[ Page 5207 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

Introduction and first reading –– 5207

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

Introduction and first reading –– 5207

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

Introduction and first reading –– 5207

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

Introduction and first reading –– 5207

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

Introduction and first reading –– 5208

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

Introduction and first reading –– 5208

Oral Questions

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

School Canadiana. Mr. Harcourt –– 5208

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

South Moresby National Park. Ms. Smallwood –– 5209

Privatization of ICBC. Mr. Sihota –– 5209

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

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

Forest Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 28). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Parker) –– 5210

Mr. Clark

Mr. Williams

ML Lovick

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

Hon. Mr. Savage –– 5213

Mr. Rose –– 5213

Mr. Guno –– 5213

Ms. Smallwood –– 5213

Hon. ML Savage –– 5214

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

(Hon. Mr. Savage) –– 5214

Mr. Rose

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Guno

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Lovick

Mr. De Jong

ML R. Fraser

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

Mr. Miller

ML Williams

Appendix –– 5232

The House met at 2:10 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Today I'd like to introduce to the House friends of mine from Victoria, Helen Lindholm and her son Jason. Helen gave me a tennis lesson one night; her second serve goes about 800 mph, and the first one was just a little faster. Would the House please welcome a superb lady and her son.

MS. EDWARDS: In your gallery today are two friends of mine who used to live in my riding and now reside somewhere in the wastes of Vancouver. They are in Victoria on their way home from the first annual Cortes Island conference on James Joyce. Would you join me in welcoming Thor Frohn-Neilsen and Debbie Forbes.

MR. PELTON: Hon. members, on behalf of our Speaker I would ask you to welcome today Mr. Bill Soprovich, past president of the West Vancouver Chamber of Commerce, and Miss Dorothy Pace from North Vancouver.

MR. BARNES: I'm also very pleased to announce the presence of some long-ago friends, Guy and Anita Lauterbach, who are visiting the precincts. They came from Tigard, Oregon to visit friends on the lower mainland. I'm especially pleased because this fellow Guy has a good memory. In 1954 I loaned him a car battery, which he still remembers, and after 34 years he's just reminded me that he owes me one. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

MR. PETERSON: Would the House please join me in congratulating our Government Whip (Mr. Ree) and his wife, who are today celebrating 15 years of marriage.

MR. SIHOTA: One of the educational institutions we're most proud of in my riding of Esquimalt-Port Renfrew is Royal Roads Military College. In the House this afternoon are eight college students from Royal Roads, along with their instructor, Mr. Greene. Would all members of the House please join me in extending a warm welcome to them.

MR. R. FRASER: Some years ago I had the pleasure of going to school in Atlanta, Georgia, and I have fond memories of that city. It was my great fortune last weekend to meet Tom and Laura Kirk, who come from Atlanta. They are visiting Victoria and are in the galleries today, and visiting their friends in Vancouver, Allan and Danny Goldsmith. Will the House kindly make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

SMALL BUSINESS VENTURE CAPITAL
AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

Hon. Mr. Strachan, on behalf of the Minister of Economic Development, presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Small Business Venture Capital Amendment Act, 1988.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: In moving first reading, I would like to advise the assembly that the bill before you amends the Small Business Venture Capital Act adopted by this House in the spring of 1985. The program's main objectives are to stimulate capital formation and employment in small business and to provide managerial assistance to small businesses in certain sectors of the British Columbia economy. These amendments encourage the formation of venture capital corporations, and the act provides each eligible investor in venture capital corporations with an incentive equal to 30 percent of the investment required by the VCC.

Members of this House will recall that the Small Business Venture Capital Act has been amended in the past, most recently one year ago. It is intended that the act will be regularly amended to meet the needs of small businesses in a constantly changing environment. The amendments proposed herein are, for the most part, technical in nature — just minor housekeeping amendments, Mr. Member; that's not in the script, but I thought I'd throw that in — and are to allow for a smoother administration of the program and for easier access to the program by potential users.

I move first reading.

Bill 51 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[2:15]

RESORT MUNICIPALITY OF WHISTLER
AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

Hon. Mrs. Johnston presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Resort Municipality of Whistler Amendment Act, 1988.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Bill 49 contains measures designed to reduce unnecessary approvals regarding the resort municipality of Whistler and to clarify municipal authority to provide and charge for facilities and services. The amendments place Whistler on a more equal footing with other municipalities as an autonomous local government. I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 49 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MUNICIPAL FINANCE AUTHORITY
AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

Hon. Mrs. Johnston presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Municipal Finance Authority Amendment Act, 1988.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Bill 41 contains measures to give the municipal finance authority more flexibility in managing capital borrowing for B.C. municipalities and regional districts. The amendments will establish a short-term investment pool and authorize the refund and distribution of excess sinking fund money. I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 41 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

Hon. Mrs. Johnston presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Municipal Amendment Act, 1988.

[ Page 5208 ]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Bill 32 contains a variety of measures relating to residency requirements for electors, the triennial election system, property tax exemptions, approval requirements and cash in lieu of parkland adjustments. These measures include amendments to eliminate the 12-month residency rule, allow referendums more often than every three years, tax exempt charitable and religious organizations, remove unnecessary approval requirements for miscellaneous items and prevent overcharging to developers under the cash in lieu of parkland provisions of the Municipal Act. I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 32 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO REGULATE SMOKING
IN THE PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS

Mr. R. Fraser presented a bill intituled An Act to Regulate Smoking in the Parliament Buildings.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I think it's time we did something about smoking generally in the premises of the Parliament Buildings, for no other reason than safety. It will give smokers a chance to smoke if they so wish, providing that you designate the area. I think it's timely that we show some leadership in this issue, Mr. Speaker.

Bill M207 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

PREMIER'S ADVISORY COUNCIL
FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

Hon. Mr. Veitch presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Premier's Advisory Council For Persons With Disabilities Act.

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

I'm very pleased to introduce this bill which will establish a Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities. It was in May 1987 at the end of Rick Hansen's "Man in Motion" tour that the Premier announced the provincial government's intention to form a special advisory council for those persons in British Columbia with disabilities. Since that time, a great deal of organizational work has been done, and the passage of this bill will become another major step in seeing such a council become a reality.

I point out that this bill merely establishes the framework for the council. Once the bill becomes law, regulations based on recommendations from a committee chaired by the hon. second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) will spell out the structure and terms of reference of the council. The committee shall report to the Premier its findings and solutions not less than annually, Mr. Speaker.

In conclusion, it is my pleasure to introduce this bill which will establish the Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities. It's landmark legislation, the enabling powers of which will help special British Columbians share more fully the bounties of this beautiful province. I move first reading.

Bill 42 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

ALLEGED USE OF INSIDER INFORMATION
BY FORMER ENERGY MINISTRY EMPLOYEE

MR. CLARK: I have a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. At the end of February this year, the commissioner of the petroleum titles and revenue branch of your ministry retired. Less than four months later, he was successful in obtaining two drilling licences and four leases for petroleum natural gas rights in the province, rights worth over $3 million.

As you know, before he left the ministry, the commissioner, this individual, would have been privy to the in-house adjudication leading up to the offering of these rights as well as having been a participant in the process which set an in-house base price for the licences and leases offered. Mr. Minister, why was a former employee of your ministry in this capacity, an employee with inside information about the leases offered for sale, allowed to even enter the bidding process, much less win these rights?

HON. MR. DAVIS: This sounds like a serious allegation. It's the first I've heard of it. I'll certainly look into it and report back to the House.

SCHOOL CANADIANA

MR. HARCOURT: I have a question for the Minister of Education; the Minister of Advanced Education (Hon. S. Hagen) is not here. On Friday, the Minister of Education echoed the claim of the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training that the closing of School Canadiana would allow the Vancouver Community College to offer ESL to more students in more locations.

Since then, after talking to officials at the school and after talking to people involved in School Canadiana and members of the ethnic communities, we have discovered that the school is being closed so that the college can reduce its budget by $250,000, not so that money can be transferred to other programs. Since the government has not committed new money to the college, would you explain how this expansion of the ESL programs can take place?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I certainly cannot explain how I said on Friday that the information that I had was that they were going to be able to provide this without increasing the budget by $250,000. Our emphasis, both between myself and the Minister of Advanced Education (Hon. S. Hagen), is to provide this service to students, not to try and spend as much money as possible to do it.

MR. HARCOURT: I have a supplementary to the Minister of Tourism and Culture and multicultural areas. I would hope that the member for Vancouver South would be interested in the concerns of our minority communities, having a number of them in his riding. My point deals with the fact that School Canadiana provides English-as-a-second-language instruction and has had about 10,000 new Canadians since it began. Shutting it down without reviewing the need for the service is a slap in the face to our ethnic communities. Since

[ Page 5209 ]

B.C. spends less per capita than Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec, will the minister agree to intervene with his colleagues to ensure that School Canadiana stays open?

HON. MR. REID: I will get the details, because the first time I heard about it was on Friday. This is the second time it's been raised, and it could be referred to the committee on cultural heritage. To the first member for Vancouver East, culture is spelled with a "c," in case you're not aware. That's for the media to take note of also.

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

HON. MR. REID: No, it did not. It took me four days to get up enough courage to respond, and it's not unusual. To get back to a serious note, because I think the question was asked seriously, I'd be prepared to have it referred to the committee for consideration and reference to the Education minister and the Ministry of Advanced Education from a committee perspective. I was not aware of it until the first time it was raised on Friday.

MR. HARCOURT: A supplementary. Mr. Minister, there is a major meeting and dialogue taking place in Vancouver with members of the ethnic community. Would it be possible to have a response back before that meeting takes place on Saturday?

HON. MR. REID: The committee is meeting either tomorrow or Wednesday, and I will sure get it on the agenda for our consideration or for the committee. Since it's such a heated subject, we'd be prepared to refer it to them.

AUDIT OF FIRST INVESTORS CORP. AND
ASSOCIATED INVESTORS OF CANADA

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Minister of Finance. It's now come to my attention that a quiet, secret audit of Principal Trust company's FIC and AIC were carried out by Price Waterhouse, showing that the companies were essentially insolvent. This was in January 1987. Was this report or its existence brought to the attention of the minister prior to the issuance of a licence for those companies on April 1, 1987?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, the member has named some specific dates. Not being previously informed that he would be curious about this, I don't have those in my memory bank. Under the circumstances, the best I can do is take the question as notice.

MR. SIHOTA: The dates aren't that pivotal: what is important is the existence of this Price Waterhouse report. However, let me ask the minister this question: the minister surely knows that April I is the date on which the licences are issued. Were the licences for FIC and AIC on April 1, 1987, issued after consultation with the minister?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Once again, the hon. member has asked me to verify dates on which information was exchanged. I'm not prepared to do that in this area without checking the records. So I'll take the question as notice.

[2:30]

MR. SIHOTA: Apart from the dates, will the minister tell this House whether he consulted with his officials prior to the issuance of licences for FIC and AIC in 1987?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Once again, I've said to the hon. member that we will verify the question of the time at which information was exchanged. While it doesn't refer to a date, the second question does refer to the licence renewal, which is fixed by date. The hon. member knows that. If I understand it properly, the second question is exactly the same as the first; therefore I said earlier that I would take it under notice, and I will do so.

As I understand the rules of the House, that's the end of the question and further questions are out of order. If I'm incorrect, I invite someone to correct me.

SOUTH MORESBY NATIONAL PARK

MS. SMALLWOOD: A question to the Minister of Environment and Parks. British Columbians have been patient since negotiations for South Moresby broke down. Is the minister prepared to stop holding up the agreement on the park and listen to British Columbians' requests rather than the outrageous demands of logging companies?

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

The park is going to be in place for an awfully long time — forever. It's the position of the government of British Columbia that we're going to protect the interests of British Columbia as best we can when we finalize our agreements. It is not our intent to step away from this agreement; it is our intent to have a national park there. As to the date, I hope soon, but I can't at this point give you any definite date. I think it would be foolish for me to venture a date at this point, but I can assure you, Madam Member, Mr. Speaker and all members of this Legislative Assembly, that it is our full intent to go ahead and act on our best behalf for the citizens of British Columbia to ensure that we have a federal park and the best arrangements available.

PRIVATIZATION OF ICBC

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Minister of Energy, who is also in charge of privatization. The provincial government originally indicated that they were not prepared to privatize the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. The Premier and others have said that that was the decision made at that time; however, it's unclear now what the government would do.

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

HON. MR. DAVIS: As the hon. member well knows, this House is in control of its own destiny, and any future government can change a great many policies, laws and so on. "Never" is therefore a very big word. But the policy now is not to sell the Insurance Corporation.

FIRST CITIZENS' FUND

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

[ Page 5210 ]

The legislation establishing the First Citizens' Fund specified that it was to promote the cultural, educational and economic development of aboriginal people in B.C. As of October 28 of last year, cultural and heritage grant applications were cut off. Could the minister tell this House why and on what authority he has decided to eliminate grants from the First Citizens' Fund for native cultural and heritage projects?

HON. MR. ROGERS: We haven't decided to do that. We are in fact giving grants to various cultural and heritage societies. They apply to the First Citizens' Fund board, which is made up entirely of native people, and they make the decision.

MR. G. HANSON: My understanding is that the grants being looked at are for community facilities — recreation, playing fields, community centres, etc. — but that actual heritage and cultural applications have not been received since last October 28. Would he confirm that?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, I wouldn't, but I'll check the dates for you. As far as I know, we have not had any inquiries around this issue. I was under the impression that we had merely broadened the terms of reference under which this particular act operates, rather than restricted it.

MR. G. HANSON: A supplementary. There is a broad-based perception that the grants have been shifted over to loans and that the culture and heritage portion has atrophied. Since the government claims to have surplus lottery funds, did the minister consider adding to the First Citizens' Fund so that existing programs wouldn't have to be eliminated or reduced to finance the new business loan program?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Your broad-based perception i's wrong, so let me just broadly correct it. First of all, under the previous regulations, native groups were not able to apply for lottery funds directly of their own accord. Every time a native organization applied for funding from the Lottery Corporation, they were told to go to the First Citizens' Fund. Last year cabinet made a decision that would allow native organizations to apply for — and some have received — funding through the Lottery Fund directly. Lottery funding has been made available to treat the first citizens of this province like any others. In fact, because in many cases they have organizations that are justified in receiving funding, they are probably going to get a vastly increased amount of funding. We have directed some people to the Lottery Fund, and some funds have been forthcoming. I can assure the member that that's the case. So rather than narrowing the scope of funds available, I think we have broadened it quite substantially.

MR. G. HANSON: Last week the First Citizens' Fund business loan program still wasn't in operation, even though it was supposed to be in place on April 1. Can the minister tell the House what the delay is in getting this new program off the ground?

HON. MR. ROGERS: The board met last week — they meet on a regular basis. I haven't had a copy of the minutes of the board meeting. I presume they are going through the deliberations that any duly appointed board is going to go through to make sure that the decisions they make are the correct and sensible ones for the people for whom they are responsible. There are certainly no instructions from my office or from anyone else that there should be any holdup, so I don't believe there has been one. I can check into that and find out where their decisions are. I can tell you this: the access available to first citizens is much broader now than it was before; it's a much better deal.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I rise under standing order 49. On May 10, 1988, I announced to the House that a special committee would be struck to consider the Hon. Judge T.K. Fisher's preliminary report on electoral boundaries in the province of British Columbia. Following that, I introduced a motion, standing on the order paper under my name, which, when adopted, would appoint Messrs. Rabbitt, Ree, Long, Jacobsen, Weisgerber, Vant, Williams, G. Hanson and Sihota as members of the subject committee to bring back to the House unanimous recommendations respecting the preliminary report of the Fisher royal commission.

On June 16, 1988, the hon. member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) asked by memo to be included as a member of said committee. I wish to thank the hon. member for Omineca for bringing this to my attention. Accordingly, today, in the interest of fairness, under standing order 49 I seek unanimous consent by leave of the House that the motion standing in my name on the order paper be amended to include the name of the member for Omineca.

Leave not granted.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITY
FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'd like to answer a question I took on notice on June 14. On June 13 there was an article in the Vancouver Sun dealing with a spill from a Burnaby firm; there was apparently an alleged PCB spill from an old transformer.

On June 14, the day after the Vancouver Sun article, the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) asked me a series of questions, essentially being concerned that the waste management branch had been phoned and told there was no staff available. The member concluded the question by saying: "Can the minister give us some information as to why this happened?"

Upon investigation, I find out that the waste management branch has no record of a call as described by the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley or by the Vancouver Sun article. No spill was reported that was not dealt with by the environmental safety officers in the lower mainland regional offices. If a caller does not identify that a spill is involved, or refuses to describe the location of the spill or to leave a name and a number for staff to return the call, it is not possible for staff to respond. Since there was no further information supplied to us, I consider the matter ended.

With that said, I call committee on Bill 28.

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

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

On section 1.

HON. MR. PARKER: The amendments add definitions for small business forest enterprise revenue and the small

[ Page 5211 ]

business forest enterprise account. These definitions are necessary because of the amendments contained in this bill. They are related to the new forest policies announced on September 15, 1987.

The small business forest enterprise revenue definition essentially defines the small business program. The program includes all timber sale licences awarded under the Forest Act, except those which have an allowable cut greater than 10,000 cubic metres. I will have more to say about the small business forest enterprise account when we deal with the amendments to section 87.1.

MR. CLARK: I just ask the minister to explain the exact difference between this and the previous small business forest enterprise account. I'm not quite sure of the distinction between this and the existing program.

HON. MR. PARKER: The difference is that previously all revenues from the small business forest enterprise program went into general revenue. We now have a five-year account identified as the small business forest enterprise account, from which funds will be drawn for access, forest renewal and protection, and any surpluses in that account will be returned to the consolidated revenue account. We will be discussing this further when we get to the amendments to section 87.1 of the act.

MR. CLARK: Is it the intention, Mr. Minister, that the small business forest enterprise account will in fact have a surplus, or is it expected to be kind of a revolving fund that is self-regulated in a sense?

HON. MR. PARKER: The purpose of the account is to keep the funds isolated for access, protection and forest renewal. In the event that there are surpluses in the account, those surpluses will be returned to general revenue. Similarly, if there is a shortfall, we'll have to draw on general revenue to make up the difference.

[2:45]

MR. CLARK: It does not go into your overall forestry budget. It goes into the general revenue fund of the province. It seems to me that it's just a bookkeeping entry more than anything else. You're trying to keep track of the revenues and expenditures of that specific program. Is that fair to say?

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

MR. CLARK: I thank the minister for his forthright answer. Is it the intent of the small business forest enterprise account to cover the cost of silviculture directly? Let me put it this way: is it the intent to have ministry personnel funded out of the small business enterprise account, or is it the intent to essentially pay contractors to do that work? Will there be bureaucrats — for want of a better word — paid out of that account, or will it simply be to give to contractors to offset the costs associated with maintaining the forest base?

HON. MR. PARKER: The involvement of Forest Service employees is handled out of the regular votes. Any extraordinary work is handled out of the small business enterprise account. Some of that would be contract. The purpose of the account is to make sure that there are funds there for forest renewal. It's under the same terms as all other licences in the province. In this particular instance, the province is responsible for making sure we have a free-to-grow state on forestry, the same as all licensees in the province have to do.

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

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

MR. WILLIAMS: There's a reference to funds in section 87.1 currently that would be transferred when this is proclaimed. Could the minister advise where that fund stands at this point in time?

HON. MR. PARKER: The question is: what is the balance of the small business forestry enterprise account at this point in time? That will be created after this legislation is proclaimed.

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

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

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. WILLIAMS: What we're seeing is the elimination of a historic ministry of government, and all of the amendments we see allow the designation of people by the minister. Those people need not be members of the Ministry of Forests staff. More and more we're seeing the historic role of the Ministry of Forests or the old Forest Service being contracted out to private companies. Maybe the minister can elaborate on that with respect to this section.

It seems to me that what you are giving yourself the authority to do is toss off all of the historic work of the Ministry of Forests, the Forest Service, to whomever you like: private company, whatever. All that's left is some final decision by the minister on the allocation of licences and the like. All of this continues this unravelling process in terms of basically decimating the public service.

HON. MR. PARKER: This section is amended by substituting the words "minister or a person authorized by him" for "chief forester," because the chief forester should not have the responsibility for disposing of Crown timber under forest licence application, and that's what we're talking to here. It's an amendment of section 11 of the Forest Act. The chief forester sets annual allowable cuts. It's the minister's responsibility or that of his designate to apportion and dispose of or sell Crown timber.

There's a further amendment in this section 2 of Bill 28. That is, subsection (5) is replaced to include the words: "include other terms and conditions the minister considers necessary." This will allow flexibility in the awarding of a process, especially in cases where more than one licence is offered and the need arises for special considerations.

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

[ Page 5212 ]

to amend the Ministry of Forests Act under which the Forest Service is constituted. The purpose here is to provide for the minister — or whoever that person may be — to either set the standards and adjudicate or designate another person. Whether that's in the Forest Service, some other government agency or some other agency altogether remains to be seen. The intention here is not one of amending the role of the Forest Service.

MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe I can ask it in a different way, and maybe that would be helpful to the minister. Is there anything required of the chief forester as a result of these changes? Historically the chief forester would be the official who would review all timber licence applications and various tenure applications. I see nothing here that, in effect, requires the chief forester to review. The chief forester, presumably, 'is the one with the background, the expertise, the understanding and the historic concern that should be applied to test these applicants.

As it now stands and as we see it, you can farm this out to ABC Consulting of Terrace, B.C. or its equivalent, and all that work would be done by them. Then some decision might be made by the minister, and the total ministry is unravelled. Can you advise the House what clear role the chief forester has then? I don't see anything in this section.

HON. MR. PARKER: It's the chief forester's role to determine the allowable annual cuts. It's the minister's role to apportion those allowable annual cuts.

MR. WILLIAMS: Is the minister saying that is the only role for the chief forester — to determine the AAC — and then you decide how it's going to be divvied up? That's not much of a role. Really? Historically the chief forester has been a significant player, and we don't see that continuing as you unravel — like the others — in terms of pursuing privatization in your ministry, in Energy and throughout the piece so that the historic civil service of British Columbia is being gutted so that the province can be looted.

HON. MR. PARKER: The chief forester's duties are framed in other legislation and in regulations arising out of the legislation. For the matterof this section 11, his duties are changed accordingly.

MR. LOVICK: I'm just wondering if the minister, putsuant to the answer he just gave, can elaborate a little bit. This seems to amount to a rather significant new job description for the chief forester. I'm wondering what is the basis for that change and why, given that the position seems to have served us well for some time now.

HON. MR. PARKER: Section 11 deals with setting forth the terms of a proposal call on forest licences and also sets forth the terms for evaluation. Those terms include social and economic considerations such as under section 11(4)(a): "...creating or maintaining employment opportunities and other social benefits in the province." That would be determined by government, not by the chief forester.

MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe the minister could elaborate on how he sees this process actually taking place, and how he sees the role of consultants with respect to all of this. The Ministry of Forests has been decimated under restraint. In some sections, you've lost maybe eight out of ten people with certain skills as a result of the pensions and golden handshake game of the last few months with respect to the public service. So what we have here is a hemorrhaging in terms of talent and skills that are needed to properly handle the management of our public lands and forests. You have continually let the public service be gutted. The question is: what do you anticipate in terms of consulting in this area of forest licences and these various tenures that you're going to be working on over the next several months?

HON. MR. PARKER: Whatever the future holds, this amendment to this section provides the necessary flexibility to deal with the situation — whatever may arise. The minister will have the final determination one way or the other. Whether or not in-house staff or contract staff are used in any particular instance will depend on the merits of the particular circumstance. As far as this section is concerned, the responsibility which has been assigned to the chief forester under section 11 of the Forest Act is now being amended to provide for the minister or a person authorized by him, which can mean, for all intents and purposes, the chief forester or the deputy chief forester or one of the directors, maybe a regional manager, maybe a district manager, maybe an outside party; it depends on the circumstances at the time.

MR. WILLIAMS: It does open up significantly all of this processing work, with respect to allocation of various timber rights and privileges in this province, to private companies to really carry out the entire process.

We went through the exercise of a review of waste in the Queen Charlotte Islands on M&B lands just recently. The ministry hired T.M. Thomson and Associates, and I'm sure they did a decent job. But the reality is that these people are in business with the private companies too, whether it's that company or the people in Prince George or other consulting parties around the province. More and more, we're terribly vulnerable in terms of these companies with differing clients at differing times. That can be handled by a good professional, but when it comes to something as important as allocating various timber rights or cutting rights, then the temptations, I suggest, are too great. We're talking about hundreds of millions in forest values here, and the process that leads up to their allocation. If that goes out to private companies that in turn work for companies that are applying for the licence, it is simply too tempting and unfair to put that burden on a consulting firm. It's disturbing to see these kinds of changes moving throughout the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I'm concerned that our official critic with respect to the Forests ministry is not here. I would like to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I am going to call second reading of Bill 33, printed in the name of the hon. Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.

[3:00]

[ Page 5213 ]

AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

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

We have four major sections we're discussing. The amendments were introduced a short time ago. They are basic housekeeping amendments. What we're trying to do is be more administratively sound in presenting the amendments. We're quite concerned about the amount of administration required in some of the acts, and also we wish to be more efficient in the way we do administer them.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

There are some sections in acts that we feel are outdated, and they do need these amendments that are being brought forward. We wish to have the authority to designate someone to arbitrate a decision within the Bee Act. In the Milk Industry Act there's a concern about the designation of labs. In the Soil Conservation Act there is just some housekeeping — the power of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council re the fee structure. In the Livestock Disease Control Act, Mr. Speaker, the bill allows for provisions as they relate to agriculture being added to the Livestock Disease Control Act. It's important here that we bring the aquaculture sector under livestock disease control.

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

MR. ROSE: We're not going to debate this very long at second reading. I understand that the minister is going to be away tomorrow, hopefully getting some money for the grape growers or doing something useful. We're prepared, if there's unanimous consent, to proceed on this this afternoon.

We congratulate him for bringing in the first piece of agricultural legislation since the Bee Act was amended in 1979. So there's progress there. We got new fees for bees. This add, to a list of many other fees — hundreds of other fees — by this government that have nickel-and-dimed the population of British Columbia, especially this last budget.

I understand that the responsibility of livestock inspectors is now extended to aquaculture. We have some things to say about that, because apparently the extension of responsibility is in the act but there's no extra staff. Again, that's in keeping with the traditions we've been following here over the last five years maybe, where we have an increasing amount of responsibility put on people and fewer and fewer staff employed by the ministry. That's sometimes called efficiency, or getting more bang for your buck. I'm not sure that happens. I think you get less service to agriculture, and it's treated more and more as a terminal industry.

There's a consequential amendment in section 16 and a decision to privatize the dairy and food lab in Burnaby. We'll be talking about that more in committee. To me, it's a useless move but an ideological one, because the slogan of this government is: "Ready, guys, let's privatize." I've commented on that before. I see no reason to do it. I don't think it's going to save any money. All it will mean is less service. It's pretty well self-supporting now, so why bother? We have a government-owned institution with 14 professionals that's doing good work. I can't see how anybody's going to make any money out of the business unless they charge higher fees to farmers. If they don't do that.... If they're not in it as a private business and it's a legitimate one to make money, then why would they be in it? I really do think the minister should have fought that. I think he should have fought a number of other things as well.

There are ways here in which the government is really not fair and honest. My information is that the apiarists will be consulted about the size of these registration fees but not about the decision to impose them. Again, I'm told that very few enter each year to register. The arbitration feature looks attractive, but some of the people who have been in business for a long time and are established may not be very happy having to fight for their rights to continue if they're challenged and arbitration is needed. Nevertheless, I don't object to that.

I don't like the idea of the minister designating which labs get to do the testing. That should be done by a body that's probably removed from any public influence or conflict of interest — anything like that. I don't like that idea, because he doesn't have to give any reasons for it. I think it's another example of: trust the government. What we saw in the Expo lands and in the B.C. Hydro bill that we just got for privatization is that.... We're reluctant to place that trust in the government. It's like the Land Commission; I trust the Land Commission, but I don't trust ELUC very much. That, I think, is a weakness of that part of it.

Again, the increased responsibilities for people who are involved in the livestock inspection moving into aquaculture with no increased staff is not a good situation, in our view. Save for that, if the proper motion is moved by the minister when he closes the debate, or if there are other speakers at this stage, we're prepared to go into committee.

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

In first reading we made the case that the aquaculture industry is one of the fastest growing on the coast. Certainly there are some major concerns about the lack of regulations to guide the proper development of this important industry, and some serious concerns have been expressed about the threat to the environment, especially to the wild stocks. So I agree with my colleague that we're concerned about the fact that in spite of the move to streamline this whole operation and put the whole matter of monitoring.... As I understand it, there's one section that extends the responsibility of the livestock inspector to aquaculture, but there's been no new staff to take place along with that added responsibility in the foreseeable future. Mr. Speaker, I would contend that aquaculture deserves better treatment than simply to have the responsibilities of the livestock inspector cover this very vital industry.

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

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd just like to add, or reiterate, some of the concerns expressed already by our fisheries critic, in hope that during the clause-by-clause we can have some further information from the minister about the programs and staffing that he will have in place. As we have collected more information about the aquaculture industry from the industry itself, it is very clear that they have very serious concerns about disease and the spread of disease. It's important that the ministry recognizes that there is a need to

[ Page 5214 ]

put into legislation the ability to deal with these problems, and we'll look forward to hearing more information from the minister with regard to how they intend to do that.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: My hon. critic has touched on the apiary section, livestock disease and the testing for the milk industry or the laboratories. Obviously we want to make sure that under the Milk Industry Act — if I can touch on that one first — the regulations that exist in the act are in fact carried out. Whether they are done either by employees of the government or by the private sector, the act still has to be followed.

The designation we were looking for was that in the milk analysis as it relates to the payment to the producer, we designate a lab for the time being. There may be other labs in the future; it may not be the minister who designates them, but it may be within ministry staff. The ability to designate at this time until such time as any other lab may have the opportunity to establish itself in the competition for that work and the ability to determine on a fair basis the payment for the milk to the producer — that's the important thing relative to the designation.

I think my hon. critic on fisheries suggested, for instance, inspections or regulations as they exist for aquaculture. As you well know, a number of the recommendations in the Gillespie report have been followed in assigning any licences that have been allocated. You'll recollect from our discussion in the estimates that there are only about 118 operating aquaculture or salmon farm operations at this time.

What we're trying to do here by bringing aquaculture — the vertebrate and invertebrate species — in under the Livestock Protection Act is to have some control of the disease you refer to. You referred to the inspectors. We have a marine resources branch that presently is the resource for the industry, but we can also designate.... It's under the authority of the minister to designate inspectors. They can be appointed — for example, veterinarians or whatever to attend on-site. So I think there's fair safety in what we're trying to do in the amendments we're putting forward in the miscellaneous statute.

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

Motion approved.

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

Leave granted.

Bill 33, Agriculture and Fisheries Statutes Amendment Act, 1988 read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

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

On section 1.

MR. ROSE: I'd like to ask a number of questions on section 1. I'll try not to go over them too rapidly.

I'd like to know what size of fee is anticipated for new registrants. I'm told that there were approximately 200 applications last year. How much is the anticipated revenue? I don't think it's a big money-maker, so I'm not sure about that.

Section 1 also provides access to the Commercial Arbitration Act to resolve disputes. On the surface, that sounds pretty good, but this appears to be in some contrast to other measures which give the minister complete independence from the government and provide the minister increased powers in essential matters. I'm talking about section 16 now. I'd like to understand whether the minister thinks that the longstanding operator's rights are being weakened by this change, because now they have to deal with commercial arbitration and have that hanging over their heads if they are challenged in a location.

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

[3:15]

HON. MR. SAVAGE: On the first one, the size of the fee, no fee schedule has been prescribed at this stage. All we ask here is the right to prescribe one, but it is not laying out a fee structure per se. In another question your concern is that the location of an apiary or the removal of hives or whatever from a location may go to arbitration and be dealt with at arm's length away from government. Is that your concern? You are worried that there may have to be an arbitration process in place? We feel that it may have to be there.

MR. ROSE: I don't know whether you ever got around to the size of the fees, except to say that you want the right to impose them, but you haven't really decided how big they would be or when they would be imposed. Is that fair to say? On the arbitration matter, I said that I thought it was a step forward, because if people want to move in there, it would give them some kind of right if the thing couldn't have been worked out in another way. Those existing operators might feel that their rights have been weakened in an area through a requirement for them to go to outside arbitration if there is a challenge. That's how I understand it.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I believe that for those who have been in operation for many years, historical use would play a large role in whether anything ever went to arbitration. The historic operators would not likely face arbitration.

MR. STUPICH: I get the impression from the minister's non-answer to the question of fees that he has no idea at all what fee he intends to charge. This legislation could well be given royal assent as early as tomorrow. I don't know what the plans are, but it could certainly happen very soon, and it could be in effect immediately cabinet decides. I find it hard to believe that the minister has not given some thought to exactly what the fee will be. I wonder whether he has in mind adjusting the fee according to the number of beehives in an apiary. It could be one; it could be several thousand. I just don't know what he has in mind.

I wonder, too, whether this means that there is going to be some better service to the bee industry, whether the minister intends to beef up inspection and control of the movement of bees and equipment. I just wonder why. Is it simply to grab more money because there's a thought in somebody's mind that there is more money available there? It is something more than that, I hope.

[ Page 5215 ]

HON. MR. SAVAGE: No, it's a case of registration and inspection. The fees can be prescribed later, but no fee schedule has been worked out at this stage. We are still working on that, but there is no intent to gouge anybody for inspections or service for inspections.

On the issue of needing more staff or inspectors, that would be addressed if the need occurred. We have sufficient staff within the ministry now, as you are well aware. Some questions were asked last week about the bee situation on Vancouver Island here, and it took an assignment of staff, but the problem got addressed.

MR. STUPICH: I was wondering how I could refer to that situation. I didn't think I could, but now that the minister has opened it up, I appreciate it. I don't know just when those hives came to the Island, but it must be something like a year ago. Over 300 hives came to the Island, and it was only in May or June — a year later — that the ministry got around to actually doing something concrete about it. I am wondering if as of today, June 20, they have all been removed? Is there enough staff to make sure it happens on time?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The hives have all been moved, as I understand it, except for maybe one or two where we hope that the straggler bees will accumulate, and then they will be taken off the Island. If there are any found beyond that, we have agreement that they will be destroyed.

MR. STUPICH: I assume that the minister is saying that this is all being watched by an inspector on site. I don't mean that he's there every moment. I'm wondering if that is the person who has been inspecting in that area, or is it someone else at this point in time?

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

MR. STUPICH: The minister said that it was the same inspector, "as I understand it." If he'd stopped when he said "the same inspector," I'd know that he knew something about it. But when he says "as I understand it," I wonder if he is really up to date on this or whether he's thinking about a trip back east that he'll be leaving on very shortly — with our cooperation. Unless he has something further to add to that, I'll leave it for now.

I know my colleague is welcoming the change to using the Arbitration Act. It seems to me that that's a fairly expensive process compared to what we've had in the past, where the minister has been able to make the determination, except that he was required to make it in favour of the long established beekeeper in that area.

Now it's going to go to arbitration, and I wonder if there's going to be a tendency on the part of arbitration boards to let new beekeepers into an area where there are already people who have been approved by the minister, or they wouldn't be there, and whether we might be getting into a quota system with respect to getting bees into areas. Does it mean we're going to start building up a quota system such as we have in other...? I see the minister shaking his head.

Why are you abandoning the system that to the best of my knowledge has been working without complaint from the beekeepers and changing to something that to the best of my knowledge they haven't asked for?

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

MR. STUPICH: I wouldn't have said it, but I guess the minister is saying that it hasn't been fair and equitable to have him making the determination. Since he's bound to make it on the basis of the established beekeeper, he's saying it's not fair that somebody who went in there first should have the right to that area: he's opened up that area; he has his beehives established. It's not fair that he should have the right to be there and that others should be prevented from coming in there unless the minister makes the determination that there is room there for another beekeeper. He's saying that it hasn't been fair and equitable. It's better to have a different system.

I ask again if anybody has complained about the system where the minister has made the determination? Has anybody in the beekeeping industry asked for a change?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: We believe this would be non-political. It would be a case where an arbitration system rather than politics would make the decision. As I said to the hon. critic, the historic beekeeper would likely not be troubled by what we're saying here. I think the hon. critic said he thought it was a good move.

MR. ROSE: I want to clear my name. The idea of having an outside authority make a decision rather than the minister is a step in the right direction. Every other place in the bill, the minister is grabbing more power for himself. I left the caveat: it was touched on again by my hon. colleague, mentor and friend of long standing that it will place an added financial burden to use the Arbitration Act because it is expensive for established producers historic in that area.

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

I come back to the question that the minister is not answering, and I wonder whether he doesn't know the answer or chooses not to answer it. Did anyone in the beekeeping industry ask for a change? Has anyone in the beekeeping industry attacked this minister and said that you have been political in making your determinations? Partisan politics has entered into your determination. The minister has said that there's a concern about partisan politics.

Has somebody raised that concern? Has anybody complained? Has anybody asked for this change, or is it just something the minister has imposed to put an added financial burden on the beekeeping industry?

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

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

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

MR. ROSE: That's hardly an explicit or breast-beating response: it's been discussed at some point with some members of the industry. Anyway, there was really no consultation. They've got the fee business right between the eyes.

Is the fee intended for just 200 new applicants, which is the anticipated number of applicants for this year, or will it apply to the 5,500 people who were in the business in '86? And is it a combination of inspection and registration fees?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I think there are about 500 beekeepers. You're probably talking 55,000 hives. The fee would be for all, not just the 200 new entrants.

[ Page 5216 ]

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

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

MR. STUPICH: Either his information is inaccurate or mine is. My information is that in 1973, 15 years ago, there were 1,784 apiarists. The number has been increasing steadily since that date. By May of  '75, there were 3,382 registered apiarists with anywhere from one to several thousand hives each. By 1986, the figure was approximately 5,500 apiarists — not hives. Ernie Fuhr must have almost that many hives.

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

Leave granted.

MR. DIRKS: In the gallery today is a delegation from Nelson's sister city in Japan. They just arrived from Japan this morning. I was talking to their guide, and he says they're a little sleepy, and I don't blame them a bit. Visiting from Shuzenji-cho are officials of that city, including the mayor, the president and vice-president of the municipal assembly, the chief secretary of the municipal assembly, 18 members of the municipal assembly, the president and two members of the board of education, the chief of the tourism department, the president of the chamber of commerce, the presidents of the tourism and hotel associations, corporate executives and the president of the Japan-Canada Educational Exchange. Would the House please make them welcome.

[3:30]

MR. ROSE: I noticed that the minister nodded that our figures were indeed correct. We got them out of "Main Farming Areas," a government document. It says that the annual production of the province's 5,500 beekeepers averages such and such amount and is worth about $5 million. Agreed?

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

MR. ROSE: Should the number be correct.... I'm pretty sure it is because it comes from an unimpeachable source. I've forgotten what it's called. I haven't got the source; I've just the photostat. I'll send it over to the minister. Can the minister confirm that those numbers are handled at the moment by about 13 or 14 inspectors — and that's the staffing?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: That is correct.

MR. ROSE: If I'd had time, I would have divided 13 or 14 into 5,500. Do the minister and his staff feel that's an adequate number? It seems like a terrible load for one inspector. If you divide 13 or 14 into 5,500, you get about 420. Is that a reasonable load? In my view, it would be too heavy.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: As far as I understand, those inspectors have been doing the job required of them. I'm not sure whether you would call it a heavy load or not. My understanding is that they have been able to do the job required.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

On section 5.

MR. GUNO: Because of the nature of these particular sections, 5 to 13, I wonder if we could do the whole works at once, Mr. Chairman. They are all tied in.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, we can just discuss it all under section 5.

MR. GUNO: One of the major problems of this section is that we have expressed the concern that no new staff have been identified as Agriculture field staff and that there was actually reduction. I want to solicit some information from the minister with regard to what staffing changes are going to be made to comply with this change.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The concern relative to staffing.... As you well know, the marine resources section of Environment and Parks has been transferred to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. They are key resource people. As far as inspections for disease control are concerned, people can be designated by the ministry to attend to inspections. In the aquaculture sector, for instance, you would designate veterinarians to go on-site for inspection purposes if there was a concern relative to disease. That can be authorized by our office. We obviously are concerned whether the disease comes from within a fish-farm or is transferred from the wild stock into a fish-farm. There obviously have to be people in the event that that happens, so that inspection can in fact take place. That's why the authority to designate is there.

MR. GUNO: I want to just pursue that a bit. Under section 7 it is stated that subsections 3(2) to 3(4) are repealed and the following substituted: that the minister may designate, as you say, persons as inspectors for the purposes of the act. That is less specific than the old provision under section 3, which says: "An inspector under this Act shall be a graduate of a recognized school of veterinary medicine and shall have all the rights and powers of a registered veterinary practitioner, notwithstanding the Veterinarians Act...."

It seems to me that this is wide open: the ministry can appoint persons who may or may not have that kind of qualification. I wonder if the minister can comment on that wide discretionary power.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: It's important that the veterinarians are still involved, obviously; but you may designate, for instance, a biologist to do an inspection. It would still quite likely be coming back to a veterinary lab or whatever for a diagnosis.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to ask the minister a few questions about what is not here. While he has recognized there is a problem — at least, I hope that this legislation indicates that he is recognizing the problem — some of the

[ Page 5217 ]

earlier comments from the minister would suggest that he still hasn't quite made up his mind. He suggests that if a problem should be created.... Mr. Minister, there is a problem now. Most of the biologists will tell you that. They will tell you that there is a problem with both disease and parasites, I believe, in fish-farms. Whether it comes from the wild or comes from the fish-farm I think is completely academic. What we should be doing now is dealing with the fact that there is a problem and coming to grips with that for both the interests of the wild stock and the interests of the people who are managing and owning fish-farms.

There are a couple of things that you've chosen not to deal with in this legislation. One is the importing of smolts and eggs. In the aquaculture industry there has been in other countries a severe problem because they have not been able to restrict the imports as much as should have been done. At this point we don't have any restrictions, as far as I understand, and I wonder why the minister has chosen not to put restrictions on the imports at this time.

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

You seemed to express some concern, hon. member, that there is a disease problem. You say it exists today. As you well aware — at least I hope you're well aware — we have professional staff who have been training private veterinarians in aquaculture. There are a number of veterinarians on the coast who are now trained to identify disease in aquaculture. As I said, there are only 118 operating farms. If there is a problem, it can be addressed very quickly. If such a disease outbreak did occur, it can be addressed very quickly. Our staff are responding, I believe, very sensitively to the need out there.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Minister, you refer to the federal jurisdiction. Does that not only deal with crossing boundaries or international imports? Who has power over imports province to province, say, from the east coast to the west coast?

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

MS. SMALLWOOD: Finally, two points. The minister is dealing with disease control. One of the ways of controlling disease is to restrict the size of farms or the density of fish in those farms. Can the minister indicate why you've not chosen to deal with that in this legislation?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I think you're referring to a report from Norway relative to the density of fish in a salmon farm or within each pen. We do not have those densities in British Columbia. In fact, a lot of the operating farms are now substantially larger in the area for the fish to move in. We don't see the necessity of a regulation, but those are important guidelines our ministry is sending out. If the density is too great, it's only the farmer who suffers from it. He's the one who's going to suffer the loss of income or whatever from fish being too dense within the pen prescribed.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I was referring to that report and other reports that have been done with relation to fish-farming, and they very clearly say that the stress related to dense population in the fish-farms directly relates to the degree of disease in that population. The minister indicates that we don't have that kind of density problem here; that there are regulations but nothing actually in law that helps to guide that. The minister says that the only one who is hurt by that is the farmer himself, who ends up losing some of his valuable stock due to that disease.

Well, Mr. Minister, part of your responsibility is to control disease that may jeopardize other farms or the wild stock. So again, not to deal with that significant problem that.... I think the industry itself will tell you that stressrelated disease is a very serious problem, and I think that given the fact that the industry is in its infancy stage, it would be incumbent upon you to bring in the kind of legislation necessary to govern those fanns and the potential spread of the disease that is indicated.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I appreciate the comments, but as I said earlier, our staff recommend that you give the fish ample room, that you not crowd them in or have the density too high within a fish pen. Your point is well taken, and the industry recognizes that. What I'm saying is that the first loss would more than likely be that of the fish-farmer, who would suffer the greatest loss, albeit that it may have an impact on the wild fish or whatever. But they would not like to see that happen, and we would obviously want to reduce that to a minimum.

MR. GUNO: I just want to deal with one or two points. Again, going back to the expanded role of the inspectors, I think this bill — at least in terms of consumer protection and disease control — does not go far enough. I think much more needs to be done in the development of building standards for fish-farms and labelling requirements so that consumers know whether they're purchasing wild or cultivated salmon. I was wondering if the minister has any comment as to how this would be incorporated under this act.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I'd like to say to the hon. member that we have had numerous requests relative to labelling the fish as domestically raised or wild stock. Those discussions are still going on as to whether from a consumer point of view you would label them pen-raised or domestically raised or whatever — salmon stock or whatever the species happen to be. Those discussions are still underway.

Relative to consumer protection and health purposes, that would be the Ministry of Health going to the consumer shelf to make sure that the product is in fact healthy.

MR. ROSE: A couple of things on this section, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I am concerned, as I was in the estimates, that we've got more responsibilities and yet FTE numbers are lowered by 67 in the last budget. I'd just like to make the point that I think the government is trying to do in agriculture.... I think they're giving too few services and too little assistance, but also they've got fewer people all the time. I think I indicated at that time that if the trend line continues, there won't be any by 1996 or something like that. That's a concern, because there's no new staff for livestock at all.

[3:45]

The other thing is that now you don't even need your inspector to be a veterinarian, so you'll be able to hire people at a lower level and a lower salary. Sure, they'd be working under a veterinarian; in other words, they're going to be like

[ Page 5218 ]

paramedics — paraveterinarians. That's going to be inspections on the cheap. I'd like to know whether or not the minister has any idea of the kind of training these people will need. What kind of people will he be looking for if he decides that the staff designated to do this job of inspections would be...? What kind of qualifications would they have?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The qualifications would be that of a veterinarian or a biologist, as I said, but they would still be under veterinary labs, etc. Certainly they would have to be trained, as I stated a little earlier in answer to a question relative to whether it has to always be a government veterinarian. There are private sector veterinarians who are in fact being trained for aquaculture. It doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be a government person who does it. The training is provided for the qualified person; that's the important thing.

MR. ROSE: I'm still having trouble with my reading. Sections 7 and 8 provide that an inspector need not be a veterinarian. It doesn't say anything about being private or public. However, the staff designated would be working under the supervision of a veterinarian, as I understand it, although the legislation doesn't say so. That's the real main concern we have.

When I asked what the qualifications are, the minister — and I want to be fair to him — said: "Well, people who pass the training, and who we deem to be qualified." I'd like to have an idea of what kind of training is anticipated. What is the skill level and educational level of these people? What background do they have? You say that they have to have some training in biology. Has there been a system of guidelines drawn up for the people who are about to become these inspectors?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I think it would depend on the particular situation presented. For instance, if it was in disease, what type of person would have to respond to the need? There are a number of veterinarians, I can tell you, who have gone through, with our ministry staff.... You talked a little earlier about staff being reduced, which they have; some of our inspection people in the ministry have gone to the Ministry of Health.

As far as disease inspection control on the animals themselves, we still have the complement of staff. Dr. Brad Hicks, who is our chief veterinary inspector for marine animals, has been training the private veterinary sector on how to diagnose the marine life. So I believe that adequate training has taken place. Where there is some concern, a biologist other than a veterinarian may — you don't have to be a veterinarian, as I understand it, to be a biologist — be able to respond to a particular fish farm and to take a look or a sample of a disease problem. I would suggest it would still come back to a veterinary lab for full analysis.

MR. ROSE: What I'm concerned about is that you're deskilling part of your department. You're saying that you don't really need these qualifications anymore to go out and take a sample, and you can trot it back to people who've got some skill. These people will be messenger boys bringing back vials of bacteria or something — or dead fish. Is that what you're saying?

Even health inspectors for septic tanks and all the rest of it have to have some courses in the subject. I'm just trying to find out what kind of people are going to be doing this work. I get the feeling that this is de-reg, really — not regulations but deregulations. There are fewer qualifications needed; let's get government off the backs of the people, and all those great little phrases.... As I said earlier, I'm fearful that you might be allowing this legislation to permit you to hire people of a lower skill and educational level; therefore the protection of the public will not be enhanced.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, that's not the intent whatsoever. What was described before was that the veterinarians would have to take samples or take in the species. Now we're saying that in the marine sector, most of the people are biologists, and it covers for them to be able to do what a veterinarian does in the way of taking a sample to a lab for testing. But it would still be covered by a veterinary lab.

MR. ROSE: Now we're getting somewhere. The minister said that in the field most of these people will be biologists. Did I hear him correctly there? What will the rest be? Are they going to be people with a university degree in biology or some other equivalent or what?

MRS. GRAN: MLAs.

MR. ROSE: MLAs? Well, I happen to have a biology major. Does that reassure you? But I don't have any scuba gear, so I would have to be placed maybe with the cows.

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

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

Interjection.

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

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

HON. MR. SAVAGE: If the hon. member is concerned that anybody can come in — to use a term that doesn't sound quite right — off the street and take a sample and be authorized to do so, no. They have to be trained in the field before they can do it.

Sections 5 to 13 inclusive approved.

On section 14.

MR. ROSE: I don't want to prolong this unduly, but this is a very important section here. It amends the Livestock Protection Act to provide for local people being able to authorize the destruction of vicious dogs.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Well, I was going to say he finally put some teeth into the act.

At present under the Charter the RCMP commissioner is the only one. I want to know who is this local someone who's going to make these decisions now. Are you going to have a local RCMP officer designated? Is it going to be up to the

[ Page 5219 ]

council? Is it going to be up to the dogcatcher? Is it up to the SPCA? There is a real concern out there. We've had horrible accidents with Rottweilers and pit bulls. I'd like a little amplification and clarification on that one.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: It allows the minister to designate a commissioner, who in turn may designate persons to give consent as required by a peace officer. So the peace officer can make an order to kill a dog found threatening the safety of a person or livestock.

MR. ROSE: Does this change in any way the historic common law provision that every dog deserves at least his first bite? I'm being serious about this. It was difficult to destroy a dog in the past for biting someone unless he actually had bitten someone. You say now that it's just a matter of threatening, growling, not wagging his tail fast enough, or something like that. What is the designation here?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, I think my hon. critic is really getting into the teeth of the issue here. I believe that if the dog is in fact threatening or determined to be vicious, you authorize, or designate, a peace officer, who may make the decision or suggestion that the animal be destroyed. You used the phrase, "whether he's allowed to have his first bite. " If that first bite is fatal, there's a problem, isn't there?

MR. ROSE: I won't take any more time on this, because we're moving right along on this bill. But I'd just like to say that a lot of people are really fearful and there have been some horrible accidents. In general, I support this business. But I also think there ought to be some sort of right of appeal built into the whole process, rather than somebody grabbing a dog and doing away with it without due process.

Section 14 approved.

On section 15.

MR. ROSE: I want to talk about the privatization of the Dairy and Food Laboratory. I regret that this is being done. I know that in his more candid moments the minister would agree with me. He knows that there has been tremendously good service over the years by that lab, not only from the dairy farmers. I hope that the second member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. De Jong) will speak to this one too, because he's part of its services. We have become very comfortable — not only the dairy farmers but also various processors — in dealing with the good works of this lab. I don't think there's any money to be made by privatizing it. I don't think there's going to be a real cost saving to government. I suggested earlier that we've got something like $500,000 tied up there in equipment. If it goes like the Soil, Feed and Tissue Lab in Kelowna, it's a fire-sale wipe-out, so we don't gain anything there. We may make ourselves feel a little more ideologically pure, but we don't gain anything.

Again, let me say about these privatizations that there are all kinds of functions in our society and economy that could and should be privatized because they're naturally privatized now and they've given good service. I'm not suggesting that everything is going to be solved by nationalizing everything in sight; we got over that, hopefully, 50 years ago, because we found that wanting. Even B.C. Hydro, or Hydro-Quebec, as a government-controlled corporation, can be just as arrogant as any private business or corporation, whether domestic or foreign. That isn't the argument.

Here is an outfit — the Dairy and Food Lab — that employs 14 very skilled people, that is accountable and useful for cross-checks by the universities and other things to check their findings, and if it were a private lab to be designated by the minister, for the minister to be able to designate one.... I don't know whether underbid or whatever.... This provides for this whole package in sections 15 and 16.

I'm speaking of this in very general terms. The thing offends me because I believe it's unnecessary. I don't think we're going to get as good service from the other labs. I don't see how they can do it, unless you're saying that those people are layabouts just lolling around that dairy lab and costing us a lot of money for very little service. That's not the reports we get. I think what you're doing is a mistake. I know it hasn't been done yet, but this allows you provision to do it. It's a privatization bill.

Who's going to check on the new labs? Are there going to be any cross-checks? Who's going to be able to do that? Is the federal government going to do it? I don't think so.

One of the most prominent labs in the United States, a private lab, was called Bio-Test Laboratories. The Canadian government took their test results on about 113 chemicals registered in Canada. They were found to be wrong. They were found to be fraudulently regarded as safe to use. One of them, Monitor, killed a young East Indian farmworker out in the Fraser Valley five years ago. This was falsified information from a private lab that had its own profit motives.

If you're going to be in private business, you have to make a living at it. I don't object to that; I think that's fine. But when you've got something that works well, the old cliche is: if it ain't broke.... You know the rest of it as well as I do.

We've got all these things that have happened as a result of one private lab falsifying its test results. The successors of this lab are going to have to make a living; therefore they are going to have to make a profit or else they are going to give less service or inadequate service. I don't see it as a winner at all, and we oppose it. I'd just like to have the minister's comments on it.

[4:00]

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I appreciate what the hon. critic is saying, but realistically you have to follow within the rules and regulations of the Milk Industry Act, and we will have quality personnel on staff who will establish criteria and monitor the performance of these laboratories. We will continue to do so. It's important that we do.

The other part of it is whether the private sector can do it as well. There's no doubt in my mind that they still have to meet all the criteria within the act relative to testing. That's laid out. Whether it's a government test or a private test I don't think makes an awful lot of difference at this stage. The important thing, not only from the producer's but from the consumer's point of view, is that the testing is done and that it is monitored properly to make sure that the results are justifiable as well.

MR. LOVICK: I noted that in the minister's answer to my colleague's question he made reference to quality personnel on staff. That strikes me as a curious description for people in

[ Page 5220 ]

this highly specialized area. It seems to me that on a very simple, albeit literalist, reading of this amendment of the bill, effectively we're looking at taking out the word "competent" — we're removing that distinction — and simply saying: "somebody appointed by the minister." That certainly seems to be the impact of the amendment in section 15.

Section 20(2) of the existing Milk Industry Act says: "Determination of compliance with this section shall be based on adequate tests approved by the minister and performed by an inspector or other competent person." The change however, would have it say: "...and performed by an inspector or other person designated by the minister."

If we are being assured, Mr. Minister, that we have nothing to worry about — the monitoring function is indeed going to be performed satisfactorily — please explain to us: whatever is the rationale for taking out the word "competent"? Surely that's the most crucial dimension.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: There again, I appreciate the comment that's being made, but as an example, we'll keep one of our senior people on staff to do the monitoring and quality check of the private sector for that lab. You can call it competent if you like. I would certainly say that this person is competent.

MR. LOVICK: It seems to me that the minister is telling us: "Don't worry. Trust government. Trust us. There will be somebody in charge who has the monitoring responsibility who will have competence." But you are not, by the same token, prepared to give us the assurance that the people who actually do the testing — in this case, the people who actually ensure compliance — have competence, qualification, skill levels. Can the minister give us assurances that I am wrong in that, or is what I say in fact the case?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I can assure the member that the people who would be doing the testing of those samples would certainly have to meet all the qualifications for the job before they were allowed to do it.

MR. LOVICK: Perhaps I'm missing something, Mr. Minister, but that seems to me to beg the question, because what we're getting at here is precisely the point that determines that they can indeed do that job, that they have qualifications. If we take out the term "competence," what then are we left with? I guess my question really comes down to a very simple one: why are we removing that term, that restriction of "competence"? Please explain.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I believe there's nothing wrong with the designation being made by the minister. I'm sure that the designation would be on the basis of being competent and capable of doing the job.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, in the case of this minister I have no difficulty whatsoever in accepting that. The problem, however, is that we aren't talking about this minister. It is quite conceivable, with all due deference and respect to the minister, that somebody else may have your job tomorrow, and there is no guarantee that that other person will pursue his or her duties as assiduously, carefully and conscientiously as you.

The question, then, comes back: why have we removed that initial distinction about competence? Is there some good reason? Thus far I certainly haven't heard one, and I'm wondering if you could give us a clear explanation.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, I'll respond to that in a minute when I see it in the act here. I think there's some ambiguity as to why it was changed, but I'll get the answer back shortly.

MR. DE JONG: I would just like to make a couple of comments. It seems rather interesting from the point of view that members of the opposition don't seem to quite understand what's going on in the industry as it relates to testing. Most farmers have inspection of individual animals, which is called the dairy herd improvement service. Once you're with that system, all of the individual calculations are put together on a monthly basis, and a herd test or even a special sample from the milk tank can be taken. Also, with all the samples put together, they figure out the average test, which is another means of monitoring the system — whether or not you're actually getting paid for the butterfat content in the milk.

I don't think there's any difficulty with the personnel aspect — with the appointment as such by the minister. Really, is it any different whether a person or a firm is appointed by the minister to be qualified to do these tests, or whether they work within the system in a government office or lab, as it is today? They would still require the same competence as far as testing is concerned, and I really don't see any difficulty from the agriculture point of view as to how the testing would be carried out.

Further to that, even though I do not wish to be nasty to the members of the opposition, I think that anyone appointed to the Agriculture portfolio, no matter which party is governing in this province, would take his job seriously and not monkey around with the appointments so that the industry or the health of the industry would be at stake or the farmers that were expecting to get paid....

I think it's in very competent hands, and I don't think we need to worry about the appointments in the future.

MR. ROSE: Does the minister want to respond to the member for Central Fraser Valley or to the question by the member for Nanaimo?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: To the second member for Nanaimo, the "competent" person is not defined in the act. Therefore it's not possible to restrict designation.

MR. ROSE: I just want to ask a couple of questions about that. I understand the dairy herd improvement situation and its merger with the ROP as well; I think we know about those things here. What we want to make certain of is that the successor to this lab will do an equally competent job in private hands as it does in public ones. I think the constraints of a private organization to make a profit place some very severe limitations on that firm.

I don't know whether the minister is aware of what happened with Bio-Test Laboratories and Canadian regulation of very dangerous chemicals. They falsified.... I'm not saying it's going to happen with the outfit that's going to be the successor to the dairy lab, but it could. I suppose it could happen in public labs as well. It was to the economic advantage of this private lab, because they didn't want to complete the testing, to publish fraudulent statistics, on which Canadian registrations for 133 pesticides were based.

[ Page 5221 ]

That's the concern — just to make sure that it's as airtight as we can make it.

Will bids be sought for the successor firm? Right now, according to his press release, the minister designates the successor firm. Are you going to do this on the basis of bids? How is this going to be accomplished?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I guess I have to fall back on the word you're worried about. We would not designate a lab unless we could prove there was confidence in the ability of that lab to fulfil the requirements of the act.

MR. ROSE: Should there be a number of bidders as successor to the dairy lab.... Will there be sealed bids and will the lowest bidder receive the work — provided they're equally competent?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Not necessarily so. We have to establish the competence, I believe. You can have equal competence submitted in bids, but is it sufficient to have industry standards adhered to? The important thing is the competence we have to have.

MR. ROSE: The minister is telling us that if firms, apparently of equal competence on paper, were after the work to be designated by him, they would not necessarily be named successor. So that really leaves it up to the minister to designate. It has nothing to do with the Legislature, or with any accountability anywhere. It could be anybody who got the job. If there is not going to be a bidding process, how can the public be assured that it won't be some friend of the minister, or a firm headed by a friend of the minister — not this minister, any minister?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: When I said equal competence, as long as they meet the criteria.... There could be two of the same competence, but they have to be able to meet the competence criteria set out in the act, what is required in the bid submitted for the work to be carried out on behalf of the industry.

MR. ROSE: Can the minister assure the House that the quality of testing to the producer — whether it's the milk producer or the processor; whoever might be the customers of that lab — will remain equal and that the fees will not be increased?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The question of how important quality is in the standards is laid out within the act. As for fees, I can't dictate that the fees will always remain the same.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Let me give the minister a scenario, and he can tell me whether or not, under his legislation, this could indeed happen. What we see with testing labs in the United States is a move away from the small, qualified labs, with degreed scientists doing the tests, to huge labs that are basically assembly-line labs, with technicians doing routine testing. They definitely do not have the scientific training to be able to read the results of the testing. They more or less do a set test, and if the litmus paper turns a certain colour — to simplify it — they pass the sample. This legislation opens up the possibility of those kinds of labs doing the sort of testing for the dairy industry that we see down in the United States: assembly-line tests, where the supervisory staff are the degreed scientists, but the people doing the tests don't necessarily have the scientific credentials necessary to understand what is in front of them. The amendment we are talking about here opens it up for testing for the dairy industry to be done by technicians rather than qualified scientists.

[4:15]

HON. MR. SAVAGE: We currently have scientists monitoring and training our people in the labs. The important thing to recognize is that they have to meet certification. So whether it's, as you like to call it, a huge laboratory on a line system doing different types of testing.... That would only be considered on the basis that it could meet certification. If they could not, no. Again, you have to come back to the standards established within the act for the tests that are required within the act, and you would have to have the certification for the capability to do that testing. That's the only way they could qualify.

MS. SMALLWOOD: You're saying that once the standards for those tests are laid out, we could very well have an assembly line laboratory or testing facility in the province with technicians doing the tests. The standards for those tests, I assume, are set out in some regulation — something that is not before this House — and then that lab would be certified.

With the privatization of your lab, what staff would you have on payroll to be able to take that information back? I can't help but make the parallel between this lab and the environment lab. One of the things that we saw across Canada in several different instances, where there were serious industrial problems, was that the ministry, because it had divested itself of its capability to judge the testing that was coming back.... What we saw was ministries of government either not making decisions fast enough or making decisions that were not accurate.

Not only did it put in jeopardy the consumer but it also puts in jeopardy the industry. Because of this amendment, the industry would have some real concerns about your ability to judge the tests, given the fact that you are opening the door to this kind of assembly line testing by technicians rather than trained, competent people, as has been done in the past. I just think that the minister isn't doing the kind of homework that is necessary. You're opening doors that can cause real, serious problems here.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: As I stated earlier to the hon. member, we will be ensuring that the proper criteria are established and that the monitoring takes place. Just to tell you, we are keeping the supervisor who is presently in the dairy lab on staff. As well, a lead scientist will be remaining on staff.

Section 15 approved.

On section 16.

MR. LOVICK: The intent of this part of the bill is very clear: to allow the minister to designate laboratories at which tests may be performed. That is certainly straightforward.

The first question I have concerns an apparent discrepancy between the bill as we have it before us and the statement that emanated from the ministry offices on April

[ Page 5222 ]

29, which says that the ministry will designate a single qualified laboratory to perform the service for a fixed term. Here we are now talking about the minister. Is there any difference there worthy of note, or is that simply a — what will I call it — slip of some sort, a drafting error?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: It's probably a typing error, but the minister will be the one responsible. Does that help you any, hon. member?

MR. LOVICK: Certainly that helps step one. That's a clarification. I think there is, however, a significant difference to say that the ministry will have responsibility versus the minister will. The difference is significant insofar as my understanding — and I will ask the minister to simply comment on this observation — is that civil servants are required to act impartially and in compliance with some authority such as a regulation or a statute. Their actions then can be challenged under the Judicial Review Procedure Act. Under the wording of section 16, however, it appears to be the case that the minister is being given a discretion to do something, and it will be much harder, if not impossible, to challenge whatever it is the minister might do.

It seems to me that once more we are being asked to buy a rather large package that, though it may be attractively packaged, we don't really know the contents of. Further, given the track record of your government — not necessarily you, but your government — our trust is wearing rather thin. I am wondering if my reading of that is correct and if the minister would care to respond to the conclusion I derive from that reading.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: As I stated, it will be the minister who will make the designation. That's what it says in 22.1(1). I think that's the thing you're really questioning. It will be the minister who will do so.

MR. LOVICK: I understand, Mr. Minister, that you have no difficulty whatsoever with the case I presented regarding the Judicial Review Procedure Act. That doesn't strike you as a problem or worthy of consideration. It's just the case that we are giving more and more power to particular ministers and therefore to the whims and idiosyncrasies of ministers. Is that the new method of government now?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Well, I believe the minister has to be held responsible for the designations. I don't know if that's a clear enough answer. Whether it's subjected to judicial inquiry or review remains to be seen.

MR. LOVICK: I'm glad that we at least seem to be having a clear distinction drawn between the statements the two of us are making.

I want to ask a very specific question generated largely by the answer I just received. I'm bothered by the wording of section 16 on 22.1(2), and I would ask the minister if he would be good enough to explain to me what the intention of this is and why this particular section is here. I am referring specifically to the line that says: "...any person who is working at the laboratory is deemed to have been approved by the minister for the purposes of sections 16, 20(2) and 22(3)." As the minister well knows, those particular sections get to the absolute heart of what testing is about. Those are the particular sections that determine whether a practice is good or bad, safe or unsafe.

Just to restate my question, I'm wondering what the reason is for giving that rather wide discretionary power to the ministry by saying that anybody who works at the laboratory is deemed to have been approved. That seems to me rather a large entitlement. A great deal of latitude is expressed in that.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I hope the member is aware that I have to authorize certification for the positions within the lab. I have to authorize the certificates.

MR. LOVICK: I certainly don't wish to belabour the point, but given the discussion we had some minutes ago about competence and the difficulty we had with that, I'm not finding much comfort in that answer saying that one has to issue certification. Is it the case that every employee in the lab covered by the section I just read will indeed be the possessor of some kind of certificate, some kind of registered qualification to work in the laboratory?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: They must be certified to carry out some of the duties within the act, and they have to meet those qualifications. They have to be qualified to get that certificate. Whether a person in the lab could meet the qualifications and didn't have a certificate.... The minister would have to judge on the basis of those qualifications and assign a certificate accordingly.

MR. ROSE: Hopefully this will be the last remark on what was going to be a very brief debate.

I think we're concerned about a lot of things it doesn't say. On the one hand the minister says: "I have to make sure that they're certified." Right? They have to be certified to have competence and training to do certain tasks. But the act says that if they're employed there, they're deemed to be certified. The very fact of their employment seems to certify them. We find it difficult to reconcile those two points.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: In this case, where we designate a lab we want to make sure that the people who are doing the testing are in fact certified. That's the important thing.

MR. ROSE: You say they're deemed to have been certified.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: No. They have to be certified.

MR. R. FRASER: I have some interest in this section. I'm sorry I missed the early part of the debate, because I did talk to the minister about this earlier.

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER: I wish I'd been here. You're right.

I would like to know whether these testing people are going to be certified by CSA or by what other authority.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The people who are in the laboratory will be certified by the supervisor within our ministry as it relates to the qualifications in the act to do the job that is prescribed.

MR. R. FRASER: What the minister is saying, then, is that the individuals will be certified, as opposed to the laboratories, or both?

[ Page 5223 ]

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The lab would only be certified on the basis of the competency of its employees — their ability to do the job that's required under the act.

MR. R. FRASER: In other words, every laboratory which hired staff that you felt was certified could therefore be certified in addition.

Why did you think it was necessary to certify the labs?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: For certification of the quality and the testing that's required within the lab. They always have been certified to carry out.... The responsibilities that are adhered to within the act require certification. It doesn't change.

[4:30]

MR. R. FRASER: In other words, we're going to have a private company doing the lab. Normally when testing companies do work, they have qualifications from some agency outside government, but in this case we're going to privatize the lab and have government certification. Instead of saying, "We're not going to do the work anymore and you can pick from any one of those labs," we're still going to be hooked into it whether we think we should or not.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I guess the answer to that is yes, to ensure the quality of the testing that is required.

MR. R. FRASER: One last remark on this particular section. It strikes me that if we're going to take the step of having the testing done by a commercial lab, then we should let the labs do their work. We should not be involved in the certification process at all.

Section 16 approved on division.

Sections 17 and 18 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 33, Agriculture and Fisheries Statutes Amendment Act, 1988, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on division.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call committee on Bill 28, Mr. Speaker.

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT
(continued)

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

On section 2.

MR. MILLER: I don't know what discussions, if any, have been held so far on section 2.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: They were profound, my colleague advises me.

Section 2 removes the designation of chief forester. It seems to me that the impact of the section could be the contracting-out of the whole evaluation process, and that could, I think, open the door to the kinds of political interference that do take place — that have taken place — from time to time in this province. I wonder whether the minister, if he has already answered this question, could respond again: why did he think it was necessary to remove that designation of chief forester? Certainly the chief forester is the one who should be in a position to be most familiar with the timber supplies of the province and their allocation.

I'll keep it short, and ask the minister to respond to that.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, we're discussing an amendment to the Forest Act, under section 11(4)(a), creating or maintaining employment opportunities and other social benefits in the province. In the matter of adjudicating such items, it's better that that be in the realm of the government and not the chief forester. The chief forester, among other duties, sets allowable annual cuts. It is the responsibility of the minister under the Forest Act to apportion the allowable annual cuts, and that's what takes place with the award of a forest licence.

MR. MILLER: Is the chief forester involved in any way in the application process?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, all of the executive members of the Forest Service, the assistant deputy ministers — the chief forester is an assistant deputy minister in this ministry — are involved in the review process.

MR. MILLER: With respect to my question on the contracting-out, could the minister advise whether I'm correct that these amendments to section 11 basically would allow the ministry to contract out all of the application processes for the licence?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, this does not abrogate the responsibility of the minister to make the award.

MR. MILLER: That's rather an abbreviated answer, Mr. Minister. If we fill in the blanks on that, it doesn't take away your responsibility to make the award. My question was: does it allow the entire application process to be undertaken by people outside of the ministry?

HON. MR. PARKER: I don't believe so, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MILLER: Well, would it in part then? Is it the intention of the amendment introduced to allow.... The minister says he doesn't believe it would allow the whole process to be done by contractors. Is it the intent of the amendment to allow some portion, whether significant or small, to be done by contractors versus the Forest Service staff?

HON. MR. PARKER: As we stated earlier, Mr. Chairman, we'll decide the adjudication process for each situation as it arises.

[ Page 5224 ]

MR. MILLER: I didn't quite understand that answer. Perhaps the minister might like to elaborate on what he really meant.

HON. MR. PARKER: As each forest licence is determined to be available, the ministry will advertise accordingly, and the terms of reference will be set forth at that time.

MR. MILLER: The ministry will advertise that a forest licence is available, as is normally the case now: so many cubic metres, located in such and such a TSA, without the proviso of a processing facility; as the minister indicated during estimates, that is now something we're not allowed to do, because of a view of the ministry that it might be a violation of the memorandum of understanding.

So the advertising is done by the ministry. Presumably you have some interest out there from a company, or more than one company, and they submit an application. The applications are then reviewed by the Ministry of Forests to determine whether any of them are suitable, or ultimately which one is the most suitable, and the licence is awarded.

My question is — and I keep going back to it; it's fairly basic — would it be allowed under the amendments to section 11 that all of the vetting of the applications, or a significant portion of the vetting of the applications, could be done by a private consulting firm, which would then make a report to the minister, advising him which applicant he should choose?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, the ministry would set out the terms of reference for making a bid proposal on a forest licence offered. The adjudication process would be set forth in that advertisement, and the considerations that any proponents must consider would be set forth in those terms of reference.

As to whether or not there would be a conversion plant required or an area designated where a conversion would have to take place, or any other, it would depend on elimination of the MOU as it exists. That really can't take place right now, but we expect it will be achievable within the next couple of years, so we want to make sure we have the flexibility to deal accordingly. It has not been the practice in the past to abrogate our responsibilities to somebody else. It is the responsibility of the minister to allocate cut, and it will continue to be. At least, that's the intention of the ministry at this time.

MR. MILLER: I realize it's the responsibility of the ministry to award the cut. If you were proposing to privatize that function, I suppose you might even get COFI upset. I realize it's the ministry's responsibility to allocate cut; my question was in terms of the process. It was pretty straightforward, I think. Under the amendments, would it be possible for a private consulting company to vet the applications and make a recommendation to the minister as to which application would be preferred?

We realize that the ministry sets out the basics in terms of the initial advertisement. I don't know about the adjudication process; it seems to me that the adjudication process is something within the ministry. When I look at some of the licences that have been awarded.... For example, the CITC licence in McBride: I believe the minister said at a forum down in McBride that it's not his intention to do the ministry's business on Main Street. That was his response to the concerned people who asked specific questions about why a particular licensee was chosen over another licensee. The minister said he wasn't going to do the business of the ministry on Main Street and refused to give them an answer other than the four or five qualifications set down in the act.

You haven't really told us anything. I keep going back to the question, and I guess I will keep going back to it. Under the amendments — and we know that the thrust of this government and indeed your ministry is to move to privatize ministry functions.... The question is: can a consulting company vet the applications on behalf of the ministry and make a recommendation directly to you which you then could act on?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, the executive may draw on whatever expertise they see fit. But the recommendations come through from the executive to the minister, and the minister makes the decision.

MR. MILLER: Perhaps the minister would review very briefly a typical application for a forest licence. He could choose the most recent one, if he wanted to — I'm not asking him to divulge anything that isn't public. In terms of the most recent examples of the ministry vetting applications for forest licences, have outside contractors or consultants been used to provide professional advice to the ministry on which application is preferable?

HON. MR. PARKER: No, that hasn't taken place.

MR. MILLER: Under the amended section 11, could it take place?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, that would depend on the administration at the time.

MR. MILLER: I feel like a yo-yo here, Mr. Chairman; I keep popping up and asking these pretty simple, basic questions.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: I hear the minister saying over there: "Do you know what the stock market's going to do?" No, I don't know what the stock market's going to do, Mr. Minister; neither do you. But presumably you do know why you brought in certain amendments to the Forest Act. Presumably you do know what their impact is. You know what the changes mean and what they will allow your ministry to do. I'm asking you to explain that to the House, and I don't understand your reluctance.

[4:45]

HON. MR. PARKER: I've already explained it.

MR. MILLER: Well, I don't know if anybody here understood it. I'll cede my place and let them explain it. I certainly didn't understand it. I asked you whether, using most recent examples, applications for forest licences were vetted by consulting firms outside the ministry. You said: "No." I then asked you whether, under the amendments to section 11, that could take place, and we get some remarks about the stock market. I don't understand why you're talking about the stock market.

[ Page 5225 ]

You know what I'm getting at. You know why I'm asking these questions. If that's the intent — the government has been fairly consistent and proud about their attempts to privatize — I would think the minister would stand up and say with a great deal of pride that that's what they intended to do. He refuses to say they won't do it, and he refuses to say they will do it, which leaves this House — it leaves me anyway — at a loss to understand why the amendment has been brought in. All references to the chief forester have been deleted. I think the minister should be straightforward. If the intent of the amendment is to allow this to take place, the minister should advise the House that that is the case.

HON. MR. PARKER: I have been straightforward, and I take a little offence at the member opposite for suggesting I wasn't. I have reiterated the purpose of the change several times today. We're dealing with section 11 of the Forest Act and with applications to award forest licences. Due to the social and economic considerations in the awards, it's appropriate that government deal with the award. Therefore we put forward this amendment to the act. If the member opposite wants to read anything else into it, that's his prerogative.

It's very difficult to say what will happen in the future, which is why I alluded to the stock market or weather forecasts. Who's to say what will happen someday? The member opposite can read into it whatever he wants. This amendment is put forward to deal with the award and the considerations to the social and economic benefits to the people of the province, and it is best done by the elected people — the government.

MR. MILLER: Let's assume I'm missing something here. I did allude to the memorandum of understanding and the inhibiting factor in terms of advertisements for forest licences. The minister seems to be saying that this will give him the power to make those decisions which somehow he cannot make under the current section 11. If that's the case, why is the minister so reluctant to deal with the other part of the question, quite separate from the question of allocation and social considerations?

The other part of the question is really the whole thrust of privatization, because that's what I read into the amendments that would allow the ministry to use consulting firms to do the work now done by ministry staff. If that's the intent of the section, we'd like to know about it. We think that's a big ehangem the operations of the ministry — to have outside consultant, make those kinds of recommendations to the minister.

We won't approve of that kind of change. We think that those considerations should be done in-house by Ministry of Forests and Lands people. There are really two parts. I appreciate, if I'm reading you right in terms of your last answer, that it would allow those social considerations to be taken into account when awarding licences. But as to the vetting process for the applications, I still am not clear what the intention of the act is.

HON. MR. PARKER: The member's question appears to be: is it the intent of this section to provide for award of forest licences to be done by the private sector? The answer is no.

MR. MILLER: Just to clarify that: I think under the legislation the minister or his designate has to be the person. The minister is saying that that does not allow the person authorized by him — that's the second part of the wording change — to be a private consultant and to make an award of a forest licence. That award has to be made by the minister. Just narrowing it down a little further: can the minister use a private consultant to advise him which application for a forest licence is preferable?

HON. MR. PARKER: The minister has the right to draw on whatever expert advice he sees fit, in the best interests of the people of British Columbia.

MR. MILLER: Given that the current practice of the ministry and the minister is not to use private consultants, is it the intention of the minister to make any changes to that practice?

HON. MR. PARKER: My intentions today are not to use any outside assistance, but time and circumstance may change.

MR. MILLER: We assume that the minister knows what he might be doing tomorrow. Is there any particular reason for the minister — given the thrust to privatization of the government — to move in that direction? I don't think it is good enough to say: "My intention today is such and such, and I don't know what is going to happen tomorrow." We do know what is going to happen tomorrow when it comes to certain actions that we undertake. It's no mystery what is going to happen tomorrow, the next day, a month from now or a year from now. We know; we have some control. In this case, I would suggest that the minister has the ultimate control. It's not as though we're talking about some circumstance coming along that would be beyond the minister's control and that he would be forced into using private consultants. The minister has the authority, the ability and everything else to say right now that that will not happen. Yet we end up talking about: "Who knows what's going to happen tomorrow?"

It's not really like the weather, so I would go back on it. Is there anything that the minister foresees that could cause him, given the privatization initiatives of the government, to move in the direction of taking those evaluation processes out of the realm of the ministry and allowing, for example, a private consultant to do all of that work, to make a recommendation as long as it is signed by a reputable firm and to have the minister make a decision on the basis of that outside report rather than in-house?

HON. MR. PARKER: It is not our intention to do anything different than what we are doing today, all things being equal to this point in time.

MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe the minister could just give us a rundown in terms of how he handles applications currently; say, for example, the Sustut application and the North Takla one. Just how is that process handled and how might it be different under this section? I am sure the good people in Hazelton, Prince George and all points north would be fascinated with how you handled that interesting allocation.

HON. MR. PARKER: The specific point that the first member for Vancouver East raises was dealt with by five inhouse committees working independently of one another, making their recommendations to the executive, who made the recommendations to me.

[ Page 5226 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: That would be in-house groups, committees reporting to the executive who in turn report to you. I guess some of these committees would have said, "No way should this go to Prince George," for example. Would that happen?

HON. MR. PARKER: Anything's possible in a discussion between adjudication committees and the executive.

MR. WILLIAMS: So the executive, I guess, in this process reviews these things and there is a consensus recommendation from the executive? Is that the process or is that not? In the case of the Takla and Sustut, was there unanimous recommendation, for example?

HON. MR. PARKER: Recommendation basically by consensus.

MR. WILLIAMS: In a case like that, then, there would be a common recommendation from the executive. Maybe the minister could advise the House how the process would change with respect to this legislation. I am sure that the House Leader on the government side will be more than happy with that question.

HON. MR. PARKER: Under the existing act, the chief forester makes the decision, and under the amended act the minister would make the decision.

MR. WILLIAMS: With respect to the Takla matter, the chief forester did make the decision. Is that the case?

HON. MR. PARKER: The deputy chief forester made that decision. The chief forester was not available.

MR. WILLIAMS: The significant change then, from the minister's point of view, is that this puts the minister in the driver's seat.

HON. MR. PARKER: This amendment provides for the minister to make the decision.

MR. MILLER: The minister is aware of the constemation, if I can put it mildly, of the residents of McBride, when it came to the awarding of that licence. I'm not saying you can please all of the people all of the time, but surely the changing of section 11 to take it out of the hands of the non-political chief forester and put it into the hands of the political minister will only invite charges of favouritism and political interference when those licences are awarded.

This minister is well aware that we are in a period in terms of the Takla-Sustut where there are some difficult decisions to make. The more this act is changed now.... Does the minister not have any concern that this — if I can so term it — politicization of that section will lead to problems for whoever happens to be Minister of Forests? Would it not be better to have those decisions seen to be made by an independent civil service? It would seem to my eyes.... I don't know if the minister wants to comment on that.

[5:00]

HON. MR. PARKER: When we stand for election, we are prepared to govern. We are government, and we are prepared to meet our responsibility.

MR. MILLER: That sounds like Premier II: "I will not change. I cannot change."

With respect to subsection (5), which has basically been repealed under section 2 of Bill 28, it may be that the subtlety of the change escapes me. Basically, the way I read the existing section 5 and the new section 5, they really do say the same thing. It seems to me that there must have been, apart from the removal of the reference to the chief forester, some intent in rewriting subsection (5) as it has been written in the new bill, particularly (5)(b), which I have some difficulty following.... The wording now is: "The minister may...agree with an applicant to dispose of a smaller volume of timber than was applied for.... That wording seems to suggest.... Why would somebody apply for a volume of timber and then go to the minister and agree that there should be a smaller volume than they applied for?

The wording of the old subsection (5) — "The chief forester shall approve one or more applications for all or part of the advertised volume..." — was fairly straightforward, and I just have some difficulty with the way (b) is written. I don't know if the minister is getting my drift on this, but "agree with an applicant to dispose of a smaller volume of timber" than the applicant has already applied for.... I wonder what conditions the minister would foresee that would necessitate this reworked subsection (5).

HON. MR. PARKER: Subsection (5) now reads: "The chief forester shall approve one or more applications for all or part of the advertised volume of timber...." What the proposed amendment does is provide for an agreement with an applicant or applicants to dispose of a smaller volume; in other words, to split up what was offered. That has been done in several cases with forest licences in the past. This makes it clearer as to what may take place, and it was done for the purpose of clarification.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

On section 5.

MR. MILLER: This provision basically calls for the movement of cut timber sale licences from one TSA to another. As I recall, the minister's explanation was that that would allow for beetle kills — I think you used that as an example of....

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: Salvage and fire. But it does bring into question, although we are dealing with timber sale licences, the allocation of cut in particular TSAs. There is a great deal of controversy now regarding — although we're talking about a forest licence — timber from one TSA being moved to another. Obviously there are other examples on the coast, particularly in the Prince Rupert TSA where timber is taken out of that TSA for processing in another one.

Is there any regional focus to the concept of a TSA in terms of timber from one TSA being kept available as much as possible for processing facilities within that TSA? I see increasingly that we're going to be getting into difficulties, as we are now, as timber shortages occur. First of all, is there any current philosophy in the ministry with regard to trying to maintain timber supplies within a TSA?

HON. MR. PARKER: This amendment provides for the opportunity for the Forest Service to move licensees' cutting

[ Page 5227 ]

responsibilities into another timber supply area in an emergent situation. The intention of it is to deal with emergent situations. If the licensees in an existing TSA have an emergency situation and are not sufficiently able to carry out the cut in the time-frame required to achieve salvage, then we would have to pull people out of adjacent TSAs to assist. They have cut-control responsibilities. What we're saying is that their cut control would be considered as their effort on the part of the salvaging of the emergent situation. Because there may not be sufficient forces within the TSA where the emergency exists, we would pull assistance from adjacent TSAs to assist with the emergency, but we would consider what they were doing in the salvage as contributing towards their cut control in the other TSA. So they would be meeting their licence obligations elsewhere to help out with the emergency.

MR. MILLER: The existing section 15(l) requires the consent of the holder of the licence. Would that be removed by the amendment?

HON. MR. PARKER: No, it wouldn't.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

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

On the amendment.

MR. MILLER: We don't have a great deal here, but perhaps the minister would outline the impact of the amendment.

Is it to prevent complications in terms of the bonus bids and bonus offers? I would appreciate it if the minister would outline the intent of the section and the amendment.

HON. MR. PARKER: The reason for the amendment to Bill 28, section 6 was the syntax. Originally it indicated that the applicant would decide how the bids might be received, and the amendment we've submitted today provides for the regional manager and district manager to specify the terms. What we're talking about is whether.... I'll share my notes with you here:

"Subsection 16(3) is repealed and a new subsection 16(3) provides for the acceptance of applications only from one or more of the categories of small business enterprises established by regulation, and permits the submission of either bonus bids on a dollar-per-cubic-metre basis or bonus offers on a lump-sum basis payable in advance. The regional manager or district manager will determine if a sealed tender or oral option is appropriate for each sale sold."

MR. MILLER: You can't offer both a bonus bid and a bonus offer; it will be either/or. Is that the intent?

HON. MR. PARKER: It's either/or.

MR. MILLER: Okay. In this section, I wonder if the minister would care to advise the House whether or not this would have any impact on the so-called surrogate bidding, which is a problem in the small business program. I think there's another section where we may want to discuss it further. It's a problem in terms of its difficulty to detect. I don't know how you establish that that actually has happened or taken place, and whether or not this section is designed to clarify matters or in some manner restrict that from happening. If you want to answer that, then I have some more questions on the small business program.

HON. MR. PARKER: It's very difficult to eradicate so-called surrogate or designated bidding. The only people who can participate in the small business enterprise program are those who are registered under it. It is known that various bidders registered under that program do at times get sponsored by other parties. One way that we see to overcome such a problem is dealt with in the new section 16.1. Section 7 will deal with the concern of the member.

MR. MILLER: Dealing just with the bonus bidding and the bonus offer and the whole process whereby small business operators acquire timber under the small business forest enterprise program, it's clear that there are problems. The one that's most outstanding now is the situation in Bums Lake, where the small business operators have in effect banded together to prevent those sales from taking place. Their contention is that the upset price being asked by the ministry for the timber is prohibitively high. As I'm aware, the minister's response is that that's the level to which that timber was bid up to on previous sales. If the minister wants to clarify that, that's fine.

Just dealing in real terms, do the people who are making that claim have a case? The legitimate operators in the small business program are suggesting, it seems to me, that it's not economical to bid on the timber at the upset prices that have been established. Could the minister elaborate and offer his opinion about that? It's all well and good to have a program, but if it's uneconomic and people can't take advantage of it, then it's not really doing what it was intended to do.

HON. MR. PARKER: The upset stumpage for small business timber sales is determined in exactly the same way as stumpage appraisal is done for all other licences in the province. The cost of forest renewal, the cost of access and the cost of protection are added to that. That constitutes the upset. It's subject to the cap of $14 per metre, plus one-half of anything over the $14.

The timber sale auctions in the Burns Lake area have indicated that many sales go for much more than current upset calculations. That's a matter of record. Some of the timber sales have a high appraisal value, and that's because of timber values and access and logging chance. There are areas that have low upset stumpages, but the only ones we hear about — and the only ones we've heard about in the House — are the high numbers. There has not been an upset appraisal higher than the highest bid ever received for timber in the Burns Lake area.

[5:15]

MR. MILLER: I wonder if the minister, who's familiar with the area, could offer an explanation as to why the small business operators have banded together to in effect boycott the sales.

HON. MR. PARKER: It probably has something to do with one of our colleagues in the House. It's an attempt to

[ Page 5228 ]

change the CVP system of stumpage appraisal, and we're not going to do that.

MR. MILLER: Although the minister didn't name him, was he referring to the member who represents the area in the House?

HON. MR. PARKER: That could very well be.

MR. MILLER: Well, it's between Prince George and Smithers. The minister is then saying it might be the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) who's responsible for the small business operators boycotting the sales, rather than their legitimate belief that the prices are simply too high and that to bid on that timber would be uneconomic for them, that they just couldn't make a buck on it.

HON. MR. PARKER: The upset prices for the timber are determined in a fair and equitable manner, and the attempt by interested parties in the Burns Lake area to depress prices is a political move. Whether or not it's fostered by the member for the area is anybody's guess.

MR. MILLER: The small business operators in the area have asked for two considerations, and I wonder if the minister has given some thought to that. The first one is that sales under 10,000 cubic metres are taken off the upset price. The second is really a question: why so much volume? I'm advised that 150 percent of the volume available under the small business program is being offered all at once. There's a belief that that's being done in order for the ministry to capture revenue. Can the minister comment on either one of those?

HON. MR. PARKER: I can take both those suggestions under advisement and respond at a later time. There's no way I can respond to either of those concerns. I have not been apprised of them.

Amendment approved.

Section 6 as amended approved.

On section 7.

MR. MILLER: Section 7 adds a new section to the current application process for timber sale licences. The first one is laid down in the Forest Act. The regional or district manager, on request or on his own initiative, "may, by an advertisement published in the prescribed manner, invite applications for a timber sale licence...." And it goes on to list a number of sections that tie in with that. Under the proposed new section, we get basically the same thing, only we have a different application process. In this case, it's an application to the minister.

We're talking about the disposal of Crown timber under a timber sale licence — as I said, an application process laid down in terms of who can initiate and who deals with it. And following close on its heels, the minister wants once again to put in a political application process. Given the one in the book, why do we have to add 16.1 right after it? Why do we have to have two different application processes for timber sale licences, one through the normal channels in the ministry and one directly to the minister?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, the key here is that we're calling for bid proposals on these particular applications — larger volumes, a little longer period of time, still non-renewable. It's an attempt to promote and encourage secondary and tertiary manufacturing in British Columbia and not simply to supply wood for export opportunities or for the support of existing mills that are cutting historic products. It's an attempt to foster value-added industry in the province. We're also trying to overcome the surrogate bidding problem here. That's the purpose of this amendment, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MILLER: I appreciate the response, but I still don't see why the question of value-added, for example, could not be determined under the existing section 16. What would preclude the normal process that now exists under the Forest Act from being used in the manner that the minister talked about, to encourage value-added processing or further processing, not just the supplying of timber? Does it go back to the comments that the minister made earlier with respect to section 2? I fail to understand how an application under the normal process wouldn't...or how the ministry could not achieve the same effect, and why that now has to be a political process directly to the minister.

HON. MR. PARKER: The purpose of this amendment is to provide for much greater employment opportunities and other social benefits in the province. The existing legislation provides for timber sales under two categories of small business operator, sold strictly on a bonus basis. This creates the opportunity for more thoughtful proposals and for creating a value-added industry that really doesn't exist at this time.

MR. MILLER: The minister has identified areas where it would be possible.... I presume representations must have been made from small business operators that if they could only get a certain amount of timber they could get into processing, and this section is really intended to deal with that. The old act was remiss or did not allow the scope.

HON. MR. PARKER: The bid proposal approach was done for several reasons. One of those reasons is that I felt that it was a means of overcoming the surrogate or designated bidder situation. Also, there were presentations to government from various quarters in the forest industry for roundwood supply to value-added plants and opportunities. As a result, we proposed this amendment.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, we have two amendments to section 8. Would the minister please introduce the two amendments to section 8 — one at a time, that is.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: This is the first amendment.

On the amendment.

MR. MILLER: Just a quick question on the impact of changing from a percentage of each licence as opposed to an

[ Page 5229 ]

overall percentage on the total. I just got this when I arrived in the buildings at 4 o'clock. Would that change the volume that would be subject to removal?

HON. MR. PARKER: No, it would not.

Amendment approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the minister please move the second amendment.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, I move the second amendment to section 8 standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. MILLER: Again, I would ask the minister, given the shortage of time, to outline why the amendment was brought in.

HON. MR. PARKER: To clarify the syntax of section 8 of Bill 28. Bill 28 stated: "The allowable annual cut provided for by the licences issued under subsections (7) and (8) shall not be less than 90 percent of the allowable annual cut" — we had to amend that to say "a total of the allowable annual cut — "provided under the licence that was surrendered." It's a matter of plurality in getting the syntax around that.

MR. MILLER: Again, the second amendment is the change to 27.1 subsection (10). Instead of reading, "Where the minister is satisfied that the holder of the licence will take additional steps not previously taken," it's been changed now to read: "Where the minister is satisfied that the holder of the licence has taken...." Am I correct?

HON. MR. PARKER: Yes.

MR. MILLER: It seems to me that there's a....

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: "Has taken" or "will take." There's a change of emphasis, and it implies that if the licensee takes steps prior to, that will be seen or taken as evidence of intent. Is that the reason for the change? I didn't really follow your syntax explanation. But that's the way I read the intent.

HON. MR. PARKER: In this particular instance, the licensee may have taken all possible steps at the time of the rollover to support and encourage further processing, increased utilization or intensive silviculture — what have you. All this does is provide for that situation, should it exist.

MR. MILLER: We'll probably get into the larger discussion when we deal with section 8. There are provisions for public hearings on the rollover. Is this kind of information relevant to the public hearing process? Again, that's — I'll even say it myself — a rather lame question. We'll get into the larger discussion.... But is there a requirement in terms of the public hearing process that that kind of thing would have to be put before the hearing?

HON. MR. PARKER: The answer to that question is yes.

Amendment approved.

On section 8 as amended.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, we have taken a position in opposition to the rollover, to further alienation; and I would note the response of the minister to a question during second reading that the legislation is not enabling legislation. Nonetheless, it does deal with the issue, and I think there are a number of questions attendant to that.

[5:30]

The section would allow the holder of various licences — but basically forest licences — to roll them over into a treefarm licence, subject to the provisions of the act, section 27(l), that on that rollover the licensee could have up to 10 percent of the allowable cut in the various licences that are being rolled over removed, unless the minister is satisfied that the holder of the licence "will take additional steps...." Then it lists three steps that would satisfy the minister. I assume it's either one or all three. One is further processing, another is increased utilization and the other is equity in long-term timber supplies.

It would appear to me that we are revisiting a policy that was developed in the late forties: we are prepared to give tenure in perpetuity as long as the licensee undertakes some further processing. We have had some problems to date. For example, not all commitments have been lived up to under the licensing process.

What further provisions does the minister propose, or what provisions are available now in the Forest Act, if the successful applicant does not perform? Now as I see it, there are simply none.

HON. MR. PARKER: The purpose of this amendment is to provide for the take-back of up to 10 percent of allowable cut from an applicant who wants to move from forest licence tenure into tree-farm licence tenure. It also provides a means by which that 10 percent can be offset, through covenants, to further process the timber resources, increase utilization, or increase intensive silviculture, or any combination of those or any other inspired ideas that the public in general might have.

Right now the legislation exists for the rollover from forest licence and timber sale harvesting licence to tree-farm licence. What we are doing is making it more difficult, in that when such a rollover is applied for and if it is considered worth doing, the public hearings that follow.... The licensee will have to demonstrate much greater utilization, much greater processing and much greater silviculture undertakings to be able to hold the equivalent of the allowable cut that he now holds under a forest licence. A forest licence is a 20-year licence and renewed on a five-year basis. A tree-farm licence is a 25-year licence renewed on a five-year basis. For non-perfomance, under either of those licences, a licensee can lose allowable cut; he can lose land area, depending on the tenure; and it is even possible for the licence to be cancelled.

MR. MILLER: Would the minister not feel that, given the efforts that are being made under current legislation to remove a percentage of the allowable cut from established licences, in hindsight it may not have been preferable to grant those tree-farm licences in the form that they were granted? If, at this later stage, we now have to go back and say we are

[ Page 5230 ]

going to confiscate 5 and possibly 10 percent of a tree-farm licence to give to the small business side, presumably to foster some entrepreneurial spirit, does the minister not think that by moving to 67 or 69 percent of the allowable cut in tree-farm licences you are really just repeating the process, and that will be an inhibiting factor? Who knows? As the minister himself said, who knows what is going to happen tomorrow or years from now in terms of the changes that may be likely to happen in the forest industry in terms of processing and a host of things? Yet this timber will really be tied up and will be extremely difficult to move back to the Crown if in 20 or 30 or 40 or 50 years licensees have been given timber to achieve a certain level of production or....

Really, the way I read this, they can make a fairly small commitment to intensive silviculture. There's no particular level defined in the act. Presumably, some small process or some small addition to the process or utilization or silviculture could result in a company having their entire AAC rolled into a tree-farm licence. When it comes time to make those kinds of modifications that are required in terms of forest policy, the ministry will have their hands tied, because a certain amount of cut will be allocated. I would suggest that you may be able to remove pieces of it, but I'm not certain. I don't know. Maybe the minister has an opinion about how much could be removed by legislation without compensation. It's a policy, it seems to me, that is binding the hands of any future administration in terms of moving with the times.

I would appreciate it if the minister would respond to that, because I think it's significant. I've had indications from various quarters that there will be strong resistance to this rolling over.

HON. MR. PARKER: The legislation exists for rollover to tree-farm licences from forest licences and from timber sale harvesting licences that exist. Whether or not that continues depends on future governments. For the time being it will continue. Our amendment provides for a situation where we can recover up to 10 percent of the allowable cut. It also provides for a means by which the licensees may mitigate that 10 percent takeback right up to the full amount.

Whether or not an application for a rollover will be entertained is a matter for adjudication by the minister or his designated individual. If that application is accepted, it goes through a very involved public hearing process, in which case maybe no rollover will take place, maybe a partial rollover will take place and the balance remain in a forest licence, or maybe a complete rollover will take place. Whether that will be 60 percent, 70 percent or zero percent is a matter of policy, not legislation, and the policy will be set by members of the government in consultation. So the only thing new here is the provision for a recovery of cut, which can be reduced by initiatives taken by the licensee.

MR. MILLER: Is it the intention of the minister to have that consideration be part of the public hearing process?

HON. MR. PARKER: Perhaps the member could clarify his question.

MR. MILLER: We're not dealing with the rollover; that's already allowed in section 27. But in this section we are dealing with the possible removal of up to 10 percent of the annual allowable cut for the existing licences. It seems to me that it really is tied together in terms of the rollover, that the applicant could get 100 percent if he made certain provisions in terms of further processing or intensive silviculture. My question is: will those considerations — that zero percent to 10 percent — form part of the public hearing process? After all, if we have to have a public hearing on a rollover, then this should be as well.

HON. MR. PARKER: The answer to the question is yes.

MR. MILLER: I wonder where in the act it would require that then, if that's the intent of the minister.

HON. MR. PARKER: The regulations provide for the hearing process.

MR. MILLER: As I read it, they don't specifically apply to the consideration of the removal of cut. In fact, the existing act says that where the minister does not reject an application, he or a designate shall convene a public hearing, and he or a designate can determine the procedures for public hearings. That's fairly broad. In fact, one of the key features of a lot of the legislation being proposed is that it's discretionary. It's completely discretionary in a number of areas, and we'll come to some more as we go through the bill. There is no laid-down process.

As a former alderman, I know that if you had a public hearing on a rezoning, there were certain provisions that had to be followed, in terms of signing, the time and when the hearings could take place. All of that procedure was laid out for a minor rezoning, yet here we are talking about giving away a significant part of the Crown's timber rights, and there's no laid-down procedure. I would ask the minister: where is it laid out in the act?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, the provision for procedure is in the regulations arising out of this act. They're there now, and they'll be there in the future. They've been used as recently as for the tree-farm licence awards at Dunkley Lumber and at Chetwynd.

MR. WILLIAMS: Did the minister confirm just a couple of minutes ago that this amount that would revert to the Crown might be reduced if there were certain promises in terms of processing facility?

HON. MR. PARKER: For covenants in the agreement, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WILLIAMS: Were you saying yes? Is that correct?

HON. MR. PARKER: I said exactly what I said.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, you can be as cute as you like. It was a very straightforward question.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sure.

So it's not just in the silvicultural area?

[5:45]

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, the amendment reads: "...that will support and encourage (a) further processing of the timber resource in the Province, (b)

[ Page 5231 ]

increased utilization of the forests, or (c) equity in long term timber supplies and increased opportunities for industry growth and development...."

MR. WILLIAMS: We've gone decades in this province, in terms of phony promises from timber companies around the supply of timber. Yes, you can groan. We all should groan, as citizens of this province — decades where Doman and others don't deliver in terms of processing facilities. Clearly at your discretion they can say, "Sure, we're going to bring in some kind of processing plant," and they'll amend the thing year after year after year. You can take excuses year after year. In some cases there will be the 10 percent or the 5 percent granted back to the Crown, and no phony promises. It allows all kinds of this discretion.

The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) is raising the question of having a proper process so there isn't the range of discretion allowed. It is scandalous what people have got away with in this last decade in British Columbia under Mr. Apsey and Mr. Waterland. It's simply scandalous what went on in terms of men never delivering at the private sector level while we delivered the timber and got empty valleys as a result.

We're unhappy when we see legislation that allows more of the same, when we get a promise and the chances of delivery may well be nil. The potential discretionary powers of the minister are very substantial and allow him to play favourites. That shouldn't be the case. It should be a very clear 5 or 10 percent, and that's it — none of the game-playing that's gone on over the last decade. This allows more of the game-playing, and that's not acceptable.

MR. MILLER: Again, I have to go back to the applications. What section would then come into play if an applicant did not conform to the plans that they submitted? I'm amazed, for example.... I happened to read the series of articles in the Sun where a ministry official, commenting on the timber being cut in the North Kalum, even though at least one of the three applicants submitted a plan that said that a processing facility would be built.... Yet a ministry official says that has no weight; it doesn't mean a thing. In fact, he says: "We don't even care about it." That's playing pretty loose, is it not, if you're allocating the Crown's resources and the person who applies says that certain things will be done and there's no requirement that they actually be done — in fact, there does not seem to be a penalty if they're not done,

So it bears on this section in that the minister tends to use the provisions of section 27.1 to allow rollovers, but there are not many answers forthcoming about how the minister intends to make sure that the companies who get these very valuable resources.... We outlined, I think, in second reading the value of the Crown timber being disposed of in this attempt to shift the management responsibility from the Ministry of Forests to the licensees. So under what sections can the minister take action, even to reclaim up to 10 percent if there's no performance? Whether the operator is making a commitment to a processing facility, whether he's making a commitment to have greater utilization of the resource or whether he's making a commitment to invest in incremental or more intensive silviculture to try and increase growth and yield.... What if they don't perform? What do you do then?

HON. MR. PARKER: The matter to which the member opposite alludes, Mr. Chairman, is written into the contract, and the contracts he's talking about in the north Kalum don't have any provision for conversion plants. So it's not in the contract, and to the best of my knowledge, the three licensees are not in contravention of their contract for conversion plant considerations. But I don't know; I wasn't involved in the adjudication of those licences at all.

The contracts for tree-farm licences, as a result of rollover from forest licences, will have the appropriate conditions and covenants in the agreement. The administration of the agreement is where the penalties will lie.

MR. MILLER: So it will strictly be between the matter that is laid out in the agreement. Will penalties be laid out in the agreement?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, those provisions will be in the agreements, yes.

MR. MILLER: Going back to the public hearing process, as I said, my discussions with people in the industry who are opposed — and I think there's a significant opposition to the rollover.... They intend to use the public hearing process. I go back to the decision the minister made on a forest licence in McBride, where he said: "We do not intend to do the ministry's business on Main Street." Will the public hearing process require the minister to provide the public with reasons why a decision is made, or will the minister fall back on the old saw, the four or five provisions in terms of the responsibilities of the ministry to use the resources of this province in the best manner?

HON. MR. PARKER: The purpose of the public hearing process is to hear from the proponent what he proposes to do in return for a rollover to a tree-farm licence. The purpose of the public hearing is not to conduct the business of the ministry.

MR. MILLER: In a sense it is to conduct the business of the ministry. Public hearings are no different, whether you're hearing what some people think is a big issue or a small issue. The public hearing process, the one I'm most familiar with in the municipality, allows the public and interested parties to make submissions. The governing body, whatever it might be, then makes a decision. They give the reasons for their decision. I don't see any requirement here that that be done, nor do I see — as I said earlier — a requirement for performance. I would think a significant part of the hearing process might be used to determine that, or to rest on that question, yet there is no guarantee that the public will get anything other than the statement from the minister that we don't intend to do the public's business on Main Street.

HON. MR. PARKER: The public hearing process is done to hear the proposal from the licensee and the objections or suggestions from the public; it is not to conduct the ministry business. The ministry business is done by the ministry in the ministry's offices on the basis of input from various quarters, and the quarters provided for in this process are the public for their input and the licensee for his input.

MR. MILLER: Well, I'll draw a comparison, then, to another report that was recently issued by the ombudsman when it came to the question of appeals on pesticide and herbicide applications. The ombudsman is really concerned

[ Page 5232 ]

with process. He feels, and I think quite rightly, that the process has to be fair. It has to be one that the public has confidence in. He outlined in that report — No. 11, I believe it is — a process whereby the applicants for a particular licence had to do certain things in terms of publishing information. The people who appealed decisions were entitled under the process to receive all of the reasons why a decision was made in the first instance. They were guaranteed the right, under the proposal that the ombudsman put forward, to be advised about all of the reasons used by this body, the pesticide board, in terms of reaching their decision. That was seen as a public responsibility.

The application of pesticides and herbicides is an important area. That impacts on people's lives, and people do get quite concerned about it. But this — the rolling over of a significant portion of the Crown's assets, the Crown timber — impacts on our economic life. From 29 percent up to 67 percent is going to be put in the hands of licensees. We know approximately what the value is. We know the difficulty of the province reacquiring any of that land and the outrageous prices being asked by the people who were originally given an asset of the Crown. Yet we have two lines respecting a public hearing process — two lines! — with no commitment by the minister and no commitment in the act that there's a hearing process where information has to be made public, where all of the information from the applicant has to be made public, where all of the information used by the ministry in arriving at a decision has to be made public. There's no assurance that all of the reasons used will be offered to the public. We're talking about the possible turnover of this significant part of the Crown's timber. We have two lines in here. Even just dealing with the 10 percent is a significant amount of timber, and again we have nothing. Does the minister not feel that there's a need to have a more precise and clear public hearing process to deal with this kind of issue?

HON. MR. PARKER: The records show that the public hearing process is quite thorough and quite far-reaching, and the most recent hearings are excellent proof of that.

The ombudsman's recommendations on the pollution control board hearings are recommendations dealing with the board appointed by government; it's not the workings of the Environment ministry or any other ministry. Whether or not there's a different way of holding public hearings for a zoning in a municipality has nothing to do with it. The process is clear here. The process is effective; it's quite demonstrable by the record. The process is entirely appropriate as presented.

MR. MILLER: I think the analogy I used is a good one. If the process is good, how many times has it been used in terms of a rollover? How many rollovers have taken place? How many rollovers are contemplated under this section of the act?

HON. MR. PARKER: The hearing process is a thorough and open process. I believe it's entirely appropriate as presented. It's been very effective in the past, and I see no reason for changing it beyond what has been proposed here in section 8 of Bill 28.

I would suggest the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

28 The Hon. D. Parker to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 28) intituled

Forest Amendment Act, 1988 to amend as follows:

SECTION 6, by deleting section 6 (b) and substituting the following:

(b) by repealing subsection (3) and substituting the following:

(3) The regional manager or district manager

(a) may specify that applications for the timber sale licence shall be accepted only from one or more categories of small business forest enterprises as established by regulation, and

(b) shall specify that an applicant may propose only a bonus bid or only a bonus offer and, where he specifies that only

(i) a bonus bid may be proposed, he shall specify whether a bonus bid, if any, must be submitted orally in auction or by written tender in a sealed container, or

(ii) a bonus offer may be proposed, a bonus offer, if any, must be submitted in a sealed container.

[ Page 5233 ]

SECTION 8,

(a) in the proposed section 27.1 (9), by deleting "of the allowable annual cut provided under the licence that was surrendered." and substituting "of the total of the allowable annual cut provided under the surrendered licence or licences.", and

(b) in the proposed section 27.1 (10), by deleting "of the amount of the licence surrendered." and substituting "of the amount of the surrendered licence or licences."

SECTION 8, in the proposed section 27.1 (10) by deleting all the words before paragraph (a) and substituting "Where the minister is satisfied that the holder of the licence has taken or will take additional steps that will support and encourage".