[ Page 3047 ]
Routine Proceedings
Filing Documents –– 3047
Motions Without Notice –– 3047
Family Maintenance Enforcement Act (Bill 71). Hon. B.R. Smith
Introduction and first reading –– 3047
Guaranteed Available Income for Need Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 72). Hon. Mr. Richmond
Introduction and first reading –– 3049
Presenting Reports –– 3049
Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 5), 1987 (Bill 68). Committee stage.
(Hon. B.R. Smith) –– 3050
Third reading
Forest Amendment Act (No. 2), 1987 (Bill 70). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Parker) –– 3050
Mr. Rose
Mr. Miller
Mr. Williams
Tabling Documents –– 3055
Royal assent to bills –– 3055
The House met at 10:10 a.m.
Prayers.
HON. MR. REID: I'd like to introduce to the House today a very special friend of mine. It's Mrs. Santa Claus, Mrs. Louise Pelton, who's up in the audience.
HON. S. HAGEN: It gives me great pleasure this morning to introduce to you, from the great riding of Comox, the president of the Social Credit riding association, Joyce Fournier. Please make her welcome.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: In the precincts today and I hope in the gallery are some grade 11 students from Mount Douglas Senior Secondary School in Victoria, and I would like the House to make them and their teacher very welcome.
HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I file the public accounts for B.C. for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1987, in accordance with section 8 of the Financial Administration Act, and I refer that report to the Public Accounts Committee.
Motion approved.
HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I am requesting leave of the House to move two motions without notice.
Leave granted.
Motions Without Notice
HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I move that this House authorize the Select Standing Committee on Finance, Crown Corporations and Government Services to examine, inquire into and make recommendations on the matter of replacing industrial property taxes presently imposed under the Municipal Act and the Taxation (Rural Area) Act, with a single tax at a uniform rate, the proceeds of which would be distributed to local government, and in particular to consider: (1) the nature of industrial property to be included in such a tax, (2) the basis for the assessment of such property, (3) the appropriate level of taxation, and (4) the basis for distributing the proceeds of the industrial property tax to local government; and to report to the House as soon as possible or, following any adjournment, at the next following session, as the case may be.
In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the said committee by the House, the committee shall have the following additional powers: to appoint of their number one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the committee; to sit during any period in which the House is adjourned, is prorogued and during any sitting of the House, and to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and to retain consultants as required to advise the committee generally and during its deliberations.
[10:15]
Motion approved.
HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I move that this House authorize the Select Standing Committee on Finance, Crown Corporations and Government Services to examine, inquire into and make recommendations with respect to the regulation of the financial planning and advisory industry and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, to consider: (1) the desirability of a regulatory regime to regulate the financial planning and advisory industry; (2) the objectives which regulation of the industry should attempt to accomplish, and the principles upon which regulation could be established; (3) the policy considerations inherent in regulating this industry; and (4) alternative approaches which could be used to design a regulatory regime; and to report to the House as soon as possible or following any adjournment or at the next following session, as the case may be.
In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the said committee by the House, the committee shall have the following additional powers, namely: to appoint of their number one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the committee; and to sit during any period in which the House is adjourned, is prorogued and during any sitting of the House; to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and to retain consultants as required to advise the committee generally and during its deliberations.
Motion approved.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, in the matter of the last two motions put forward by the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations, I want to advise Your Honour that I may, in conjunction with the opposition House Leader, be rising later today under standing order 69(2) to substitute names for the members of the committees so mentioned by the Minister of Finance. This is simply a courtesy announcement at this point, to advise members of the Legislative Assembly that the government is not at all opposed to another list of names that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition may wish to put forward with respect to these committees.
Further, on another note, Mr. Speaker, I have a letter here regarding the legislative dining room. It says, in part: "This is your last chance to invite your friends and family to the members' dining room." This sounds awfully terminal. I presume the members' dining room will be open in 1988 — will it? I had a concern there.
Introduction of Bills
FAMILY MAINTENANCE ENFORCEMENT ACT
Hon. B.R. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Family Maintenance Enforcement Act.
HON. B.R. SMITH: Mr. Speaker. I know that my pleasure will be shared by members opposite, in that we have long awaited the stage when we could introduce the family maintenance enforcement bill. This bill is being introduced today as an exposure bill, so that all members and the public will have a chance to study its proposed operation. When we return here in the new year, it will be one of the government's first and major priorities to pass.
We are very anxious to have a fully automated system of maintenance enforcement operative in British Columbia as
[ Page 3048 ]
early as the summer of 1988, with the startup, and to have it fully operative throughout the whole province. My colleague the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) will be introducing the tandem piece of legislation subrogating the rights of income recipients.
Mr. Speaker, the government is very aware of the emotional and financial problems faced by single parents who are unable to enforce spousal maintenance or child support orders. It is estimated that there are about 89,000 people in British Columbia who are single parents: of those 89,000, about 34,000 are on income assistance. Of those 34,000, only 35 percent have maintenance orders. Many have not bothered to have maintenance orders; many have given up because of the cumbersome process of enforcing them, and the cost and the delays. The vast majority of those who have orders are unpaid as well; more than 50 percent of those who have orders are not receiving up-to-date payment, or those orders are in arrears.
While enforcement remedies are currently available through the courts, these remedies are frequently expensive, time-consuming and ineffectual. If a former spouse wants to be difficult, he or she can readily frustrate enforcement efforts. Moreover, single parents trying to raise their children are often too intimidated by the process in the court system to take the necessary action. They do not have the necessary support system to do this, or they lack the financial and emotional resources to do so. So the result is that they are forced into social assistance, while their ex-spouses ignore their financial responsibilities.
This bill will go a long way towards redressing these shortcomings: firstly, by consolidating and streamlining existing enforcement legislation into a new and separate statute; secondly and perhaps most importantly, by introducing new administrative enforcement remedies; and thirdly, by government's commitment to introduce a comprehensive, provincewide maintenance enforcement program under the authority of the bill.
The major provisions of Bill 71 are that it will provide for the efficient and effective enforcement of maintenance orders, regardless of whether an applicant chooses to participate in the program, by streamlining the procedures for garnishment and reducing the need for court hearings wherever possible. So the thrust will be to try to keep it out of court, try to go directly by notices of attachment — signed by a director who will be a public servant — to the employer, and try to access far more sources of income and indebtedness than we've ever been able to access before. Because now, once the new federal data bank legislation is passed in the House of Commons, we'll be able to access federal Crown corporations, federal government payments, and income tax refunds eventually as well. And it will be a....
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Does the minister have leave to continue? You've exceeded the normal period of time for this bill.
MR. ROSE: I know it's a very important topic, and I think it's timely. In the spirit of charity and the Christmas season, I would be pleased to grant unanimous consent for the minister to continue his second reading speech.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: In response to that generous statement by the member opposite, I would suggest we treat the rest of the minister's statement as a ministerial statement and therefore allow the critic to respond, if she wishes.
MR. ROSE: We would certainly accept that very generous offer of this gift from the government House Leader, and I will have my colleague primed to take a rebuttal. I would just like to say in passing that I enjoy the minister in his new role as a TV actor, but I don't think, in his commercials, that he really outshone Raymond Burr.
HON. B.R. SMITH: One of the benefits of free trade will be that Raymond's dulcet doomsday tones will be more available to us.
I will just very briefly outline the major provisions of this bill. It will empower the director of maintenance to monitor and enforce enrolled orders and to use a new administrative remedy called notice of attachment, which will be much broader and more flexible and far-reaching than the old garnishee provision, which is always tied up with lawyers as well. It continues to provide for the capacity to access information on the whereabouts, employment and assets of the respondent for the purposes of enforcement, and it ensures the respondent's disclosure of financial information — which I can assure you will be compelled under the bill — again for the purposes of proceeding with appropriate enforcement remedies.
The new program to be established will be available to all people who have maintenance orders if they choose to register. Orders will be monitored and, where necessary, enforcement action will be taken by the program on behalf of the client. The program — and this is most important, because this makes our scheme stand out over the other provinces — will provide lawyers to enforce orders through the courts where administrative procedures are not successful for single parents.
Unlike the programs operating in other provinces, we will provide legal assistance to low-income participants to respond to applications to vary orders brought on by respondents.
In closing, I would say that it is our aim to place the responsibility for family maintenance where it belongs — on the separated spouse. For too long those responsibilities have been shirked. I commend this bill to your consideration and urge its speedy passage as an exposure bill.
I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
Motion approved.
MR. SPEAKER: By agreement, the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam.
MR. CASHORE: I wish to thank the government for bringing forward this legislation and to say that one very important point that all of us must recognize as we consider this issue is that it is not a women's issue. It's an issue that involves all of us; it's a social issue. Therefore I appreciate being able to speak on this with permission of my colleague the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Marzari).
My seatmate, the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno), who is a family lawyer, whispered in my ear that he very much welcomes this and some of the points the Attorney-General has made with regard to this legislation — that it's going to be streamlined, that it's going to be more readily available.
[ Page 3049 ]
One of the things that I very much welcome is that it is going to make resources available not only to those people on income assistance but also to those people who would not have the availability of certain services by not quite qualifying for that program. Therefore we look forward to the substance of the legislation when we have an opportunity to go over it in detail.
I am very pleased to hear that legal assistance is going to be provided, and I also look forward to the concomitant legislation that has been mentioned during the comments of the Attomey-General with regard to the Ministry of Social Services and Housing.
Bill 71 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.
GUARANTEED AVAILABLE INCOME
FOR NEED AMENDMENT ACT, 1987
Hon. Mr. Richmond presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Guaranteed Available Income for Need Amendment Act, 1987.
HON. MR. RICHMOND: In introducing this bill which, as the Attorney-General said, is a companion piece of legislation to his bill, I just want to make a few very brief remarks in case there is a point or two that the Attorney-General did not cover.
This bill deals with those who are on GAIN, or Guaranteed Available Income for Need, and the three main purposes of the bill are as follows. First, to permit the Crown to obtain maintenance for income assistance recipients and to obtain reimbursement for income assistance paid when a maintenance order is in arrears. This is to ensure that family breakdown does not impoverish single parents or place an excessive burden on public funds. Secondly, to relieve single parents on income assistance of the struggle to secure financial support for their families. Thirdly, to promote the financial independence of single parents by ensuring that they receive adequate, regularly paid maintenance orders.
One of the main features of this act is: where income assistance is paid to a person with a right to maintenance, that right is transferred to the Crown and the Crown may take action to secure adequate support for that person from the responsible party.
This is a piece of legislation that I think is due, and I am very pleased to move that it be introduced and read a first time now.
Bill 72 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.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave for the Select Standing Committee on Forests and Lands to meet for the purposes of organization later today while the House is sitting.
Leave granted.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Further, Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave for the Select Standing Committee on Labour, Justice and Intergovernmental Relations to sit later today, again for the purposes of organization.
Leave granted.
[10:30]
Presenting Reports
Ms. Marzari, Chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, presented the committee's second report, which was taken as read and received.
MS. MARZARI: Mr. Speaker, by leave I move that the rules be suspended and the report adopted.
Leave granted.
MS. MARZARI: In presenting this report at the end of the year, as it is — although not the end of this session — I would like to draw attention to the work that the committee has done, most particularly the excellent work that the committee's Clerk has done. As you know, it's the first year that this committee has had clerical assistance. I must extend the committee's and the House's appreciation for the excellent job that Mr. Craig James has performed for this committee at this point.
I would also like to draw attention to the very professional presence that our acting auditor-general has given this committee over the course of the year. Mr. Robert Hayward attended all the meetings of the committee. He presented the previous auditor-general's report, with many excellent presentations. In doing so, I think he built upon his predecessor's reputation and professionalism, and gave our committee strong insight into and a strong definition of the appropriate professional role for the auditor-general to play in the process of presenting reports through the committee to the House. I would like this House to extend its appreciation to Mr. Robert Hayward for a job well done.
I should also comment on the professionalism and the due diligence and care of the reporting of the civil service. I report here on the excellent work done by Mr. Brian Marson and his staff, and in fact by all the witnesses that appeared before the committee in the course of its doing its duties. They did an excellent job of presentation and dealt with what I hope are incisive questions with care and great competence.
I should also draw attention to the excellent work in stewarding and helping to steer the committee done by Mr. Jim Hewitt, who has recently retired from this House. I would like to welcome to the committee the second member for Langley (Mr. Peterson) as the new Deputy Chair, which we decided this morning.
Mr. Speaker, in presenting this report, I feel rather proud of it. I feel that the committee has accomplished something — although minimal — in the business of providing this House with a window on how our system is operating. I'd like to see in the future, as this committee continues its work, an intensification and an increased sophistication in the accountability patterns inside our system, so that the committee itself will be operating as partners with the auditor-general, the comptroller-general and in fact our whole civil service, to ensure that the House is properly served and that our services are properly and financially accountable to the House.
I have some recommendations along that line. I hope that in the next year this committee might be allowed to meet
[ Page 3050 ]
outside the House being in session, and that it might be permitted to meet during the course of the year and call proper investigations, call witnesses and prepare more elaborate and even better reports than the one I'm putting on the floor this year. Mr. Speaker, I'm sure this is something that we will have ample opportunity to discuss in the coming months.
I present the report as read today.
HON. MR. VEITCH: I want to echo the sentiments and compliments of the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. The acting auditor-general has done yeoman service for the province of British Columbia, and he has carried on in the fine tradition that was left by Erma Erma Morrison.
Along with the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, I want to also thank the former first member for Boundary-Similkameen, Mr. Hewitt, for the wonderful work that he's done. Mr. Hewitt and I were respectively chairman and secretary of the original committee that adopted the first auditor-general for the province, and he has done a very good job. I want to tell the second member for Langley (Mr. Peterson) that he also has a good pair of shoes to fill.
But again, I want to compliment the Chairman of the committee for the good work that she has done. I remember when, just a couple of short years ago, we spent two weeks discussing the price of pizza in jails. We've progressed in quantum leaps since then, and we're doing some interesting work on behalf of the people of the province. I echo the sentiments, and let's hope that we can continue in the harmony and good work that we have in the past.
Motion approved.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: By leave, Mr. Speaker, I move that the proceedings in regard to the third reading of Bill 68, intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 5), 1987, be declared null and void, and that the bill be recommitted forthwith with respect to section 51.
Leave granted.
MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 5), 1987
House in committee on Bill 68; Mr. Pelton in the chair.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, the Journals will show that in debate stage of Bill 68, the Legislative Assembly defeated section 2, which dealt with the Child Paternity and Support Act. Regrettably, we did not notice that section 51 also dealt with the same matter and therefore should have been defeated as well. So I would ask now that we go to section 51, as the motion by leave has indicated, and if you could call that section we will deal with it accordingly.
Section 51 negatived.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: 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 68, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 5), 1987, reported complete with amendment.
MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as reported?
HON. MR. STRACHAN: With leave now, Mr. Speaker.
Leave granted.
Bill 68, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 5), 1987, read a third time and passed.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 70.
FOREST AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1987
The House in committee on Bill 70; Mr. Pelton in the chair.
On section 1.
MR. ROSE: Unless I'm advised otherwise, Mr. Chairman, I believe that section 1 is general enough that I might put a question now that might more properly occur later in the bill, but because of other things I have to do I ask you to be generous and tolerant with my straying from order.
Before the House met I had a conversation with the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) over a concern expressed by one of my constituents, who represents a group known as the forestry technologists. I'm not certain that that is their precise title. Their concern is that this new bill — which we've brought down very rapidly as far as they're concerned, without much time for consultation — might eliminate some of the work available to forestry technologists, and instead, limit that kind of work which they did formerly to professional foresters.
I'd like the minister to confirm his opinion, his idea or his belief that this bill, because of requirements for plans in cutting, silviculture and the rest, will actually provide greater work for forestry technologists, rather than confirm their worst fears, which means that the work which they do now will be taken over by professional foresters and they will be replaced. In other words, I'd like reassurance that the act does not become more restrictive of the kind of work they do, but instead, enhances and increases their opportunities to perform the work for which they are trained.
HON. MR. PARKER: The work opportunities for applied science technicians and technologists in British Columbia will expand with this amendment to the Forest Act. The professional forester reference in this bill is to the preharvest silvicultural prescription, some of which work will be done by other than professional foresters, but under their direction, and they will have to authenticate that prescription. So it's the professional forester whose professional standing is on the line with that prescription. Otherwise, the work opportunities for all people connected with the silvicultural part of the forest industry will be substantially greater as a result of this bill.
MR. MILLER: I have a number of questions relating to the first two definitions in section 1: "basic silviculture" and
[ Page 3051 ]
"incremental silviculture." I made some remarks in second reading about that, particularly about what work the ministry may have done in trying to determine ahead of time what value will flow to companies who practise incremental silviculture. I note, from a recent Renewal, which is a newsletter reporting on FRDA, that an FRDA-funded study, report 014,"Impact of Intensive Forestry Practices on Net Stand Values in British Columbia," prepared by Nawitka Resource Consultants, investigates what increased value could flow. I'll just briefly read the descriptive narrative here, and perhaps the minister would comment on the issue.
"A study was done to indicate the economic impact of intensive forestry practices on net stand values in B.C. The purpose of the study was to develop a trail from treatment responses predicted by theory and demonstrated research results, through changes caused by focusing on the merchantable part of the stand, to further changes caused by applying treatments in operational conditions. Results include operational yield tables for major species for second growth managed stands...."
I guess the question, boiled down, is: what kind of increased value, increased reforestation and thus, down the line, increased availability of time does the minister expect to see through the inclusion of the incremental silviculture incentive in the bill?
[10:45]
HON. MR. PARKER: Before any incremental silvicultural activity is undertaken, the plan is defined and reviewed by representatives of both the licensee and the licenser. The plan may or may not be approved. The reason that we get involved as a ministry is that it is Crown land and we are responsible for it. Once the project is underway, it would be monitored for any gains that the program might effect. When you're doing that, you keep a control area where it's basically status quo, and then the experimental area where you put in your extra work, and over a period of time you do measurements to see what the impact has been. It depends on what the activity was for. It might be a trial to see the resistance to root rot or the effect of slow-release nitrogen fertilizers; or it might be something on spacing or a particular hybrid species. It could be any activity, but before anything takes place, the proposal has to be analyzed by both parties, and it's done thoroughly.
MR. MILLER: I didn't really get the kind of answer I was looking for. I appreciate that certain things will be done, will be monitored, etc., and I also note, in commenting on the renewal newsletter, that a fair number of tax dollars have gone into research and development programs which will be of benefit to the industry.
In addition to that, I happened to be reading last night the Science Council of B.C. report and noted that there have been significant contributions to academics and industry in terms of research and development money, which — and I don't recall; I didn't bring the document with me — was clearly aimed at getting better utilization out of our forest industry, What can we get? What are we going to get? Can the minister give me some kind of ballpark? Presumably this incentive in the act will direct capital into the best growing sites. Can we get twice the volume that we're getting out of some growing sites now, or three times, or 20 percent more, or 10 percent more? Surely there must be some anticipation on the part of the ministry of just what we're going to realize by including the incentive for incremental silviculture.
HON. MR. PARKER: It's not possible to predict what sort of increments there will be until we know what the program is for the specific area we're talking about. There are very many variables, and a lot of the research that has gone on to date, funded by public and private funds.... Public funds have all emanated from private activity because, of course, they're taxed. Those are the results you need in order to assess whether you're going to undertake any sort of incremental silviculture activity. That gives you the indication whether you should proceed further.
MR. WILLIAMS: It seems clear, from Jack Walters's work at the UBC forest over the years before he retired, that there can be tremendous increases on the best sites, the best soils, particularly here in the southern coastal region. So the increments are very substantial and, I would think, well beyond.... The cost-benefit ratio is significant; that is, there's a very significant payback.
It kind of begs the question in a sense, it seems to me, in terms of how that increment should be distributed. A chunk of it is just God's bounty, if you will — nature's bounty — in terms of the soil and conditions and all the rest, and if man does just a few minor things, he gets a very positive response. So it seems to me to beg the question about whether the whole amount should go to the companies involved. I think there should be significant incentive, but when we're trying to get the smaller sector with a chunk of the cut beyond what they presently have so that new people can get into the industry, it sort of begs the question about whether a chunk of that might well be part of a broader reallocation. Not to discourage the people from doing this worthwhile work, but in some of these sites, in terms of Walters' work, we're talking about great leaps, in terms of AAC, out of intensive management of these sites, which is really rewarding and encouraging. I wonder if the minister or his staff has given some thought to that, or if it's not entirely clear whether this might be redistributed in not just that way but in a broader way as well.
HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, incremental silvicultural activities funded by the private sector will accrue to the private sector, and incremental silvicultural activities funded by the public will accrue to the public and be available for distribution, as the member mentioned, through public offering, either oral competition or sealed tender.
MR. MILLER: Just to pursue the same topic, it's clear that the holder of land under whatever form of licence, the holder of land considered, for example, a very good growing site, would be able to reap much more of a benefit for his investment than the holder of a licence that, let's say, is medium-to-poor growing. So for the same investment, one company will reap much more. I think that that could develop inequities in terms of the value which really could only be straightened out by the ministry; and really the only way you could do it is that the ministry would have to recapture some of that value. I think that's what my colleague from Vancouver East was trying to get at.
In terms of the relationship between basic silviculture and incremental silviculture, again I have some concern. Basic
[ Page 3052 ]
silviculture has been defined as being these things: harvesting operations, seed collection, etc. I think it's very important that the line between these two definitions be understood, and that the definition of "basic" is not so basic that the Crown will get less than the licence holder.
I don't know if the minister understands the point I'm trying to make here. For example, fertilization is not included in basic silviculture; yet it could be argued that in terms of modem forestry practices fertilization is indeed a fundamental element of silviculture. But the Crown is saying: "No, as far as our Crown lands are concerned, we're not going to make that a requirement, even though it's fundamental. We're going to allow the companies to decide for themselves whether they want to do it; and if they do it, they're going to get the value that ensues from that undertaking." Are we shortchanging the Crown in that respect?
Does the minister understand the point I'm trying to make here in terms of the importance of the definition of basic silviculture? The first protection really is to the Crown, and the incentive should be over and above what is basic to the Crown's requirements. If he hasn't understood so far, I'll boil it down into one question and ask: why is fertilization not included in the definition of basic silviculture?
HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, fertilization and application of other chemicals is part of an incremental silviculture program. Basic silviculture is as defined here. It brings the new forest to a free-growing state, where it's above, and capable of withstanding, any encroaching vegetation other than the crop trees.
When we talk about incremental silviculture, it will be done, in all likelihood, by prioritizing the site capabilities: most effort will go into the better sites; the least effort into the poorest sites, of course.
MR. MILLER: I'm still not satisfied. I wonder if the minister would comment on.... By laying down this basic definition now, we're tying ourselves to the definition and really can only change it through legislation. Would it not be preferable to have that definition in regulation, or at least the ability to change through regulation the definition of basic silviculture? It certainly would give much more flexibility over time — I don't want to say "technology" but it is technology — as new technology develops, as we get better at the business of growing trees and managing forest land, rather than being forever bound by the definition. And really the Crown might be the loser over the long term if the flexibility is not there in the ministry to amend regulations to suit the times.
HON. MR. PARKER: The definition of basic silviculture is included in legislation because of the ensuing changes to the forest licence and tree-farm licence documents. It's in legislation for that purpose and it will have to be amended by subsequent legislation. It may be considered somewhat restricting in the mind of the member for Prince Rupert, but I think you'll find in the forests community that this definition of basic silviculture goes far beyond what has historically been considered basic silviculture, in that we require the new crop to be protected and tended through to a free-growing state. If we want to consider any further effort, that would be under an incremental silvicultural program. If the private sector puts up the money, then they will accrue the benefits. If the public puts up the money, they'll accrue the benefits. If we work on a joint effort, it will be on a pro rata basis equivalent to the input from each party.
MR. MILLER: Would it be the Crown's intention to practise incremental silviculture on land that the Crown is responsible for?
HON. MR. PARKER: The answer is yes.
MR. MILLER: Moving to section 1(6), perhaps the minister first of all would give us a brief explanation of the.... Actually (5) and (6) should be considered together, because it deals with the expropriation of land, and some expropriation is central to the bill. I have a number of other questions on the minister's plans with respect to the taking of lands currently held by licence-holders. If the minister would start with an explanation, then I think we could move into some specific questions.
HON. MR. PARKER: This deals with the recapture of allowable cut where licensees have failed to perform according to the terms of the contract. They're not cutting the forest profile from a timber standpoint or from a topographical standpoint. They're not performing. We'll recapture. This provides that the Expropriation Act will not apply in that case.
MR. MILLER: When the minister announced the new policy in September, he said that a percentage of the licence would be taken by the Crown as a component of the policy. I believe the minister also announced that as of January 1, 1988, 5 percent of TFLs and forest licences would be taken by the Crown. Is that still going to be done? Is there a legislative change in this bill to override sections of the existing Forest Act that may have prohibited...? For example, the one-year notice provision.
HON. MR. PARKER: The points raised by the member, Mr. Chairman, will be dealt with in a subsequent amendment to the Forest Act this coming spring. Section 5(l) of this bill provides for the implementation of penalties without invoking the Expropriation Act.
[11:00]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, if I may just interrupt the proceedings for a moment, the member for Cowichan-Malahat has asked leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
MR. BRUCE: In the precincts today is a group of students from the Quamichan Middle School in my riding. There are 25 of them here...
AN HON. MEMBER: Name names!
MR. BRUCE: No, I won't name names today.
...with their teacher, Mr. Wood. I think it's very timely that they are here listening to the debate on the Forest Amendment Act, something that has a fair impact on my riding. So I would ask that you join me in making them feel welcome and wishing them a very merry Christmas.
[ Page 3053 ]
MR. MILLER: With respect to section 1(4), which I understand to be simply for clarification purposes.... It does give rise to the question — one of the things I pointed out in second reading — of the monitoring and auditing ability of the ministry with respect to the application of the new act. A fairly good ability to undertake those monitoring and auditing functions is going to be required if the act is actually going to work. Is it the minister's intention that these functions that are performed by the ministry will be contracted out — in other words, that the ministry will not undertake the auditing or monitoring function and you could contract that to another company, for example? Would that other company or contractor then fall under the definition of the appropriate official of his ministry?
HON. MR. PARKER: No, the responsibility rests with employees of the ministry. If there is any input from the contract firm — say a forestry consultant or an ecological consultant — that report would be submitted to the appropriate person in the ministry, who would accept it or reject it. If he accepted it, then he would be presenting it as his material and under his responsibility.
MR. MILLER: In other words, a licence-holder who undertakes, for example, incremental silviculture could presumably then hire an appropriate consulting firm, which would prepare a report to be submitted to your ministry, which could be accepted at face value, as opposed to your ministry being required to do the monitoring.
HON. MR. PARKER: That could only take place if there was a prior arrangement between the licenser and the licensee. Such an audit would have to be done by a professional registered in the province to undertake such work. For all intents and purposes the audit will be done by the licenser, not the licensee. The licensee will have an internal audit system in most cases, I would expect, just from a control standpoint. But to satisfy the licenser and the public in general, that would have to be subjected to an outside audit, which would be done either by the ministry as the licenser or a suitable professional qualified in that specific field and hired by the ministry for that purpose.
MR. MILLER: In terms of the audit then — because I really do believe that these are very important questions — the policy we support.... We think it's heading in the right direction, but it is very important that in determining additional value that would flow to a licence-holder, and in determining that the licence-holder has indeed complied with the requirements of basic silviculture.... These are all extremely important and vital to the performance of the act.
The minister yesterday talked about the capability to undertake these functions resting in the districts. I wish that he would confirm that. Also, because it is a new approach, are there plans to add any additional branches of the ministry in terms of some specialty in dealing with these questions? Are you simply going to leave it to existing ministry personnel in the regions or the districts to grapple with the complexities of this new act and its application? Or are you developing a new branch, some expertise within the ministry that could be used on an advisory basis for the regions or districts?
HON. MR. PARKER: In reference to the ability of district personnel to audit the performance of licensees, I don't see any expansion in the ministry. We may see some movement in qualifications of individuals holding certain positions in each of the districts. Over the years we've been making the opportunity available for employees within the ministry to upgrade their qualifications and, in fact, to move from a basically unqualified situation right through to being able to be registered as a professional forester through an extension program offered by the Association of B.C. Professional Foresters called the pupil program. A number of our staff have successfully completed that program. It's possible that we'd be adding to staff, but we wouldn't be increasing the number of FTEs. We'd be looking for additional qualified personnel. The thrust in the ministry has been and will continue to be to present the opportunity for staff to upgrade and improve their own career opportunities.
Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.
On section 5.
MR. MILLER: Section 5, particularly paragraph (b), involves the rollover of forest licences to tree-farm licences and, as I understand it, the wording,"such incremental silviculture.... as is required by the licence," is a device whereby the ministry will be able to say to forest licence holders: "We're not prepared to roll this over to a TFL unless you show us that you are prepared to do more than the basic silviculture required under the act." The minister could confirm that I am correct in that assumption and, secondly, outline how that process will work. Is it a process of negotiation with the current licence-holder? Is it a public process, where other companies can up the ante and make a better offer in terms of what kinds of incremental work they would be prepared to do in order to acquire a tree-farm licence?
HON. MR. PARKER: In rolling over from a forest licence to a tree-farm licence, the applicant will be seeking to apply his allowable annual cut from a volume-based tenure called a forest licence to an area-based tenure called a treefarm licence. In so doing, we can recapture anywhere from zero up to 10 percent of that allowable cut. The purpose of that is to gain additional allowable cut that can be put out to competitive bid to support things like specialty manufacturers that may be identifying one market niche — maybe bed-frame stock or special items for some of these pre-cut furniture outfits...
Interjection.
HON. MR. PARKER:... and as I hear growled down in the corner here, special timbers, probably for bridges for truck loggers.
In the proposal that the licensee would be making applying for a rollover to TFL, he would be proposing certain utilization activities and probably certain silvicultural activities. If they intend to do incremental silvicultural activities, those would be proposed in the rollover proposal: they would be considered by the licenser, and determined by the licenser if in any way those extra activities, be they further manufacture, further utilization or further incremental silvicultural activities.... And they may serve to reduce the amount of cut recaptured in the rollover process. Maybe it's the total amount.
[ Page 3054 ]
Once that's settled between the licenser and the licensee and when we have a solid proposal, the matter goes to public hearing, and other licensees in the area can't stand up and say: "I'm going to do this or I propose to do that; give it to me." They have an accept or reject opportunity. They either accept or they record their objections to the application, and they'll have to substantiate why. As a result of these hearings, the licenser will determine whether or not any or all of the application will be considered. It could be a partial rollover; it could be a total rollover; it could be total rejection of the application.
MR. MILLER: I can see that this is going to require a great deal of work and skill on behalf of the ministry in terms of this rollover provision and the conflicts or possible conflicts between licence-holders in a particular area. I'll briefly refer to a situation in my constituency where a holder of a forest licence which carried with it an obligation to construct a processing facility has been less than diligent in meeting those obligations. Certainly, it's not my intention to come down with both feet and attack that company, but it has produced, I think, an unnecessary delay. We could have had jobs in place before now. We could have been producing lumber before now. Is that an exceptional case in terms of a licence-holder meeting an obligation? If the premise for the rollover is that there is going to be a commitment to do certain things, whether that's further production, incremental silviculture, a combination, whatever, but they're going to give more, it would require some diligence on the part of the ministry to make sure that people actually do what they say they're going to do. Could the minister comment on that situation? Is that exceptional or outside the norm in terms of a licence-holder meeting a requirement or an obligation that they said they would undertake?
HON. MR. PARKER: The example the member for Prince Rupert uses is a good example of such a situation where a licence is granted provided the licensee meets certain requirements. As we go through the developmental stages of the licence and into the management and working plan, the communication between the licenser and the licensee is such that the licenser is brought to understand the workings of the business place. We may or may not grant leave to some variance on the terms and conditions of accepting that licence by the licensee.
In the particular example he was using, that operator chose to basically finance his operation through cash flow rather than incurring a staggering debt. That has delayed his development somewhat, but he has apprised the minister — my predecessors and subsequently me — as to the developments in his business plan. It was up to the minister of the day to accept or reject, and in every case the minister accepted it as there was visible progress being made, although not at the speed that many people in the municipality would have liked to have seen.
[11:15]
MR. MILLER: Not to belabour the point, but....
Perhaps the group in the corner might want to adjourn to the hallway to have their meeting. It's delaying speedy passage of this bill.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You did well, hon. member.
MR. MILLER: Again, without belabouring the point, I've been in a situation, for example, in a municipality where municipal land was sold on the basis that the buyer was obliged to undertake certain things, construction of a building or whatever. It's been my experience that if you set a no-nonsense,"we expect performance" tone, then you will be far better off in dealing with people who make arrangements with the Crown. I would hope — and the minister doesn't have to respond — that that tone is established, because it's critical in terms of the application of the changes in the act. The minister is proposing to make some pretty significant changes in terms of transferring a significant portion of land from forest licence into TFLs. If that's undertaken without the licensees knowing that there's no fooling around on this.... If you say you're going to submit a bid to put up a processing facility or do extra work, then you'd better perform, because the penalty is that you won't be there.
If the minister wants to comment he can, but I've got no more to say on 5.
Section 5 approved.
On section 6.
MR. MILLER: Just a point of clarification, Mr. Chairman. The wording in (c) is: "in paragraph (f) by striking out 'and' at the end of subparagraph (i) and by adding the following subparagraph (iii)." Is that just a typo? Should that have been "'and' at the end of subparagraph (ii)" as opposed to "(i)"? Why would we put a (iii) after a (i) ? Usually you get a (ii) after a (i). I may be out of the ballpark on this, but it struck me that the sequence of numbering was incorrect.
HON. MR. PARKER: The act reads in section 42(f): "(i) determine a volume of timber to be harvested from the woodlot licence area during each year or other period of its term; and (ii) contain such information respecting the development, management and use of the woodlot licence area as the regional manager or district manager requires...." Because we're adding (iii), then we say "add." It's just the syntax.
Sections 6 to 10 inclusive approved.
On section 11.
MR. MILLER: In regard to the penalty for non-compliance, it struck me that that could only be applied once. Maybe I'm reading it wrong. Could the minister comment on the penalty of removal of 5 percent for non-compliance? Is that simply something that can only be applied once to a licence-holder?
HON. MR. PARKER: There's no specific penalty for 5 percent, but there are penalties of reduction in cut maybe much greater than that, and maybe less. For any one instance, yes, it's a one-time penalty.
MR. MILLER: So it's not one-time in terms of the length of time the licence-holder may have. It's for each particular instance of violation.
HON. MR. PARKER: If cut is withdrawn from an operator, if it's a cut-control situation, that penalty is imposed for
[ Page 3055 ]
that particular cut-control period. But if it's something much more serious and the allocated cut is reduced, that lasts for the term of the licence — unless the licensee has been able to increase his AAC through incremental silvicultural activities. With tree-farm licensees, they're under scrutiny every five years in public hearings on their management and working plans, which report their performances and intentions.
MR. MILLER: Specifically, then, part (5) of 129.7 states that "a volume equal to 5 percent of the total volume of timber" can be removed if the licensee fails to perform. Immediately following that, part (6) says: "Where under subsection (5) a reduction in the annual allowable cut under a major licence is effected in respect of an area, no further reduction shall be effected under subsection (5) in respect of that area so long as it remains subject to that licence."
Maybe I didn't pose my question clearly. Does that mean that you can only penalize a licence-holder once during the term of the licence?
HON. MR. PARKER: We would only penalize the licensee once, Mr. Chairman, for any infraction. We wouldn't continue to penalize him for the same infraction. You get nailed once; I think that's a natural justice approach.
Just to touch back on the 5 percent penalty on cut, I'm advised that a 5 percent penalty does come into play if the licensee has not met his obligation under the preharvest silviculture prescription within the time limit prescribed.
Sections 11 to 23 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
HON. MR. PARKER: 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 70, Forest Amendment Act (No. 2), 1987, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: There are a few other items to discuss, as I indicated to the House earlier, by leave of resolution pursuant to standing order 69 (2); however, we do not have all the details yet. We understand His Honour will be in the precincts close to the noon hour, and on that basis, I would ask that the House recess to the call of the Chair and advise members that you will ring the bells.... Pardon me, I leapt ahead of the Minister of Education.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: I have the honour to table the report of the Ministry of Education for the period July 1, 1986 to June 30, 1987. Just a brief explanatory comment. These are advance copies from the Queen's Printer. The copies for distribution will be ready probably later today or tomorrow. I wanted to table it at this time so that the report could become public before next spring.
The House recessed at 11:29 a.m.
The House resumed at 11:58 a.m.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that earlier this morning, when accepting two resolutions from the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) with respect to select standing committees, I indicated to the House that there would probably be some discussion later on when the House was sitting, with respect to members sitting on the Committee on Finance, Crown Corporations and Government Services. So pursuant to standing order 69 (2), I want to ask leave for the following nominees to be placed on the Committee on Finance, Crown Corporations and Government Services: the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) and the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota). Two of the members so mentioned are already there and I'm adding — substituting — a third name, but I want that resolution to stand now with respect to that committee.
Leave granted.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I will out of courtesy advise the Legislative Assembly that with respect to those members so named, it is the position of the government that, although the committee has two duties, its first duty will be to discuss the business of financial planning and the resolution from the minister that dealt with that aspect of their duties. So financial planning would come first. This is a statement by the government to Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition indicating that that would be the first bit of business, and when the committee decided to entertain its second item of business, we would expect that the Legislative Assemblv would be reconvened and further substitutions could be made at that date. Financial planning will be the first duty of that committee.
Secondly, pursuant to standing order 69(2), I wish to ask leave for the names on the Labour, Justice and Intergovernmental Relations Committee to be changed. We will add the name of the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) and delete the name of the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Rogers).
[12:00]
Leave granted.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll call the motion on that second one, Mr. Speaker.
Motion approved.
MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I am advised the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precincts and shall be here shortly.
His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.
FIRST CLERK-ASSISTANT:
Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1987
Insurance Amendment Act, 1987
Mineral Amendment Act, 1987
Open Learning Agency Act
Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 4), 1987
Property Purchase Tax Amendment Act, 1987
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Compensation Act
Pension (Public Service) Amendment Act, 1987
Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 1987
[ Page 3056 ]
Assessment Amendment Act, 1987
Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 5), 1987
Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Amendment Act, 1987
Forest Amendment Act (No. 2), 1987
CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these bills.
His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.
HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I move that this House at its rising do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet, or until Mr. Speaker may be advised by the government that it is desired to prorogue the first session of the thirty-fourth parliament of the province of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied or has been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and as the case may be may transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time and date. And I do further move that in the event of Mr. Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order. As in duty bound I do so move.
Motion approved.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Let me wish all members a very merry Christmas and happy new year, and extend our best wishes as well to those who serve us in the legislative precincts.
MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to reciprocate the spirit of the holiday season, particularly to our staff who make this Legislature function so well. I would like to wish everybody a very enjoyable holiday season, to not think about each other too much, but when we do, to think fondly and, more particularly, enjoy your families and your communities and spirit — not spirits — of the holiday season. We'll see you in the new year.
Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12:06 p.m.