1985 Legislative Session: 3rd 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)

THURSDAY, JUNE 27, 1985

Morning Sitting

[ Page

6913 ]

CONTENTS

Presenting Reports –– 6913

Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985 (Bill 55). Hon. Mr. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 6913

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1985 (Bill 56). Committee stage 6913

Mr. Howard

Ms. Sanford

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Lauk

Ms. Brown

Third reading

Applied Science Technology Act (Bill PR401). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 6919

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

On vote 34: minister's office –– 6919

Hon. Mr. Waterland

Mr. Howard

Mr. Stupich

Tabling Documents –– 6926

Presenting Reports –– 6926

Appendix –– 6926

THURSDAY, JUNE 27, 1985

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Presenting Reports

Mr. Veitch, Chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Standing

Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services presented the committee's

third report, which was read as follows and received:

"Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on

Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services begs leave to

report as follows:

"The

preamble to Bill PR402 has been approved and the bill ordered to be reported as amended in committee.

"All of this is respectfully submitted. Elwood Veitch, Chairman,

Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members'

Services."

Introduction of Bills

ATTORNEY-GENERAL STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1985

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

a bill intituled Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, introducing this bill, it has

some important amendments. It will ensure that all law firms practising

in the province will be accountable to the Law Society of British

Columbia; it will provide greater security for money deposited in

lawyers' general trust accounts; and it will make foreclosure

proceedings more convenient for defendants by requiring them to be

dealt with in the supreme court location nearest their property.

The goal to have lawyers professionally accountable to the Law

Society of British Columbia is an elusive and noble one, but if these

lawyers are under the supervision of lawyers who are not members of the

bar but.... In other provinces it presents problems.

The amendments will enable the Law Society to use pool trust

accounts and thereby increase the earnings, producing benefits for the

Law Foundation of British Columbia. These additional earnings will be

used to purchase additional insurance, will provide greater security

for money deposited in lawyers' general trust accounts, and of course

will benefit legal aid.

The amendment to the Law and Equity Act will require that, unless the court

orders otherwise, every foreclosure proceeding on a mortgage be dealt with in

the supreme court registry nearest the property. Currently a company or an individual

holding a mortgage is entitled to commence foreclosure proceedings in any registry

most convenient to him or her or to his or her lawyer, who may be in Vancouver.

In many cases this means the defendant has to travel to Vancouver even though

the land being foreclosed is in some other part of the province. This amendment

in most cases will make it more convenient for the defendant who lives on or

near the property in question. Also, these actions can be moved to another registry

by order.

Bill 55 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.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, just before calling the order,

I think I'd be remiss if I didn't observe for all members, and

particularly for their wives and children and for the press gallery and

their spouses and siblings, that today it is six months less two days

till Christmas, and the days are getting shorter, and I do hope there's

a message there.

I call committee on Bill 56, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT

(No. 3), 1985

The House in committee on Bill 56, Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Section 30 approved.

section 31.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I take it that the Minister of

Forests is going to hang onto the words "subsequent scale" in

section

31, even though they apparently mean the same thing as check scale, and

yet they are different words to describe the same event. I want to

reiterate that in law that doesn't seem to make much sense. If you're

going to say the same thing, then use the same words to describe it,

and don't leave the court in doubt at any time as to what the

interpretation might be,

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned yesterday,

neither the member nor I are trained in legal matters. I have discussed

it again with our legislative counsel people, and they advise me that

it is quite in order and has a definite meaning.

Section 31 approved.

section 32.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I don't really know who to address

this to. We're amending the Land Title Act, which I believe is under

the jurisdiction of the Attorney-General, but it refers to the Minister

of Environment and what he may do to designate various floodplain

areas. I'll try the Minister of Environment.

The Minister of Environment, under this new amended section, will

now be able to designate floodplain areas. This designation can be done

by "map, plan, legal description or a combination of any of them." That

sounds to me like quite a dog's breakfast. You could do this by various

ways. Does it mean that whatever way these floodplain areas are

designated, that designation will then appear on the title for that

particular piece of land?

HON. MR. PELTON: Mr. Chairman, the phrase you used — dog's breakfast — I subscribe to wholeheartedly. I

[ Page 6914 ]

consider the whole process of land within the

floodplain a bit of a dog's breakfast at the moment. We're trying to

address the issues and sort them out. This amendment to the Land Title

Act is going to give me the authority to delegate authority down to the

approving officers in municipalities, towns, cities or regional

districts, to try to facilitate somehow or other the very lengthy

delays that people put up with on account of those regulations which

now exist in the floodplain legislation. It will also provide the

minister — whoever that might be from time to time — with a certain

amount of flexibility so that we can address individual issues which

come out, and which can't be addressed at the moment because there is

absolutely no flexibility built into the floodplain regulations.

This is primarily what we are doing. I'm also reviewing the whole

business of floodplain legislation and hope to bring forward many more

amendments to it before too long.

[10:15]

MS. SANFORD: The minister did not say whether or not these

designations will appear on the land titles — the property title that

the people own. It seems to me that when these various pieces of

property are sold, the people have a right to know whether or not they

have this special designation that will now be allowed under this

particular piece of legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I have yet another concern with respect to this

particular section, and that is that presumably these designations are

to ensure that people will not build on a floodplain and then come to

the government for financial assistance as soon as they're flooded out,

say, ten years down the road, or five years, or even the following year

after they build. One of the things that government has been attempting

to do.... And I know this is not new. This goes back at least until the

time we were in government; we attempted to come to grips with this.

But if you're going to impose a lot of requirements on a property owner

before he can build, subject to the floodplain requirement.... He may

have to bring in fill; he may have to put the house up on stilts; he

may have to do something in order to meet the requirements of this

particular section. But, Mr. Chairman, what's happening now is that

people go to all of the expense of bringing in landfill and ensuring

that they meet the requirements that are set out now, in order to build

the property level up so that it won't be flooded out and there won't

be an appeal to government for emergency assistance if in fact their

house gets wiped out or they get damaged. In some cases people go to

all that expense, and then, at the same time, are faced with a covenant

that says they have no right to make any claim. It seems to me that we

are imposing upon them a double jeopardy.

I have an example of where this has happened. This has happened in

the Pemberton area, where this couple met all of the requirements, all

of the stipulations — the covenant is very clear — and all of the

things that they had to do. They went to the expense of complying with

the requirements that were set forth by government to ensure that they

would be above the 200-year floodplain level, and at the same time they

have to waive their right to any kind of financial assistance if, in

fact, they do get flooded. In this case they were flooded, and they

were denied. The assessor came and assessed the damage, which was

significant, but they were denied because of this covenant. It seems

unfair that if you're going to require the additional expense of

building up the landfill, putting the house on stilts or whatever else

is required, then at the same time you deny them the right to any kind

of claim under the provincial emergency program, which is available to

most other people who have, presumably, complied with the regulations

in existence. I wonder if the minister could comment on those two

particular issues.

HON. MR. PELTON: I'm sorry I didn't answer the first question

the first time, hon. member. To the best of my knowledge, the covenants

are placed on the titles only when there has not been a compliance.

Mind you, you've just pointed out an instance where this is not

correct. My understanding has always been that the 215 covenant is only

placed on the title when there is a requirement because the individual

involved has not fulfilled some of the requirements for the

flood-proofing. But insofar as the designations are concerned, I don't

believe they would appear in the title; they would appear in community

plans so that people would know when they went into something that they

were in a floodplain. That is to the best of my understanding.

The second point you raise about the double jeopardy does sound to

be very unfair. I would appreciate if I could receive a copy of that

particular case you have, hon. member, so that I could look into it and

try to take some action to see that it ceases forthwith. It seems to me

to be a very unfair situation indeed.

Sections 32 to 40 inclusive approved.

section 41.

MRS. DAILLY: As the minister is well aware, we're against the

principle of his handling of billing numbers in this province, but at

least

section 41 and the next

section do eliminate some of the problems

which some of the physicians faced. I realize it goes back six months

to those who were caught in the prior legislation. So I'll just say to

the minister that at least that was a step in the right direction

there, but of course it doesn't change our ultimate objections.

Sections 41 and 42 approved.

section 43.

MRS. DAILLY: Sections 43 to 45 are very major changes as far

as we're concerned in the official opposition, and we're pleased with

them because they deal with medical laboratories. The change,

basically, that has been made does allow now for some accountability

for the inspection of the records by the commission of the private

medical labs. This is something which has been asked for not only by

the opposition but, I know, by other people who have been involved in

this area, including physicians.

There have been a number of studies done on the enormous profits

that have been made in private labs, and yet on the other hand I think

we have to hold the provincial government and its fiscal cutbacks in

the whole health field responsible for some of these problems where the

public purse is being used increasingly to finance the private sector.

This is because the fiscal squeeze in the hospitals today is forcing

more lab work to go outside, and the whole thing becomes a vicious

circle. The government finds that the cost of work going to the private

labs is creating an impact on the public purse, and yet on the other

hand the fiscal squeeze that is

[ Page

6915 ]

being exerted by the government on the hospitals is forcing more and more of

the work that could be done in the hospital labs to go to the private labs.

So once again the point I am making to the minister — and I'd like

his reaction — is does it not seem to be a very foolish financial

policy of your government, of which you happen to be a cabinet minister

and so, I'm sure, sit in on these decisions in cabinet? Does it not

seem to you rather ridiculous that the public purse is being forced

into more financing of private labs because of your cutbacks in the

hospitals? Could the minister answer that?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this

legislation actually is to provide some control over the number of

private laboratories which bill our medical plan. The original

legislation was written at a time when laboratories conducted a certain

role. That role has changed over the years so the legislation must be

modified to meet the contemporary requirements. The majority of

laboratories are in a hospital setting; however, there are needs for

private laboratories in various parts of the province, including what

they refer to as bleeding stations, and they do serve a useful

purposes. We feel it's essential that the commission have control over

the proliferation of laboratories. It would appear that without this

legislation the commission may perhaps be in some jeopardy with respect

to controlling the number of laboratories.

Mr. Chairman, we have another concern with respect to laboratories: that is,

the tremendous technological expansion of equipment suitable for diagnostic

use. In fact, we're concerned with a new development in the medical world

whereby a doctor can purchase what is almost a do-it-yourself lab kit. They're

very effective. But the question is: is that a laboratory per se and will the

doctor be able to bill the medical services plan for laboratory tests? We must

have some absolute authority to be able to identify and to license. So that's

the purpose of it. Hospital laboratories still do a tremendous amount of the

work; it depends on which community it may be. The hospitals have much more

sophisticated equipment by far when it comes to certain tests than the private

laboratories would have, but we are concerned about the extremely high costs

of laboratory tests and we intend to pursue that most vigorously.

MRS. DAILLY: Following the minister's answer, may I suggest

to him that one option he has to pursue there is to perhaps release

some more funds to the hospitals so that they are in a position of

carrying on with more of the testing, and it doesn't have to spill over

so much into the private labs.

One more question. Would the minister agree that private labs, which

as we know are obtaining their revenues from the medical services plan

— which is the public purse — are really under no pressure to constrain

the amount of tests that they order — you know, the amount of tests

they're doing and the amount-of tests that are ordered by some of the

doctors involved with the labs?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: As the member would know, the general practitioner

or the specialist is the person who calls for a test for the patient, and the

lab simply complies with that request. A number of steps have been taken to

try to lessen the impact from a financial point of view. One step that we took,

which doesn't appear as important as it is, was to change the forms with

respect to ordering lab tests. It was common practice for the forms to be just

a check-off list; a physician could simply tick off from the shopping list a

number of tests that he may require for the patient. We're suggesting that

they write the test out. The physician actually requests specific tests rather

than checking off a number of tests. There's no question that a lot of tests

are ordered simply because the practitioner may feel: "Well, why not?"

Another problem is that the advance in technology has provided

laboratories with the capability of conducting certain tests in far

less time than it previously took, without necessarily precise expert

help. Some of the machinery now available actually conducts the tests

in a computerized way, where previously it required an individual to do

it visually with a microscope or whatever. Yet we are still paying the

same fee. So we intend to negotiate that aspect to see if we can lower

the costs because of the actual cost to the laboratory of conducting

the tests. It's a difficult area to control because it is on request.

I think one of the other minor problems facing the medical

profession is the concern of litigation. If they choose not to order a

test, and later on there are difficulties for the patient which could

have been identified by a test, the doctors — quite properly so, I

think — are very nervous about the possibility of malpractice suits.

[10:30]

One other point, if I may, Mr. Chairman. Newly graduated doctors,

doctors who have been practising for a relatively short period of time,

have been trained in medical school to rely heavily upon laboratory

tests. Many of them are far more familiar with the options available

today than doctors who have been practising more years would be.

I think the measures offered in this bill will assist our Medical

Services Commission to much more control over the proliferation of

private labs. We're going to give it a try, anyway, and I think we

probably will be able to reduce the costs considerably.

MRS. DAILLY: One final comment on this. I agree with the

minister that doctors are in a position, and I'm sure that if I were

one myself.... You want to keep yourself covered, and that's

understandable. But I am wondering if the minister, who I am sure has

the same concern as I about costs.... It's just that our philosophy

makes us go in different directions on how to curtail these costs. I am

wondering if perhaps he and his department studied — maybe they have;

or if you haven't, would you — how medical labs are financed across

Canada. I understand in Ontario they are listed under public

corporation, not private, if I am correct. I am just wondering if a

study of the more effective ways of handling it has been done. Or will

you consider doing it?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, we intend to have a very

extensive review of laboratories in British Columbia and elsewhere. We

will be seeking the collection of as much information as we can get,

because we recognize that the laboratory segment of the Medical

Services Commission payments is growing more rapidly than any other. So

we certainly will be looking into that.

Sections 43 to 48 inclusive approved.

section 49.

[ Page 6916 ]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, just a question on this

section

to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. This

section is very

difficult for us to interpret, in that it relates to the criminal code

of British Columbia and a further

section to the Criminal Code of

Canada. I just want to ask the minister about the one part of this

which may or may not bother me. Can a driver have his licence suspended

without notification under this act? I hope my

interpretation is wrong,

and perhaps the minister can.... Is it possible for a person to be

driving with what that person thinks is a valid driver's licence under

this section, his licence having been suspended by the superintendent

of motor vehicles without the knowledge of that driver?

HON. A. FRASER: I don't think it deals with that at all. My

notes I have here.... This is a lot of legalese here, but the

explanation of

section 49 is that it is to incorporate in the Motor

Vehicle Act those sections of the Criminal Code amendments currently

awaiting enactment at the federal level that relate to driving

offences. This will allow the mandatory prohibition provision that

exists today in the Motor Vehicle Act to apply to the new and

renumbered sections of the Criminal Code. For example, a drunk-driving

conviction under the Code provides for a three-month prohibition term.

In British Columbia, that person will be subject to the penalty under

the Motor Vehicle Act, which is a fine and a six-month prohibition from

driving. The sections of the Motor Vehicle Act that will be amended to

reflect the new Code sections are 1, 24(l), 26(55), 82, 89, 90, 92, 95

and 96.

Sections 49 and 50 approved.

section 51.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, the same question. I just want to be

very clear in my mind and have it on record. I was informed quite late

yesterday afternoon that part of this

section dealt with the

possibility that an operator of a motor vehicle could unknowingly be

operating a vehicle while under suspension because the person hadn't

been notified. All I am asking from the minister is, is this possible

or not? Yes or no would suffice.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, this is under 51. It's just

what is in the book there. It's just consequential to the Criminal Code

amendments and federal Bill C-18.

Sections 51 to 67 inclusive approved.

section 68.

HON. MR. SMITH: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 68 as amended approved.

Sections 69 to 79 inclusive approved.

section 80.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, this is a problem. In the past we've had

two different kinds of traffic offences, if you like.

One is a traffic violation report. There was some question many

years ago when this was introduced as to whether or not it was

constitutional. It certainly was not due process. But because the

violation reported would not amount to a conviction in an ordinary

course of events....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Could I have some order, Mr. Chairman? Or maybe we

can adjourn for the morning and let the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr.

Richmond) have coffee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the second member for Vancouver Centre please continue.

MR. LAUK: Why don't you carry out your discussion in the hall?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: Don't start shouting at me when I come in here and ask for order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Mr. Member. Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Don't tell me to get stuffed.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member please take his seat.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Mr. Member. The Chair will warn

you once, hon. member. When the Chair stands, all members will take

their place and be silent until otherwise directed. The Chair will not

tolerate that sort of yelling across the floor of this House.

If the member wishes to address another hon. member, he will address

him through the Chair. That is the last time the Chair will make that

statement.

Will the second member for Vancouver Centre continue on

section 80, through the Chair.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will apply the same rule to all hon. members, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the hon. government

Whip withdraw the remark that he made in committee. I will not and

never have put up with that kind of remark for myself or any other hon.

member on either side of the House. I ask the hon. member for Surrey to

withdraw the remark. If he's the man I think he is, he'll also

apologize.

[ Page

6917 ]

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I apologize and withdraw the remark.

In surprise, I hardly recognized the member. I thought he was a

stranger in the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Those comments are not necessary.

Will the hon. second member for Vancouver Centre continue on

section 80.

MR. LAUK: All right, now that everybody's sinuses are cleared out, can we deal with

section 80?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please.

MR. LAUK: The point that I'm trying to make is that I know

the hon. Attorney-General will stand up when I say that this is a

denial of due process and say: "Where have you been for 20 years? We've

had the TVRs — the traffic violation reports. You get a ticket. If you

don't dispute it within 15 days, you get two points or three points or

whatever, and if it accumulates you get an automatic suspension, and so

on. And you certainly have to pay more in insurance rates."

If you get a traffic offence notice — that's a ticket — in any

municipality, or an ordinary offence notice under the Highway Act,

there's nothing on that traffic offence notice that says: "Look, you

have to appear on such and such a date." So it's not due process. It's

a ticket saying that you're charged with an offence, and if you want to

settle this matter you can send in your $25 or whatever it is. But this

section says that if a ticket is served — and whenever you're issued a

ticket, that's the service of the ticket — and the person receiving the

ticket doesn't pay the fine, if 14 days have elapsed a justice of the

peace can take the ticket and enter a conviction against you for the

offence. Enter a conviction; that's certainly a real stretch from due

process, and I find it offensive.

The other point that the honourable Minister of Finance has made,

and he's quite right, is that proof of service is another problem. No

proof of producing a valid driver's licence is included. I've looked at

the back of tons, and all it says there is that I've served this ticket

on such and such a date — and it's not even filled out at the time by

the police constable. You know, you've got a police constable and he's

filling out maybe forty or fifty tickets a week if he's on a traffic

division in urban areas.

AN HON. MEMBER: What does TON mean?

MR. LAUK: Traffic offence notice.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ali. That's good. You've really got the spirit of the legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Comments should be addressed to the Chair, not across the floor.

MR. LAUK: So it's really going far, and I'm going to vote

against this

section and I wish it to be recorded on division according

to the rules, not on an actual division.

HON. MR. SMITH: Much to the horror of the House Leader, I'm going

to speak on this section. It is a due process–laden section; it has so much process

that it has process coming out its ear. First of all, when you get this billet-doux

you can pay a fine immediately. You pay the fine immediately; you're not

even deemed convicted. I mean, the Charter of Rights in its wildest dreams wouldn't

have imagined that. Then, if you don't pay the fine, you can appear in court

on a date that'll be set out in the attached summons; there'll be a

ticket summons and it will have a date and a place to appear in court. If you

don't do that, and you don't pay the fine, then you're deemed convicted.

Now that's the form we're going to bring in. There'll be a summons

with a date on it. It's not going to just be an invisible form where you

are told that you can go to court if you want. There'll be a place and a

date.

[10:45]

MR. LAUK: Well, that solves my problem.

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes. So it's okay, eh? If you didn't hear

about any of it or you were confused or you were elsewhere, you've

still got 30 days from when it first sinks into your bean to appeal it.

MR. LAUK: When are you notified? Will you be notified of a...?

HON. MR. SMITH: It'll be handed to you along with the TON, as you call it.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, if

section 14 is applicable and

someone is served with a traffic offence notice, together with this

summons that he's talking about — is that what he's talking about? —

and

section 14 comes into play and a conviction is entered, how am I

notified as a person convicted in absentia?

AN HON. MEMBER: It would never happen.

MR. LAUK: Of course not. I can't drive anymore.

HON. MR. SMITH: We send you a notice. A notice comes that you are deemed to have been convicted.

MR. LAUK: To my last known address?

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, it'd be a problem in your case, but....

MR. LAUK: Now I think this is being too cutesy with due

process, and I don't think that we should.... You know, I enjoy the

little fey routine that the Attorney-General likes. If he would like to

come in in a seventeenth-century wig and a little silk handkerchief and

snuff, you know, and refer to a traffic offence notice as a

billet-doux.... But really it's an attack on due process, and I still

wish it recorded on division.

Section 80 approved on division.

Sections 81 to 84 inclusive approved.

section 85.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Burnaby-Willingdon — Burnaby-Edmonds — on

section 85.

[ Page 6918 ]

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I think you know something that I

don't know, because it's the second or third time you've referred to me

as the member for Burnaby-Willingdon, so maybe we should get together

sometime and find out what it is that you know that I don't know.

Something clearly is happening over there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Relations between members outside of this House are not a part of record of the House.

MS. BROWN: Okay. This is just a question....

AN HON. MEMBER: Sob.

MS. BROWN: No, it's not a sob. This is just a question.

Section 85 says that when there has not been an increase in the rent

when the property changes hands, there can't be one for 12 months. The

problem we run into is that the new tenant coming in very rarely knows

what the old rent is. I'm wondering whether the minister has included

anything in the legislation which would ensure that the new tenant

would know what the old rent is so that they would know that there

shouldn't be an increase for 12 months.

HON. MR. HEWITT: What the

section says is that if a change in

tenancy occurs without a change in rent, then that's deemed to be the

rent for the following 12 months. The landlord, if the tenancy changes

— in other words, one tenant moves out and another tenant comes in —

has a right, at that time, to adjust the rent prior to the tenant

coming in. It's when the new tenant comes in at the established rent

that he can't have the rent increased within the next 12 months. It

just clarifies it. The annual rent increase, had the old tenant stayed

in, might have been due in the next two or three months. We're saying

we want to have the new tenant have the assurance and protection that

when he accepts the accommodation at a rent, that rent is deemed to

start as of that date, and he has 12 months at that rent.

Sections 85 and 86 approved.

section 87.

MS. BROWN: I suspect that this is grammar, but I'm not sure.

What's the difference between "have occurred" and "has occurred"? Just

a general statement about the whole amendment to the Residential

Tenancy Act, Mr. Chairman, is that I regret that it still has not built

into it any protection against discrimination against families with

children, who are still having problems in terms of finding

accommodation. Landlords can still refuse to rent to them simply based

on the fact that they have children or that they are welfare recipients

or whatever. I wonder if the minister would indicate that this is under

advisement and that his ministry is really trying to find a way to

protect these groups from that kind of discrimination.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Section 87 is housekeeping. We've been advised by legal counsel that we should change the "have" to "has."

With regard to the other comments the member makes, which, I think,

are really not related to the debate we're having today.... But I

appreciate her comments, and I'll look at them in Hansard .

Sections 87 to 97 inclusive approved.

section 98.

MS. SANFORD: I find this

section particularly intriguing. In

the old bill we had a

section which said that if a conservation officer

felt that a person who was hunting and in charge of a weapon had been

drinking, he could remove the weapon. He had that authority under the

old act. Now we are asking that the conservation officer not determine

whether or not he's been drinking, but whether or not he's still able

to handle his firearm safely. What we're asking the conservation

officer to do.... He has no training whatsoever in finding out whether

or not a person in charge of a firearm is, in fact, intoxicated.

Because that's what the

section is saying. We are now asking that this

conservation officer make that determination somewhere out in the

woods. Is this the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Pelton) I'm

dealing with or the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) ? It's under the

Wildlife Act. I thought that was the....

MS. BROWN: If it's wild life.

MS. SANFORD: If it's wild life it's the Attorney-General, is it?

MR. REID: He's in charge of all wild life.

MR. LAUK: Are you kidding — the hot milk and digestive cookie man over there?

MS. SANFORD: Could we have a little order, please?

This says that this brings the Wildlife Act into compliance with the

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If I were one of those

conservation officers that has to make this determination out in the

field as to whether a person who's been drinking can handle a firearm

safely or not.... I would think that his basic rights and freedoms are

being violated, because that's an impossible task we are asking him to

undertake. I think it was far better.... I don't understand why we had

to make this change in order to ensure that apparently it now complies

with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Mr. Chairman, it was

much better before, where if a conservation officer had any reason to

think that a person had been drinking, no matter whether he was able to

handle the firearm after drinking, he had the right to remove that

firearm. I think that this is putting an impossible imposition on a

conservation officer. I'd be interested in the Attorney-General's

comments.

HON. MR. SMITH: This is not just casting about to change

things because of perceived Charter problems. I don't think that we

should be in the business of scouring everything to try to anticipate

some hypothetical problem with the Charter. This is because there was

an actual case, called Robson, decided by the court of appeal earlier

this year, which struck down quite a similar

section on the roadside

suspension. It was

section 214 of the Motor Vehicle Act, which we had

to amend as a result of Robson. That amendment is also in the Charter

of Rights amendment bill, Bill 33,

section 86.

Very briefly, it's this: there was a provision that allowed an

officer to take away someone's licence where he suspected that they'd

been drinking. Our advice is that the old

section of

[ Page

6919 ]

the Wildlife Act would be struck down as well,

unless there can be some tie-in between the fact that there's drink and

that that drink could affect his use of the firearm. Now we haven't put

as a test in here, hon. member, that he has to form the opinion that

the person is impaired.

MS. SANFORD: That he can't handle it safely.

HON. MR. SMITH: No. The test is this: the officer has to

believe, on some reasonable and probable grounds, that because of

alcohol consumption this hunter's ability to hunt or handle a firearm

is affected. Okay? It's a lower test than "impaired." But this is

brought forward by Robson, not by my desire to have perfect

legislation. We think the

section won't stand because of Robson, and

therefore conservation officers won't be able to do their job. So

that's why it's in here.

MS. SANFORD: Does the Attorney-General not agree that we are

putting an impossible imposition on a conservation officer? Even the

RCMP insist on a breathalyser test before they would lay a charge; or

at least to undergo some test. Conservation officers have to make that

judgment out in the field as to whether or not his consumption of

alcohol or a drug has impaired his ability to handle a firearm. Is that

not an impossible task to ask of these conservation officers?

HON. MR. SMITH: I don't think it is at all. I don't think

it's an impossible test, because conservation officers are trained as

peace officers. In the days before the almighty breathalyser, in this

province we used to prosecute impaired drivers on the basis of a police

officer's observation. It was pretty good evidence. In some cases it

was evidence that had a much greater ring to it than a breathalyser

reading. The typical symptoms are there: the smell of alcohol; maybe

some slurred speech or unsteadiness. He doesn't have to prove or be

satisfied that the person's impaired; just that on reasonable and

probable grounds it would affect his ability — affect, not impair. It

doesn't mean that you're stoned; it means that you've been boozing;

it's obvious that you've been boozing, and you're carrying a gun. It's

a safety thing. I don't think it's going to be a hard test at all. It's

brought forward because of the Robson case.

Sections 98 to 100 inclusive approved.

section 101.

MR. HOWARD: Just a very brief thought, to ask an opinion. I

take it that the whole of this act, with all of the other acts being

amended by it, will come into effect at one fell swoop, whenever that

is. Is that not what it means? Different sections come into effect at

different times.

[11:00]

AN HON. MEMBER: Right.

Section 101 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. SMITH: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete

with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 56, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, (No. 3), 1985, reported complete with amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

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

Leave granted.

Bill 56, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1985, read a third time and passed.

APPLIED SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY ACT

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. member

for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds), I call second reading of

Bill PR401, Applied Science Technology Act. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill PR401, Applied Science Technology Act, read a second time and

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

next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

On vote 34: minister's office, $156,162.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to once

again have my ministry's spending estimates before the House. I should

make some opening comments; however, I am sure that there will be many

subjects brought forward for discussion during my estimates.

Mr. Chairman, during this last year the rather poor market for

forest products has continued in terms of price, although in terms of

volume.... The interior of British Columbia in particular has

manufactured record volumes, and even the coastal sector has increased

its production of solid wood products.

The second complete analysis of the state of the forest and range

resource was completed during the year. It was tabled in the House

earlier this spring. This report, together with a number of other

reports which have been completed during the year, such as the

Woodbridge-Reed report and the Nilsson-Pearse report from UBC.... My

analysis of all that had the effect of identifying some of the problems

which have to be dealt with in the management of British Columbia's

forest estate.

By their very nature, these reports identify the problems, and that

part of these reports is focused upon by the public and the media. I

think it is quite healthy that the public is now paying more attention

to the forest resource in British Columbia in terms of awareness of

what is happening. It is healthy

[ Page 6920 ]

because it provides government with awareness that

the public is indeed concerned, and in fact makes it easier for me to

deal with my colleagues and the Legislature in bringing forward those

programs that need to be carried on.

Mr. Chairman, problems have been defined, and in very specific

detail. We know that we have a backlog of nonsatisfactorily replanted

forest land. The good and high-site forest lands in that category now

total about 740,000 hectares. My report acknowledges that there has

been an increase in the accumulation of NSR land in the last few years

at a rate averaging 19,000 hectares a year, although the rate of

increase has been diminished rather drastically in the last few years

as we continue to expand our reforestation efforts.

The report also identifies the fact that the bug infestation,

particularly in the Chilcotin and Prince George areas, is continuing to

expand. Effort is being continuously directed to that, and that effort

is being expanded. Now that lumber markets and prices are moving up, it

is possible to move more operations into these areas and, with

road-building work now underway, to access some of the problem areas.

Hopefully we will be able to at least contain the spread of these bugs

and use the valuable wood that is under attack.

We still have in British Columbia several million hectares of

overmature forests that have to be addressed at some point in time.

These forests have been overmature, I guess, as long as we have settled

British Columbia. Effort is being made now and policies developed

whereby some incentives can be provided for getting into these

overmature forests and perhaps removing some of the overmature timber

and establishing new growth.

Mr. Chairman, after five years of depressed market conditions and

several years of government having, through necessity, to constrain its

spending.... My ministry, being no exception, had to reduce the rate of

increase of silvicultural operations, although we did continue to

expand our reforestation efforts. Some of the other silvicultural

applications that have been carried out had to be constrained, and some

of them eliminated, such as fertilization.

Every effort is being made now that things are getting better, and

we have a possibility of increasing the levels of management and

funding for management.

I'm very pleased to have been able to sign a forest management

agreement with the federal government. Together with our increased

efforts, it will allow us to expand our planting levels to achieve a

level of 200 million seedlings a year within the next couple of years.

That's quite an increase when you consider that less than a decade ago

we were trying to get up to 70 million seedlings. So being able to

achieve that level, if indeed we do — and I have every confidence we

will — is an accomplishment.

As we expand the level of planting, our foresters, of course, now

say we should go further. The target put forward by the professional

foresters in my latest discussion with them is 225 million seedlings.

That may be. Once we have achieved the 200 million level, which will

allow us to plant 60 to 65 percent of the areas clearcut harvested,

then we will look towards further expansions, I'm sure. Those further

expansions would probably be justified on the basis of planting

genetically improved seed stock in some areas where natural

regeneration would otherwise probably be more than adequate.

In addressing the problems that the public has tended to focus on,

such as sunset industry, green ghetto, climax or shortage of timber,

and so on, I think it's better that we put things in perspective and

acknowledge the fact that British Columbia, as the major forestry

province in Canada, has and should have the best level of forest

management practice in this country. We also have the most complex

forest to practise forestry in. Even though we have an accumulation of

unsatisfactorily restocked forest land, if, for example, we could

instantly have all of that area planted, we would increase the

allowable cut by somewhere in the order of 3 percent or less. So that

tells me that most of our forest that has been harvested has been

restocked and is in a very healthy state of regeneration.

We do have brush problems in some, and these are being addressed and

will have to be addressed more aggressively in the future. We are

dealing with the problems. Hopefully as time goes on we will learn more

about our forests and be able to deal with them more aggressively.

Our industry has suffered through a year of relatively low, if any,

profit. Now that we have seen lumber prices rise in the last few weeks,

our interior industry is perhaps getting into a profit position. Our

revenues, as a result of those increases, should increase as well.

Our coastal industry. These facts are stated in the analysis, which

I'm sure the members have read. The coast industry, because of the

nature of the industry and the forests that they have had to use in the

past, still needs a considerable amount of retooling. Unfortunately

accumulated losses over the last few years have put the industry in a

catch-22 position, where it's difficult for much of it to raise the

funds needed to do the necessary retooling. Although it is taking

place, perhaps it's not at as rapid a rate as it should. These problems

have to be addressed as well.

I would continue, in spite of some of the criticism levelled at me

by members opposite, to work very closely with all sectors of the

forest industry in British Columbia. Together I'm sure these problems

can be resolved. I personally am optimistic about the future of the

forest resource and the forest industry in British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, we in the ministry are trying to streamline our

procedures to get into the auditing role rather than that of a direct

supervisor and doer of many of the things, which will provide

opportunities for the private sector. We will be in more of an auditing

role than a doing role in the ministry, because I firmly believe that

the private sector can deliver physical goods and services in a more

efficient manner than can government. So we will continue to move in

that direction, despite the objections of the opposition for our

efforts to so do.

We mentioned the other day about the partial privatization of

scaling, and had quite a debate in the Legislature about it. In fact I

have discussed and talked to all sectors of the forest industry about

this matter. I discussed this, as the members pointed out, with the

Council of Forest Industries, with the IWA, with the Truck Loggers'

Association, with interior loggers and with small operators and large

operators. Everyone agrees that this is the way to go — everyone, that

is, except the opposition. I guess they will continue to believe that

they are right; I happen to think that we're right. Having differences

of opinion, I guess, is the very nature of our democratic system. I

will continue to go in that direction, Mr. Speaker, and make sure that

in our new role as auditors we continue to make sure that the work is

done in a proper manner.

World markets are another problem area we have to address. British Columbia, over the last decade, has been

[ Page

6921 ]

very aggressive in promoting British Columbia wood

products in world markets other than the United States, although we are

still very dependent upon the United States market. A cooperative

overseas market development program, together with efforts made outside

of that program by members of our government and the private sector,

have stood us well in terms of expanding these markets and perhaps

becoming less reliant on the United States. I think one of most

important markets to try to develop in the future is the Chinese

market. I have made a number of trips to China in recent years with

members of the industry, both employer and employee groups, and I think

we're making good progress. In fact, Mr. Chairman, in my discussions

with Americans.... I don't need to get into the current efforts of the

Americans to perhaps restrict trade of Canadian lumber, but the

Americans are talking with us now about perhaps doing some joint

marketing efforts in China, in other Asian countries and in Europe as

well, and at the same time cooperating in developing and maintaining

wood markets in North America, which will always be our most important

market. We believe in cooperation with the industry, cooperation with

others in developing markets, because if we were to develop a market,

if the Americans were to develop a market, that doesn't make it our

market; we'd still have to have to compete in that marketplace. This is

acknowledged on both sides of the border.

I and others have been promoting the fact that rather than fighting

each other in trade barriers between our two countries it would be

better to expend that time and effort cooperatively developing markets

in other areas of the world and in North America. By so doing, the need

for trade barriers would, in a very few years, disappear. We will

continue in those areas, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, during this last year I have announced changes in the

provisions that govern the export of unmanufactured logs from British

Columbia. During this last couple of years, as is the case whenever

there's a downturn in lumber markets, log exports tend to rise. The

criteria by which we judge whether exports are permissible or not have

remained unchanged for a number of decades and are still in place.

However, because of this rather long recession in the forest sector,

the log exports have gone up each year, and we're approaching, if not

at, about 5 percent last year, which in my mind is too high; yet

considering the unique market circumstances perhaps it is justified.

However, the new system which I have announced and described — I will

not go into details of that today — will provide that if indeed logs

are to be exported, they must demonstrate that there is a definite

benefit for the province of British Columbia in so doing. I discussed

these new log export criteria again with various sectors of the

industry, including the Council of Forest Industries, including the

truck loggers, the smaller sector, and including the International

Woodworkers of America. They all agreed eventually that we have to do

something differently because the old system is not working as well as

it should.

[11:15]

So new policies were announced and a new committee has been

established. That new committee is made up of people with various

expertise — people who understand logging, people who understand the

manufacturing system, people who are familiar with markets, including

an economist who has been seconded from the International Woodworkers

of America to bring in their viewpoint as well.

So, Mr. Chairman, this new system is just about to get underway. I

believe I have coming forward from this committee recommendations as to

the first series of applications that they have addressed. I've not

seen them yet, but once I've finished with the debates on my estimates

in the Legislature I'll have more time to address that and see just how

it has developed with this independent committee.

So, Mr. Chairman, a lot of things are happening. A lot of challenges

still face us. A lot of opportunities can be developed from these

challenges. I am optimistic that our forest industry will continue to

be the mainstay of the economy in British Columbia. I have no intention

of trying to dictate to that industry, for I don't think that I, as a

politician, know as much about the forest industry, as much about

forestry, as much about the marketplace, as do those people who work in

it all the time. So I will continue in my term as Minister of Forests

to have a consultative process with those in the private sector,

because I think that by working together we can accomplish a great deal.

Mr. Chairman, with those brief remarks, I would be very pleased to entertain questions or comments from the opposition.

MR. HOWARD: What a dismal performance!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are discussing estimates, not personal references or comments about another member. To the estimates.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The member for Skeena.

MR. WILLIAMS: A dismal performance indeed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, one more time I will remind the

committee that we're discussing the estimates of the Minister of

Forests, the administrative actions. Personal references are most

unparliamentary, and that rule applies to all members.

MR. HOWARD: As well as discussing administrative

incompetence, too, Mr. Chairman. You can't discuss administrative

incompetence and administrative bungling and disinterest without making

reference to the individual who happens to be the minister, because the

minister is charged with the responsibility under the Ministry of

Forests Act. We have to do that. There's a difference between personal

character references and references to incompetence on the part of the

individual, and that's what I'm seeking to do.

What the minister had to say I suppose needs some commentary — for

instance, that an audit approach will do; that the Ministry of Forests

is going to become an auditor. What's involved is policy direction

strategy for the future. That's what is needed. You set those out as

the obligations of industry and then you can conduct some kind of audit

as to whether they're meeting those criteria. But without the criteria,

without the stratagems, without the projection, the plan and the hope

for the future, an audit is a hoax.

The minister doesn't seem to understand. He talks about cooperation.

There's a vast difference, Mr. Minister, between cooperation and

subservience. That doesn't seem to be what the minister appreciates.

This is a ministry that for the last

[ Page 6922 ]

decade has been subservient to the industry, and

they call it cooperation. The Norandas, the Zimmermans, the Macs and

Blos of this world — their perception of cooperation is: "Let's

cooperate; do it my way." The minister says: "Yes, let's cooperate.

I'll do it your way. What do you want?" Yesterday he proved that; the

day before he proved that. He has proven that every single day since

he's been the minister.

We've had a horrible record in forestry for the last ten years. Over

that period forestry has suffered, both within itself and as a viable

factor in our economy. Silviculture has suffered. Projections about

plantings, which the minister loves to trot out — his objective now is

200 million seedlings in a couple of years — have never been met.

Whatever his projections, they were never once met; in fact, not only

never met but even falsified, to attempt to show that something existed

and took place which did not in fact take place.

Brushing; overgrowth; suppression of the growth of seedlings that

have been planted has increased under this administration. NSR land has

increased, backlog land has increased, forest denudation has increased.

The future has been placed in jeopardy because of absolute

incompetence, bungling, lack of care and attention to what this

ministry is all about. The allowable annual cut is in jeopardy. There's

even some doubt that the 75 million cubic metres that they're talking

about right now is not beyond what we can afford to have.

Funds for forestry, expenditures in the ministry, are down. We have

a minister who has been run over by his colleagues, the Premier and the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. We have a minister

who is not his own person. What the Ministry of Forests needs is a

strong, determined, gutsy minister who knows what the future should be

and fights to obtain it, who doesn't go into cabinet as the weak sister

and say, "Oh, what do you want, Mr. Premier, I'll do anything you say,"

and does it. Let me go over and emphasize in some detail some of those

things I've talked about as to how it has suffered.

Silviculture: figures from the minister's own activities. From

1982-83 to 1985-86 — just the last few years, the most important ones —

forest and range resource management funds decreased by almost 5

percent. Silviculture funds have a slight increase of 1 percent over

that period. Compare a silviculture allocation increase of a modest,

meek 1 percent over that period of time with a decline in total forest

and range resource management funds of almost 5 percent. Compare that

with a total budgetary increase, for the whole of the government, of 25

percent over that period of time. Where does the minister fit within

that? He's a loser. That can be accepted, I suppose, because you tend

to take your lumps in this place. But the worst feature about it is

that the people of B.C. are the losers. The people who place their

trust and faith in this government to do the right thing are the ones

who are the losers by this total bungling incompetence of the minister,

who sits by and sees total government expenditures over that period of

restraint — so-called — increased by 25 percent and sees forest and

range management decreased by 5 percent. Does that stack up to being a

minister who fights for his obligations under the Forest Act? I submit

it doesn't. It's far in excess of it.

Probably the most regretful thing, from anybody's point of view, was

the approach that this government and this minister used with respect

to silvicultural funding. In 1980, just five years ago, when the

five-year forest and range resource fund came into existence, the

minister was applauded by every member in this House. The minister was

applauded by industry, by the Association of Professional Foresters and

by everybody who had even a scant knowledge about forestry, because

that was the....

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: Perhaps if the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf)

stood up on his feet and did some fighting about forestry from where he

comes, instead of chattering away like an asinine donkey, we might be

better off in this House....

MR. CHAIRMAN: It seems to me that I've missed a bit, but

whatever it was I'll ask the member for Omineca to come to order. The

member for Omineca will come to order and the member for Skeena will

return to the estimates of the Ministry of Forests, vote 34. Thank you.

MR. HOWARD: I was saying, before I was so rudely interrupted,

that in 1980, when the five-year forest and range resource fund was

established, everybody in the industry was pleased, because they said

that here for the first time is an attempt to break out of the fiscal

restraints; we're going to plan into the future. Two years later, in

1982, when the minister permitted the Premier and the Minister of

Finance to reach in and grab the $85 million or $86 million left in

that fund — spirit it away from under the minister's control and use it

to buy such things as television sets for inmates at Oakalla, or

whatever they used the money for — that was the start of the decline of

any interest whatever in forestry in this province, and it's been on

the skids ever since. And it will stay on the skids so long as this

government stays in office, because it hasn't got the commitment to do

anything serious about it.

Projections of plantings. The minister just trotted out his 200

million seedling figure again. Planting is just one phase. What's the

recovery rate? I want to know how many things have been planted; what's

happened to them after they've been planted? I'm going to talk about

those projections. In March 1981 the minister in this House, with great

gusto and glory, said: "We planted 75 million seedlings last year, and

we're going to double that within five years." Here we are, five years

later. Double 75 million is 150 million — nowhere near it; 110 million,

or something of that nature, maybe; 108.3 million, I think, was the

accurate figure.

Every time he has projected something with respect to plantings —

never mind anything else — he's fallen short. Even when the plantings

have taken place, he's shaded it on the upside to paint a picture that

really isn't so. You may say it's kind of insignificant; it's only a

little bit of a fib. But in March 1981 he said: "Seventy-five million

seedlings planted." What was the actual number? Seventy-three million.

I mean, it's just a little bit of a distortion — nothing serious.

[11:30]

AN HON. MEMBER: What's a million?

MR. HOWARD: Yes. He just kind of rounded it out. This year he

and his colleague, under the B.C. economic bulletin, that fancy

multicoloured publication that got printed.... The minister said — I've

got a quote from it. It's got the minister's picture right on it here.

He said: "We planted

[ Page 6923 ]

112.5 million seedlings during 1983-84." That is

not true, Mr. Chairman; they did not. The actual number planted,

according to the government's own figures, was 108.3 million. That's

another shading on the upward side, another attempt to make it look

better than it actually is. What kind of faith can a person have in a

minister who deliberately and consistently tells falsehoods about the

number of trees that are planted?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The member will withdraw the last comment.

MR. HOWARD: All right. I'll certainly withdraw the word "falsehood."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We may have different opinions, but....

MR. HOWARD: What kind of faith can the country have in a

minister who hasn't the foggiest idea what the accurate figures are,

and tells us something which is not true?

So I tell you that the emphasis on planting, for one instance, has

never been met by this minister. He always projects more than he hopes

to attain, and more than he does attain. Even with the attainment, he

shades it on the up side to make the picture look better than it is,

just on straight planting alone.

I see I'll have an opportunity in a moment or two to perhaps

continue exploring other questions such as brushing, and how that's

overrun everything, and even put the plantings into jeopardy; about NSR

land, agreements and things of that nature. But because there is a

limitation on the initial comments that one may make, I'll wait another

moment or two for an opportunity to go further.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member is aware that opening statements

are.... The critic is entitled to 30 minutes. However, for your

reminder, according to practice recommendation 9 the member who wishes

to speak as a designated member should advise the Chair as early as

possible.

MR. HOWARD: I just took it from your predecessor who just sat

in his chair pointing to the green light. I assumed that the time was

about to expire.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair is just reminding you that there is that opportunity and that the Chair should be....

MR. HOWARD: That opportunity was taken.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe it's only 15 minutes at the moment. Hon. member, are you wishing to continue as the designated speaker?

MR. KEMPF: We want the real critic, anyway.

MR. HOWARD: If the member for Omineca wants to say anything, let him stand up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair is looking to the member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD: Yes, certainly, Mr. Chairman; whatever you suggest. I'm the easiest guy to get along with in this House.

The minister made reference to his five-year forest and range

resource analysis, which is a very interesting document written by the

minister.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the member for Omineca and the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) please maintain order.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the member for Skeena continue.

MR. HOWARD: It's difficult, with the hyenas on the other side of the House, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member please withdraw that reference.

MR. HOWARD: No, I will not. There are hyenas on the other

side of the House. I'm not talking about any one individual, but a sort

of total, collective group of them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member please withdraw the reference to a form of animal life?

MR. HOWARD: Well, they're certainly not human beings. I will withdraw that, yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member continue on vote 34, please.

MR. HOWARD: I was trying to.

Mr. Chairman, even with respect to planting activity, which the

minister has distorted, his own five-year report points out that

whatever that increased planting was, it was done at the expense of

other silvicultural work. Therefore the planting is money poured down

the drain — taxpayers' money squandered, lost, tossed away.

What does the minister care? It's not his money. He's only

reflecting the attitude of this government. There is nothing easier

with this government's mind than to spend somebody else's money, and

that's what he has been doing. The five year analysis to which he

referred points out that history records for the period 1979 to 1983

indicate that at least 80,000 hectares of forest land scheduled for

planting were not planted and were still classed as NSR by the end of

Also, of the sites that were planted, only 50 percent were planted

within the recommended period following denudation. It estimates that

brushing problems exist on 2.9 million acres, with close to 49,000

hectares expected to be added annually in the absence of an adequate

vegetation management program.

Here is the minister on the one hand saying: "Isn't it lovely that a

few years ago we planted 75 million seedlings?" when in fact that

wasn't true. But he used the figure 75 million, an incorrect figure.

Then this year, waiting until the last possible legal moment before he revealed this to the general public, the same

[ Page 6924 ]

minister brings in a document in which he says:

"Well, we've missed the boat. We planted a lot of trees, but we did so

at the expense of other silvicultural activities, and as a result of

that, 49,000 hectares of land are expected to be added annually to that

which is already considered as brushed over." That's 49 million

hectares of land, trees planted on it, left to disappear, left to be

crowded out, left to be denied sunlight in order to grow — stunted,

destroyed, wasted.

But what does he care? He's a miner. He thinks the forests should be

operated like they operate an underground mine — high-grade it, get out

and leave it. He doesn't realize that trees are a renewable product, a

renewable resource. They're not like copper or moly, Mr. Minister.

The text that he brought in further says — and this is where he has

missed the boat with all of this emphasis upon numbers.... I suppose

the minister thinks that the more you tell the general public that

we've increased the planting of trees, the more the general public is

going to say: "Isn't that beautiful. God, they've planted a hundred

million trees. That's a lot of trees." The fact that half of them die

and don't come to maturity is beside the point. He's playing a numbers

game and saying: "Isn't it lovely? If we keep escalating these numbers,

the public will think we're doing a good job." The general public

doesn't ordinarily get out in the bush and see what's happening. They

listen to numbers — 200 million, that's great; 100 million, that's

lovely. But if they got out, walked around and saw what has happened,

they'd find out it isn't so lovely. They'd find out that their tax

money, extracted from their purses and pocketbooks by this rapacious,

spendthrift government over there, has gone.

Let me read again from this report that the minister himself brought

forward, and then didn't want anybody to talk about. I don't blame him.

It says: "The restocking of backlog areas should be given higher

priority than the restocking of current denudation, as most of these

sites will not regenerate within the foreseeable future." "....will not

regenerate within the foreseeable future." All of the projections....

His latest one is 200 million seedlings by 1988-89. Projections are

always up; the actualities have always been down. Even when we look at

money available, we find — with the straight matter with respect to

silviculture — that the projection has always been greater than the

actuality, that the budgetary proposal of what they intend to do has

never been met. There's publicity about what they intend to do — what

the government wants to do and what it plans to do — but when the

realities are in, they miss the boat; it has not occurred.

Here's something about brush problems that I referred to earlier,

Mr. Chairman. Could I read just one last sentence to point out to the

committee how the government's approach has been playing the numbers

games with seedlings and completely ignoring the losses. The minister's

own document, condemned out of his own mouth — no wonder he doesn't

want to talk about this.... His own five-year document analysis says:

"Other intensive silvicultural activities decreased as priorities were

shifted to meet increasing planting targets." What does that say to

you? That says that the minister.... Looking at a garden that a family

might plant in its own yard, no family, no farmer, no gardener — nobody

with any sense of propriety as to what you do with respect to planting

things — would spend the whole of the spring year just planting seeds

or transplanting transplants and then ignore that garden for the rest

of year hoping to come back in the fall at harvest time and say, "Well,

I'm now going to reap the carrot beds," and this sort of thing. They'd

be overgrown with brush, weeds, dandelions and everything else you

didn't want. No self-respecting family would consider doing that, but

that's what the minister is doing with forestry: planting the trees and

ignoring the future, and hoping that somebody will come back at the

rotation cycle of 40, 50, 60, or whatever number of years are involved,

and maybe, with God's blessing, the trees will be growing. That's the

minister's approach to silviculture. Miserably short of the mark.

Let's look at some of the figures in this book of the minister's. I

referred to them earlier as brush problems. Under this ministry that

has increased, so that the amount of seedlings planted has been cut

back and destroyed and money has been lost. Under site preparation,

site rehabilitation, there is a steady decline over the last five years

in the acreage, or hectarage, of land prepared for planting. Conifer

release, another part of silviculture: a steady decline; spacing,

another part of silviculture: a steady decline; fertilization: a steady

decline, until there is actually none that has taken place in this past

year.

[11:45]

If you want to look at the tables — anybody who has the book can

look at them — you can see the graphs in this book that the minister

put out. There is a steady decline with respect to conifer release,

site rehabilitation, fertilization and spacing. Everything is down.

Everything that should be done to protect the investment of the general

public in the planting of the seedlings has gone.

The minister had the unmitigated gall to stand up in the House just

a moment ago, at the introduction of these estimates, and say that he's

pleased that there's a greater awareness on the part of the general

public about forestry matters. Good God, the increased awareness has to

be in the minister's head — that's where it's required — not in the

general public. In the gray matter of the minister is where we need

increased awareness about forestry. And he's pleased that the general

public has an increased awareness? How could they help it, when they

see all about them, out of the minister's own statements of his

five-year forest and range resource analysis document, a litany of

condemnation by the minister about himself — about his ministry. That's

his document — nobody else's. He's required by law to table it in the

House, and he did. As I said, he waited till the last possible day

before he did it because he knew what it contained: page after page of

condemnation by the government about its own miserable record with

respect to reforestation, with respect to the forest industry.

Even the federal-provincial agreement, Mr. Chairman, about which

there was a great hullabaloo and the like just a short while ago when

it was finally signed.... Even that agreement, when it comes to NSR

land, contains only the provision of commitment on the provincial

government's part that over the life of the agreement — that's five

years — there will be no net increase in NSR land. What does that mean

to you? We've got hundreds of thousands of hectares of NSR land out

there, and all the government is saying it's committing itself to do is

that there won't be any increase in it. In other words, five years from

now the projection of the government is that we'll be in exactly the

same place as we are now — exactly the same place five years later.

The minister was content to sit back and let the federal government

con him into the idea that $300 million was adequate over that

five-year period for silvicultural purposes.

[ Page

6925 ]

Then he has the lack of feeling about the future to make the

commitment that five years from now we'll be in exactly the same place

as we are now with NSR land. Progress? The best progress that can be

made is if the minister got out of the ministry; that's the best

progress we can make.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I couldn't help but feel that our

forestry debate leader was just getting to the meat of his argument,

and I'd like to see him continue.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The debate in estimates is basically on the

administrative functions of the office, and personal references are not

necessarily a good practice.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, these are not personal references.

These are hopes that I'm expressing for a better administration, and

we'd get a better administration if the minister got out of the way.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Lack of personal references will make for better debate.

MR. HOWARD: Our allowable annual cut, under what's been going

on here, is in jeopardy; and when the allowable annual cut is in

jeopardy and likely to be impacted upon, then our economy is in

jeopardy. If we are not able to cut the volume of timber that we have

been cutting, we are obviously going to employ fewer people in the

process, regardless of productivity, even though there are fewer people

employed now because of other factors in the industry.

The minister's own report points out that that allowable annual cut

is in jeopardy. The document that the minister tabled points out that

the volume increase op. the inoperable land base in the Prince George

northeast is increasing at a faster rate than the volume decrease on

the net operable land base. It's increasing faster than it should. On

the net operable land base, the most desirable commercial species in

each region show the greatest decline. High-grading — taking out the

best and leaving the worst: that's a miner's game. That went on

underground for years in this nation. High-grade it; get out the best

you can, and walk away and leave the junk that you don't want. That's

what this says here: that the minister is responsible for the most

desirable commercial species in each region showing the greatest

decline. The coast TSA and TFL summaries — that's the whole of the land

base — show that hemlock, cedar and spruce will suffer the greatest

decline. In the interior spruce and pine volumes will decline

substantially over the next 50 years. Throughout it talks about that

decline.

How do you deal with the question of the allowable annual cut?

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: Well, you deal with it by managing the forest base, not

by becoming an auditor, not by sitting back and turning the whole thing over

to somebody else, without policy direction, without strategy, without plan or

long-term operations or anything of that sort, and saying: "You go to it

and do what you feel like doing, and we'll become the auditor after the

damage is done." Here's an audit of the last five years in the forest

and range resource analysis, an audit by this minister condemning his own activities.

Is that the kind of continuation of audit that we want? There's page after

page of it — an admission, as my colleague has just said in a very appropriate

aside, of failure.

The forest industry is too valuable to be treated in such a cavalier

fashion. The forest industry is too important to us in the future to

have such a laid-back and disinterested approach to it. The forest

industry cannot survive in this province as it has survived up until

now without some policy projection and strategy for the future. We've

got a Forest Act, which the minister brought in and developed, whose

sole purpose and function is the question of tenure — giving licences

to people to cut timber — and the question of stumpage in relationship

thereto.

That's the primary function of the Ministry of Forests: give

licences and collect stumpage. There's a mathematical stupidity

involved in it, in that the licences are increasing and the stumpage

income is decreasing: as more licences are given out, less money comes

into the treasury. Under the program that the ministry is instituting

at this very moment, of an appraisal system, there will be less money

coming into the treasury.

Timber is treated by this government as if it's a weed to be got rid

of as quickly as possible, even if we have to pay people to get rid of

it.

Section 88 does precisely that. It permits a corporation to spend

taxpayers' money without adequate checks and balances and controls.

Section 88 permits people to build roads to the most distant point on

the claim, not for any other purpose than to get to the other end of

the claim and write it off. There are instances we've been told of

where a company builds a road to the farthest extent of the claim in

order to build a picnic site. That's fine for tourism and travelers,

and people who want to drive down those dusty roads to get to the

picnic site. That's written off under

section 88.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's not their money.

MR. HOWARD: It's not their money; it's the people's money.

That's exactly the point. But when you permit somebody else to spend

your money, you're a fool. You're a fool when you permit somebody else

to write cheques against your bank account. That's one thing if it's

your bank account; it's another thing entirely when it's the bank

account owned by the people of this province. When you permit the Adam

Zimmermans of this world to dip into your bank account regularly, as

they do under

section 88, then the only people who lose under that

scheme are the taxpayers, the people of this province — not Adam

Zimmerman, not Noranda. You know what they're doing. They're out to

make the most money that they can. That's what they're there for.

That's why they are in business. That's the force and the direction of

the structure of a company. I'm not condemning that; no sir. I

recognize that that's what it is. I wish that this government had the

same perception of what balance sheets are all about and would pay

attention to the balance sheet of the poor taxpayer in this province.

But they don't. All this government looks at with the taxpayer of this

province is: "He's got a bank account. How can we get our hands in it

and extract some of the money? How can we get our hands in the

taxpayer's pocket and take the money out?" They found one way under

section 88 of the Forest Act. They said: "We'll just

[ Page 6926 ]

give the licensees the opportunity to write cheques

on the public's bank account." Does that serve the public interest? I

say it does not.

Even after the money is spent by a company under

section 88, some

audit is supposed to take place. In other words, somebody from the

Forest Service, again spending taxpayers' money in the traveling and

the salaries and the examination, is supposed to go out and look at the

road. They say: "Well, did it cost $2 million or $10 million or what?"

Ofttimes that's a very casual audit, and the auditor-general found that

out a few years ago. The auditor-general had a private secret report to

the ministry about that. The minister says it has all been fixed; it's

all clear now. Everything is fine and okey-dokey. But it isn't. We are

now to the point where, under

section 88, something like $40 million

more of taxpayers' money has been spent than is realizable back to the

companies, so now we're in debt.

[12:00]

The people of B.C. are in debt some $40 million to forest companies.

I thought the purpose of the Forest Act and the purpose of stumpage and

royalties was so that the taxpayer would get something for the

possession that the taxpayer owned — namely the trees. But here it is;

we turn around and we owe them some $30 million or $40 million. The

figure is somewhere in that area. One of the contentions put to the

minister...he made reference a while ago to the economics of the

industry.

I didn't notice the time. Perhaps I should move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Deputy Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Curtis presented a statutory report of the British Columbia

Housing and Employment Development Financing Authority, and a covering

letter from the auditor-general.

Presenting Reports

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs begs leave to report as follows:

The committee has received correspondence from John A. Bovey dated

June 6, 1985, chairman of the Public Documents Committee established

under authority of

section 3 of the Document Disposal Act, and having

read the submission on behalf of the Public Documents Committee,

recommends that in accordance with provisions of the Document Disposal

Act, approval be given for the destruction of various public documents

as listed in the submission to the Public Accounts committee for '83-84

insofar as the following ministries of government are concerned:

Ministry of Education, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Forests,

Ministry of Health, Ministry of Labour and Ministry of Provincial

Secretary and Government Services, all of which is respectfully

submitted, Mr. Speaker.

I move adoption of the report.

MR. BLENCOE: I move the report be received.

Motion approved.

MR. BLENCOE: I move that by leave the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:04 p.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

56 The Hon. B. R. D. Smith to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 56) intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1985 to amend as follows:

SECTION 68 , in the proposed

section 717.2 (4) (

b) by deleting "third reading." and substituting "the resolution is adopted."

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1986,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada