[ Page 2953 ]
Routine Proceedings
Motions Without Notice
Commonwealth Games. Hon. B.R. Smith –– 2953
Mr. G. Hanson
Tabling Documents –– 2954
Oral Questions
Funding for ministers of state. Mr. Blencoe –– 2954
Mr. Harcourt
Mr. Williams
Open Learning Agency Act (Bill 58). Second reading
Mr. Vant –– 2955
Hon. S. Hagen –– 2956
Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 1987 (Bill 63). Committee stage.
(Hon. Mr. Rogers) –– 2958
Mr. Lovick
Mr. Miller
Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 4), 1987 (Bill 59). Third reading –– 2960
Mineral Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 51). Third reading –– 2960
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Compensation Act (Bill 61). Committee stage.
(Hon. Mr. Couvelier) –– 2960
Mr. Miller
Hon. Mr. Parker
The House met at 2:11 p.m.
MR. MOWAT: In your gallery today we are very honoured to have two special friends of my wife and me, Janet and Reuben Horwitz from Fort St. James. British Columbia. They actually live on Stuart Lake. They have been pioneers up in that area for 32 years. When they originally moved up there, there were only three families on their side of the lake, and I understand now there are 150 permanent families on that side. I would ask the House to please make them welcome today.
MR. HARCOURT: I'd like members of the House to greet some visitors from Vancouver Centre. They are the volunteers who help in our constituency office who keep the minister busy on human services issues and the Minister of Labour busy on Workers' Compensation Board issues. They are the ones who really help out: Don Reekie, Ken Barrass, Thelma McDonald, Evelyn Fertig, Nancy MacLean, Brian Cooper. We also have two staff people, our constituency assistants who have made it the model constituency office in the province: Rick Smith and Thelma Pankiw, who has served the people of this province for over 12 years. I'd like you to give them a very warm greeting.
HON. MR. PARKER: Joining us for a first visit in the members' gallery today is the new consul-general of Korea, newly moved from Ottawa and a month now in Vancouver, Mr. Kie Ok Chung, and with him Miss Hwang, vice-consul of Korea also located in Vancouver. Would the House make them welcome, please.
MR. MILLER: In the gallery today are three people from the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union: Jack Nichol, the president of the union; Burma Lockett, a fish plant worker from Steveston; and John Malm, a fisherman from Delta. They were here this morning for a meeting with the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Savage) to impress upon the minister the importance of our B.C. fishprocessing industry and the need for B.C, to fight aggressively to protect that industry in the face of the preliminary GATT ruling. I would ask the House to join with me in making them welcome.
HON. MR. SAVAGE: It is indeed a pleasure to rise in the House today to introduce from the great constituency of Delta a number of grade 11 students from Seaquam Secondary School. Also with the students today is a dedicated instructor, Mr. John Kelly. Would this assembly please make them very welcome.
[2:15]
MR. S.D. SMITH: In your gallery today is a gentleman who is here representing the central North Thompson area of the Thompson-Nicola Regional District — at his own expense, I might add — doing his duty on behalf of his constituency. Would the House please join me and my colleague the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) in welcoming Paul Caissie.
MR. PELTON: I have the very distinct honour this afternoon of introducing three very delightful ladies to our assembly: Mrs. Marjorie McCaig and Mrs. Barbara Rowell from Victoria, and my wife, Louise. I would ask you all to make them welcome.
MR. CASHORE: Visiting in the gallery today are Mr. David Gosse of North Vancouver, and Mr. Art Rippon of Victoria. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming them.
MR. LONG: Mr. Speaker. In the precincts today is a good constituent of mine and one of Canada's finest, Const. Bruce Denniston, and his son Matty, who are here visiting us. I'd like you to make them welcome.
Motions Without Notice
COMMONWEALTH GAMES
HON. B.R. SMITH: I would ask leave to make a motion which I will move and the first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson) will second.
Leave granted.
HON. B.R. SMITH: It is moved and seconded that the members of this Legislature strongly support the decision reached by the Canadian Commonwealth Games Committee in selecting Victoria as the Canadian nominee for the 1994 Commonwealth Games and urge the government of Canada to confirm its commitment to support Victoria without delay, and that the members of this House are confident that Victoria will host the most outstanding Commonwealth Games in the history of this event.
Speaking briefly to the motion, which the first member for Victoria and I are presenting at the request of the Victoria Commonwealth Games committee, I want to say that the Commonwealth Games bid has been a community endeavour and has been supported by both sides of this House. When the crucial meetings were held last month, I'm happy to tell the House that both the first member for Victoria and the second member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Huberts) went to Montreal and worked long hours to help persuade the Canadian committee to give the successful bid to Victoria. It was against considerable odds that that was brought about. It was brought about because people could see that not only was Victoria the best place for the bids, in terms of climate and geography, and not only did Victoria offer the only real legacy that the games can offer — which isn't buildings and tracks, but the commitment to high-level performance sports in the future — but it offered a united front in the community. All elements in the community — the provincial government, the municipal governments. both parties in this House — support it.
So what we say now in this motion is that we're proud that Victoria won the bid. The Canadian government is now going through some process to try to assure other parts of the country that it was a fair process; we believe it was a fair process. Let's get on with confirming that commitment, so that now Victoria as the Canadian nominee can win the bid, and not lose the bid due to bickering in Canada or to people with their noses out of joint in other communities. Let's get on with it and confirm that commitment.
MR. G. HANSON: It's an honour to second this motion. On behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus in this House,
[ Page 2954 ]
I wish to pledge our wholehearted support for Victoria as the site for the 1994 Commonwealth Games.
Mr. Speaker, the reasons for the choice of Victoria will become more evident in the next few days. It is clear that the Victoria bid was the most meritorious bid. As the Attorney-General stated, the compelling reasons for the choice Of Victoria, aside from the most creative opening and closing ceremonies that the selection and executive committees had ever seen, is really the legacy of the games. The legacy of the games will establish forever and a day that Victoria and this region will be the Olympic training centre for high-performance athletics for all of Canada. It will serve Canada well, and it will allow Canadian athletes to be the best they can possibly be. So it's a pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to join with those opposite in our wholehearted support. We are confident that we will put on the best Commonwealth Games that ever have been in the history of the Games.
Motion approved.
Hon. Mr. Savage tabled the annual report for Agricultural Aid to Developing Countries from the Province of British Columbia.
Oral Questions
FUNDING FOR MINISTERS OF STATE
MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the Premier on his centralization plan.
AN HON. MEMBER: No, we don't have that; you've got it wrong.
MR. BLENCOE: His centralization plan. Yesterday the Premier stated, in an extraordinary public condemnation of his cabinet, that: "I think the cabinet might have been a little bit too generous with the amount allotted." A little too generous.
Now leaving aside the unbelievable attack on his own cabinet and his own colleagues, can the Premier explain how on earth cabinet members can be accused of allocating too much money for centralization, when it was the Premier himself who announced the million dollars per region on September 24, over a month before cabinet signed the warrant?
HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: When the program was first talked about by me and my colleagues back in March or April, certainly then already we recognized that such a program would definitely need some resource, although obviously since the program was to be influenced much by the views of people within the regions, no one could accurately estimate just exactly what might be required for the year.
So I think perhaps until we have some experience with respect to the demands from the various regions — and they may vary from region to region — we won't know just exactly what the amount is. I am sure, however, that the million dollars is most generous and will well accommodate even the most ambitious of regions.
MR. BLENCOE: Let me refresh the Premier's memory. In a press release on September 24, Mr. Premier, you publicly announced that $1 million would be allocated to each region to start up an operational funding. Over a month later, on October 28, the cabinet signed a special warrant for $8 million, consistent with the Premier's announcement on September 24. Yesterday, December 9, over a month after the cabinet order, the Premier publicly stated: "They were a bit too generous." Which is it, Mr. Premier? Did the cabinet follow your instructions, or did they cook up the $8 million themselves?
HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm very pleased to say that the cabinet was fully involved in the decision with respect to the amount of resource that would be provided each region. We certainly are grateful for the fact that we have in our province a government where people collectively consider the needs of the regions and people throughout this province and where such decisions are made by a cabinet. Obviously, from time to time my own views with respect to the amount required may not be in keeping with the cabinet decision, but I'm very pleased that we have that resource available, and I'm hoping that at the end there may be something left. But certainly each region will have the potential to really develop for itself a variety of initiatives, which will make us a better province.
MR. BLENCOE: Let's go to October 7 and refresh the Premier's memory again. The Premier, on October 7, in an attempt to resolve confusion around his September 24 centralization announcement, publicly stated: "When I announced our new policy initiative, I said it would be an orderly and planned process." Yesterday the Premier publicly stated: "There is no detail. Everybody is sort of groping and guessing now."
Mr. Premier, my question is: are they groping and guessing now because your promise about an orderly and planned process was totally incorrect?
HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It's unfortunate that the member's research is entirely from the Times-Colonist. I would suggest that the article, particularly since it quoted several members of the opposition, was badly distorted. However, I certainly concede that we did want to see a planned approach.
Yes, I said, and I certainly agree, that it ought to be a planned approach — not in such detail that we would deny local people the opportunity to be involved. Certainly we too had a lesson in why we needed a reasonable approach, because I was reminded of a former government, commonly referred to as the Dave Barrett government, which in 1974 had its own version of decentralization when it appointed Alf Nunweiler as the minister responsible for the region of Prince George.
I can quote from Hansard of April 29, 1975, when Mr. Nunweiler said: "We are just tired of being a colony of the lower mainland." He further said: "We want to share a little more of the good things that this province has with the people in our region. Therefore, it has been a basic policy of this government to provide meaningful recognition of the right of the people living outside of the population centres of this province to determine their own needs and to be a part of the development of their own area."
The 1975-76 estimates provided this minister of the region of Prince George with $402,657. This translates into almost $1 million in 1987 dollars, so I think perhaps we had
[ Page 2955 ]
something to fall back on when we were looking at the process of decentralization.
[2:30]
We don't deny that there might have been a few things that happened during that term of 1972-75 that had some benefit for the people — very few, but a few — and we had a lesson from that. This is why I thought the process was wellprepared by us.
MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the Leader of the Opposition, I'd just like to remind members — as I have the odd time — of standing order 47A(b), where it says that questions and answers are to be brief and precise and without argument or opinion. I think the Chair allows great leeway, but we see what happens when members from both sides.... If the questions are long and argumentative, the answers tend to be the same way. If that happens too often. other members will not get on in question period.
MR. HARCOURT: My question is for the Premier. Mr. Premier, despite your promise of an orderly and planned process, your program of decentralization is a shambles. As you yourself said, you're just kind of gropin' and guessin'. Can the Premier assure British Columbians and this House that not another dime of the $8 million is spent until guidelines that show an orderly and planned process are tabled in this Legislature?
HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, the process of decentralization in this province is coming along extremely well. But until the NDP travels beyond the downtown cores of Victoria and Vancouver, they'll really never have the feel of what's happening out there in the rest of the province.
MR. HARCOURr: Well, I've been to 110 communities since February, Mr. Premier; where have you been?
What we have, Mr. Speaker, is a Premier who publicly admits that there is no orderly and planned process, that he's groping and guessing. We have no guidelines for expenditures of tax dollars. We have a Premier who ignores parliamentary democracy and, worse, the laws of this province. My question to the Premier is: will the Premier quash the special warrant and bring in legislation if he plans to spend another dime of the public money on this scheme?
HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We are concerned about the progress, the future, the development and the opportunities in all regions of this province, and we intend to provide the resources to make things happen in all the great regions of this province.
MR. WILLIAMS: That's intriguing. Yesterday the Premier said that the urgency for the $8 million was for industry and so that decisions could be quickly made in the regions. Could you advise the House where the regional officer is located for the lower mainland region?
HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We have staff people, both in Victoria and in the regions, who address all of these. In the case of the lower mainland, it's a very large and populous region, but it will be headquartered in Burnaby.
MR. WILLIAMS: Is the Premier unaware that the political hack who was appointed is down in the Rattenbury Room in the Parliament Buildings in Victoria?
HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't know what office the person may be working from today or yesterday, but I can assure you that we've had a lot of activities already in the lower mainland region. As a matter of fact, the minister of state for the area is in the region today, along with the parliamentary secretary, and they're meeting with a number of groups, including those that are looking to provide economic activity in the various parts of the lower mainland region.
Mr. Speaker, we're making great progress; we haven't been at it too long but already we're seeing very positive results.
MR. WILLIAMS: To get a job in the lower mainland, I'd like the public of British Columbia to know that you must apply in room 139 in the Parliament Buildings in Victoria.
The Premier has confirmed that the purpose of these regions is economic development. Why then would you not appoint the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) as the minister of state for the lower mainland?
HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The purpose of the decentralization, Mr. Speaker, is not only as it applies to developing economic initiatives in the different regions. It is also to ensure that people have a voice with respect to priorizing health services, social services, or other services of government. In effect, we're working to ensure that people in all of the regions will have a greater voice in each and every decision made by government affecting their particular region. I know that might be difficult to understand, for the representative from Vancouver East, but there are many vast regions of this province where they're seeking not only economic development but also a greater voice in the other services provided to people. It will provide a more efficient service, and one more responsive to the people. That's as necessary, hon. member, in the Nechako. Cariboo, Peace or Kootenay areas as it is in Vancouver East.
Orders of the Day
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 58.
With respect to standing order 42(3), the orders of the day indicate that the minister adjourned debate. However, a careful review of the Blues from this morning indicates that he was adjourning just for adjournment purposes, and certainly not with respect to closing debate. With that said, accordingly it's the government's position that debate can continue on second reading of Bill 58. The minister has not closed off any opportunity for members who wish to speak.
OPEN LEARNING AGENCY ACT
(continued)
MR. VANT: I rise to take part in this ongoing debate on Bill 58. Being from the central interior, one of the great achievements of the Social Credit government since the Dark Ages between 1972 and 1975 was to found the Knowledge Network. Believe me, this is the key to open learning in each and every region of our great province. It creates equal educational opportunities for all, regardless of where they live.
I do know from firsthand experience in the Cariboo that shift workers, nurses and many other professionals have
[ Page 2956 ]
managed to continue to upgrade their skills, mainly through the Knowledge Network. The key to equal opportunities in university and college, and indeed Institute of Technology courses, is the Knowledge Network, which is very widespread. It's still expanding. I still get inquiries regarding expansion of the satellite coverage system, and this is taking place. It allows education in our great province, despite its geography.
I want to emphasize that we can't all be city slickers. Indeed, in my own constituency, which is the size of the province of New Brunswick, right now two-thirds of our population live outside the incorporated areas. Only one third live in the two cities and two villages in the Cariboo.
So through this excellent Bill 58 new opportunities are offered to our people which go far beyond the good old correspondence courses through the Ministry of Education. Although I must echo the sentiments of other members who, looking back.... Many young people did manage to complete their education through correspondence. Now this excellent Open Learning Agency Act uses new technology to greatly expand the educational opportunities for all. After all, the reality is that we can't have an actual post-secondary educational institution in every place where our people live, because they do live all over in many remote areas.
I am very pleased to make those comments in support of this act.
MR. SPEAKER: I advise the House that the minister closes debate.
MR. ROSE: Is he the designated speaker? He gets two hours.
HON. S. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, I'm informed that I have two hours. I'll have to go back to the training that I started 25 years ago to become a minister, and finally made it after 25 years.
MR. ROSE: Have you been ordained?
HON. S. HAGEN: No, not yet. But it is a great pleasure for me to speak on this motion and to talk a bit about how I feel about education and, more specifically, the Open Learning Agency Act.
I appreciated what was said this morning by the members for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones), Kootenay (Ms. Edwards) and Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) and the Leader of the Opposition, and this afternoon the second member for Cariboo (Mr. Vant). I can relate a great deal to what they're saying because I also live outside of the lower mainland and have had some personal contact with the necessity for different methods of education. I know I always get into trouble when I brag about my wife, but I'm going to anyway. She was a charter student at Simon Fraser University but completed her degree while living in Courtenay through all of the different methods that are available — the Knowledge Network, OLI, the extension program at UVic and the DISC program at Simon Fraser — and finally graduated with a bachelor of arts and history degree from Simon Fraser.
So the opportunities are there, and what we want to do is improve on those opportunities. I'm pleased that basically everything that was said this morning by the hon. members who spoke is really supportive of this bill and supports the need for this legislation.
I have answers, I think, to the specific questions that were posed; and in support of what has taken place in the Open Learning Institute and with the Knowledge Network, this act, Bill 58, is really going to bring into being what has been taking place over the last two years or so with the Open Learning Institute.
Interjection.
HON. S. HAGEN: Well, the two agencies exist. The Knowledge Network exists and the Open Learning Institute exists. So this is formalizing and constituting these things that are already in existence.
The purpose of the agency is that in collaboration — so that it does not replace any of the other methods of delivering education — with the universities, institutions, boards of school trustees and other agencies, we want first to provide an education credit bank for students. Those of you who are or have been involved with education know that this is important. It's important for our students to be able to go to the various colleges, institutes and universities, even if they don't stay at the same one, and know that they've got the credits that they've taken the courses for.
This agency will coordinate the development of open learning education. I know that you realize that there's a lot of development taking place in education, not only in this province but in the entire world. This agency can not only contribute and assist in that but learn from other areas where this is taking place.
[2:45]
This agency will have the ability to carry out research related to open learning education. In fact, I think that we can brag a bit about our Knowledge Network and our Open Learning Institute. I would love to take credit for what has gone on in the past, but I can't because I wasn't here. I've only been here for a year. But I can tell you that there are many people who can take the credit for the work that has gone on in the past.
It was because of this hard work and because of the developments that have taken place in this province with regard to distance education that we were able, just a few months ago, to make a presentation on distance education to the representatives of the Commonwealth nations while they were in Vancouver. The member for Burnaby North made reference to this, and I would like to discuss it a bit myself.
The purpose of the presentation was to show the representatives from the 47 or 48 Commonwealth nations what we have and what we've been doing in distance education, and to prove to them that the distance education headquarters for the Commonwealth should be located in British Columbia. I had the opportunity, as the minister, on that Friday morning just before the conference ended, to participate in the presentation. We had a 75 percent turnout of the Commonwealth nations that were here, and gave an excellent presentation on what we're doing. They were convinced and the decision was made, and has been announced a couple of times, that the Commonwealth headquarters for distance education will be located in the province.
This is very significant, not only because it recognizes where we are in the world with regard to the delivery of distance education, but it's significant in that I understand that it's the first time in history that an agency of the British Commonwealth has been located outside of Great Britain. I think that that's good for us. It's good for British Columbia.
[ Page 2957 ]
It's good for education and, as the hon. member opposite said, it will provide economic opportunities and opportunities for our educators who develop programs in this field, and production and technical work to be developed. I think it will be a real winner for British Columbia. In fact, a working committee has been established and has already met in London and in Ottawa to put a plan in progress.
We worked very hard on this because there was a thrust by some of the nations that this should be tabled and discussed for another two years. We didn't feel that it needed any more discussion. We felt we could be working on it and carrying out discussions at the same time, but at least we could get on with the activity.
I do want to pay tribute to the people who have helped develop the open learning process in British Columbia and I want to assure the members opposite that there is no intention on my part or on the part of the government that. this will replace conventional methods of delivering education.
I too have had the opportunity to travel the province. I have traveled particularly to the colleges that have participated very strongly in distance education, and I think specifically of North Island College and of Northwest Community College. I've spoken there and at other colleges, and they told me about the concerns that there were probably five years ago with regard to the possible threat that television delivery would take over or play a substitute role in the delivery of education. Those people tell me, and I believe what they say, that this is not a concern to them now: they realize how distance education, how technologically designed delivery systems, can interface with the existing methods that we have.
As I say, there is no plan here to replace college instructors or university professors with television instruction, but the plan is to use it as a part of assisting to deliver education to all regions of the province.
Also you mentioned the discussion being carried on with school trustees. There is no plan to use this as some method of instituting home instruction. As a matter of fact, I hadn't even thought of that until you mentioned it. The reason that we have discussion with school trustees in here is that there are a lot of students, as you know, who don't complete grade 12 — and this goes to the adult basic education discussion that we had. We feel that there is need for discussion with the school trustees to assist in helping those students. particularly the students who live in the remote regions of the province, to also have the opportunity to participate in access to educational opportunities.
Addressing some of the specific questions.... Well, I just addressed one which had to do with home schooling, and I hope that that answers your question.
One of the other specific questions related to section 2(2) with regard to the Company Act. I am advised that this is the same clause that exists in the University Act and the College and Institute Act, and that there are some provisions of the Company Act that we would not want in this act, such as winding down, reporting procedures and that sort of thing. So that's the reason it's there.
The comment was made with regard to providing a much larger bureaucracy. I couldn't quite figure out where that came from but there is certainly no intention on my part, and those of you who know me, I think, will know that I have no intention, of allowing a larger bureaucracy to accumulate here. I don't exactly know where that would come from.
There was a discussion of boards, and I am sensitive to the request of the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone). I think that if you look at the boards that I have appointed around the province, I've attempted to get a good cross-section of people on those boards, and I will do the same with the Open Learning Agency. I can tell you that it will be a priority to have people from the regions where the needs are, where the needs exist, on the boards to tell the agency where the thrust should be. I will see that that is done.
MR. JONES: Political spectrum?
HON. S. HAGEN: Political spectrum. That was a question?
Moving to some of the questions that the member for Prince George North had, I appreciated her comments with regard to the need to provide educational opportunities in the various regions of the province, such as the central area or the Okanagan or the Kootenays, and I'm sensitive to that. We've been moving in that direction ever since I became minister.
I guess one concrete example — and I kind of hate to use that term — that I can give is that when I was in Prince George the first time, the arguments with regard to providing education in the various regions of the province were made very clear to me. At that time I was being pressured as to where I should enlarge or increase the size of the dental hygiene program — whether it should be at Vancouver Community College or at Prince George.
I made the decision to increase it at the College of New Caledonia because I was convinced — and, in fact, it has happened — that all the students who graduated from that program not only get jobs very quickly — they have them probably four months before they graduate — but they get them in the region. They are able to work in the region in which they live.
To me it's important, but it's also important, obviously, to the people who are getting that education. It doesn't only work for dental hygienists, but we're doing the same thing, as you know, with teacher training at the Northern Lights College. At the Chetwynd, Fort St. John and Dawson Creek campuses, we have 42 individuals enrolled in that course who will graduate with a teaching degree from SFU, and hopefully — and I believe they will — stay in that area and work.
I think that there is a benefit to the region; there is also a benefit to the whole province. I often use the example of that old song that I used to sing: "How are you going to keep them down on the farm after they've seen Paree?" You may remember that one.
MR. JONES: Before my time.
HON. S. HAGEN: Yes, right. The member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) reminded me that when OLI was started here it was patterned after the system in England, and she made the point that the people in the British Isles needed to get that education. I am reminded that the first education they got was when the Norwegians came down and educated them, but thev needed some more after the Norwegians taught them what they had to know.
Interjections.
HON. S. HAGEN: The point was made that I might be introducing this bill too quickly, that there should be more
[ Page 2958 ]
consultation and that we were trying to rush it. I must admit I was a bit amused by that because this bill has been pretty common knowledge for the year that I've been minister. Certainly the people at Knowledge Network and the people at the colleges and universities have been asking me ever since I got to be minister when it's going to be brought forward.
I think an incredible amount of consultation has taken place, probably for about a year and a half, and people have been waiting for it anxiously so that they can get on with the job of coordinating the delivery of education to the regions. I just can't accept that statement that there hasn't been consultation. I really believe that there has. There has been a tremendous amount of discussion about this bill.
The Leader of the Opposition made a comment on the need for opportunities in the regions outside of the lower mainland, and I was really pleased to hear that. It sounds like there is some recognition coming there that certainly the regions outside of the greater Vancouver and greater Victoria areas are important and deserve to have more equality of access to education than there has been in the past.
He also expressed the concern that this sort of thrust would not take away from the continual addressing that we have to do to the facilities of the existing universities and colleges. I can assure him that that will not happen, that our thrust will continue there. I would remind him that within the last few months we announced a new chem-physics building at UBC, which is a major commitment. We will be continuing to address the needs of the facilities at the universities and colleges and institutes.
He made reference to the number he loves to use of 8,000 students who were turned away from colleges in September. I would remind him that that number he has gotten somewhere is a number that is not supported by the colleges or the registrars. As a matter of fact, I am told by the registrars that the number of students that didn't have access this year is about the same as last year, and it's somewhere between 500 and 700.
The number 8,000 comes up because they're duplicated. They are continually double-registering and triple-registering in not only courses but in institutions, universities and colleges, particularly in the lower mainland. Because of the extra sections we were able to fund in August and September, we were able to address the vast majority of the requests that came to us.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I think I've addressed the issues that were raised on the other side of the House this morning. I move second reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Bill 58, Open Learning Agency Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
[3:00]
HON. MR. ROGERS: Committee on Bill 63, Mr. Speaker.
MOTOR VEHICLE
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1987
The House in committee on Bill 63; Mr. Pelton in the chair.
MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, to expedite the process, I can say that we on this side of the House have no difficulty with sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.
On section 6.
MR. LOVICK: During second reading debate we had some discussion of this, and the minister explained the intent quite carefully and clearly — and the notes he shared with me provided a fairly detailed explanation of the purpose.
What I want to do, however, is ask if I might receive any kind of assurance from the minister that this provision of authority to the superintendent of motor vehicles to unconditionally exempt particular vehicles from specified construction or equipment standards will in fact be used only for the purpose enunciated by the minister earlier — namely, that we're talking strictly about particular modifications to vehicles. Can we have the assurance that that is indeed the only reason for this?
HON. MR. ROGERS: In discussing this with the superintendent of motor vehicles.... There are a number of cases. The one I used the other day in the House, which is the one about exempting transit buses from having locks, is one that met the point. We want to give the superintendent the flexibility for — what shall we call them? — peculiar and oddball vehicles that we, for whatever purposes, may wish to have operating in a limited way in British Columbia. However, at the present time there's a blanket exclusion of them. It is not intended to be anything other than that; that's what the addition is for.
Section 6 approved.
On section 7.
MR. LOVICK: First, a very direct question. When we discussed section 7 last time, we had some discussion regarding the black box, which sounds very ominous. I recall that the minister had a very good answer to explain that, and suggested that one needn't have any fears. A point that the minister made in the course of that debate was simply that he would check into the possibility of this provision applying to private vehicles. That was not the intention, and perhaps an amendment would be in order. I wonder if the minister can tell us if that has indeed happened.
HON. MR. ROGERS: I have checked into it, and it is only to cover vehicles for hire. Private vehicles for hire — and there are some occasions when a specialty private vehicle goes out for hire.... I personally own a 1929 Ford, and occasionally people want to use it for weddings; it's a lot cheaper than hiring a Cadillac. I just let them use it on my insurance. But some people who have that kind of vehicle occasionally get special coverage. We now have the ability to make regulations pertaining to those things. After all, that's not a very nice day to have a tragedy.
That's what it's about, in terms of the regulatory-making powers; it has nothing to do with the great black box being put in the private motor vehicle. That's been tried in some countries, by the way.
[ Page 2959 ]
Just a little bit off the thing, in Switzerland they now have these photo-radar setups so regularly that nobody exceeds the speed limit anywhere. I suppose that works well in Switzerland; I'm not quite sure that we have the same temperament here.
MR. LOVICK: Just if I might, a couple of questions, again searching for some specific information. I am looking at the existing Motor Vehicle Act and the amendments to it, and I am trying to understand and determine where section 7 either fits into the existing Motor Vehicle Act or complements it. I'm wondering if the minister could answer that for me.
HON. MR. ROGERS: I might need legislative counsel for this. It really provides the authority for regulatory powers, new safety measures, fitness of vehicles and drivers, regulating the hours drivers may operate, and inspection requirements of owners, drivers, vehicles and private for-hire carriers. In some instances drivers were driving for excessive lengths of time, and there was no method for us to check it. It's a new section of the act, section 211.3; it's just to give the superintendent that power to go into these little areas that we've missed before.
MR. LOVICK: My apologies to the minister. As a matter of fact, I see now that that was obvious if I had looked a little more closely. This is 211.3, then, and 211.1 and 211.2 are still there.
The other temptation I have, of course, talking about section 7, given that this is about testing.... I'm referring to (4)(b), where the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations concerning "promoting and securing road safety...prohibiting the use on highways of any motor vehicle falling within a prescribed class of motor vehicle unless the owner or other prescribed person having use or possession of the vehicle holds in respect of it a subsisting safety certificate issued by the superintendent...." Obviously that opens the door to a whole range of motor vehicle safety inspections: testing facilities again.
As I say, what I'd like to do to begin with is see if I can just get from the minister, for clarification's sake, whether it is the case that the Premier has said recently that he anticipates the return of a testing program — that this kind of legislation is planned. Is that the case?
HON. MR. ROGERS: We are examining a number of options in terms of motor vehicle testing. That's out of order, but I'm answering your question, since the Chairman allowed it. I would also tell you, out of order, that we do not require legislation to do that; we can do that within the existing legislation.
This particular legislation deals only with those commercial vehicles. So the debate that you may wish to have about the necessity or lack of necessity for motor vehicle testing should best be in the estimates of the minister or in the throne speech or in the budget speech, but not in committee at this stage, which really just broadens it for that. I don't need to coach you on that issue, but it's my old habit from being the Deputy Speaker for too long. That's what this section deals with, and nothing else, and there is no legislative requirement for doing that.
MR. LOVICK: Well, I had no idea the minister was capable of that rather schoolmarmish approach to things. How intriguing! It seems clear to me that we could indeed have a debate apropos of just this subject, Mr. Chairman, because clearly section 211.3(4)(b) talks about testing, and therefore we could go crazy with that. I don't intend to do so.
Instead, what I want to do, for the record, is to make just a brief comment. Given this fascination with the wonders of privatization and the private sector's capacity to perform things more efficiently and more cheaply, I'm wondering if the minister would have ever considered entertaining an amendment of some kind whereby we suggest that we should reintroduce compulsory motor vehicle testing by the private sector, but this time we'll make it, say, $4.50 per visit as opposed to $5 — given, of course, that the private sector could do so more cheaply and effectively, as we know. But I won't do that, Mr. Chairman, because clearly that's facetious. Instead, I'll let my colleague the member for Prince Rupert speak.
MR. MILLER: With reference to the minister's remarks about the Swiss, I've been trying to find some holes in your argument but I haven't been able to.
I'll try not to be too testy in my questions, but testing. My question relates to an issue that I had done some research on when I was a critic of Transportation and Highways, and that's the general concern that has been expressed with regard to the whole safety area in trucking, as a result of the moves to deregulate the trucking industry. I suppose the free trade deal doesn't really impact on that. If Canada proceeds with C-18 and C-19, we will see a deregulated industry, and if the minister honours the commitment of the previous holder of that office, we will see an all-party committee examine deregulation prior to its introduction in legislation in British Columbia.
But as part of the federal parliamentary committee hearings on deregulation, one of the issues they examined was safety, and there were various announcements — I believe it was January '88 — that there would be a comprehensive safety program in place in Canada to deal with those concerns. Is this bill purporting to deal with that?
Secondly, although the bill allows for certain things to be done, it does not in fact say that they will be done. It simply allows for them to be done, and we don't know exactly when they will be done. Could the minister perhaps advise the House of what's happening with respect to that announcement that was supposed to be made in January '88, in terms of an overall Canadian program that the provinces all fit into? Secondly, when does he see the provisions in Bill 63 being turned into actual regulations that will be applied in the industry?
HON. MR. ROGERS: This bill brings into effect in British Columbia the changes to the National Safety Code as it handles commercial vehicle transport, so this would go hand in glove with the points you made.
The regulations and when they would be in place: early next year some time. I can't give you a specific answer on that, but I'm told by the superintendent of motor vehicles that there shouldn't be any delay. There is no question that when you have a deregulated industry, people who have always been convinced that the industry was one where it was easy to make money often go into that industry, sometimes not with the newest equipment, and once they find out that most
[ Page 2960 ]
businesses are difficult and require a lot of diligent work, they start to skimp on things. If you're going to have a deregulated industry, let's at least make sure that they can compete in the marketplace but that they will also compete on a level playing-field — which means they will all meet the same safety requirements — and that safety won't be the padding in th balance sheet. That's what we want to do.
We want to make sure this happens nationally, especially for vehicles coming from other provinces into British Columbia. Under a deregulated scheme, we will be getting more vehicles traveling on the Trans-Canada Highway and other highways in the province. I don't want to be derogatory about the flatness of Saskatchewan, but some of the hills in British Columbia do require a better braking system than they have in the province of Saskatchewan. We would like to make sure that all the commercial vehicles that operate in this province meet the same safety standard that's imposed across Canada, and for that purpose the National Safety Code has been brought into place.
I believe that answers the member's questions.
MR. MILLER: Just very briefly, then, to confirm that you expect that some time early next year the regulations will be put into place.... Although the two jurisdictions of British Columbia and California are not exactly comparable, it's interesting to note that California, in terms of its experience in deregulation, is now looking very closely at reregulating, because of those problems it encountered, particularly in safety. So I would urge the minister to exercise some diligence in getting those things into place.
HON. MR. ROGERS: Just to follow along on that, you're right about California, but what they found was that it was a different set of players that was causing the problem, and some of the old-line players who had been protected by some of the regulations had gone out of the business, and some of the new players had been the ones who had forced them out by running a better class of service. So in some cases it works.
My only concern in the whole matter is: level playingfield, mandatory safety inspection. How they run their business, and how they work with their competitors and their customers and their supplies, isn't my problem. My problem — in terms of this section of the act, anyway — is the safety of the vehicles.
[3:15]
MR. LOVICK: Again, just to clarify, I take it from what the minister said during second reading debate, plus his comments here, that he still draws the distinction between the commercial sector and the private sector in terms of testing. That's your own position, is it not?
HON. MR. ROGERS: This particular thing is to deal with commercial vehicle safety testing. At the same time, the Cabinet Committee on Traffic Safety is looking at the whole realm of traffic safety and traffic safety problems. The unsafe vehicle is one of the least important problems in the whole vehicle safety thing; alcohol and drugs are the number one problem, which we'll debate another time. If you want to make a move to reduce the carnage on the highways, the most important move is not to check everybody's lights and licence plates; it's to check the person behind the wheel, not the one in front of it.
MR. LOVICK: And following right along from that observation, of course, is to also maintain control of the liquor distribution system and accept the recommendations of the Jansen committee, rather than take a different track.
Having said that, I would just point out that my colleagues and I do not have any difficulty beyond what we have enunciated thus far with section 7, and section 8 is consequential amendments. Therefore we are prepared to cease our comment on this particular measure and to say to the government that we think the intention of this legislation is good and we're supportive of it.
Sections 7 to 11 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
HON. MR. ROGERS: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Bill 63, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 1987, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call report on Bill 59.
MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 4), 1987
Bill 59 read a third time and passed.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call third reading on Bill 5 1.
MINERAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1987
Bill 51 read a third time and passed.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: I ask leave to go to committee on Bill 61.
Leave granted.
SOFFWOOD LUMBER PRODUCTS
EXPORT CHARGE COMPENSATION ACT
The House in committee on Bill 61; Mr. Pelton in the chair.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
MR. MILLER: I have a couple of questions arising out of section 2. Noting that unfortunately we're waiting for the U.S. lumber producers to give approval to our forest policy, perhaps the minister might like to briefly give us a report on the situation with regard to those negotiations or discussions.
With regard to section 2, perhaps the minister could explain the significance of the January 15 date as the first date the province may receive funds. Does that mean that no refunds will be granted until that date?
[ Page 2961 ]
Third, in terms of the refund program retroactivity: although I would assume from my reading of the bill it's November 1, I don't see in the bill where it specifically states that. If the minister could respond to those three questions.
HON. MR. PARKER: Within the hour, I have been discussing the state of negotiations between Canada and the U.S. on the amending appendix to the memorandum of understanding on behalf of British Columbia. I am advised that discussions are still underway in Washington, and I cannot report anything further than that.
Moving on to the question on the dates stated in section 2(l), January 15 is the earliest date that we could expect transfer payment from the federal government on wood exported from November 1 on. That's the purpose of stating that particular date. It ties into.... If we go back to section 1, Interpretation,"federal Act" refers to the Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act...and the time required for funds to flow through. "Explanatory notes" on the facing page tries to explain that. I hope I addressed the question of the member for Prince Rupert.
MR. MILLER: Further to my questions, in terms of the application of the new British Columbia stumpage system applied on October 1, if I'm not mistaken. Is there a period of time between October 1 and November 1 when producers would have paid the 15 percent and will not be rebated for it, or is it a fact that their payments were due on November 1 or after? If the minister could clarify that point.
HON. MR. PARKER: The liability accrued for stumpage payable during the month of October is not refundable under this agreement. The discussions with the licensees and the exporters delayed our arrangements, and when we were able to get together with the Canadian and American representatives, the earliest date we could get into effect was November 1. That's the one we've stood fast upon in our negotiations.
MR. MILLER: Could the minister advise what amount he is talking about? Or how much revenue, or double payment, if you like, did the producers shell out for the month of October — which under the bill becomes provincial revenue? It's a double whammy for the month of October, and we're talking, I guess, a considerable amount of money. What is it, $25 million or more? Perhaps the minister could advise me of what amount of revenue the province will keep as a result of not applying this compensation rebate until November 1.
HON. MR. PARKER: I am unable to provide that information in specifics. I may not be able to do that until next month, the reason being that the shipments were curtailed by industry in that period of time. So we couldn't extrapolate from the average shipments, because of the.... The reason they did that, of course, was to avoid the impact of a double whammy, so to speak — double taxation. Just to give an approximation, it's probably in the neighbourhood of $20 million. And yes, it does accrue to the province. It will wind up in general revenue.
Wood that is actually scaled during the month of October is reported on a scale return early in November. This is standard procedure every month. On or before the tenth day of the following month the scale return has to be submitted to the Forest Service. It's then processed, and the billings normally go out within two weeks. barring any unforeseen difficulties. They generally arrive in the licensees' hands a week or ten days later. depending on mail service, and go into their payables system. That would make December.... So just about now things would be processed through the various treasury branches of the licensees, probably paid during January and probably received by us by the end of January or early February. So that's the way it flows through. They have to accrue for that. So it is booked as a liability, but cash-out hasn't occurred yet.
MR. MILLER: I am amazed, and I suppose I should say I'm pleased, that from an industry that was really howling about stumpage — "We didn't want it increased, and these charges are onerous: we certainly went through some tough times" — there's been verv little reaction or complaining about the new stumpage formula, or even about this little scoop of $20 million for the month of October. I suppose that's good news for the province. It must mean the industry is healthy and able to pay these additional revenues that the minister is requiring of them.
[3:30]
HON. MR. PARKER: Do you want to see my scars?
MR. MILLER: Well, no. I've talked to some industry representatives, and they haven't complained to me, so I assume they have no complaints. Okay, we can pass on this. We'll get onto the next section.
Section 2 approved.
On section 3.
MR. MILLER: Just with respect to the authentication of the export charge payments. does the minister anticipate any difficulty in approving those? Are the forest companies submitting authentication? Does the ministry feel they will be able to monitor that in a successful manner so that there are no extra payments by the province? I understand from some of the readings I've done that it's a very complex system in terms of lumber producers selling to exporters, sometimes for.... You know, you're sending it to the Prairies. You're getting mixes of various dimensions. In fact, I think one of the northern writers claimed that anybody who wasn't sophisticated in his computerization would have a great deal of difficulty tracking production that did go across the border. Does the minister anticipate any difficulties that either the ministry or the producers may have in complying with this authentication provision?
HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, the member for Prince Rupert is correct: it is a very involved, complicated process. We don't anticipate any problems, but should we have problems, the act addresses how we address that situation.
MR. MILLER: Two questions then in terms of that authentication. You will simply receive the prescribed forms and so on from exporters, and then make the payments accordingly? You have no plans then to, for example, do some spot audits just to make sure that you're not paying out where you shouldn't be?
[ Page 2962 ]
Secondly, with regard to the rebate, as the minister indicated earlier, we're talking about a considerable value per month that accrues as a result of the 15 percent. Will interest payments be added to the rebate compensation payments to exporters?
HON. MR. PARKER: In reply to the member's concerns, there will be spot audits, and the documentation will be verified. The process is established.
Old age is setting in; I've forgotten your second question.
MR. MILLER: Interest.
HON. MR. PARKER: Interest will be accrued from the time that the moneys are transferred into British Columbia treasury from the federal government. Once we have the money, then interest will accrue to the exporter of record. Once we are holding the money on behalf of the exporter, we will pay interest on that money to the exporter.
MR. MILLER: You're going to get money after January 15, and I don't know if it's going to be a lump sum transfer. Does the federal government transfer in that manner? Perhaps the minister could elaborate on that. That money would then be deposited, and interest would accrue on it.
My question is: would interest be payable to producers claiming rebates for the period of time preceding, from November 1 until January 15 or January 30, or whenever you're in a position to fully implement the program? You're obviously going to accrue interest on whatever money you've got in the bank that you get from the feds. Are you going to pay these guys interest for the money that they've shelled out?
HON. MR. PARKER: We're not accumulating any interest on payments due from the federal government. Once we have the cash in our hands, collectively speaking for British Columbia, then interest will accrue and be payable to the exporter who is seeking the refund.
Section 3 approved.
On section 4.
MR. MILLER: On the adjustment, obviously the director has the power to change. I would think that would be required in terms of the process we talked about in section 3 — auditing and making sure that all the billings are correct.
If it's reduced, and the overpayment is a debt due and owing back to the Crown, is the money that would be paid back as a result put back into the fund? Or would that be money paid into general revenue?
HON. MR. PARKER: The moneys would be repaid to the fund because it was the fund that disbursed the amount. As we will learn in later sections, any surpluses in the fund will accrue to general revenue.
MR. MILLER: Another question. Perhaps I should have asked it earlier. I realize that this is a finance bill, and yet you're dealing with it in the absence of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) because it does deal directly with the activities of your ministry. Is it the Finance ministry that will be doing the basic work with regard to the application of the bill, or your ministry? How is that relationship going to work between the two ministries?
There have been comments made by people I've talked to in the industry — in fact, with some annoyance, since they see that the Finance ministry seems to be more and more involved in considerations in the forest industry with respect to gaining revenue in other areas. There are complaints that the Finance ministry seems to be taking over.
Is there conflict there? Are the Finance ministry officials going to be dealing with this question, checking with forestry officials to see if they're doing the right job, or is it viceversa?
HON. MR. PARKER: This act and the regulations arising out of it will be administered by the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations. The reason for that is the nature of the transaction between the province of British Columbia and the federal government in the matter of softwood lumber charges.
MR. MILLER: So really, in terms of judgments about payments, payouts, rebates, paybacks and all the rest of it, it's the judgment of the Ministry of Forests that is paramount. You can see that, where you're dealing with two ministries, it's conceivable that producers could be confused. Where do they go? The Ministry of Finance? Are you the last word?
HON. MR. PARKER: Just like at home, no, I'm not. Money is paid out by the exporters of record. It is generally paid by cheque or bank draft, made payable to the receiver general of Canada, and because the payment is made to the receiver-general of Canada, the documentation is done on federal forms. Copies of that documentation are acquired by the provincial Ministry of Finance, and that's the means of determining the refund due the individuals — the exporters of record.
So the transactions are basically between the receivergeneral of Canada and the Minister of Finance at British Columbia, so the person that has to exercise final judgment is the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Finance is free to consult with whichever ministry he sees fit, and certainly he'll be consulting with Forests and Lands should he need any information from us on these matters.
Sections 4 and 5 approved.
On section 6.
MR. MILLER: Again, it brings into question the relationship between the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Finance. You might have a lot of people beating on your door, Mr. Minister, wanting you to go to the Minister of Finance, who doesn't understand the forest industry, and I'm not certain that that's the best situation.
With regard to the fund, of course, surplus amounts in the fund can be paid into general revenue. My question is basically the same. Is that a decision that you would make, or is that a decision really that the Finance ministry is going to make?
HON. MR. PARKER: The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council would make those decisions. The tax is a tax charged
[ Page 2963 ]
on commodities being sold into the United States. It's a tax matter, so it's best handled by the Ministry of Finance.
MR. MILLER: Would the minister advise, not in complex detail, what kind of rationale you're going to use? Is it that the fund has to be maintained at a certain level? Do you anticipate that this would ever happen? Presumably things would balance out. The amount of double taxation, if you like, of producers, because of the new stumpage and the 15 percent, would be completely offset. In other words, you would eventually arrive at a zero or a balance in terms of one offsetting the other. Can the minister foresee where that fund would grow to such an extent that you'd have to cream money off and put it into general revenue?
HON. MR. PARKER: Section 6 is a contingency plan.
Should we have to move at all on the implementation date, away from November 1, then the funds we would have received would be surplus to those that are rebatable or refundable. For example, if the implementation date moved from November 1 to November 15, then the export tax paid between the 1st and the 15th would not be refundable; however, because it would be transferred on or after January 15, it would be accruing in the fund. It would eventually, after all claims were settled, be determined to be a surplus and most likely return to general revenue.
[3:45]
MR. MILLER: Does this not bring up another point? It unfortunately relates back to a previous section. You've already said that you are taking the month of October, and now, quite possibly, you could be taking two weeks in November and retaining that for the Crown as opposed to rebating it back to producers. So now, we're up from $20 million, which was the minister's estimate, it may be $25 million a month, and we could be looking at the Crown in fact scooping $30 or $35 million. Is there some assurance? Why would there be some problem, if you like, in terms of the implementation date? If it's clearly spelled out that it's November 1, why would you then say it might not be until the 15th?
HON. MR. PARKER: The negotiations are still underway, and one of the items being negotiated is the date of implementation. Our stand in British Columbia is November 1, but what the outcome of those negotiations are I have no way of knowing yet. As I said previously, I was on the phone earlier this afternoon to learn that our representatives were still in discussions in Washington.
MR. MILLER: The minister has announced a new policy that, among other things, contains means of getting new revenue out of the forest industry, specifically to satisfy the U.S. lumber lobby that was successful in getting.... Canada, as a last-minute resort to save revenue going out of Canada, put on a 15 percent export tax. They are, I suppose, either going to approve or disapprove of, or possibly suggest amendments to, the policy, but why would that make any difference once they've agreed? Are you suggesting that they would have the power to prevent British Columbia from deciding when we would compensate producers for double taxation? Could they conceivably say: "No, we're not going to let you do it until December 15"? Is that what the minister is saying?
HON. MR. PARKER: What's arguable in the negotiations is, at what point in time do our forest policies kick in as full replacement for the softwood lumber tax? That's what is in negotiation and that's how the implementation date can be impacted. It can be a date other than November 1. It is something that is negotiable under the memorandum of understanding.
MR. MILLER: So it's not simply a question of whether or not they're satisfied with the measures you're proposing to increase stumpage rates in British Columbia. They also have the authority to decide in their opinion when that becomes.... I don't quite follow, because if they agree it's a replacement measure. what has time got to do with it? Once it's implemented. what's the difference between November 1, November 15 and any other day after its implementation? It's either a replacement program or it's not. So why could they force an additional period of time of double taxation on B.C. producers? I don't quite follow that. Surely that's a cause for concern in terms of a Canadian province's ri-ht to make some sovereign decisions about their forest policy.
HON. MR. PARKER: The memorandum of understanding provides that neither party can make a unilateral move. So because it's an aereement between Canada and the United States, you meet with your counterpart and discuss the items of concern. One of the items of concern is whether or not our policy is full replacement for the softwood lumber tax. Another item of concern is: when does it truly impact as a replacement? That then becomes the implementation date. We are saying, effectively, November 1.
Section 6 approved.
On section 7.
MR. MILLER: With regard to the $1 million appropriation for administrative expenses. wouldthat laterbe deducted from the moneys paid by Canada to British Columbia? Eventually it all ends up in the bag if moneys from the fund go into general revenue. But that's an appropriation now from general revenue, or it will be when it's taken. That's number one.
The section mentions refunding moneys paid in error by Canada to the province. I don't quite follow how that could happen. Are there any instances to date where Canada has paid moneys in error to British Columbia?
HON. MR. PARKER: This provides for some contingency planning. If for some reason we get some overpayment from the federal government on some account, it has to be reimbursed to the federal government. It has to be paid back, and we have to be in a position to do that. So this million dollars will be in there at the proclamation of this act to provide for dealing with those kinds of contingencies. Once the matter has been settled — we have replacement and all accounts settled — that, along with any other surpluses, will be returned to general revenue.
MR. MILLER: I congratulate the minister for being prudent. Has that occurred to date? How Iona now have we had the 15 percent being rebated by Canada in place? Have they overpaid at any point? Have there been those kinds of administrative problems?
[ Page 2964 ]
Obviously, I would think, even without the authority of this bill — if, for example, as you originally wanted, not to implement a new stumpage system but to rather continue to receive the 15 percent from the federal government — there would still be provision if they overpaid. I don't know why it specifically has to come in here, and really my question is: has it happened to date? Since the 15 percent has been implemented and Canada has been paying moneys to British Columbia, have those kinds of administrative problems occurred?
HON. MR. PARKER: To the best of my knowledge they haven't, but I think Murphy's law is as applicable to the Ministry of Finance as to anybody else. Like I say, this is contingency planning just to make sure we're covered.
Section 7 approved.
On section 8.
MR. MILLER: I have a quick question in terms of the regulations, and it may be just something the minister wants to explain. The regulations say: "define the extent of compensation to be made available to members of categories of persons." Why would there be a provision to define the extent if, presumably, those people now paying the 15 percent will have higher costs as a result of the new stumpage formula that is, in fact, comparable to the 15 percent? Why would there be different categories? Does that involve different kinds of producers? Maybe if the minister would just explain, it would be sufficient.
HON. MR. PARKER: There has to be some flexibility here — and that's what the regulations provide for — to deal with the outcome of the negotiations with the U.S. I'm not clear on the intent of your last question. Could you run that by me again, please?
MR. MILLER: The regulations may define the extent of compensation to be made available to members of categories of persons. What I wanted the minister to do was explain what that meant in practical terms: why, for example, are there different levels of compensation, and what members of categories of persons does the minister really refer to in this section?
HON. MR. PARKER: It's a means for providing for remanufacturers as well as primary producers.
Sections 8 and 9 approved.
Title approved.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister, members, moves the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Bill 61, Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Compensation Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: It has been an expeditious day, Mr. Speaker — good progress. Accordingly, I move the House do now adjourn.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 3:55 p.m.