1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JULY 7, 1987

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2235 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Mineral Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 51). Hon. Mr. Davis

Introduction and first reading –– 2235

Forest Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 40). Hon. Mr. Parker

Introduction and first reading –– 2235

Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 34). Hon. Mr. Dueck

Introduction and first reading –– 2236

Oral Questions

Forest fire fighters. Ms. Edwards –– 2236

Proposed South Moresby park. Mr. Kempf –– 2236

JobTrac program. Mr. Guno –– 2236

Government hiring freeze. Mr. Lovick –– 2236

Mr. G. Hanson

Emergency health services. Mr. Miller –– 2237

Golf course in Richmond. Mr. Rose –– 2238

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1987 (Bill 42). Second reading

Hon. B.R. Smith –– 2238

Mr. Lovick –– 2238

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 2238

Mr. Sihota –– 2239

Mr. Clark –– 2240

Mr. Rose –– 2240

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Forests and Lands estimates. (Hon. Mr. Parker)

On vote 34: minister's office –– 2240

Mr. Williams

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Clark

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Rabbitt

Mr. Rose

Mr. R. Fraser

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Peterson

Ms. Edwards

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

MR. PELTON: On your behalf, Mr. Speaker, I would like to have

the House welcome today Dr. Ken Coghill, Member of Parliament. Dr.

Coghill is the parliamentary secretary of the cabinet in Australia. I

would like the House to extend him a very, very warm welcome.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, visiting us in the House today is a

friend of mine, Tim Bethell of Victoria, here with his daughter Bridey,

from Regina. I ask the House to join me in making them welcome.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'm so pleased to see on the

floor of the House today the former Premier of the province of British

Columbia, Dave Barrett. We sat in this House together for some time,

and a few of us in this House had the pleasure of being in the House

together — I'm not going to say seated opposite; I'm going to say that

we were together. He has been a great citizen of our province, and I

would like to ask the House to welcome him today to our Legislative

Assembly.

MR. ROSE: I thank the Minister of Economic Development for

the welcome to the former Premier, an outstanding British Columbian and

an outstanding Canadian. I'm sure they must have had some great wars in

the past, when they pelted one another with marshmallows.

Dave Barrett and I go back a long way; as a matter of fact, I'd like

the House to know that I was actually the second person to suggest that

Dave run for leadership of the New Democratic Party. Dave was the

first. He's an outstanding leader undergoing a bit of hiatus at the

moment, and I'm sure we'll hear from him again, politically.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is the

vice-president of the British Columbia Social Credit Party, Mr. Ed

Kisling, and I ask the House to bid him welcome.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join me

in welcoming Mr. Ron Milton, who is with the Oregon Federation of

Teachers, of the AFL-CIO. I met him over the lunch break. He was

driving through Victoria with a bumper sticker that said: "Honour

Labour." I wanted to speak to this gentleman, and I invited him to this

House today. Will you join me in welcoming him.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I too would like to offer best wishes and

a Victoria welcome to Dave Barrett. For those of you who have wondered

over the years about my encyclopedic knowledge of the rules, I learned

from one of the best: Dave Barrett. I'm not kidding. That's a

compliment, sir.

We have a birthday, and I have a horoscope here. If July 7 is your birthday,

you may not be religious in an orthodox sense, but you are spiritual. You are

also somewhat of a perfectionist and can be your own worst and most severe critic.

That is why you tend to brood. You can be lonely in a crowd. You can pick a

fight in an empty room. Will you please join with me in wishing many happy returns

to the hon. Attorney-General.

HON. B.R. SMITH: It's fitting that I have introduced my

mother, who is in the gallery; she's responsible for it all. But I also

want to add my welcome to Dave Barrett, who opened the marvelous

recreation centre in my community shortly before his ill-fated plunge

to the polls. On that facility alone, he should have had more success

at the polls. I have always appreciated him for that, and also his

comradeship in this chamber.

MR. CRANDALL: In the members' gallery today is the

administrator from the town of Golden, Phil Taylor, and his wife Jill.

I would appreciate it if the House would make them welcome.

MR. GABELMANN: Would the House welcome a visitor from the

United States: Prof. Martin Morand of the Pennsylvania Centre for the

Study of Labour Relations.

Introduction of Bills

MINERAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

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

a bill intituled Mineral Amendment Act, 1987,

HON. MR. DAVIS: This bill is essentially a streamlining of the Mineral Act of 1979 and eases the administration of this legislation.

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.

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

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

a bill intituled Forest Amendment Act, 1987.

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

It's a pleasure for me to introduce to the House today new

legislation which, among a number of other items, addresses an issue

important not only to the ministry but to all British Columbians — the

designation and management of wilderness areas in our province.

Furthermore, the government has also been considering for some time

changes to our stumpage pricing procedures. Our current stumpage prices

are lower than historic levels. Also, they have not risen relative to

increases in silvicultural expenditures over the past few years. Many

residents in our province have called for major changes in stumpage

pricing, and necessary updating of some factors used in stumpage

pricing was delayed by the United States trade actions. There were

concerns that any change would provide support for the erroneous claims

in the United States regarding subsidization.

The government will establish a level of timber prices that is

appropriate for British Columbia. The Forest Amendment Act also allows

the government to take action on rentals on various forest tenures,

royalties charged on timber licences, preventing increased U.S. export

costs to industry when

[ Page 2236 ]

upward stumpage revisions are made — providing the

current level of the federal export tax remains in place — and

obtaining information on product prices and costs to establish timber

prices.

Mr. Speaker, the amendments are in a comprehensive package which, if

approved by the Legislature, allow the government to be a more

effective and efficient manager of our forest resource.

Bill 40 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.

HEALTH STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

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

a bill intituled Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1987.

[2:15]

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, this bill includes a broad

variety of miscellaneous amendments to various statutes administered by

the Ministry of Health. These acts involve the regulation of certain

health profession issues related to the public health review of

payments to practitioners by the Medical Services Commission and filing

of changes of name. They include such acts as Community Care Facility

Act, Health Act, Health Emergency Act, Hospital District Act, Medical

Practitioners Act, Medical Service Act, Name Act, Physiotherapists Act

and Psychologists Act.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the Bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 34 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

FOREST FIRE FIGHTERS

MS. EDWARDS: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Can

the minister confirm that persons working as temporary forest fire

fighters are not being assessed unemployment insurance contributions?

HON. L. HANSON: No, I can't confirm that, but I'll take the question as notice and report to the House.

MS. EDWARDS: The federal government has made a change in

federal regulations allowing the province to take action on these. Has

the cabinet specified through an order-in-council that forest fire

fighters are going to be designated as provincial employees, so that

they will be covered by the Employment Standards Act?

HON. L. HANSON: If that were the case, the order-in-council would be made public.

PROPOSED SOUTH MORESBY PARK

MR. KEMPF: A question to the Minister of Environment and Parks. It would

appear, according to the most recent words of the Premier, that we have a deal

with respect to a national park on South Moresby. Can the minister now, after

two months of playing a shell game with the people of the Queen Charlotte Islands,

share the particulars of that agreement with this House?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No.

MR. KEMPF: The Premier, as reports have it, has broken every

promise that he has ever made to the people of the Queen Charlotte

Islands. He sold out the people of the Queen Charlotte Islands. He sold

out the people of British Columbia. He sold them down the street with

respect to South Moresby. He's capitulated to the eastern interests

with respect to South Moresby. Can no one over there stand up to tell

this House what the deal on South Moresby is, before the ink is put to

paper?

HON. B.R. SMITH: Because I had a hand in the negotiation of

this, I will tell the member that it is a very good deal for the

province and for Canada; that the Premier had a great deal of courage

in going ahead and pressing for this park; that the full agreement will

be made public when signed by the Premier and the Prime Minister this

weekend in Victoria.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, the sooner we find out what we've been taken for, the better.

Supplementary to the Minister of Environment and Parks. Before

totally finalizing the deal on South Moresby, couldn't we throw in the

Stein as well, for good measure?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Was there a question there, Mr. Speaker?

JOBTRAC PROGRAM

MR. GUNO: My question is to the Minister of Advanced

Education and Job Training regarding JobTrac. What special measures

have been taken to ensure that jobs under this program will be created

in remote areas of the province, like my riding — areas where your

ministry has no offices?

HON. S. HAGEN: We have attempted to address that by making a

toll-free number available throughout the province, where people from

any part of the province can phone and ask questions on where

information is available. If there is no office, then the information

requested will be mailed to the people requesting the information.

MR. GUNO: A supplementary to the same minister. Can the

minister tell the House what proportion of JobTrac jobs have been

created in remote and rural areas of the province. Or has any attention

been paid to seeing that these jobs are fairly distributed around the

province?

HON. S. HAGEN: I don't have the percentage of jobs created

that have gone into the individual areas, but I can assure you that

every attempt has been made to distribute the jobs throughout the

province, particularly in the areas where they're needed the most.

GOVERNMENT HIRING FREEZE

MR. LOVICK: My question is to the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. Yesterday in the House in response

[ Page

2237 ]

to a question about a hiring freeze, the minister

made reference to layoffs of "clerical staff." Can he confirm for us

that the so-called freeze applies only to clerical staff?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, Mr. Speaker, it does not just apply to

clerical staff. It applies to the broad range of people within

government ministries.

MR. LOVICK: Would the minister share with us, please, what is

meant by "broad range" or give us some illustration, at least, of

precisely what that means?

Interjections.

HON. MR. ROGERS: The answer to the question is that people in

all different job categories within government are in consideration in

terms of the look at hiring; so it's not just the people in clerical

functions. I used clerical yesterday as an example, but there are other

examples in other areas of government where we're looking at it.

MR. LOVICK: A supplementary, if I might, Mr. Speaker. I

appreciate the answer and the clarification. We understand on this side

of the House that there is presently constituted a committee,

consisting of a Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, the

head of the government personnel office and the Premier's principal

secretary, which is reviewing all hiring decisions. My question is:

what criteria are this committee presently using to decide whether

positions are subject to the freeze or not, and to whom does that

committee report?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I don't believe you've got the structure of

the committee quite correct, so I'll take that part as notice and find

out for you. The committee would report to cabinet.

MR. LOVICK: A supplementary again, Mr. Speaker. Regarding the

minister's answer telling us that we are freezing the system rather

than only clerical positions or some such thing, is any consideration

presently being given to the services performed? Clearly, if we are now

deciding that there will be no more hiring for something that

apparently is being referred to as "privatization initiatives,"

according to the Premier's principal secretary, then obviously certain

services are not being performed. My question is this: what assurances

can the minister give us, then, that this hiring freeze is not directly

interfering with the performance of services that are normally

considered to be absolutely necessary and essential in this province?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, we might get into quite a long debate

about what are necessary and essential services, but depending on the

ministry and depending on the function that the particular person would

do within that ministry, each one of these has been considered by the

committee. There are some which take very little time for

consideration; others take some substantial time for consideration.

MR. G. HANSON: Supplementary to the Provincial Secretary. The Provincial

Secretary is the minister responsible for the public service in British Columbia.

I wonder if he would please, as a member of cabinet, advise this House what

policy has been decided in terms of not filling vacant positions and the layoff

of auxiliary employees in the province.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The hon. member is not correct. The

responsibility for the public service of British Columbia lies with the

Minister of Intergovernmental Relations.

EMERGENCY HEALTH SERVICES

MR. MILLER: My question is to the Minister of Health. As the

minister is aware, the people of Prince Rupert and the north coast have

locally raised some $160,000 to have a twin-engine Messerschmitt

helicopter located in Prince Rupert for emergency medical evacuations.

This whole operation really depends on the Emergency Health Services

dispatching that helicopter in response to Medivac, and yet to date

that has only been done four times. Would the minister assure the House

that he will instruct Emergency Health Services to dispatch that

helicopter in response to Medivac situations on the north coast?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I'm well aware of the situation

in Prince Rupert in regard to Medivac. It's been this minister's

responsibility for some time now to try to solve the problem they have

in Prince Rupert. The committee there, together with the municipality,

I believe, got together and raised some funds to lease a Messerschmitt

helicopter for a six-month period. It was done against our

recommendation, against our better judgment.

We will dispatch the type of delivery for Medivac that is the most

reasonable as far as dollars are concerned, and we're also looking at

other ways of resolving this problem. I've been in touch with the Hon.

Jake Epp. He assures me he'll get back to us very shortly in regard to

using some of the Transport helicopters that are stationed in the near

vicinity.

So the problem exists; the hon. member is quite right. It exists in

Prince Rupert and in other areas too. But if we went along with this

system of a community going ahead and leasing a chopper for six months,

and then expecting us to pick up the bill regardless of the cost, it

would be very irresponsible on my part, and we can't condone that.

MR. MILLER: Well, we can talk about responsibility and the

number of lives that are in jeopardy because this government has failed

to act to provide that kind of service, but the minister is well aware

that the helicopter depends on dispatch by the Emergency Health

Services. If they don't dispatch, if they refuse to use that

helicopter, then it will disappear from the community, despite the best

efforts of those people. For example, one woman in particular lost her

husband at sea because that service wasn't available.

Is the minister prepared to see those lives put in jeopardy, rather

than fund or instruct the Emergency Health Services to simply use a

helicopter that is there and is equipped? There is no other helicopter

equipped like this one. Does the minister think that there's a higher

priority? Why doesn't he consider the lives that could he put at risk

on the north coast a priority, and get on with the job and let them use

that helicopter?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is putting words

in my mouth, saying that I don't care about the lives of the people in

Prince Rupert or any other area, and that is just not so. We're

delivering probably the best emergency service anywhere in Canada. Our

ambulance service is the

[ Page

2238 ]

best. That does not say that we can't improve. That

does not say that we couldn't spend more money and provide a helicopter

for every village.

I would say also that, as far as Prince Rupert is concerned, we have

given them excellent service. It was not our fault we got into this

situation. As you well know, we were able to use single-engine

helicopters until the federal government sent out an edict that this

was no longer allowed. That's how we got into this situation.

Sometimes these things cannot be resolved overnight. We're doing

everything we can. I would say I've spent more time trying to resolve

this issue in Prince Rupert than any other issue I've got, and it will

be resolved.

GOLF COURSE IN RICHMOND

MR. ROSE: The Minister of Agriculture looks rather relaxed; I'd like to ask him a question.

On June 4, the minister and the Premier signed an order allowing the

construction of an 18-hole golf course in the middle of Richmond — 150

acres of prime farmland, according to the land commission, resulting in

the permanent loss of this land. What special factors induced the

minister and the Premier to overrule the order of the ALRC and endorse

the application that had been rejected four times before by that body?

[2:30]

HON. MR. SAVAGE: That decision was made by the Environment

and Land Use Committee of cabinet. It is retained within the

agricultural land reserve, as are a very large percentage of the golf

courses in this province.

MR. ROSE: Judging from the applause, the minister must need

some help on this. The question is, there was no assessment of

recreational land in Richmond; it's part of the Richmond council

agricultural plan. What special factors were there in terms of

recreation, or in any other way, to induce the minister to go over the

heads of the ALRC? Were there special recreational factors,

agricultural factors — or were they political factors?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: No, I don't believe there were any

recreational discussions, other than what would be used by the

recreational people who wish to have the 18-hole course. There was no

decision relative to whether it was required politically; it's whether

it was required for recreational demand within the corporation of

Richmond.

MR. ROSE: According to my information, there was no

recreational need for it in Richmond, certainly not as part of the

plan. A golf course is not just a temporary thing. What this amounts to

is 150 acres of land going commercial, and spot-zoning for a clubhouse

and a parking lot. Does the minister intend to protect agricultural

land, because he is the steward and the trustee of agricultural land in

this province?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Yes.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call second reading of Bill 42.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1987

HON. B.R. SMITH: It is an honour to speak on second reading

of a bill that has so many principles embedded in it, Mr. Speaker, so I

will just be very brief and synoptic.

This bill has a provision that will increase the jurisdiction of the

small claims court from $2,000 to $3,000. We would like to go higher

than that, but of course the constraints of the constitutional

limitations that we have on creating a

section 96 court don't allow us

to do that. It's a good court and we're expanding its jurisdiction.

We're amending the Police Act to give a little more manpower to deal

with the appeals and complaints that are outstanding, and that will be

there before the new Police Act is in force.

There are a number of significant amendments to the Small Business

Venture Capital Act to enhance the operation of venture capital

corporations and expand this source of equity capital.

We're also bringing in legislation that will get tough with careless

drivers and excessive speeders, establishing minimum $100 fines for

these serious motor vehicle offences, and bringing careless drivers

into the courtroom, not to be dealt with any more by the aseptic route

of traffic violation notices.

The government's administration of the aquaculture industry will be

enhanced through amendments which will assert provincial management

jurisdiction and provide equal treatment for freshwater and saltwater

aquaculturalists, fish buyers and processors.

A special revolving fund will be created to provide startup

equipment and raw materials for prison inmate work programs. These

programs will self-finance and enhance work opportunities for

incarcerated offenders, unless ill or engaged in an educational

program. This will also generate sufficient income to enable offenders

to earn wages and to make financial restitution to victims of crime for

the first time, to pay outstanding fines and to contribute towards the

maintenance of their families and the cost of their containment. It's a

good, new direction contained in that provision.

There are a number of housekeeping measures in this bill. The public

accounts are to be streamlined through closing the energy development

special account, which hasn't been used in three years. Fine-tuning is

intended in the Assessment Act and the new forest land assessment

legislation which was introduced in 1986.

Mr. Speaker, this provides only the briefest of comments, and I'm

sure that the comments will be far more detailed when we move to

committee. I move second reading.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, I'm wondering if we might begin by

asking for clarification and a ruling from the Chair. You'll recall,

Mr. Speaker, that when we discussed Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment

Act (No. 1), Bill 31 as I recall, we had some discussion to determine

whether we could discuss a bill without principle, technically

speaking, by focusing on a number of specific sections. I'm wondering

if we might assume that the same procedure would obtain for discussion

of this bill.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: To the second member for Nanaimo, that is clearly the case in a Miscellaneous Statutes

[ Page 2239 ]

Amendment Act. As a matter of fact, I think that

was evidenced by the committee debate on Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act (No. 1), which was extensive — well beyond its capacity,

actually, to be extensive. But full latitude, Mr. Member, on the

principle and on the intent of every

section 1s allowed in committee

stage on a Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, I thank the House Leader for that

clarification. I would remind the House Leader, however, that we also

had a fairly extensive debate under second reading of Bill 31. I

believe we did. I think we raised a number of different points at that

time. I see some disagreement. It seems to me we did spend some time on

Bill 31 on second reading stage as well as in committee. I'm quite sure

that's the case, Mr. Speaker. I hasten to point out I'm not suggesting

that we propose to spend hours and hours in second reading; it's just

that I do want to get the clarification now, rather than later.

MR. SPEAKER: I think, hon. member, that traditionally there

is more latitude given in committee. If there is debate on second

reading, of course the committee Chairman would then tighten up the

debate in committee.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, we shall accept that caution.

Obviously much of what we want to say here will be done under committee

stage, there is no question of that. A number of my colleagues and I,

however, would like to point to particular items in this bill that we

have some concerns about, I guess — if I may use the terminology — just

to flag those for future reference.

I would like to begin by just offering an observation, if I might,

Mr. Speaker. As a very new member of this House, I have some concerns

about what appears to have become a typical procedure here: namely,

that the miscellaneous statutes bills seem to be getting bigger and

longer. I'm a little concerned about that, because it seems to me that

miscellaneous statutes — ideally, at least — ought not to be a place

for what have proven in the past debates to be some very significant

initiatives, a long way from anybody's definition of housekeeping.

I would dearly hope, then, that we could have some assurances from

government that I am perhaps misreading or misunderstanding things, and

that miscellaneous statutes are not going to be used as a means of

introducing really substantive, significant, new initiatives in some

cases. Rather, they will adhere to what I believe is their original

purpose — namely, housekeeping measures.

I am wondering if the government House Leader or the Attorney would

care to respond to that observation, Mr. Speaker. I'd appreciate some

clarification.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't know how I can respond, since I

have already spoken once in second reading, but maybe we can call this

a point of order, and then I'll respond.

Miscellaneous statutes are by no means meant to be minor

housekeeping amendments. Some of them are quite serious, as was

evidenced yesterday with the Point Roberts water, four sections over

which you had a legitimate concern — although I didn't agree with your

concern.

Normally, a miscellaneous statutes act is put into place because of

the length — or I should say shortness — of the material in place.

That's why it becomes a catch-all thing. But by no means is it meant to

diminish what may happen in a bill or what a bill or a

section 1s

saying. It has more to do with the length of it.

For example, the Point Roberts water — using the other miscellaneous

statutes — would have looked awfully silly in a bill all by itself. It

was only four sections. So it was one rolled into it. By no means do we

say that a miscellaneous statute is housekeeping or minor. Some of

these sections are quite important; they're just not of great length.

MR. SPEAKER: The second member for Nanaimo. But the member has spoken.

MR. LOVICK: Yes, and that's why I'm standing, Mr. Speaker, because it's precisely that kind of clarification I was seeking.

I understand by the rules of the House that what I could do,

technically, is talk about every

section of this bill as the speaker

for it. That is correct. However, one is allowed to speak only once on

each of those issues. Is that correct?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. LOVICK: I will defer now to my colleague from Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.

MR. SIHOTA: I don't intend to get into any lengthy debate, I

thought it might be appropriate that I go over some of the sections

that we intend to canvass in some depth so that everybody's prepared

for it, particularly on the other side of the House, so that they know

where we are coming from. It is clear that some of these sections could

go through fairly quickly, and yet others are of some significance.

It is clear from the legislation that the Small Business Venture

Capital Act takes up quite a few of the sections of the act, and I can

certainly put the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy)

on notice if she's here — and if she's not, the Attorney-General — that

there will be quite a discussion from this side of the House on the

provisions of that act.

The reason I say that is because, if you go back and look at the

original speeches when the legislation was brought in, and you look at

the changes now being put forward, there seems to be a shift in the

original intent and purpose of the Small Business Venture Capital Act.

I appreciate — and we will get into this in more detail — that the

intent is to provide a little more flexibility in that act. That may

well be fine, but it is a considerable departure, particularly in two

or three sections, from what I would perceive to be the original intent

of the legislation. So that's certainly one we want to put the

government on notice about.

The Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act is another one. No doubt as some

of you know, I have done a fair bit of work involving that piece of

legislation, and I have some concerns on which I guess I'll be dealing

with the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services (Hon. L. Hanson). But

I have quite a few questions on that legislation. There are four or

five sections that have been amended, which I think need to be dealt

with.

The Fisheries Act is another one, and the Assessment Act is another

one; particularly the first amendment, which talks about the inclusion

of parcel size as a factor to be determined in valuation of tree-farm

land.

[ Page 2240 ]

Since I am on my feet, I'm going to deal very quickly with some of

the Attorney-General-related issues that flow from this legislation. I

must say that, as much as the second member for Langley (Mr. Peterson)

and I had supported changes in the limits for the small claims court, I

am a little disappointed that it's been raised nominally. I understand

the argument in terms of the constitutional downside of that — if you

go as high as $5,000 you may get yourself into some problem — but I'd

like to see somebody have the gumption to argue.

In any event, I am certainly a little disappointed with the change

there, because I think we could have gone a lot further and helped out

more people who are affected by small claims matters. So that's another

one there will be some debate on. Those are the ones of particular

concern to me, and I don't know if any other members of the House on

this side want to highlight acts that are of concern to them.

MR. CLARK: I'll have much more to say about this legislation

when it gets to committee stage, but I have some concerns particularly

about increasing.... We have a situation where the budget says there

will be no new money lent under the Farm Product Industry Act. Then we

find the miscellaneous statutes bill with $10 million more allocated to

the Farm Product Industry Act in order to finance, presumably, the

ethanol plant in Dawson Creek. That may well not be the case, and we

will canvass that with the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Hon.

Mr. Savage) during the committee stage of debate. Clearly there is a

contradiction between what the government states in their budget — in

terms of subsidies to business and all these other programs they are

not going to continue — and what we see happening consistently.

The last Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act included $60 million

more in subsidies to business under the Ministry of Economic

Development. This Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act includes $10

million under the Farm Product Industry Act, which is a very small

operation that lends mostly small-dollar figures to a variety of farm

product components. Here we have a massive increase in the budget for

something the government said they were going to phase out. We have a

massive increase in order to accomplish a subsidy to a plant that we

don't have any details on; and we don't have the kind of detailed

analysis or homework before us to vote on it. So when it comes up

before the committee stage, we'll be spending a great deal of time

exploring this specific

section to make sure the homework is done.

We've seen with Point Roberts water and a whole series of things

with this government that the homework hasn't been done, and we're

expected to vote in favour of significant increases of public money for

programs that the homework hasn't been done on in terms of lending it

out. So we will be spending more time with that when we get to

committee stage.

[2:45]

MR. ROSE: I was just going to say, Mr. Speaker, that we don't intend

to debate it in second reading any further, and that we look forward to seeing

it in committee stage tomorrow. As far as this, side is concerned, we will close

the debate for now. We will go into the various sections that we've tagged

in more detailed debate the next time it appears before us.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I close debate on second reading. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 42, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1987, read a

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

consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS AND LANDS

(continued)

On vote 34: minister's office, $210,165.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm intrigued by what the minister said this

morning about not responding in terms of a proper fee for chips going

into pulp mills. He said that the $10.50 figure was not going to

change, and $10.50 is the price per bone-dry unit with respect to the

raw material for pulp mills. That number was established in 1974; it

was based on pulp prices in 1974 and the circumstances of 1974. I might

note, since I was involved in the process of determining that at the

time, that it was based on the least efficient pulp mill in the

province, in terms of what they could readily afford to pay and still

be profitable, as determined by the B.C. Research Council and people at

the University of British Columbia in the forest faculty; they

determined that this was a very modest increase in pricing with respect

to chips.

The problem here is that this is part of our great natural resource

in British Columbia. It tends to be kind of an obscure area for the

average person to look at, Mr. Chairman. The pulp

section of our

provincial economy is very significant and currently very successful

and very profitable. We are getting higher prices for pulp now than we

ever have in the history of the province. I'd have to check the prices

of pulp back in '74, but I would think they were in the $300 to $400

range, or something like that. So that's how we established that. As I

recall, it would take two bone-dry units for a tonne of pulp —

something like that. The current prices in pulp, if my memory serves me

right, are in the range of $600 U.S. The Canadian dollar is 30 percent,

or something like that, so that gets us up to about $780 Canadian,

which is probably a doubling of pulp prices since 1974 when that $10.50

price was established. It's extremely profitable for the pulp

companies. It's not much of a return for the province of British

Columbia, the owner of the trees.

Can the minister advise the House why he has come to the conclusion

that that number should not be changed, in view of the fact that

recurrently through the years your staff have recommended that it be

changed?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, with the introduction of the

Forest Amendment Act, I can now speak to the fact that we're looking at

substantive changes in the stumpage appraisal system — not just the

method but the system.

[ Page 2241 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: I'd like to say that I regard it as nothing

short of almost subterfuge to have pulled off that kind of caper, Mr.

Minister. There is no question in terms of the focus of the debate that

was underway this morning about the inadequate charging for public

timber in British Columbia. You're now hiding behind that shield,

saying there's new legislation being brought in. We were advised by the

Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) of this province, over the last week

or two, that there would be no significant new legislation coming in

before this chamber. So much for that advice. But at the very least,

that bill should come in at the end of the departmental estimates. At

the very least, you could certainly advise the House that you're

prepared to move in that area. But if you're trying to curb debate by

that device, it's simply not acceptable.

This morning you said that the $10.50 isn't going to change. I'm trying to find out why.

HON. MR. PARKER: The introduction of the Forest Amendment Act isn't meant to curb debate on estimates at all.

As for what we discussed this morning on the chip market allowances

in the stumpage appraisal system for the interior of the province, I

presumed — and I think I'm correct — that I shouldn't be speaking about

legislation before it's introduced in the House, so that's the approach

I took. When we were speaking at that particular instant, I gave the

proper answer, as I do now. We are about to embark on a review of the

stumpage appraisal system in the next few months, to have these changes

in place by fall, and they are substantive changes. Everybody in

British Columbia will have an opportunity to have a kick at the cat and

provide their advice to the ministry. Further details will be

forthcoming.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, we seem to have a different story

from the minister between this morning and this afternoon. This morning

he said — if my ears weren't playing tricks with me — that there would

be no change in that $10.50. Is the minister saying that this morning

he didn't know that, and that he wasn't aware of what was coming in the

new Forest Amendment Act? Or is he telling the House that he didn't

really tell the truth this morning?

HON. MR. PARKER: For the third time, Mr. Chairman — perhaps

members opposite could take notes — this morning we were talking about

the stumpage appraisal system, which I referred to earlier as a

modified Rothery system. The question from the second member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) was whether or not there would be a

change to the chip market price used in the determination of the market

rate for stumpage appraisal for the interior. I told him no, because no

change is contemplated under that system. The introduction of the

Forest Amendment Act explained the approach that this ministry would be

taking, and it shouldn't come totally as a shock to the member for

Omineca (Mr. Kempf). The whole intent of our approach under the terms

of this act is to gain a greater return on the forest resource for the

people of the province.

MR. WILLIAMS: I think the minister has clarified the point. He's simply saying that insofar as the $10.50 is concerned, it's going to stay.

Interjections.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, you don't know whether you're saying that. Then why did you say that this morning? I'm having trouble with that.

HON. MR. PARKER: There will be no change.

MR. WILLIAMS:: Okay, I just wanted to get that clear. You're saying there will be no change insofar as that input is concerned.

HON. MR. PARKER: Insofar as the appraisal system is concerned.

MR. WILLIAMS: In the interior, that is.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you. Hansard would have trouble accommodating that reply, so I think that will deal with it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read the Blues.

MR. WILLIAMS: Okay, I'll read the Blues; thank you very much. In between the mumbles, we just might find out....

Interjections.

MR. WILLIAMS: I think we should all have the benefit of what

you tell me or the House. I wouldn't want it to be wasted on just the

poor civil servants who have to hear it. I think you should really

share your wisdom with us all, as long as that might take.

This whole question of our pulp economy is a serious one. Could the

minister advise the House whether he has read the report prepared by

Sten Nilsson for the FEPA Group at UBC? Sten Nilsson is from the Royal

Institute in Stockholm, and was invited to British Columbia by Dr.

Pearse and others to review our industry.

HON. MR. PARKER: I recall reading an abstract of some work done by Dr. Nilsson, but I couldn't say when, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WILLIAMS: I raise that because it's important. Prof.

Nilsson came from Stockholm and worked with Dr. Pearse and others at

UBC looking at our industry. He may be a kind of dour Swede from that

northern clime, but he came here and reviewed our industry and our

forest practices, and was clearly a very depressed man after doing so.

British Columbia has a far better situation in terms of latitude, in

terms of forests and potential, than that part of the world, I think.

He saw that we were missing all kinds of opportunities: that we were

mismanaging the resource terribly; that the private sector was not that

capable or efficient, was not that good in terms of managing and

dealing with labour questions. He looked at this pulp sector question

fairly clearly, and in his economic modeling it was the critical factor

throughout the piece, in terms of his academic work on this question.

He said that we were.... I hope that the minister, even in the limited

parts of it that he may have scanned, grasps this point: nowhere else

in the western world do they have a different pricing system for feed

going into pulp mills

[ Page 2242 ]

than the roundwood supply would be. It creates all

kinds of economic diseconomies and twisting within what should be a

free market system.

[3:00]

So we have a distorted price system in terms of our pulp economy. We

have chip prices that are not based on real market. And these chip

prices do not reflect roundwood costs. That being the case, no pulp

mill wants to use roundwood or pulpwood if they can avoid it, so we'll

tend to get all kinds of pulpwood out there in the forests not being

harvested, not being cut, because they would prefer chips to the

roundwood, because the price would be double. So we don't get that

matter resolved. That starts creating all kinds of problems in terms of

harvesting, diseconomies, decadent forests and the like — very serious

questions. In his economic modelling he found that until you wrestled

with that question, you really couldn't give some sense of direction to

the forest economy of this province in a rational way, because that

number was twisting the exercise all the time.

I think that was the main burden of Dr. Nilsson's work. He's

basically saying, until you rationalize your pulp raw material pricing

system and relate it to a market basis, you are going to twist and

disorient the rest of your forest economy in the province. That's

pretty major. What you put into your stumpage appraisal formula in

terms of that $10.50 figure is just a part of that twisted chunk of

this exercise. Just think of it: $10.50 per bone-dry unit; it takes two

bone-dry units to provide a tonne of pulp in the province; the pulp is

selling for $600 U.S., which is $700-plus in Canadian dollars — $750

say — so for $21 you get your raw material. That's extraordinary — $21.

That's been in place since 1974. As I told you just a few minutes ago,

it was established on the basis of the most inefficient pulp mill in

the province in the day — of still being able to make substantial

profits.

Think how that has changed, Mr. Minister. We're not talking about

new investment in pulp mills, by and large; we're talking about old

invested capital, much of which has long since been paid off, or close

to it if not, because of other expenditures by the company.

So there are these incredible diseconomies created by this situation

that you sit on. Can you explain your rationale for accepting the

$10.50 figure, remaining way back there, when it's creating all kinds

of diseconomies throughout the system, when the roundwood question is

still there, and we're not getting the roundwood used or harvested or

cut when we could, if we had something comparable between roundwood and

chip prices?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, just to talk about Dr.

Nilsson's analysis a little bit, trying to draw a parallel between

Sweden and British Columbia is comparing apples and oranges,

simplistically, in that the forestry practices in Sweden have been

going on for several centuries, and we're in our first century in

British Columbia. Certainly we're trying to learn from others as much

as we can, and we continue to have good scientific dialogue with the

Scandinavian countries, as we do with other countries throughout the

world, including those behind the Iron Curtain.

The pulp that gets left behind in British Columbia is left behind

because under our economic framework it's uneconomic to deal with. It's

that simple. The policy in British Columbia is basically 50 percent

firmwood policy. In most cases that which is considered to be pulpwood

is often less than 50 percent firmwood. With the types of stands that

exist in Sweden, where they're cut at culmination rather than at

maximum rotational age, they probably have maybe 3 percent to 4 percent

cull factor,

whereas in British Columbia it can be in excess of 50

percent. So it costs about twice as much to handle a decadent log as it

does to handle a sound log.

We can go on and on with these pedantic lessons, but we won't deal

with that. The reason that we're not changing the $10.50 per BTU rate

is that, as I've said three times now, we're looking beyond that one

little item. We're looking at the whole picture, rather than one item.

We're looking at the total system.

I'd like at this time to address a matter raised this morning by the

member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), where he was asking questions about

Tay-M Logging Ltd. I'd like to read this into the record, and I'd be

pleased to provide a copy.

"1. The licensee is under instructions to complete

three metre falling and removal of minor volumes of wood from four

cutting permits and one road permit for a total of 12 settings.

"2. The licensee is scheduled to plant 220,000 trees this

summer, beginning within a week or so.

"3. The licensee is also expected to carry out prescribed burning on approximately 16 cut blocks this fall."

MR. WILLIAMS: We'll go back to that stuff about pulp in a

little while. Clearly, there's a terribly distorted situation here, and

until it starts getting rationalized, we've got a very serious problem

until we start getting a market orientation.

I happened to talk to a senior person in one of the largest

integrated companies in the province just a while back, and I said:

"What do you guys do in terms of chip pricing?" This is an integrated

company, and they have to start using numbers themselves within the

corporation. He said: "We use market figures for chip pricing

internally within the company, and it's critical. The biggest fight in

our economic corporate planning, as in most corporations, is the

transfer pricing costs for these chips."

And how do they do it? They end up doing it on the basis of market.

They look at Puget Sound and the rest of it, in terms of understanding

markets. They come as close as they can to market, in order to

determine efficiencies within the corporation. That's reasonable;

that's sensible. Isn't that the reasonable, sensible thing for the

ministry to do, too? They don't want distortions within the

corporation. They want every

section of the corporation to be as

efficient and economic as possible in order to maximize returns. That

applies throughout the public sector in managing this industry as well.

Doesn't the logic follow?

You know, it's your ideology. You're supposed to be the private

sector boys who understand what business is all about. If you are, then

you should use some of their methodology. That methodology requires

market pricing for rational decisions to be made. We don't have market

pricing in British Columbia. You still say you're not going to base it

on that $10.50. That isn't going to change. You're going to look at the

whole thing.

Look, you could have a thousand bureaucrats look at the whole thing,

and in the end, they'd all come up with different answers. They might

hold a committee meeting and come to some general conclusion, but in no

way can they simulate a market. That's the Soviet Union — trying to

simulate markets, or so-called planning. You have an opportunity to have

[ Page 2243 ]

real market information as the engine. I think

that's reasonable. This is the public's resource. To manage it properly

you need the market engine as a pricing vehicle. You're turning your

back on it, and you're getting a group of bureaucrats to do some

number-crunching. That's going to take us absolutely nowhere. It will

continue to get us in trouble with the Americans. Mark my words.

There's no doubt about that.

I was interested when I heard people complaining about how slow it

is to get research projects underway in your ministry. Everything goes

through the Premier's office. Oh, I don't want to exaggerate — all

consulting over $500 goes through the Premier's office. Can you

imagine? Members on the other side, in this day and age — part of the

Premier's bureaucracy reviews all of your contracts over $500. If I was

really impressed by the talent in the Premier's office, I'd say that

was a waste of talent. But I'm not going to say that.

You have projects underway under what is called the FRDA agreement,

and that's under the ERDA, I guess — FRDA is son or daughter of ERDA.

You have a whole bunch of private studies and contract work underway. I

made a request yesterday of your staff, wanting to know how many

contracts there are, what the value was, how many were approved and how

many are awaiting approval. I also wanted to know how many were sitting

in the Premier's office and how many had been sent back from the

Premier's office. I didn't get that information. I have a pretty good

idea of what the numbers are, nevertheless.

I made that request yesterday of a junior person in the department.

I made that request today of Dr. Baker, who is head of research. Is it

Dr. Baker? I think so; I don't know the chap. I made the request today,

and I was advised that he would have to check with his assistant deputy

minister — who happens to be on your left — prior to giving out that

information.

I want to know what kind of shop you're running over there. What

kind of police state do you have operating in the Ministry of Forests

in terms of reasonable public information? I think it's nothing short

of scandalous that some PhD cannot give an MLA of this province simple

data on research underway under your ministry. I think it's shocking

and scandalous. It's a stonewalling game, and it's a kind of police

state view of public information. I want to know how you justify that,

Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. PARKER: I wasn't aware that the member was seeking some additional information. I'll track that for him.

As far as inquiries from other elected members of legislative bodies

go — be they the Legislative Assembly here, town council, regional

districts, school boards, whatever elected official makes a request of

this ministry — I have directed that my staff put the reply through

this elected official, as I have responsibility for the ministry.

MR. CLARK: Public information.

HON. MR. PARKER: That's right, and you'll get it. But you'll get it from me.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

MR. WILLIAMS: I tell you, Mr. Minister: that's a police-state

mentality. I requested that information reasonably; I should have got

it. I should have got it forthwith and directly from the staff person

involved. I don't need your filter. I don't need your glasses reviewing

these matters. This is genuine, simple public information, and it

should be forthwith and readily available.

That is absolute nonsense. Just a couple of minutes ago I get

hand-delivered a letter from your office signed by you. What kind of

crock is that? What kind of shop are you running, where you put the

fear into these civil servants at the most senior level, where they're

not free to give the most reasonable information in the world? What

kind of minister are you, that you think that's the way it should be

done, that you think that's how you should occupy your time?

The request this morning of Dr. Baker was probably at, what, 10

o'clock? I forget; I think it was just before 10. I now get a letter at

3 o'clock from you. That meant you went through this whole exercise;

you signed a letter. What a narrow, incredible, bureaucratic view of

the world and freedom of information. I think that's a scandalous waste

of everybody's time. You put the fear of God into these senior civil

servants so they don't do their job properly, so they're not giving out

reasonable information.

[3:15]

Certainly information to members of this House should be forthcoming

and forthwith. What is this Legislature all about, after all? It's

about the spending of the public's money. And we can't be advised about

the spending of the public's money unless you write us a letter. I

think the royal jelly has gone to your head — a member of the Crown.

The royal jelly has really fogged you up, Mr. Minister of the Crown: to

think that is your prerogative and that's the way your shop should be

run.

We've read all kinds of stuff about the Forests ministry being

decentralized. That's being decentralized: you sending me a letter

about a couple of research projects when I asked it of somebody of your

staff yesterday and today, both of whom were scared to give me an

answer?

It's scandalous, this kind of centralizing authority. I can almost

understand the Premier not having faith in your competence and

requiring everything over 500 bucks to go through him. But how can you

run British Columbia that way? How can you do that? And how would any

self-respecting minister of the Crown accept it in the end?

What kind of process do you have to go through to get these research

projects underway? There are three technical advisory committees that

review these research projects. One is for the coast, one is for the

interior, one is for the north. There are professional participants who

analyze all these studies and research projects. Professional people

from the public sector, federally and provincially, and professional

people from the private sector as well, review all these projects. Then

after they're reviewed and approved relative to the budget, they go

over to the Premier's office for approval. A lot of the ones that have

gone to the Premier's office for approval have ended up just spinning

around there or being tossed back to your bureaucrats, saying: "Is this

really necessary now?" Or something to that effect. So they keep

spinning around. The jobs that could be created out there would be

underway if this nonsense wasn't carrying on the way it is. That's

really shocking.

What are these studies? Well, they're studies that look at

plantations and at failure rates and try to figure out why. But there

are people in the Premier's office who don't understand why you would

want to know that information, or why you'd want to know it now. Isn't

that extraordinary? You might have

[ Page 2244 ]

failure rates in planting young seedlings of 50

percent. There is high capital cost in planting those trees. It is

backbreaking work, but the beginning of new capital in British

Columbia, in a sense, through our natural resources. And if the failure

rate is high, then we should readily understand why. We need experts to

help us determine that. But it ends up going to the Premier's office,

because everything over $500 has to be approved by the Premier's

office. That is the small shopkeeper mentality that will hold this

province down forever and a day.

When we get that mentality operating out of the Premier's office and

we get your mentality operating out of your office, it is a

prescription for unmitigated disaster. "Anybody who wants any

information from my department has to come through me." That's what we

get from this new minister of the Crown. That is simply disgusting.

That's not an understanding of what democracy is about, what this whole

process of free people in a democratic assembly is about. Who do you

think you are that you should be that narrow a controller of

information, information that is reasonably public information? Who do

you think you are?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd remind members to address their comments to the Chair as opposed to each other.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, the personal contract review

was done by a crew in the Premier's office with the concurrence of

cabinet as part of the fiscal management approach by cabinet. There are

no further contracts so far rejected by that review staff.

As far as information is concerned, the first member for Vancouver

East (Mr. Williams) made a request today and got a reply today. The

member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) made a request today and got a reply

today. As long as requests are from other elected officials in the

province, regardless of the level of government they will be replied to

under my signature as an elected member of this Legislature and the man

responsible for this ministry.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the minister has

just said, even though the previous member who spoke had difficulty —

the difficulty of half a day — getting information out of the ministry.

However, we talked this morning about local autonomy, about the need in

the Ministry of Forests to have local autonomy, about the need for

local people out in the field, the people dealing with the industry out

there, to have a decision-making process. How on earth, Mr. Chairman,

can they, maybe 500 or 600 or 700 or 800 miles from Victoria, have that

kind of local autonomy, that kind of decision-making process, if you

can't even get answers from the B.C. Forest Service officials in

Victoria? If we, as MLAs, have to go through the minister, how can we

possibly have local autonomy? How can autonomy be given to those people

out in the field if that is the situation right here in Victoria? How

can those people have any autonomy if every contract over $500 that

they seek to enter into with a contractor has to go through the

Premier's office? What kind of local autonomy do we have in a situation

like that?

But I wasn't going to get off the deep end on that; that's just aside.

I don't want to let the minister off as easily as you do, Mr. Member, in

regard to the price of chips in this province. I talked this morning about a

fair share to the people of British Columbia from that resource. As the first

member for Vancouver East has very clearly pointed out, there's a gross

inequity in what is paid for fibre in British Columbia compared to what is paid

in almost any other jurisdiction in the world. I want the people of British

Columbia to understand that. I don't care whether the Americans understand

it or not. I really care whether the man on the street understands that for

50 percent of the fibre taken from our forest lands in this province, we're

paid $21 for every $780 worth of product out the other end of the manufacturing

plant. Is that a fair return? I really don't think so.

Let's do this again. For 50 percent of the fibre, we get $21 for

what the multinational corporation gets $780 for out the other end of

the plant. Is that a fair return to the people of British Columbia for

their resource? I don't think so. I didn't think so when I was

minister, and I don't think so now. There has got to be a change. We

see punitive taxes heaped on the heads of British Columbians, but we

fail to go to the right well. We fail to go to the right source for our

revenue in this province, and that source is the forest industry. I

think it has been proven right here. We don't have to go any further

than that.

How many billions of dollars are we talking about right here,

without talking about the stumpage paid on dimension lumber? I want the

people of British Columbia to understand that. I'm going to go all

around this province and say it over and over, because they have to

understand. That is the only way in which this forest industry is going

to be turned around in British Columbia. It can't be turned around

here. We found that out. I found that out very quickly. But it's got to

be turned around — $21 for $780 worth of product. Is that a fair share

to the people of British Columbia?

HON. MR. PARKER: It's interesting that the member didn't

mention the other costs besides the cost of timber. It comes out of

that $780 you mentioned.

He told us this morning that the forest industry in British Columbia

generates over $8 billion worth of economic activity annually, and

didn't mention the fact that well over $2 billion is received in taxes

through all levels of services, goods and labour contracts. If a person

were to go around the province telling the story, histrionics would

help; facts are better.

MR. CLARK: It's interesting that the minister talks about

facts, because I want to go to this year's prices. There is certainly

the appearance that the Minister of Forests has deliberately misled the

House, and I want to give the minister a chance.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: There is the appearance. I'll read it. In answer

to my question this morning as to whether or not chip prices would be

raised from $10.50, the minister said: "I can't speak for the next

umpteen years...but at this point we are not considering changing the

chip price allowance in the stumpage appraisal." And then he brings in

legislation this afternoon that in effect, he says, is going to

increase the price of chips. It's going to increase the return to the

province of British Columbia. That's the purpose of the legislation, as

you stated it. So you mentioned this morning that you have no intention

of raising the chip price. When I asked about the future, you said you

had no intention at this point in time. Then he comes in this afternoon

and says that we're changing the whole system, and we are going to

raise the price of chips.

[ Page 2245 ]

HON. MR. PARKER: For about the fifth time now, we were

discussing this morning whether or not there would be an increase in

the chip price number for the interior stumpage appraisal system. At

that point, I said that we were not contemplating a change at that

time, but I couldn't speak for the future. I told you before, Mr.

Chairman, and the rest of this House, that I didn't think it was

appropriate to speak about pending legislation until it had been

presented to the House. So I followed procedure, and I told the facts.

[3:30]

MR. CLARK: So is the Minister of Forests saying to the House

that he wasn't aware that he was going to bring in legislation an hour

or two later that was going to affect the whole way in which we do

stumpage?

MR. RABBITT: That's not what he said.

MR. CLARK: That's what the minister is saying. He's

saying,"at this point in time"; he meant frozen in time. But an hour

later, we're going to bring in complex legislation to completely change

the way we assess stumpage in this province, and it's going to raise

the price.

MR. WILLIAMS: The minister owes the House some explanation.

We've already gone through this narrow police-state mentality, in terms

of information. And that's what I think of your approach to this

problem, let me assure you. It is a narrow, mean police-state mind

we've got here. Make no bones about it; that's who we're dealing with.

This is a guy who runs around in the north giving his anti-communist

speeches, and he is like any apparatchik, I assure you, in that system

east of the Baltic. He has the narrow police-state mind of an

apparatchik in the Soviet Union. I tell you that, and I want you to

think about that, because you go around giving all those screwball

speeches up there in the north and, you know, you carry that kind of

baggage with you, my friend, wherever you go.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, address your remarks to the Chair, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: I've done so, Mr. Chairman. How many times do I have to say "Mr. Chairman" before I go after that guy?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The remarks should all be addressed to the Chair.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'll use "Mr. Chairman" as frequently as I deem

advisable. I am not going to use it in every other sentence, and that's

as simple as that.

This minister over there, Mr. Chairman, stood up in this House and

said,"No, no change," this morning. The most minimal courtesy he might

have shown is to advise us that he was bringing forth legislation this

afternoon. Does that minister understand what minimal courtesy is?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 34 pass? The first member for Vancouver East.

MR. WILLIAMS: He shakes his head. Is he saying that he does not understand

what minimal courtesy is? Do you have an answer? Do you understand what minimal

courtesy is?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, I believe I understand. As do

my colleagues on this side of the House, I see that when questions are

asked, they are answered. The member opposite, Mr. Chairman, may not be

appreciative of the way it's done, but it's done and it's done

promptly. I think that if we go back in history, we will find that he

failed to extend that courtesy, in most cases, to the opposition when

he was minister.

MR. CLARK: Did the minister know this morning, when he answered the question, that he was bringing in legislation this afternoon?

MR. SIHOTA: I have a question to the minister, through you,

Mr. Chairman. Did the minister know this morning that he intended to

introduce this legislation this afternoon? Yes or no?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a brief point of order. Maybe no; I'll

just enter into the debate. But it appears to be irrelevant to some

degree, because we're speaking of courtesy, and one of the courtesies

that all Legislatures and Members of the Legislative Assembly must

follow is not to speak of a message from His Honour until the message

has been introduced to the House. That would be discourteous, and I'm

sure the members would bring it to our attention if a minister flagged

a bill before it was introduced by message. That's a protocol I'm sure

you understand.

MR. WILLIAMS: Don't give us that hokum, Mr. House Leader. All

kinds of ministers in all kinds of administrations advise with respect

to expected legislation.

This guy simply didn't observe the most minimal of courtesies before

this chamber. In fact, he was misleading. He used the term "misleading"

this morning again and again. But I tell you, Mr. Minister, through

you, Mr. Chairman: that was a sleazy kind of misleading activity by you

today. It was sleazy, misleading stuff to say that and then bring in

the legislation. No other decent minister would have attempted that

kind of game.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, Mr. Member. Mr. Member, please take your seat.

MR. WILLIAMS: It is just mind-boggling to deal with this kind

of contempt from this kind of junior minister. He has been in office

for a few months, and look at the way he's operating around here. He

doesn't have to tell us what he's going to do an hour later; he can

mislead us.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, "sleazy, misleading comments" is unparliamentary, and I would ask you to withdraw it.

MR. WILLIAMS: Which is the problem,"sleazy" or "misleading," Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Both, in my opinion.

[ Page 2246 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry, I can't accept that. That minister

used the term "misleading" three times this morning and was never

intercepted by the Chair. I'll withdraw "sleazy."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMS: This guy is just too much to take. A new member

goes around preaching his kind of morality in the north and then comes

down here and acts like the high and mighty once he gets in cabinet, in

terms of delivering reasonable information, in terms of misleading the

other members of this chamber. It's simply a shocker. And I think

you're in the revolving door, Charlie. You're in that revolving door,

and you're going to spin out of it faster than the five other Forests

ministers who have spun out that door in the last 14 months or whatever

it is. It's a spinning door, and for good reason. I tell you, Mr.

Minister: of all of the last six, I've never seen such arrogance

displayed at this stage of the career of the other ministers. I've

never seen such arrogance. Just keep it up. It's good news for Her

Majesty's Loyal Opposition. It's good news for those who want a change

in government in British Columbia. You just carry on in that style. You

just keep sticking out that glass jaw of yours, and we'll deal with

that glass jaw, you bet.

MR. RABBITT: To the minister: I know there have been

experiments and studies going on with the serious spruce budworm

problem in my riding. I want to know if within the budget there is

allocation of funding for spraying, harvesting and silviculture for

that particular problem.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. PARKER: I understand that in the spruce budworm

outbreak areas in the province there are a number of research projects

going on using BT — Bacillus thuringiensis. It's a specific biological

control of budworm. The research also includes yield analysis to see

what the impact of budworm is on infested juvenile stands and older

stands.

There are some instances, I understand too, of budworm outbreak in

plantations. Plantations can be destroyed by budworm and seriously set

back to the point where another disease or insect will take over and

complete the annihilation of that plantation. In the Yale-Lillooet area

there are substantial outbreak areas, and these projects are in place;

they're taking place now. Hopefully, we'll find that BT is the control

agent that works for us. If it does, we'll see much larger operations,

probably in the next budget year.

MR. CLARK: I want to get back to the price of chips. It

concerns me that the minister this morning spent hours of our time

defending the stumpage appraisal system and defending the chip prices,

saying that it was $10.50, saying that it reflected labour costs and

that it was because we wanted a healthy industry. He went on and on,

and in answer to the question, he said, "at this point we're not going

to raise it," and then he brings in legislation this afternoon that

dramatically changes the whole way in which we conduct stumpage

appraisal in this province. Did he think he was clever by not telling

us that he was thinking of reviewing the whole system? Did he think he

was being smart by defending the existing system and then changing it

in the afternoon, an hour later?

Did he think he was being cute by saying that $10.50 was a good

idea, that it meant more money for the pulp industry, and that it was

good for British Columbia? And then he says this afternoon that we want

more revenue for the province. Is that why he's changing the whole

system?

Can the minister justify making this morning's remarks that defend

the existing system and then coming in this afternoon and changing it

completely?

HON. MR. PARKER: The statement I made this morning was that

at that point in time there would be no change to the chip price used

in the interior stumpage appraisal system. That's all. The reason we

dealt with that was that the question was directed to it. Now, as far

as the Forest Amendment Act introduction was concerned, I understood

that it was not to be discussed until it had been introduced in this

House. It wasn't to be intimated or to be discussed. And that's the way

I conducted myself.

MR. CLARK: I want to refresh the minister's memory, because

that's not all he said. That's what he said in answer to my question.

In answer to a question by the first member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Williams), he said: "The prices paid in the Pacific Northwest are

reflective of incremental cost allowances...." He went on to say: "When

you average over your total fibre supply cost, the increase is

pennies." He also said: "The Canadian and provincial tax laws will

provide for revenues for the province from current improvements in the

pulp industry, the newsprint industry and the paper industry." So he

said that we're going to benefit in British Columbia by a rotten

stumpage system because they're going to make lots of money, and we're

going to tax them. He went on repeatedly to defend the existing system.

He went on to defend a 1974 price for chips, and then this afternoon he

brought in legislation which completely alters it. He wasted the

House's time this morning, and he misled this House consistently by not

giving us any indication that he was contemplating any change in the

direction that this side has indicated all morning.

HON. MR. PARKER: This morning we were discussing the status

quo, and we continue to discuss status quo. Questions were in accord;

answers were in accord. The answers were direct, to the best of my

knowledge, and forthright.

I continue to defend the point that the discussion of pending

legislation is not to take place until it has been introduced in the

House. That's basic courtesy, as I understand it, and that's the way we

conducted ourselves.

MR. CLARK: Could the minister inform the House why he is changing a system that a couple of hours ago he defended?

HON. MR. PARKER: The record shows that I was explaining it,

not defending it. I was answering questions. If the member thinks it

was a defence of the system, who can change his opinion for him? That's

his prerogative.

Mr. Chairman, I confirm to you again that I conducted myself according to the courtesies of this House.

MR. CLARK: Would the minister then agree with this side of

the House that we have a rotten stumpage system currently in the status

quo, that we're undervaluing the timber resource that the public owns

in this province, that we haven't

[ Page 2247 ]

been collecting adequate royalties, and that that's

why you're moving to bring in legislation, as you brought it in this

afternoon?

HON. MR. PARKER: The appraisal system used in the province is

ripe for review. It's a system that was in place and in some cases

concocted during 1972-75, and it is time for a review.

[3:45]

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the minister. The minister

obviously knew this morning that he intended to introduce this

legislation. If he listened to the question that was being posed to him

by the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark), he knew full well

at that time, I would suggest, that he could not answer that question

truthfully, because he knew the truth was other than what he said at

the time. Would the minister not agree, Mr. Chairman, that what he told

the House this morning was half a lie?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member who just spoke wasn't accusing the minister, I don't think, was he?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There's no accusation there? The minister may respond.

HON. MR. PARKER: For the ninth time, Mr. Chairman, the

question at that point in time was put and the answer at that point in

time was put. The status quo was addressed in both instances.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm just looking at a clipping from the Prince George Citizen

dated June 4. The minister was talking to a reporter in Prince George

and he said: "The provincial government will change the way it charges

for timber, raising its revenue by up to $115 million by September 1."

That was never picked up by the downtown media in Vancouver. Somehow

you were willing to give the courtesy of advising of the change that

you were contemplating to a reporter in Prince George on June 4, but

today in July — this morning, this very day — you were unwilling to

give the same courtesy to elected members of this chamber. How on earth

do you explain that, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, in regard to the discussion

with the reporter from Prince George prior to the story being

published, there was a move afoot with our ministry to take a look at

the changing of some cost allowances and some market information within

the stumpage appraisal system in place. Since that date the philosophy

and the approach to the whole matter has changed, as I've outlined.

MR. WILLIAMS: You were defending this rotten system this

morning, not advising us that changes were coming in, and on June 4 you

were telling a reporter in Prince George you were going to deal with

the rotten system. How does that add up?

MR. SIHOTA: Contempt.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, it's nothing short of contempt for this

House. You don't have a clue as to what the democratic process is

about. You have contempt for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. That's

clear. All the asides to the civil servants there and the stuff we get

in the House that does come through the mike show that contempt

regularly. You've shown that contempt in the hallways around here, and

it continues.

You talk to a reporter in June and give him the information. You

talk to Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition today and you give us

misinformation. How do you justify that?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, as I've said before, at the

time of the discussion with the reporter in Prince George changes to

the existing stumpage system were being contemplated with a view to

targeting some revenue figures. Since then we've decided that there

will be a different approach, and that's what we're talking about now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Opposition House Leader.

MR. WILLIAMS: We are talking about a modest difference....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry. First member for Vancouver East.

MR. WILLIAMS: Sorry, Mr. House Leader. I just want to finish this as best we can, given the approach by this minister.

What are we talking about then? You said to that reporter there was

$115 million of new money. What's your new number? Is that the big

change? Is it less? Is it more?

HON. MR. PARKER: It would be conjecture at this time, but I would say that most likely it will be in excess of that.

MR. WILLIAMS: Then maybe the minister can explain to us why it would be in excess of that.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, probably in excess, as the system we hope will be more sensitive to all market forces.

MR. ROSE: The subject has wandered a little bit since I first

had an idea about getting up. But unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, this is

the second example we've had of contempt for the House and abuse of its

time and its procedures. This is the second time in a week. A week ago

Tuesday we had the Point Roberts waterworks extravaganza, and we

squirted around here for about two hours trying to get some information

and never did. Then this morning we had a similar experience where a

minister was being obtuse. Whether he was obtuse because he received

bad advice as a new minister, or whether he has some old grudges or

scores he is trying to settle — regardless of what the motivation is,

saving the people's money, but in both instances at least two to three

hours of members' time and the House's time were squandered.

All the minister needed to say in answers to questions this morning

was simply this: "I intend to bring in legislation to address some of

these problems." There was no need for all this anger, this acrimony or

anything else. In answer to very

[ Page 2248 ]

legitimate questions, to very serious concerns

about the inadequacies of the present system for collecting revenues or

annual rent from the people's resource, he simply had to say: "Yes, I'm

looking into that. In the near future I will have that information."

Instead of doing that, the minister comes across as somebody who treats

the House with contempt and who thinks it's funny to mislead and delay

the legitimate information.

For those of you who haven't been through estimates before, this

goes right back to the first parliaments. It's the opposition's control

on the spending of the King. When we examine estimates and have

Committee of Sup

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, address your remarks to the Chair, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: I've done so, Mr. Chairman. How many times do I have to say "Mr. Chairman" before I go after that guy?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The remarks should all be addressed to the Chair.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'll use "Mr. Chairman" as frequently as I deem

advisable. I am not going to use it in every other sentence, and that's

as simple as that.

ply,

we supply the government with the money they need to carry out the

things they said they were going to do in the Speech from the Throne.

Perhaps it would be patronizing for me to give a lengthy lecture on

democracy or the power of the parliament over the King or the state.

Nevertheless I can hardly keep from doing that, because it seemed to be

ignored here recently, blatantly, in two instances. It could have been

much simpler. We pleaded last Tuesday for two hours to get the

government House Leader to stand a clause so we could get adequate

information. We didn't ask for the thing to be defeated; we asked only

for the clause to be stood. This morning we did the same thing for two

hours, and the minister treats the House with what I think could be

adequately called contempt. Whether he received bad advice I don't

know. In cases like this where there is legislation coming down, my

friend here tells me you don't need to give the details. But, my God,

it would have saved everybody a lot of trouble and a lot of abuse and a

lot of acrimony. We've had an improved House here and it has been

because a lot of us have worked at it, and we had new players. This

could degenerate into the same old squirrel-cage it has been for 15

years if we let it do that.

Just be up front with us; that's all we're asking. If there is

something coming up that's going to be a change, let's not have us

hammering away at the same old arguments and being stonewalled by a

minister who knew very well this morning that this bill was coming down

this afternoon.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before I recognize the hon. minister, I

would like to state that the Chair holds the comments of the hon.

opposition House Leader in a great deal of respect. I would hope that,

he having said that — and I suppose in some respects the House was

being lectured a little bit — we could get back to the same tenor in

the House that we have enjoyed since we arrived here in March, and that

the debate can go forward on vote 34 in that spirit of cooperation and

good will.

HON. MR. PARKER: I assure the hon. opposition House Leader that no contempt was intended, and I appreciate his comments.

MR. KEMPF: On vote 34, Mr. Chairman, a little change of pace.

Recently a report was done by a Mr. Ewing on the Prince George TSA

which showed quite conclusively that that timber sale area is being

very seriously over cut. I'd just like to know at this time what the

Minister of Forests intends to do about that.

HON. MR. PARKER: The Prince George timber supply area

consists of several supply blocks, and there has been over cutting in

some of the southeastern supply blocks during the last few years in an

attempt by the ministry to concentrate cutting in those areas where

severe bark beetle — both spruce and pine bark beetle — outbreaks have

taken place, so that that timber may be salvaged before it has

deteriorated to the point where it can't be used by the industry in the

area. The supply blocks to the north and west are certainly not over

cut, and over the next couple of years we'll see a transition, with the

activity moving out into the other supply blocks as the bark beetle

emergency is dealt with.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, is the minister suggesting by that

that wood from the Vanderhoof area would be taken into Prince George

for processing?

HON. MR. PARKER: Timber from each supply block would go to

the appropriate licensee, and if the Vanderhoof supply block is tied up

by Vanderhoof and Fraser Lake licensees, then that wood will be moving

to those two locations, Mr. Chairman.

MR. KEMPF: The northern block of which the minister speaks,

of course, is the Takla-Sustut area. To get timber out of there, it is

my understanding it would necessitate the expenditure of $43 million to

upgrade the rail from Fort St. James to Chipmunk or thereabouts. Can

the minister tell me at this time, keeping in mind that something must

be done to alleviate the over cutting problem in the Prince George

area, where he would expect that $43 million would come from for the

upgrading of the BCR?

[4:00]

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, just so I don't mislead the House, no, I don't.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, that's progress. The minister is admitting he doesn't know.

The member for Omineca referred to the overcut problem in Prince

George. It is the home of the biggest clearcut in North America. Just

think about that: the biggest clearcut in North America is in that

Prince George region. Prince George shows up on the satellites of the

world, and that's what shows up right there — the biggest

cut-and-get-out brigade in North America.

Given these circumstances, Mr. Minister, given the fact that there

are horrendous problems in the Prince George region, and given the fact

that there is over cutting, one would think that one would not

entertain new proposals for cutting rights in that region. Can the

minister advise what he's currently entertaining in terms of new

cutting rights in that region?

HON. MR. PARKER: The large clearcuts to the south and east of

Prince George are a result of salvage operations concentrated in the

area by the Ministry of Forests at their request, so as to recover

salvageable losses due to bark beetle outbreaks in that area. The area

is being properly regenerated. It is not a cut-and-run situation, as

the member is trying to lead the House....

The current forest licence being offered in the Prince George timber

supply area deals with stagnated lodgepole pine stands, which are

referred to as stocking class 4 — very small diameter stands,

younger-mature to over mature stands. These areas have been kept out of

the allowable annual cut calculations, and they are being used or

offered now because,

[ Page 2249 ]

as I said earlier in our debates, Mr. Chairman,

when an opportunity arises, when interest is expressed in a particular

species or type of timber which up till now has not been utilized, we

listen to the opportunities and we're proactive with the entrepreneurs.

We make this available under a forest licence bid proposal so as to

have the opportunity of recovering for the people of British Columbia

not only royalties, stumpage, area rentals and protection tax, but also

jobs and new technology.

MR. WILLIAMS: If I could pursue that, Mr. Chairman, here

you've got an overcut. You've got a report telling you that your

inventory is over 20 years old; they don't really know what they've got

there. That's what the report says. Then you come up and say: "Oh,

well, let's entertain new cutting rights" — in an area that is grossly

overcut, with very serious problems and inadequate responses in terms

of regeneration, despite what the minister says. Why don't you fess up,

Mr. Minister? Now that you're maybe in the mood to fess up a little

bit, why don't you admit to the kind of scam this really is? This is a

scam that has been going on for some time. Some new cutting rights come

along, and you say this is for stagnant, over mature lodge pole pine.

Those are cutting rights within the TSA; there are other examples

around.

What happens is that what was originally area-precise, wood-precise,

stand-precise, quality-precise, gets rolled into cutting rights within

the whole timber area. That has happened again and again under your

recent predecessors. It's a scam for getting your boys on board in

terms of the gravy. It's the secret entry into getting cutting rights

in British Columbia. In effect, you designate the guy you want to give

new timber cutting rights to. You say, "It's this timber, this

location, this process," and in the end you eliminate everybody except

one, in terms of qualified people. I've looked at memos today that

confirm that kind of game in the recent past in this province. I say to

you that it's a scam.

This report documents your problems in Prince George. They're going

to be repeated around this province again and again. You go through

this phony exercise of creating big timber supply areas that don't make

any sense. Your number-crunching foresters say: "Let's call the Prince

George region everything from way up north in the Sustut, down to

McBride, way past to the south towards the Chilco. One nice balloon

area. Then we can do our number-crunching; our mismanagement in the

central areas won't show up because we can bury the numbers within this

huge timber supply area." And you can dissipate everything in

transportation from the outermost reaches of those areas, in terms of

economic rent for the province from the resource. The whole thing, in

terms of the so-called forest management exercise, starts looking like

a scam.

What happened in Prince George is that those birds that were up in

the Sustut in the far north were invited down into Fat City around

Prince George. They did that scalping routine that you can see on the

satellites — the biggest clearcut — and they found out what Fat City

is. I talked to one of those operators in the Prince George area just

recently, and do you know how much money he says they made? He's in the

business and he knows the numbers. He said that through their period of

being transferred from the Sustut down to around Prince George, they

made $40 million. That would have paid for the railway that the member

for Omineca is talking about. They walked away with $40 million in

their jeans because your predecessors allowed them to come down into

Fat City. And because you don't charge what the timber is worth. and

there they are, close to the processing mills and all the rest, we

didn't get any stumpage; they put it in their pockets. It's as simple

as that.

That's what the Prince George story is all about. Let's hear from

the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Michael). His old buddies are

pulling together another scam up in the Revelstoke-Salmon Arm area, and

we'll deal with that one down the road too — all these friends of

government and inside traders and all the rest. But Prince George is

all documented here. Those guys from the Sustut made forty million

bucks, according to the people in the region who are in the business.

But you're still going to let somebody in the door. You're calling it

some stagnant forest somewhere over there toward Vanderhoof, justifying

it on that basis, but they're going to be players within the system.

They're going to have some cutting rights within the timber supply area.

We've already found out that you've got too many players there

already. I can just see the scam going on. They'll be like the boys

from the Sustut in time. They were supposed to be way up there in the

far northern regions scratching a living — difficult frontier and all

that. But once they smelled the big greenbacks down around Prince

George, they didn't ever want to go home. That's what this report is

about: the fact that those guys didn't want to go home.

Now you're saying we're going to let this other guy in through this

back door. He's going to get in, and he's going to want to move into

Prince George too, you can be sure. That's the game that's been going

on for some time. It's a closed door for most everybody in terms of

getting into this industry, but for some there is a back-door entry.

This is one of the back-door entries, Mr. Minister, and it's your back

door. It's a scam that the last players have played, and it simply

shouldn't be happening.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, the Prince George timber

supply area is a large area, and the cut concentration in the

southeast, as I explained earlier, was done for good forest management

reasons and recommended by the ministry staff, who are capable managers

of the resource. The approach was to pull all active operations down

into the bug-infested area to salvage the timber while the opportunity

to salvage was still there.

The stagnated pine stands that we're also addressing are part of the

resource that didn't serve to make up the annual allowable cut

calculation for the Prince George timber supply area. It's over and

above that. If, through the utilization of this forest licence that's

being offered at the moment, we find that we can develop a technology

and a means to economically deal with that type of stand, then the

volume that those types of stands in that area can contribute to the

AAC will be included in the AAC calculation. But for the time being, it

is still considered to be uneconomical or marginally economical and is

not included in the AAC calculation. This is part of the proactive,

responsible management approach that the staff of the Ministry of

Forests demonstrates to the people of British Columbia day in and day

out.

MR. WILLIAMS: The point is that your outside independent

consultants that looked at this mess around Prince George said: "We

don't have an inventory that's any good. We don't have an inventory

that's current." But you've found a back door for entry, and you've

said it's this scrub lodge pole

[ Page 2250 ]

pine. How can your so-called experts say these things and say it's not in the calculations with respect to the AAC?

The outside independent experts that pulled this document together

said that your inventory isn't good enough to operate on; it's simply

not good enough to make decisions on. It's very clear in this report.

So the inventory is no good, there is an over cut, you've got serious

problems, but all of a sudden there is room in there for a new operator

to get in the back door. It doesn't hang together. The story does not

hang together.

HON. MR. PARKER: The inventory of the mature timber in the

timber supply areas of British Columbia is a reasonably good inventory.

However, the inventory in the younger stands is a lot less than we'd

like it to be. The Ewing report helped flag that in the Prince George

area. But we understood that for the rest of the province, and it's

been a matter of discussion within the ministry, and it's an item that

we're targeting for our next budget year, which will actually be my

first budget year.

To be able to generate an allowable annual cut calculation, you

really need a sound forest land inventory and an inventory of the

younger stands and their performances as well as the mature stands. We

have been coming through — and we will continue for a while yet to be

in — a wild land forestry situation. We won't have a total managed

forest until the natural crop is removed and a managed crop is in

place. So the inventory information of necessity is concentrated on the

mature and over mature stands, and we are now undertaking to make sure

that the information we have on the younger stands is sufficiently

accurate that we can generate good numbers for future AAC calculations.

MR. KEMPF: The truth of the matter is that we don't have an

inventory at all. We don't have an inventory that we can hang our hat

on so far as timber is concerned. I know that from my seven months in

the ministry. We don't have an inventory at all. We're running by the

seat of our pants.

We don't know whether what we're doing is going to place small rural

communities — well, even big rural communities, such as Prince George —

in dire jeopardy down the road 25 or 30 years, or maybe sooner than

that, as the people from UBC tell us. We don't have an inventory of our

timber that we can rely on. We simply don't. I know that. It's serious

for rural communities which could become ghost towns in as little as 15

years, and that's why I was so concerned, as a minister, as to what it

is we're doing, how it was that we were spending our silviculture and

reforestation dollars, because it takes in some areas of the province a

hundred years to grow a tree when you plant a seedling. It may take

only 40 years, if you go into a stand that needs thinning and spacing

and fertilization, to have another forest in that community.

We don't have an inventory. We simply don't. It's a very serious

situation for the people, particularly in rural British Columbia, the

breadbasket of this province, where the money comes from to make this

place tick.

[4:15]

Mr. Chairman, I want to comment on the minister saying that he didn't know

where the $43 million might come from to upgrade the BCR. That might be so.

I accept that. But can the minister assure this House that the money will not

come from

section 88 credits? Can I hear the minister at this time assure this

House and the people of British Columbia that those moneys will not come out

section 88 credits? I hear it loud and clear that nothing is going to be

done with that scam called

section 88 of the Forest Act, that corporate welfare

that goes on in this province — $105.73 million in this fiscal year alone. Can

the minister assure the people of British Columbia through this House that

section

88 credits will not be used to upgrade the BCR so that the timber can be extracted?

You know, Mr. Chairman, in all this we talk about annual allowable

cuts. We talk about new forest licences to be offered in the Vanderhoof

area. But we've forgotten someone. We've forgotten the small guy. We've

forgotten the small business enterprise program. Does the minister

realize that a paltry 4.5 percent of the annual allowable cut in block

D is in the small enterprise program? I heard the minister in this

House during question period suggest that he was going to work toward

the 25 percent promised — by consecutive ministers and administrations

in this very House — to the small operators of this province. We're

talking about 4.5 percent in the Vanderhoof area, and we're offering

another timber licence for sale, another 250,000 cubic metres a year

for the next ten years. What consideration was given to the small

business enterprise program with this timber licence?

I know what you're going to say. You're going to say that this is

small timber; it's not in the AAC. That's got nothing to do with it.

Let's spread the wealth around for a change. Let's give the small guy

in the forest industry in this province a gasp of fresh air. Let's give

him an opportunity. Let's give the real British Columbian a chance in

his own resource industry. This resource does belong to the people of

British Columbia, Mr. Chairman.

We've not considered him, the small entrepreneur, in this whole

game. You know perfectly well, Mr. Minister, that you can't chase the

small operator up the Takla-Sustut. You can't ever possibly make a go

of it, so the only area left is block D. The Prince George area of the

Prince George TSA is over cut miserably. The Ewing report says so, and

we don't even know whether it's only cut 30 percent, because we don't

have an inventory. Maybe it's over cut more than that. I suspect that

to be the case. I suspected it all along.

That's why I asked for this report to be done. I was going to ask

for report after report in every region of this province, so that I'd

find out whether our children and our children's children would have

any timber to cut in the province of British Columbia, because we don't

know now. We don't know what the inventory is; we don't know whether we

are spending silviculture and reforestation dollars properly. Really,

Mr. Chairman, what do we know?

We know one thing: the good timber of this province is disappearing

before our eyes. What's going to happen to the multinational monopolies

when the good timber is gone? When the good timber is gone, so will

they be, leaving the mess behind for the people of this province to

clean up. That's an absolute disaster. It's unacceptable. I said it

before, and I'll say it again today and in the days and weeks to come:

it's got to change.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, the member for Omineca is

incorrect. We have a substantive forest inventory, as I said before,

primarily in the mature and overmature stands in the province. When we

compare notes with the other forested provinces of Canada, it's

generally acknowledged that we have the best forest inventory

information of any place in Canada.

The problem lies with inadequate information on the younger stands, That impacted in the Prince George problem

[ Page

2251 ]

with the spruce and pine bark beetle. That's the

portion of the inventory information that is lacking which Mr. Ewing

was alluding to.

On the matter of the stagnated pine stands, 250,000 metres for a

ten-year period is what is being offered for sale. If any individual is

interested in 10,000 metres or 20,000 metres or 100,000 metres, that

can be in his bid proposal if he chooses, if it's a small operator or a

large operator. But the total amount to be offered is 250,000 metres.

If out of that exercise we find that we have a viable industry, then

those stands will be added to all the timber supply areas where those

kinds of stands exist and where they can be operated. For example, that

is a source of wood for the Canwood plant in Penticton that's

manufacturing Ikea furniture. It's stocking a class 4 type of lodgepole

pine, So the opportunity continues to be available for any size of

operation to get a leg up in the industry in the province.

MR. KEMPF: That's just what I suspected. What is wrong, I ask

you, Mr. Chairman, with taking that additional 250,000 cubic metres a

year, rolling it into the total annual allowable cut for block D, and

spreading the wealth around? Increasing the small business enterprise

program volumes, not just in that small pine, but throughout the

average volume of that entire block — what's wrong with that? What's

wrong with saying that everybody has to take a share of the poor stuff?

Because I can assure you, British Columbians will have the poor stuff

when the good stuff is gone. What is wrong, I ask you, with rolling

that in and offering 10 percent, 15 percent or 20 percent of the total

annual allowable cut of block D to the small enterprise program?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, as the opportunities arise,

and as the analyses are completed through successive years of

management in a supply block and in a timber supply area, it will be

our intent to increase the small business program as much as possible.

Upper limit? I couldn't say here at this time; I wouldn't care to

mislead the House. Needless to say, those of us familiar with the

forest industry in the province have heard that number, 25 percent,

time and time again. It has almost become doctrinaire. It's probably

not an unreasonable objective. But the stagnated pine stands will not

constitute part of the AAC calculation until we are certain that they

can be used effectively in that area and that they continue to be an

economic operation; then they will be part of the AAC. Until then it's

opportunity wood, and all people in British Columbia are urged to take

a look at the opportunities there and seize them as they see fit.

MR. KEMPF: And what will happen to the small entrepreneur in the meantime?

While we're doing all of these great things to find out whether people can

cut small pine, what's going to happen to the fellow in the small business

enterprise program who's on his last legs? The multinational corporations

not only want 93 percent of the annual allowable cut in the province of British

Columbia; they want the other 7 percent as well. The question arises: what's

going to happen with surrogate bidding? What, Mr. Minister, are you going to

do — through you, Mr. Chairman — in regard to the surrogate bidding that goes

on in the Vanderhoof and Prince George areas and in other areas of the province

on a daily basis? Those multinational corporations are not only taking 93 percent

of the annual allowable cut of this province; they want the other as well. They're

taking it every day, through backing their contractors and bidding the little

guy right out of the business. But that's just an aside.

What's going to happen, Mr. Chairman, to the little guy? He's afraid

to speak out. I've learned that in the last three months, because I've

met with them. They're afraid to speak out, because they're afraid of

losing the 7 percent they've got. They're afraid of not having jobs,

because the big multinational doesn't need that wood. In fact they pay

them what they damn well please for it — starvation wages — because

they don't really need the wood.

[4:30]

Then you talk about the 25 percent. Well, that's not enough. At

least 50 percent of the timber of this province should be in the hands

of entrepreneurs. Let those people with the big plants.... Sure, I

recognize that they have large investments and we need them in our

province, but let them go to the guy that's got the wood for at least

50 percent of their needs. Then we'll find out. Then, and only then,

will we find out what wood is worth in British Columbia. We will never

find out otherwise. That's why the system is the way it is: we can

never find out what that wood is worth. It's worth what somebody will

pay for it, but if you only have to pay nothing, that's what you'll get

it for.

That's the problem with the whole system, the miserable, rotten,

dirty system in the British Columbia forest industry. We don't know

what that timber is worth, and we're never going to find out, because

it doesn't go to auction. If that paltry 6 percent or 7 percent is

worth what the surrogate bidders pay for it, then why isn't that same

corporation that's backing that contractor paying that for his own

wood? The only way you're going to change that is to put at least 50

percent of the annual allowable cut in the province on the auction

block.

That's something the people of British Columbia don't understand:

there is no competition. Mr. Chairman, there is no competition in the

forest industry of British Columbia. Not for one minute is there any

competition. They throw a few scraps to the small guys, the

entrepreneurs, the real British Columbians, to try and keep them happy,

and they're afraid to speak out. They're afraid to try and educate the

people of this province as to what is going on in that industry, for

fear of their very livelihood. It's got to stop, Mr. Minister.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I want to get into this debate

because I now know that my colleague the Minister of Forests

understands the meaning of trial by fire. I've been sitting in my

office for all these hours listening to the abuse that's been heaped

upon this man doing this job on behalf of all British Columbians.

I want to hear some good news from the minister about the millions

of seedlings that have been planted every year, and how with new

technology in the province we're increasingly getting a better hold on

the inventory of the forest products of this great province. I have no

fear for the entrepreneurs. I know they're going to live. They always

do. We always will. We're always going to make it. No matter what

happens, we're going to be all right. And that member over there, the

man who would bring the forest industry to its knees, according to my

colleague from Omineca, finally smiles.

Ali yes, I've heard the arguments, the doom and the gloom. Always

doom and gloom, never hope, never aspiration; always desperation,

always the end of the world. It's not

[ Page 2252 ]

the way the world is made. The world is made to be better, and

that's what's happening. That's what the new minister is going to do

for however long he's in office. Even if it's only one more minute, he

will have made a contribution, but may it be longer than one minute,

Mr. Chairman. May he serve this province valiantly and with courage. I

know that he's going to know a lot about the forests in a few months,

because those two members there will help him.

AN HON. MEMBER: Give him a "Smile" button from Grace.

MR. R. FRASER: Actually, you know, I should send you a couple

of "Smile" buttons, because you never think of it on your own. You must

get up in the morning and pull the blinds down in case you might see

the sun. You never do it. You never heard anybody cry about lost

anything, except the fact that you're not sitting over there. That's

the problem. The reason you're not here is that everybody knows what

you'd do, because you did it when you were here.

Interjections.

MR. R. FRASER: That's why we're going to be here. You'll get

your chance to heckle when you're on your feet, my friend. If you were

that good, you would have won in '86 and '83 and '79, and all those

great numbers you remember.

I want to ask this minister about the good news. How many seedlings

are we planting? How fast is the forest growing? The money is coming.

MR. WILLIAMS: How high is up?

MR. R. FRASER: "How high is up" is right. You never look up. You always look at the ground. Come on, minister, give us the good stuff.

HON. MR. PARKER: Thank you for that refreshing break.

AN HON. MEMBER: The pause that refreshes.

HON. MR. PARKER: Yes.

Mr. Chairman, as was mentioned in the introductory speech to the

estimates, the planting level we've reached this year is 200 million

seedlings. It's a substantial increase from only a couple of years ago.

Last year I believe we were around 155 million. We've gained some 45

million this year, and that's in spite of some frost kill and losses

that happen in the nursery business. It's like any other crop.

We have one of the most effective inventory divisions of any

provincial forest service in Canada. Our staff have devised inventory

programs and methodology that have offshore individuals interested in

purchasing the software.

Rather than berating the staff of this ministry as members opposite

like to do, I think we should take a minute to reflect just how

fortunate we are to have the level of expertise and dedication that we

have in the Ministry of Forests and Lands. I am certainly appreciative

of it. I've worked with them for some 25 years. At times we've been

colleagues, and at times we've been across the table. I've always

respected them, and I've enjoyed working with them.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

Just to touch back on the matter of whether our small business

volumes should be 50 percent, or whether they should be 25 percent, or

whether they should be 100 percent, that's anybody's guess. Certainly

the member for Omineca is entitled to his opinion. He is familiar with

the logging operations throughout the province, he has firsthand

knowledge of logging operations in the central interior, and he

understands the frustrations of the individual who is trying to get a

start in the small business program as far as this ministry is

concerned. Whether or not 50 percent, 25 percent or 10 percent is the

answer, I'm not sure.

I have met with a number of small business enterprise operators in

the past. I have been registered as a small business enterprise

operator, as a category 1. I have assisted small business operators

without fee, as a consultant, as members opposite have done with

others. Everybody needs a break now and again, and I think we've all

tried to help. I am certainly not opposed to small business operators.

I understand probably better than anybody in this House what they are

up against, what they have to contend with on a day-today basis.

I've had good successes and I have had failures in my forestry

career, and I can certainly sympathize and empathize with the small

business operator. They have a real part to play in this province, and

they will continue to. As a matter of fact, their

part in this province

will continue to grow, but it will grow in a reasonable manner, not in

a shot-in-the-dark manner.

MR. KEMPF: The minister speaks glowingly of the people in the

small business enterprise program, and I appreciate that. But I've got

to remind the minister that all the timber in British Columbia has been

allocated, and the only way you are going to make timber available to

the little guy is to take it from somebody else.

We have in this situation, in block D of the Prince George TSA, an

opportunity to do that, an opportunity where the percentage of

allocation in that area is probably one of the lowest in the province —

4.5 percent. The question is: if we don't do it through this kind of

mechanism, with all the timber allocated, we're in fact in an over cut

position in the Prince George TSA. How are we ever going to do anything

more than just talk glowingly in this House about doing something for

the small entrepreneur in the forest industry of British Columbia? It

can't happen; it simply can't happen.

You've got to bite the bullet and tell the Council of Forest

Industries that things are going to change with respect to that

resource industry in British Columbia. That's what has to be done, and

that's what I want to see you do, Mr. Minister. I'd be interested to

see how long you'd last if you did it. But I'd like to see you bite the

bullet and do it, because that's the only way. That is simply the only

way that the real British Columbian will once again have a place in his

own primary resource industry. There's no other way. You know it, and I

know it. You've got enough years in the industry to know you can't give

a tree away if you haven't got it.

All the timber in British Columbia is allocated. In fact, we are

taking some away from that allocation in allowing a national park in

South Moresby. What will we do in the Stein and the Khutzemateen? Will

we further erode the annual allowable cut of the province of British

Columbia? Will we put success as an entrepreneur even further from the

grasp of the small guy in the forest industry?

[ Page

2253 ]

You can't do it unless you bite the bullet. That's why I said this

morning that I had great hopes, Mr. Minister — and I wish you well —

that this government would bite that bullet, would turn an industry

around that's been out of control for 40 years, that has raped and

reaped the profits of this province that should rightly have gone to

the people of British Columbia. It's got to change; that's all there is

to it. And the only way we're going to change it, Madam Chairman, is to

educate the average British Columbian out there as to what's really

going on in this industry.

You know, you can talk glowingly in this House about 25 percent for

the small business enterprise program. That's 20.5 percent to go with

respect to block D of the Prince George TSA. How are you going to do

it? How are you going to do it if you don't take these kinds of

opportunities?

What's even scarier about a situation like this is that that wood

may leave the Vanderhoof area. And what will eventually happen to that

small rural community, which is dependent upon that wood to survive? We

threw that opportunity out the window when we did away with the PSYUs —

a gross mistake in the forest industry of British Columbia. The TSA

situation should never have happened in this province, and I just

wish.... I know what you're going to say: "Well, why didn't you do

something?" I just wish I'd been there long enough to do it.

Unfortunately I was not. We placed in jeopardy the very existence of

many rural communities in this province when we brought in TSAs, and

we'll live to regret it. We'll absolutely live to regret it.

[4:45]

We talked about the over cutting in the Prince George TSA, and the

reason we had to cut great, huge clearcuts, and I understand that. I

understand the bug infestation that took place east of Prince George,

and the reason that great areas there had to be cut. But I've got to

tell you, this is history. You need only go ask anybody in the industry

in Prince George whether this is true or not; don't take my word for

it. When the timber in those valleys, killed by bugs, checked to a

state where the large multinationals such as Northwood found it

uneconomic to run that wood through their wood-butchers, where were

they? They turned tail and ran, and we allowed them to do that. We

allowed them to move out of those areas, and we left it to the small

guy to clean up the mess. When that same thing happened in Houston with

the wood left standing by the Swiss Fire, 50 percent of the wood burned

by the Swiss Fire stands there today, three years later, because that

company was not a good corporate citizen. I know that firsthand,

because I had every stick of that burnt wood sold to the People's

Republic of China, and it was only because of that corporation — that

multinational corporation — wanting more and more than they ever

deserved, that the deal fell through. Fifty percent of it still stands

up there today, no longer worth anything to anybody except for

firewood. I'll tell you, you'd have to put in an awful lot of air

tights to ever bum it up. That's the kind of situation that I speak of

when I talk of waste and of responsibility in the forest industry.

Who cleaned up the other 50 percent? Who was chased into there and

cleaned up the other 50 percent? It sure wasn't the multinational

monopolies. It was the little guy who worked his butt off but could

only harvest 50 percent of it. The other 50 percent went to waste.

That's the kind of forest industry we've got in British Columbia.

HON. MR. PARKER: Just to touch on the surrogate bidding matter that

was raised by the member for Omineca, it has been a problem since the inception

of the small business enterprise program. I certainly encountered it as a bidder

at the table; I certainly couldn't compete. It has been a frustration over

the years. Successive ministers and administrators have tried to deal with it.

There needs to be some radical change in the administration of the sma