever you wish.

MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like

it delayed, certainly, or delete and report progress, or however you

care to do it.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: We can report

resolution and ask leave to sit again.

[4:30]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. House Leader, possibly

the Chair could

suggest you report progress and ask leave to sit again, and probably

the House would grant leave to sit again today.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, I move the

committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to

sit again.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the committee

sit again?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: With leave of the

House, later this afternoon, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

The House in Committee of Supply: Mr. Ree in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

AGRICULTURE AND FOOD

On vote 5: minister's office, $188,992.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I will

not be making a long

introductory speech regarding the estimates of the Ministry of

Agriculture and Food. I have found through many years that regardless

of what I say it is always woefully inadequate in any event, and we

have to go over the same ground later on. But before beginning

discussions with the members opposite I would just like to pay tribute

to my predecessor in this office, the member for Chilliwack (Mr.

Schroeder), who was Minister of Agriculture for, I believe, about three

years, and who, I think, did an excellent job.

During this time the former minister conceived the idea of

Food Pacific '86, which is really going to be a great opportunity for

the agricultural and food-processing industry in British Columbia to

show its wares to the world, and for the world to come and see what we

have to offer, together with what all the other nations in the world

are doing with their food products and food marketing. A tremendous

opportunity, and my understanding is that it will be very well attended.

Over the last year the agricultural industry in British

Columbia has

had a mixed experience in the marketplace in terms of their revenue and

well-being. Generally income for the farm community has risen

marginally, although there are some commodity groups which have gone

down and others which have gone up rather dramatically. As has been the

case throughout history, we are continually subject to the whims of

nature. We have had areas of the province suffer through drought,

others through flooding at different times, through frost and all those

things that Mother Nature throws at us. Through the year it has been

necessary to provide some support programs for different sectors of the

agricultural community who have been affected by adverse weather

conditions, and we do have a number of programs in place to help such

producers.

One of the main thrusts of the ministry in recent years, and

which

will continue into the future, is to work with the industry in terms of

marketing their products, developing new markets, and better marketing

of products, and also in assuring that as much as we can we promote the

use of modem management tools in the agriculture and food sector.

One of the bright lights on the economic front in British

Columbia

right now, particularly in the food sector, is the aquaculture

business. I realize that there is some controversy in some areas as to

where aquacultural products — in particular salmon fish-farms — should

be located, and I guess this will continue. Whenever there's a new kid

on the block everyone has to figure out what this new kid is about and

how it will affect what has happened in the past in various resource

use areas. I just hope that as we promote and develop our aquaculture

industry we can do it in a consultative way with people in the industry

and with other people who have the need to use and the right to use the

waterways and water resources of British Columbia. Hopefully, as we do

that, we can convince the people of British Columbia that aquaculture

is something that we can use to create an awful lot of employment and

to enhance our food production in this province.

It's estimated by various people who are knowledgeable in the

aquaculture sector that within the next six or seven years the

production of farm salmon in British Columbia will increase from 200 or

300 tonnes right now to over 15,000 tonnes a year. That is the type of

growth experience which Norway realized over the last 10 or 15 years,

and many people from Norway are now coming to British Columbia seeking

joint venture opportunities with British Columbians. Hopefully we will

see the aquaculture sector grow, as did theirs.

With those few remarks, I will more than welcome suggestions

and, I guess, perhaps criticism from the members opposite.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MS. SANFORD: One of the things I notice

this afternoon is

that, as usual, when the subject of agriculture and food comes up for

debate in the Legislature, there are a lot of conversations that take

place around and about the chamber indicating that the interest is not

as it should be in this particular subject. We have here one of British

Columbia's most important industries, yet we find that the interest is

not there from the provincial government. As a matter of fact,

[ Page 8666 ]

Mr. Chairman, we have a government

that has

abandoned the farmers of British Columbia. I'm going to point that out

this afternoon during the time we have on the estimated expenditures of

the Ministry of Agriculture.

The minister said very little about the kind of serious

financial

troubles that the farmers are facing. Our agricultural community is in

the most serious trouble it's been in since the thirties, but the

minister passed very lightly, as did his predecessor last year, over

the kind of economic problems that the agricultural industry is facing.

Mr. Chairman, this is an industry which must survive. It is different

from other industries. It is absolutely essential — crucial — that we

as legislators ensure that that industry survives. I hope to point out

this afternoon that the government is not only not interested; it is in

fact allowing that industry to be abandoned and neglected. All you have

to do is look at the budget for this year, at the attitude of the

government toward agriculture and free trade, at the attitude of the

government toward the agricultural land reserve, and the only

conclusion you can come to is that this government, this minister, does

not have the interest, and yes, has abandoned the farmers of the

province.

Today, one out of every five dollars in B.C.'s economy is

generated

through the farm sector, yet 20 percent of the nearly 9,000 farmers are

in severe financial trouble. On top of that, 53 percent of the farming

community are in serious financial trouble; that's up from 37 percent

last year. Where will it go next year? Those people who are in severe

financial difficulty are on the brink of financial collapse. I don't

know if the minister is aware of it. He certainly has not indicated in

any statements, in any actions, that he is aware of it, or is concerned

about it if he is aware of it. He started out today, in these important

estimates of one of our most important industries, talking about the

food fair at Expo. The entire agricultural community throughout the

province is concerned about surviving, and the minister's lead item is

about the food fair they're going to have at Expo.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: The Minister of Tourism (Hon.

Mr. Richmond) says I'm against the food fair at Expo. What nonsense!

Mr. Chairman, the difficulties that B.C. farmers face exceed

those

in the rest of Canada. There's no doubt that the crisis we have now is

one of the worst the farmers have ever seen. I'm going to give a few

figures indicating the seriousness of the situation at this time.

In B.C. the major chartered banks predominate in farm lending

to a

much greater extent than they do in any other province: 51.9 percent of

the $861.8 million of long-term farm debt as of January '84 is financed

by the chartered banks. This is the highest ratio in Canada; the

national average is somewhere around 27.4 percent.

One of the main reasons for this is that the provincial

government

has not made available to the farmers in this province the kind of

long-term credit that is absolutely crucial at this time, if in fact

that farming community is going to survive. The amount of long-term

finance provided by British Columbia is only 1.3 percent, compared to

27 percent in Alberta, over 14 percent in Manitoba, or the national

average of 11.4 percent.

There is one indicator of the kind of priority, the kind of

interest, the kind of commitment that this government has to that

valuable agricultural industry in British Columbia.

These facts are important when we consider that interest

charges are

the highest farm expense in B.C., accounting for $149.2 million in

1984, and this was after the partial interest reimbursement program,

which totalled $11 million in 1984.

Net farm interest payments increased by over $10 million in

over the previous year. Interest charges as a percentage of operating

costs amount to over 27 percent. Now that is quite a burden for the

farmers to have to carry. The Farm Credit Corporation data also

portrays vividly the extent to which all farm families have been forced

to rely upon off farm income. There is another indication of the kind

of difficulty that the farmers in British Columbia and throughout

Canada are facing.

[4:45]

In order to survive, farm families now have to turn to outside

income, and what kind of a commentary is that on one of our most

important industries? Eighty-two percent of those people who have

assets of $236,000 or less now rely on off-farm income. In relation to

average farm sales, farms with the highest level of sales, over

$79,000, have experienced the greatest increase in off-farm incomes. It

is the only way those farmers are able to survive today. That's the

only that they are going to be able to survive.

So what does the B.C. government do about all of these

problems?

What does the B.C. government do about one of our most important

industries, Mr. Chairman? They cut the budget for agriculture. That's

the way to deal with those farmers, who are facing the greatest, most

serious financial crisis that they have faced since the thirties: cut

the budget. Megaprojects galore, but cut the budget for the farmers.

Now when I say that they have cut the budget, I want to point

out

that they have included the federal government's ERDA money in the

budget this year. That's a nice way of trying to pad the figures a bit

to try to convince the farmers they are doing something for them. The

budget is up 1.5 percent, but inflation is up over 3 percent. So there

is no other way of looking at it. They have cut the budget for

agriculture at a time when the farmers are facing the most serious

financial crisis since the thirties.

The minister made some reference to some programs that they

have

introduced because of the problems related to climate, drought, frost,

and it's true. But the only thing that that government is doing is

responding to the most severe crisis, a crisis that they would not be

able to withstand politically because there would be so many farmers

that would be unable to continue all at once. You could also include in

that, Mr. Chairman, the bailout of the grape growers and the wine

industry. Certainly the grape-growers needed bailing out at this stage,

but the largest problem related to the need for that bailout of the

grape-growers and the wine industry lies squarely on the shoulders of

the provincial government, who allowed the import of American grapes,

in spite of the fact that they had an 80-20 policy with respect to

imports. They just said: "No problem with that. Bring them in." They

knew what was happening in terms of the change in taste of the

consuming public; they knew that people were preferring white wine to

red wine. Yet they allowed the wineries to continue having their

vineyards produce largely red grapes. No attempt was made to convert to

white. As a result, the government got into a position where they had

to bail out.

For the first time, Mr. Chairman, the B.C. Federation of

Agriculture

is so concerned about the future of its industry that they have held

meetings throughout the province. Eleven

[ Page 8667 ]

separate meetings have been held to

try to come to

grips with the financial problems their members are facing. These have

been well-attended meetings, and all of them have expressed the same

concern: basic survival of the agriculture industry. What has been the

response of the government? Cut the budget for farmers.

A resolution was passed at the B.C. Federation of Agriculture

convention this year which asks for a six-month review before

foreclosures take place, so that the various debts they are facing

could be restructured; so that a new approach could be taken, in an

attempt to ensure the survival of some of the farmers now in such a

critical state.

Provincially we've cut the budget. Provincially we have a

minister

who, I'm sure, would be much happier back in the Ministry of Forests

than he is in Agriculture. He's certainly given no indication to the

farmers of the province that he has their interests as a priority. As a

result, we have this kind of crisis. I consider it a crisis in the

province with respect to that industry.

In the province of Saskatchewan the Minister of Agriculture

was

quite concerned with what was happening, and as a result, the province

of Saskatchewan introduced a program which is a $48 million fund to

help farmers feed their livestock over the winter. They have also

brought in a $2 billion relief program for farmers. Then there's

Alberta. The farmers in Alberta are also having problems, Mr. Chairman.

I have a clipping here, dated April 4, 1986, in which is announced out

of Edmonton a $2 billion program to provide low-interest loans to

hard-pressed farmers.

What happens in B. C.? We cut the budget. Not only that, but

we also

find that the minister, or the government — I'm not sure whether the

minister himself has been involved in this discussion; certainly his

predecessor was — is also discussing removing some of the programs now

in place. Farmers at the various hearings they held throughout the

province were most concerned about the partial interest reimbursement

program, which has been chopped and chopped since its original — 1973,

I think — introduction, so that that program is not providing the

assistance it was at that time. Nonetheless, it has provided some

assistance to some of the farmers. Yet we hear that the government is

considering eliminating that particular program, or altering it in such

a way that it will be virtually useless to the farmers.

This government's good friends at the federal level have made

some

changes with respect to agriculture and funding for agriculture. The

present BCFA president in British Columbia, Harold Allison, talks about

the overall picture being negative at the federal level as well. He

says that the $65 million introduced in new programs at the federal

level is offset by a reduction of $93 million in the Agriculture Canada

budget for 1986-87. I should say it's been offset.

So it is a pretty sad picture with respect to the financial

situation of the farmers in British Columbia. We have a minister who

seems to go along with his government in terms of free trade and the

impact that that will have. We have a minister who seems to go along

with removing agricultural land from the agricultural land reserve. We

have a minister who is prepared to accept totally inadequate staffing

levels throughout the ministry.

We've had huge cuts in field operations. As a matter of fact,

I was

in contact with one of the field operation offices, Mr. Chairman, and

was told that they can't even afford any more at that level to buy the

periodicals and the various publications that they need to keep up with

what is happening in the agriculture industry. They've had to cancel

those because they don't have sufficient funding. Can you imagine that?

Some of them are subscribing on their own and bringing the copies to

the office to try to build up a bit of a library so they can keep up

with some of the things that are happening nationally and

internationally in agriculture. That's some commitment to agriculture.

Aside from the problems related to budget and the economic

survival

of the farmer, we have what I consider a major problem related to the

fact that this government is still prepared to allow valuable

agricultural land to be released from the agricultural land reserve.

When the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), who served as the Minister

of Agriculture between 1972 and 1975, introduced legislation to ensure

that land capable of producing food would be preserved for that

purpose, I was one of his staunchest supporters. The people of the

province recognize the value of that piece of legislation.

Oh sure, have a little laugh there, Mr. Minister.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, all right, that's fine. I

thought you were

laughing about the agricultural land reserve, because I happen to

recognize the attitude that exists there.

Mr. Chairman, what has happened is that the government,

through

changes to that legislation, allowed the Environment and Land Use

Committee of cabinet, behind closed doors without any information being

given to the public, to remove parcels of valuable class I and 2

farmland from the agricultural land reserve. It is not just the removal

of those acres from the agricultural land reserve over the objections

of the Land Commission; it is the fact that once you remove one small

parcel, then all of the parcels around it are affected, and it makes it

much more difficult for the Land Commission to say no when the

applications come in for the areas surrounding the particular piece of

agricultural land that has been removed by the Environment and Land Use

Committee.

[5:00]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I don't know when the government is going to smarten up and

understand the value of the preservation of that land; is going to

smarten up and say no to its political friends when they come and ask

for land to be removed from the agricultural land reserve; when it's

going to smarten up and listen to those people. Their own appointees on

the Land Commission, who say this land is too valuable to be taken out

of the agricultural land reserve.... The future of our children and our

children's children is too important to allow this garage or that

parking lot or that church or whatever to go in on this particular

piece of land.

There have been very questionable removals of agricultural

land from

the agricultural land reserve in recent times by the Environment and

Land Use Committee. What about that Baptist church, South Delta Baptist

Church, that came to the government and s