1988 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JUNE 20, 1988

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5207 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Small Business Venture Capital Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 5 1). Hon. Mrs. McCarthy

Introduction and first reading –– 5207

Resort Municipality of Whistler Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 49). Hon. Mrs. Johnston

Introduction and first reading –– 5207

Municipal Finance Authority Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 41). Hon. Mrs. Johnston

Introduction and first reading –– 5207

Municipal Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 32). Hon. Mrs. Johnston

Introduction and first reading –– 5207

An Act to Regulate Smoking in the Parliament Buildings (Bill M207). Mr. R. Fraser

Introduction and first reading –– 5208

Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities Act (Bill 42). Hon. Mr. Veitch

Introduction and first reading –– 5208

Oral Questions

Alleged use of insider information by former Energy ministry employee. Mr. Clark –– 5208

School Canadiana. Mr. Harcourt –– 5208

Audit of First Investors Corp. and Associated Investors of Canada. Mr. Sihota –– 5209

South Moresby National Park. Ms. Smallwood –– 5209

Privatization of ICBC. Mr. Sihota –– 5209

First Citizens' Fund. Mr. G. Hanson –– 5209

Government responsibility for hazardous wastes. Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 5210

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

Mr. Clark

Mr. Williams

ML Lovick

Agriculture and Fisheries Statutes Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 33). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Savage –– 5213

Mr. Rose –– 5213

Mr. Guno –– 5213

Ms. Smallwood –– 5213

Hon. ML Savage –– 5214

Agriculture and Fisheries Statutes Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 33). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Savage) –– 5214

Mr. Rose

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Guno

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Lovick

Mr. De Jong

ML R. Fraser

Forest Amendment Act (Bill 28). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Parker) –– 5223

Mr. Miller

ML Williams

Appendix –– 5232

The House met at 2:10 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Today I'd like to introduce to the House friends of mine from Victoria,

Helen Lindholm and her son Jason. Helen gave me a tennis lesson one

night; her second serve goes about 800 mph, and the first one was just

a little faster. Would the House please welcome a superb lady and her

son.

MS. EDWARDS : In your gallery today are two

friends of mine who used to live in my riding and now reside somewhere

in the wastes of Vancouver. They are in Victoria on their way home from

the first annual Cortes Island conference on James Joyce. Would you

join me in welcoming Thor Frohn-Neilsen and Debbie Forbes.

MR. PELTON :

Hon. members, on behalf of our Speaker I would ask you to welcome today

Mr. Bill Soprovich, past president of the West Vancouver Chamber of

Commerce, and Miss Dorothy Pace from North Vancouver.

MR. BARNES :

I'm also very pleased to announce the presence of some long-ago

friends, Guy and Anita Lauterbach, who are visiting the precincts. They

came from Tigard, Oregon to visit friends on the lower mainland. I'm

especially pleased because this fellow Guy has a good memory. In 1954 I

loaned him a car battery, which he still remembers, and after 34 years

he's just reminded me that he owes me one. I'd like the House to make

them welcome.

MR. PETERSON : Would the House please

join me in congratulating our Government Whip (Mr. Ree) and his wife,

who are today celebrating 15 years of marriage.

MR. SIHOTA :

One of the educational institutions we're most proud of in my riding of

Esquimalt-Port Renfrew is Royal Roads Military College. In the House

this afternoon are eight college students from Royal Roads, along with

their instructor, Mr. Greene. Would all members of the House please

join me in extending a warm welcome to them.

MR. R. FRASER :

Some years ago I had the pleasure of going to school in Atlanta,

Georgia, and I have fond memories of that city. It was my great fortune

last weekend to meet Tom and Laura Kirk, who come from Atlanta. They

are visiting Victoria and are in the galleries today, and visiting

their friends in Vancouver, Allan and Danny Goldsmith. Will the House

kindly make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

SMALL BUSINESS VENTURE CAPITAL

AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

Hon. Mr. Strachan, on behalf of the Minister of Economic Development, presented

a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Small Business

Venture Capital Amendment Act, 1988.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : In moving first reading, I would like to advise the

assembly that the bill before you amends the Small Business Venture Capital

Act adopted by this House in the spring of 1985. The program's main objectives

are to stimulate capital formation and employment in small business and to provide

managerial assistance to small businesses in certain sectors of the British

Columbia economy. These amendments encourage the formation of venture capital

corporations, and the act provides each eligible investor in venture capital

corporations with an incentive equal to 30 percent of the investment required

by the VCC.

Members

of this House will recall that the Small Business Venture Capital Act

has been amended in the past, most recently one year ago. It is

intended that the act will be regularly amended to meet the needs of

small businesses in a constantly changing environment. The amendments

proposed herein are, for the most part, technical in nature — just

minor housekeeping amendments, Mr. Member; that's not in the script,

but I thought I'd throw that in — and are to allow for a smoother

administration of the program and for easier access to the program by

potential users.

I move first reading.

Bill

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

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

[2:15]

RESORT MUNICIPALITY OF WHISTLER

AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

Hon. Mrs. Johnston presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Resort Municipality of Whistler Amendment Act, 1988.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

Bill 49 contains measures designed to reduce unnecessary approvals

regarding the resort municipality of Whistler and to clarify municipal

authority to provide and charge for facilities and services. The

amendments place Whistler on a more equal footing with other

municipalities as an autonomous local government. I move the bill be

introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 49 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.

MUNICIPAL FINANCE AUTHORITY

AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

Hon. Mrs. Johnston presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Municipal Finance Authority Amendment Act, 1988.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

Bill 41 contains measures to give the municipal finance authority more

flexibility in managing capital borrowing for B.C. municipalities and

regional districts. The amendments will establish a short-term

investment pool and authorize the refund and distribution of excess

sinking fund money. I move the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

Bill 41 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.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

Hon. Mrs. Johnston presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Municipal Amendment Act, 1988.

[ Page 5208 ]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

Bill 32 contains a variety of measures relating to residency

requirements for electors, the triennial election system, property tax

exemptions, approval requirements and cash in lieu of parkland

adjustments. These measures include amendments to eliminate the

12-month residency rule, allow referendums more often than every three

years, tax exempt charitable and religious organizations, remove

unnecessary approval requirements for miscellaneous items and prevent

overcharging to developers under the cash in lieu of parkland

provisions of the Municipal Act. I move the bill be introduced and read

a first time now.

Bill 32 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.

AN ACT TO REGULATE SMOKING

IN THE PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS

Mr. R. Fraser presented a bill intituled

An Act to Regulate Smoking in the Parliament Buildings.

MR. R. FRASER :

Mr. Speaker, I think it's time we did something about smoking generally

in the premises of the Parliament Buildings, for no other reason than

safety. It will give smokers a chance to smoke if they so wish,

providing that you designate the area. I think it's timely that we show

some leadership in this issue, Mr. Speaker.

Bill M207

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.

PREMIER'S ADVISORY COUNCIL

FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

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

a bill intituled Premier's Advisory Council For Persons With Disabilities

Act.

HON. MR. VEITCH : Mr. Speaker, I move first reading of the bill accompanying the message.

I'm

very pleased to introduce this bill which will establish a Premier's

Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities. It was in May 1987 at

the end of Rick Hansen's "Man in Motion" tour that the Premier

announced the provincial government's intention to form a special

advisory council for those persons in British Columbia with

disabilities. Since that time, a great deal of organizational work has

been done, and the passage of this bill will become another major step

in seeing such a council become a reality.

I point out that

this bill merely establishes the framework for the council. Once the

bill becomes law, regulations based on recommendations from a committee

chaired by the hon. second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr.

Mowat) will spell out the structure and terms of reference of the

council. The committee shall report to the Premier its findings and

solutions not less than annually, Mr. Speaker.

conclusion, it is my pleasure to introduce this bill which will

establish the Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities.

It's landmark legislation, the enabling powers of which will help

special British Columbians share more fully the bounties of this

beautiful province. I move first reading.

Bill 42

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

ALLEGED USE OF INSIDER INFORMATION

BY FORMER ENERGY MINISTRY EMPLOYEE

MR. CLARK :

I have a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources. At the end of February this year, the commissioner of the

petroleum titles and revenue branch of your ministry retired. Less than

four months later, he was successful in obtaining two drilling licences

and four leases for petroleum natural gas rights in the province,

rights worth over $3 million.

As you know, before he left

the ministry, the commissioner, this individual, would have been privy

to the in-house adjudication leading up to the offering of these rights

as well as having been a participant in the process which set an

in-house base price for the licences and leases offered. Mr. Minister,

why was a former employee of your ministry in this capacity, an

employee with inside information about the leases offered for sale,

allowed to even enter the bidding process, much less win these rights?

HON. MR. DAVIS :

This sounds like a serious allegation. It's the first I've heard of it.

I'll certainly look into it and report back to the House.

SCHOOL CANADIANA

MR. HARCOURT :

I have a question for the Minister of Education; the Minister of

Advanced Education (Hon. S. Hagen) is not here. On Friday, the Minister

of Education echoed the claim of the Minister of Advanced Education and

Job Training that the closing of School Canadiana would allow the

Vancouver Community College to offer ESL to more students in more

locations.

Since then, after talking to officials at the

school and after talking to people involved in School Canadiana and

members of the ethnic communities, we have discovered that the school

is being closed so that the college can reduce its budget by $250,000,

not so that money can be transferred to other programs. Since the

government has not committed new money to the college, would you

explain how this expansion of the ESL programs can take place?

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

I certainly cannot explain how I said on Friday that the information

that I had was that they were going to be able to provide this without

increasing the budget by $250,000. Our emphasis, both between myself

and the Minister of Advanced Education (Hon. S. Hagen), is to provide

this service to students, not to try and spend as much money as

possible to do it.

MR. HARCOURT : I have a

supplementary to the Minister of Tourism and Culture and multicultural

areas. I would hope that the member for Vancouver South would be

interested in the concerns of our minority communities, having a number

of them in his riding. My point deals with the fact that School

about 10,000 new Canadians since it began. Shutting it down without

reviewing the need for the service is a slap in the face to our ethnic

communities. Since

[ Page 5209 ]

B.C.

spends less per capita than Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario

and Quebec, will the minister agree to intervene with his colleagues to

ensure that School Canadiana stays open?

HON. MR. REID :

I will get the details, because the first time I heard about it was on

Friday. This is the second time it's been raised, and it could be

referred to the committee on cultural heritage. To the first member for

Vancouver East, culture is spelled with a "c," in case you're not

aware. That's for the media to take note of also.

MR. WILLIAMS : Did it take you four days to find out?

HON. MR. REID :

No, it did not. It took me four days to get up enough courage to

respond, and it's not unusual. To get back to a serious note, because I

think the question was asked seriously, I'd be prepared to have it

referred to the committee for consideration and reference to the

Education minister and the Ministry of Advanced Education from a

committee perspective. I was not aware of it until the first time it

was raised on Friday.

MR. HARCOURT : A supplementary.

Mr. Minister, there is a major meeting and dialogue taking place in

Vancouver with members of the ethnic community. Would it be possible to

have a response back before that meeting takes place on Saturday?

HON. MR. REID :

The committee is meeting either tomorrow or Wednesday, and I will sure

get it on the agenda for our consideration or for the committee. Since

it's such a heated subject, we'd be prepared to refer it to them.

AUDIT OF FIRST INVESTORS CORP. AND

ASSOCIATED INVESTORS OF CANADA

MR. SIHOTA :

A question to the Minister of Finance. It's now come to my attention

that a quiet, secret audit of Principal Trust company's FIC and AIC

were carried out by Price Waterhouse, showing that the companies were

essentially insolvent. This was in January 1987. Was this report or its

existence brought to the attention of the minister prior to the

issuance of a licence for those companies on April 1, 1987?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Mr. Chairman, the member has named some specific dates. Not being

previously informed that he would be curious about this, I don't have

those in my memory bank. Under the circumstances, the best I can do is

take the question as notice.

MR. SIHOTA : The dates

aren't that pivotal: what is important is the existence of this Price

Waterhouse report. However, let me ask the minister this question: the

minister surely knows that April I is the date on which the licences

are issued. Were the licences for FIC and AIC on April 1, 1987, issued

after consultation with the minister?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Once again, the hon. member has asked me to verify dates on which

information was exchanged. I'm not prepared to do that in this area

without checking the records. So I'll take the question as notice.

[2:30]

MR. SIHOTA :

Apart from the dates, will the minister tell this House whether he

consulted with his officials prior to the issuance of licences for FIC

and AIC in 1987?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Once again,

I've said to the hon. member that we will verify the question of the

time at which information was exchanged. While it doesn't refer to a

date, the second question does refer to the licence renewal, which is

fixed by date. The hon. member knows that. If I understand it properly,

the second question is exactly the same as the first; therefore I said

earlier that I would take it under notice, and I will do so.

I understand the rules of the House, that's the end of the question and

further questions are out of order. If I'm incorrect, I invite someone

to correct me.

SOUTH MORESBY NATIONAL PARK

MS. SMALLWOOD :

A question to the Minister of Environment and Parks. British Columbians

have been patient since negotiations for South Moresby broke down. Is

the minister prepared to stop holding up the agreement on the park and

listen to British Columbians' requests rather than the outrageous

demands of logging companies?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : You need a better writer there.

The park is going to be in place for an awfully long time —

forever. It's the position of the government of British Columbia that

we're going to protect the interests of British Columbia as best we can

when we finalize our agreements. It is not our intent to step away from

this agreement; it is our intent to have a national park there. As to

the date, I hope soon, but I can't at this point give you any definite

date. I think it would be foolish for me to venture a date at this

point, but I can assure you, Madam Member, Mr. Speaker and all members

of this Legislative Assembly, that it is our full intent to go ahead

and act on our best behalf for the citizens of British Columbia to

ensure that we have a federal park and the best arrangements available.

PRIVATIZATION OF ICBC

MR. SIHOTA :

A question to the Minister of Energy, who is also in charge of

privatization. The provincial government originally indicated that they

were not prepared to privatize the Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia. The Premier and others have said that that was the decision

made at that time; however, it's unclear now what the government would

do.

Is the minister in charge of privatization prepared to tell this House that ICBC will not be sold under any circumstances?

HON. MR. DAVIS :

As the hon. member well knows, this House is in control of its own

destiny, and any future government can change a great many policies,

laws and so on. "Never" is therefore a very big word. But the policy

now is not to sell the Insurance Corporation.

FIRST CITIZENS' FUND

MR. G. HANSON : Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Transportation as the minister responsible for the First Citizens' Fund.

[ Page 5210 ]

The

legislation establishing the First Citizens' Fund specified that it was

to promote the cultural, educational and economic development of

aboriginal people in B.C. As of October 28 of last year, cultural and

heritage grant applications were cut off. Could the minister tell this

House why and on what authority he has decided to eliminate grants from

the First Citizens' Fund for native cultural and heritage projects?

HON. MR. ROGERS :

We haven't decided to do that. We are in fact giving grants to various

cultural and heritage societies. They apply to the First Citizens' Fund

board, which is made up entirely of native people, and they make the

decision.

MR. G. HANSON :

My understanding is that the grants being looked at are for community

facilities — recreation, playing fields, community centres,

etc. — but that actual heritage and cultural applications have not

been received since last October 28. Would he confirm that?

HON. MR. ROGERS :

No, I wouldn't, but I'll check the dates for you. As far as I know, we

have not had any inquiries around this issue. I was under the

impression that we had merely broadened the terms of reference under

which this particular act operates, rather than restricted it.

MR. G. HANSON :

A supplementary. There is a broad-based perception that the grants have

been shifted over to loans and that the culture and heritage portion

has atrophied. Since the government claims to have surplus lottery

funds, did the minister consider adding to the First Citizens' Fund so

that existing programs wouldn't have to be eliminated or reduced to

finance the new business loan program?

HON. MR. ROGERS :

Your broad-based perception i's wrong, so let me just broadly correct

it. First of all, under the previous regulations, native groups were

not able to apply for lottery funds directly of their own accord. Every

time a native organization applied for funding from the Lottery

Corporation, they were told to go to the First Citizens' Fund. Last

year cabinet made a decision that would allow native organizations to

apply for — and some have received — funding through the

Lottery Fund directly. Lottery funding has been made available to treat

the first citizens of this province like any others. In fact, because

in many cases they have organizations that are justified in receiving

funding, they are probably going to get a vastly increased amount of

funding. We have directed some people to the Lottery Fund, and some

funds have been forthcoming. I can assure the member that that's the

case. So rather than narrowing the scope of funds available, I think we

have broadened it quite substantially.

MR. G. HANSON :

Last week the First Citizens' Fund business loan program still wasn't

in operation, even though it was supposed to be in place on April 1.

Can the minister tell the House what the delay is in getting this new

program off the ground?

HON. MR. ROGERS : The board met last week —

they meet on a regular basis. I haven't had a copy of the minutes of

the board meeting. I presume they are going through the deliberations

that any duly appointed board is going to go through to make sure that

the decisions they make are the correct and sensible ones for the

people for whom they are responsible. There are certainly no

instructions from my office or from anyone else that there should be

any holdup, so I don't believe there has been one. I can check into

that and find out where their decisions are. I can tell you this: the

access available to first citizens is much broader now than it was

before; it's a much better deal.

HON. MR. VEITCH : I

rise under standing order 49. On May 10, 1988, I announced to the House

that a special committee would be struck to consider the Hon. Judge

T.K. Fisher's preliminary report on electoral boundaries in the

province of British Columbia. Following that, I introduced a motion,

standing on the order paper under my name, which, when adopted, would

appoint Messrs. Rabbitt, Ree, Long, Jacobsen, Weisgerber, Vant,

Williams, G. Hanson and Sihota as members of the subject committee to

bring back to the House unanimous recommendations respecting the

preliminary report of the Fisher royal commission.

On June

16, 1988, the hon. member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) asked by memo to be

included as a member of said committee. I wish to thank the hon. member

for Omineca for bringing this to my attention. Accordingly, today, in

the interest of fairness, under standing order 49 I seek unanimous

consent by leave of the House that the motion standing in my name on

the order paper be amended to include the name of the member for

Omineca.

Leave not granted.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITY

FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I'd like to answer a question I took on notice on June 14. On June 13 there was an

article in the Vancouver Sun dealing with a spill from a Burnaby firm; there was apparently an alleged PCB spill from an old transformer.

On June 14, the day after the Vancouver Sun

article, the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) asked

me a series of questions, essentially being concerned that the waste

management branch had been phoned and told there was no staff

available. The member concluded the question by saying: "Can the

minister give us some information as to why this happened?"

Upon

investigation, I find out that the waste management branch has no

record of a call as described by the member for

Surrey-Guildford-Whalley or by the Vancouver Sun

article. No spill was reported that was not dealt with by the

environmental safety officers in the lower mainland regional offices.

If a caller does not identify that a spill is involved, or refuses to

describe the location of the spill or to leave a name and a number for

staff to return the call, it is not possible for staff to respond.

Since there was no further information supplied to us, I consider the

matter ended.

With that said, I call committee on Bill 28.

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

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

section 1.

HON. MR. PARKER : The amendments add

definitions for small business forest enterprise revenue and the small

[ Page 5211 ]

business

forest enterprise account. These

definitions are necessary because of

the amendments contained in this bill. They are related to the new

forest policies announced on September 15, 1987.

The small

business forest enterprise revenue definition essentially defines the

small business program. The program includes all timber sale licences

awarded under the Forest Act, except those which have an allowable cut

greater than 10,000 cubic metres. I will have more to say about the

small business forest enterprise account when we deal with the

amendments to

section 87.1.

MR. CLARK : I just ask

the minister to explain the exact difference between this and the

previous small business forest enterprise account. I'm not quite sure

of the distinction between this and the existing program.

HON. MR. PARKER :

The difference is that previously all revenues from the small business

forest enterprise program went into general revenue. We now have a

five-year account identified as the small business forest enterprise

account, from which funds will be drawn for access, forest renewal and

protection, and any surpluses in that account will be returned to the

consolidated revenue account. We will be discussing this further when

we get to the amendments to

section 87.1 of the act.

MR. CLARK :

Is it the intention, Mr. Minister, that the small business forest

enterprise account will in fact have a surplus, or is it expected to be

kind of a revolving fund that is self-regulated in a sense?

HON. MR. PARKER :

The purpose of the account is to keep the funds isolated for access,

protection and forest renewal. In the event that there are surpluses in

the account, those surpluses will be returned to general revenue.

Similarly, if there is a shortfall, we'll have to draw on general

revenue to make up the difference.

[2:45]

MR. CLARK :

It does not go into your overall forestry budget. It goes into the

general revenue fund of the province. It seems to me that it's just a

bookkeeping entry more than anything else. You're trying to keep track

of the revenues and expenditures of that specific program. Is that fair

to say?

HON. MR. PARKER : That's a fair assessment.

MR. CLARK :

I thank the minister for his forthright answer. Is it the intent of the

small business forest enterprise account to cover the cost of

silviculture directly? Let me put it this way: is it the intent to have

ministry personnel funded out of the small business enterprise account,

or is it the intent to essentially pay contractors to do that work?

Will there be bureaucrats — for want of a better word — paid

out of that account, or will it simply be to give to contractors to

offset the costs associated with maintaining the forest base?

HON. MR. PARKER :

The involvement of Forest Service employees is handled out of the

regular votes. Any extraordinary work is handled out of the small

business enterprise account. Some of that would be contract. The

purpose of the account is to make sure that there are funds there for

forest renewal. It's under the same terms as all other licences in the

province. In this particular instance, the province is responsible for

making sure we have a free-to-grow state on forestry, the same as all

licensees in the province have to do.

MR. CLARK : Will road-building also come out of this fund?

HON. MR. PARKER : As I said earlier, it's for forest access, forest protection and silviculture purposes.

MR. WILLIAMS :

There's a reference to funds in

section 87.1 currently that would be

transferred when this is proclaimed. Could the minister advise where

that fund stands at this point in time?

HON. MR. PARKER :

The question is: what is the balance of the small business forestry

enterprise account at this point in time? That will be created after

this legislation is proclaimed.

MR. WILLIAMS : Is there not reference to existing funds and existing accounts'?

HON. MR. PARKER : Not in this section. I don't know what the member is alluding to.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. WILLIAMS :

What we're seeing is the elimination of a historic ministry of

government, and all of the amendments we see allow the designation of

people by the minister. Those people need not be members of the

Ministry of Forests staff. More and more we're seeing the historic role

of the Ministry of Forests or the old Forest Service being contracted

out to private companies. Maybe the minister can elaborate on that with

respect to this section.

It seems to me that what you are

giving yourself the authority to do is toss off all of the historic

work of the Ministry of Forests, the Forest Service, to whomever you

like: private company, whatever. All that's left is some final decision

by the minister on the allocation of licences and the like. All of this

continues this unravelling process in terms of basically decimating the

public service.

HON. MR. PARKER : This

section is

amended by substituting the words "minister or a person authorized by

him" for "chief forester," because the chief forester should not have

the responsibility for disposing of Crown timber under forest licence

application, and that's what we're talking to here. It's an amendment

section 11 of the Forest Act. The chief forester sets annual

allowable cuts. It's the minister's responsibility or that of his

designate to apportion and dispose of or sell Crown timber.

There's

a further amendment in this

section 2 of Bill 28. That is, subsection

(5) is replaced to include the words: "include other terms and

conditions the minister considers necessary." This will allow

flexibility in the awarding of a process, especially in cases where

more than one licence is offered and the need arises for special

considerations.

The matter of designation of responsibility is a ministerial discretion under this amendment, and there is no move here

[ Page 5212 ]

amend the Ministry of Forests Act under which the Forest Service is

constituted. The purpose here is to provide for the minister — or whoever that person may be —

to either set the standards and adjudicate or designate another person.

Whether that's in the Forest Service, some other government agency or

some other agency altogether remains to be seen. The intention here is

not one of amending the role of the Forest Service.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Maybe I can ask it in a different way, and maybe that would be helpful

to the minister. Is there anything required of the chief forester as a

result of these changes? Historically the chief forester would be the

official who would review all timber licence applications and various

tenure applications. I see nothing here that, in effect, requires the

chief forester to review. The chief forester, presumably, 'is the one

with the background, the expertise, the understanding and the historic

concern that should be applied to test these applicants.

it now stands and as we see it, you can farm this out to ABC Consulting

of Terrace, B.C. or its equivalent, and all that work would be done by

them. Then some decision might be made by the minister, and the total

ministry is unravelled. Can you advise the House what clear role the

chief forester has then? I don't see anything in this section.

HON. MR. PARKER :

It's the chief forester's role to determine the allowable annual cuts.

It's the minister's role to apportion those allowable annual cuts.

MR. WILLIAMS : Is the minister saying that is the only role for the chief forester — to determine the AAC —

and then you decide how it's going to be divvied up? That's not much of

a role. Really? Historically the chief forester has been a significant

player, and we don't see that continuing as you unravel — like the others —

in terms of pursuing privatization in your ministry, in Energy and

throughout the piece so that the historic civil service of British

Columbia is being gutted so that the province can be looted.

HON. MR. PARKER :

The chief forester's duties are framed in other legislation and in

regulations arising out of the legislation. For the matterof this

section 11, his duties are changed accordingly.

MR. LOVICK :

I'm just wondering if the minister, putsuant to the answer he just

gave, can elaborate a little bit. This seems to amount to a rather

significant new job description for the chief forester. I'm wondering

what is the basis for that change and why, given that the position

seems to have served us well for some time now.

HON. MR. PARKER :

Section 11 deals with setting forth the terms of a proposal call on

forest licences and also sets forth the terms for evaluation. Those

terms include social and economic considerations such as under

section

11(4)(a): "...creating or maintaining employment opportunities and

other social benefits in the province." That would be determined by

government, not by the chief forester.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Maybe the minister could elaborate on how he sees this process actually

taking place, and how he sees the role of consultants with respect to

all of this. The Ministry of Forests has been decimated under

restraint. In some sections, you've lost maybe eight out of ten people

with certain skills as a result of the pensions and golden handshake

game of the last few months with respect to the public service. So what

we have here is a hemorrhaging in terms of talent and skills that are

needed to properly handle the management of our public lands and

forests. You have continually let the public service be gutted. The

question is: what do you anticipate in terms of consulting in this area

of forest licences and these various tenures that you're going to be

working on over the next several months?

HON. MR. PARKER : Whatever the future holds, this amendment to this

section provides the necessary flexibility to deal with the situation —

whatever may arise. The minister will have the final determination one

way or the other. Whether or not in-house staff or contract staff are

used in any particular instance will depend on the merits of the

particular circumstance. As far as this

section is concerned, the

responsibility which has been assigned to the chief forester under

section 11 of the Forest Act is now being amended to provide for the

minister or a person authorized by him, which can mean, for all intents

and purposes, the chief forester or the deputy chief forester or one of

the directors, maybe a regional manager, maybe a district manager,

maybe an outside party; it depends on the circumstances at the time.

MR. WILLIAMS :

It does open up significantly all of this processing work, with respect

to allocation of various timber rights and privileges in this province,

to private companies to really carry out the entire process.

went through the exercise of a review of waste in the Queen Charlotte

Islands on M&B lands just recently. The ministry hired T.M. Thomson

and Associates, and I'm sure they did a decent job. But the reality is

that these people are in business with the private companies too,

whether it's that company or the people in Prince George or other

consulting parties around the province. More and more, we're terribly

vulnerable in terms of these companies with differing clients at

differing times. That can be handled by a good professional, but when

it comes to something as important as allocating various timber rights

or cutting rights, then the temptations, I suggest, are too great.

We're talking about hundreds of millions in forest values here, and the

process that leads up to their allocation. If that goes out to private

companies that in turn work for companies that are applying for the

licence, it is simply too tempting and unfair to put that burden on a

consulting firm. It's disturbing to see these kinds of changes moving

throughout the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I'm concerned

that our official critic with respect to the Forests ministry is not

here. I would like to move that the committee rise, report progress and

ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Mr. Speaker, I am going to call second reading of Bill 33, printed in

the name of the hon. Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.

[3:00]

[ Page 5213 ]

AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

HON. MR. SAVAGE : It's a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak on the miscellaneous statute amendments in Bill 33.

have four major sections we're discussing. The amendments were

introduced a short time ago. They are basic housekeeping amendments.

What we're trying to do is be more administratively sound in presenting

the amendments. We're quite concerned about the amount of

administration required in some of the acts, and also we wish to be

more efficient in the way we do administer them.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

There

are some sections in acts that we feel are outdated, and they do need

these amendments that are being brought forward. We wish to have the

authority to designate someone to arbitrate a decision within the Bee

Act. In the Milk Industry Act there's a concern about the designation

of labs. In the Soil Conservation Act there is just some

housekeeping — the power of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council re

the fee structure. In the Livestock Disease Control Act, Mr. Speaker,

the bill allows for provisions as they relate to agriculture being

added to the Livestock Disease Control Act. It's important here that we

bring the aquaculture sector under livestock disease control.

I think that will suffice as an introduction, Mr. Speaker. If there are any questions I will try to answer them.

MR. ROSE :

We're not going to debate this very long at second reading. I

understand that the minister is going to be away tomorrow, hopefully

getting some money for the grape growers or doing something useful.

We're prepared, if there's unanimous consent, to proceed on this this

afternoon.

congratulate him for bringing in the first

piece of agricultural legislation since the Bee Act was amended in

1979. So there's progress there. We got new fees for bees. This add, to

a list of many other fees — hundreds of other fees — by this

government that have nickel-and-dimed the population of British

Columbia, especially this last budget.

I understand that the responsibility of livestock inspectors is now extended

to aquaculture. We have some things to say about that, because apparently the

extension of responsibility is in the act but there's no extra staff. Again,

that's in keeping with the traditions we've been following here over

the last five years maybe, where we have an increasing amount of responsibility

put on people and fewer and fewer staff employed by the ministry. That's

sometimes called efficiency, or getting more bang for your buck. I'm not

sure that happens. I think you get less service to agriculture, and it's

treated more and more as a terminal industry.

There's

a consequential amendment in

section 16 and a decision to privatize the

dairy and food lab in Burnaby. We'll be talking about that more in

committee. To me, it's a useless move but an ideological one, because

the slogan of this government is: "Ready, guys, let's privatize." I've

commented on that before. I see no reason to do it. I don't think it's

going to save any money. All it will mean is less service. It's pretty

well self-supporting now, so why bother? We have a government-owned

institution with 14 professionals that's doing good work. I can't see

how anybody's going to make any money out of the business unless they

charge higher fees to farmers. If they don't do that.... If they're not

in it as a private business and it's a legitimate one to make money,

then why would they be in it? I really do think the minister should

have fought that. I think he should have fought a number of other

things as well.

There are ways here in which the government

is really not fair and honest. My information is that the apiarists

will be consulted about the size of these registration fees but not

about the decision to impose them. Again, I'm told that very few enter

each year to register. The arbitration feature looks attractive, but

some of the people who have been in business for a long time and are

established may not be very happy having to fight for their rights to

continue if they're challenged and arbitration is needed. Nevertheless,

I don't object to that.

I don't like the idea of the

minister designating which labs get to do the testing. That should be

done by a body that's probably removed from any public influence or

conflict of interest — anything like that. I don't like that idea,

because he doesn't have to give any reasons for it. I think it's

another example of: trust the government. What we saw in the Expo lands

and in the B.C. Hydro bill that we just got for privatization is

that.... We're reluctant to place that trust in the government. It's

like the Land Commission; I trust the Land Commission, but I don't

trust ELUC very much. That, I think, is a weakness of that part of it.

Again,

the increased responsibilities for people who are involved in the

livestock inspection moving into aquaculture with no increased staff is

not a good situation, in our view. Save for that, if the proper motion

is moved by the minister when he closes the debate, or if there are

other speakers at this stage, we're prepared to go into committee.

MR. GUNO : I just want to reiterate what my colleague has pointed out with respect to the impact of this bill on aquaculture.

first reading we made the case that the aquaculture industry is one of

the fastest growing on the coast. Certainly there are some major

concerns about the lack of regulations to guide the proper development

of this important industry, and some serious concerns have been

expressed about the threat to the environment, especially to the wild

stocks. So I agree with my colleague that we're concerned about the

fact that in spite of the move to streamline this whole operation and

put the whole matter of monitoring.... As I understand it, there's one

section that extends the responsibility of the livestock inspector to

aquaculture, but there's been no new staff to take place along with

that added responsibility in the foreseeable future. Mr. Speaker, I

would contend that aquaculture deserves better treatment than simply to

have the responsibilities of the livestock inspector cover this very

vital industry.

So that's really all I want to say; I think my colleague beside me will want to add more on some of those concerns.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I'd just like to add, or reiterate, some of the concerns expressed

already by our fisheries critic, in hope that during the

clause-by-clause we can have some further information from the minister

about the programs and staffing that he will have in place. As we have

collected more information about the aquaculture industry from the

industry itself, it is very clear that they have very serious concerns

about disease and the spread of disease. It's important that the

ministry recognizes that there is a need to

[ Page 5214 ]

put

into legislation the ability to deal with these problems, and we'll

look forward to hearing more information from the minister with regard

to how they intend to do that.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : My

hon. critic has touched on the apiary section, livestock disease and

the testing for the milk industry or the laboratories. Obviously we

want to make sure that under the Milk Industry Act — if I can touch on that one first —

the regulations that exist in the act are in fact carried out. Whether

they are done either by employees of the government or by the private

sector, the act still has to be followed.

The designation

we were looking for was that in the milk analysis as it relates to the

payment to the producer, we designate a lab for the time being. There

may be other labs in the future; it may not be the minister who

designates them, but it may be within ministry staff. The ability to

designate at this time until such time as any other lab may have the

opportunity to establish itself in the competition for that work and

the ability to determine on a fair basis the payment for the milk to

the producer — that's the important thing relative to the designation.

think my hon. critic on fisheries suggested, for instance, inspections

or regulations as they exist for aquaculture. As you well know, a

number of the recommendations in the Gillespie report have been

followed in assigning any licences that have been allocated. You'll

recollect from our discussion in the estimates that there are only

about 118 operating aquaculture or salmon farm operations at this time.

What we're trying to do here by bringing aquaculture — the vertebrate and invertebrate species —

in under the Livestock Protection Act is to have some control of the

disease you refer to. You referred to the inspectors. We have a marine

resources branch that presently is the resource for the industry, but

we can also designate.... It's under the authority of the minister to

designate inspectors. They can be appointed — for example,

veterinarians or whatever to attend on-site. So I think there's fair

safety in what we're trying to do in the amendments we're putting

forward in the miscellaneous statute.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : This now puts us in the question of second reading. Second reading of Bill 33, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 33 to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill

33, Agriculture and Fisheries Statutes Amendment Act, 1988 read a

second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for

consideration forthwith.

AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

The House in committee on Bill 33; Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.

section 1.

MR. ROSE : I'd like to ask a number of questions on

section 1. I'll try not to go over them too rapidly.

I'd

like to know what size of fee is anticipated for new registrants. I'm

told that there were approximately 200 applications last year. How much

is the anticipated revenue? I don't think it's a big money-maker, so

I'm not sure about that.

Section 1 also provides access to

the Commercial Arbitration Act to resolve disputes. On the surface,

that sounds pretty good, but this appears to be in some contrast to

other measures which give the minister complete independence from the

government and provide the minister increased powers in essential

matters. I'm talking about

section 16 now. I'd like to understand

whether the minister thinks that the longstanding operator's rights are

being weakened by this change, because now they have to deal with

commercial arbitration and have that hanging over their heads if they

are challenged in a location.

Those are the four questions that I have dealing with that section.

[3:15]

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

On the first one, the size of the fee, no fee

schedule has been

prescribed at this stage. All we ask here is the right to prescribe

one, but it is not laying out a fee structure per se. In another

question your concern is that the location of an apiary or the removal

of hives or whatever from a location may go to arbitration and be dealt

with at arm's length away from government. Is that your concern? You

are worried that there may have to be an arbitration process in place?

We feel that it may have to be there.

MR. ROSE : I

don't know whether you ever got around to the size of the fees, except

to say that you want the right to impose them, but you haven't really

decided how big they would be or when they would be imposed. Is that

fair to say? On the arbitration matter, I said that I thought it was a

step forward, because if people want to move in there, it would give

them some kind of right if the thing couldn't have been worked out in

another way. Those existing operators might feel that their rights have

been weakened in an area through a requirement for them to go to

outside arbitration if there is a challenge. That's how I understand it.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

I believe that for those who have been in operation for many years,

historical use would play a large role in whether anything ever went to

arbitration. The historic operators would not likely face arbitration.

MR. STUPICH :

I get the impression from the minister's non-answer to the question of

fees that he has no idea at all what fee he intends to charge. This

legislation could well be given royal assent as early as tomorrow. I

don't know what the plans are, but it could certainly happen very soon,

and it could be in effect immediately cabinet decides. I find it hard

to believe that the minister has not given some thought to exactly what

the fee will be. I wonder whether he has in mind adjusting the fee

according to the number of beehives in an apiary. It could be one; it

could be several thousand. I just don't know what he has in mind.

wonder, too, whether this means that there is going to be some better

service to the bee industry, whether the minister intends to beef up

inspection and control of the movement of bees and equipment. I just

wonder why. Is it simply to grab more money because there's a thought

in somebody's mind that there is more money available there? It is

something more than that, I hope.

[ Page 5215 ]

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

No, it's a case of registration and inspection. The fees can be

prescribed later, but no fee

schedule has been worked out at this

stage. We are still working on that, but there is no intent to gouge

anybody for inspections or service for inspections.

On the

issue of needing more staff or inspectors, that would be addressed if

the need occurred. We have sufficient staff within the ministry now, as

you are well aware. Some questions were asked last week about the bee

situation on Vancouver Island here, and it took an assignment of staff,

but the problem got addressed.

MR. STUPICH : I was

wondering how I could refer to that situation. I didn't think I could,

but now that the minister has opened it up, I appreciate it. I don't

know just when those hives came to the Island, but it must be something

like a year ago. Over 300 hives came to the Island, and it was only in

May or June — a year later — that the ministry got around to

actually doing something concrete about it. I am wondering if as of

today, June 20, they have all been removed? Is there enough staff to

make sure it happens on time?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : The

hives have all been moved, as I understand it, except for maybe one or

two where we hope that the straggler bees will accumulate, and then

they will be taken off the Island. If there are any found beyond that,

we have agreement that they will be destroyed.

MR. STUPICH :

I assume that the minister is saying that this is all being watched by

an inspector on site. I don't mean that he's there every moment. I'm

wondering if that is the person who has been inspecting in that area,

or is it someone else at this point in time?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : No, it's the same inspector, as I understand it.

MR. STUPICH :

The minister said that it was the same inspector, "as I understand it."

If he'd stopped when he said "the same inspector," I'd know that he

knew something about it. But when he says "as I understand it," I

wonder if he is really up to date on this or whether he's thinking

about a trip back east that he'll be leaving on very shortly —

with our cooperation. Unless he has something further to add to that,

I'll leave it for now.

know my colleague is welcoming the change to using the Arbitration Act.

It seems to me that that's a fairly expensive process compared to what

we've had in the past, where the minister has been able to make the

determination, except that he was required to make it in favour of the

long established beekeeper in that area.

Now it's going to

go to arbitration, and I wonder if there's going to be a tendency on

the part of arbitration boards to let new beekeepers into an area where

there are already people who have been approved by the minister, or

they wouldn't be there, and whether we might be getting into a quota

system with respect to getting bees into areas. Does it mean we're

going to start building up a quota system such as we have in other...?

I see the minister shaking his head.

Why are you abandoning

the system that to the best of my knowledge has been working without

complaint from the beekeepers and changing to something that to the

best of my knowledge they haven't asked for?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : We feel it is a fair and equitable system to address where hives are located, etc.

MR. STUPICH :

I wouldn't have said it, but I guess the minister is saying that it

hasn't been fair and equitable to have him making the determination.

Since he's bound to make it on the basis of the established beekeeper,

he's saying it's not fair that somebody who went in there first should

have the right to that area: he's opened up that area; he has his

beehives established. It's not fair that he should have the right to be

there and that others should be prevented from coming in there unless

the minister makes the determination that there is room there for

another beekeeper. He's saying that it hasn't been fair and equitable.

It's better to have a different system.

I ask again if

anybody has complained about the system where the minister has made the

determination? Has anybody in the beekeeping industry asked for a

change?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : We believe this would be

non-political. It would be a case where an arbitration system rather

than politics would make the decision. As I said to the hon. critic,

the historic beekeeper would likely not be troubled by what we're

saying here. I think the hon. critic said he thought it was a good move.

MR. ROSE :

I want to clear my name. The idea of having an outside authority make a

decision rather than the minister is a step in the right direction.

Every other place in the bill, the minister is grabbing more power for

himself. I left the caveat: it was touched on again by my hon.

colleague, mentor and friend of long standing that it will place an

added financial burden to use the Arbitration Act because it is

expensive for established producers historic in that area.

MR. STUPICH : And we'll be friends when this is over, too.

come back to the question that the minister is not answering, and I

wonder whether he doesn't know the answer or chooses not to answer it.

Did anyone in the beekeeping industry ask for a change? Has anyone in

the beekeeping industry attacked this minister and said that you have

been political in making your determinations? Partisan politics has

entered into your determination. The minister has said that there's a

concern about partisan politics.

Has somebody raised that

concern? Has anybody complained? Has anybody asked for this change, or

is it just something the minister has imposed to put an added financial

burden on the beekeeping industry?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : No, nobody has asked.

MR. STUPICH : Was the introduction of this legislation the first knowledge that people in the bee industry had of this proposal?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : As I understand it, it had been discussed at some point with some sectors of the industry.

MR. ROSE :

That's hardly an explicit or breast-beating response: it's been

discussed at some point with some members of the industry. Anyway,

there was really no consultation. They've got the fee business right

between the eyes.

Is the fee intended for just 200 new

applicants, which is the anticipated number of applicants for this

year, or will it apply to the 5,500 people who were in the business in

'86? And is it a combination of inspection and registration fees?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

I think there are about 500 beekeepers. You're probably talking 55,000

hives. The fee would be for all, not just the 200 new entrants.

[ Page 5216 ]

MR. STUPICH : I just want to clear up this figure. Did the minister say there are currently about 550 apiarists — or 5,500?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : There are about 500 beekeepers and about 55,000 hives in the province.

MR. STUPICH :

Either his information is inaccurate or mine is. My information is that

in 1973, 15 years ago, there were 1,784 apiarists. The number has been

increasing steadily since that date. By May of '75, there were

3,382 registered apiarists with anywhere from one to several thousand

hives each. By 1986, the figure was approximately 5,500 apiarists — not

hives. Ernie Fuhr must have almost that many hives.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The member for Nelson-Creston requests leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. DIRKS :

In the gallery today is a delegation from Nelson's sister city in

Japan. They just arrived from Japan this morning. I was talking to

their guide, and he says they're a little sleepy, and I don't blame

them a bit. Visiting from Shuzenji-cho are officials of that city,

including the mayor, the president and vice-president of the municipal

assembly, the chief secretary of the municipal assembly, 18 members of

the municipal assembly, the president and two members of the board of

education, the chief of the tourism department, the president of the

chamber of commerce, the presidents of the tourism and hotel

associations, corporate executives and the president of the

Japan-Canada Educational Exchange. Would the House please make them

welcome.

[3:30]

MR. ROSE : I

noticed that the minister nodded that our figures were indeed correct.

We got them out of "Main Farming Areas," a government document. It says

that the annual production of the province's 5,500 beekeepers averages

such and such amount and is worth about $5 million. Agreed?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : In discussions here with my staff.... I think we'll take that on notice and get the right figures back to you.

MR. ROSE :

Should the number be correct.... I'm pretty sure it is because it comes

from an unimpeachable source. I've forgotten what it's called. I

haven't got the source; I've just the photostat. I'll send it over to

the minister. Can the minister confirm that those numbers are handled

at the moment by about 13 or 14 inspectors — and that's the staffing?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : That is correct.

MR. ROSE :

If I'd had time, I would have divided 13 or 14 into 5,500. Do the

minister and his staff feel that's an adequate number? It seems like a

terrible load for one inspector. If you divide 13 or 14 into 5,500, you

get about 420. Is that a reasonable load? In my view, it would be too

heavy.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : As far as I understand,

those inspectors have been doing the job required of them. I'm not sure

whether you would call it a heavy load or not. My understanding is that

they have been able to do the job required.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

section 5.

MR. GUNO :

Because of the nature of these particular sections, 5 to 13, I wonder

if we could do the whole works at once, Mr. Chairman. They are all tied

in.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Yes, we can just discuss it all under

section 5.

MR. GUNO :

One of the major problems of this

section is that we have expressed the

concern that no new staff have been identified as Agriculture field

staff and that there was actually reduction. I want to solicit some

information from the minister with regard to what staffing changes are

going to be made to comply with this change.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

The concern relative to staffing.... As you well know, the marine

resources

section of Environment and Parks has been transferred to the

Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. They are key resource people. As

far as inspections for disease control are concerned, people can be

designated by the ministry to attend to inspections. In the aquaculture

sector, for instance, you would designate veterinarians to go on-site

for inspection purposes if there was a concern relative to disease.

That can be authorized by our office. We obviously are concerned

whether the disease comes from within a fish-farm or is transferred

from the wild stock into a fish-farm. There obviously have to be people

in the event that that happens, so that inspection can in fact take

place. That's why the authority to designate is there.

MR. GUNO :

I want to just pursue that a bit. Under

section 7 it is stated that

subsections 3(2) to 3(4) are repealed and the following substituted:

that the minister may designate, as you say, persons as inspectors for

the purposes of the act. That is less specific than the old provision

under

section 3, which says: "An inspector under this Act shall be a

graduate of a recognized school of veterinary medicine and shall have

all the rights and powers of a registered veterinary practitioner,

notwithstanding the Veterinarians Act...."

It seems to me

that this is wide open: the ministry can appoint persons who may or may

not have that kind of qualification. I wonder if the minister can

comment on that wide discretionary power.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

It's important that the veterinarians are still involved, obviously;

but you may designate, for instance, a biologist to do an inspection.

It would still quite likely be coming back to a veterinary lab or

whatever for a diagnosis.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I'd like to ask the minister a few questions about what is not here.

While he has recognized there is a problem — at least, I hope that

this legislation indicates that he is recognizing the problem —

some of the

[ Page 5217 ]

earlier

comments from the minister would suggest that he still hasn't quite

made up his mind. He suggests that if a problem should be created....

Mr. Minister, there is a problem now. Most of the biologists will tell

you that. They will tell you that there is a problem with both disease

and parasites, I believe, in fish-farms. Whether it comes from the wild

or comes from the fish-farm I think is completely academic. What we

should be doing now is dealing with the fact that there is a problem

and coming to grips with that for both the interests of the wild stock

and the interests of the people who are managing and owning fish-farms.

There

are a couple of things that you've chosen not to deal with in this

legislation. One is the importing of smolts and eggs. In the

aquaculture industry there has been in other countries a severe problem

because they have not been able to restrict the imports as much as

should have been done. At this point we don't have any restrictions, as

far as I understand, and I wonder why the minister has chosen not to

put restrictions on the imports at this time.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : On that question, the importation of eggs is the jurisdiction of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

You

seemed to express some concern, hon. member, that there is a disease

problem. You say it exists today. As you well aware — at least I hope you're well aware —

we have professional staff who have been training private veterinarians

in aquaculture. There are a number of veterinarians on the coast who

are now trained to identify disease in aquaculture. As I said, there

are only 118 operating farms. If there is a problem, it can be

addressed very quickly. If such a disease outbreak did occur, it can be

addressed very quickly. Our staff are responding, I believe, very

sensitively to the need out there.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

Mr. Minister, you refer to the federal jurisdiction. Does that not only

deal with crossing boundaries or international imports? Who has power

over imports province to province, say, from the east coast to the west

coast?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : Fisheries and Oceans, Mr. Chairman.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

Finally, two points. The minister is dealing with disease control. One

of the ways of controlling disease is to restrict the size of farms or

the density of fish in those farms. Can the minister indicate why

you've not chosen to deal with that in this legislation?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

I think you're referring to a report from Norway relative to the

density of fish in a salmon farm or within each pen. We do not have

those densities in British Columbia. In fact, a lot of the operating

farms are now substantially larger in the area for the fish to move in.

We don't see the necessity of a regulation, but those are important

guidelines our ministry is sending out. If the density is too great,

it's only the farmer who suffers from it. He's the one who's going to

suffer the loss of income or whatever from fish being too dense within

the pen prescribed.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I was referring

to that report and other reports that have been done with relation to

fish-farming, and they very clearly say that the stress related to

dense population in the fish-farms directly relates to the degree of

disease in that population. The minister indicates that we don't have

that kind of density problem here; that there are regulations but

nothing actually in law that helps to guide that. The minister says

that the only one who is hurt by that is the farmer himself, who ends

up losing some of his valuable stock due to that disease.

Well,

Mr. Minister, part of your responsibility is to control disease that

may jeopardize other farms or the wild stock. So again, not to deal

with that significant problem that.... I think the industry itself will

tell you that stressrelated disease is a very serious problem, and I

think that given the fact that the industry is in its infancy stage, it

would be incumbent upon you to bring in the kind of legislation

necessary to govern those fanns and the potential spread of the disease

that is indicated.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : I appreciate the

comments, but as I said earlier, our staff recommend that you give the

fish ample room, that you not crowd them in or have the density too

high within a fish pen. Your point is well taken, and the industry

recognizes that. What I'm saying is that the first loss would more than

likely be that of the fish-farmer, who would suffer the greatest loss,

albeit that it may have an impact on the wild fish or whatever. But

they would not like to see that happen, and we would obviously want to

reduce that to a minimum.

MR. GUNO :

I just want to deal with one or two points. Again, going back to the

expanded role of the inspectors, I think this bill — at least in

terms of consumer protection and disease control —

does not go far enough. I think much more needs to be done in the

development of building standards for fish-farms and labelling

requirements so that consumers know whether they're purchasing wild or

cultivated salmon. I was wondering if the minister has any comment as

to how this would be incorporated under this act.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

I'd like to say to the hon. member that we have had numerous requests

relative to labelling the fish as domestically raised or wild stock.

Those discussions are still going on as to whether from a consumer

point of view you would label them pen-raised or domestically raised or

whatever — salmon stock or whatever the species happen to be. Those discussions are still underway.

Relative

to consumer protection and health purposes, that would be the Ministry

of Health going to the consumer shelf to make sure that the product is

in fact healthy.

MR. ROSE : A couple of things on

this section, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I am concerned, as I was in

the estimates, that we've got more responsibilities and yet FTE numbers

are lowered by 67 in the last budget. I'd just like to make the point

that I think the government is trying to do in agriculture.... I think

they're giving too few services and too little assistance, but also

they've got fewer people all the time. I think I indicated at that time

that if the trend line continues, there won't be any by 1996 or

something like that. That's a concern, because there's no new staff for

livestock at all.

[3:45]

The other thing is that now you don't even need your inspector to be

a veterinarian, so you'll be able to hire people at a lower level and a

lower salary. Sure, they'd be working under a veterinarian; in other

words, they're going to be like

[ Page 5218 ]

paramedics —

paraveterinarians. That's going to be inspections on the cheap. I'd

like to know whether or not the minister has any idea of the kind of

training these people will need. What kind of people will he be looking

for if he decides that the staff designated to do this job of

inspections would be...? What kind of qualifications would they have?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

The qualifications would be that of a veterinarian or a biologist, as I

said, but they would still be under veterinary labs, etc. Certainly

they would have to be trained, as I stated a little earlier in answer

to a question relative to whether it has to always be a government

veterinarian. There are private sector veterinarians who are in fact

being trained for aquaculture. It doesn't necessarily mean that it has

to be a government person who does it. The training is provided for the

qualified person; that's the important thing.

MR. ROSE :

I'm still having trouble with my reading. Sections 7 and 8 provide that

an inspector need not be a veterinarian. It doesn't say anything about

being private or public. However, the staff designated would be working

under the supervision of a veterinarian, as I understand it, although

the legislation doesn't say so. That's the real main concern we have.

When I asked what the qualifications are, the minister — and I want to be fair to him —

said: "Well, people who pass the training, and who we deem to be

qualified." I'd like to have an idea of what kind of training is

anticipated. What is the skill level and educational level of these

people? What background do they have? You say that they have to have

some training in biology. Has there been a system of guidelines drawn

up for the people who are about to become these inspectors?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

I think it would depend on the particular situation presented. For

instance, if it was in disease, what type of person would have to

respond to the need? There are a number of veterinarians, I can tell

you, who have gone through, with our ministry staff.... You talked a

little earlier about staff being reduced, which they have; some of our

inspection people in the ministry have gone to the Ministry of Health.

far as disease inspection control on the animals themselves, we still

have the complement of staff. Dr. Brad Hicks, who is our chief

veterinary inspector for marine animals, has been training the private

veterinary sector on how to diagnose the marine life. So I believe that

adequate training has taken place. Where there is some concern, a

biologist other than a veterinarian may — you don't have to be a veterinarian, as I understand it, to be a biologist —

be able to respond to a particular fish farm and to take a look or a

sample of a disease problem. I would suggest it would still come back

to a veterinary lab for full analysis.

MR. ROSE :

What I'm concerned about is that you're deskilling part of your

department. You're saying that you don't really need these

qualifications anymore to go out and take a sample, and you can trot it

back to people who've got some skill. These people will be messenger

boys bringing back vials of bacteria or something — or dead fish. Is that what you're saying?

Even

health inspectors for septic tanks and all the rest of it have to have

some courses in the subject. I'm just trying to find out what kind of

people are going to be doing this work. I get the feeling that this is

de-reg, really — not regulations but deregulations. There are

fewer qualifications needed; let's get government off the backs of the

people, and all those great little phrases.... As I said earlier, I'm

fearful that you might be allowing this legislation to permit you to

hire people of a lower skill and educational level; therefore the

protection of the public will not be enhanced.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

Mr. Chairman, that's not the intent whatsoever. What was described

before was that the veterinarians would have to take samples or take in

the species. Now we're saying that in the marine sector, most of the

people are biologists, and it covers for them to be able to do what a

veterinarian does in the way of taking a sample to a lab for testing.

But it would still be covered by a veterinary lab.

MR. ROSE :

Now we're getting somewhere. The minister said that in the field most

of these people will be biologists. Did I hear him correctly there?

What will the rest be? Are they going to be people with a university

degree in biology or some other equivalent or what?

MRS. GRAN : MLAs.

MR. ROSE :

MLAs? Well, I happen to have a biology major. Does that reassure you?

But I don't have any scuba gear, so I would have to be placed maybe

with the cows.

MR. JANSEN : You've got a future in this.

MR. ROSE : I've got a future where? In the pasture, with Harry?

Interjection.

MR. ROSE : I'm standing up and laughing, but I don't think it's funny.

Does the minister not know, or will he not tell us what these people are? Let's hear from the minister.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

If the hon. member is concerned that anybody can come in — to use

a term that doesn't sound quite right — off the street and take a

sample and be authorized to do so, no. They have to be trained in the

field before they can do it.

Sections 5 to 13 inclusive approved.

section 14.

MR. ROSE :

I don't want to prolong this unduly, but this is a very important

section here. It amends the Livestock Protection Act to provide for

local people being able to authorize the destruction of vicious dogs.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE : Well, I was going to say he finally put some teeth into the act.

present under the Charter the RCMP commissioner is the only one. I want

to know who is this local someone who's going to make these decisions

now. Are you going to have a local RCMP officer designated? Is it going

to be up to the

[ Page 5219 ]

council?

Is it going to be up to the dogcatcher? Is it up to the SPCA? There is

a real concern out there. We've had horrible accidents with Rottweilers

and pit bulls. I'd like a little amplification and clarification on

that one.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : It allows the minister to

designate a commissioner, who in turn may designate persons to give

consent as required by a peace officer. So the peace officer can make

an order to kill a dog found threatening the safety of a person or

livestock.

MR. ROSE : Does this change in any way the

historic common law provision that every dog deserves at least his

first bite? I'm being serious about this. It was difficult to destroy a

dog in the past for biting someone unless he actually had bitten

someone. You say now that it's just a matter of threatening, growling,

not wagging his tail fast enough, or something like that. What is the

designation here?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : Mr. Chairman, I

think my hon. critic is really getting into the teeth of the issue

here. I believe that if the dog is in fact threatening or determined to

be vicious, you authorize, or designate, a peace officer, who may make

the decision or suggestion that the animal be destroyed. You used the

phrase, "whether he's allowed to have his first bite. " If that first

bite is fatal, there's a problem, isn't there?

MR. ROSE :

I won't take any more time on this, because we're moving right along on

this bill. But I'd just like to say that a lot of people are really

fearful and there have been some horrible accidents. In general, I

support this business. But I also think there ought to be some sort of

right of appeal built into the whole process, rather than somebody

grabbing a dog and doing away with it without due process.

Section 14 approved.

section 15.

MR. ROSE :

I want to talk about the privatization of the Dairy and Food

Laboratory. I regret that this is being done. I know that in his more

candid moments the minister would agree with me. He knows that there

has been tremendously good service over the years by that lab, not only

from the dairy farmers. I hope that the second member for Central

Fraser Valley (Mr. De Jong) will speak to this one too, because he's

part of its services. We have become very comfortable — not only the dairy farmers but also various processors —

in dealing with the good works of this lab. I don't think there's any

money to be made by privatizing it. I don't think there's going to be a

real cost saving to government. I suggested earlier that we've got

something like $500,000 tied up there in equipment. If it goes like the

Soil, Feed and Tissue Lab in Kelowna, it's a fire-sale wipe-out, so we

don't gain anything there. We may make ourselves feel a little more

ideologically pure, but we don't gain anything.

Again, let

me say about these privatizations that there are all kinds of functions

in our society and economy that could and should be privatized because

they're naturally privatized now and they've given good service. I'm

not suggesting that everything is going to be solved by nationalizing

everything in sight; we got over that, hopefully, 50 years ago, because

we found that wanting. Even B.C. Hydro, or Hydro-Quebec, as a

government-controlled corporation, can be just as arrogant as any

private business or corporation, whether domestic or foreign. That

isn't the argument.

Here is an outfit — the Dairy and Food Lab —

that employs 14 very skilled people, that is accountable and useful for

cross-checks by the universities and other things to check their

findings, and if it were a private lab to be designated by the

minister, for the minister to be able to designate one.... I don't know

whether underbid or whatever.... This provides for this whole package

in sections 15 and 16.

I'm speaking of this in very general

terms. The thing offends me because I believe it's unnecessary. I don't

think we're going to get as good service from the other labs. I don't

see how they can do it, unless you're saying that those people are

layabouts just lolling around that dairy lab and costing us a lot of

money for very little service. That's not the reports we get. I think

what you're doing is a mistake. I know it hasn't been done yet, but

this allows you provision to do it. It's a privatization bill.

Who's

going to check on the new labs? Are there going to be any cross-checks?

Who's going to be able to do that? Is the federal government going to

do it? I don't think so.

One of the most prominent labs in

the United States, a private lab, was called Bio-Test Laboratories. The

Canadian government took their test results on about 113 chemicals

registered in Canada. They were found to be wrong. They were found to

be fraudulently regarded as safe to use. One of them, Monitor, killed a

young East Indian farmworker out in the Fraser Valley five years ago.

This was falsified information from a private lab that had its own

profit motives.

If you're going to be in private business,

you have to make a living at it. I don't object to that; I think that's

fine. But when you've got something that works well, the old cliche is:

if it ain't broke.... You know the rest of it as well as I do.

We've

got all these things that have happened as a result of one private lab

falsifying its test results. The successors of this lab are going to

have to make a living; therefore they are going to have to make a

profit or else they are going to give less service or inadequate

service. I don't see it as a winner at all, and we oppose it. I'd just

like to have the minister's comments on it.

[4:00]

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

I appreciate what the hon. critic is saying, but realistically you have

to follow within the rules and regulations of the Milk Industry Act,

and we will have quality personnel on staff who will establish criteria

and monitor the performance of these laboratories. We will continue to

do so. It's important that we do.

The other part of it is

whether the private sector can do it as well. There's no doubt in my

mind that they still have to meet all the criteria within the act

relative to testing. That's laid out. Whether it's a government test or

a private test I don't think makes an awful lot of difference at this

stage. The important thing, not only from the producer's but from the

consumer's point of view, is that the testing is done and that it is

monitored properly to make sure that the results are justifiable as

well.

MR. LOVICK : I noted that in the minister's

answer to my colleague's question he made reference to quality

personnel on staff. That strikes me as a curious description for people

[ Page 5220 ]

this

highly specialized area. It seems to me that on a very simple, albeit

literalist, reading of this amendment of the bill, effectively we're

looking at taking out the word "competent" — we're removing that

distinction — and simply saying: "somebody appointed by the

minister." That certainly seems to be the impact of the amendment in

section 15.

Section

20(2) of the existing Milk Industry Act says: "Determination of

compliance with this

section shall be based on adequate tests approved

by the minister and performed by an inspector or other competent

person." The change however, would have it say: "...and performed by an

inspector or other person designated by the minister."

we are being assured, Mr. Minister, that we have nothing to worry

about — the monitoring function is indeed going to be performed

satisfactorily — please explain to us: whatever is the rationale

for taking out the word "competent"? Surely that's the most crucial

dimension.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

There again, I appreciate the comment that's being made, but as an

example, we'll keep one of our senior people on staff to do the

monitoring and quality check of the private sector for that lab. You

can call it competent if you like. I would certainly say that this

person is competent.

MR. LOVICK : It seems to me that

the minister is telling us: "Don't worry. Trust government. Trust us.

There will be somebody in charge who has the monitoring responsibility

who will have competence." But you are not, by the same token, prepared

to give us the assurance that the people who actually do the

testing — in this case, the people who actually ensure compliance —

have competence, qualification, skill levels. Can the minister give us

assurances that I am wrong in that, or is what I say in fact the case?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

I can assure the member that the people who would be doing the testing

of those samples would certainly have to meet all the qualifications

for the job before they were allowed to do it.

MR. LOVICK :

Perhaps I'm missing something, Mr. Minister, but that seems to me to

beg the question, because what we're getting at here is precisely the

point that determines that they can indeed do that job, that they have

qualifications. If we take out the term "competence," what then are we

left with? I guess my question really comes down to a very simple one:

why are we removing that term, that restriction of "competence"? Please

explain.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : I believe there's nothing

wrong with the designation being made by the minister. I'm sure that

the designation would be on the basis of being competent and capable of

doing the job.

MR. LOVICK : Mr. Chairman, in the case

of this minister I have no difficulty whatsoever in accepting that. The

problem, however, is that we aren't talking about this minister. It is

quite conceivable, with all due deference and respect to the minister,

that somebody else may have your job tomorrow, and there is no

guarantee that that other person will pursue his or her duties as

assiduously, carefully and conscientiously as you.

The

question, then, comes back: why have we removed that initial

distinction about competence? Is there some good reason? Thus far I

certainly haven't heard one, and I'm wondering if you could give us a

clear explanation.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : Mr. Chairman,

I'll respond to that in a minute when I see it in the act here. I think

there's some ambiguity as to why it was changed, but I'll get the

answer back shortly.

MR. DE JONG :

I would just like

to make a couple of comments. It seems rather interesting from the

point of view that members of the opposition don't seem to quite

understand what's going on in the industry as it relates to testing.

Most farmers have inspection of individual animals, which is called the

dairy herd improvement service. Once you're with that system, all of

the individual calculations are put together on a monthly basis, and a

herd test or even a special sample from the milk tank can be taken.

Also, with all the samples put together, they figure out the average

test, which is another means of monitoring the system — whether or

not you're actually getting paid for the butterfat content in the milk.

I don't think there's any difficulty with the personnel aspect —

with the appointment as such by the minister. Really, is it any

different whether a person or a firm is appointed by the minister to be

qualified to do these tests, or whether they work within the system in

a government office or lab, as it is today? They would still require

the same competence as far as testing is concerned, and I really don't

see any difficulty from the agriculture point of view as to how the

testing would be carried out.

Further to that, even though

I do not wish to be nasty to the members of the opposition, I think

that anyone appointed to the Agriculture portfolio, no matter which

party is governing in this province, would take his job seriously and

not monkey around with the appointments so that the industry or the

health of the industry would be at stake or the farmers that were

expecting to get paid....

I think it's in very competent hands, and I don't think we need to worry about the appointments in the future.

MR. ROSE : Does the minister want to respond to the member for Central Fraser Valley or to the question by the member for Nanaimo?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

To the second member for Nanaimo, the "competent" person is not defined

in the act. Therefore it's not possible to restrict designation.

MR. ROSE :

I just want to ask a couple of questions about that. I understand the

dairy herd improvement situation and its merger with the ROP as well; I

think we know about those things here. What we want to make certain of

is that the successor to this lab will do an equally competent job in

private hands as it does in public ones. I think the constraints of a

private organization to make a profit place some very severe

limitations on that firm.

I don't know whether the minister

is aware of what happened with Bio-Test Laboratories and Canadian

regulation of very dangerous chemicals. They falsified.... I'm not

saying it's going to happen with the outfit that's going to be the

successor to the dairy lab, but it could. I suppose it could happen in

public labs as well. It was to the economic advantage of this private

lab, because they didn't want to complete the testing, to publish

fraudulent statistics, on which Canadian registrations for 133

pesticides were based.

[ Page 5221 ]

That's the concern — just to make sure that it's as airtight as we can make it.

Will

bids be sought for the successor firm? Right now, according to his

press release, the minister designates the successor firm. Are you

going to do this on the basis of bids? How is this going to be

accomplished?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : I guess I have to

fall back on the word you're worried about. We would not designate a

lab unless we could prove there was confidence in the ability of that

lab to fulfil the requirements of the act.

MR. ROSE :

Should there be a number of bidders as successor to the dairy lab....

Will there be sealed bids and will the lowest bidder receive the

work — provided they're equally competent?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

Not necessarily so. We have to establish the competence, I believe. You

can have equal competence submitted in bids, but is it sufficient to

have industry standards adhered to? The important thing is the

competence we have to have.

MR. ROSE : The minister

is telling us that if firms, apparently of equal competence on paper,

were after the work to be designated by him, they would not necessarily

be named successor. So that really leaves it up to the minister to

designate. It has nothing to do with the Legislature, or with any

accountability anywhere. It could be anybody who got the job. If there

is not going to be a bidding process, how can the public be assured

that it won't be some friend of the minister, or a firm headed by a

friend of the minister — not this minister, any minister?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

When I said equal competence, as long as they meet the criteria....

There could be two of the same competence, but they have to be able to

meet the competence criteria set out in the act, what is required in

the bid submitted for the work to be carried out on behalf of the

industry.

MR. ROSE :

Can the minister assure the House that the quality of testing to the

producer — whether it's the milk producer or the processor;

whoever might be the customers of that lab — will remain equal and

that the fees will not be increased?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

The question of how important quality is in the standards is laid out

within the act. As for fees, I can't dictate that the fees will always

remain the same.

MS. SMALLWOOD : Let me give the

minister a scenario, and he can tell me whether or not, under his

legislation, this could indeed happen. What we see with testing labs in

the United States is a move away from the small, qualified labs, with

degreed scientists doing the tests, to huge labs that are basically

assembly-line labs, with technicians doing routine testing. They

definitely do not have the scientific training to be able to read the

results of the testing. They more or less do a set test, and if the

litmus paper turns a certain colour — to simplify it — they

pass the sample. This legislation opens up the possibility of those

kinds of labs doing the sort of testing for the dairy industry that we

see down in the United States: assembly-line tests, where the

supervisory staff are the degreed scientists, but the people doing the

tests don't necessarily have the scientific credentials necessary to

understand what is in front of them. The amendment we are talking about

here opens it up for testing for the dairy industry to be done by

technicians rather than qualified scientists.

[4:15]

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

We currently have scientists monitoring and training our people in the

labs. The important thing to recognize is that they have to meet

certification. So whether it's, as you like to call it, a huge

laboratory on a line system doing different types of testing.... That

would only be considered on the basis that it could meet certification.

If they could not, no. Again, you have to come back to the standards

established within the act for the tests that are required within the

act, and you would have to have the certification for the capability to

do that testing. That's the only way they could qualify.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

You're saying that once the standards for those tests are laid out, we

could very well have an assembly line laboratory or testing facility in

the province with technicians doing the tests. The standards for those

tests, I assume, are set out in some regulation — something that

is not before this House — and then that lab would be certified.

With

the privatization of your lab, what staff would you have on payroll to

be able to take that information back? I can't help but make the

parallel between this lab and the environment lab. One of the things

that we saw across Canada in several different instances, where there

were serious industrial problems, was that the ministry, because it had

divested itself of its capability to judge the testing that was coming

back.... What we saw was ministries of government either not making

decisions fast enough or making decisions that were not accurate.

Not

only did it put in jeopardy the consumer but it also puts in jeopardy

the industry. Because of this amendment, the industry would have some

real concerns about your ability to judge the tests, given the fact

that you are opening the door to this kind of assembly line testing by

technicians rather than trained, competent people, as has been done in

the past. I just think that the minister isn't doing the kind of

homework that is necessary. You're opening doors that can cause real,

serious problems here.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : As I stated

earlier to the hon. member, we will be ensuring that the proper

criteria are established and that the monitoring takes place. Just to

tell you, we are keeping the supervisor who is presently in the dairy

lab on staff. As well, a lead scientist will be remaining on staff.

Section 15 approved.

section 16.

MR. LOVICK :

The intent of this part of the bill is very clear: to allow the

minister to designate laboratories at which tests may be performed.

That is certainly straightforward.

The first question I

have concerns an apparent discrepancy between the bill as we have it

before us and the statement that emanated from the ministry offices on

April

[ Page 5222 ]

29,

which says that the ministry will designate a single qualified

laboratory to perform the service for a fixed term. Here we are now

talking about the minister. Is there any difference there worthy of

note, or is that simply a — what will I call it — slip of some sort, a drafting error?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : It's probably a typing error, but the minister will be the one responsible. Does that help you any, hon. member?

MR. LOVICK :

Certainly that helps step one. That's a clarification. I think there

is, however, a significant difference to say that the ministry will

have responsibility versus the minister will. The difference is

significant insofar as my understanding — and I will ask the minister to simply comment on this observation —

is that civil servants are required to act impartially and in

compliance with some authority such as a regulation or a statute. Their

actions then can be challenged under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

Under the wording of

section 16, however, it appears to be the case

that the minister is being given a discretion to do something, and it

will be much harder, if not impossible, to challenge whatever it is the

minister might do.

It seems to me that once more we are

being asked to buy a rather large package that, though it may be

attractively packaged, we don't really know the contents of. Further,

given the track record of your government — not necessarily you, but your government —

our trust is wearing rather thin. I am wondering if my reading of that

is correct and if the minister would care to respond to the conclusion

I derive from that reading.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : As I

stated, it will be the minister who will make the designation. That's

what it says in 22.1(1). I think that's the thing you're really

questioning. It will be the minister who will do so.

MR. LOVICK :

I understand, Mr. Minister, that you have no difficulty whatsoever with

the case I presented regarding the Judicial Review Procedure Act. That

doesn't strike you as a problem or worthy of consideration. It's just

the case that we are giving more and more power to particular ministers

and therefore to the whims and idiosyncrasies of ministers. Is that the

new method of government now?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : Well,

I believe the minister has to be held responsible for the designations.

I don't know if that's a clear enough answer. Whether it's subjected to

judicial inquiry or review remains to be seen.

MR. LOVICK : I'm glad that we at least seem to be having a clear distinction drawn between the statements the two of us are making.

want to ask a very specific question generated largely by the answer I

just received. I'm bothered by the wording of

section 16 on 22.1(2),

and I would ask the minister if he would be good enough to explain to

me what the intention of this is and why this particular

section is

here. I am referring specifically to the line that says: "...any

person who is working at the laboratory is deemed to have been approved

by the minister for the purposes of sections 16, 20(2) and 22(3)."

As the minister well knows, those particular sections get to the

absolute heart of what testing is about. Those are the particular

sections that determine whether a practice is good or bad, safe or

unsafe.

Just to restate my question, I'm wondering what the

reason is for giving that rather wide discretionary power to the

ministry by saying that anybody who works at the laboratory is deemed

to have been approved. That seems to me rather a large entitlement. A

great deal of latitude is expressed in that.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

I hope the member is aware that I have to authorize certification for

the positions within the lab. I have to authorize the certificates.

MR. LOVICK :

I certainly don't wish to belabour the point, but given the discussion

we had some minutes ago about competence and the difficulty we had with

that, I'm not finding much comfort in that answer saying that one has

to issue certification. Is it the case that every employee in the lab

covered by the

section I just read will indeed be the possessor of some

kind of certificate, some kind of registered qualification to work in

the laboratory?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : They must be

certified to carry out some of the duties within the act, and they have

to meet those qualifications. They have to be qualified to get that

certificate. Whether a person in the lab could meet the qualifications

and didn't have a certificate.... The minister would have to judge

on the basis of those qualifications and assign a certificate

accordingly.

MR. ROSE : Hopefully this will be the last remark on what was going to be a very brief debate.

think we're concerned about a lot of things it doesn't say. On the one

hand the minister says: "I have to make sure that they're certified."

Right? They have to be certified to have competence and training to do

certain tasks. But the act says that if they're employed there, they're

deemed to be certified. The very fact of their employment seems to

certify them. We find it difficult to reconcile those two points.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

In this case, where we designate a lab we want to make sure that the

people who are doing the testing are in fact certified. That's the

important thing.

MR. ROSE : You say they're deemed to have been certified.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : No. They have to be certified.

MR. R. FRASER :

I have some interest in this section. I'm sorry I missed the early part

of the debate, because I did talk to the minister about this earlier.

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER : I wish I'd been here. You're right.

I would like to know whether these testing people are going to be certified by CSA or by what other authority.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

The people who are in the laboratory will be certified by the

supervisor within our ministry as it relates to the qualifications in

the act to do the job that is prescribed.

MR. R. FRASER : What the minister is saying, then, is that the individuals will be certified, as opposed to the laboratories, or both?

[ Page 5223 ]

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

The lab would only be certified on the basis of the competency of its

employees — their ability to do the job that's required under the act.

MR. R. FRASER : In other words, every laboratory which hired staff that you felt was certified could therefore be certified in addition.

Why did you think it was necessary to certify the labs?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

For certification of the quality and the testing that's required within

the lab. They always have been certified to carry out.... The

responsibilities that are adhered to within the act require

certification. It doesn't change.

[4:30]

MR. R. FRASER :

In other words, we're going to have a private company doing the lab.

Normally when testing companies do work, they have qualifications from

some agency outside government, but in this case we're going to

privatize the lab and have government certification. Instead of saying,

"We're not going to do the work anymore and you can pick from any one

of those labs," we're still going to be hooked into it whether we

think we should or not.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : I guess the answer to that is yes, to ensure the quality of the testing that is required.

MR. R. FRASER :

One last remark on this particular section. It strikes me that if we're

going to take the step of having the testing done by a commercial lab,

then we should let the labs do their work. We should not be involved in

the certification process at all.

Section 16 approved on division.

Sections 17 and 18 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill

33, Agriculture and Fisheries Statutes Amendment Act, 1988, reported

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

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I call committee on Bill 28, Mr. Speaker.

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT

(continued)

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

section 2.

MR. MILLER : I don't know what discussions, if any, have been held so far on

section 2.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER : They were profound, my colleague advises me.

Section

2 removes the designation of chief forester. It seems to me that the

impact of the

section could be the contracting-out of the whole

evaluation process, and that could, I think, open the door to the kinds

of political interference that do take place — that have taken place — from time to time in this province. I wonder whether the minister, if

he has already answered this question, could respond again: why did he

think it was necessary to remove that designation of chief forester?

Certainly the chief forester is the one who should be in a position to

be most familiar with the timber supplies of the province and their

allocation.

I'll keep it short, and ask the minister to respond to that.

HON. MR. PARKER :

Mr. Chairman, we're discussing an amendment to the Forest Act, under

section 11(4)(a), creating or maintaining employment opportunities

and other social benefits in the province. In the matter of

adjudicating such items, it's better that that be in the realm of the

government and not the chief forester. The chief forester, among other

duties, sets allowable annual cuts. It is the responsibility of the

minister under the Forest Act to apportion the allowable annual cuts,

and that's what takes place with the award of a forest licence.

MR. MILLER : Is the chief forester involved in any way in the application process?

HON. MR. PARKER :

Mr. Chairman, all of the executive members of the Forest Service, the

assistant deputy ministers — the chief forester is an assistant deputy

minister in this ministry — are involved in the review process.

MR. MILLER :

With respect to my question on the contracting-out, could the minister

advise whether I'm correct that these amendments to

section 11

basically would allow the ministry to contract out all of the

application processes for the licence?

HON. MR. PARKER : Mr. Chairman, this does not abrogate the responsibility of the minister to make the award.

MR. MILLER :

That's rather an abbreviated answer, Mr. Minister. If we fill in the

blanks on that, it doesn't take away your responsibility to make the

award. My question was: does it allow the entire application process to

be undertaken by people outside of the ministry?

HON. MR. PARKER : I don't believe so, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MILLER :

Well, would it in part then? Is it the intention of the amendment

introduced to allow.... The minister says he doesn't believe it

would allow the whole process to be done by contractors. Is it the

intent of the amendment to allow some portion, whether significant or

small, to be done by contractors versus the Forest Service staff?

HON. MR. PARKER : As we stated earlier, Mr. Chairman, we'll decide the adjudication process for each situation as it arises.

[ Page 5224 ]

MR. MILLER : I didn't quite understand that answer. Perhaps the minister might like to elaborate on what he really meant.

HON. MR. PARKER :

As each forest licence is determined to be available, the ministry will

advertise accordingly, and the terms of reference will be set forth at

that time.

MR. MILLER : The ministry will advertise

that a forest licence is available, as is normally the case now: so

many cubic metres, located in such and such a TSA, without the proviso

of a processing facility; as the minister indicated during estimates,

that is now something we're not allowed to do, because of a view of the

ministry that it might be a violation of the memorandum of

understanding.

So the advertising is done by the ministry.

Presumably you have some interest out there from a company, or more

than one company, and they submit an application. The applications are

then reviewed by the Ministry of Forests to determine whether any of

them are suitable, or ultimately which one is the most suitable, and

the licence is awarded.

My question is — and I keep going

back to it; it's fairly basic — would it be allowed under the

amendments to

section 11 that all of the vetting of the applications,

or a significant portion of the vetting of the applications, could be

done by a private consulting firm, which would then make a report to

the minister, advising him which applicant he should choose?

HON. MR. PARKER :

Mr. Chairman, the ministry would set out the terms of reference for

making a bid proposal on a forest licence offered. The adjudication

process would be set forth in that advertisement, and the

considerations that any proponents must consider would be set forth in

those terms of reference.

As to whether or not there would

be a conversion plant required or an area designated where a conversion

would have to take place, or any other, it would depend on elimination

of the MOU as it exists. That really can't take place right now, but we

expect it will be achievable within the next couple of years, so we

want to make sure we have the flexibility to deal accordingly. It has

not been the practice in the past to abrogate our responsibilities to

somebody else. It is the responsibility of the minister to allocate

cut, and it will continue to be. At least, that's the intention of the

ministry at this time.

MR. MILLER : I realize it's

the responsibility of the ministry to award the cut. If you were

proposing to privatize that function, I suppose you might even get COFI

upset. I realize it's the ministry's responsibility to allocate cut; my

question was in terms of the process. It was pretty straightforward, I

think. Under the amendments, would it be possible for a private

consulting company to vet the applications and make a recommendation to

the minister as to which application would be preferred?

realize that the ministry sets out the basics in terms of the initial

advertisement. I don't know about the adjudication process; it seems to

me that the adjudication process is something within the ministry. When

I look at some of the licences that have been awarded.... For

example, the CITC licence in McBride: I believe the minister said at a

forum down in McBride that it's not his intention to do the ministry's

business on Main Street. That was his response to the concerned people

who asked specific questions about why a particular licensee was chosen

over another licensee. The minister said he wasn't going to do the

business of the ministry on Main Street and refused to give them an

answer other than the four or five qualifications set down in the act.

You

haven't really told us anything. I keep going back to the question, and

I guess I will keep going back to it. Under the amendments — and we

know that the thrust of this government and indeed your ministry is to

move to privatize ministry functions.... The question is: can a

consulting company vet the applications on behalf of the ministry and

make a recommendation directly to you which you then could act on?

HON. MR. PARKER :

Mr. Chairman, the executive may draw on whatever expertise they see

fit. But the recommendations come through from the executive to the

minister, and the minister makes the decision.

MR. MILLER :

Perhaps the minister would review very briefly a typical application

for a forest licence. He could choose the most recent one, if he wanted

to — I'm not asking him to divulge anything that isn't public. In terms

of the most recent examples of the ministry vetting applications for

forest licences, have outside contractors or consultants been used to

provide professional advice to the ministry on which application is

preferable?

HON. MR. PARKER : No, that hasn't taken place.

MR. MILLER : Under the amended

section 11, could it take place?

HON. MR. PARKER : Mr. Chairman, that would depend on the administration at the time.

MR. MILLER : I feel like a yo-yo here, Mr. Chairman; I keep popping up and asking these pretty simple, basic questions.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER :

I hear the minister saying over there: "Do you know what the stock

market's going to do?" No, I don't know what the stock market's going

to do, Mr. Minister; neither do you. But presumably you do know why you

brought in certain amendments to the Forest Act. Presumably you do know

what their impact is. You know what the changes mean and what they will

allow your ministry to do. I'm asking you to explain that to the House,

and I don't understand your reluctance.

[4:45]

HON. MR. PARKER : I've already explained it.

MR. MILLER :

Well, I don't know if anybody here understood it. I'll cede my place

and let them explain it. I certainly didn't understand it. I asked you

whether, using most recent examples, applications for forest licences

were vetted by consulting firms outside the ministry. You said: "No." I

then asked you whether, under the amendments to

section 11, that could

take place, and we get some remarks about the stock market. I don't

understand why you're talking about the stock market.

[ Page 5225 ]

You

know what I'm getting at. You know why I'm asking these questions. If

that's the intent — the government has been fairly consistent and proud

about their attempts to privatize — I would think the minister would

stand up and say with a great deal of pride that that's what they

intended to do. He refuses to say they won't do it, and he refuses to

say they will do it, which leaves this House — it leaves me anyway — at

a loss to understand why the amendment has been brought in. All

references to the chief forester have been deleted. I think the

minister should be straightforward. If the intent of the amendment is

to allow this to take place, the minister should advise the House that

that is the case.

HON. MR. PARKER : I have been

straightforward, and I take a little offence at the member opposite for

suggesting I wasn't. I have reiterated the purpose of the change

several times today. We're dealing with

section 11 of the Forest Act

and with applications to award forest licences. Due to the social and

economic considerations in the awards, it's appropriate that government

deal with the award. Therefore we put forward this amendment to the

act. If the member opposite wants to read anything else into it, that's

his prerogative.

It's very difficult to say what will

happen in the future, which is why I alluded to the stock market or

weather forecasts. Who's to say what will happen someday? The member

opposite can read into it whatever he wants. This amendment is put

forward to deal with the award and the considerations to the social and

economic benefits to the people of the province, and it is best done by

the elected people — the government.

MR. MILLER :

Let's assume I'm missing something here. I did allude to the memorandum

of understanding and the inhibiting factor in terms of advertisements

for forest licences. The minister seems to be saying that this will

give him the power to make those decisions which somehow he cannot make

under the current

section 11. If that's the case, why is the minister

so reluctant to deal with the other part of the question, quite

separate from the question of allocation and social considerations?

The

other part of the question is really the whole thrust of privatization,

because that's what I read into the amendments that would allow the

ministry to use consulting firms to do the work now done by ministry

staff. If that's the intent of the section, we'd like to know about it.

We think that's a big ehangem the operations of the ministry — to have

outside consultant, make those kinds of recommendations to the

minister.

We won't approve of that kind of change. We think that those

considerations should be done in-house by Ministry of Forests and Lands

people. There are really two parts. I appreciate, if I'm reading you

right in terms of your last answer, that it would allow those social

considerations to be taken into account when awarding licences. But as

to the vetting process for the applications, I still am not clear what

the intention of the act is.

HON. MR. PARKER : The

member's question appears to be: is it the intent of this

section to

provide for award of forest licences to be done by the private sector?

The answer is no.

MR. MILLER : Just to clarify that:

I think under the legislation the minister or his designate has to be

the person. The minister is saying that that does not allow the person

authorized by him — that's the second part of the wording change — to

be a private consultant and to make an award of a forest licence. That

award has to be made by the minister. Just narrowing it down a little

further: can the minister use a private consultant to advise him which

application for a forest licence is preferable?

HON. MR. PARKER :

The minister has the right to draw on whatever expert advice he sees

fit, in the best interests of the people of British Columbia.

MR. MILLER :

Given that the current practice of the ministry and the minister is not

to use private consultants, is it the intention of the minister to make

any changes to that practice?

HON. MR. PARKER : My intentions today are not to use any outside assistance, but time and circumstance may change.

MR. MILLER :

We assume that the minister knows what he might be doing tomorrow. Is

there any particular reason for the minister — given the thrust to

privatization of the government — to move in that direction? I don't

think it is good enough to say: "My intention today is such and such,

and I don't know what is going to happen tomorrow." We do know what is

going to happen tomorrow when it comes to certain actions that we

undertake. It's no mystery what is going to happen tomorrow, the next

day, a month from now or a year from now. We know; we have some

control. In this case, I would suggest that the minister has the

ultimate control. It's not as though we're talking about some

circumstance coming along that would be beyond the minister's control

and that he would be forced into using private consultants. The

minister has the authority, the ability and everything else to say

right now that that will not happen. Yet we end up talking about: "Who

knows what's going to happen tomorrow?"

It's not really

like the weather, so I would go back on it. Is there anything that the

minister foresees that could cause him, given the privatization

initiatives of the government, to move in the direction of taking those

evaluation processes out of the realm of the ministry and allowing, for

example, a private consultant to do all of that work, to make a

recommendation as long as it is signed by a reputable firm and to have

the minister make a decision on the basis of that outside report rather

than in-house?

HON. MR. PARKER : It is not our intention to do anything different than what we are doing today, all things being equal to this point in time.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Maybe the minister could just give us a rundown in terms of how he

handles applications currently; say, for example, the Sustut

application and the North Takla one. Just how is that process handled

and how might it be different under this section? I am sure the good

people in Hazelton, Prince George and all points north would be

fascinated with how you handled that interesting allocation.

HON. MR. PARKER :

The specific point that the first member for Vancouver East raises was

dealt with by five inhouse committees working independently of one

another, making their recommendations to the executive, who made the

recommendations to me.

[ Page 5226 ]

MR. WILLIAMS :

That would be in-house groups, committees reporting to the executive

who in turn report to you. I guess some of these committees would have

said, "No way should this go to Prince George," for example. Would

that happen?

HON. MR. PARKER : Anything's possible in a discussion between adjudicati