1985 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 33rd 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, JUNE 25, 1985

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

6859 ]

CONTENTS

Tabling Documents –– 6859

Oral Questions

Mining stock transactions. Mr. Macdonald –– 6859

Khutzeymateen ecological reserve. Mr. Howard –– 6859

Burnaby School District financing. Mrs. Dailly –– 6859

Coquitlam River fish hatchery. Mr. Parks –– 6860

Presenting Petitions –– 6861

Expo 86. Hon. Mr. Richmond replies to questions on notice –– 6861

Forest Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 3). Second reading

Mr. Howard –– 6861

Mrs. Wallace –– 6864

Mr. Williams –– 6865

Mr. Nicolson –– 6868

Mr. Lockstead –– 6868

Mr. Davis –– 6869

Mr. Mitchell –– 6869

Mr. MacWilliam –– 6870

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 6871

Division –– 6875

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Tourism estimates. (Hon. Mr. Richmond)

On vote 65: minister's office –– 6875

Mr. MacWilliam

Mr. Barnes

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No –– 3), 1985 (Bill 56). Committee stage 6880

Mr. Howard

Mr. Cocke

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Lauk

Tabling Documents –– 6883

TUESDAY, JUNE 25, 1985

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, seated in the members' gallery this

afternoon is a very good friend of mine and, I know, a friend of the

Minister of Environment, Mr. Ron Stevenson, with whom I spent many good

hours in post-secondary education. I'd like the House to bid him

welcome.

HON. MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, with my friends in your gallery

today are some visitors from Worthing, England: Mr. James Barter and

his two daughters, Sheila and Pamela. I would ask the House to make

them welcome, please.

Hon. A. Fraser tabled the annual report of the B.C. Ferry Corporation for the year ended March 31, 1985.

Oral Questions

MINING STOCK TRANSACTIONS

MR. MACDONALD: A question to the Attorney-General, Mr.

Speaker. There's been a civil case settled with Lac Minerals against

Deep Cinch and everybody's been instructed to clam up, including the

public relations director of the Vancouver Stock Exchange, but in that

civil case there were serious allegations, one of salting, which is a

criminal offence and used to be called high-grading, and the other is

of a conspiracy to suppress material facts and to blow away cheap stock

at the expense of the investing public. In view of those, my question

is: has the Attorney-General ordered an investigation into the matter

by the RCMP commercial fraud squad?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, one thing's a deep cinch, and

that is that this member usually brings innuendoes to the House and not

facts to me that I can investigate. But I will say that the matter of

the stock exchange and the dealings there have been under investigation

and continue to be under investigation.

MR. MACDONALD: In view of the fact that Peter Brown, who is

the president of Canarim, a Socred bagman, one of the Pouilly-Fuisse

kids and the finance director of Expo, signed a material statement of

fact at a time when the Vancouver Stock Exchange, of which he was on

the executive committee of the board of governors, had four other assay

reports and reported only the bogus one by Cheintex of Texas, as a

result of which people lost an awful lot of money.... I ask the

Attorney-General: is signing a misleading statement of fact an offence?

MR. SPEAKER: The member seeks a legal opinion, which is not

in order in question period; nor is an answer entitled to be given for

a question that is out of order.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, clearly it is an offence. I'm asking

the Attorney-General whether he is considering a public inquiry into the New

Cinch matter, where the people, including Canarim and others, made about $4

million on the basis of a bogus assay of a gold and silver mine in Texas. Is

the public entitled to a public inquiry or not? I ask the Attorney-General.

HON. MR. SMITH: Again, this member in this chamber makes all

sorts of assertions and sounds sometimes like the Maharaja of Muck.

What I would prefer that he would do is to bring some concrete

allegations to my attention and facts to back them up. They will

certainly get close attention. But the matter that he speaks of

generally is a matter that the commercial crime

section have been

looking at for some time and have been following. I have not had final

reports on that, but it is a matter that they have been carefully

following, all aspects of it. The public interest, I can assure you, is

being protected. If there are any bases for charges to be laid

according to evidence that will stand up in a court of law, well, then

that will be done. All individuals will be dealt with the same

regardless of their high station or their humble station.

MR. MACDONALD: A final supplementary. Will the

Attorney-General, in view of the relationships involved, which are very

well known, and the fact that this has been all hush-hush on the part

of the government, authorize a public inquiry so the public may judge?

HON. MR. SMITH: I always remember courts being held in

public; at least they have been since I've been Attorney-General.

Again, it's very easy to make these cute allegations, but we would like

to have some evidence and substance. The matter is being fully

investigated, and if charges are laid, people will be dealt with in

public.

KHUTZEYMATEEN ECOLOGICAL RESERVE

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to ask the Minister of Environment

whether he has come to a conclusion about establishing an ecological

reserve at the head of Khutzeymateen Inlet.

HON. MR. PELTON: The decision to establish an ecological reserve in the Khutzeymateen has not yet been made.

MR. HOWARD: As a supplementary, could I ask the minister what its status is? Can he predict when that decision might be made?

HON. MR. PELTON: I couldn't predict when that decision might be made, but it's under relatively active consideration.

BURNABY SCHOOL DISTRICT FINANCING

MRS. DAILLY: A question to the Minister of Education.

Yesterday the Minister of Education absolved himself and his government

of any responsibility for the school tax increase in Burnaby. Is the

minister aware that the provincial government's share of educational

financing for the school district of Burnaby dropped from 63 percent

last year to 57 percent this year?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I took the question yesterday as notice,

but I gave an approximate answer. I thought it was somewhere in the

neighbourhood of 60-40. The exact figure for the provincial

contribution is 57.15 percent; the residential contribution is 42.85

percent. In the previous full fiscal year it was 62.9 percent versus

37.09 percent. I would add to

[ Page 6860 ]

that particular comment the response which I made

yesterday about school taxation in School District 41: net taxes

payable by the citizens of Burnaby, $260 in 1981; in 1985, $167; a

reduction from 1981 to 1985 of 35.8 percent.

[2:15]

MRS. DAILLY: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. For the minister's

information, the point is that the school district budget went down in

Burnaby and taxes went up. Is the minister not aware of the fact that

because his provincial sharing decreased, each homeowner has to pay

more taxes? Is he not aware of that?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm very much aware of that. I thought

that my answer yesterday made it abundantly clear as to the reason why.

The amount of taxation paid for school purposes is directly related to

assessment. Assessment is a reflection of the true market value. If the

value of the property found within the boundaries of School District 41

has increased, which it did by a significant sum — it seems to me it

was somewhere in the area of 13 percent — as a corollary to this, the

amount of taxation would increase as well.

The assessments are done on a provincewide basis. In parts of

British Columbia the value of property has declined. As a matter of

fact, the average decline outside of the Greater Vancouver Regional

District area, incorporating approximately nine school districts, was

minus 1.7 percent. There has been an increase in property values in the

lower mainland. I think it obviously reflects the property values. It's

been that way for years and years. I don't see the particular mystery.

As a matter of fact, I well remember when the member for Burnaby North

was on this side of the House, in this particular portfolio. Exactly

the same problems were presented before her.

MRS. DAILLY: Is the minister aware that if the commercial and

industrial tax base was restored to the Burnaby School District, the

government would actually pay no share of the educational costs at all?

Are you aware of that?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of that. It does

not only apply to the Burnaby School District, but we can look to some

other preferred districts in British Columbia as well, where in fact

the amount of revenue generated from the non-residential area —

commercial and industrial — far exceeds the amount of money that can be

utilized for school purposes, or even required for school purposes

within that district. The whole reason for the provincial government

assuming responsibility for the non-residential portion was to give

equity to all school districts throughout the province. That's fine. As

a result of accident of location, some interior or northern community

with a very small residential base but a high industrial base, whether

it be a mine, an oilfield, a pipeline, a pulp mill or a major

industrial complex of some kind, will be able to have all those funds

to the detriment of others. It's the same reason we share timber

royalties and gas royalties provincewide.

COQUITLAM RIVER FISH HATCHERY

MR. PARKS: A question to the Minister of Environment. Last

summer I had the pleasure of taking my two daughters and in conjunction

with the....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Question!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. PARKS: Port Coquitlam fish and gun club took

part in the

release of a good number of salmon into the Coquitlam River. I was

expecting that pleasure again this summer, and I was saddened to learn,

yesterday morning, that some 20,000 coho fry and some 5,000 steelhead

fry were killed by a release of some chemicals. I wonder if the

minister can advise the House if the exact cause of that kill has been

ascertained.

HON. MR. PELTON: Certainly the Port Coquitlam fish and game

club has suffered misfortune twice in the past four months, having had

chlorine accidentally injected into the waters in which they raise the

fry.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're accident-prone.

HON. MR. PELTON: Yes, that's quite possible too.

The last one, which just occurred, involved a pipe breaking. It was

only a small amount of chlorine that went into the water, but,

unfortunately, it doesn't take a great deal to kill very small fry,

although by the time the chlorine would get into the river itself it

would have no effect. The problem is related to the fact that the

hatchery is built below....

Interjections.

HON. MR. PELTON: The competition is getting quite keen, Mr. Speaker.

Unfortunately, the hatchery is built below where the GVRD have their

waterworks, and the inlet for the fresh water they use in the hatchery

is below the GVRD plant. I understand that the GVRD are ready to move

that intake on behalf of the Port Coquitlam fish and game club.

MR. PARKS: Supplemental to the minister. The PoCo fish and

gun club has spent years and literally tens of thousands of hours in

volunteer labour attempting to bring that river back to a

salmon-producing state.

In light of the fact that the Greater Vancouver Regional District

has its chlorine plant so close to the present site, and in light of

the fact that the kill will in effect result in a significant depletion

of the very fragile stock in that river, has the minister considered

whether or not his ministry is prepared to assist them either in

relocating their hatchery site or even — probably more important —

assisting the fish and gun club in transplanting some other fry into

the river at this time?

HON. MR. PELTON: As I mentioned just a moment ago, Mr.

Speaker — my colleague might not have heard when I said it — that GVRD

and this ministry are prepared to assist the club in moving the water

intake. I wouldn't like to make any comment with regard to moving the

whole hatchery, but certainly the water intake will be taken care of.

Also we are prepared in the Ministry of Environment to work actively

with the federal people who would be responsible for providing coho

fish fry. We are prepared to do our

part in trying to assist the

hatchery in getting back on its feet.

[ Page

6861 ]

Presenting Petitions

MR. BARNES: I have a petition subsequent to the 10,000 names

I presented last week protesting the firing of the Vancouver and

Cowichan School Boards — an additional 800 names.

EXPO 86

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I would like to answer questions taken as

notice by myself and others over the last few days. About ten days ago,

the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) asked me a question....

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is he?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The member for Atlin unfortunately is not

in the House, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to answer his question

anyway. I understand that he is on a sabbatical for the summer, and I

would....

Mr. Speaker, the member asked me about the vintage car show that was

to appear at Expo 86 and that had been cancelled. I am pleased to

respond to his question today, Mr. Speaker, and tell you and this

Legislature and the people of British Columbia that the vintage car

display will take place during Expo 86.

Just briefly, I would like to thank the Minister of Human Resources

(Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) for her efforts towards this. I would especially

like to thank the British Columbia Automobile Association for their

contribution, and the hardworking staff at both Expo and the B.C. Place

Stadium. I'm pleased to say that some 1,400 vintage cars from across

North America and Europe will appear at Expo.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The accent is on vintage.

I would also like to answer a question asked of me twice by the

member for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam), once last Thursday and

again yesterday, I believe. He asked about the conflict-of-interest

guidelines regarding the Expo 86 Corporation. I would first of all like

to make it clear to the member that there is quite a difference between

conflict-of-interest guidelines for elected members of this Legislature

and the same guidelines as pertains to board members of Crown

corporations. I am told that no Crown corporation in Canada has an

outright ban on doing business with the companies associated with board

members, provided the board member discloses the interest and does not

participate in the decision.

I would also like to report that the auditor-general of B.C.

confirms that Expo 86 has the most comprehensive set of

conflict-of-interest rules of any Crown corporation.

I also undertook during my estimates to make available to the member

for Okanagan North summaries of the market research — not polling —

that we had done in the states of Washington, Oregon and in British

Columbia. I said that we would make this available to everyone in the

industry, including the opposition, who, I'm sure, really would like to

be in the tourism industry. So, Mr. Speaker, I have pleasure in tabling

the results of that market research.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: While I'm on my feet, I would ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to

introduce a long-time constituent, a rancher from the Kamloops area and

a good friend, Mr. Jim Cobb. Would the House please make him welcome.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate, second reading of Bill

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

(continued)

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, when the minister moved second

reading of this debate a number of days ago, I thought it was the most

shocking example of arrogance shown to this Legislature in many, many

years. Either that, or it exhibits that minister's absolute disinterest

in forestry matters.

Here a minister of the Crown, with an extremely important piece of

legislation, stands up, makes two limp sentences and sits down. No

explanation of the content of the bill, no rationale for what it means

or for its effect, or its potential effect. Just a couple of limp

statements, one of which was that there was no principal thread hooking

together the various segments of the bill. That shows ignorance — if

not arrogance as well — on the part of the minister as to the content

of this bill, because there is a continuous thread throughout the

segments of this bill, and that continuous thread is to give away

control over our forests to the forest industry, to give away control

over public property to the forest industry. That's the simple thread

throughout the bill.

The minister obviously, and the government.... It's not the

individual minister. He's a decent sort of guy with a pleasant

personality, but he's reflecting what this government is: namely, a

government that doesn't have any faith in the forest industry. It's a

government that has identified the forest industry as being a sunset

industry, not worthy of the full commitment on the art of the cabinet

and of any minister in it to try to do something of an assisting nature

to the forest industry. With that kind of attitude it's no wonder that

the forest industry is in trouble. With that kind of response it's no

wonder that the industry is in difficulty, and Bill 3 will just put it

into further difficulty.

[2:30]

By contrast, I want to identify very clearly and succinctly that the

New Democratic Party has an absolute binding faith in the potential of

the forest industry in this province and recognizes the valuable

contribution that it has made to our economy, our social structure, our

educational institutions and everything else. We've got faith in the

ingenuity of people in the forest industry, in the small

entrepreneurial people who are in it — small loggers and small sawmill

operators as well — who are the vibrant part of this industry.

Just to give you an example of that faith that we have in the

potential for the forest industry, within the last five or six weeks

the New Democratic Party caucus committee on resources has had hearings

in this building every Wednesday morning dealing with the substance of

Bill 3.

[ Page 6862 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. With the greatest of

respect, the remarks that the member is currently engaged upon, the

Chair would have to feel, would be more appropriate in the estimates,

which are yet to come, on the Ministry of Forests and would stretch

somewhat the limitations we have in second reading of this particular

bill. I'm sure the member full well realizes the difficulty the Chair

has in trying to relate those very general remarks to the specifics

that are indicated to us in a variety of changes and amendments in the

bill before us. I would ask that the member possibly bear those remarks

in mind and maybe save some of the remarks he has for the estimates,

which are yet to come.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, it is my considered view that they

wouldn't necessarily be appropriate to the estimates, because in the

estimates we run afoul of the Chairman, who regularly says you can't

talk about legislation. We've got to talk about the administration of

the ministry. I point out to Your Honour that Bill 3 contains a

proposed amendment to deal with the question of tree-farm licences, a

very substantial part of the forest industry in the province. It deals

with the question of measuring the wood, which the public owns and upon

which stumpage is based, which is revenue to the Crown — a very

broad-principle concept. It deals with the question of an appropriation

for the building of logging roads, for example, and it deals with the

question, which I'll come to in a moment or two, of the bidding or

auction process with respect to the sale of the public's property. They

are very broad and wide principle questions in the bill. That was what

I was seeking to deal with: the forest industry generally, and how we

were approaching it with respect to this particular bill.

As I was saying, the New Democratic Party had indicated that

commitment and faith to the forest industry, far more than this bill

does, by seeking to sit down with.... And we did sit down with and

listened to representations from people like the vice-president of B.C.

Forest Products, for example; people like the president of MacMillan

Bloedel; people from the Association of B.C. Professional Foresters,

small business operators, small sawmill and remanufacturing operators —

a wide variety of people in the industry — to get from them their

opinions about the effect of Bill 3 on them and on the industry.

I want to submit that in my view this bill reflects the fact that

the Minister of Forests has not been prosecuting to the fullest the

provisions of the Ministry of Forests Act itself. In this bill, that's

carried forth even further. Let me quote the Ministry of Forests Act

itself. One of the purposes and functions of the ministry — and this is

the underlying legal direction and requirement to be met by government

and by the minister — is, "under the direction of the minister, to

assert the financial interest of the Crown in its forest and range

resources in a systematic and equitable manner." I want to point out to

you that the practice in the past has been that the minister has not so

asserted the financial interest to the Crown; that the minister has

been negligent in his duties under the Forest Act; that the

minister.... I wouldn't say he has been guilty of violating the law,

because that's something that another institution is charged with

discovering, if it ever gets to that point. But he has certainly not

asserted the financial interests of the Crown either before or in this

particular bill.

One of the provisions of the bill relates to a question of

establishing something called an official scaler. An official scaler is

sought to be a licensed scaler, employed by private industry, to scale

timber owned by the people of the province but cut, or felled, by

private industry under licence. This seeks to give to the company

having the licence to cut the timber the right to scale the timber that

it cuts. I submit that there's no foresight in that approach; there's

no planning involved in that. One only has to look at another bill,

Bill 56, to see that we now have companion legislation to the bill

before us, seeking to dilute the impact of it somewhat, and seeking to

pay attention to check-scaling and other factors with respect to it.

But the establishment of the concept of an official scaler, attempting

to privatize scaling, to go back to the case as it was a number of

years ago, is simply a blind obedience to some ideological concept

called privatization, without regard to the impact or the effect of it.

The Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Pelton) earlier today took the

occasion to introduce a guest in the gallery, a Mr. Cobb. I don't know

if that's the same Mr. Cobb about whom the ombudsman reported to this

House a few days ago; it sounds like the same name. The minister just

nods at me, and says: "Yes, that is the same person." If one reads the

report of the ombudsman with respect to that case as a result of

privatizing the scaling of timber cut from lands that Mr. Cobb had,

then it's very clear that Mr. Cobb was cheated out of more than 40

percent of the timber cut from his lands; and this goes back into the

late sixties sometime when that occurred. That was a private scaling

arrangement. And we're seeking here to go somewhat in the same

direction. We're seeking to establish a conflict of interest with

respect to the people who have the licence to cut the timber.

I know the minister is going to say: "You look for cheating and

deceitfulness everywhere." I don't. I'm simply looking at the facts.

The minister has said that; I've heard him say that. I'm just seeking

to establish the case that it is unfair to a licensee under the Forest

Act to place that licensee in a conflict-of-interest position. It is

unfair to say to the person who has the licence to fell the trees: "You

also should scale those trees. Measure them up, so that on that basis

of measuring, called scaling, it will be determined how much you pay

the people of British Columbia in stumpage for the trees that the

people of British Columbia own." That's the conflict of interest. If

there is any doubt in a situation like that.... If any doubt arises,

Mr. Speaker, about the propriety or the correctness or the accuracy, or

whatever, of the scale.... In the absence of any check-scaling, if any

doubt arises over a period of time of a continuation of the process....

If any situation arises, say, on a dryland sort, when the logs are into

the dryland sort and out again, gone, chewed up in a pulp mill or a

sawmill and not able to be scaled, only able to be estimated and so on,

then the finger of accusation can very easily be pointed at the person

who has the responsibility for doing the scaling. That's the

unfortunate conflict of interest within which one is put by this

particular proposal.

It's like the government, which on behalf of the general public runs

a retail operation called a liquor store, saying to the general public

who use the services and buy the commodities in that liquor store:

"Sure, go in. Fill up your box or you bag, or whatever it is you want

to buy, tuck it under your arm, walk past the teller and say: 'I've got

so much in here. Here's how much I'm going to pay you for it."' That's

the same process. The government would not think of doing that with

respect to liquor; at least I don't think they would. But

[ Page 6863 ]

they're thinking of doing that with respect to

another commodity, another item, another possession of the general

public, namely the trees that are growing on the land. That's an unfair

and a very inappropriate thing for this bill to seek to do.

Another provision in the bill seeks to allow those who possess a

forest licence to apply to roll over into a TFL that portion of the

forest licence that they desire to roll over, and either keep the

balance as a forest licence or, if it is denuded, worn-out,

inappropriate land, not considered good timber land, let it revert to

the Crown. Again, it is catering to the owner of the licence — to deal

with public property in whatever way the owner of that licence sees fit.

We've got an example of something of this nature with Westar and its

TFL No. 1 in the northwestern part of the province. Recently, as a

result of ongoing discussions, Westar relinquished, I think, about 30

percent of the area of its TFL No. 1 — gave it back to the Crown. One

may say that's fine; they didn't need it. So the public gets it back

again, and it can now be available for other loggers or millworkers who

want to bid in to acquire it. When the announcement of that 30 percent

cutback was made, officials of Westar applauded that decision and said

it was the most beneficial thing that had happened to them in years. It

was rotten, decadent timber, and they didn't want it anyway. That

reflects exactly, I submit, the response of the government in dealing

with public property — a response to the owner of the licence to

satisfy the owner of the licence and not the public good. What Westar

wanted, Westar got. What Mac and Blo wants, Mac and Blo gets. I only

use those two companies as typical examples of others in the forest

industry who have got this minister and this ministry under their thumb

and can get anything they like for it.

There's a provision in here for timber cruising that lays the cost

of a timber cruise on the small operator. That's an approach that

militates against the small operator in the forest industry, loading

additional costs on top of a person who can least afford it, placing

against him another expense. We're going to make it that much more

difficult for the small logger to get into business.

[2:45]

Probably the most offensive segment of the bill is that which sucks

up to the practice that has been going on in the industry for a long

time — namely, conspiracies to settle how much they're going to bid on

timber sales. There's a provision in the Forest Act now that says

licensees shouldn't talk with each other, shouldn't conspire with each

other to set a fixed price or to have one licensee bid and the other

not. It's illegal to do that. The practice has been just the opposite.

The practice has been for people to combine together with each other to

serve their mutual interests and agree that certain companies would bid

and others would not, completely contrary to the public interest. What

this bill seeks to do is establish a provision for bid-rigging with

respect to public property. It seeks to legalize that which up until

now has been practised but illegal. Just because it has been illegal

and people have not been prosecuted by the minister, when the minister

knows full well that the illegalities have taken place, is no reason to

turn around and place the sanction of law upon what has been illegal

practice in the past.

Bill Young, a former chief forester, in dealing with this general

subject matter in March of this year, said that such a scenario has

been Forest Service practice for years — that is, people sitting down

and deciding what they are going to bid on timber. The former chief

forester says this has been going on for years. I know of situations in

the northwestern part of the province where it has gone on in the past,

and now we're going to approve it.

One of the principal points espoused, I gather, by this government

when it is convenient to do so is that when you are bidding to do

public works, the public should get the best price possible, and the

lowest bidder should prevail so that the public has to pay out the

least amount of money to get the job done. That's a fine principle. The

Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) applauds that and says that's

fine. The companion to that is the auction block, which is having

something to sell, putting it up to auction and hoping to get the

highest price that you can for the product or the commodity or the item

that's being sold. That was the principle behind timber sales. Put up a

block of timber for sale, have people interested in getting the licence

to log that timber — that timber being public property — then they put

in bids. They said: "I'll bid $10 a thousand." "I'll bid $15 a

thousand" — or whatever it may come to. The amounts of money vary at

given times depending on the species and other factors. The principle

of that was that the public would get the highest value possible out of

its possession, namely the tree.

We are now going to abandon all of that. As a result of a provision

in this bill, the public is now going to legally find themselves

getting the lowest price, the lowest value, for their product. If a

number of people can sit down and get the approval of the regional

manager of a forest region to engage in rigging the bids — having only

one person bid on a timber sale when there otherwise might be two or

three — then who is going to get the short end of the change? The

general public.

The principal philosophic question which this government says it

espouses on the one hand, it denies on the other. You shouldn't be

entitled to have it both ways. The only reason that you want to have it

both ways is that you are not there, Mr. Minister or Mr. Government, to

serve the public interest, in your mind. The public may think you are.

The public elected Social Credit with the idea that it would be there

to serve the public interest, but you are not serving the public

interest. You're denying the public interest to serve private

profit-makers, and the public loses out in that type of process.

Is it any wonder, with that type of activity, that stumpage revenues

go down? Is it any wonder that you've got to raise taxes, to dig into

the pocketbooks and the purses of the individual citizens in this land,

to make up the shortfall when gifts like this are going on?

The role is reversed. The role of government has been diluted and

injured by the very processes that are sought to be established in this

particular bill. I think a minister who will bring into the Legislature

a bill which sanctions bid-rigging, or the possibility of collusion

between parties not to bid on timber, does not deserve the confidence

of the people of B.C., because that minister is not serving the

interests of the people of B.C. by that process. When people can agree

not to bid on timber, competition disappears, and that's what the

minister said. He said: "I suppose we could eliminate it with a small

business person as well as we've eliminated it with the large

operators." He then seeks to say that he was expressing with that

thought something which he intended to put into practice.

When you can agree not to bid on timber, competition disappears, the people of B.C. get the lowest possible price

[ Page 6864 ]

for their timber that is being sold, and even worse

than that is to place the onus upon a regional manager for sanctioning

such bid-rigging practices. All in all, it's a sad day for the general

public when this bill, in its total, saw the light of day.

There's one good feature in it, yes, but even that in conjunction

with the item in the estimates, which I only refer to in passing, is

window-dressing, and the expectation of anything real developing under

it will not be met. Part of the good feature of this bill rests upon

bonus bid money on timber sales. If you're going to establish a

bid-rigging process to cut down on the potential amount of stumpage

that you're going to get under timber sales, then the money just will

not be available for the job creation aspect that's contained within

this bill.

All in all, the bill is a disaster and a sad moment for British Columbia.

MRS. WALLACE: One would wonder why we are debating this bill

in the Legislature and addressing our remarks to the Minister of

Forests, because really the Minister of Forests has very little to do

with this bill. He is simply the messenger that is bringing this bill

to the floor of the House on behalf of the major forest interests in

this province. He's become a mouthpiece for those major corporations.

He has completely disregarded the recommendations that were made by

Peter Pearse in his report relative to the Big Ten, as he called them.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Another area that he is disregarding completely in this bill is the

matter of land tenure and tree-farm licences. One thing that Pearse

said in no uncertain terms was that there should be no more tree-farm

licences issued, because that resulted in a giveaway of our resource.

Yet this minister has continued to issue those tree-farm licences, and

now through this measure is moving more and more in that direction.

In British Columbia we have some 45 applications that's the last

figure I had — before that minister for incorporation of other types of

tenure into tree-farm licences. I think we're all aware that that

particular form of tenure is one in which we, as the people of British

Columbia, completely lose any control over what goes on on that land —

far more so than any land we hold under other methods of tenure like

timber sales, cutting licences and so on. What this does is put the

control of our own resource into the hands of major corporations.

That's basically what it is. The tree-farm licences are held, in the

main, by those big ten, with a few little subsidiaries. There is

presently 28 percent of our forest land under that form of tenure, and

if these 45 applications are accepted it will be well over 50 percent —

56 percent, in fact.

In this bill we are allowing even greater leniency with those major corporations.

We're allowing them the opportunity to pick out the choice bits from other

forms of tenure they may hold and put them into their tree-farm licence, and

to reject the parts that are not good timber-producing areas — that have been

let go, or whatever has happened to them — and turn that back and leave that

in the hands of the Forest Service. This is what this bill is purporting to

do — something far more crucial than it would appear from what the minister

had to say or didn't have to say when he introduced this. What he's

talking about is the giveaway of hundreds of thousands of dollars of resource.

He's giving it over to major corporations who are able to write off their

expenses, and then he will turn around and reduce the stumpage to the point

where in some instances we even owe them money for taking out our resource.

That's the kind of scenario that this minister with this bill is painting.

If that isn't undisputed proof that he's simply carrying a message from

the major corporations in this province that are engaged in our forest industry,

I certainly will take a lot of convincing to believe that isn't so.

Our forest land base, as the minister will agree, is fast

disappearing. There are many demands on that land base. Multiple use is

a concept he talks about, that certainly the people who are interested

in agriculture and rangeland talk about and that people who are

interested in fishing, hunting, recreation and wildlife.... All those

kinds of things are related to tree-farm licences, because when you set

land into a tree-farm licence you are, in effect, setting that up for

single-purpose use, because there is very little opportunity; you're at

the discretion of the whims of the particular corporation that has that

tree-farm licence as to whether or not there is any multiple-use

opportunity on that land. We're losing a resource that we should be

maintaining for multiple use in the hands of the Crown as the

representative of the people who want to enjoy that.

[3:00]

That's one

section of the infamous act. Then it goes on to deal with

another issue — again, nothing but a giveaway to the major

corporations. There have been many similes used to describe what this

represents. It's been described as checking out your own groceries at

the cash register; it's been described as setting the fox to watch the

chickens. Why should we make it any easier? This government is upset

with the fact that our ombudsman has pointed out case after case where

the scaling that is being carried out now has left great holes, and

where small operators, contract loggers and haulers have not been

reimbursed as they should. And now he wants to make it looser. He wants

to say to those corporations: "Okay, we'll let you decide who goes out

and scales the timber, who goes out and tells us how much timber you're

actually taking." I'm not saying that one group of scalers is more

efficient than another, but I am saying that when you put a clerk at

the till in the grocery store, you don't let the people who are

checking out the groceries decide who's going in there. You, as the

owner of the store, do that. And that's what that minister should be

doing. He should be putting someone in there who is responsible to him

for checking out those groceries. He shouldn't be putting the fox to

watch the chickens, and that's what he's doing with this particular

section of the bill.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Do you guys trust anybody?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, but I don't trust someone who has a vested

interest to come up with the figures as to how much he has actually

taken out — and I don't think you would either, Madam Member from

Surrey.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: No, and certainly the things that the ombudsman

is pointing out have indicated that. We have seen waste. We have seen

all kinds of things going on. I'm now ranging away from the bill a bit,

and those are things we'll talk about in the....

[ Page 6865 ]

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, I'm not ranging away from it when I'm

talking about scaling, Mr. Minister. When we get into those other

things about waste, which is in a way related to scaling — if you don't

get that log out there to be scaled, it isn't scaled.... But we'll deal

with those things more specifically under this minister's estimates.

I want to talk about

Section 11 o f

the bill, which amends

section 160 — and you have to go back beyond

subsection (

c) which it amends.

Section 160 deals with offences, and it

says:

"A person commits an offence who by intimidation...for

an improper purpose threatens to make an application for an

agreement...or (c)" — the

section which we're amending — "participates

in or is a party to an agreement or arrangement among two or more

persons, under which (

i) one or more of the persons agrees or

undertakes not to make an application for an agreement, or to submit a

tender or bid...or (ii) particulars in an application made for an

agreement, or the amount of a tender or bid submitted, under

part 3, by

one or more of the persons are arrived at."

So it says that you commit an offence if you make any deals under the table

regarding bids for timber.

What does the amendment do? It says that's okay, as long as you tell

the local regional manager and get his approval. Well, I don't think

it's okay, and I can tell you that there are a lot of people in British

Columbia engaged in the forest industry who don't think it's okay. What

that does is simply give anybody with an inside track the opportunity

to get that timber. And it's certainly taking competition out of the

bidding, and as my colleague from Skeena has indicated, bonus bids are

going down the tube. They won't happen any more. Why should you pay

more if you can get it for less? That'll be the philosophy. And why

not? If this minister is prepared to give away our resource, then I'm

sure that the people out there who are dealing in forest products are

going to take advantage of that. If he's prepared to give it away,

that's fine. If he's prepared to let them wheel and deal, that's fine,

they'll do it, because if they don't, someone else will.

Mr. Speaker, when I think of this province and its forest resource

and what it was a few years ago and what we have done to it in spite of

the Sloan report and the Pearse report.... We have denuded our forests,

we have given them away, and now we are proceeding to do that to an

even greater degree. We're moving to put more and more of our forest

land under the control of the big operators under tree farm licences —

complete control of that resource with very little input from us as to

what happens with that timber. We're preparing to tell them: "Okay, you

go ahead and do what you like with it. Tell us how much you take out

and we'll bill you for it, and if you think that's too much we'll

probably reduce the stumpage." And then we're telling them: "If you

want to wheel and deal under the table and come up with private deals

so there's no competition and you don't have to pay any more than the

bare minimum for this timber, that's okay too." That's what we're doing

in this bill. That is an absolute disgrace as far as our number one

industry in British Columbia is concerned. As far as the taxpayers of

this province are concerned, the need for that revenue is there. We

should be enhancing that, getting more and more so that we're able to

meet our social service bill, instead of chopping away at health,

education and all the other social services. This is one of the major

concerns that we should be looking at and building, getting more and

more ability to recoup for the Crown from that industry. Instead, we're

saying: "Give it away to the forest companies. Let them have it. Let

them take it over. It's a sunset industry anyway. Let it die and we

won't worry about it."

Mr. Speaker, this bill is one of the worst pieces of legislation to

hit this Legislature this year because it deals with our number one

industry, an industry on which the very lives and work of our

people.... Believe me, I know of what I speak, and I'm sure you know

too, Mr. Speaker. There's a lot of forestry in Prince George. There's a

lot of forestry on Vancouver Island. There are a lot of tree-farm

licences on Vancouver Island, and we have no say over what happens on

those tree-farm licences. This is just going to exacerbate the problem

and make it worse and worse. Our forest resource industry will soon be

a sunset industry if this ministry doesn't take steps in an entirely

opposite direction than this. By these kinds of actions, they're

presiding at the death of the forest industry, and we will indeed find

that it is a sunset industry. That is one of the worst things that

could happen to British Columbia, because without our forests we are

not going to be able to continue building the kind of society to which

we as British Columbians are entitled.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before recognizing the next speaker, let me

advise the House that although this bill does contain more than one

principle, we should confine debate to the principles in the bill and

avoid debate that might be better covered in committee stage of this

bill, or debate that might be better attended to during the estimates

of the minister.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, COFI's boy is here, and he's been in charge. He's been their boy for a decade.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: No, no. That's the reality. Who do you hire as

deputy? COFI's boy. After he's done all his work, you send him back to

the Council of Forest Industries. The lobby is right here in the

Legislature. You'd better believe it. They set their agenda, and he

jumps to it. That's what we've got before us today. That's been the

agenda for the past decade. What the lobbyists want, the lobbyists get.

That's what they get at the hands of this minister.

A confidential report was sent to the Premier in 1983. To the

Premier! They don't even deal with junior over there. They set their

agenda in terms of what they want out of the public forests, and by

gosh, they've just about got everything they wanted. Item 17 in their

list to the Premier said: "We want privatized scaling." What they're

getting in this bill is privatized scaling. That's what they want. It's

like they said — they want their boy. They want people outside of

government to be measuring the timber. That's nothing short of

incredible when you consider that we don't really get what the stuff's

worth anyway. It's not good enough that we don't get what it's worth.

Our estimates say it will cost $259 million to run the Forest Service.

Our revenue from forests will be $150 million. That's a shortfall of

$109 million, and with us paying that slack of $109 million, they still

want their boy to privatize the measurement of the logs. It's nothing

short of incredible.

[ Page 6866 ]

The greed knows no bounds. One might live with it if we had a

super-competent, efficient industry, but the very roots of their

inefficiencies lie in these kinds of problems, in terms of being their

boy. What they should face is genuine competition out there, like the

rest of the industry in other parts of the world — in the United States

— but they don't. So COFI's boy is here. It's all spelled out in a July

1983 confidential document that went to the Premier, saying: "This is

what we want." Recommendation number 17 assigned full log scaling

responsibility to the licensees. That's what they wanted, and that

indeed is what they are getting. So if we wonder who runs the public

lands of British Columbia, all we've got to look at is documents like

this. They set the agenda for this minister, and he jumps to their

tune. You count on it, because he gets the word directly from the

Premier's office as well.

In terms of scaling, it has been a scandal in this province. The

ombudsman has documented the scandal. He has documented it in the form

of the Shoal Island case, where we clearly lost something in terms of

the private sector, the contractors and the public sector, in terms of

royalties and stumpage — $10 million. The court case, the examination

for discovery, goes on. I will wager the shortfall at Shoal Island was

none of this nonsensical 3 percent, 6 percent, doctored document stuff

that we've had out of this ministry. I will wager it was a 15 percent

shortfall consistently by most measurement....

We still haven't got the report back. What kind of independent

inquiry do we get out of this outfit here? It gets sent to a

middle-level bureaucrat to come up with the new numbers. What kind of

appeal system is that? There is no doubt in my mind as to why you

people want rid of the ombudsman. You want rid of him because he has

blown the whistle on this and countless other scandals that have been

under your noses and that you haven't dealt with.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the bill, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: To the bill — yes, scaling. The biggest one

that has come under your nose and that you've stonewalled and haven't

dealt with is Shoal Island — stonewalled indeed. The most recent one

was a small one, a rancher from the interior, cheated in terms of

stumpage; cheated in terms of what he should have got, in terms of what

was his due for his timber; cheated because he counted on a scaling

system that wasn't accurate, that wasn't proper; cheated by almost half

of his money. It breaks up the family.... The member for Kamloops (Hon.

Mr. Richmond) wrote a letter and said you should compensate.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, yes. Well, anyway, let's look at that one.

He was cheated. What did the ombudsman say in terms of the way you

operate your scaling operations or the way they've been operating?

Daily scale sheets were not numbered, so that there could be one sheet

taken out and nobody would know the difference in terms of what went

through that day.

[3:15]

What else does he say? That particular company had a special arrangement, different

than everything the ministry required. How many special arrangements exist in

British Columbia? The losses the ombudsman totals up are totalled currently

at $257,000. That broke the man. That broke his family. That's what happens

as a result of this at the local individual level.

What does he also say? You allow mixed bundles, different markings —

no way of checking them at all. They have their own tally sheets, and

then they changed the handwriting so that there is handwriting on one

occasion that had certain numbers, and then it got redone with

different handwriting and different numbers. That's happened as well in

terms of these operations. It's nothing short of amazing.

Those are problems we've had. The company is not satisfied with

that. They want more. They want to be in charge. Now the minister said

when we asked him questions about the Cobb case a week or so ago: "I

thought it rather unfortunate that the ombudsman should table the

report when he did, because he knew full well that my ministry staff

and people from the A-G's office were meeting that very afternoon in

ongoing discussions toward the resolution of the problem." What kind of

guff is that? That's the same line you peddled when you brought the

RCMP out on the Shoal Island case and said: "Oh, dear, the ombudsman

shouldn't have told us about this because we were going after it with

the A-G's office." A year or so later, the same phony line is peddled.

Have you resolved it? No, no, it's just the line that was used on the

occasion, hopefully to be forgotten like so many other empty lines that

we've got from this minister.

So you want a system of private scalers. Well, then, the question

is: who is going to make their paycheques out? You know who is going to

make their paycheques out — the guy that gets dinged in terms of the

royalty and stumpage charges. What an impossible situation! If they

don't like the scaling work that the scaler does, fire the man; hire

another contractor. Don't you think the message will get out then,

readily, in terms of what they want? You bet it will get out there

clear.

Each person wants their paycheque at the end of the month. It's an

absolutely impossible, intolerable proposal that does put these people

in charge. Your responsibility in this Legislature is to deal with the

public interest in terms of preserving the public equity in our trees.

That can't be done when you privatize the system of measurement. It

cannot be done when you privatize the system of measurement, and that's

the job you've got.

I've had calls from people in different parts of this province. I've

had calls from people on the coast who talk of a 50 percent shortfall

in measurements, in scaling. As recently as Friday evening I've had

calls on your former colleague's radio show from people in Prince

George, contractors who have been cheated in terms of scaling. Yet you

want to carry this one further in terms of giving them complete control.

Mr. Minister, how much monitoring of scaling has gone on since 1976?

How much check scaling and monitoring of scales have gone on since

1976? You've been doing it thoroughly? Nod your head. No, you haven't.

You'll find, in examination-for-discovery material in cases before the

courts right now, that there has not been a conscious monitoring of

scaling in British Columbia since 1976. And not satisfied with that,

you're putting it totally in the hands of the private sector.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, it's there and the stuff's coming out. And you say to the poor rancher, Mr. Cobb: "Go to

[ Page 6867 ]

court." He can't afford to go to court. You say to

the other contractors, as in the Shoal Island case: "Go to court." It

costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to go to court. That is absolute

nonsense, because the public trust is vested in you to see to it that

we get our due in terms of the value of trees. It just isn't going to

be.

The main guy at Holding Lumber said in the Kamloops News

just recently: "They are digging back into a past that was full of

errors." You can be sure in which direction the errors were made, can't

you? What happened with the check scaling that Mr. Mahood had done on

Shoal Island? The check scaler operated there for a period of time, but

as soon as B.C. Forest Products knew that check scaling was going on,

they threw him off the property. He was simply trying to check the

public interest.

This is a major scandal, make no mistake about it. It is a matter

that has gone to the Premier's office. It has been directed out of the

Premier's office, and we are all the losers as a result. Make no bones

about that. As the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) says, it allows

collusion. My God, we are getting amendments before this House.... When

the minister got up, he mentioned three sections in first reading,

which was months ago. He's been hiding in the corner with Bill 3, and

we're getting it in the dog days of summer. Does anybody think it's an

accident we're debating it no, near the beginning of July? That

indicates the kind of feelings over there, the kind of trepidation over

there about dealing with this mess. You've lived with collusion through

your tenure, Mr. Minister — and it's there, you know.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I find that remark quite

unparliamentary. It imputes a dishonourable motive to another member,

and it will be withdrawn.

MR. WILLIAMS: Sure, I'll withdraw the comment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Please proceed on Bill 3.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'd like to quote from a book called Cutting Up the North .

The author, Mr. Bemsohn, questioned Mr. Waterland on this matter of

collusion: "Did you ever have a case of collusion or bid-fixing brought

to your attention, and did you ever prosecute?" What was the response?

"I'm not going to answer that question." Do you remember that? The

withdrawal was hardly necessary, Mr. Speaker. "I'm not going to answer

that question." His assistant, Mr. Bob Wood, was there. He was the

prime consultant who helped him rework Peter Pearse's royal commission

work, and Mr. Wood said: "That should be answer enough. It tells you

what you need to know." Indeed it does. So price-fixing.... The case

that Mr. Bemsohn was raising was the case of a $100,000 payoff in terms

of a small-scale bidder bidding in place of a major. It is clear from

the report in this book that the minister did know about it, and that

the ministry was aware of it and lived with it.

Now he brings before the House legislation that will allow

collusion, provided the district or regional forest manager is aware of

it. So collusion is okay as long as my middle-level civil servants are

aware that there's collusion. That's what's involved.

Not only this, you're dealing with the tree-farm licence system as

well. As the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) says, you have

proposals for turning and rolling over other forest licences into TFLs,

and that's a system that gives commitment of the land virtually in

perpetuity through an evergreen system: the complete abolition of the

public, in terms of the tenure system and in terms of flexibility for

the system. What does it do? Their existing licences.... They can get

rid of their dog stuff, as the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) says. So

if they've got an existing forest licence and they've fouled up the

nest in the north half: "Why, we don't want that in the future; we've

already ruined that area." That's happened with Westar. And the

compliant minister, the patsy in the comer, simply says: "Okay, boys,

I'll roll over and play dead."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, please avoid personal references to another hon. member.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's what the situation will be. So if there

is an area where they've fouled up a part of of their existing licence

area, they can walk away from it, and then keep the best lands and put

it into a tree-farm licence forever. What a neat system! It encourages

irresponsibility. They can leave the bad stuff behind, have the good

stuff forever, and that's okay. They couldn't do that before: the whole

thing had to be rolled in.

That's what I mean. The greed knows no bounds in terms of what's

been happening. I don't believe for a minute that when the Council of

Forest Industries first came along they thought they could get

everything they wanted out of this minister; but they've got it. It's

always worth a try. That's in fact what they've done. And every time it

is roll over, play dead, what do you want next, boys? That's been

happening in this province for a decade. We have a ravaged forest

landscape, in terms of non-restocked land — as I said before, a swath

200 miles long and 50 miles wide — and in terms of a legacy of weeds

left behind, primarily at the hands of this minister. It's simply

endless. It suits the minister fine.

The people that have been cheated are still left high and dry. The

report still hasn't come in from Mr. Grant on the infamous Shoal Island

case; and that was only one dryland sort. There were another half-dozen

of them on the coast, and they all operated the same way: hustle,

hustle, hustle, and you can't see what's happening. On it goes. We're

all the losers in this exercise.

This minister has not been pursuing the public interest in the way

it should be pursued. We are not assured that since 1976 the scales

have been proper or adequate. There has not been the review that there

should have been. This moves it all into the private sector and leaves

the scalers in the most vulnerable, impossible position: that is, they

won't be hired if they don't sing the fight tune, because the companies

do the hiring. It's an absolutely impossible situation, one that the

minister obviously is willing to live with, but one that he's clearly a

little ashamed of, because it wouldn't be before us at the end of June

when the legislation came forth in February. That tells us volumes

about how he really feels.

Of course the opposition will be voting against this legislation.

It's just adding to the kind of infamy that surrounds the Ministry of

Forests today.

MR. REE: May I have leave to make an introduction, Mr. Speaker?

Leave granted.

[ Page 6868 ]

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, from the hub of the Island, the great

city of Nanaimo, I'd like the House to welcome Laverne Kilner, Joyce

Tisseur, Ian Namath, Stan Anderson, Mauno Pelto, Ken Hallberg and Ed

Kisling.

[3:30]

MR. NICOLSON: I too rise to oppose this bill, the Forest

Amendment Act, 1985. Mr. Speaker, this bill in principle, I think,

proves the Horatio Alger myth is still alive in British Columbia. If

you want something badly enough and you work at it hard enough, you can

get it, even if it's the forests of British Columbia; you can get it

almost for free. I would have thought it absolutely impossible that we

would have reached a day in British Columbia when revenues from

forestry don't even cover the cost of administration in the ministry

and its various programs.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, it has been expressed very eloquently. Just to maybe put it a

little more concisely: what we are proposing here today is analogous to allowing

shoppers to go into Super-Valu and check out their own groceries. That's

what we're talking about when we're talking about this new scaling provision

in this bill. Safeway isn't stupid enough to let the customers check out

their own groceries; Jimmy Pattison's Overwaitea isn't stupid enough

to let the customers check out their own groceries, and Super-Valu certainly

isn't crazy enough; nor are 7-Eleven and Mac's and all the other people

in the grocery business. But this government allows people to check out their

own logs. It is absolutely incredible, and that is what we're doing in this

bill; that is one of the principles of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, this government is allowing the big majors....

Particularly, in my area, Westar has been allowed to run roughshod over

the ministry and the people of British Columbia. Westar abandoned

Kootenay Forest Products, but they were allowed to keep the timber

rights to the old privately held lands of Kootenay Forest Products,

which were purchased back in about 1974. They were allowed to keep the

timber rights to those portions which were previously privately held

for 15 years. They've got 15 years to harvest that, and they've got an

extra five years if they can't get the job done in that time. That's

the kind of special treatment they've been getting. They've made an

absolute mess of harvesting TFL 23, and, by any measure, it should be

taken away from them and turned over to someone else. But again, they

will be allowed to walk away from parts they don't want or that now

don't fit into their plans but which they have dominated and

monopolized and kept out of productivity for some 25 years. Now, after

25 years, they're going to be rewarded by being allowed to, maybe,

high-grade that which is left.

What is going to happen in this province is that we're going to see

more and more decadent, uneconomic land created. I think this

government, along with COFI, are no longer interested in the sawing and

manufacturing of lumber, they are simply interested in the cutting and

export of fibre, and not necessarily manufactured fibre but raw logs.

We've seen the export of raw logs grow from almost nothing to over 5

percent in very recent years, and I think that by allowing these TFLs

to be more or less high-graded we're really paving the way for more raw

log export and less harvesting in this province.

There are a lot of people who have kept forestry alive in this

province over the last two or three years, and a lot of those people

have been cut right out of the public lands; they've had to depend on

private lands. Those people are paying two, three and four times what

the stumpage rates are for these major companies, and they are meeting

their payrolls. They have been going through these tough economic times

with very tough prices in the world lumber markets, although the

volumes being bought have been fairly high.

This is certainly not a solution for the problems we have in the

industry. I think this is a way in which we will see less employment in

the forest industry. We will see less utilization in the forest

industry; we will see rewarding the greedy and penalizing the needy:

that is, those people who have shown good faith, who are the real

entrepreneurs, the real risktakers, the real business people, the real

backbone of the business community of this province. They are the

people spurned by this piece of legislation, and the inefficient, the

people who have shown an inability to cope, are the ones rewarded,

listened to. Certainly in my area I can see that this type of move is

going to be of absolutely no good whatever.

So here we have, among other principles in this bill, the new honour

system checkout at the supermarket. And we have, I think, a program,

the aim of which is to increase log exports from this province. For

those two reasons I am absolutely against the principle of this bill.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Because the major industry in my riding

happens to deal with the forest sector, I did want to spend a few

minutes on this bill. I don't know what I can add after what my

colleagues from Skeena and Vancouver East — and other colleagues — have

said, but I think anyone who has an interest in the forest industry in

this province, any member in this House, should speak on this bill.

It was interesting to note that the minister, in opening debate on

second reading of this bill, had nothing to say. As my colleague

pointed out, this bill has been on the order paper since last February,

I believe; for several months at least. Here we are into summer,

debating this extremely important bill to all the people in British

Columbia, and I can't understand why at this time. However, here we are.

The bill deals essentially with two main principles, the first being

tenure and the change in stature of TFLs. I'm not sure that that's the

correct term, but the minister knows very well what we're talking

about. The result of this change in principle was very well explained

by the members for Skeena and Vancouver East. I've taken the trouble to

read through the Pearse report of recent years. The Speaker will

remember that Mr. Pearse, appointed as a royal commissioner by this

Legislature under a former Minister of Forests, who sits in this House

this afternoon, did a very expensive report on the forest industry of

British Columbia. Part of that report deals with tenure. In fact, a

goodly portion of Vol. I deals with various forms of tenure here in

British Columbia.

I certainly don't intend to get into the various forms of tenure

here this afternoon, because what we're dealing with now is a principle

that allows the minister, without public hearing and at the discretion

of the minister and/or some junior people within his ministry, to turn

over — in other words, flip — TFLs, or portions thereof, which is a new

concept in forestry here in British Columbia. The reason I point to the

Pearse report is that one of the things Mr. Pearse says is: "This kind

of activity should never be allowed to take

[ Page 6869 ]

place again in British Columbia." Apparently it did

take place at one time in some form of tenure. However, most of the

recommendations of the Pearse report — certainly the major

recommendations — were never implemented in this province. I see the

minister shaking his head, and he's right; they never were. So in terms

of that concept, Mr. Speaker.... I was going to quote extensively from

the Pearse report — I've marked out several sections here — but the

minister knows very well what I'm on about. Suffice it to say that from

1976 onward the types of principles that we're dealing with in this

bill were recommended against by Dr. Pearse, by many of the people of

this province in this industry. Hopefully it will not be implemented by

this government, but I fear the worst.

Just a brief note on scaling, a second major principle of this bill.

Actually, I'll pose a question or two to the minister. First, who is

best able to protect the public interest in getting a fair assessment

of the public's timber resource? Is it the forest company, which owes

its highest obligation to its shareholder, or is it the scaler,

employed by the government and accountable to it? I wonder if the

minister, when he closes debate on this bill, would answer that — if he

would answer to this House and the people of British Columbia how

privatization of scalers in British Columbia, as opposed to government

scalers who are paid for and work for the government, work for the

people of this province, have the best interests of all of the people

of this province as their main concern — how privatization, which could

allow corruption to take place.... The word has been used several times

this afternoon. We're opening the door to corruption in this, as has

been indicated by many of my colleagues here, the Shoal report from the

ombudsman and many, many other examples that have been cited in this

House. So that's one question.

I'd like to know how the government can seriously entertain turning

over the role of assessing stumpage and royalties of public timber to a

body that has a direct interest in obtaining the resource at the least

cost. That's what the industry is all about. It's not necessarily big

business, small business — they want to make the best profit they can.

But there are checks and balances. What the minister is doing here is

removing one of the major checks and balances for protecting a resource

that belongs to all of us here in this province. Mr. Speaker, that's

exactly what's happening, and I'm very much opposed to that happening

here in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to make a promise to you — there's no use

making one to the minister — that should we become the next government

of this province.... I think there's a very good chance, God willing,

for the best interests of the people of this province, that we will be

the government after the next provincial election, whenever it happens:

next fall, next spring, next summer; that's fine. But I want to make

you one promise: I'm going to work as hard as I possibly can, no matter

who the new Minister of Forests is, to have this bill and bills like

this repealed from the books of this province.

[3:45]

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I'll be very brief. On the basis of what

I've heard so far in the House this afternoon, I couldn't possibly vote

for the bill, but we're dealing here, I assume, with what I'll loosely

call privatization. I hold no particular brief for public servants. I'm

not at all sure that public servants as scalers are necessarily the best scalers.

However, this legislation seems to me to rest on the existence, perhaps even

the establishment, of a profession of people — we'll call them scalers —

who are in some measure independent, certainly of those who will benefit from

deficient scaling. I hope that the minister, when he concludes this debate,

will indicate to me how independent these scalers can be.

The members opposite talk about the scalers inevitably being in the

pocket of the forest products companies who will benefit if the forest

resource is underassessed. Can these individuals be professionals? Will

there be a professional group? Is there a professional group with its

own code of ethics, its own particular abilities, its own independence?

Because if not, we have a problem.

The opposition has said a great deal which implies that there are no

checks and balances. I think if there is a profession made up of people

who are professionals and who can be checked upon by certain government

employees from time to time, perhaps we're covered. The opposition

typically has little faith in the ethical behavior of individuals other

than those employed by government. I don't go along with that. But I

would like to hear from the minister what protection the people of the

province have, who in most instances are the true owners of the

resource. I'll rest my faith in a profession made up of people who are

not necessarily employees of the Crown, but I'd like to hear that from

the minister.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I find it quite shocking that we've only had one member from that government to stand up and defend this bill.

MRS. WALLACE: He didn't even defend it.

MR. MITCHELL: As my colleague said, he didn't even defend the

bill. He too has reservations. But we are looking at the main industry

of British Columbia; we are looking at the main resource and wealth of

this province. If there's ever been a bill that has come before this

Legislature, it is a bill of this nature that should have been given to

the parliamentary committee so that members from both sides of the

House could sit down and listen to the experts who are harvesting our

resources, who are working in our industry and who really know the

facts that are taking place out in the forest.

In our own caucus we have been very lucky, because our debate leader

has arranged every Wednesday for the last two or three months an

opportunity for members of the forestry community to come in and meet

in open committees and present the problems of this industry. We have

been lucky to listen to Ian Mahood and members from all phases of the

industry, including COFI, bringing the problems that actually exist out

there. Not once did any of the government members take the trouble to

come in and ask questions and participate in those debates. The

problems that are facing the whole forest industry in British Columbia

are because of the mismanagement that has taken place in the last ten

years in the rush to give the industry away, to give the resources away

to fewer and fewer people in the industry.

I know that in forestry we do have the small business section, and

small acres of timber are given out to bidding. We had the opportunity

— because our debate leader arranged it — to go and view a 20-hectare

piece of the forest that went out to bidding. When you look at the

money that was raised from those 20 hectares, the province received

$189,000 in revenue. Built into that bid was the total cost of the

silviculture, the replanting of the land when it was finished. I

believe it worked out to.... The price they paid was in the round

figures of $22 a cubic metre, and the cost of

[ Page 6870 ]

replanting it worked out to something like 85 cents

a cubic metre. When you take those figures that the province received

for their timber they sold under the small business program, if you

used the same figures for the rest of B.C. we'd be receiving something

like $600 million a year. Instead we're actually losing money from our

forests. It indicates the mismanagement that has taken place.

It's nothing more than rot and scandal that has taken place in

British Columbia. I can understand why the private backbench members of

the government will not get up and defend it, will not get up and add

their names to be recorded in the Hansard of this province of what is taking place.

Mr. Speaker, I implore that you maybe have a talk quietly in the

corridors, or in an office, or in your caucus — though I know Speakers

do not sit in caucuses — and have the minister refer this bill and the

problems it's going to create to a parliamentary committee; to a

committee that can go out and receive the same input that our caucus

received from the people who are involved in forests, people whose

livelihoods and investments are resting on the line of what is taking

place. We've heard the stories from the Shoal Islands, and we've heard

the stories of Jim Cobb. Although the minister from Kamloops denies

that he recommended that the government reimburse him, he did state in

his letter that he would like fair consideration to be given to that

particular individual.

The ombudsman has shown in his in-depth studies time after time the

mismanagement that's taking place in B.C., and this bill legalizes a

lot of the offences that took place in the past. When you look at it,

it's like, in my old profession, turning the police forces over to the

Mafia. That's actually what you're doing. We make comparisons of people

going into the liquor stores and picking up their stock and running it

through the cash register themselves. It's the people who are enforcing

and doing the checks and balances out in the industry with a fair,

properly administered Forest Service who are going to protect the

resources and the people of British Columbia. That is the same position

as the police forces throughout our democracies have: to make sure the

laws are properly looked after. We all laugh if you say that we'd turn

over the police forces and enforcement to the Mafia. But it does happen

in places, and you have corruption. Not only must the law be correct;

it must appear to be correct.

I implore the minister that this is one of the bills that should be

turned over to a parliamentary committee. We should have an opportunity

to hear, from those involved in the forest industry, what this is going

to do, not only to their jobs and their industry, but to the revenues

that should be coming to the people of British Columbia.

We have stated on this side of the House that we will be voting

against the bill because the bill is poorly written; it's bad for the

finances of this province; and most of all, it is not going to build a

competitive, strong industry, because if you continue to give away to

larger companies more and more control of the resource, the inevitable

thing that will happen is that inefficiency will develop. When one

small company can afford to pay $189,000 for the timber from 20

hectares, imagine if they bid for that and paid for it if they were

financially competitive and they worked hard. What's happening out in

the industry? We're giving our resources away. Now we're allowing the

companies to look after the checking. We're allowing collusion. We're

allowing all the other inefficient ways of handling the resources, to

be turned over to companies and friends.

We are going to be in a worse shape as the years go by. I think it's

important that there must be a time when we look at what's happening.

We don't have to keep waiting until we get right to the bottom of the

pit and have another royal commission. We have the opportunity to have

a mini–royal commission by utilizing parts of parliament, and that's

the parliamentary committees. The parliamentary committees were set up

in our constitution to deal with problems like this. This government

has the opportunity to use a mini–royal commission by utilizing the

competency of the elected MLAs from both sides of the House to go out

and listen to the experts, to listen to those who are going to be

affected. I know that though none of the government members will stand

up and defend the bill, if they have an opportunity to listen, as we

have in this last two months, to some of the experts, they will realize

the error of their ways.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I also rise to very strongly oppose this

piece of legislation. Many of the arguments have been presented before

— pertinent arguments. The minister has just rolled over to the demands

of these large firms instead of being hard-nosed about it and saying to

them when they complain that they're having'a tough go of it, and they

need privatized scalings and the rollover of forest licence tenure, and

the TFLs.... Instead of the minister saying, "Upgrade your operations,

become more competitive, get out there, and modernize your plants,"

he's rolled over with a giveaway to these corporations. The provision

of the private scaling — I just can't believe that the minister with

the due responsibility for control of a public resource.... I just

cannot believe, Mr. Speaker, that that minister would roll over and

basically allow the wolves to protect the sheep. Because that is what

it amounts to. As one colleague was mentioning, it's basically allowing

them to ring out their own till in the cash register. Nobody should be

given complete control of a public resource in that type of manner.

It's not a matter of distrusting anyone; it's a matter of just ensuring

that the public interests are preserved in such a valuable resource.

The minister has just caved in to these requests. I'm sure that they

are rubbing their hands in glee. They cannot believe that he has

granted their Christmas gift wish.

Through such legislation, many of the firms are going to have a

virtual hammerlock, Mr. Speaker, on our timber stock. It's going to

lessen the availability of wood supplies for the small operator. It's

going to make competition between the large operator and the small

operator just that much more inequitable. This government doesn't seem

to be interested in the long-term preservation of this resource. It

just doesn't make sense what it's doing, if it has those interests in

mind.

[4:00]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The minister seems to be.... He's referred to the statement that

forests are a sunset industry. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that if he

continues in the same direction that he is continuing through this

legislation, our forests will be a sunset industry. We will not be in a

position to be able to maintain those forests in adequate condition.

We're already suffering from neglect in that regard. It's rewarding

inefficiency, and it's penalizing true entrepreneurship.

It's happening right now, and it's happened in the past. The

American market has long condemned us for supposedly subsidizing the

production of our wood products. The minister's response is that

basically we're going to give it away by

[ Page 6871 ]

again allowing them to cash out their own groceries at the cash register. The situation is just not acceptable.

The Pearse report in 1976 suggested very strongly that no new TFLs

should be granted. I'll make specific reference to it. Page 118 of the

Pearse report, if I may cite that report — and this deals with

tree-farm licences — says: "Moreover, new licences of this kind should

not be issued if the effect will be to concentrate further timber

rights in the few large corporations, a tendency that may arise from

the fact that they hold much of the land that might be contributed to

potential treefarm licences." Right there in the report in 1976 is that

recommendation, that caution, nine years ago. The minister is ignoring

that caution and proceeding with faulty legislation.

I speak very strongly against this. I don't think it is in the best

interests of an industry that is already burdened with inefficiency. I

cannot see any reason for rewarding that inefficiency and compromising

a valuable resource that has too long been neglected in the province.

No wonder we're in such dire circumstances. I do not support this

legislation.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, when I introduced second

reading of Bill 3, I was attempting to comply with the House rules. In

the some ten years that I have now been a member of this Legislature, I

have seen numerous occasions when a bill which really is a series of

rather unrelated amendments to a piece of legislation.... I have seen

many occasions when such a bill has been introduced: the minister

states at second reading that it is probably in the best interests of

the House that the different unrelated sections be dealt with in

committee. That was the reference I made when I introduced this bill.

If I was in error in saying that, I offer my apologies to the House.

However, I still contend that this bill does not have an overriding

principle, although one was concocted by the members of the opposition.

The principle which they seemed to develop was that it is a bill which

provides for collusion and theft, and which would demonstrate that the

private sector cannot be trusted. That is not my position, Mr. Speaker.

But because the bill is a series of rather unrelated amendments, I

thought at that time it would best be debated clause by clause in

committee. That will doubtless take place in any event. However,

because considerable latitude has been provided by the Chair in

discussing the various sections of the bill in second reading, I feel

that I must reply to some of them.

First of all, Dr. Pearse did not say that new TFLs should not be

issued in the future. In fact, Dr. Pearse, in his royal commission

report, stated in several places in his report that tree-farm licences

have provided in British Columbia the best level of forest management

that we have. He actually encouraged that type of licence. He did

say....

Interjection.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I sat here very patiently

while the member for Vancouver East spoke and while the other member

spoke. He has a great way of, once he sits down, beginning to chirp up

to try to again make the comments he has attempted to make during his

turn in speaking. I would just ask that he would extend to me the same

courtesy which I extended to him and listen to what I have to say.

Perhaps, just perhaps, he may team something.

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Pearse did not say that tree-farm licences should

not be issued in the future. He did, as was pointed out by the member

for North Okanagan (Mr. MacWilliam), say that if they were to result in

further concentration of cutting rights in the hands of industry, they

should not be issued. Since new tree-farm licences have been advertised

and issued, they have not led to further concentrations so far. We are

completely complying with the recommendations made by Dr. Pearse.

Contrary to what many of the members in the opposition suggest,

tree-farm licences are not a form of licence issued just to large

companies, although I don't have anything against large companies, just

as I have nothing against small companies. If the member would cast his

mind back to the first tree-farm licence issued since the sixties, he

would perhaps recall that that tree-farm licence was issued to the

Tanizul timber company. It was a rather small tree-farm licence. They

are appropriate in small areas as well as large areas, and it was

issued to the Tanizul forest company, which is owned by the Indian band

in the Stuart-Trembleur part of British Columbia. That tree-farm

licence has been very good for that band and has given them a chance to

become much more economically self-sufficient than they had been in the

past. They combined their private Indian band lands with Crown land and

are operating a tree-farm licence.

Mr. Speaker, the rollover of tree-farm licences from forest licences

to tree-farm licences is provided for in the legislation. Because

tree-farm licences have traditionally given us the best level of forest

management which we have experienced in British Columbia, I and my

colleagues thought it appropriate that we allow this type of tenure to

exist in more places, providing it leads to those same objectives.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member will come to order. The minister continues.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, that man has never been the

same since his government was defeated because of his policies in 1975.

He has resented that ever since. He has resented every member who sits

on this side of the House since that point in time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the bill, please.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Yes, indeed, Mr. Speaker, my apologies.

Mr. Speaker, provision is made for the rollover of forest licences

into TFLs. This allows us to enter into the partnership arrangements

with the private sector, which are good for the forests of British

Columbia, good for the forest industry of British Columbia, good for

the employees of the forest industry in British Columbia and also

provides for good forest management.

Mr. Speaker, Canadian Forest Products held a series of forest

licences in the northeastern part of British Columbia, and they

determined that they wished to apply for a tree-farm licence. In order

to apply for a tree-farm licence, a rather specific area has to be

defined. In determining which areas would be most appropriate and not

cause conflicts with other operators in the area who also had forest

licences, Canadian Forest Products did discuss with other operators

appropriate areas of operation so that there would be a rather balanced

[ Page 6872 ]

sharing of the logging chance, the timber quality

and species mixes. So each operator would have a good balance, rather

than going out and applying for a tree-farm licence and perhaps picking

the best part of the area, and then having that ultimately defeated...

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: ...and ruled against as a result of public hearings, in which I'm sure many people would object to it.

Because a lawyer who works in Prince George — in fact he is in the

ex-office of one of my colleagues — suggested that such discussions

could be contrary to a part of the Forest Act, we are amending that

part of the Forest Act to make sure that companies can discuss among

themselves, with the Ministry of Forests and together as a forest group

the most appropriate areas for each of them to operate in.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: This policy has been....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just a moment, please. Order, please. The

second member for Vancouver East will please not interrupt while

another member is taking his place in debate. There is a certain

parliamentary courtesy here that is extended to all members. The

minister continues uninterrupted.

Interjection.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! Hon. member, when the Speaker

stands, all hon. members take their place. I am sure the member is

aware of that. The member was continually interrupting. I find that

grossly unparliamentary.

Pursuant to standing order 19, I'll ask you to withdraw for the rest of the day.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Skeena on a point of order.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. HOWARD: My point of order is that while you were on your

feet, and while you were reciting the rule that every member should sit

down, and while you were then moving to ask the second member for

Vancouver East to leave his seat, you permitted the Minister of

Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) to stay on his feet on the other side

of the House, you permitted him to walk down to his own seat, and you

completely ignored the fact that the Minister of Agriculture was

violating the very rule that you were enunciating.

Mr. Speaker, I am submitting to you that you either ask the Minister of Agriculture

to leave or you rescind the request that the second member for Vancouver leave.

If you don't do that, you are exhibiting discrimination in favour of government,

and that should not be tolerated.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair will accept an opinion from the Minister of Health.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the conduct of

the Minister of Agriculture, the minister had just entered the chamber

and was en route to his seat when you rose. He had not been in his

seat; he had just entered the chamber. When you rose, he then went to

his seat, which he had not been occupying for the past number of hours.

It's pretty obvious to the House why you asked a certain member to

leave today, and I don't think it had to do with the point mentioned by

the member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to point out to you that the Minister of

Health is ignorant of the facts and has so expressed them to Your

Honour. I watched carefully. The Minister of Agriculture came into the

House before Your Honour rose. He stood between the Minister of Health

— behind him — and the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie)

and was standing there talking with those two ministers when you rose.

He stayed there standing and talking, while you were still on your

feet, and casually strolled down. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that to

be fair and to exhibit fairness, you must ask the Minister of

Agriculture also to leave the chamber because he violated the very rule

that you were declaring. If you don't do that, Mr. Speaker, the

position of the office of Speaker becomes demeaned a little bit and

exhibits partiality. I'm sure the Speaker doesn't want to do that.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: On a further point of order, I think it is

the accepted practice of the House than when a member is conducting

himself in a manner which is offensive to the Chair and the Speaker

rises, that member shall then take his seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: All members.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: That member shall take his seat. If a

member has been unruly, and that is brought to his attention by the

Speaker and he continues to be unruly and the Speaker stands, it is

expected that that member shall be seated....

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: All members shall be seated, but particularly the member who has caused the Speaker to rise.

Mr. Speaker, I would once again suggest that the all-knowing member

for Skeena is quite ignorant of the facts, as he suggested earlier,

with respect to the conduct of the Minister of Agriculture. The

Minister of Agriculture had entered the chamber and was engaged in a

discussion with me and the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The Minister

of Agriculture was discussing House business. When you rose, he then

went to take his chair. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture had

not been in his chair prior to that time; he was simply going to his

chair. I would think that is quite proper.

It's unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that some members here can't

understand that they do not have a privileged position in this House to

abuse the rules as they wish to abuse them. I

[ Page 6873 ]

would commend your patience in dealing with a certain member in this House today.

[4:15]

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just a moment, please. We've had quite a few

— too many — interruptions, and now the Chair recognizes the first

member for Vancouver East.

MR. MACDONALD: On the point of order, I hope the Speaker

didn't take too seriously the last remarks. Repartee and interjections

have been part of parliamentary debate for centuries. If a member

interjecting, as my colleague for Vancouver East did, is to be ejected

from this House, how would that rule apply in Westminster, where there

is often uproar? That is part of the parliamentary process. There is

not a single member sitting in this chamber who has not interjected in

debate as much as my colleague did this afternoon.

Spell out the rule, Mr. Speaker. Are interjections as repartee to be

banned in this House? If so, enforce it uniformly, but it's a bad day

for democratic parliamentarianism when that happens.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the member who has been asked

to withdraw from the House rose two or three times while the Chair was

standing, and I think that was obvious to me. The interjections were

made while the Speaker was standing, audible to the Speaker. The

decision has been made, and the decision is finished, and that is

clear. The Minister of Forests continues.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I can't understand it, Mr. Speaker. I'm

such a quiet individual. This place seems to erupt whenever I get up to

speak. I was talking about the tree farm licences, the rollover thereof

and the common practice through many decades in British Columbia of

various operators together working out the best areas of operation. As

a matter of fact, in the Prince George forest region, which you are

very familiar with, we recently went through an exercise where all of

the many licensees were asked by the regional manager and by myself to

please, amongst yourselves, determine those areas in which you feel it

is in your best interests to be working, and if you cannot agree, then

we as a ministry will come in and sort out the differences.

Obviously, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams)

prefers that the government act as the dictator and force people to do

what they wish, rather than work out arrangements which are to the

mutual satisfaction of all concerned parties.

When the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) opened his remarks, he

mentioned that the NDP, their caucus, had been meeting with many people

from the various sectors of the forest industry. I commend them for

that. I think that that type of exchange is very healthy with all

political parties, and I very much urge that they continue that, and I

urge all sectors of the forest industry to continue dialogue with them.

Because the more they and we understand each other, and the more we

understand forestry matters, the better job we can do of debating

forestry matters and bringing forth legislation regulations that

enhance that industry.

I, too, spend a great deal of time in discussions with all sectors

of the forest industry — with the large companies, with the small

companies, with independent logging contractors and with the trade

unions. As a matter of fact, I think you're well aware of the fact that

three senior members of the IWA recently accompanied me on a trip to

China. During that trip, we had some very good discussion about

forestry matters in British Columbia, a great deal of which was centred

around the issue of log exports.

A great deal of time was spent in the second reading debate on a

section of the bill which refers to private scaling. Companies will not

be scaling their own wood. Licensed scalers will be scaling their wood,

and it is possible a licensed scaler could be an employee of a company.

I think it would be more common that licensed scalers be the employees

of a scaling agency or else be self-employed, but there are

circumstances and there have been for years, and there has always been

provision in the Forest Act for private scaling by company employees or

other licensed scalers when it is more cost-effective to do so. We will

be extending that principle in practice, somewhat, in the changes to

the scaling requirements.

The member for Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Davis) mentioned the

professionalism. Yes, indeed, I think a person who is a licensed scaler

has demonstrated his ability to scale, and we don't consider him to be

a party to collusion just because he is not a government employee. We

will rely to a certain extent upon his professionalism as a scaler and

as an honest citizen of British Columbia. I don't believe that because

a person belongs to the BCGEU he is more honest, or that because a

person does not belong to a union or perhaps belongs to the IWA he is

less honest and will do a less sincere and honest job in scaling.

As a matter of fact, as a part of my discussions on the subject of

private scaling, I did have extensive discussions with members of the

IWA — Jack Munro, president of the regional council No. 1, for example.

I might read a letter sent to me by Mr. Munro in response to a bulletin

put out by the B.C. Government Employees' Union addressing the subject

of scaling in British Columbia. Mr. Munro had this to say, and I'll

table this when I've concluded my remarks. It's addressed to me,

Minister of Forests. It says:

"Dear Sir:

"I know better than to respond to an unsigned brief"

— and he had read this brief of the BCGEU — "however, I must say that I

find BCGEU's submission on scaling quite offensive, as it appears they are

suggesting that if you are not a BCGEU member you are less honest. The IWA and

myself personally support your moves to bring log-scaling back to where it belongs,

as long as the persons scaling have a current permit or ticket. We do not need

one person in the middle of a logging or mill operation with the right to shut

down that operation in the event of a breakdown in their negotiations.

Yours truly,

J .J. Munro, President

Western Canadian Regional Council

No. 1 International Woodworkers

of America (AFL-CIO) "

It's not just the industry's side or the employer's side of the

industry that believes efficiencies can be delivered by having more

flexibility on who can scale. The employees also believe that; I happen

to believe it as well. But I guess the members of the opposition have

every right to disagree, for we do live in a free and democratic

society.

[ Page 6874 ]

Mr. Speaker, something disturbed me in the remarks by the second

member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams). He quoted out of context

something that Bill Young, former chief forester of British Columbia,

had said. Then he implied that Bill Young had said collusion had been

taking place in the forest industry for years on bid-rigging and

deciding who can bid. I think I know what Bill Young was saying. He was

saying — as I have just said — that for years we have encouraged

operators in an area to determine among themselves which is the most

appropriate area for each of them to operate in so as not to interfere

with each other, perhaps to get the best mix of species and size of

logs and so on for their particular mill's requirements. That was, I'm

sure, what Bill Young was referring to. But the member clearly implied

that Bill Young had said that he was aware — the ministry was aware —

for years of collusion and bid-rigging in tendering for rights to

harvest Crown timber. I want to dispel that innuendo, Mr. Speaker. I

know of no one who is a more conscientious forester and had a higher

level of professionalism than Bill Young when he was with the ministry

and now that he is with the Canadian Forestry Association.

I also somewhat resented the member — several of the members —

trying to infer what I had said about various matters. I'm quite

capable of speaking for myself. I'm perhaps not as articulate as some

of the members opposite, but I usually manage to express what I feel

and mean.

Another comment made by the member from Vancouver East was when he read a passage from the book, Cutting Up the North ,

written by Ken Bernsohn. As I'm sure members know, Ken Bemsohn has

been, as they put it, a bagman for the local NDP in Prince George for a

number of years. However, I think Mr. Bemsohn is quite a competent

reporter; he generally is reasonably objective in his reporting of

forestry matters. I disagree with him the odd time, but he doesn't do a

bad job. The member from Vancouver East implied that I knew something

about a $100,000 bribe attempt. Nothing is further from the truth, Mr.

Speaker. I know of no such bribe attempt. When he asked me questions in

my office, I thought it appropriate not to answer certain questions,

and I did not.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Yes, Bemsohn is the name. I think

everyone knows whom I'm referring to. I don't think my responses to a

reporter and novelist in my office should in any way lead anyone to

suggest that I knew of any bribery attempts or attempts at collusion,

for that is certainly not true.

The member for Vancouver East referred again to "the big boy from

COFI." He was referring to Mike Apsey, my former deputy minister, and I

cannot deny that Mike Apsey is a big boy. Mike Apsey did not work for

the Council of Forest Industries just prior to joining my ministry,

although early in his career he did. Indeed, when he left the ministry

he went to be president of the Council of Forest Industries. Mike Apsey

was a very competent Deputy Minister of Forests. His interests and

desires, and whole intent, were to be a good Deputy Minister of

Forests, to look after his responsibilities of that time. I think it

would be very unhappy indeed if we discouraged competent people in the

private sector from spending a part of their career with government and

made it difficult for them to move back and forth between government

and the private sector, for then we would lose the ability and, I

think, the right to call upon the best possible people to act as senior

administrators within government. The American system, on the other

hand, is quite different: it encourages and takes people right from the

private sector. They quite often have a leave of absence from their

employers, act in senior capacities in government, and then go back to

the private sector. I think that is a rather healthy thing to have

happen.

The members referred several times to.... When they were talking

about the issue of private scaling, they kept saying that only

government scalers can be trusted to scale in a competent manner; that

others should not be allowed to do that because they are somehow going

to be less honest. They also continually referred to Shoal Island, and

said there was a 15 percent discrepancy when government scalers scaled

at Shoal Island. I don't think there was a 15 percent discrepancy. In

fact, I recently received the report of Don Grant; I will probably be

tabling that later today, or perhaps tomorrow. The allegations made by

the ombudsman as to a 15 percent discrepancy, after having had

discussions with a certain logging contractor, left me somewhat

puzzled. I know of no contractor who could go on for two, three or four

years missing 15 percent of the wood that he had harvested, and not

very soon learn about it in his profit-and-loss statements. Anyway, I

made those remarks before, when the ombudsman's report came out. But

regardless of whether Friedmann was right or not, it is in my best

interest, and the interest of the province, if there is an error in

scaling at Shoal Island or anywhere else, that I find out about it and

correct the situation, because that's my responsibility.

A great deal of reference was made to the Cobb incident in the

Kamloops area, in which Mr. Cobb claimed that the wood he had harvested

was not properly scaled. The member suggested that we told Mr. Cobb to

go to court. Well, Mr. Cobb did go to court, and he received a

settlement. As a matter of fact, Mr. Cobb made a $70,000 profit

harvesting timber from an agricultural lease — he paid logging tax on

that amount — which was quite a substantial profit from the small area

of land logged. The dispute there is basically as to the standard of

utilization. There's no way of determining that without any doubt or

any question. But we are in disagreement with the ombudsman. We have

not yet resolved that issue. As a matter of fact, as I mentioned when

asked a question last week about it, it's unfortunate that the

ombudsman chose to table his report in the House on the day he did,

because he knew, and the executive council had already advised him by

letter, that we were meeting that very morning on the Cobb thing and

still attempting to resolve it. I don't know if it can be resolved, but

we were at that time doing everything we could. We will continue to

deal with the ombudsman's office in that matter.

I think it was the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) who

said the forest land base is fast disappearing. The forest land base is

not disappearing by any stretch of the imagination, but there is a

great deal of pressure on the forest land base.

[4:30]

Interjection.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: She referred to the forest land base, my friend. You weren't in the House at the time. Perhaps if you were to read Hansard

you would know what she said. She said the forest land base was

disappearing, and indeed, there is a great deal of pressure on the

forest land base. I'm attempting to make sure that as forest land is

used for other purposes, those purposes are in the best interest of

[ Page 6875 ]

British Columbia, that they are higher economic and/or social uses.

That is why I have continued to have provincial forests established

throughout the province of British Columbia, which simply means that

before land can be removed from a provincial forest for other uses, we

have to subject any such decision to a test as to whether it is indeed

a higher and better economic and social use. The Minister of Forests in

the previous Social Credit government, Ray Williston, had a plan of

establishing provincial forests so as to protect that forest land base,

and that was carried on up until 1972. When the NDP was government

between 1972 and 1975, they abandoned that principle. It was only after

I became Minister of Forests and the new Forest Act was passed that we

again began to protect the forest land base by placing productive

forest land in provincial forests, just so we would be sure that we

weren't frittering away the forest land for uses that were not in the

best interest of the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I have a few other comments. Again, I'm simply

responding to comments made by members opposite. The member for

Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) said that when KFP was shut down by

Westar, we allowed them to keep private timber rights which they

purchased in 1974. We allowed Westar to keep those because those rights

were not directly related to the Kootenay Forest Products plant in

Nelson. That was their property, which they purchased. As a matter of

fact, they purchased it when the second member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Williams) was the Minister of Lands, Forest and Water Resources. I

don't see any reason why we as a government should have removed those

privately-held timber rights from them when they shut down the sawmill.

We did in fact recover the Crown cutting rights which were attributable

to that particular plant, and we have since had them up for bid

proposals from the private sector. I hope that in the very near future

a new employment base will be established in the Nelson area as a

result of bid proposals received.

Members opposite said that most of the recommendations in the Pearse

report were not implemented. I didn't keep a score. A large number of

recommendations were made. I think we accepted more than we rejected.

Some of them we could not accept.

Reference was made to check scaling made by Mr. Mahood at Shoal

Island. No check scaling as such was done, although it was claimed to

have been done.

I think I have covered the points raised in second reading debate,

and my apologies again if the members thought I was being somewhat

cavalier or arrogant in not going into a detailed discussion during

second reading. I sincerely thought that because the bill was a series

of rather unrelated amendments, they would best be discussed clause by

clause in committee. The members opposite chose to do that more or less

during second reading. So, Mr. Speaker, I therefore move second reading

of Bill 3.

MR. HOWARD: Before you put the question, Mr. Speaker, I'd

like to rise pursuant to standing order 42(l), with respect to a

material part of my remarks that may have been misquoted or

misunderstood. I want to clear the record on that regard. The minister

a couple of times throughout his remarks said that we kept referring to

government scalers as being honest and other scalers, or scalers not

employed by the government, as not being honest. In no way was that

statement made; in no way was that implication to be left. What I did

say was that putting licensees in the position of being able to scale

the timber that they have the licence to cut is putting those

individual licensees in a conflict-of-interest position. I just want to

emphasize that at no time did we intimate or say, or did I intimate or

say, that scalers working for one group were honest and others were not.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. That satisfies the Chair under

standing order 42. Does the Minister of Forests wish a further

explanation under standing order 42?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'd only say that that was

my

interpretation of what the member said. If that was not what they

intended, the written record of Hansard will....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. I think the matter has been dealt

with appropriately under standing order 42. Hon. members, the question

is second reading of Bill 3.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 24

Waterland

Rogers

Segarty

McClelland

Heinrich

Richmond

Ritchie

Pelton

Johnston

Kempf

R. Fraser

Parks

Chabot

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Curtis

Phillips

A. Fraser

Schroeder

Davis

Mowat

Ree

Strachan

NAYS — 15

MacDonald

Dailly

Cocke

Howard

Lauk

Nicolson

Sanford

D'Arcy

Hanson

Lockstead

MacWilliam

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Blencoe

Bill 3, Forest Amendment Act, 1985, 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. Waterland asked leave to table a document referred to during second reading debate.

Leave granted.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TOURISM

(continued)

On vote 65: minister's office, $151,996.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Before we left off the other day, we had made

some progress towards discussing Expo 86 on the basis of three reviews.

We looked at it in terms of some historical antecedents; we looked at

it as a business venture; we looked at it as a fiscal policy. Because

the whole process of

[ Page 6876 ]

debate is a few days old now, I want to go over a couple of points and then....

[4:45]

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Okanagan North has been recognized by the Chair.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to review a

couple of important points, I think, in this analysis as well as some

of the questions that remain to be answered. In terms of the historical

antecedents of the fair, we have discussed the fact that many preceding

world's fairs have been notorious money losers, and there were a few

cautionary points. One of the cautionary points is that often there is

a...

Interjection.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Thank you.

...significant increase in production and construction costs....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, would all hon. members come to

order. There are about ten different conversations going on, and only

one person has been recognized. If you wish a conversation, would you

please vacate the chamber, and let the member continue.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It seems that the other side wishes to play a few little mind games here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It is not only related to one side.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for North Okanagan will continue on vote 65.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Chairman, that only hardens the resolve, I guess.

Anyway, we were discussing the fact that many world fairs had been

notorious money losers. One of the problems seems to be the escalating

production and construction costs associated with world expositions.

Expo 86 started off, I might remind the House, as a $127 million

celebration of Vancouver's centennial; it has now been blown into about

a $1.5 billion project.

Another cautionary note was the fact that attendance estimates are

often overly optimistic, and I made note of the fact that the initial

gate pass estimates were in the neighbourhood of 20 million to 25

million. They've been brought down considerably, to about 13.75 million.

The third cautionary note was that there's often an underestimation

of the auxiliary or ancillary expenses of a fair, such as

decommissioning costs, which remain to be yet fully accounted for by

the minister, and associated costs of health, fire and safety, as well

as the opportunity costs to the land, which we went over in great

detail the other day. So there are three cautionary areas that we

looked at.

As a business venture we made note of the fact that the primary

source of Expo's financial impact will be through local expenditures —

that is, B.C. residents spending their money at the fair. Although that

will bode well for the ledgers for Expo, there's a danger that unless

we make every opportunity to encourage the spinoff for Expo to be

dispersed throughout the province into the other areas, it may cause

what we could call a redistribution of income throughout the province.

In other words, money spent at Expo will be money that would normally

have been spent in other areas of the province and in fact may actually

cause a drain from those areas. So I think we have to make sure that we

promote those tourist developments in other areas of the province in

order to make sure that they don't become losers in the competition for

the tourist dollar.

The big point to make, I think, is the fact that Expo depends upon

attracting new outside visitors to the province — people who normally

don't visit the province. There have been published statements that

Expo will attract about one million new visitors. The minister recently

said that it is going to attract up to two million new visitors. We

went over the fact that if we take the one million target and look at

visitors to the province from other areas, such as the States and

Alberta and other provinces and overseas visitors, we're going to need

a minimum 27 percent increase in tourist travel into the province. If

we take the minister's updated figures of two million people, we're

going to need a 54 percent increase in our new visitors to the

province. I'd like the minister to possibly justify his estimates of

these figures, because it's an extremely large influx of new tourists,

and I don't think the minister has adequately explained or defended

these figures.

In addition, the minister has repeatedly refused to make any

detailed financial analysis of the fair or a cost-benefit analysis.

Many of the figures that were released in the

summary analysis by Mr.

Pattison can't be justified in terms of other economic analyses that

have been done. I think the minister should consider making a full

detailed financial analysis in light of this disagreement.

As a fiscal policy, through Expo the government has basically

admitted that it has to dive into deficit financing as a means of

economic stimulation. Expo is generating some immediate economic

benefits. We don't argue that; we welcome it, and we support the

principle of Expo. But we do feel that the jobs created are short-term

and that there's been inadequate long-term planning. I think we have to

make every attempt to ensure that Expo does succeed, and we're backing

it in that regard.

We are concerned that the economic impact of Expo may not be as

great as it could be if we had taken those equivalent expenditures of

$1.5 billion and pumped them into other areas of economic development.

The question still does remain: are we getting the best bang for the

buck, so to speak? Are we getting the most out of our dollar, in terms

of job creation and economic development benefits?

The other question that remains is: what happens after Expo? After

the fair is finished, after the jobs are no longer there, after the

buildings must be taken apart — what comes after Expo? The minister has

argued that it's going to be a great boon to our trade p