[ Page 8649 ]

CONTENTS

Ministerial Statement

Quesnel sexual assault case. Hon. Mr. Smith –– 8649

Municipal Amendment Act, 1986 (Bill 38). Hon. Mr. Ritchie

Introduction and first reading –– 8650

Cemetery (Solicitation Control) Act (Bill M212). Mr. MacWilliam

Introduction and first reading –– 8651

Oral Questions

Conflict of interest. Mr. Macdonald –– 8651

BCDC appointment and Socred fund-raising. Mr. Williams –– 8651

Omineca Enterprises Ltd. Mr. Lea –– 8652

Purchasing Commission appointment. Mr. Stupich –– 8652

South access to Expo. Mr. Barnes –– 8652

Sale of Westar assets. Mr. Howard –– 8653

Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act, 1986 (Bill 3). Committee stage –– 8653

Third reading

Forest Stand Management Fund Act (Bill 6). Committee stage –– 8653

Mr. Howard

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Rose

Third reading

Consumer And Corporate Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 1986 (Bill 35). Committee stage 11 –– 8662

Third reading

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1986 (Bill 28). Committee stage –– 8662

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Rose

Third reading

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1986 (Bill 36). Committee stage –– 8663

Mr. Rose

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Cocke

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Agriculture and Food estimates. (Hon. Mr. Waterland)

On vote 5: minister's office –– 8665

Hon. Mr. Waterland

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Stupich

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1986 (Bill 36). Committee stage 8671

Mr. Cocke

Third reading

Appendix –– 8672

TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 1986

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today are two dear old friends from Toronto, Ontario, Mr. and Mrs. Brian Ferry. Marg and Brian are out here to visit Expo and to spend some time in the beautiful city of Victoria. I'd like the House to welcome them.

MRS. JOHNSTON: In the gallery this afternoon are two visitors, Jeff Barnes of Lawton, Oklahoma, and Brett Niven of Victoria B.C., who is the son of one of our caucus secretaries. Jeff Barnes, who is visiting from Oklahoma, is attending Southern Methodist University; Brett Niven will be attending Cornell University in New York in September. I would ask the House to please give them a warm welcome.

MR. REYNOLDS: In the galleries today, in different locations, are a number of senior citizens from West Vancouver, and I wish the House would make them welcome.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today we have some very special guests. First, Mr. Raj Kumar Khanna and his wife, Mrs. Sheshi Khanna; Dr. and Mrs. Baldev Khanna; Mr. Lat Singh Khokha and Mrs. Rami Khokha, who have come from India to visit Expo. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I'd like you and all those in the House to welcome a group of 40 students from grade 8 to grade 10 from the Shoreline Community School. They are not in the House right now; they're in the precincts and will be in later on.

MR. MOWAT: I'd like to introduce to the House this afternoon Helen Patterson Marr from Newmarket, Ontario. She, like many other visitors to B.C., is taking in Victoria after having enjoyed Expo. She has a master's degree in education from Columbia University. She taught for many years on the faculty of Memorial University of Newfoundland and has spent many years in the education field in the province of Ontario. She has also taught for many years in Kenya. I'd ask the House to please make her welcome.

QUESNEL SEXUAL ASSAULT CASE

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make a ministerial statement. In the Legislature last week the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) asked me some questions and also made some allegations concerning a case that occurred in Quesnel. I have communicated with him that I'm going to make my statement today, and it's agreed that he'll make his reply, if any, when he returns.

Very serious allegations were made in this chamber about the conduct of a provincial court judge, Judge Cullinane. It was suggested in this chamber that Judge Cullinane had in some way shown partiality toward people who appeared before him arising out of an unfortunate case of assault of a young native woman in Quesnel. The assault took place in September of 1985, and it involved four accused. The four were all dealt with differently by reason of the elections under the Criminal Code. The first accused, Joyal, pleaded guilty in Quesnel before Judge Cullinane on January 13, 1986, to common assault and received a conditional discharge, two years' probation and 200 hours' community service. The next accused, Larson, also pleaded guilty to common assault before another provincial court judge, Munro, in Prince George on January 29, and he received a conditional discharge and two years' probation with 200 hours' community service. The last two accused, Reimer and Lorntsen, were originally indicted for sexual assault before a judge and jury in Quesnel, and on April 16, 1986, they pleaded to a lesser and included offence of common assault and were sentenced to one year in prison.

In relation to the comments I made on those cases, I indicated to the House and I repeat that in each of those cases there were different strengths of evidence against those accused, Each of those accused came from different circumstances in relation to previous record, and all those matters were taken into account by the courts when sentencing.

The allegation against Judge Cullinane, though, is a more serious one. The allegation is that he dealt with an accused when he was a friend of one of the children of the accused and that he gave the accused a ride to the court on one occasion, and that he may have discussed the case with the accused's father. I have looked into this matter, and let me advise the House that what occurred was this: on January 10, before the accused Joyal appeared before Judge Cullinane in Quesnel, he was told, was cautioned, by the district court judge, Judge Barnett, that he ought not to appear on the case of Reimer — that is, not the case of Joyal but the case of Reimer — and it was said that Reimer was somebody personally known to Judge Cullinane and therefore that he ought not to sit on a preliminary hearing on January 29, the case involving Reimer.

Judge Cullinane never sat on the case involving Reimer. It is correct that one of Judge Cullinane's children knew Reimer, but there was no discussion between Reimer and Judge Cullinane, according to the investigations that have been conducted by the Chief Judge.

In a community the size of Quesnel it very frequently happens that those who come before the court are in some way known to a presiding judge who lives in the district. But the allegation that there was a friendship between the two young men has no relevant substance, because Judge Cullinane never dealt with Reimer; he dealt with Joyal, whom he didn't know personally and had never talked to about the case. The friendship between the judge's son and Reimer was one going back many years ago at school, and there had been no association for ten years. There is no evidence to support that the accused Reimer had an automobile ride with the judge, and the judge did not talk to Reimer's father about any charges arising out of this incident.

Judge Cullinane then on January 13 dealt with the accused Joyal and gave his sentence. His reasons are perfectly supportable on the evidence that was put before him, and the sentence is a reasonable sentence. Unfortunately, in this case the Crown was limited as to the charges it could prove. There were difficulties on the part of the victim in identifying people and remembering whom she had been with. There was considerable difficulty in identification, and the Crown's case was in serious jeopardy in the jury trial after three days. So the Crown counsel in each case did their best to try to secure some conviction against each of these four accused, which they did.

The judge, I should say, really by these allegations has been very unfairly pilloried, because the suggestion is that

[ Page 8650 ]

the judge, because of a public outcry, sought a disability leave and left the bench. I want to set the record straight. This judge has been sitting on our court since 1972. He has been in poor health for some time; he suffers from emphysema and other ailments. He first endeavoured to obtain a long-term disability in November 1982. His ill health was very acute through 1985, but he continued to struggle and serve loyally on the bench with very bad health. It wasn't until March 1986 that a long-term disability plan for judges in that bracket was approved by the government, and Judge Cullinane then was able for the first time to have his long-term disability accepted and to leave the bench. His last sitting day was March 21, 1986. He returned to hospital as a patient on that day. He elected to take his long-term disability on May 7, by letter, and the order-in-council was passed I think on May 29, granting him that disability. His state of health is that he will probably remain on long-term disability until his normal retirement age arrives, at which time he will go on pension. He will likely not sit again.

[2:15]

I want to make it very clear, Mr. Speaker, that Judge Cullinane did not take his long-term disability leave because of the Reimer-Joyal cases — not at all — and I regret any inference that may have been drawn to that effect. I want to say most forcefully that in his judicial capacity Judge Cullinane has rendered valuable service to this province. Unquestionably in recent times his ill health has taken its toll, and we must all regret that he has had to leave, but it is not because of these cases and there is no suggestion of that.

I want to make one other remark as well, which I think is most important, arising out of these questions and allegations. There has been a strong suggestion, if not an outright allegation, that native people in this province are in some instances treated differently in the courts of the province than are other citizens. There may have been a time and there may have been occasions when those complaints had some validity. Indeed, whenever those complaints are made, those complaints are addressed in the most serious way, and I can tell you that the justice system in this province, the RCM Police, the court worker service, the probation people and the judges themselves are most diligent to ensure that there can be no suggestion that people who are disadvantaged in any form receive a bad shake from the justice system. But to say that in this case this unfortunate victim was treated differently in the courts than some other citizens is to cast a very wrong impression. If by differently we mean that she was dealt with more or less harshly or unfairly vis-à-vis some other members of society, that is categorically denied.

Justice in this province is delivered insofar as it is humanly possible — and it is never absolutely humanly possible — with an even and impartial hand. Every case has to be assessed on its own individual facts. We don't have any computer-produced results, Mr. Speaker, and we don't want them, because the hallmark of our courts is humanity. The courts are presided over by men and women who live in the community with the rest of us. They have integrity and honour. That justice is dispensed fairly and evenly. There have been instances, I suppose, where in some way a person who is disadvantaged may have received some leniency in the courts. A person who came from an unfortunate and an unhappy background and struggled against it may have appeared before the courts as an accused, and may have been treated differently than somebody born with a silver spoon in his mouth. More power to the courts if that is done, but that is not treating one class of citizens differently from another.

I want to dispel the allegation. It matters not whether native Indians or non-Indians, new Canadians or old Canadians, appear before the courts; they are going to be treated the same way.

I can tell you that we have an excellent native court worker service with a network of 30 locations across the province. That's an association that does an admirable job for natives.

In this case, I carefully checked with the Crown prosecutor in all the cases, and the victim.... A great deal of time was spent with her explaining to her the process, and indeed before the guilty pleas to the reduced charges were taken before the jury, the victim in company with her friends and family had it explained to her and concurred in that step.

So I think the allegations in this case are unfortunate. They are not correct, and I want to dispel them.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a bill standing on the order paper under my name, intituled the Cemetery (Solicitation Control) Act.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment please, hon. member. Before recognizing the member, who I initially thought may have been standing in order to respond, I must comment on the arrangement between the Attorney-General and the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk).

While in this particular case a deferred response will be taken under advisement by the Chair, I will do so without setting a precedent on the matter, and give an undertaking to review the entire matter regarding deferred responses to statements.

Introduction of Bills

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1986

Hon. Mr. Ritchie presented a message from his Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Municipal Amendment Act, 1986.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I'd like to make a few brief comments in respect to this bill concerning the question of liability insurance at the municipal level. I'd like to point out to all of the members of the assembly that indeed this bill is fully supported by the Union of B.C. Municipalities. It is considered a measured solution — legislatively, that is — to the question of liability insurance. I believe that all of our members in this House will agree that it is well balanced: it gives protection to our elected people; it gives protection to our appointed people; it also protects potential purchasers of homes in a community. It also recognizes the right of people to sue, should they feel so inclined; that is protected.

Also with this legislation is a program that is well underway, and it is being led by the Union of B.C. Municipalities: that is, at the local level we have a risk management program underway throughout this province that, I believe, in itself is going to go a great way to avoiding some of the problems that may have been experienced in the past. Certainly it will prevent any such bad experiences in the future in respect to liability.

[ Page 8651 ]

Mr. Speaker, I believe, as does the Union of B.C. Municipalities, that this legislation, given a 12-month period to settle in, taking into consideration the efforts and the initiatives of all municipalities and regional districts in respect to risk management, should indeed attract the private insurers back into the field with rates that are acceptable to the taxpayers of this province. Failing to do that, I'm advised by the Union of B.C. Municipalities that indeed they are in the midst of a study into the possibility of full insurance, but that is something that would be considered at a later date.

Bill 38, Municipal Amendment Act, 1986, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

CEMETERY (SOLICITATION CONTROL) ACT

Mr. MacWilliam presented a bill intituled Cemetery (Solicitation Control) Act.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, this bill seeks to redress a growing problem associated with the use of telephone solicitation in the cemetery services and funeral industry. The problem has become manifest in the Okanagan area, where overzealous operators have abused the spirit of present legislation in their conduct of business.

I recently presented evidence to this House of numerous individuals who were solicited by telephone for cemetery services within hours of the death of loved ones. Evidence was also submitted of telephone solicitations of terminal cancer patients shortly after diagnosis had been made. As well, evidence was presented that the private Memorial Society membership list had been copied and used for purposes of solicitation by other firms. The problem has become so acute in the Okanagan that Kelowna city council and the Okanagan main-line municipal association have endorsed a resolution calling for the banning of telephone solicitation in the cemetery industry.

Although particularly troublesome in the Okanagan, this problem does exist in other major centres throughout the province. Many reputable funeral home operators concur that the present situation has been damaging to the image and the reputation of the entire industry, and some of them have requested such action. It is not the intent of this legislation to restrict the conduct of business of reputable members of this industry; rather, it is the intent of this legislation to prevent further unethical conducts of those overzealous operators who are damaging the reputation of an entire industry.

Bill M212 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier about conflict-of-interest guidelines, which have long been promised by the Premier. It is important now because we are about to elect next month a Premier of the province, not just a party leader. There are no spending limits and no disclosure rules, and the people will not know who their Premier may be in hock to. Because he has promised this on many occasions, will the Premier bring down conflict-of-interest guidelines, so that the message that we are doing it as a public body will also perhaps apply in the party area?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, with the greatest of respect, there is the question of future action, and secondly....

MR. MACDONALD: Has he decided?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, that's a very short answer from somebody who is trying to get out the door before I do.

I put this question as a supplementary question.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: No, seriously. Up to half a million dollars may be raised, and who is going to own the Premier's chair? Peter Brown? Murray Pezim? Dale Janowsky, the proprietor of Gramma's pub? This is an important question, and I would like the Premier to say that guidelines will be imposed, so that the people will know what has been contributed, and that there will be limits.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Again, the Chair would have some difficulty in relating a question regarding party activities....

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

MR. SPEAKER: We will make an exception this time, hon. member.

BCDC APPOINTMENT
AND SOCRED FUND-RAISING

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Industry. A lawyer by the name of F Michael P. Warren has been sending out bagman letters asking for donations from lawyers around the province for the Social Credit Party. Can the minister advise us whether this is the same lawyer who was appointed to the board of B.C. Development Corporation last month?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member would send me a copy of the letter, and I'll compare signatures.

MR. WILLIAMS: I would ask the minister if there will be an embargo on decisions by this same lawyer with respect to lending by BCDC or the hiring of legal personnel and consultants by BCDC. Clearly there are links between the business of bagman and loans and appointments. Or is this the beginning of a string of patronage appointments by a departing Premier?

[2:30]

[ Page 8652 ]

OMINECA ENTERPRISES LTD.

MR. LEA: A question to the Premier. On December 2, 1985, I asked the Premier if he would ask his Minister of Forests to work up a report in regard to Omineca Enterprises Ltd., a logging sawmill operation in the Fort Nelson area. I outlined some of the problems, and at that time, that is on December 2, 1985, the Premier said he would do that.

On March 17, 1986, I went back to the Premier and asked him if he had received a copy of the report. On March 17 of this year the Hon. Mr. Bennett said: "Mr. Speaker, I have not yet read it." I then asked: "I understand, then, Mr. Premier, that you've received the report but haven't read it yet." Mr. Bennett answered back: "Mr. Speaker, I can only say that I have not yet read it." I'd like to ask the Premier today: has he read it?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The answer is no.

MR. LEA: I'd like to ask the Premier whether he's received the report.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm not aware if the report has been received by my office. It has physically not been received by me.

MR. LEA: I'd like to ask the Premier whether he kept his word and asked the Minister of Forests to work up such a report.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Any request that I made to the Minister of Forests would be kept.

MR. LEA: That was not the question. I asked the Premier whether he kept his word, the word he gave me in Hansard on December 2, 1985, and whether he asked the Minister of Forests to do the report that the Premier said he would ask for. Did he ask the minister for that report?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I am certain, Mr. Speaker, that if I told the member that I would undertake to look for information, I would do it.

MR. LEA: I would like to ask the Minister of Forests if he would check the files in his ministry — I understand he wasn't the minister at the time; it was the hon. member for Yale-Lillooet (Hon. Mr. Waterland) — to see whether or not there has been any request by the Premier's office for the report that I have referred to.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I will ask to have the file brought forward. I am aware, though, that that particular case is, I believe, before the B.C. court of appeal at the present time. I really don't know anything other than that.

MR. LEA: Final supplementary. Would the Minister of Forests undertake to send me by letter or some other means of communication — other than in this House — confirmation that the Premier asked his ministry for that report?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I don't have any intention whatsoever of looking into the files for the purpose of bringing back information such as the member has asked for. It seems to me that communications between members of the executive council occur on a daily basis, many of which it would not be proper to publicly debate in the House. What about confidentiality between members and people on whose behalf they are making inquiries or whose interests are being taken into consideration?

MR. LEA: Don't give me any details. I just want to know whether he asked you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, just as a point of interest for members, Beauchesne's rules of question period clearly state that the minister to whom a question is directed is responsible to the House for his present ministry and not for any decisions taken in a previous portfolio.

PURCHASING COMMISSION APPOINTMENT

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance which is really a follow-up to the questions put by the second member for Vancouver East to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. The minister recently appointed his former campaign manager to the Purchasing Commission. Can the minister give some assurance to the House that Mr. Jack Waldie will be prohibited from seeking contributions — as in the case of the other person mentioned — from any firm which does business with the Purchasing Commission?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Knowing Mr. Waldie as I do, and knowing a number of business people in the province of British Columbia, I would think that it is not necessary for me to set down prohibitions. Mr. Waldie has, does now, and will continue to operate in a most honourable fashion.

SOUTH ACCESS TO EXPO

MR. BARNES: My question is to the Minister of Tourism. The Vancouver Chinese business community has suffered a terrible drop in business this year because of a decision by the provincial government to seal off the access to the south side of Expo.

AN HON. MEMBER: Talk to Mike about that.

MR. BARNES: Talk to Mike? I see. They're playing politics over there, Mr. Speaker, and I'm trying to make a serious inquiry. But it's still not too late to remedy the situation, at least for the Chinese community, which, as you know, is one of the economic communities of the province. Will the minister remove the great wall of Expo and allow the tourists to visit the Chinese community?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, what the member asks, of course, is absolutely impossible: that is, to put another gate into Expo at this time. But there are two gates that are in reasonably close proximity to Chinatown. It would seem to me that if Expo is attracting hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of visitors to Vancouver, then everyone in Vancouver will be benefiting from that. The gates I mentioned, the stadium gate and the east gate, are in very close proximity and easy walking distance.

MR. CHABOT: Filler question.

[ Page 8653 ]

MR. BARNES: It may be a filler question, Mr. Speaker, but I can assure the member that it's of serious significance and importance to those communities that were anticipating the great increase in economic conditions in this province and are finding that Expo is a discouragement. Would the minister comment on the concern in the Granville Island community and other parts outside the Expo site who are concerned that they're not benefiting from the government's hype that the economy would be improved by Expo?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It would seem to me that if Vancouver is benefiting from this influx of tourists and certain sectors are not benefiting, then maybe they should be looking to their own devices to find out why not. I have to date had none of these pockets, as you describe, approach me for any answers or any solutions. They have not made me aware that they are in any trouble because of an influx of tourists into the province.

SALE OF WESTAR ASSETS

MR. HOWARD: A direct question to the Minister of Forests. I ask the minister, with respect to the sale of certain assets of Westar to Repap, whether or not the sawmills in the Terrace-Hazelton area — I'm talking about Kitwanga and South Hazelton — are included in that sale, or excluded from it.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The sawmill, which was incorporated within the proposal.... Their letter of intent or agreement included the Pohle sawmill only in Terrace. There was a term and condition incorporated within the memorandum that the Pohle sawmill must be maintained under its present complement of employees.

Now with respect to the other areas of operation of Westar, in particular Kitwanga and Hazelton, I insisted under the agreement that cutting permits numbered 32 and 35 — which won't mean too much to most people here, but I'm sure it does to the member — will be severed from TFL No. 1. They're at the north end, and they must be attached to the mills at Kitwanga and Hazelton. One of the reasons for insisting on their attachment to both of those mills was to preserve them.

Westar has given the commitment that they will construct a new mill, something in the order of $40 million, at Hazelton and therefore will require a supply of fibre for it.

I think what we have done is the correct and proper thing to do to maintain the employment base and the existence of mills in both of the communities to which you refer.

Orders of the Day

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1986

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

Sections 1 to 8 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved on division.

The House resumed: Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 3, Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act, 1986, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on division.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Committee on Bill 6, Mr. Speaker.

FOREST STAND MANAGEMENT FUND ACT

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

On section 1.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I filed an amendment with respect to section I which deletes the word "management" and substitutes "silviculture and other management, " and I so move. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. HOWARD: I just wanted to make a brief comment about this. There was a certain amount of misinformation provided earlier about the bill. partly based upon the vagueness of it itself. But there was an understanding given that this was a bill for silvicultural purposes. That was the impression in the budget speech; it was the impression in the minister's comments at the time. As a matter of fact, in a document called "Likely Questions and Answers" which was prepared for the minister giving him answers to certain question that might arise with respect to it, the impression was that this would have to do with silviculture exclusively.

But that's not the case, Mr. Chairman, and I think that needs to be noted, because funds under this bill.... And the introduction of the amendment specifies that more clearly than was the case before. The reference in the amendment to the words "other management" clearly indicates that funds under this bill can be used for all operational aspects of the ministry's mandate. I put that to the minister in the form of a question. I maintain that the interpretation that can be placed and probably will be placed upon the bill or upon section 1, particularly with the amendment.... I ask the minister whether the funds under the Forest Stand Management Fund Act can be used for all operational aspects of the minister's mandate. I maintain they can be. I want to know whether the minister sees it that way or not.

[2:45]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, first of all, with the use of the word " silviculture," I believe that the member for Skeena had a point when it was raised; hence the inclusion and the amendment filed. Now that's the purpose of suggestions made in the House.

Now the objective of the bill and the funding which will eventually be secured is intensive forest management. I'm not talking about tree planting; what I'm talking about is weeding and thinning and fertilization and spacing. In the very short time that I have been here with this portfolio, I have found on innumerable occasions a request to have funds for this particular purpose. For example, last year, I am told, a very successful program was in place using a number of

[ Page 8654 ]

young people over the summer months to do some intensive forestry work, and obviously funding will be used so that that program can be maintained.

I believe that the member for Skeena had some concern about the utilization of funds for range management. It seems to me I read an article, of which he was the author, about this. The objective really is — and I repeat — for intensive management, and what I want is the participation of others who are interested in doing the same thing. I think that should cover it. As far as all areas of my mandate as set forth in the Forest Act, I think that would be stretching it somewhat. This is for reforestation, good forestry practices, including the practice of intensive silviculture.

MR. HOWARD: There is no doubt that importing into here the word "silviculture" identifies what it should all be about. But what the minister is now saying, as I understand him, when I asked him if the fund could be used for all operational aspects of the minister's mandate, is: "No, that would be stretching it some." Did I get him correctly? It won't be used for all operational aspects of the ministry's mandate. Could you say that?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Correct.

MR. HOWARD: Well, why then did he say the opposite on March 25 of this year? Why on March 25 of this year did the minister say, and I will quote his words to him: "The forest stand management fund can be used for all operational aspects of the ministry's mandate, from silviculture to range and recreation management?" Why did the minister say that on March 25, and now he says no, he didn't mean that?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I raised a moment ago the concerns which were expressed by the member for Skeena involving range management. My views....

And if I made that comment at that particular time, I apologize for it. The purpose of this bill is as I have outlined, and that is intensive forest practices.

MR. HOWARD: It is good to have that on the record, that the minister was in error in having used those words, and he apologizes for using them. I wonder how many other statements the minister made on March 25 likewise need apologizing for. I want to know from the minister.

The other statements which he made with respect to a variety of subjects on March 25, how many of those need apologizing for, if he is now denying one and saying that really wasn't an accurate reflection of the opinion of the ministry? I mean, how can one believe a government that says two separate things about the same subject matter within the space of a couple of months?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The comments that passed on March 25 — I can't remember what occurred on that particular day. I think what we should remember, and I suspect this applies to both sides of the House when we start talking about some statements, if I made a comment about which I may have been incorrect, I have absolutely no reservations about saying something if I was wrong on a particular date, and I have no reservations about saying it in the House at all.

The point is that this particular bill is going to be used, the funds for it, for intensive forest practices. I think they have been outlined. They're very clear, and I think that is the end of the matter.

MR. HOWARD: Why then, if that is the end of the matter as far as the minister is concerned, does he bring in an amendment that talks about both silvicultural and other management? What does "other" mean? That's a very broad, encompassing term. Other management could very easily include what the minister said, which was that the fund could be used for all operational aspects of the ministry's mandate. That's other management. If the minister wants to be clear about this and level with the people about what he is doing, I suggest he just take out that word "other," or "and other," so that we end up with a paragraph that would read "the silvicultural management and enhancement of forests." That's what we're talking about, silviculture, not everything else, and the word "other" in there includes everything else.

MRS. WALLACE: I am concerned about this wording. I heard the minister talk about silviculture and all the things that it meant — the weeding, the spacing, the fertilization, all the kinds of things included in silviculture. But then he talked about reforestation. Is this bill to include reforestation? If I remember the debate that went on earlier, this was to be a supplemental bill to the kinds of things that are being done under the EBAP program; maybe it has a different name now, but it's the money that's shared with the feds to do reforestation, tree planting. Now the minister has thrown reforestation in here as well as this other management thing which I share my colleague's concern about, because that can be pretty broad.

I hope that what we're talking about here is intensive forestry, but when we talk about other management in this amendment we're saying something quite different. We should be talking about silviculture and intensive forestry, or simply intensive forestry. Is this to be specifically for silviculture, which in my understanding of that word is sort of separate from reforestation? We've sort of divided those into two different categories. I'd like to know what this money is for. Is it just for the narrow definition of silviculture, or does it include reforestation?

I'm still not satisfied about the wording with the other, because whatever the minister says here may or may not be interpreted that way. We've seen a chain of ministers going through this particular office. What you're saying now might be interpreted by another individual, and it could well be that.... I don't want to infringe on the rules of the House, but in a further section we know that all the decision-making is left in the hands of the minister. So that could be interpreted very broadly, and we could wind up with all this money going into the actual operation of the ministry and none of it being spent on silviculture or reforestation.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: As far as reforestation is concerned, funding is available to us under section 88. Funding is available through the federal-provincial agreement. There is also reforestation practice by a number of the TFL holders. The object of this bill is to provide funding for intensive reforestation. My understanding of intensive reforestation makes reference to thinning, spacing, brushing, weeding, fertilization. There's absolutely no mystery.

Interjection.

[ Page 8655 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Exactly, and that is silviculture. That is why the amendment is put on the floor of the House now: the utilization of the word "silviculture." We know that. I think everybody has agreed with it.

The argument that I think is really being advanced now is the inclusion of the words "and other management." Funding may very well be required under here to discharge the obligations that will be incurred by the administrative branch and the finance branch of the Ministry of Forests in order to implement these programs. That is part of other management. I'm not hung up on other management, I can assure you of that, but it seems to me that if some funding is required from the ministry, it's to handle the administration; that is a function. There's also a reference in the bill to range management. If we have people in the agricultural community who have a serious problem, perhaps with knapweed or fencing or whatever, and some of that is the responsibility of the Crown, it may very well be that they would wish to participate. It may very well be that a municipality having particular problems may want to use it. But there are certain administrative functions which I think you all recognize are critical.

By "other management," I don't think I'm really asking for too much. I think the important thing in here is the thrust for the utilization of those funds into the area of.... Let's just call it silviculture, instead of repeating what we all know it means.

MR. HOWARD: The minister raised a couple of things that I think need to be followed up. One, he referred to section 88. Would any of the money under this fund be available for use within tree-farm licence areas?

[3:00]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, that's a good question. I know overtures have been made by TFL holders for the utilization of funds in this area, but also by holders of other forms of tenure too. When they see something available, everybody is going to want to participate. For example, in the area that the member for Skeena represents, Westar did have and still do have a significant holding. They're interested in working out some kind of arrangement with this where there is joint participation. They all make overtures, but what I'm interested in knowing is just exactly what their participation is going to be. My understanding is that when a TFL holder is awarded a TFL, they should, I think, have greater obligations placed upon them because they're given a land base of some magnitude to back up their investment in plant and equipment. I accept the caution which the member raises, but I think the overtures are coming from a number of areas. There are two municipalities that are interested — they all are — but we have not made any determination on that yet. I can also advise the member that the regulations have not been completed either. I think it's going to take a while to work them out.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. HOWARD: We can't prevent overtures, but you can certainly stop them by simply saying: "No." That's the answer. This fund is not for silvicultural activities on TFLs that already have non-competitive timber on a long-term basis and are contractually obliged to do the proper silvicultural work. So I submit that you can't stop overtures but you can very easily give the response to those overtures. I would think a public response in the nature of "No" from the Minister would stop the overtures. If he doesn't do that, they're going to continue to come. He doesn't know, for instance, who his boss is going to be on July 28, or whenever that date is. It may be somebody who is beholden to a group of TFL holders. Now listen to me. It was raised earlier that people make donations of money in political areas, and sometimes they have been known to make overtures following the donations, saying: "Well, I'm making this overture. Do you think you could recognize the fact that we have a situation here that needs to be dealt with?" And they might find a sympathetic ear. That's why I'm suggesting to the minister that rather than get into that kind of potential difficulty — because I'm sure in the minister's mind it's clear that he does not want whatever may be available under this bill to go to doing the job for TFL holders that they should be doing anyway — I think a simple "No" to that one is all that's required. Would the minister say that "No"?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The question you have to ask yourself is this: what happens for the Crown to get the fund fleshed out with more dollars? Who then pays the assessment? It goes over. So if, for example, somebody happens to be a TFL holder but they also happen to have a forest licence, what do we do here? When the assessment is done, the formula work-out may very well be on — and everybody looks to — stumpage. So I'm not beholden to anybody, and I don't think you can afford to be this way any more than I believe that the member opposite can be beholden to a group of individuals supportive of his party who may want a piece of legislation for a particular purpose, and we need not even get into that. I don't think that you would be beholden to that any more than we would. The job is that we have to do the right thing, and my objective here is reforestation.

MR. HOWARD: That's holding out an attraction to TFL holders.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. HOWARD: Yes. In fact, the five-year forest and range resource program, '86-'91, makes reference to that. It points out that the federal-provincial five-year agreement does not fund intensive silviculture — let me read it — on Crown land in tree farm licence areas. The new forest stand management fund could be used to ensure that a similar level of management is applied on all Crown forest lands — that could be read to say all Crown forest lands including those within a TFL. It's possible, so I submit that that's an open matter.

Can the minister, because range lands are involved here and money from this fund can be used for range lands under I (a)...? The past level of management of range lands has not been adequate and is expected to result, so the five-year range and resource program says, in a 5 percent loss of capacity over the next five years, with further losses in future years. It says we've therefore got to spend some money on range management. Has the minister got an estimate — if they're able to project this far, five years ahead of a loss, knowing what current costs are...? "The loss of rangeland capacity can be prevented by implementing adequate measures over the next five years." Could the minister tell us what those adequate measures are, and how much money he expects will be expended on range management

[ Page 8656 ]

even, say, in this year, or in the first year of the operation of this particular bill?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I cannot give an answer to that question. The primary concern I had, which had been brought to me, was knapweed. That was the major concern, and as I recall, the money under the range section of the ministry was increased, but not very much, in this year's estimates. I would doubt very much if anything at all will be used, because the participation which we would like, not only from the government of British Columbia but also from the federal government, industry, local government and the unions, if they would consider participating.... The thrust has really been in the area of silviculture, and that's where I expect it to go. I can't be specific in answering the question with respect to the amount that may in fact move into that. I wouldn't hold my breath for very much.

MR. HOWARD: I wouldn't spend any on it under this bill. Everybody understood and appreciated that the purpose of the bill was silviculture, the enhancement of forest land to produce a stock of commercially valuable species of trees. All of the other stuff in there, I think, just clouds that prime focus that we need to have. That's all I'm saying to the minister, and the more he talks about rangeland and other management being in it, and some other ministries who provide some service maybe getting some funds out of it — maybe it will be used for work on TFL lands and a lot of things like that — the more he diffuses the necessary intensity of concentrating on one subject matter, namely forest land and silvicultural enhancement of that forest land.

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

On section 2.

MR. STUPICH: Section 2 is funding. When the bill was first brought out as part of the budget, it was mentioned that funds would be coming from the federal government. At the time, the federal deputy minister of forests was asked about the federal contribution, and he said that no such proposal had been made to them. I wonder if any proposal has been made by the Minister of Forests to the federal government yet with respect to federal involvement in this fund.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I met with the federal Minister of State for Forestry, and I've raised this with him on at least one, probably two, occasions. He is, I think, somewhat strapped. I don't know whether or not any money will be forthcoming which will supplement the amount they have under the federal-provincial agreement. I'm always hopeful and always, like everybody else, trying to see whether or not I can secure participation. But I can only leave with the House the fact that I will continue to pursue it. When this bill was introduced, there was not a commitment by the federal government, nor did we say that there was a commitment. You sort of left me under the impression that we had said that there was a commitment. No, there was not a commitment. An overture was made, and we would like that participation.

I'll tell you why I raised that. When I look at the total amount of money that comes under the federal-provincial agreement, and I compare our province with Ontario and Quebec, and then I look at the production, particularly the production of softwood lumber, it seems to me that when the province of Quebec as compared with the province of British Columbia and their respective productive capacities.... The federal government might be able to see that we ought to receive more than an equal share of those.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, they may not want to do it, and if the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) says they won't do it, sometimes I begin to wonder if maybe we should try a little harder and see if we can be a bit more persuasive.

MR. HOWARD: Try an overture.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: You know about overtures. We've said no before.

I have to advise the House that there is no commitment from the federal government to match our contribution to this funding.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister is right in saying that he did not indicate that the federal government had committed $20 million to this. But it was announced as a $70 million fund, and it was also announced that $20 million of this would have to come from the federal government to make up the $70 million. But at that point the federal government hadn't even been asked whether or not they were interested in participating. The first information they had about the fact that they were going to be asked for $20 million was when they read it in the newspaper.

The second group that I wanted to ask about was the UBCM. They were also going to be asked, and I think hadn't been at the time the bill was introduced. Richard Taylor, executive director of the UBCM, was quoted as saying: "We are seeking clarification of the mechanism that would set it up. We haven't actually got a copy of the bill."

Now, Mr. Chairman, is it right that the UBCM as well read about the bill first in the newspapers — and the fact that they were going to be asked to contribute? If that is right, or even if it isn't, has the UBCM been approached to this date with respect to their contributing funds to this $70 million fund?

[3:15]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I met with Richard Taylor in my office on the fund. They left me with the impression that they were somewhat encouraged by it. He has a number of members of the UBCM who are interested, particularly one up-Island, and there is another in the interior.

I also made the commitment to him, as I have to industry and others who wish to participate, that we will not get down to some serious discussion for the utilization of the government funding as well as those who wish to make contribution until the bill has been assented to and the regulations are in place. Before the regulations go in place draft regulations must be prepared. What I would like to do with those draft regulations is to see the type of input from both the municipalities and industry, which to date seem to be the only two who are interested in participating — what they have and what they would like to have incorporated within them.

[ Page 8657 ]

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I believe the minister's response was yes, the UBCM was not contacted in advance, and since then there has been some discussion and two municipalities have indicated some feeling of support. But in total it wouldn't add up to — was it $10 million for the UBCM — $5 million? So far two municipalities have indicated some intention of proceeding, or that they would like to.

Mike Apsey, president of the B.C. Council of Forest Industries, wants the Forests minister to clear up some of his concerns about just what the industry is expected to pay, and then goes on to ask one question: does the existence of the fund depend on all parties contributing their share? Now I gather from this.... I won't bother asking the minister. It would appear as though COFI heard nothing about it until they read it in the paper. But the question is whether the fund will depend upon all parties participating to build up that magic figure of $70 million, or will it go ahead if they can only get some?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, the idea of this fund didn't necessarily emanate from these halls. Industry have been talking about having a fund for some time. The head of the IWA really had part of the idea of bringing this fund forward. Both the IWA and industry are interested in having a fund which will remain in perpetuity for the purposes of reforestation and intensive practices.

Now somebody has to start somewhere to see if we can get the ball rolling. They support the concept; there isn't any question about that. The Council of Forest Industries and Mike Apsey, to whom you referred, support the concept. I'll tell you what they are concerned about, and that is the method of funding.

Now I have found out in the short time since I have been in the portfolio that when you talk about funding for any particular item, suddenly people get a touch gun-shy. I'll tell you what many of them have said. As individuals, very supportive, but when they get together as a group, I don't know what takes over, but they become a touch shy. What they are all saying to me, every one of them, is do it; just do it. We accept it, but I made a commitment to all of them that they would have an opportunity to discuss the regulations, the contents, so that they'll work. They've got to work. Also they may want to have some discussion as to the amount of the assessment, since they're going to pay. It's the same with the municipalities.

By the way, there are other people who are interested. I've got a proposal from Shuswap-Revelstoke coming in where there is a considerable amount of money from a forestry association; they have the funds available and they would like to have them matched by the provincial government. So it doesn't have to be those parties who are specifically named in the bill. We're talking about those whom we would like to make a contribution. But you'll note the bill says "and others." I think there's a great deal of interest in doing something like this, particularly in community projects, and one way of bringing it home to the public, in my view, is the interest in forests, and not, as we have in the past and for so long, because it's been a land of plenty and lots of trees, taking everything for granted. It's now shrinking a little bit. Perhaps this is one way of imparting some knowledge and getting some help from the community at large and all the smaller communities who want to be involved.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, it adds nothing to the debate to say that people are in support of the concept. My 97-year-old mother would support the concept, but she's not going to put any money into it. She doesn't have any to put in, and a lot of the people you're talking about don't have any money to put in.

My question was whether or not this bill or the concept had been discussed at the minister's initiative with the various people he described as contributing to the $70 million fund. The last question that I put to him was whether or not it would fly if not all of the parties he suggested participated. Did it depend upon getting the S70 million? Now he got carried away in his rhetoric and didn't answer any of the questions, and in particular that one.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, if giving some of the background as to how it came about is rhetoric. But I will tell you this, Mr. Member. It doesn't make any.... If the fund is not fully funded to $70 million, it doesn't mean to say the moneys aren't going to be utilized. The moneys are going to be available. Twenty million dollars will be in the fund from the provincial government. There will be funds from other sources. Before those funds come in from other sources, whatever they may be, this money is going to be used for silvicultural practices and intensive reforestation.

Interjection.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would just ask if the member for Nanaimo would nod his head to tell me. The fund will be utilized. It does not have to be fully funded to the tune of $70 million before it will be encroached upon. The moneys which come in will be used for this purpose.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, since the minister did not discuss this concept with any of the parties that I've asked him about to this point, and since there's only one party left and that's the trade union movement — the forest related unions — I think I can take it for granted that he didn't bother to talk to them about it in advance, any more than he did to any of the others.

He talked about some of the history of the fund, and it is quite correct to say that Jack Munro, on behalf of the IWA, did offer to invest trade union pension funds in this kind of a fund and only backed away from it when the Premier of the day used that offer for political purposes. He realized then that he was being made use of, that his whole trade union was being made use of, and he just was not prepared to do business with that kind of a leader. Mr. Chairman, the minister has said it will be used for these purposes, for intensive silviculture and other purposes. He doesn't like that, but nevertheless it's in there. It's in the legislation. But he says all of it will be used for that general purpose.

Mr. Chairman, I don't know how he can answer this question, but I must ask it, and that is: how can we trust this administration to use the funds for the purposes which everyone believes are laudable. When that minister was a member of the cabinet that dealt with a similar fund — all government contributions, $148 million — they took that fund and brought it back into consolidated revenue in the second year of that fund, and this particular minister was a party to that decision. He was a member of cabinet. Yet now he stands up

[ Page 8658 ]

and says it won't happen again. Mr. Chairman, how can he say that he will last in the position as Minister of Forests? Even then, what has made him see the light of day since he supported that decision, not too many years ago, to take all the money out of the forest and range resource fund and put it back into consolidated revenue?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before recognizing the next speaker, I would remind the committee that we are discussing section 2. Strict relevancy in committee is the operative standing order to follow. I think section 2 is quite specific, and I'm sure we can speak to it specifically. Discussions of the executive council are not in order.

[3:30]

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I always have the good fortune to find you in the chair when somebody else is out of order and I want to follow a similar line of questions. I would gladly give you permission to go for a smoke, or something like that. I really wanted to follow the same general theme on this, because I think it is a bit of a scam. The minister is the one who invented the very successful $12.7 million special funds for colleges last year. What this was essentially.... Bear with me, please. I would suggest that you not get your blood pressure rising, and just listen for a minute.

The point is that that was a fund similar to the forestry management fund, in which money was allocated at the pleasure of the minister. Now we have three others: we have the excellence fund in education; we've got the health fund; and now we've got this forestry fund. At least those other two funds, regardless of whether they're "steal and give back" funds.... And I think they're slush funds; I think the whole bunch of them are slush funds, and I've said that on a lot of occasions. But there is the inventor of these special funds. There he sits over there, formerly in Education. We know what happened there: we got three more. We got Son of Special Funds, and we have three more of them now.

It's announced as a $70 million fund. I don't know how it's going to be accounted for, or even accountable. The whole business and basis of democracy is that the opposition's job is to make the king accountable for public spending — or the Crown. The prince is sitting over there with about $70 million at his disposal, except he hasn't. For all I know, he's only got $20 million. So if this isn't an example of fund inflation, when there's an announcement of $70 million regardless of the purpose to which it is to be used.... There's no assurance that it will even be used for silviculture or forest management enhancement; that's what this side is concerned about.

We're doing our job as we see it, not to embarrass the minister but to make him 'fess up. Have you got the money? Did you ask for the money? What were the replies? What are you going to do about it? If this is just a press release fund of $70 million that might shrink and will shrink to $20 million, and might shrink to even more, as it's diverted as the time goes on, then it's a sham, unfortunately, and I regret to have to say that. So what can the minister assure us, in regard to how that money will be spent, in terms of accounting for it as it is spent, aside from the usual spate of press releases, and what steps has he taken to secure the cooperation of the other three mythical partners in the fund?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, perhaps at the expiration of a year, when the fund becomes operative, I should have absolutely no difficulty in advising the House, in the estimates next year....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: You mean I have to turn this around? We have, I repeat, the estimates next year, and you can ask all of those questions, and I will assure you that there will be an accounting of the utilization of those funds which are here. That's the first thing.

Secondly, the others who participate in the fund will all be identified, and you will be totally satisfied as to where the money came from and what was done with the money. You know, I think what I ought to do is even get a slide show for you to do that, because I have an extreme interest in ensuring that these funds are used for silvicultural purposes, and I think you should be satisfied with that.

MR. ROSE: I realize that the minister is an expert in show business, but that's not really what we're after. Will there be an annual report published publicly and tabled in this House? The minister isn't accountable. He makes the decisions about how this money is to be spent; will he publish an annual report so we can see what's happened to it? Questioning the minister in estimates I don't think is really a satisfactory method.

That isn't the main criticism though. The main criticism — other than the ones we've already made — and one which has been made several times is the fact that it is not the ministry who makes the decision on these funds which are not accountable to the Legislature, or only in their total but not the individual awarding of the funds. It's the school district stuff all over again. You can reward certain areas and punish others. That was the basic criticism over the excellence thing. We got $12 million last year for special funds. In the last three years, colleges and institutes have dropped $33 million in funding, but what do we get? We get $110 million for excellence. We need to be reassured that this isn't just more of the same. Will there be an annual report, and will we, as these funds are distributed or disseminated, be able, other than through press releases, which is one way of keeping an accounting of how they're spent.... Will they be spent publicly and openly?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I think that goes without saying. What we're dealing with right now are public funds, and it seems to me that for public funds such as the $20 million which the provincial government puts in there must be a accountability, and, frankly, I would want to have it public and those who participate as well. We would want to have it to demonstrate what success we have had with the investment of these moneys and those who wish to participate in the fund.

I don't understand why there is so much concern when in fact industry wanted to have a fund like this. When the IWA was interested in having a fund like this, and forgetting about the political concerns which you had raised — and whatever they are I am not familiar with — surely some accountability for these would be in the interests of all of us.

MR. ROSE: What really interests me is: have there been put into place guidelines, in contrast to the fund of $12.7 million last year, and are the applications for these things, these various grants of various kinds, going to be public?

[ Page 8659 ]

When they're awarded, will we have a prompt acknowledgement of that along the lines of the $12.7 million last year which spawned 42 press releases, usually mentioning names if they were in ridings held by the government?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're really straying, hon. member. This is the Forest Stand Management Fund Act. There has been ample latitude allowed in second reading. We are on section 2 now, which states that the fund shall consist of money appropriated by the Legislature and other revenues, and, really, that's about as far as we can go in discussing this section.

MR. ROSE: I think I can ask the question about the guidelines. I'd like to ask questions on section 4, and I'll wait for that, but will there be guidelines, will they be public about the nature and form of applications, and what kind of applications are acceptable? For instance, we're both from the little town of Mission, of shake and shingle fame — you know, the minister's got the shakes and I've got the shingles. Nevertheless I know he's a decent man. Will there be guidelines? Mission has a municipal forest, all right? Mission might be interested, especially as it has been hit right in the solar plexus on the shingle thing, in employing some of those idled workers in the municipal forest. Is Mission in possession of information about how the municipality might apply to take up the slack, for instance, in a special forestry project within their forest? Do they have this? Are there guidelines? Are there application forms, or do you just write a nice letter?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I repeat for about the third time that the regulations in draft form have not yet been completed. When they are in draft form, the UBCM will have a look at them. I'm aware of tree-farm licence 26 in Mission, and I'm aware of the reforestation that is going on in that very small TFL. They may very well want to participate. But surely we can wait and see the regulations in final form, and then they'll know what they wish to apply for.

MR. HOWARD: Listening to the interchange of ideas it's obvious that here is a government that hasn't had a clue about silviculture in the last ten years, and hasn't got a clue now what its projections are or its policy is. It has fumbled from one state to another. Last year we were involved in negotiating with the federal government for a $300 million federal-provincial program for reforestation, for silvicultural work. All the government would do at that time, through the former minister, was say: "All we're interested in is the $300 million. We're not asking for any more. That's a sufficient amount of money. All we need out of the feds for silviculture is $300 million." No sooner was the ink dry on the signatures on that agreement than along came this bill that says we need more than $300 million. Now we need some more money. You've got at least five separate structures dealing with silviculture. One is the annual budgetary amount from the minister, another is the small business program. Then there are section 88, the federal-provincial agreement and now this bill. Why in heaven's name can't you put them all together? Why can't you have one overall concept about silvicultural necessities and some commitment to the future?

There's no commitment in here. This is not a permanent fund. It's a simple piece of legislation that even puts in doubt whether the province is going to put any money into it in future years, because money from the province goes into this fund as is appropriated by the Legislature on a year-to-year basis. There's nothing permanent or projecting about it, no long-term commitment, just a simple lurching from one public relations necessity to another to try to make it look as if they're doing a good job.

For some years the only thing the government would talk about was the number of trees it planted. It never met its objective once, and always overstated the results in any event. It only looked at the planting of trees because that seemed to be an acceptable PR kind of thing, and that's what's involved in the use of this fund. The fund will consist of certain moneys for planting trees. Now they're discovering that in some instances half the trees planted died because there was no follow-up; there was no care and attention to the necessary activities of a silvicultural nature to make sure those trees got to a free-growing state.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we're discussing section 2 — funding. Silviculture and forest management were discussed under section 1, and the amendment too. Section 2 now, please — the fund.

MR. HOWARD: There's no guarantee. In fact, the minister said that they probably wouldn't get any more money out of the federal government. They're probably strapped for dough. You should have been approaching the federal government a year ago — that's when they were dishing out the money; that's when they were prepared to put their signature to the agreement. That's when you should have been talking about a $600 million fund. The former minister blew it because he didn't pay attention to the needs of this province. He was more interested in his private investments and how they were faring than in putting money into this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member will come to order or take his place. Section 2 of Bill 6, concerning funding.

MR. HOWARD: It's a good thing you're keeping those guys in their place, Mr. Chairman.

That's what happened — just a bungle from one day to the next on silvicultural questions. Now we have unknown factors. There's no mechanism for municipalities to fit into the system. We've got municipalities up north who say: "Yeah, it would be a good idea to spend some money on silviculture. But this provincial government denied us, the municipalities, proper access to financing ourselves. We got no money to put into silviculture, into a silvicultural fund. We need the work, we need the trees, we need the people planting them, we need the people thinning them and weeding them and brushing them and all that. We ain't got no money because of this niggardly government here that took money away from municipalities, and there is no mechanism there."

Municipal officers that I have spoken with question whether the money in this fund supposedly for municipalities is going to come from a shortfall in the resource stabilization account; whether moneys that municipalities ordinarily would receive as resource stabilization money will now be cut short and that money will be channelled into here — just a diversion of funds. That's what they are wondering about.

It just indicates that for all the bland, nice, thoughtful, "assuring" words of the Minister of Forests, I submit this government doesn't really care seriously about doing something with respect to this fund or silviculture itself. It likes the

[ Page 8660 ]

PR job. It likes telling people it is necessary to do it, but when it comes down to setting up a structure and a mechanism to do it properly, they are found wanting. If you are not prepared to get on with the job of silviculture, then I suggest the only thing is to get out of the way and let somebody else in there that will be able to do it.

MRS. WALLACE: I want to talk about 2 (a): "…money appropriated by the Legislature." Where is this money coming from? There is no appropriation section in here. Would the minister like to tell us? There is no mention of any dollars. We know there are dollars, but there is nothing in this bill to say that. The money is to go apparently into general revenue. How are you going to get it out of there?

What I am saying is that when we had a range and resource management fund, it was a separate entity, and there was a report each year telling what was happening there and what was going on. Here we don't seem to have anything. We've got something that says that it will be appropriated by the Legislature. We have a bill here that has no mention of dollars, no appropriation section. What are we really talking about in this bill?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I think if the member were to examine the Ministry of Finance bills, you will find that there is an amount of $20 million allocated which is to go into this account.

[3:45]

MRS. WALLACE: So the establishment of this fund is really under the Minister of Finance and not under the Minister of Forests. That is what he is telling me.

What happens to the money, assuming you are successful in getting money from COFI or from the unions or from the municipalities or even from the federal government? What happens to that money, and who is responsible for that — you or the Minister of Finance?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The funding coming from outside sources will be deposited to this fund. The accountability for the utilization of moneys under this fund will be in the Ministry of Forests. I can't really make it any simpler than that.

The levy, if there is to be one, and no doubt there will be, involving industry will be collected just as stumpage is collected or as royalties are collected. It all becomes part of consolidated revenue. The accounting for the levy comes in, and it will be deposited in this fund. Further on, under section 4, you will see the manner in which it is to be injected into it.

MRS. WALLACE: Now the minister used the word "fund," and that's okay. But actually it is deposited to an account in consolidated revenue.

Now what you are telling me is that that account will have anything that comes in, any levies put in there, and I would assume anything that you as Minister of Forests decide to spend will be written off against that. Historically, in public accounts we do not get the same kind of record of just an account of the Minister of Finance as we do of a special fund. I really have some concerns about how this....

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, the member for Cowichan-Malahat is revisiting a section of the bill which has already been passed, section 1, which allows for the account to be established under consolidated revenue. The section to which we should be addressing ourselves now is funding, section 2, what the funds shall consist of. Section 1, Mr. Chairman, has already been passed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's a good point of order, hon. member. In committee, debate shall be relevant to the particular section under consideration.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, what I'm trying to point out here is that this bill is very loose in its wording; that the funding, as outlined in section 2, details funds that are going into those accounts, which we have already dealt with — that's true. But there is nothing there to specify who is accountable for dealing with this funding. It's just a straight funding clause there that talks about funding and what it shall consist of, and nowhere in this bill is there.... I can't talk about where it isn't, so I'm talking about funding, and what I'm saying is that there is nothing in this bill that gives any assurance to anyone who is thinking about putting money into this account.... There is nothing in there to ensure that it will be adequately cared for, dealt with and accounted for.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MRS. WALLACE: The Minister of Forests may authorize payments out of the fund. The minister spoke earlier about this being a perpetual thing. I'm confused. Is he intending only to have a fund established and use the income from that fund for payments, or is he intending to use the capital base of that fund to provide this reforestation? If you use the base of it, then you're not having the continuing thing that he referred to earlier.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, payments out of the fund will involve an encroachment upon the capital sum, not the interest which would accrue to the moneys which have been deposited. Why? A municipality may have a program for one year. The municipality may wish to make a contribution of, let us say for illustrative purposes, a half million dollars. They may approach the government when the regulations have been finally put together to the satisfaction of all, and they say: "We would like a matching contribution." That matching contribution will mean an encroachment upon that capital that is in place.

The objective of the fund, a forest stand management fund, is to replenish it annually. It may be that any assessment on industry could vary from year to year: it may go up, it may go down, depending on the annual contribution of the provincial government. That is the objective of this account: so that it will be there in perpetuity; so that we always have a fund available to handle intensive forestry practices, where the demand really is.

There is money available now, and it has risen considerably over the years. It may not be enough; that is conceded by both sides of the House. But it's a far bigger improvement than what we had in the early, middle and late seventies. We know that there has been a great deal of money. All we need to

[ Page 8661 ]

do is look at the current Ministry of Forests estimates, which have the largest lift of all ministries. Blue book to blue book, I'm advised, it now works out to something like 23 percent, and as far as silviculture is concerned the lift is 47 percent. That's a big improvement. However, there are areas which need particular attention: those areas are intensive silviculture practices, and that is what this money is to be used for. That is why it is to be replenished, and that is my objective.

MRS. WALLACE: The minister is telling me that he intends to encroach upon the capital to make these payments, and replenish it each year. You may be ruling me out of order, Mr. Chairman, but this is a new piece of information that's just come up. Does he then intend to ask for contributions from the various three or four other areas each year? That's the first question. Secondly, what happens with the interest on any unspent capital in this fund? We've had experiences before where that interest has simply gone into general revenue and hasn't gone back into the account that it was intended for, even when it's been a special fund.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, the member asks a most valid question. As for the interest accruing on the funds made by the provincial government, I would presume that the interest would remain in consolidated revenue. But one thing is certain, as far as I'm concerned: any contributions made as a result of assessments or levies by outside participants — that is, outside of government — have every right to ensure that the interest on those accounts should be part of this fund and contribute to its growth.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

MR. ROSE: It appears to me that there's sort of two tiers in the stumpage here. Does the minister contemplate raising some of this money not through general revenue but by an increase in the stumpage where needed for the purpose of this fund? Would he explain section 4?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, the section reads: "…impose a levy on stumpage bearing timber for which stumpage is determined and payable under the Forest Act." That's very clear. Stumpage is now paid, and all it means is that if we require a certain amount of money, there's one method by which to secure those funds, and that is by levying an amount — so many cents — on every cubic metre. We know that in the province there's now about 75 million cubic metres harvested, and I believe something in the order of about 60 to 65 million track stumpage. The others can be on private lands or in old timber berths where royalties are assessed. That's fairly clear. I don't see any mystery there.

MR. ROSE: Then why is it part of this act if you do it anyway?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I don't see anything wrong with pointing out to all involved, so that there are no surprises, that this is one method — and probably the most utilized method — for generating revenues. It's just being right up front about it.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I'm not trying to be obtuse about this. It's a genuine question; it’s not designed to embarrass anybody. Since you can raise money through stumpage anyway, is this a method of raising money for this fund if necessary? Is it yes or no? You can raise the money anyway. You have the power to do this under the Forestry Act, for whatever purposes you need to raise the money. There's no appropriation for this $20 million; it's tucked away in a finance bill somewhere, so presumably it's coming out of general revenue. But that may not be true. It may be coming out of this section 4, which is extra stumpage for a special purpose. That's the question I'm asking.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The money raised through the conventional method of collection or taxation through stumpage goes to consolidated revenue. Under section 2 it says: "The fund shall consist of revenue from a levy imposed under section 4." We go to section 4 and it says that levy could very well come from a separate levy that we would assess industry for the Forest Stand Management Fund, and it is identified for that purpose.

MR. ROSE: Then the answer is obviously yes. It's a special way of getting money for this fund, and it gives you power to raise any part of it that you don't wish to take from general revenue.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Right.

MR. ROSE: That's what I started out to ask five minutes ago. We did a sort of ring around the rosy on this for about five minutes, which was perhaps not necessary.

Just let me say one thing in conclusion. The minister mentioned that he was ever hopeful of approaching his counterpart, the Minister of State for Forestry, and getting some more money out of this, and I said he wouldn't get it. This was just an aside. The reason I don't think he'll get it is the fact that there are many more companies and small mills and family properties in Quebec and the Maritimes, and the political pressure will be intense that anything done for B.C. In an extra way, even though we contribute far more.... They're scared witless of us here. If this is a countervail in the softwoods.... Those people down in the Maritimes just had a convention and they're really scared, because they think B.C. will turn its tremendous production and efficiency and productivity into their markets. That's what they're frightened about. And the political realities, as all of us know, are that when there's political pressure, central Canada and the Maritimes are going to get the biggest share of it, or at least they're going to make certain that we don't, regardless of how much we contribute as a province to the overall forestry exports, Canada's greatest export in terms of income. So it's quite serious, but I don't think that we'll get any breaks no matter how cosy this government here is with the current federal government.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

Title approved.

[4:00]

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

[ Page 8662 ]

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Bill 6, Forest Stand Management Fund Act, reported complete with amendment.

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

HON. MR. HEINRICH: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 6, Forest Stand Management Fund Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Committee on Bill 35, Mr. Speaker.

CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1986

The House in committee on Bill 35; Mr. Ree in the chair.

Sections 1 to 16 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Bill 35, Consumer and Corporate Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 1986, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Committee on Bill 28, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 1), 1986

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

On section 1.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: On a point of order, I wonder if I may inquire of the government House Leader who is carrying this bill for the government side. I notice the Attorney-General is not present.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General is on his way. In the meantime, if the members opposite need further information, we can either wait for a second or I can carry the section. Here he is now.

Sections 1 to 22 inclusive approved.

On section 23.

MR. COCKE: My question applies to the preceding two or three sections, I'd just like the minister to indicate the reason for this. Is it so that if a person is lost or something along that line the family can make a decision about their pension or superannuation?

HON. MR. SMITH: These various amendments allow some flexibility to the superannuation commissioner that he didn't otherwise have to allow backdating of the commencement of a superannuation allowance. Under the current act only an incapacity to manage one's affairs may be considered by the commissioner as a basis for backdating the commencement of a superannuation allowance to which somebody is entitled. The present requirements can inadvertently create an unjust situation and prevent the commissioner from commencing a regular pension benefit where for any reason the qualified pension recipient hasn't filed the forms at the proper time.

I'll give you an example. There was a Charter challenge on retirement by one person, and he subsequently decided not to go forward with that Charter challenge in the courts, only to find that he had technically lost his entitlement under the legislation. This is designed to give the commissioner the power to be more flexible in those situations.

Sections 23 to 32 inclusive approved.

On section 33.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, under practice recommendations, I would ask that we stand clause 33 until my colleague gets back with some information.

MR. CHAIRMAN: By leave of the House, clause 33 is stood down.

Sections 34 to 37 inclusive approved.

On section 33.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, will you stand clause 33? Could the House Leader go on to another bill and then come back to this bill? I move we report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

AN HON. MEMBER: We'd like you to consult with the Clerks for a moment, because.... Anyway, we've talked long enough now that the member is back.

Motion negatived.

On section 33.

MR. ROSE: Do I understand, Mr. Chairman, that we've passed the bill but deleted section 33? I just wanted to check about something. This is an addition empowering the inspector to suspend in independent schools a teacher for cause under recommendation of a teacher's certification committee. I think it's a useful thing, and I wasn't certain of the background of it, but it gives them disciplinary powers which at the moment do not exist in terms of revoking the right to teach at an independent school for whatever cause, whether it's the kind we've just heard about in the celebrated case of the public schools, or for whatever. I think it gives the

[ Page 8663 ]

inspector certain powers that he needs, but he cannot act without a recommendation of the colleagues in that same institution or branch thereof, or somewhere else, and so that's fine.

HON. MR. SMITH: I appreciate those comments. As I think the member knows, about one-third of all the teachers in independent schools now have these independent teaching certificates, and the remaining two-thirds have B.C. teaching certificates which allow them to teach in either the public or the independent system. The old legislation states nothing about how an independent school teaching certificate, once granted, can be revoked. There needs to be some power for revocation. Without that power, a teacher who was dismissed, say, for sexual abuse might use the credential to obtain a position in another independent school. The amendment will simply bring the independent school certificates into line with the B.C. teaching certificates. I think the profession would welcome it, and I thank the member for his comment.

MR. ROSE: I don't want to add too much to it, but I would like to say that I'm sorry that the word "certified" is used in the same sense in the public schools and in the independent schools or private schools, because it indicates that there is an equivalency there, and very often there isn't. A person can become certified to teach in an independent school — and I'm not saying it's always the case; the minister has just said it's a two-third, one-third ratio — without what we would regard as adequate certification or qualifications. The big problem in teaching is that "certification" is frequently assumed to mean qualifications. I wish some kind of distinction could be drawn at some future date in terms of definition. We've had a spate in the private members' committee of this right-to-title legislation. I think that there should be some distinction made between those who are qualified to teach in a secondary public school — have the proper degrees and have been passed through the teacher qualification service — and those who haven't done that and do not have equivalency in terms of qualifications.

Section 33 approved.

Title approved.

[4:15]

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 28, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1986, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, Committee on Bill 36.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1986

The House in committee on Bill 36; Mr. Ree in the chair.

Sections 1 to 20 inclusive approved.

On section 21.

MR. ROSE: Well, I would just like to say that this is my constituent's finest hour. Congratulations to the Attorney-General for being flexible on this. I think it is worth some mention because this is a change. The Land Title Act required that the originals of the power of attorney of someone acting on behalf of an indigent or incompetent person, once registered and settled in a particular land titles office, could never be removed. This put a great number of people at supreme disadvantage. If there was one original power of attorney, the person was unable to grant further amendments, and someone having to act on their behalf in a property settlement, bank loan or whatever sort of transfer was put at a tremendous disadvantage. The regulations were such and the act was such that there was no way around it without this change. I think it is to the minister's credit that he has brought this in, and I appreciate the fact that he did that when I approached him on this.

Lo and behold, I was discussing this over the weekend one of my few conquests in changing legislation in 15 years — when my wife looked over at me and said: "You know, I've been stuck on that same problem." She does the business in our family, and frequently she has been hobbled in her efforts to conclude some particular piece of business because of this very thing. Now I wasn't doing it on my own behalf. I was doing it on a constituent's behalf, and I want you to know that there is no conflict here. But I appreciate the change, and I know my constituent will. I am sure my wife will.

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, it is unheard of, of course, to incorporate wise suggestions from opposite sides of this chamber, no matter which is on this side and which on that side. But in this case you are to be congratulated for bringing something forward that made a lot of sense. I'm delighted to put it in.

Sections 21 to 24 inclusive approved.

On section 25.

HON. MR. SMITH: I move the amendment standing in my name to section 25. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I won't take long on this section. I would like to indicate that we obviously support this amendment for very good reasons. Powell River is in financial straits, and the member for that area and I brought this to the attention of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) during his estimates. The government has acted according to our requests and come up with a proposal.

However, we are on record with the government, with the Minister of Municipal Affairs — unfortunately he is not here today — as suggesting or advising that there are communities other than Powell River experiencing these kinds of problems. We have suggested and advocated that there be an emergency relief package developed for other communities such as has been developed for Powell River. The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), who cannot be with us today,

[ Page 8664 ]

has the community of Tahsis, which faces the same predicament, but unfortunately thus far has had very little response from this government. We support the Powell River amendment, but we would also like to see the government come in with a global program, a fair program that applies to all these small communities that have gone under assessment rollbacks, a package that deals fairly with every community. We would just like to go on record as making that request today. We will support the amendment, but we would like a relief package for other communities, such as Tahsis and Elkford and others.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I too, as the second member for Victoria said, spoke extensively on this problem that the section deals with during the debate on the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. However, since that time the government has, through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, and I believe the Attorney-General, certainly the Ministry of Finance, reached an agreement with the municipality of Powell River in regard to the repayment of what was originally a $10.4 million overpayment of taxation by the MacMillan Bloedel company to the municipality, the regional district and school district. Much of that money has been repaid.

The reason, Mr. Chairman, I get to my feet this afternoon is that since this agreement was reached this proposal in front of us today was put before the municipal council in Powell River and was accepted by the council, as I recall unanimously but with great trepidation. The mayor was quoted as saying that in accepting this proposal the municipal council had a gun to its head.

The municipal council really only had two choices, Mr. Chairman: either to accept this proposal or have the municipality placed under trusteeship. The trustee, of course, would have been named by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and then, of course, we would have had no local representation at all.

What this means is an increase in taxation of $62 per year for every property owner within that municipality, plus a further tax increase, Mr. Chairman, dealing with when the school board is forced to increase taxes, which we're not talking about here. What I'm talking about is taxation of property owners. This section means basically a $62 a year tax increase for every property owner in that municipality.

So I'm going to support the amendment, but only for the reasons I outlined a few minutes ago. The municipal council are very unhappy with the situation, a situation brought on by the government in the first place. I don't want to go through that whole argument again. Just to remind the House very quickly of what happened, the B.C. Assessment Authority provided the municipality with the figures on which they base their annual assessment over the years of all the property owners, including the MacMillan Bloedel company, which subsequently sued the municipality and, after approximately a two-year court case, won the court case. Now the municipality and the taxpayers have to pay back that money. A large portion of the 74 has been paid back by the provincial government.

So, Mr. Chairman, without extending this debate unduly, I can tell the minister that I will support this amendment under duress, if that's the correct term — reluctantly.

Amendment approved.

On section 25 as amended.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to speak about.... I think we should now segment this section. We should segment it as follows: we have 259 under this section, we have 260, and now through the amendment we have 261.

I'm interested in 260. I'm interested in the new Kelowna convention centre lease exemption. I don't know, but it appears to me that the address here sounds like the Capri Hotel. Can the minister advise whether or not we're exempting the Capri Hotel from taxation? Is that going to be the new convention centre in Kelowna? I wonder if the minister could answer that question first.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, I cannot. But the Victoria one, as you know, is land owned by the CPR; it's Empress Hotel property. I can't tell you what the Kelowna thing is. If you want to stand that section down, we'll try to get an answer.

MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that that section be stood down until such time as we have an answer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On section 25 as amended.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I'm asking that the section be stood down. If you wish to....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Section 25 as amended be stood down until completion of the bill.

Leave granted.

Section 26 approved.

On section 27.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, this section, because of the change of name of the association, widens the definition of optometrist. There would be nothing here, I would gather from the minister, that would assist those optometrists who feel now that they are being offended vis-à-vis their right to practise in department stores.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, the member is correct that the changes don't deal with that issue. This deals with the organization and domestic rules and the rule-making powers and the powers of the board of examiners, but there is nothing in there that deals with the other question that you asked about.

MR. COCKE: Because of our long-standing practice in this House that when we allow a bill to go from second reading to committee.... We practise that when we open a bill, then the bill is open for discussion. Now I'm not going to make a long speech about it, but I really think that it's absolutely absurd that particularly in view of the fact that some of these optometrists have practised for years and years in that environment.... I see no difference, for example, in an optometrist being permitted space in Woodwards or Sears, or wherever, and a doctor in a shopping centre. I don't understand why they are being prohibited, and I think that I'd just like my name on record as being one who feels that they're not being treated properly.

Sections 27 to 57 inclusive approved.

On section 25 as amended.

[ Page 8665 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, I have my staff now phoning the city of Kelowna for a physical description of the land. We have only the legal description in the bill. We can either report progress and come back to debate on that section or, if the member would accept this, I can give you a full report on the physical description of the land when it comes in. I'm prepared to do whichever you wish.

MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like it delayed, certainly, or delete and report progress, or however you care to do it.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: We can report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

[4:30]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. House Leader, possibly the Chair could suggest you report progress and ask leave to sit again, and probably the House would grant leave to sit again today.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, I move the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the committee sit again?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: With leave of the House, later this afternoon, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

The House in Committee of Supply: Mr. Ree in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
AGRICULTURE AND FOOD

On vote 5: minister's office, $188,992.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I will not be making a long introductory speech regarding the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. I have found through many years that regardless of what I say it is always woefully inadequate in any event, and we have to go over the same ground later on. But before beginning discussions with the members opposite I would just like to pay tribute to my predecessor in this office, the member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder), who was Minister of Agriculture for, I believe, about three years, and who, I think, did an excellent job.

During this time the former minister conceived the idea of Food Pacific '86, which is really going to be a great opportunity for the agricultural and food-processing industry in British Columbia to show its wares to the world, and for the world to come and see what we have to offer, together with what all the other nations in the world are doing with their food products and food marketing. A tremendous opportunity, and my understanding is that it will be very well attended.

Over the last year the agricultural industry in British Columbia has had a mixed experience in the marketplace in terms of their revenue and well-being. Generally income for the farm community has risen marginally, although there are some commodity groups which have gone down and others which have gone up rather dramatically. As has been the case throughout history, we are continually subject to the whims of nature. We have had areas of the province suffer through drought, others through flooding at different times, through frost and all those things that Mother Nature throws at us. Through the year it has been necessary to provide some support programs for different sectors of the agricultural community who have been affected by adverse weather conditions, and we do have a number of programs in place to help such producers.

One of the main thrusts of the ministry in recent years, and which will continue into the future, is to work with the industry in terms of marketing their products, developing new markets, and better marketing of products, and also in assuring that as much as we can we promote the use of modem management tools in the agriculture and food sector.

One of the bright lights on the economic front in British Columbia right now, particularly in the food sector, is the aquaculture business. I realize that there is some controversy in some areas as to where aquacultural products — in particular salmon fish-farms — should be located, and I guess this will continue. Whenever there's a new kid on the block everyone has to figure out what this new kid is about and how it will affect what has happened in the past in various resource use areas. I just hope that as we promote and develop our aquaculture industry we can do it in a consultative way with people in the industry and with other people who have the need to use and the right to use the waterways and water resources of British Columbia. Hopefully, as we do that, we can convince the people of British Columbia that aquaculture is something that we can use to create an awful lot of employment and to enhance our food production in this province.

It's estimated by various people who are knowledgeable in the aquaculture sector that within the next six or seven years the production of farm salmon in British Columbia will increase from 200 or 300 tonnes right now to over 15,000 tonnes a year. That is the type of growth experience which Norway realized over the last 10 or 15 years, and many people from Norway are now coming to British Columbia seeking joint venture opportunities with British Columbians. Hopefully we will see the aquaculture sector grow, as did theirs.

With those few remarks, I will more than welcome suggestions and, I guess, perhaps criticism from the members opposite.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MS. SANFORD: One of the things I notice this afternoon is that, as usual, when the subject of agriculture and food comes up for debate in the Legislature, there are a lot of conversations that take place around and about the chamber indicating that the interest is not as it should be in this particular subject. We have here one of British Columbia's most important industries, yet we find that the interest is not there from the provincial government. As a matter of fact,

[ Page 8666 ]

Mr. Chairman, we have a government that has abandoned the farmers of British Columbia. I'm going to point that out this afternoon during the time we have on the estimated expenditures of the Ministry of Agriculture.

The minister said very little about the kind of serious financial troubles that the farmers are facing. Our agricultural community is in the most serious trouble it's been in since the thirties, but the minister passed very lightly, as did his predecessor last year, over the kind of economic problems that the agricultural industry is facing. Mr. Chairman, this is an industry which must survive. It is different from other industries. It is absolutely essential — crucial — that we as legislators ensure that that industry survives. I hope to point out this afternoon that the government is not only not interested; it is in fact allowing that industry to be abandoned and neglected. All you have to do is look at the budget for this year, at the attitude of the government toward agriculture and free trade, at the attitude of the government toward the agricultural land reserve, and the only conclusion you can come to is that this government, this minister, does not have the interest, and yes, has abandoned the farmers of the province.

Today, one out of every five dollars in B.C.'s economy is generated through the farm sector, yet 20 percent of the nearly 9,000 farmers are in severe financial trouble. On top of that, 53 percent of the farming community are in serious financial trouble; that's up from 37 percent last year. Where will it go next year? Those people who are in severe financial difficulty are on the brink of financial collapse. I don't know if the minister is aware of it. He certainly has not indicated in any statements, in any actions, that he is aware of it, or is concerned about it if he is aware of it. He started out today, in these important estimates of one of our most important industries, talking about the food fair at Expo. The entire agricultural community throughout the province is concerned about surviving, and the minister's lead item is about the food fair they're going to have at Expo.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: The Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) says I'm against the food fair at Expo. What nonsense!

Mr. Chairman, the difficulties that B.C. farmers face exceed those in the rest of Canada. There's no doubt that the crisis we have now is one of the worst the farmers have ever seen. I'm going to give a few figures indicating the seriousness of the situation at this time.

In B.C. the major chartered banks predominate in farm lending to a much greater extent than they do in any other province: 51.9 percent of the $861.8 million of long-term farm debt as of January '84 is financed by the chartered banks. This is the highest ratio in Canada; the national average is somewhere around 27.4 percent.

One of the main reasons for this is that the provincial government has not made available to the farmers in this province the kind of long-term credit that is absolutely crucial at this time, if in fact that farming community is going to survive. The amount of long-term finance provided by British Columbia is only 1.3 percent, compared to 27 percent in Alberta, over 14 percent in Manitoba, or the national average of 11.4 percent.

There is one indicator of the kind of priority, the kind of interest, the kind of commitment that this government has to that valuable agricultural industry in British Columbia.

These facts are important when we consider that interest charges are the highest farm expense in B.C., accounting for $149.2 million in 1984, and this was after the partial interest reimbursement program, which totalled $11 million in 1984.

Net farm interest payments increased by over $10 million in 1984 over the previous year. Interest charges as a percentage of operating costs amount to over 27 percent. Now that is quite a burden for the farmers to have to carry. The Farm Credit Corporation data also portrays vividly the extent to which all farm families have been forced to rely upon off farm income. There is another indication of the kind of difficulty that the farmers in British Columbia and throughout Canada are facing.

[4:45]

In order to survive, farm families now have to turn to outside income, and what kind of a commentary is that on one of our most important industries? Eighty-two percent of those people who have assets of $236,000 or less now rely on off-farm income. In relation to average farm sales, farms with the highest level of sales, over $79,000, have experienced the greatest increase in off-farm incomes. It is the only way those farmers are able to survive today. That's the only that they are going to be able to survive.

So what does the B.C. government do about all of these problems? What does the B.C. government do about one of our most important industries, Mr. Chairman? They cut the budget for agriculture. That's the way to deal with those farmers, who are facing the greatest, most serious financial crisis that they have faced since the thirties: cut the budget. Megaprojects galore, but cut the budget for the farmers.

Now when I say that they have cut the budget, I want to point out that they have included the federal government's ERDA money in the budget this year. That's a nice way of trying to pad the figures a bit to try to convince the farmers they are doing something for them. The budget is up 1.5 percent, but inflation is up over 3 percent. So there is no other way of looking at it. They have cut the budget for agriculture at a time when the farmers are facing the most serious financial crisis since the thirties.

The minister made some reference to some programs that they have introduced because of the problems related to climate, drought, frost, and it's true. But the only thing that that government is doing is responding to the most severe crisis, a crisis that they would not be able to withstand politically because there would be so many farmers that would be unable to continue all at once. You could also include in that, Mr. Chairman, the bailout of the grape growers and the wine industry. Certainly the grape-growers needed bailing out at this stage, but the largest problem related to the need for that bailout of the grape-growers and the wine industry lies squarely on the shoulders of the provincial government, who allowed the import of American grapes, in spite of the fact that they had an 80-20 policy with respect to imports. They just said: "No problem with that. Bring them in." They knew what was happening in terms of the change in taste of the consuming public; they knew that people were preferring white wine to red wine. Yet they allowed the wineries to continue having their vineyards produce largely red grapes. No attempt was made to convert to white. As a result, the government got into a position where they had to bail out.

For the first time, Mr. Chairman, the B.C. Federation of Agriculture is so concerned about the future of its industry that they have held meetings throughout the province. Eleven

[ Page 8667 ]

separate meetings have been held to try to come to grips with the financial problems their members are facing. These have been well-attended meetings, and all of them have expressed the same concern: basic survival of the agriculture industry. What has been the response of the government? Cut the budget for farmers.

A resolution was passed at the B.C. Federation of Agriculture convention this year which asks for a six-month review before foreclosures take place, so that the various debts they are facing could be restructured; so that a new approach could be taken, in an attempt to ensure the survival of some of the farmers now in such a critical state.

Provincially we've cut the budget. Provincially we have a minister who, I'm sure, would be much happier back in the Ministry of Forests than he is in Agriculture. He's certainly given no indication to the farmers of the province that he has their interests as a priority. As a result, we have this kind of crisis. I consider it a crisis in the province with respect to that industry.

In the province of Saskatchewan the Minister of Agriculture was quite concerned with what was happening, and as a result, the province of Saskatchewan introduced a program which is a $48 million fund to help farmers feed their livestock over the winter. They have also brought in a $2 billion relief program for farmers. Then there's Alberta. The farmers in Alberta are also having problems, Mr. Chairman. I have a clipping here, dated April 4, 1986, in which is announced out of Edmonton a $2 billion program to provide low-interest loans to hard-pressed farmers.

What happens in B. C.? We cut the budget. Not only that, but we also find that the minister, or the government — I'm not sure whether the minister himself has been involved in this discussion; certainly his predecessor was — is also discussing removing some of the programs now in place. Farmers at the various hearings they held throughout the province were most concerned about the partial interest reimbursement program, which has been chopped and chopped since its original — 1973, I think — introduction, so that that program is not providing the assistance it was at that time. Nonetheless, it has provided some assistance to some of the farmers. Yet we hear that the government is considering eliminating that particular program, or altering it in such a way that it will be virtually useless to the farmers.

This government's good friends at the federal level have made some changes with respect to agriculture and funding for agriculture. The present BCFA president in British Columbia, Harold Allison, talks about the overall picture being negative at the federal level as well. He says that the $65 million introduced in new programs at the federal level is offset by a reduction of $93 million in the Agriculture Canada budget for 1986-87. I should say it's been offset.

So it is a pretty sad picture with respect to the financial situation of the farmers in British Columbia. We have a minister who seems to go along with his government in terms of free trade and the impact that that will have. We have a minister who seems to go along with removing agricultural land from the agricultural land reserve. We have a minister who is prepared to accept totally inadequate staffing levels throughout the ministry.

We've had huge cuts in field operations. As a matter of fact, I was in contact with one of the field operation offices, Mr. Chairman, and was told that they can't even afford any more at that level to buy the periodicals and the various publications that they need to keep up with what is happening in the agriculture industry. They've had to cancel those because they don't have sufficient funding. Can you imagine that? Some of them are subscribing on their own and bringing the copies to the office to try to build up a bit of a library so they can keep up with some of the things that are happening nationally and internationally in agriculture. That's some commitment to agriculture.

Aside from the problems related to budget and the economic survival of the farmer, we have what I consider a major problem related to the fact that this government is still prepared to allow valuable agricultural land to be released from the agricultural land reserve. When the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), who served as the Minister of Agriculture between 1972 and 1975, introduced legislation to ensure that land capable of producing food would be preserved for that purpose, I was one of his staunchest supporters. The people of the province recognize the value of that piece of legislation.

Oh sure, have a little laugh there, Mr. Minister.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, all right, that's fine. I thought you were laughing about the agricultural land reserve, because I happen to recognize the attitude that exists there.

Mr. Chairman, what has happened is that the government, through changes to that legislation, allowed the Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet, behind closed doors without any information being given to the public, to remove parcels of valuable class I and 2 farmland from the agricultural land reserve. It is not just the removal of those acres from the agricultural land reserve over the objections of the Land Commission; it is the fact that once you remove one small parcel, then all of the parcels around it are affected, and it makes it much more difficult for the Land Commission to say no when the applications come in for the areas surrounding the particular piece of agricultural land that has been removed by the Environment and Land Use Committee.

[5:00]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I don't know when the government is going to smarten up and understand the value of the preservation of that land; is going to smarten up and say no to its political friends when they come and ask for land to be removed from the agricultural land reserve; when it's going to smarten up and listen to those people. Their own appointees on the Land Commission, who say this land is too valuable to be taken out of the agricultural land reserve.... The future of our children and our children's children is too important to allow this garage or that parking lot or that church or whatever to go in on this particular piece of land.

There have been very questionable removals of agricultural land from the agricultural land reserve in recent times by the Environment and Land Use Committee. What about that Baptist church, South Delta Baptist Church, that came to the government and said: "We would like to have a piece of land taken out of the agricultural land reserve. It's valuable farmland, but we want it out." The Land Commission offered them three alternative sites that they could use in that area, rather than taking out this particular piece of valuable farmland. Do you know that the South Delta Baptist Church

[ Page 8668 ]

turned down one of the offers of the Agricultural Land Commission, saying: "This particular piece of land is too inconspicuous for us to locate our church on." Too inconspicuous. "We want another particular piece that is extremely valuable for its agricultural capability; we want that piece." The Land Commission said: "No, we have offered you three alternative sites. You can choose one of those." The South Delta Baptist Church then went to the ELUC and the ELUC said: "Oh, of course, you can have it out." We don't know why, but it was taken out. Now surely the production of food is more important than whether or not a church is conspicuous or inconspicuous in the community. They could very easily have located in that other spot, except that they felt it was not conspicuous enough.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: What have you got against the church?

MS. SANFORD: I'm not even going to answer that comment,

What about the removal of the Edenbank land, as well? There we have a situation where the council was opposed to the removal of the land, the Agricultural Land Commission was opposed to removal of the land for housing purposes, but the ELUC said: "You can take it out." The impact the removal of that land has on the surrounding agricultural land is such that that minister should hang his head in shame. The Land Commission warned them about it. The Land Commission stated very clearly that that land should not come out.

Who knows why? We're never told why they decide to take land out of the agricultural land reserve. We can all guess. They keep coming to that ELUC to get land taken out. We just had hearings last week, I believe, on two other applications, one from Langley and one from Quesnel. I don't know what the decision has been on those.

The other thing is the quality of the land that is being removed. Most of the land that is coming out at this stage is class I and class 2 land; it's excellent farmland. And most of the land that's going into the agricultural land reserve these days, and I'm sure the minister is going to talk about the land that's going in.... Eighty percent of it this year is going to be Crown grazing land. There's no way that you can compare the agricultural capability of Crown grazing land compared to the class I and class 2 land that we find in places like Richmond and Delta and Langley and other places like that.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

If you're going to replace land rated as class 2 — and class 2 land is very good for farming — with land rated as class 1, you would require about twice as many hectares. Now that gives you some kind of idea of the impact of the removal of this agricultural land by the ELUC over the objections of the Agricultural Land Commission.

There are no new areas; there are no new places to turn for farmland. The prime farmland that we have now should be treated as found gold, and protected as such, and it should not be recklessly taken out by the Environment and Land Use Committee for whatever political reason they may be considering.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Three minutes.

MS. SANFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On this issue of the land reserve, I would like to read into the record a couple of comments from an editorial published in March of this year in the Times-Colonist:

"Whenever he's been asked about the agricultural land reserve, Premier Bill Bennett has unhesitatingly declared he is in favour of preserving B.C. farmland for future generations. The government's record, however, indicates that either the Premier does not really support the concept, or he has failed to grasp that a farmland preservation policy does not allow for a steady stream of compromises."

That's what's happening in British Columbia today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry, hon. member, I misled you about the time, because the green light was on. Perhaps if we can just have some intervening business, we can stay within the rules.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the member has raised a number of points, in particular the attitude of the Premier, and I would think that the minister might want to comment on his approach to the Land Commission.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'd be very pleased to allow the member to continue her remarks.

MS. SANFORD: I'm quoting from the same editorial, Mr. Chairman: "Returned to power in 1975, the Socreds recognized the public support of farmland preservation and retained the law, but not the commitment. Since then, the Bennett government has allowed the reserve to be significantly eroded." With the attitude of that government, we have a major problem in preserving that farmland. As the editorial says, we still have the legislation, but we don't have the commitment.

I would also like to quote from a Globe and Mail editorial on the same subject: "There's concern right across the country about farmland and farmland preservation." I thought that we were taking the lead in this province a few years ago, but under this government I'm afraid that, as I said, the commitment is not there.

I'm going to quote from a recent study by Environment Canada, Mr. Chairman: "This continual loss of farmland is nationally significant in its potential impact on food production." If we in this country don't see food production as one of our major concerns and major commitments, then we're not being very wise.

It's not just the agricultural land reserve. We have a whole other problem which this minister has not addressed nor given any attention to, and that's the matter of ensuring not only that the agricultural land remains in the reserve, but also that while it is in the reserve it is protected from compaction, salination and erosion. That too has become a major concern across Canada. While there is a small amount of funding this year under the ARDSA program to try to come to grips with soil erosion, I'm afraid that very little has happened to date. We continue in British Columbia to lose massive amounts of valuable land through that other avenue — that is, through soil erosion, compaction and salination.

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with the third area which I think illustrates very clearly that this government is abandoning farmers and abandoning agriculture. It sees agriculture as a sunset industry. It applies from the Premier right on down: they do not consider that agriculture is going to survive, and

[ Page 8669 ]

they are prepared at this stage to put agriculture on that freetrade table to be dealt away as our negotiator for Canada sees fit.

We have at this moment, Mr. Chairman, a situation where the farmers have a fear as great as the fear of economic survival; that is, survival through what might happen through those bilateral talks regarding agriculture. This issue has been raised on a number of occasions. I made a statement on it last Friday, or a couple of Fridays ago. It was raised to a large extent under the discussions related to the Ministry of International Trade, Science and Investment. But I feel it's absolutely crucial that more be said on that issue this afternoon, Mr. Chairman.

I'm not confident that this minister is concerned enough about the impact that those so-called free-trade talks might have on the agricultural community. I'm not even sure that the minister is aware of the impact that these bilateral talks might have on the ministry that he heads. But I do know that the farmers throughout the province are concerned. As a matter of fact, they have produced quite a voluminous book on the subject of free trade alone, as it affects agriculture.

I think it's important this afternoon that I read into the record some statements made by commodity groups regarding their position on free trade. I'm not going to read all of them, but I'm going to read some, to give the minister some indication of the widespread concern that exists.

The dairy industry says: "Considering the size of the U.S. dairy industry and the almost opposing views to management, any consideration of free trade or even the reduction of input restrictions to Canada would cause serious damage to the Canadian dairy industry."

They're all plotting their leadership over there, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps they could plot it somewhere else, so that I could have the ear of the minister.

[5:15]

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: You're not listening to those turkeys. Oh, all right.

The Egg Marketing Agency says: "Should trade negotiations involve the removal or liberalization of import restrictions by the federal government, the Canadian egg industry would suffer irreparable damage."

What studies has the minister undertaken? What studies has his ministry involved itself in regarding the impact on the various commodity groups of any move to use agriculture as a negotiating tool at the table? We know, Mr. Chairman, that agriculture is on the table. We know that nearly every one of these commodity groups would be adversely affected, and seriously, by any move toward trade that is prepared to deal away the industry of agriculture.

The minister has not said one word that I have heard, Mr. Chairman, regarding the impact of free trade on agriculture. He has not assured them once. He has not made one statement saying that there is no way that British Columbia would allow an adverse impact on the agricultural industry through any bilateral talks. We know that the Premier has been down in Ottawa pushing for free-trade talks.

I hope that the minister knows that Richard Allan, the chief economist for the B. C. Central Credit Union, has stated that free trade would be an absolute disaster for agriculture.

What comments has the minister made on this? What assurances has he given? What kind of studies has he undertaken? What is he prepared to do to ensure that agriculture is not dealt away on the bargaining table?

It's no wonder that the industry of agriculture is concerned, Mr. Chairman, because they are often the ones that are dealt away during any talks of this nature. Just last year we had a situation in British Columbia where the potato growers were faced with dumping by the American producers. They went to the federal minister, John Wise, and appealed to him for a surtax to be applied. John Wise stated very clearly that this is a clear indication of the need for a surtax, and yet when he went to Barbara McDougall in the revenue department, she said: "No, we won’t apply a surtax. After all, we're getting involved in these free-trade talks and it may have an impact on the free-trade talks." It had an impact on the B.C. potato growers. I doubt if it's had any impact whatsoever on the free-trade talks based on the actions of the United States regarding the countervailing duties they have recently applied.

What are the grape-growers saying about free-trade talks? They are saying that when it is considered that agriculture is the number two industry in British Columbia, they fail to see the benefits that will be derived from the creation of a freetrade zone between Canada and the United States.

Who else do we have to quote regarding free trade? The oyster-growers have mixed feelings on this, partly because of the relationship to the clam industry. Fraser Valley strawberry-growers: what are they saying? In short, they say more protection rather than free trade would be in the best interest of B.C. strawberry-producers.

The Premier has assured us that agriculture is on the table and is one of the ones to be negotiated. Yet the Premier knows, and I hope the Minister of Agriculture and Food knows, that any move in those directions means that agriculture is virtually wiped out in British Columbia. That's what it will mean.

The Fruit Growers' Association says as follows — I'm quoting a letter signed by Gerald Geen, the president: "I am very concerned that if free trade becomes a reality all of agriculture will be left to hang out and dry." This is what they're saying all around the province, each one of these commodity groups. What has the minister said? What action has he taken? What assurances has he given them? The Premier keeps saying that we in British Columbia can compete with any country in the world and match them and so on, but the minister should know — I certainly know, the farmers know — that there is no way, because of climate alone, that we can compete in the agricultural industry.

I'm hoping that at this point the minister is prepared to get up and make a few comments on some of the issues that I've covered to date.

MR. STUPICH: The debate leader on the opposition side has raised two issues in particular that I think rate some comment from the minister, one of them being the Land Commission Act and the other the attitude of the Minister of Agriculture with respect to the free-trade talks. I'm sure the House would like to hear something from that person on the government side who is responsible for the Ministry of Agriculture.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: It's very kind of the member for Nanaimo to tell me what the debate leader said. I was

[ Page 8670 ]

listening intently all the time, and if you had allowed me two and a half seconds I could have stood up, but you leapt to your feet so quickly when she sat down that I didn't have a chance, Mr. Member.

I will comment very briefly on the free-trade issue. The debate leader seems to have the agricultural business in Canada already buried and the rites said over the grave, the terrible things that are going to happen as a result of free-trade negotiations, when she has no idea at all what direction the free-trade talks will take in regard to agriculture. Our whole position as a government is that any discussions on free trade must be carried around the concept of fair trade with our competing areas to the south — trade between Canada and the United States — if the agricultural industry is allowed to be a part of it. We have said that everything should be on the table, that discussions should surround all products, all things that are exchanged in trade between our two countries, and that is what we intend to do.

Our ministry has done extensive studies and has had extensive consultation with the various commodity groups in British Columbia, many of our dealings directly with the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, which does represent most commodity groups. We are certainly familiar with and aware of the concerns they have and are not going to allow the agricultural industry to be left, as the member put it, to hang out and dry.

Agriculture is an extremely important part of the economy of British Columbia, and we will be sure that our representations are made and heard in Ottawa as to the position of this government regarding agriculture in the free-trade discussions. I can go no further because the discussions have barely gotten under way. Those members over there seem to know already that we're going to throw out the agricultural industry, have it traded off for other things. Really, I think it's rather unkind of them to sound alarm bells like that among the agricultural industry.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the red-faced member for Vancouver East is very good at yipping away from a seat in the Legislature. I will sit down if he has something to say. I'd be very happy to let him stand up and speak.

Mr. Chairman, the member went on at considerable length also about the agricultural land reserve, talking about the many thousands and thousands of acres of class I farmland that's being removed from it. In fact, exchanges are taking place. Some land is going into the reserve and some is going out, and I think if the member were to look at the types of lands going in and out, there would not be much difference in the classifications. The actual change in the agricultural land reserve from 1973 to this date is that there is about 0.5 percent less land in the agricultural land reserve, and when land is taken out there is usually a very good reason for that.

I have sat on the Environment and Land Use Committee for many, many years — as long as I've been in cabinet, which is almost 11 years now, about three times as long as that member for Vancouver East and his government survived, thanks to the disastrous policies which he brought about. However, Mr. Chairman, there is a process going on which is removing land within the agricultural land reserve which should never have been there in the first place, and putting other lands in which should have been there originally and which were not. Also, from time to time there are reasons other than strictly agricultural reasons which dictate, for the best use of that land, for the benefit of the people of British Columbia, that some lands with good agricultural capability should in fact come out. Many times there are very, very good reasons for that.

The member also discussed the financial problems which the agricultural community is experiencing of recent years, and indeed they are. Indeed, most of the industries of British Columbia have experienced financial problems during this very serious world recession, which we have been coming through and hopefully are now coming out of. We have a number of support programs for the agricultural community, and they are regularly taking advantage of them. Also, from time to time it is necessary to come up with special programs such as last year when we had drought problems in many parts of the province. We do provide extra and special assistance when it is needed.

Mr. Chairman, it is not right to say that this government doesn't have any interest in agriculture. It is a very important part of our economy, and it is a growing part of our economy. The people in this industry, as is the case with most industries, have suffered recently. Their returns have not been what they should be, and they have been caught in the cost-price squeeze and were of course caught in the very high interest rates of a few years ago.

The member also mentioned the partial interest reimbursement plan. We have no plans at this time to disband that program. However, we are discussing with the B.C. Federation of Agriculture possible better uses of the funds directed into that program. No decisions have been made yet, and the dialogue with the agricultural community will continue. It has been suggested, for example, by fruit-growers that perhaps a grower loan program would be a better use of the money than interest reimbursement. In fact, our partial interest reimbursement program is still in place and will stay there until such time as it is agreed with the agricultural community that perhaps that money could be better used in another way. So any fear of a sudden and abrupt removal of that program is far from the truth, Mr. Chairman.

[5:30]

MS. SANFORD: The minister has failed to reassure me on any of the issues that I have raised. It is no wonder that the agricultural community is holding meetings and is concerned about the free-trade issue and producing booklets as voluminous as this. It is no wonder, because this minister has certainly given no indication this afternoon that he is prepared in any way, shape or form to deal with the serious issues facing the agricultural community.

He says: "We're concerned about agriculture." He almost whispers it into the microphone, Mr. Chairman, and it is no wonder he is whispering. When you cut back on the agricultural budget, when you allow prime farmland to get out of the agricultural land reserve, and when you are prepared to put agriculture on the free-trade table to be negotiated, without giving them one shred of assurance, it's no wonder the agriculture community is disturbed, and it's no wonder the minister whispers into the microphone about his commitment to agriculture. It's not there, Mr. Chairman.

I'm going to give some more indication to the minister of the attitude of and the comments made by the various commodity groups. He talks about consulting with them on free trade. If he has consulted with them, then presumably he

[ Page 8671 ]

might have given them some reassurance about the government's position vis-à-vis bilateral talks on agriculture. But that's not the case, Mr. Chairman. Otherwise we wouldn't have a booklet like this produced, with all of the comments from all of the commodity groups, expressing the fact that they are facing disaster in many cases if in fact the trade talks go as many of them fear they will. They know that agriculture is not a priority with this government. Why should they think it would be a priority at the negotiating table? Not that this government is even at the table — they're not allowed.

Let me tell you what another commodity group, the turkey-growers, are saying: "Replacement of the current multilateral trade agreement under the GATT with a more open bilateral agreement with the U. S. would have a negative impact on the Canadian turkey industry, Canadian consumers and the Canadian economy." That's the view of the turkey growers. I don't know if the minister is even aware of what these people are saying. He has certainly given no indication today that he has any understanding of the impact that these talks may have on the agriculture industry.

What are the Vegetable Marketing Commission people saying? I'm quoting from a letter which has been signed by Ralph Towsley, the secretary/manager. He says that the MacDonald commission comes out strongly against supply-management marketing boards. If they are so wrong, why is it that these boards represent a group of producers who are reasonably successful and consistently supply the market with reasonably priced product in the quantities required? Can the MacDonald commission name one large corporation that does not consistently try their very best to manage the supply of their products to market? They can't. The marketing boards are more formalized. The marketing boards., through groups of producers getting together, have formalized the control of the market in terms of production supply management. The MacDonald commission recommends that that be done away with. The MacDonald commission recommends that we go to free trade. Put the two together, and no wonder the farmers are worried.

What impact will these bilateral talks have on the various sectors of the agricultural community if much of the agricultural community is negotiated away? There's no reason that the members within the various commodity groups should not feel that way, because they know the position taken by politicians at this level — Conservatives and Socreds, provincial and federal — regarding their particular industry. Again I refer to the surtax on potatoes that should have been put on last year. John Wise said it should have been put on, but the federal government said no. As a result, we know the impact those potato-growers have had to face with respect to dumping in British Columbia.

The B.C. tree-fruit industry estimates that some 5,300 people employed directly in the industry are likely to lose their jobs if those bilateral talks go as many of the people within the agricultural industry fear. We're looking at 200 jobs in the Vanderhoof area and another 200 jobs in the Bulkley Valley related to B.C.'s feed and forage industry if those talks and the negotiating go ahead and they get sold down the drain or left hanging out to dry, as one of the commodity groups expressed it.

In the dairy industry, direct employment is about 2,800 people. The daily surplus produced in the United States would meet virtually all of Canada's daily needs. If we move to free trade in that area, that surplus will simply be shipped into Canada, putting our own dairy people out of business. And the dairy people know it. They're worried about it.

The wine industry: how many people are we talking about there? Direct employment, 243 people in the wineries alone.

It goes on, Mr. Chairman: one commodity group after another expressing concerns about what's going to happen to them as a result of the government's determination to pursue at the federal level the promotion of these free-trade talks, even though we have seen the kind of countervailing duties that have been applied against us in recent times.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Committee on Bill 36, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1986

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 36; Mr. Ree in the chair.

On section 25 as amended.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, as you'll recall, when we rose and reported progress on this bill I undertook to find out where the land described in the legal description of the Kelowna convention centre lease property was. I can confirm that the land is adjacent to the Capri Hotel in Kelowna. It is not land occupied by the hotel, nor is it the hotel itself, but it is surplus land that the hotel owns. It will be entered into a lease agreement with the city of Kelowna at the time that a convention centre is built, and it would be much the same arrangement as is undertaken with the Empress Hotel property and the city of Victoria.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the minister's getting the information. Incidentally, I'd just like to make reference to the rules. This new regulation that we have in our standing orders is very handy. It saves a lot of time, a lot of filibuster, by virtue of the fact that while ministers are out rushing around trying to find information, naturally this side of the House filibusters until such time as the information is found. This saves us a lot of trouble, and I appreciate that.

I would like to make some very passing reference, however, to this particular section. I want it understood that I'm only dealing with 260 of section 25 of this bill, and 260 refers to the Kelowna situation. I recognize who the Capri shopping centre and hotel people are: our good friends the Capozzis, noted for past affiliation and past support for the present government.

I would like to ask a question with respect to the holding of this property. As I understand it the land is being leased by the municipality. The municipality will, therefore, build a convention centre, and that aspect of it will be tax-free. Is that…?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The member for New Westminster is correct. The provincial government is not involved in the land arrangements. The lease will be held by

[ Page 8672 ]

the city of Kelowna, and the improvements will be done by the city of Kelowna, providing they can get the funding. The act only allows the municipality to give exemption of taxes if they choose, as they can do in other areas. It's an enabling legislation to the municipality of Kelowna.

MR. COCKE: I would gather, then, having sought legal counsel, that they will likely not subdivide this land until such time as all the approvals are met. In other words, it's not likely that the land is already subdivided, but it would have to be subdivided in order to lease.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I have the same legal advice you did, Mr. Member. I'm not sure of the status of the land; it may or may not be subdivided to handle, but if it isn't then it certainly will have to be subdivided in the normal way with public hearings and whatever is necessary under the Municipal Act.

MR. COCKE: We saw the amendment and were somewhat concerned. We felt it might be the hotel itself. It's not the hotel. Mind you, it's going to be a nice little adjunct to the hotel's business, I would think, but on the other hand I happen to know the area, and I'm not sure where else you could have done it. So, generally speaking, I guess it's good luck to everybody and we'll see what happens. I do wish the city of Kelowna good luck in terms of development of a convention centre. I think it's important that we do have these kinds of facilities. We're in a position now where we have to rely increasingly upon tourists, people coming here with a few dollars to spend. We have a beautiful province, and all you have to do is just go outside and take a look around today. With the exception of the normal little bit of wind you have in Victoria....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I don't think it's hyperventilation, in any event. It's probably emanating from the strait of Juan de Fuca, if I know my geography at all. In any event, I think that's all I have to say about this section, and I'm glad that we were able to elicit this information.

Section 25 as amended approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 36, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1986, reported complete with amendment.

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

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 36, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1986, read a third time and passed.

Hon. Mr. McClelland moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:45 p.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

6 The Hon. J. H. Heinrich to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 6) intituled Forest Stand Management Fund Act to amend as follows:

SECTION 1, in the proposed section I (a), by deleting "the management" and substituting "silviculture and other management".

36 The Hon. B. R. D. Smith to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 36) intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1986 to amend as follows:

SECTION 25, in the proposed section 25 by adding the following section:

Powell River tax refund

261. For the purpose of assisting the District of Powell River to refund to MacMillan Bloedel Limited money paid by way of taxes on the Powell River Pulp and Paper Mill,

(a) the Minister of Finance may, out of the consolidated revenue fund, make a loan to the District of Powell River on the terms and conditions he thinks fit, and

(b) the District of Powell River may, notwithstanding the Municipal Act, enter into

[ Page 8673 ]

(i) an agreement with the Minister of Finance for the repayment, over a term of years, of the loan made under paragraph (a), and

(ii) an agreement with MacMillan Bloedel Limited for the payment, over a term not exceeding 10 years and with interest at a rate to be agreed upon, of the balance of the refund remaining unpaid after payment to MacMillan Bloedel Limited of the proceeds of the loan made under paragraph (a) and of an amount from existing reserve funds of the District.