1989 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, JULY 14, 1989

Morning Sitting

[ Page

8559 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Presenting Reports –– 8559

Milk Industry Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 45). Hon. Mr. Savage

Introduction and first reading –– 8559

An Act to Restore the Integrity of the Agricultural Land Commission

(Bill M224). Mr. Barlee

Introduction and first reading –– 8560

Securities Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 83). Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Introduction and first reading –– 8560

Private Members' Statements

Real estate speculation tax. Mr. Clark –– 8560

Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Controlling tobacco addiction: a provincial strategy. Mr. Perry ––

Hon. Mr. Dueck

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

On vote 27: minister's office –– 8565

Mr. Miller

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Mr. Kempf

Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3),

1989 (Bill 75). Hon. Mrs. Johnston

Introduction and first reading –– 8579

Social Service Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1989 (Bill 81). Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Introduction and first reading –– 8579

Temporary Use Tax Validation Act (Bill 82). Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Introduction and first reading –– 8579

Food Choice and Disclosure Act (Bill 85). Hon. Mr. Savage

Introduction and first reading –– 8579

Electoral Boundaries Commission Act (Bill 87). Hon. Mr. Reid

Introduction and first reading –– 8580

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

On behalf of the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith) and myself it's my

pleasure to introduce Brenda Jones, a longtime friend and supporter

from the law firm of Mair Janowsky Blair in Kamloops. Would you please

make Brenda welcome.

MR. KEMPF : I have a question of

privilege, and I wish to reserve my motion so as not to lose earliest

convenience, as I'm perfecting that motion at this time.

MR. SPEAKER : That's fine.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

With leave, I would like to move a motion on behalf of the Select

Standing Committee on Labour, Justice and Intergovernmental Relations.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I move that in addition to the powers previously conferred upon the

Select Standing Committee on Labour, Justice and Intergovernmental

Relations in respect of the report of the Royal Commission on Electoral

Boundaries for British Columbia, December 1988, the said committee

shall have the following additional powers, namely: (

a) to appoint of

their number one or more subcommittees and to refer to such

subcommittees any of the matters referred to the committee; (

b) to sit

during any period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess

after prorogation until the next following session, and during any

sitting of the House; (

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be

convenient; and (

d) to deposit the original of its reports with the

Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment, and

upon the resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chairman shall

present all reports to the Legislative Assembly. I so move.

Motion approved.

Presenting Reports

MR. CHALMERS :

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the

Select Standing Committee on Labour, Justice and Intergovernmental

Relations respecting the report of the Royal Commission on Electoral

Boundaries for British Columbia, December 1988.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

MR. CHALMERS : Mr. Speaker, by leave, I move that the rules be suspended to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Motion approved.

MR. CHALMERS :

Mr. Speaker, I move that the report be adopted, and in doing so I would

like to express my appreciation as Chairman of the committee. Although

our task is not yet totally completed, much of what we have been

assigned to do has indeed been finished with the tabling of this report

today.

Because this is probably my last opportunity before

the House rises to express in this assembly my appreciation to the

members of the committee, I'd like to do that today. In particular, I'd

like to express my appreciation to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr.

Mercier) and the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce), who have

spent many hours with me attempting to work our way through the Fisher

report and all there was to do with that. Also, I'd like to express my

appreciation to the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota).

He's not here today, but I can assure all members of the House that he

has been most cooperative in trying to complete our task; and to the

member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) as well, for his assistance and

cooperation.

I'd also like, on behalf of the members of the

committee, to express our appreciation to Judge Fisher, who had an

impossible task to perform but has done it very well.

Motion approved.

Introduction of Bills

MILK INDUSTRY

AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

behalf of the Minister of Agriculture, Hon. Mr. Richmond presented a

message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Milk

Industry Amendment Act, 1989.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr.

Speaker, the purpose of the legislation is fourfold: (1) to provide for

mandatory certification of all commercial dairy farms to ensure high

sanitation standards on dairy farms and provide high-quality milk to

the public;

(2) To enforce an orderly marketing system and

ensure equitable treatment of all producers. This will be accomplished

by repealing sections in the Milk Industry Act which established the

Milk Board and its authority, recreating the Milk Board as the B.C.

Milk Marketing Board under the Natural Products Marketing (BC) Act,

with parallel powers plus specific provisions to regulate

producer-vendors who custom-process milk into milk products;

(3) To restructure the Milk Board to allow greater industry direction and improve accountability of the board to the industry;

[ Page 8560 ]

(4) To make provision for B.C. Marketing Board to be the supervisory and

appeal body for the B.C. Milk Board decisions in order to provide for

improved and less costly appeals and to ensure consistency in treatment

of commodities under marketing legislation.

Bill 45

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the

day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO RESTORE THE INTEGRITY

OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION

Mr. Barlee presented a bill intituled

An Act to Restore the Integrity of the Agricultural Land Commission.

MR. BARLEE : This bill does three things, essentially. It avoids issues

like the Spetifore lands case. It does abolish cabinet, regional district and

municipal council involvement in the appeal of an Agricultural Land Commission

decision to include or exclude land in the reserve. Since these powers were

established, there has been a net loss of over 60,000 acres of farmland from

the agricultural land reserve, and of this approximately 21,600 acres were

prime farmland.

provides for independent consideration of appeals of commission

decisions by the Supreme Court of British Columbia. It is the intent of

this bill that any person aggrieved may have their day in court and be

heard.

Finally, it expands the mandate of the commission to

be a steward of the agricultural land, greenbelt land and parkland. The

commission may also hold land suitable for urban or industrial

redevelopment in a land bank. With funding voted separately by the

Legislature, the commission could play a strategic role in making

available sites for affordable housing.

I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the house after today.

Bill

M224 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after

today.

SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Hon. Mr. Couvelier presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a

bill intituled Securities Amendment Act, 1989.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Bill 83, the Securities Amendment Act, 1989, continues the process we

have been pursuing over the past two and a half years of strengthening

the securities regulatory system of this province.

As I

announced last year during debate on the Securities Amendment Act, the

bill I am presenting to the House this year includes amendments to the

Securities Act dealing with enforcement powers, insider trading, and

takeover and issuer bid rules. The bill also contains a series of

miscellaneous amendments to clarify and improve a variety of sections

of the act. Collectively these amendments represent a significant

package of measures that will assist the Securities Commission in

administering the act, improve the protection of investors and

contribute to the interjurisdictional uniformity necessary for the

efficiency of Canada's national securities market.

With the

presentation of this bill, the government has largely completed one of

the most significant major rewrites of legislation as it affects the

financial community of any jurisdiction across Canada. It's our view

that with the pounds — literally pounds — of legislation which

have been introduced during this administration's tenure, we have

significantly altered and improved the operating style of B.C.'s

financial communities. We take great pride in the fact that we believe

this represents a culmination and a new era in terms of how B.C.'s

financial community operates and how it may effectively compete with

the international community. I look forward to debate on this bill.

Bill

83 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[10:15]

MR. SPEAKER : The second member for Vancouver–Point Grey seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. PERRY :

I would like to introduce my wife, Beth Chambers, who is sitting in the

members' gallery, and ask the House to make her welcome, please.

would also like the privilege of welcoming to British Columbia Mr. Pete

Seeger, who is not in the precincts but will be well known to many

members. Yesterday was declared Pete Seeger Day in Vancouver by the

city of Vancouver. He gave a marvellous concert, and I would like the

House to make him welcome in B.C., please.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

REAL ESTATE SPECULATION TAX

MR. CLARK :

I rise today to speak on the need for a real estate speculation tax in

British Columbia. Mark Twain once advised a young friend as follows:

"Invest in land; they don't make it anymore." It was good advice then,

and it's good advice now. It is good advice certainly in British

Columbia, because more money has been made in land than in any other

commodity. We certainly know that with this administration: millions of

dollars in profits have been made on land.

The problem is that land is not just any other commodity. It's not like automobiles, television sets,

[ Page 8561 ]

yachts

or any other item, items that certainly can and should be left to the

free market. Land is too important, too fundamental, to be left solely

to the vagaries of the market, because the real estate market in

British Columbia, and certainly in the lower mainland, is not servicing

the needs of the vast majority of the population. It's simply not

working. It's not good enough for this government and this minister to

wring their hands and say: "There's nothing that can be done; there is

simply nothing government can do."

The problem, in my view,

is that the government is so ideological and narrow that it refuses to

intervene in the land market to influence the shape, pace and pattern

of development, and too rigid to try and intervene to help British

Columbians in the land market. Land is simply too important to be left

solely to the marketplace, because it's vital to economic development,

vital to the quality of life and, most importantly in this context,

vital to the housing needs of British Columbians. The government's

wilful blindness to the pressures building in Vancouver and the lower

mainland and the housing crisis that exists are a recipe for disaster.

Well,

what could be done, Mr. Speaker, if we had a government committed to

finding solutions? On our side, we've called for a land speculation

tax. What we need is a tough, substantial tax to discourage, to try to

eliminate, real estate speculation. Too much of our market in the lower

mainland is taken up by individuals and companies making quick profits

by flipping property, buying land and houses not to live in but to hold

for a short time and then sell for a quick profit.

Land

speculation and speculators add nothing to our community and nothing to

our economy. The profit is simply unearned. No one begrudges an

individual who by their own sweat builds or creates something of value

and, by so doing, creates a profit. But unearned windfall profits that

accrue to speculators are in fact detrimental to the community. Their

actions drive a portion of the housing market and keep prices moving up.

How

would such a tax work, Mr. Speaker? Well, the concept is certainly very

simple. A homeowner buys a second house for $200,000 and then sells it

within one year for $300,000. Of that $100,000 profit, 80 percent would

be taxed away. This percentage would decline over time, so that the

longer one held the property, the less one would pay.

The

idea is not for government to make money on such a tax, but rather to

stop the harmful speculation in real estate that's taking place in the

lower mainland. Such a tax was in place in Ontario between 1974 and

1978, and the principle of that tax is the same principle that I put

forward today and is as follows from that act: anyone who invested in

land that was not his principal residence, summer cottage or land that

was not improved, renovated or was not needed for productive business

was subject to the tax.

The government of Ontario then and

the New Democratic Party of British Columbia now are stating very

simply that by the imposition of this tax the housing needs of the

population are more important than to leave land to the vagaries of

free markets — or vagaries to a market that in many cases is not free.

Did

it work in Ontario? Well, the answer is yes. From 1972 to 1974 Toronto

housing prices rose 62 percent. After the tax, from 1974 to 1976,

prices rose only 16 percent.

Would it work in British

Columbia? Clearly the speculation taking place in British Columbia is

at least equal to that which took place in Ontario from 1972 to 1974.

Clearly a similar tax in British Columbia would work here and now.

The

minister may take some comfort in a recent study in Ontario which

suggested that a speculation tax in Ontario isn't appropriate now. The

problem with the study, however, was that it defined speculation far

too narrowly. It identified only those sales that were flipped in six

months. Even then, Mr. Speaker, it identified 7 percent of all land

sales as being flipped within six months, which is not insignificant.

But over a three-year period, it is estimated that in an Ontario

market, 20 percent of purchasers flipped their property in a three-year

period, and that's only those that qualify under what would be called

speculation tax, as I have described it.

It's

true, Mr.

Speaker, that the land speculators only occupy a percentage of the

market, but it's a group of people that have an influence over price.

Taxing them would dampen the rise in housing prices in the lower

mainland and further have the effect of eliminating — or at lease

reducing — this method of making quick money, which creates no

value and adds nothing to the community.

recent months we have had Pat Carney, a former federal Conservative

minister, suggest a need to look at such a tax in Vancouver. You've

seen the federal minister, again a Conservative Minister of Housing,

suggest the idea in Vancouver. You've seen the municipal property tax

review committee of Vancouver recommend the province seriously consider

such a tax, and we've seen hundreds of people in Point Grey vote in a

recent by-election, at least in part, because the New Democratic Party

was taking a position on a land speculation tax and the housing crisis

that exists in Vancouver. The only people who refuse to consider this

idea seriously is this ideologically rigid government, this government

that has those ideological blinkers on and that won't consider a tax

which has worked in Ontario and would work in British Columbia.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

As usual, we on this side of the House aren't surprised to hear that

once again the centralist, socialist, pointy-headed thinkers seem to

believe that intervention is the remedy for all of life's ills.

The

fact is that government intervention in any economic enterprise,

particularly the marketplace, is traditionally shown to be a

non-productive intervention and without the effect that the intenders

desire.

The first comment I would make on the words I heard

this morning is that somebody on this side of the House suggested that

it wasn't Mark Twain who made the statement that land is a finite

resource, but

[ Page 8562 ]

rather

Will Rogers. I don't know who is the true author, but I wouldn't be

surprised to learn that once again the very basis in the opening

remarks of the opposition on any issue proved to be inaccurate.

The

other comment made was that land is too important to leave to the

vagaries of the free market, which, of course, is true. Land is an

important issue. It is a finite resource, and we all should express

some concern about attempting to minimize profit-taking and

unproductive windfall gains. On the other hand, as it was stated here

that it's a very simple issue, we have to point out quite clearly that

the reverse is true: it's a very complex issue. It's very difficult to

define when speculation occurs, and certainly our experience and the

tradition and experience in other jurisdictions show that it is in the

minds of the legislator as to what is speculation.

For

example, how would you treat the situation where the farmer happens to

be adjacent to a well-developed urban area and by virtue of pressures

of urbanization is having more and more restrictions forced on him

regarding the operation of his farm? How would you deny him the right

to sell for a profit? For most farmers operating on a narrow profit

basis, that is their only hope for any sort of retirement income. How

would you deal with that very important issue? Would you deny the

farmer the opportunity to reap some small benefit from his lifetime of

sweat and labour, his 12-hour days, his seven-day weeks, his month

after month of working on the farm? Would you deny him that

opportunity? How would you deal with the instance of the owner of a

small, detached, single-family dwelling surrounded by apartment

buildings who is being forced by virtue of this urbanization and

changing lifestyle around him to alter his own lifestyle? Would you

deny him the right to sell at a profit so that he can once again afford

to move to a more rural establishment? How would these pointy-headed

centralists, who intend to impose their will on the vast majority of

people because they have the arrogance to think they are the only ones

with the wisdom to manage these affairs, propose to deal with those

subtle little relevancies as related to our population?

on this side, of course, do agree that the issue is serious, and we do

agree that it is appropriate for us to express concern. But we do not

agree that the solution is for the heavy hand of government once again

to intrude with a solution which elsewhere has proven to be ineffective.

The

member made the point that Ontario had such

an act and it worked. The

fact of the matter is that it did not work. Let me just quote the

Ontario Treasurer when asked, as a result of the escalating property

prices in Ontario, whether he would re-impose this speculation tax,

which didn't work when they had it in the past. He said he was "not

enthusiastic about applying a speculation tax on real estate." It does

not work, my friends. Intervention in such a delicate matter as this

never works.

You cannot remove the element of profit on a

rising housing market. The value of land or a dwelling is dependent

entirely on the willingness of someone to pay that value. If there is a

middleman who happens to make a profit, who sees that opportunity,

while it may be deplorable in a social sense, nevertheless it does not

violate the basic principle that someone who is prepared to pay more

for a property should be allowed to pay what he wishes to pay, and the

person who sells the property should be allowed to reap the benefits of

that sale.

The fact of the matter is, we would not have

speculators anywhere in the market system if there wasn't the demand

side which created rising prices. To suggest that you, of all people,

are going to somehow license those who might be useful intermediaries

astounds me. What would you do with the vast real estate industry

created all over the world to act as legitimate marriage-brokers

between buyers and sellers? Would you somehow think that you have all

the wisdom necessary to adjudicate and impose settlements on innocent

people?

MR. SPEAKER : I regret to inform the minister his time is up under the standing orders.

MR. CLARK :

It's interesting that the minister says government intervention doesn't

work, and yet they are intervening all the time, trying to help

property owners and tenants who are seeing their property values rise

dramatically. It's also interesting that he says this is a socialist

idea, even though it was brought in in Conservative Ontario.

have here an

article written by the Premier when he was mayor of

Surrey. Listen to this. Skyrocketing land values can be resolved

"...by

government through taxation, the best tool there is for stabilizing the

price of land. The price of land could be controlled to a large degree

by application of the capital gains tax at different levels: one for

vacant land held purely for speculation; another for a farm that is

being transferred from one farmer to another; still another level for a

home that is being sold because the owner is moving to a smaller house.

If a commercial enterprise or industrial complex were being sold but

the physical plant would not change under the new owner, yet another

level of gains tax could be applied.

"The tax

structure for capital gains at present is a very simple form. It could

be amended. It could encourage people to sell lands that are of no

utility value to themselves and thus cut out much of the speculation

factor. This would certainly diminish the horrendous profits that have

been manipulated through pure speculation.

"We

should not allow land to be used for speculative purposes," the Premier

said in 1975. "In a country like Canada, with its abundance of

opportunities, there should be incentives for citizens who are prepared

to work hard so we can retain this human resource, the backbone of the

country. There should not be the present system in which people can get

rich time and time again simply because they have money to invest in

land and are able to turn it over and over, compounding profit without

doing a thing for it. They have not added anything to the economy nor

to the culture of the country; they have not done any work or built

anything; They have not written a book or painted a picture. That is

wrong."

[10:30]

[ Page 8563 ]

The

Premier was right in 1975. Why aren't they doing it today? It's

absolutely clear that speculation harms the community. Governments

intervene all the time. The Premier, when he was the mayor of Surrey

and saw rising land values, called for a form of speculation tax

exactly like what we are calling for today. Yet when he is faced with

the most serious housing crisis ever in the lower mainland, when he is

faced with skyrocketing values and people losing their homes and being

evicted in Kerrisdale, he sits and says: "We can't do anything. We

can't intervene." The ideological blinkers of the Social Credit Party

are on, and they can't intervene in the market. They can't do anything:

"Oh, it's too bad. Oh, It's terrible. We can't do anything. Maybe it's

offshore buyers. We can't do anything." He knew the answer in '75. The

Ontario government knew the answer in '74. We know the answer in 1989,

and we will deal with it when we are on that side.

CONTROLLING TOBACCO ADDICTION:

A PROVINCIAL STRATEGY

MR. PERRY : Mr. Speaker, it's a hard act to follow.

a parent, as a physician and as a member of this Legislative Assembly,

I would like to address today a matter of fundamental importance to a

healthy British Columbia. Tobacco addiction — known euphemistically as

smoking — is the greatest preventable cause of disease, disability and

death in Canada. Each year 35,000 Canadians die prematurely because of

tobacco, more than the combined total from drunk drivers, all other

accidents, alcohol abuse, violent crime, drug abuse, airplane crashes,

suicide and AIDS. Smoking kills more than those combined.

Smoking

causes more than 30 percent of all cancers, including 80 percent of

lung cancers. It causes 30 percent of heart disease and more than 80

percent of chronic obstructive lung disease. For no other toxic

substance do we show such inexplicable tolerance, such mercy and such

cowardice as for tobacco; yet no other toxic substance takes such a

toll in human life.

Smoking can hardly be considered a

victimless activity. Not only is the individual smoker the victim of a

calculated addiction perpetrated coldly, callously and deliberately by

the tobacco industry, but environmental tobacco smoke is also a proven

cause of disease, including lung cancer, in non-smokers. Fetuses of

mothers who smoke are much more likely to be born with birth defects or

with low birth weights or to be victims of a spontaneous abortion. Our

provincial health system, straining under increasing costs and demands,

is victimized. Reducing tobacco consumption would free much-needed

financial and human resources to deal with pressing health problems in

other areas that cannot presently be addressed because of the need to

stretch resources and because of the prior claims of the tobacco

addicts now ravaged by the consequences of their addiction.

Taxpayers,

too, are victimized. We all, smokers or non-smokers, pay for the cost

of smoking through our health insurance premiums and taxes. Smoking is

also a net cost to the economy. The most recent figures show that the

total cost to the economy — including fires, lost productivity at work,

health care costs, forgone income due to mortality — far exceeds total

expenditures on tobacco products, whether to tobacco farmers,

manufacturers, retailers or to the government through taxes.

For

British Columbia, which has no tobacco growers nor manufacturers, the

net economic loss to our provincial economy is far greater. British

Columbians pay for the cost of profits earned by the wealthy tobacco

industry located in eastern Canada and controlled, without exception,

by foreign multinationals.

In B.C., legislative measures

are needed to control tobacco use. We need action in this province on

this pressing health issue, and we need action now, Mr. Speaker. That

is why I am proposing an eight-point plan to control tobacco use. Today

I will outline this plan, and over the coming months I shall describe

it in further detail.

First, we need better controls on

smoking in enclosed places. Many municipalities have implemented local

controls in some enclosed buildings and in workplaces, but in many

cases these bylaws are insufficient to protect employees and the

public. Some 30 percent of our citizens live in municipalities that

have no bylaw, even a weak one. This Legislature should show

leadership, Mr. Speaker, by enacting minimum standards effective

throughout our province both in the workplace and in other public

places. All employees should be guaranteed a smoke-free environment.

The

United States Environmental Protection Agency reports that secondhand

smoke is one of the largest sources of indoor air pollution. The only

practical way to eliminate exposure is to remove the source, namely lit

cigarettes. Tobacco smoke contains 43 known carcinogens, says the EPA.

There is no justification for employees to remain unprotected from

carcinogens pumped into their air space by tobacco smokers. Smoking

should be restricted to separately enclosed, separately ventilated

areas that are not normally occupied by non-smokers. As a model

employer, the provincial government and the Legislative Assembly should

go a step further and make our workplace completely smoke free. This is

a step some other provinces have already taken.

Second,

taxation policy for tobacco should reflect the hazards and the cost

that tobacco imposes on the health care system and on society. Studies

show that for every 10 percent increase in real price, there is a

corresponding 4 percent decline in consumption. Given the greater price

sensitivity shown by adolescents, the incipient addicts, a real 10

percent price increase would result in a consumption decrease of 14

percent. But we should be aiming for much more than a 4 percent or 14

percent decline, and if it requires a major tax increase to achieve

this, then we in this assembly should have the political courage to do

what is necessary. Others, like the physicians of British Columbia,

already have called for the tax on tobacco to be tripled.

[ Page 8564 ]

Third,

we need meaningful and enforced laws in British Columbia to prevent the

sale of cigarettes to minors. It is illegal — I repeat: it is illegal —

to sell tobacco to persons under 16, by virtue of the federal Tobacco

Restraint Act, a law passed and not updated since 1908. The maximum

fine on a first offence for selling cigarettes to children is $10.

Other

provinces have provincial laws, and it is time that British Columbia

did likewise. Because the overwhelming majority of smokers succumb to

addiction as teens or even preteens, the key to a smoke free society is

preventing young people from ever beginning. One of the major reasons

young people begin to smoke is their unlimited easy access to tobacco

products. Current laws are not enforced. Surveys in this and other

provinces show just how readily 12-year-olds can purchase cigarettes

from retail outlets.

Tobacco retailers need an economic

incentive to obey the law, not the present incentive to disobey it. A

proper deterrent, including maximum fines of, say, $100,000 for

corporations and the revocation of a retailer's tobacco licence, would

discourage tobacco pushers from continuing to flout the law.

Hong

Kong, Cyprus, Iceland and some Australian states have banned vending

machines completely from their jurisdictions. If British Columbia is

not prepared to take this step, vending machines should at least be

prohibited in areas accessible to minors. I leave to the minister's

imagination, Mr. Speaker, what more healthful products might be

substituted for cigarettes in those vending machines — perhaps fresh

Okanagan apples.

Fourth, Mr. Speaker, we need a

dual-pronged health promotion campaign to discourage tobacco use. To

begin, we must ensure that our schools deliver effective educational

programs to discourage young people from starting to smoke.

MR. SPEAKER : I regret to inform the member that his time is up under the standing orders.

HON. MR. DUECK :

Is it because the House is ready to rise that we finally come to an

issue where we agree? I feel practically uncomfortable. I'm not quite

sure whether I'm on the right track or whether we both are on the right

track, but I have to agree with just about everything the member has

said this morning. Of course, he's well aware of that.

The

member's got all these good ideas that what government should do is to

pass legislation on this and that and the other thing, but perhaps he

should go to his own profession first and say to his colleagues: "You

are the people in this profession. Why do you continue to smoke?" Even

the specialists doing open-heart surgery, who are saying that one of

the most important areas of prevention of a heart condition is not to

smoke, continue to do this again and again. They are chain smokers. I

would remind the member that his first homework should be with his own

colleagues.

MR. PERRY : Already done.

HON. MR. DUECK : Good stuff.

truly believe we should be treating tobacco like an epidemic; no

question about it. Tobacco use continues to be one of the most

significant preventable causes of death and disability in B.C. Smoking

accounts for almost 3,500 deaths in British Columbia alone; in Canada,

we estimate between 35,000 and 50,000. 1 have to agree with the

statistics. I have to agree with the thrust of what the member says.

However, while B.C. has the lowest rate of smokers in Canada, less than

18 percent, the number of teenagers who smoke is increasing, and

increasing by a great percentage — a 37 percent increase. Although it

is illegal, as was pointed out, to sell tobacco products to those 16

years of age and under, obviously the law is not being enforced, and

obviously it's ineffective.

I would like to applaud the

former federal Minister of Health and Welfare, Jake Epp, for his

persistence in getting the Tobacco Products Control Act through

Parliament, and also the Non-Smokers Health Act. So the federal

government has done some things in the area of trying to control this.

have made all Ministry of Health buildings smoke-free. At this time

there is no area in Ministry of Health buildings where smoking is

allowed.

Probably the most impressive performance of all

has come from the municipalities of the province. About 40

municipalities representing roughly 2.1 million people, or 72 percent

of the population, have bylaws making public buildings smoke-free.

Also, many workplaces in British Columbia are the same — about 1.6

million of the population. As long as an increasing number of

municipalities take this initiative, a provincial law to restrict

smoking is really unnecessary inasmuch as it is very difficult to pass

that kind of a law. But we are making headway. I remember not too many

years ago my wife and I went to a PTA meeting. It's now redundant; they

don't have them anymore. The subject that was discussed at that

particular PTA meeting was whether there should be an area where

pre-teenagers — this was junior high — could smoke. We don't consider

that today, so we are moving ahead.

However, in advertising

we're still showing beautiful pictures of the macho guy and the

beautiful woman, the fast car and the motorcycle. The tobacco product

is shown. Then we say: "Little Johnny, you shouldn't smoke, because

it's harmful to your health." There are many things we are a bit

schizophrenic on, because we say one thing but we mean another.

agree that we have to take steps to do some of the things the member

has mentioned. I've written letters to Jake Epp and Perrin Beatty,

applauding them where they have taken steps to control the sale of

tobacco or its advertising. Perhaps we should take a bold lead and have

our own labels on tobacco products, to stop importing products from

other provinces. There would be greater control in that area.

[ Page 8565 ]

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. I regret to inform the minister that his time is up under standing orders.

HON. MR. DUECK : Mr. Speaker, you do this to me all the time.

MR. PERRY :

I would love to have heard more. It's the first time I've been able to

applaud the minister this session, and I delighted in it.

AN HON. MEMBER : Be nice.

MR. PERRY : I'll resume and continue to make the points he and I agree on.

Studies

show that young people are not well informed on how dangerous smoking

is. My own conversations with teenagers and pre-teens indicate that

young people simply are not receiving the effective educational

programs they should. In Ontario, beginning this September, tobacco

education will be mandatory for all school board curricula, beginning

in grade 4.

Another aspect of a comprehensive anti-smoking

campaign that should be directed towards the population of B.C., is

substituting effective anti-smoking advertising for some of the banal

government propaganda with which we are currently bombarded. We should

extend this campaign to the pushers and require point-of-purchase signs

and display material at places that sell tobacco. This targets the

message directly at the intended recipients, the tobacco addicts

themselves. Every purchase of cigarettes is coupled automatically to

encouragement to quit the habit. Such a health promotion campaign would

be unprecedented in Canada and perhaps in the world. Its cost? Merely

that of printing the signs and posters. With implementation of a

licensing scheme for pushers, the cost could be recovered completely

through the licensing fee.

[10:45]

We need more controls on the packaging of tobacco products. This can

be done in a number of ways. One is, paradoxically, to require a

minimum number of cigarettes in a package. This would rid British

Columbia of kiddy packs, those cheaper packages of 15 cigarettes that

are targeted deliberately to seduce children and others with relatively

low incomes.

The tobacco industry spends millions of

dollars designing packages that are alluring to potential customers,

implying subliminally a connection between smoking and health, sexiness

or prosperity. Generic packaging would eliminate that. All packages

should be colourless and the same size, with trademarks restricted to

one small side. The health messages prescribed by the federal Tobacco

Products Control Act should be writ bold beneath a skull and

crossbones. The more prominent, the more effective.

Provincial

health warnings required in British Columbia by regulations under the

Tobacco Product Act should be strengthened and enlarged. The current

mewling warning of Health and Welfare Canada advising, "Danger to

health increases with amount smoked; avoid inhaling," is woefully

understated and inadequate.

Because B.C. is the only

province that requires health warnings on tobacco products, we also

have some ability to control the increasing problem of tobacco

smuggling. Smuggling deprives governments of revenue and reduces the

price of cigarettes, resulting in increased consumption. But with

tobacco products marked uniquely in B.C. — or, shall I say, branded —

it would be easy to identify products from outside of the province on

which the B.C. tobacco tax is unpaid. These should be confiscated

ruthlessly.

We need restrictions on the types of tobacco

products allowed for sale. There should be maximum tar and nicotine

levels which may not be exceeded. As well, we should call for federal

action towards a complete prohibition on smokeless tobacco, something

achieved in many other jurisdictions.

Perhaps most

effective of all, the province should consider restricting all tobacco

sales to provincial stores via provincial tobacco....

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. Under standing orders, the member's time is up.

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

The House in Committee of Supply; Mrs. Gran in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

On vote 27: minister's office, $327,244 (continued).

MR. MILLER :

I was dealing yesterday with the issue of the export permit granted to

Tsolum Timber. I wonder if the minister has brought his logs, as he

called them, and is prepared to discuss them in any more detail.

HON. MR. PARKER : Madam Chairman, I do not have the logs with me at this time; they'll be in a little later this morning.

MR. MILLER :

I would turn, then, to the issue of logging on private lands. There are

several scenarios that I want to outline on the issue. First is the

issue that has arisen in several locations around British Columbia,

where relatively small parcels of privately held land — some within

municipalities, some in regional districts — have been logged, or where

there is a proposal by their owners to log them, and municipalities and

regional districts can't really enact any regulation, or very little

regulation, regarding those logging plans.

I recall the

Metchosin example, where Canadian Forest Products was proposing to log

an area — and in fact did log it — much to the consternation of the

municipality and people who lived in the area. In this case the company

apparently went in with very little

[ Page 8566 ]

notice

given to the local residents. People in the area were shocked at what

had taken place. Even a resident who was a forester expressed in the

Times Colonist his extreme reservation about what had taken place.

Another area was Shannon Falls in the Howe Sound–West Vancouver area: a similar

situation where there was a last-minute attempt to try to come to some agreement

in terms of land-swapping, to avoid logging an area of privately held land which

adjoined a park.

Recently

my colleague from the Kootenays asked a question about logging in

watersheds up there. Again we have a situation of private land. All

these logging plans impact on people in adjoining areas, yet they are

relatively powerless to deal with them or try to regulate what takes

place. The only regulation that I believe is available to local

governments is in terms of erosion — in other words, if the logging

would have a detrimental effect from erosion and those kinds of factors

on adjoining property owners.

My colleague from Nanaimo may wish to discuss the issue of the Ladysmith watershed that has recently come up.

wonder if the minister has given any consideration to these situations,

in terms of regulation or empowering municipalities to have much

stricter controls, or the ability to have more control, over logging

that takes place on private land in these circumstances.

HON. MR. PARKER :

The issue of any activities on private land is not within the mandate

of this ministry, by legislation. The issue of activities on private

land is best handled by those agencies that are mandated to do so.

MR. MILLER :

Well, the ministry has certainly been called in. These situations

certainly add to the general concern that exists in the province about

logging and the way it's carried out and the effects of it. Has the

minister not done anything, not considered anything, not discussed it

with any of his colleagues, or has he simply said: "It's not my problem

and I don't intend to do anything about it"?

HON. MR. PARKER :

What we discuss in caucus and cabinet is confidential, but the mandate

is quite clear. If he'd care to read it, the member for Prince Rupert

can refer to the Ministry of Forests Act. We are responsible for Crown

lands within provincial forests.

MR. MILLER : Madam

Chairman, that kind of response and refusal to deal is simply another

example of the government's low standing in the polls and in the eyes

of a lot of British Columbians. Here we have an issue of concern to

people in this province. I'm not asking the minister to betray

confidences of issues discussed in cabinet. I'm asking him to discuss

whether or not the government has considered or has any idea of some

solutions to this problem. Or is the government simply saying to

people: "Quite frankly, we don't care about it; it's not our business"?

HON. MR. PARKER :

The issue has been discussed from time to time, and the Ministry of

Forests is responsible for Crown provincial lands within provincial

forests. We are not involved in private lands. I for one, respect

private property, and I believe in private property. I don't believe in

the socialist philosophy of continual interference in private personal

property.

Where there are municipal laws, regional district

laws and/or zoning provisions, that's a different matter, and if people

live within those, they decide democratically whether or not those are

going to come to pass. When people have decided democratically what

they'd like to do when it comes to restricting activities on private

land, then whichever ministry is responsible for enforcing that

legislation will take it well in hand.

In the meantime, the Ministry of Forests is responsible for Crown provincial lands in provincial forests.

MR. MILLER :

Well, it's that kind of response that we've come to expect — this

fatuous nonsense about private property. As my colleague pointed out

earlier in statements, we intervene constantly in issues of private

property to enforce regulations — whether it's zoning regulations or

whatever. It's a constant process that takes place with all

governments, and the minister has really betrayed a kind of

simplemindedness when he gives that answer.

The question

has also arisen in the context of logging in watersheds. Many

municipalities are in the situation where Crown provincial land in

watersheds is being logged. Again there seems to be a level of

frustration in terms of how municipalities and regional districts can

exercise some measure of control over that kind of activity. Again it's

seen by many British Columbians as simply the interests of the logging

companies or perhaps the ministry taking precedence over other

interests. Does the minister take a similar view in that kind of

situation? Do they attempt to do anything in terms of that whole issue

of logging in watersheds? Because it's growing. As we run out of the

more easily accessible timber, we are starting to access timber that

has been considered more environmentally sensitive. What specific steps

are being taken by the ministry with regard to that question?

connection with the private land discussion, I would also ask if the

ministry offers any assistance to either individuals who are going to

be impacted by private land logging or municipalities who are trying to

come to grips with how they can regulate within the narrow confines

that are available to them?

HON. MR. PARKER : The

member, if he's resident in British Columbia, should recognize the fact

that every piece of land in British Columbia is part of a watershed,

and when it comes to timber-harvesting operations within a designated

water supply, the planning process is long and involved.

[ Page 8567 ]

For

example, the misrepresented case by BCTV the other day about Stocking

Lake was a very poor piece of journalism. That planning process

occurred over several years with the town of Ladysmith, the Saltair

waterworks committee, the Cowichan Valley Regional District and our

ministry. In our ministry we maintain experts on staff, including

hydrologists.

[11:00]

In the case of Stocking Lake, which was substantially misrepresented

to the public, the operation there is an 18-hectare opening. It does

not affect any streams going into Stocking Lake, and the streams going

into Stocking Lake in the vicinity of logging are dry. So where that

activity was purported to have impacted on the water quality for that

particular water supply — that is absolutely incorrect.

Throughout

the province there are operations in all kinds of watersheds, not just

potable watersheds but irrigation districts as well, and every one of

those is subjected to a substantial planning process, and the

activities in these watersheds are such that water quality is

maintained and other interests are protected. As often as not, though,

we find in the irrigation districts particularly that it's not

harvesting operations so much as cattle-grazing. We also are

responsible, under our mandate, for Crown range, but the animals in the

irrigation watersheds often will concentrate around water-holes and

coliform counts will come up. There is no grazing in the Stocking Lake

area, so whatever is causing coliform problems in the Ladysmith or

Saltair water supply is coming from another source, and it generally

comes from some type of manure.

The planning process for

watersheds is one of the most thorough that we have, mainly because of

the other user of the resources that are delivered from a timbered

area. Probably some of the best examples of such operations in British

Columbia are in the Greater Vancouver Water District. Those activities

have been going on for... It's in its third decade now.

I say, they are carefully done and carefully thought out with a great

deal of consultation, and the operations can be done in such a manner

as to have little or no impact on water quality.

MR. MILLER :

It's typical of the minister to attack the press. The minister always

attacks the press. There's always someone else who makes a mistake, but

never the minister — constantly.

The fact is that in many

parts of the province where it's an issue people do not feel that the

planning process has been adequate or that the necessary steps have

been taken in protecting watersheds.

Moving to the larger

issue of private land, I want to deal specifically with TFL 46. As you

are aware, there was a serious cutback in the amount of timber being

logged in tree-farm licence 46 earlier this year — a shocking

announcement, the layoff of a significant number of people on Vancouver

Island because of that cutback. It certainly illustrated the lack of

planning on the part of the ministry with respect to the whole issue of

the annual cut and sustainability. In fact, it is a glaring example of

the mismanagement of this administration and its predecessors on that

particular question.

It should be significant and should be

something that the ministry is concerned about when we talk about the

private land within that tree-farm licence, managed forest unit No. 68.

Over the years that piece of land has simply been creamed by the

company. They have moved from an annual cut of about 3.75 million cubic

metres a year in 1974 down to about 400,000 cubic metres in 1989.

Here

we have a company that has been given access to Crown resources. If we

go back to the original principles of the tree-farm licence system, it

was that we would impose management on those private lands. There was a

trade-off in terms of private lands being tied to tree-farm licences.

That didn't happen. There was no checking; there was no control. We've

had a company that's been allowed to cream off the best, not to manage

for sustained yield, and the end result is that we've lost significant

jobs and industry in the lower Island.

By the company's own

admission, they overcut — they creamed. Mr. Neighbour of Fletcher

Challenge Canada, in their company newspaper, said: "First, there's

managed forest unit 68, which is privately owned by Fletcher Challenge

Canada and not subject to any government regulation regarding sustained

yield."

There are others, and I don't have a complete

inventory of all of these situations in British Columbia. But certainly

in my discussions with the people who are the most concerned about it,

the people who earn their living from the forest industry, they think

it's wrong that a private company should abuse the land in this manner.

They think there should be sustained yield practised on active forest

land, whether it's held by the Crown or held privately. The ministry's

refusal to deal with that has resulted in this overcutting, in this

laying off of employees on Vancouver Island.

Perhaps the

minister could explain why there has been no attempt to deal with this

kind of situation. If he refuses to deal with the smaller situations

which really involve more of an aesthetic consideration, why has he

refused to deal with the situation that is of significant importance to

employment in British Columbia?

HON. MR. PARKER : The

Ministry of Forests' mandate covers Crown provincial lands and

provincial forests, not private lands. So for the third time, perhaps

the member opposite can make a note of that and lock it up. It's right

in the statutes of the province.

As far as TFL 46 is

concerned, indications over the years have been that the forest

management on 46 has been within the terms of the management and

working plan and development plans and, subsequently, the PHSPs, the

preharvest silvicultural plans. The licensee, staff tell me, is up to

date for forest renewal,

[ Page 8568 ]

the moment there is an audit taking place, as we said we would do. It

is both a field audit and a paper audit taking place on TFL 46, and we

expect that report about the end of July. We will be making that report

public at that time.

MR. MILLER : Madam Chairperson,

the minister has a larger responsibility. We're talking about a major

company that has abused the resource in British Columbia, and the end

result of that is that people have lost their jobs. The minister can

stand here and say: "I have no responsibility in that regard; tough."

The fact that a company can take those private lands and do that to

them, at the same time as overcutting on Crown lands, which has led to

the loss of employment in this area.... It's shocking that the minister

would say: "It's none of my business." How they, or how the minister,

can characterize that as management is beyond me.

The fact

is that there are other jurisdictions which do regulate activity on

private land. They do it because they think it's important for the

industry as a whole, for the people who are employed in the industry.

So the refusal of the minister is really beyond belief.

Why

was the company allowed to conduct their affairs in such a manner? Was

there no checking, no auditing? Where were the Ministry of Forests

personnel on this issue? Why did they allow this situation to develop

where all of a sudden we have to reduce the annual harvest to such a

significant degree to become, in the company's words, sustainable?

HON. MR. PARKER :

Madam Chair, the member for Prince Rupert is way off base as usual. TFL

46 has been properly managed. The TFL 46 licensee in the past and the

licensee now have met their contractual obligations. Under TFL 46, the

issue of harvesting on private lands is not an issue for this ministry;

that's by law.

The closure of the sawmill here in Victoria,

the loss of jobs, is the result of rationalization of two companies

coming together and keeping the most viable operations going. The mill

here was designed for a much larger size than the company can realize

for log supply to that plant. Part of their losses for the sizeable

wood was a result of the Pacific Rim park. The timber that they

depended upon to supply this plant here in Victoria was put into

preservation It's there, so we can all see what used to go through that

type of mill. We can also see what used to be a mill.

A lot

of things have to be taken into account when you're considering forest

management. Yes, indeed, the manufacturing end of things has to be

considered, as well as the regrowth and the tending of new forests. The

licensee has met and is meeting those obligations on the tree-farm

licence, which is Crown provincial land, for which we are responsible.

The

manner in which they deal with their private lands is one that remains

within their domain. It is not under the purview of this ministry. I

would expect that their private land would be subject to forest renewal

as well as the tree-farm land, because the company is in the timber

business and they certainly would want to have their land growing trees

and not sitting barren.

The issue of loss of jobs in the

Victoria sawmill that the member for Prince Rupert talks about is one

that basically comes out of the evolution of an industry that is, like

everywhere else in the world, as the forest industry matures, getting

into a stronger reconstituted-wood industry and away from a solid wood

industry. We are fortunate in British Columbia. We will continue to

have a solid-wood industry, but the growth and employment opportunities

of the future are in greater value-added, through reconstituted wood,

which means that we must use a lot of the material that we have not

been able to use economically in the past on the basis of a sawmill

economy. We are getting into a much more vertically integrated economy,

and that's a matter of evolution. That's growth, and it began with the

Industrial Revolution some centuries ago.

MR. MILLER :

That's kind of a simple answer — a simple-minded answer, if you ask me.

"It's just a result of rationalization, " says the minister. He has the

power in the Forest Act, which he has never, ever exercised....

[11:15]

Here we have a company, moving from offshore to purchase two

existing forest companies in British Columbia, which made a commitment

to this government that there would be no job loss. That was a

commitment. It wasn't a commitment? If it wasn't a commitment, why

wasn't it? Why didn't the government demand that? Why didn't the

minister act in the interests of the people who work in the industry in

British Columbia? He won't do anything when it comes to major forest

companies. They pull your chain, Mr. Minister, and it's pretty clear.

This is a clear example.

Here we allow a major forest

company to come into British Columbia, make a commitment — we thought

it was a commitment — that there would be no job loss, and now the

minister calmly stands up and says: "Oh, it's just rationalization.

This is evolution." This is the evolution of the forest industry under

this government. The evolution of the forest industry is to see jobs

lost and the resources of the province put under the control of major

companies.

Why didn't the minister exercise some authority

under his act in this issue? Why is the ministry now requiring an audit

to be done? He tells this House: "We're in charge. Careful planning.

Don't worry, we're minding the store. We're taking care of business."

Now he says: "I can't really talk about it because we're doing an

audit." Have you no confidence in the work you were doing before, Mr.

Minister?

Interjection.

[ Page 8569 ]

MR. MILLER : Lots of confidence.

MADAM CHAIRMAN : Would the member please address his comments to the Chair.

MR. MILLER :

Thank you, Madam Chair. No confidence in the work your ministry was

carrying out? I'm speaking through the Chair; I can look at the

minister, I presume, without breaking any rules.

Why, Mr.

Minister, did you not exercise some authority? Why did you not, for

example, seek from that company, prior to approving the licence

transfers, some commitment for British Columbians, for people who work

in this province in this industry? What did you do — just say that

whatever they wanted they could have? Do you not think you could have

demanded some things that would have been beneficial to this province,

rather than allow a company to come in and say: "Well, we're just going

to rationalize. After all, it's evolution"? If the big timber is

running out.... We'll come to that too, in terms of what's available in

this province. What about reinvestment? What about new mills? What

about mills that are capable of handling a different profile of timber,

making value-added products? I note your comment yesterday. For a piece

of wood that goes into a pulp mill, you get the same jobs per cubic

metre in a pulp mill as you do...

AN HON. MEMBER : Paper.

MR. MILLER :

...paper mill as you do in a lumber mill. I don't know what lumber

mill he was comparing. Certainly not a value-added plant. Why didn't

you, as the minister responsible, sit down with Fletcher Challenge and

examine what they proposed to do? Look at it from the point of view of

the people of this province. Say, "We're not prepared to transfer these

licences which represent an incredible value, incredible wealth," and

say: "We think it makes sense. You've got an outdated mill here. It

needs to be upgraded. Maybe we need a new mill here." Why didn't you go

through that exercise? Perhaps you can explain that, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

I too have a few questions of the Minister of Forests. I have to ask

him first of all if he supports the NDP position that there should be

no logging on private land and that there should be no logging on

watersheds, and that there should be....

MR. MILLER :

On a point of order, that is not the position. It was never stated in

this House. We have never said we were opposed to logging. We were

talking about control.

MADAM CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, that is not a point of order. Would the Minister of Education please continue.

MR. BLENCOE : Tell the truth.

MADAM CHAIRMAN : Would the member for Victoria like to withdraw the comment he just made.

MR. BLENCOE : Madam Chairperson, if the minister was accurate, I wouldn't have to make such remarks.

MADAM CHAIRMAN : Would the member please withdraw the comment.

MR. BLENCOE : I withdraw the remark.

MADAM CHAIRMAN : Thank you. Would the minister continue.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

There seems to be a great view on the other side that they can use

whatever

interpretations suit them, but should anyone on this side

interpret their

interpretations as we see them, then apparently there's

something wrong with that. I heard that member this morning say: "Why

don't you control logging on private lands? Why don't you take away the

rights that people have acquired in property ownership? Why don't you

stop it, because it doesn't suit our purposes." I guess it goes clearly

along with the philosophy of the NDP that private land ownership should

not exist. It should be complete government control. Maybe the next

thing is whether they should be allowed to build a house on it, and

they object to that in other cases....

Anyway, I'd like to

get back to my questions to the minister: what if you in fact would

stop or, to concede a point, do a major reduction on logging on private

land, as the NDP would have it; that you would eliminate logging in

watersheds; that you would eliminate clear cutting. They have made it

fairly clear that the people are against clear cutting. I would say in

my liberal

interpretation that they also seem to take the position that

you shouldn't cut any trees that won't grow back to full size in five

years, because that creates a scar. If you did all that, what effect

would that have on the number of jobs in the forest industry? What

effect would that have on the revenue that is needed to support the

health, education and social services in this province if, as I would

see it, many of the jobs would disappear in the forest industry?

Isn't

it interesting that the member in his latter part was asking you why

you don't tell them to upgrade a mill. Why don't you tell them to build

new mills? Why don't you make them do this? But don't give them any

assurance that there will be any logs to service that mill. I find it

most interesting. I guess it's socialist philosophy. Make them cut

lumber that isn't selling, but don't let them put it into pulp which is

selling. I guess that's the socialist philosophy.

I can

well remember during the 1983 election campaign when mills were

shutting down because lumber wasn't selling and the NDP platform was

that they would spend $500 million to keep the mills operating. What

for? To stockpile lumber that nobody was buying? We have this view with

the logging industry — I guess, the socialist view — that when

[ Page 8570 ]

they're

talking to the loggers they say they will preserve logging jobs. When

they're talking at other positions, they say they will have no more

desecration by logging in this province. So loggers are going to keep

their jobs by not cutting down trees, as near as I can understand It.

The

big issue about private lands. I would like to ask the minister: what

effect would all this NDP philosophy have on jobs for the IWA members?

What effect would it have on revenue for the government? They put one

out at a time but they never connect them together. I guess you don't

have the luxury, Mr. Minister, of taking each one of these in isolation

and making your own case about it. You seem to have to connect it into

one comprehensive plan.

MR. BLENCOE : Through the Chair.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Oh yes, of course, through the Chair.

much issue is made about the private lands. I would like to ask the

minister if he could tell me how many sales have been made privately in

recent years to the forest companies, in order to give them the right

to log? How many private sales have been made? At least in my

experience, it seems that most of the private holdings were made some

years ago.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : He says: "Why don't you do anything about

the private lands?" Well, how many private lands have you sold in recent

years? Perhaps with that, maybe the minister can give us some indication of

how we can have a shutdown in all of the areas in logging that the member has

put out, one after another. How could we have that shutdown in logging and maintain

the forest industry and the jobs there?

suppose the other question is: should you not, Mr. Minister, force

those people to produce products that are not selling, just because

it's good for NDP policy?

HON. MR. PARKER : Madam

Chairman, one of the questions the Minister of Education asked was: how

many private sales of public lands and public forests to industry have

taken place? I can tell you that none have taken place. The disposal of

public timber into forest licences, tree-farm licences and timber sale

majors: these are all replaceable licences done by bid proposal and by

public tender; so are pulpwood agreements done by bid proposal and

public tender. There is substantial advertising process, substantial

public input process, and a public hearing process. And before anything

happens after that, there's a series of public processes. Nothing is

done in private.

The Minister of Education's concerns are

my concerns as well. The members opposite try to be all things to all

people. They tell the preservationists: "Yes, we endorse your

preservation tactics." Then they tell the unions — at least the IWA: "We're going to protect your logging jobs, and we're right onside with

you." They're so busy straddling everything that I think they're going

to high-centre themselves and may do themselves some physical damage.

I'm sure that damage will be evident in the next election.

The

issue of Fletcher Challenge and the Victoria sawmill is one where when

the consolidation was put forward to us about Fletcher Challenge

acquiring BCFP and Crown Forests and putting them together, they told

us at the time that as a result of consolidation, and solely

consolidation — and this is what was in their press releases and in the

message to the employees at the employee meetings — no job loss is due

to consolidation, but there would be subsequent review of how the two

companies blended together, and there would probably be some

rationalization.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PARKER : The member opposite does not care to share all of the facts; it seems to be his hallmark — partial truths.

The

employees displaced from the Victoria sawmill.... The last discussion I

had several weeks ago with Fletcher Challenge reps was that some 80

percent had been placed. Similarly, Fletcher Challenge closed the mill

in Lumby in the interior. There also they went to great lengths to

place everybody who wished to be placed. Some wished to take early

retirement, and the employer provided the necessary bridging to make it

possible in their pension plan arrangements for these folks to take

their early retirement.

[11:30]

Those are the concerns that we have in the Ministry of Forests and

in this government. We understand, from time to time, that a business

decision can be one where you establish; other business decisions are

that you have to close a mill. In each and every case, we are concerned

about people: the jobs , what becomes of the people and how they're

looked after. The efforts by Fletcher Challenge have been substantial

in placing over 80 percent of those who wished to be placed and were

prepared to perhaps move to nearby communities with other conversion

plants or maybe undertake a new career. But their employer worked with

them diligently and continues to work with those who are yet to be

placed.

The issue really covers the whole spectrum of the

forest industry. It's not just the majors. Small operators, from time

to time.... There are fewer and fewer, because that's the way things

have evolved in the last 40 years. There are fewer and fewer small

operators with what they call a quota or a replaceable licence. Several

of those, in the last couple of months, have asked for the opportunity

to sell their mill, close their mill, and we've reviewed those

situations in the same manner in which we reviewed the request from

Fletcher Challenge.

If there is employee displacement, we

are in discussions with the licensees in those cases. It doesn't mean

that because somebody is no longer working in a sawmill that they are

unemployed. The

[ Page 8571 ]

employer

may make it possible for the employee to transfer to another division,

if it's a major firm, or the employer may have a means of placing that

employee in a new job opportunity. Those are concerns we have; we share

them. Fletcher Challenge has gone to great lengths to place all

displaced employees from the Victoria operation and they continue to

manage TFL 46 in a proper manner.

The TFL 46 management and

working plan conditions and development plan conditions have been met,

the audits done by our staff have been ongoing, the reviews by the

chief forester and his staff of their performance have indicated to us

and continue to indicate to us that the licensee is meeting the terms

and conditions of the contractual obligations they have. And the reason

for the audit is to appease the council of Victoria and the IWA-Canada

local here in Victoria. They had asked for an audit and we said: "By

all means. The Ministry of Forests would be quite prepared to fund an

audit." The person chosen for the audit was one who was acceptable to

all parties, and he's had a free hand unimpeded by this ministry to

conduct that audit — both a paper audit and a field audit. We will have

the results about the end of the month, and following that we'll make

them public.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

There's

no problem talking about the audit or the circumstances on TFL 46. In

my opinion TFL 46 has been managed in a proper state, and the staff in

the Forest Service tell me that the obligations have been met. As far

as the audit is concerned, I'll be very surprised if we find anything

different than what our staff have determined in their ongoing

management duties.

MR. MILLER : I can understand why

the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) feels he has to come in

here and play defence for the Minister of Forests; the Minister of

Forests certainly needs it. But the Minister of Education is out a

mile. We've seen the results in British Columbia of no management, and

that is jobs down the drain under this administration. The minister

keeps talking — and maybe this is the direction — of reconstituted

wood. It's clear that's where they're heading — paper, paper, paper,

reconstituted wood. Never mind this incredibly valuable natural

resource we have in this province.

Stick around, Mr.

Minister of Education. I want to talk to you about countries that take

a much more intelligent approach to resource management; about the

Scandinavians who in fact did stockpile pulp during the term of the

recession and did quite nicely, thank you, far better than British

Columbia in terms of how they managed their pulp industry; about the

Japanese who can buy wood from British Columbia at double the price,

ship it all the way across the Pacific, turn it into finished products

and make a profit. And the best we get from this minister is

reconstituted wood. It's like regurgitated Socred policies.

MR. ROSE : That's a little harsh.

MR. MILLER : My colleague for Coquitlam-Moody says I'm a little harsh.

I'll

go back to the minister's policy of appeasement. We'll have to appease

the Victoria city council; we'll do an audit. We're not serious about

it, we know we're right all along, but we'll do an audit.

The

fundamental point is that the ministry was in charge. Let's go back

before Fletcher Challenge. Those companies have to file management and

working plans and the ministry is supposed to approve them. The

ministry presumably was aware of the level of cut and of the changing

profile. We give our resources to private companies and we demand

certain things in return. Where was the ministry in terms of the

management and working plans in saying: "Look, this log profile is

changing. Where are your plans for a new mill? Where are your plans for

value-added?" Where was the ministry in terms of those vital questions,

instead of this sop, this doubletalk from the Minister of Forests.

AN HON. MEMBER : Come on!

MR. MILLER :

Yes, double-talk at the time of the takeover. He attempts to

rationalize and explain away Fletcher Challenge's position. Oh no, he

said, there would be no job loss as a result of consolidation, which

presumably meant that this company would come in, take over two

existing companies and consolidate and there would be no job loss, but

there might be job loss as a result of rationalization. What kind of

explanation is that? Was that satisfactory to the minister at the time?

Is the minister saying Fletcher Challenge informed him there would be

job loss as a result of the takeover? Is that what the minister is

advising this House?

HON. MR. PARKER : I pointed out

earlier that the communications package Fletcher Challenge provided to

the public, the press and their employees said there would be no job

loss as a result of consolidation. Subsequently there would be a review

of the two companies coming together and probably some rationalization.

At the time they had no idea where that would take place, how it would

impact, whether there would be closures or whether there would be

additions. They were upfront about it, they shared that information,

and today we are seeing the results of their rationalization.

The

timber profile of the province is changing, and it is one that has

prompted the development of a substantial business in engineering,

engineering consulting and the manufacture of sawmill components,

particularly programmable machine centres and controls. Evolution is a

result of man's intelligence, and it usually comes from those who have

some sort of initiative and personal drive. It is sadly lacking with

the socialists opposite, because they try to think collectively and get

off on tangents. The progress in the world today comes from individual

initiative, from free thought.

[ Page 8572 ]

This

government has instituted a timber-pricing system that fairly reflects

the values of stands of timber as they exist in the province today. The

pricing is such that licensees and operators have to make the best

dollar they can from this expensive wood, and to do that they have to

look at all the alternatives. Each enterprise has its own business plan

and marketing strategy, and they have determined what market niches

they wish to serve. It is up to the private sector, having determined

from the general public what sort of products they are seeking, to

determine what will be manufactured and how it will be manufactured.

It's not up to the Ministry of Forests to tell anybody that they shall

have a certain type of machine that was manufactured in a certain

place, pay a certain dollar for it, and do certain things with it. It's

entirely individual initiative, individual being a person or a

corporation.

Individual initiative is what has formed the

foundation of this country and the foundation of the free world, and

now it's repairing the foundations of the socialist world. They see

that to succeed they have to get into the same sort of thinking, the

same opportunity for individual initiative and effort.

MR. MILLER :

I didn't realize the minister was a scholar, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps he

would write a book on the sayings of the Minister of Forests.

I'm

intrigued by the response of the minister that it's not up to the

government or the Minister of Forests basically to do anything. It

surprises me. We had a major royal commission in this province in the

forties — the minister rejects it at this point, but nonetheless it was

a major commission — which recommended that we follow a certain path to

gain certain benefits. We don't, or we shouldn't — maybe the minister

does — take the simplistic view that we simply give our timber to a

private company, and it's really up to them to determine what they're

going to do with it. We have a Forest Act that requires doing some

pretty careful things in terms of the company submitting management and

working plans. Surely, Mr. Minister, employment is one of the things we

seek from the exploitation of our resources. Surely employment is a

paramount consideration.

[11:45]

I repeat: your ministry approves the plans of the company with respect to harvesting.

We granted tree-farm licences on the basis that we would get processing. Why

did the ministry not, in terms of TFL 46, recognize what was happening and say:

"Look, we want value for our resources. We want jobs for our resources.

Why are you running that outdated plant? What plans do you have to reinvest

the profits you're making from exploiting our resources in plant that produces

a higher-value product?" I don't accept for a moment the ridiculous

notion that high-value wood products manufactured from the fine timber we have

in this province aren't commodities that are desired on world markets. They

are, so much so that Asian countries are buying our logs. Why did you not, in

the course of your responsibilities as minister, demand those kinds of things

from this company?

HON. MR. PARKER :

Mr. Chairman, the Ministry of Forests is responsible for the management

of forests on Crown provincial lands in provincial forests. That's our

mandate, and we do it very well. There are some 3,400 people working

in our ministry doing their jobs abundantly well.

Management

and working plans of forest licences and tree-farm licences are

reviewed on a five-year basis and include a very significant public

review process. Then we have the development plans that evolve from the

management and working plans, which are a five-year plan as well; but

they are reviewed every year. They include a provision for public

input. So there is a substantial amount of public input opportunity and

a substantial review process involving both the licensee and the

licenser — the Forest Service being the licenser.

We are

very much concerned about employment levels, economic development

opportunities and diversity in the forest industry in the province,

because they help to shield us from the cycles of the various segments

of the forest industry.

We have instituted a small business

forest enterprise program under

section 16(1) of the Forest Act that

espouses and encourages value-added opportunities in the province. The

pricing of the timber resource of British Columbia is such that

licensees must now take a very close look at what they're doing with

the raw material and extract the best possible return from it. We see a

trend away from commodity items, not just lumber and studs, and more

interest in highly value-added products, not only in the solid wood

industry but in the reconstituted-wood industry.

The

leadership offered by this government is substantiated by growth in the

number of jobs in the forest industry. We have statistics for the years

'87 and '88. There was a decline in '86, a decline in '85 and a decline

in '84; there was an increase from 1987 to 1988. That increase is

partly because of markets but also because of opportunities. The

pulpwood agreement opportunities that have been put forth in the

province and the continued vigilance on the part of the Forest Service

in the utilization of the resource have resulted in a growth in

employees.

There is a gradual swing away from commodity

items to value-added items and reconstituted-wood items. We see a

substantial amount of interest in medium-density fibreboard, which is a

product which is relatively new to this part of the world but common in

Europe. We have a good, growing opportunity in the Pacific Rim markets

for medium-density fibreboard.

There is an enterprise

that's looking very seriously at establishing an MDF plant in the

Cariboo, using waste wood and also generating electricity in the power

boilers and the steam boilers for processing the medium-density

fibreboard. There is another outfit that's interested in a

medium-density fibreboard plant in the Hazelton area, which would be

[ Page 8573 ]

significant

for that area because of the high amount of decadence and the

difficulty in creating any sort of solid-wood products from the type of

timber available in the area. It certainly is good fibre for

reconstituted-wood products such as medium-density fibreboard,

particleboard or any type of waferboard, as well as pulp and paper.

The

thrust of this ministry has been to present those opportunities to the

private sector. They've seized upon them. We've seen very substantial

investment levels — several billions of dollars — and we have some $4

billion of further investment indicated ahead for the forests of

British Columbia. That will provide substantial levels of employment

throughout the province and help to stabilize various regions of the

province, because it's very much a regional perspective that we are

taking.

MR. MILLER : The minister continues not to

answer the question I posed, which is pretty basic. We have a

government that views things this way. Along comes a major forest

company from outside of Canada or British Columbia which says: "We are

going to acquire some existing companies in this province. These

companies have enormous holdings in Crown land in the form of perpetual

licences. We are going to come in here and acquire these." And this

minister and this government do absolutely nothing in terms of laying

down some requirements that would be good for the people of this

province — absolutely nothing.

The minister perhaps needs to

be reminded about what is in the Forest Act under the heading of

tree-farm licences, the power that the minister has and refuses to

exercise: a company shall, if requested by the minister, provide "for

the continuance, establishment or expansion of a timber processing

facility in the Province." Where were you when it came to that? There

is roughly the same requirement in the following section, talking about

a tree-farm licence: "...require its holder... to undertake or continue

the operation, construction or expansion of a timber processing

facility...." You have the power, the right and the responsibility

under the Forest Act. Instead you keep saying: "Oh, don't worry. We are

in control; we know what's going on." But it certainly came as a

surprise to the employees who were laid off. They obviously didn't know

you were in control and knew what was happening. If you knew those

layoffs were coming, I guess you were just keeping it a secret. It was

just between you and the company, was it?

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

repeat: why did the minister, who has the power, fail to demand from

the company that acquired these licences protection — and, in fact,

beyond protection, greatly increased employment opportunities, and not

the general statement about so many billion dollars going into

investment? We are talking about a particular location in this province

where an overwhelming number of jobs have been lost.

Where was the minister? Why did you fail to deal with this issue? You clearly have the power to do it.

HON. MR. PARKER :

In the discussions prior to agreeing to the acquisition of B.C. Forest

and Crown Forest, discussions were held by previous ministers with

Fletcher Challenge. The concerns, of course, were employment and

investment and what sort of conversion plants would be put in place.

Subsequently, when I came on the scene, they were already in place, and

the consideration brought to me was one of amalgamation of Crown and

B.C. Forest.

I shared the same concerns as my predecessors:

what sort of things would be taking place? You see, I am Minister of

Forests for British Columbia, not Minister of Forests for downtown

Victoria, and Fletcher Challenge is a corporation that has operations

all over British Columbia. The discussions we had were that as a result

of bringing the two companies together initially — the consolidation —

there would be no displacement and no jobs lost, but once the two

companies were together, there would be a determination or

rationalization of how the resources would best be used, because there

would be conversion plants from one corporate entity and conversion

plants from another corporate entity, which were quite a bit different,

coming together — and how would they rationalize the wood supply to

those conversion plants?

The determination subsequently was

that the plant in Victoria and another one in Vancouver would be closed

and the wood supply redirected — because they were all net purchasers,

and they still are — to those plants which handle the wood most

effectively, and there would be further investment in their plywood

plant and their pulp mills and by addition of a newsprint plant in

Mackenzie. Where people are being displaced, the corporation would

place them within their corporation, somewhere in the province, and

they would continue to have employment with Fletcher Challenge if they

so wished. If they opted not to, if they wished to stay put and maybe

work somewhere else, Fletcher Challenge would assist to place them. And

where those who wished to take an early retirement, providing the

employer bridged their pension plan, they'd do that. That's been done.

Those are our concerns. The relationship between the employee and the

employer is handled under their contracts and in their relationship. We

do not get involved in between the employee and the employer; it's not

in our mandate and not our place. It's an agreement between the two.

continue to make job opportunities available throughout this province

by meaningful policy changes and diligent management of the forest

resources of the province. It's done by 3,400 very capable and loyal

employees in the Ministry of Forests and the people of British Columbia.

The

review of the performance of each and every licensee in the province

continues on an ongoing basis by the ministry. Any substantial policy

changes necessary are reviewed by the executive and myself, together

with my colleagues in cabinet, and the

[ Page 8574 ]

results have been a very stable and growing industry and a substantial growth in employment in the industry.

[12:00]

MR. KEMPF :

It's really interesting and slightly amusing to sit here and listen to

the minister's lament about the multinational corporations in the

forest industry, almost singing the song, "How Great Thou Art." How

great thou art indeed.

It was interesting to listen to the

Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) get up and feebly try to

support this minister. We've seen other cabinet members do the same

thing, not standing on their feet but sitting on their seat. It's also

interesting to see how many of the flock are here this morning to

support that minister and what he's doing in the forest industry. They

know what's happening, because they get it from their constituents, too.

was interesting to hear the government House Leader say that the truth

hasn't been heard yet. Well, let the first member for Kamloops (Hon.

Mr. Richmond) get up and tell us the truth. What is the truth, Mr.

Government Leader?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Pay attention to what he's saying.

MR. KEMPF :

Well, get up and support him if he's so right. We haven't heard the

truth yet — you don't want to hear the truth. That minister sure

doesn't want to hear the truth; there's no doubt about that whatsoever.

was absolutely astounded when the minister got up this morning and

publicly suggested what the audit on TFL 46 will say. That's an

indication of what's going on and has gone on, as I said yesterday, for

five decades in British Columbia with respect to our primary resource.

That's the kind of political interference that has gone on in this

province, except for a bit of a blip — and it was a very short blip

indeed.

It's interesting, as well. to see how mild and

collected the minister is, hoping to get through these estimates as

unscathed as possible. How many lessons were you given in caucus, Mr.

Minister? How many hours did they spend on you? It is so apparent it's

sickening. No foot-in-mouth disease epidemic in these estimates, please.

MR. LOENEN : Do I have to listen to this?

MR. KEMPF : No, you can leave. Or you can get up and say something yourself, Mr. Member for Richmond.

Madam

Chairman, a lot has been said about TFL 46 and the audit this morning,

and we've seen audits before. We saw an audit on the Queen Charlotte

Islands that showed quite conclusively that that company, MacMillan

Bloedel, was in fact making a horrendous mess of the resources that

belong to the people of British Columbia.

And what was

done? A token fine, if you want to call it that — for a multinational

corporation. It's not only on that tree-farm licence, but havoc was

created out there for decades — for as long as can be remembered. You

know, H.R. MacMillan said to the 1956 Sloan commission that that's what

would happen if the timber were not in public hands, and at some point

I'll quote those words.

What about the Gaines report on TFL

1? The minister has talked a lot this morning about management and

working plans, and I quote Harry Gaines:

"Because of a weak Forest Act, the obligations of the licensee

are restricted to those contained in the management and working plan. In the

absence of regulations, the act assumes the conditions written into the management

and working plan will ensure good forestry. Yet even if some commitments are

written into the plan, even these may not be enforced due to political intervention

by the Forests minister on behalf of the company."

And that's exactly what happens, Madam Chairman, all over this province.

The

minister talked about a good staff — and yes, they are; they're

probably the best, if they were only allowed to do their job, if there

was only a discontinuance of the political intervention from Victoria

into what happens out there in the field in the forest industry of

British Columbia. Mr. Minister, talk as you like and hope to get

through these estimates as quickly as you can, you know that that is

the case — smoke and mirrors.

If you were so concerned about

employment — and we'll talk again about TFL 46 — why did it take you six

months between the time Fletcher Challenge told you that there would be

shutdowns and loss of employment and when you came clean with the

public? You didn't come clean with the public until such time as the

story broke in the news media. Why didn't you come clean? And how many

other situations sit on your desk now that you're not coming clean on

with the people of British Columbia?

MADAM CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, I don't think that's a parliamentary remark. Would you like to withdraw "coming clean"?

MR. KEMPF :

Call it what you like. If that offends the House, Madam Chairman,

certainly I'll withdraw it. You can call it what you like; it still

adds up to the same thing, Madam Chairman — six months between the time

that the minister was in touch with the bosses at Fletcher Challenge

and when he told the people of British Columbia what was going to

happen there. Why? Then the minister comes in here this morning and

talks about the management and working plans, and says he has no power

to change them. The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) is absolutely

correct. I wouldn't think it to be the case, but it would appear that

the minister hasn't even read the act he operates under. He has the

power to change management and working plans at any time. All it takes

is some political will to change those plans; just a little bit of

intestinal fortitude. You'd certainly do it if it was a small operator.

You're doing it every day.

[ Page 8575 ]

go back to the throne speech, which speaks highly of the small business

enterprise program: "...additional opportunities to establish new

businesses...." All that has happened to small business in the forest

industry since this speech was read on the floor of this House is that

they've gone broke. They're dropping like flies, as I said yesterday.

It's

not just me or what the minister likes to call "the socialists, "

because I think even the minister knows, as do all of the people of

British Columbia, that they can hardly call me a socialist. They can

call me a lot of other things, but surely not a socialist. I'm not

spouting socialist ideals or philosophies. You can fool some of the

people some of the time, but you're not going to fool all of the people

next time around at the polls. Of that there's absolutely no doubt.

MR. MOWAT : Can I quote you on that one?

MR. KEMPF : Yes, you certainly can, Mr. Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain.

I'd

like to just quote from "News and Views" of the Canadian Federation of

Independent Business — hardly a socialist organization — from just three

months ago. They suggest recommendations to the government of the

province of British Columbia with respect to the forest industry. There

are three short recommendations:

"

(1) Control of the forest resources be kept in the hands

of elected accountable representatives, and not be entrenched in the hands of

major forest companies; (2) the government allocate at least" — get this,

Mr. Minister; listen to this very closely — "50 percent of the annual harvest

to a competitive bidding process, moving eventually to 100 percent..."

Where have you heard that before? Your staff has heard it before. They heard

it around a big wooden table one Monday morning about three years ago.

"...

(3) The government move immediately to deregulate the

forest industry, in order to break up an excessive concentration of power."

agree with them. That's my philosophy. It's not socialist. It's

logical, fair and equitable for the people of British Columbia, not the

multinational offshore corporations that operate here.

You

don't have to go that far. All you have to do is go into your back

bench and see what they're saying. Why aren't they here today? Oh, a

few popped up all of a sudden. The flock came out awful quick; somebody

opened the gate.

[12:15]

But

where's the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce), who on February

28, 1989, speaking to the Duncan Rotary Club, said: "I suppose the

other thing that we as a society in British Columbia should start

looking at is what level of corporate concentration — specifically when

it deals with a public resource — is a good thing. I believe in private

enterprise. I believe in the opportunity for the small guy to do what

he can..."

MADAM CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, your time....

MR. KEMPF :

"...and what he will. I wonder sometimes if the policies we are

announcing and the policies we are following are in fact encouraging

private enterprise." No, they're not, Madam Chairman, and I'll have far

more to say.

HON. MR. PARKER : Early in his remarks

the member for Omineca suggested there was a predetermination in the

audit taking place. It's an independent audit taking place on TFL 46.

There's no predetermination.

MR. KEMPF : Then why did you make the remark?

HON. MR. PARKER :

I can restate it, and if the member can find somebody who can read to

him, he can see in the Blues that I have confidence in the staff of the

Forest Service that the reports, the investigations and the reviews

that they've done on TFL 46 over the years have given us an indication

that the licensing of TFL 46 met all of its obligations. I'm sure that

will be borne out by the audit. That's confidence in the people who are

doing their job for the people of British Columbia.

He goes

on to talk about an audit on the Queen Charlotte Islands. That was a

waste audit. The audit that's taking place on TFL 46 is a paper audit,

in that it goes through all of the records on what was planned to be

done and what was done and on reconciliation, as well as a field audit

to determine exactly what has taken place on the land.

The

audit in the Queen Charlotte Islands was a waste audit. It was waste

that was accumulated prior to my time; some of it was accumulated in

his time. The outcome was more than just a token fine. Licensees had to

return to pick up usable fibre, wherever it was possible.

no time in this House have I said that the Minister of Forests cannot

change the management and working plan. He's wrong there again. The

management and working plan is a document that's dealt with by senior

staff and the minister. The management and working plan can be called

for partial or entire review at any time by the licenser. We certainly

did that in the issue that includes Carmanah.

He tells the

house that small business in the forest industry has done nothing but

go broke under our policies and under our government, and that's far

from the truth. We see the member for Prince Rupert all upset about the

Wedeene River sawmill at Prince Rupert and the way it's getting ahead

and becoming established; that's a small business. In Port Alberni we

see a family enterprise that's eventually going to be employing over

100 people; that's a small business. We see an enterprise going into

the Port Hardy area for processing cedar that nobody else would touch;

that's a small business. We see an enterprise going into the Richmond

area that will utilize and remanufacture and value-add to alder

products, employing physically disabled people in the process; that's a

small business and it's very innovative, and it's an incredible

initiative that we have a lot to thank

[ Page 8576 ]

the second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) for.

There

are small business opportunities in Princeton, in Merritt, in

Penticton, in the southeastern interior, throughout the Cariboo and

where I live up in the northwest. The amount of activity in small

business in the Peace River district is incredible. With the increase

in woodlot opportunities in the province, there is going to be

substantial growth from that standpoint. The opportunities in the real

growth industry — pardon the pun — in the province is in the

silviculture industry and the stand-tending forest renewal industry.

That has seen substantial growth in the last couple of years.

we see not only responsible stewardship but a good application of

existing policies, an evolution of meaningful policies, to meet the

very substantial future for people in British Columbia through the

efforts of the Ministry of Forests.

MR. MILLER : The

minister did say, in response to the questions on the audit, that it

was quite clear that he felt the audit was simply an appeasement;

that's the term the minister used. The audit was simply a way to

appease the Victoria city council. It's surely a disappointment to

Victoria city council that the minister has that view. If the minister,

still without the benefit of that audit, strongly holds to the view

that the company managed the lands well, that they did everything they

were required to do, I guess we come to the next conclusion — if it's

borne out by the audit that this is the case — which is that the

requirements themselves were faulty, that there was some deficiency in

terms of what the Forest Service required.

I want to go

back to the decision taken by the government with respect to Fletcher

Challenge's entry into British Columbia. I pointed out that under at

least two sections — there is a third — the government has tremendous

powers of suasion, of saying to companies wanting to come in and

harvest our resources, wanting the opportunity to make a profit doing

so, that there is an opportunity for us to in turn ask for certain

requirements.

The minister talked about a newsprint mill.

To the best of my knowledge, that decision was taken by B.C. Forest

Products before Fletcher Challenge took them over. It wasn't made by

Fletcher Challenge; it was in the works already. In fact, when I

discussed it with the head of Fletcher Challenge, he expressed some

concern about the decision. Had he been on the scene, he said, he

wasn't sure he would have made it. So clearly that wasn't a requirement

of the province.

The province didn't say to Fletcher

Challenge: "We've got these tremendous resources. Obviously you think

they are valuable; you want to come into British Columbia. What are you

going to do for us? Let's sit down and discuss the needs of British

Columbia in terms of jobs and employment and more value-added." It

seems you didn't go through that process. Perhaps the minister wasn't

involved. Did the government sit down prior to the takeover and discuss

and put in place a request for specific levels of investment? Did the

government sit down prior to the takeover and discuss specific

upgrading requirements for operating plants which would be controlled

by the company? Did the government sit down prior to the takeover to

discuss and put in place requests in terms of specific levels of

employment and alternatives or re-investment in plants where it could

be foreseen that unemployment was going to result — specifically in

Victoria?

Did the government do an internal analysis of the

value of the Crown assets that would be transferred to Fletcher

Challenge? Did we know specifically the value of the assets that we

were transferring to this company?

HON. MR. PARKER :

My predecessors and I all reviewed the business plans of the Fletcher

Challenge corporation and determined what sort of conversion plants and

where they would be investing in. Those are new plants. As to what was

taking place with their existing plants, that was in their business

plan.

When it came to an amalgamation of Crown Forest and

B.C. Forest Products, they had to wait for a review of the consolidated

company to learn what opportunities were ahead of the new amalgamated

enterprise, what that offered and how that used the resources of

British Columbia which were licensed to the two corporations in the

past and were transferred in the amalgamation. The process was a long

one of review and discussion.

Again, it's the private

sector that has to determine where the market opportunities are, what

they are, what sort of products they are, how they are to be

manufactured, what sort of equipment is to be used, where is the best

location to manufacture them and what species and grades of wood would

best serve those markets and those processes. All that analysis winds

up with the rationalization of where the extraction and the conversion

of the raw material takes place.

We have reviewed those in

depth with Fletcher Challenge. I disagree with the member opposite. The

final decision on whether or not there would be a newsprint plant in

Mackenzie was indeed that of Fletcher Challenge, the new owner of BCFP,

and they decided to proceed with that plant. They've actually finished

the first plant, and there's consideration for a second plant.

MR. MILLER : What specific level of investment was required by the British Columbia government before approving the takeover?

HON. MR. PARKER :

We had numerous discussions on the business plans of Fletcher

Challenge, and the revision of those business plans indicated very

substantial levels of investment and substantial increases in job

opportunities in the province. Those plans and goals were of a nature

that we could agree to, and we did agree to them.

MR. MILLER : In other words, the company simply came and said, "Here's our plan," and you approved

[ Page 8577 ]

it. The government didn't undertake any separate analysis.

While

I'm on my feet, it becomes very clear, each time the minister answers

questions on this, that he was aware that the Victoria plant was

destined to be shut down. Would the minister confirm that? Would he

confirm that British Columbia did not make any specific requests to

this company before allowing it to acquire these very valuable Crown

assets?

[12:30]

HON. MR PARKER :

At the time of consolidation I had no idea whether Victoria Plywood or

the Victoria sawmill, or indeed any of the plants, would be closed. The

Fletcher Challenge corporation advised me, as they did others, that

they had to do a complete review of the amalgamation of the two firms,

and then they would determine their plan of action from there. When

they decided on what that rationalization would be, they provided their

employees with six months' notice. The contract requires 30 days'

notice, I think, but they offered six months' notice, and then they

offered to assist to place those employees and to assist those who

wished to take earlier retirement.

The last information I

had was that some 80 percent of those employees were placed and the

Fletcher Challenge corporation was assisting the balance in finding

employment. The communication of their plan to their employees has to

be done by the employer. They did it in a responsible, public and

full-disclosure manner once all their rationalization studies were

complete.

MR. MILLER : In other words, the minister

was made aware by the company that there would be a rationalization and

layoffs would result, and the company informed the minister that they

would give six months' notice to their employees when it came time to

advise them. They didn't tell you where the layoffs were going to be,

but they told you there were going to be layoffs, they would give six

months' notice and they would provide other assistance plans to those

employees. Is that correct?

HON. MR PARKER : I was made aware of these plans about the same time that the employees were made aware of them — just in advance.

MR. MILLER :

Did it ever enter the minister's mind that he should perhaps do a bit

more? He didn't answer the second part of my question on the six

months' notice. Was that something discussed while you were discussing

with Fletcher Challenge their application? Is that one of the things

they said to you, that they would give six months' notice?

Did the ministry make any demands in terms of protection for British Columbia

workers, without knowing how many workers might be laid off, where, or what

their circumstances might be? Did the ministry simply say: "Oh, yeah. Let

us know. Or don't let us know." The minister just said: "I didn't

know. I found out when the employees knew."

that the attitude you had in dealing with this company that obviously

found British Columbia a very attractive place to invest? They

obviously thought that there was incredible value in our forest

resource. They came all the way over from New Zealand to buy out

existing British Columbia companies. Clearly the books show now that

their investment decision was a wise one; they're making millions.

Did

you not try to be more specific with them? Did you not try and lay down

conditions that should be met in terms of these employees? Did you not

say: "That's unacceptable to us. If you discover in your

rationalization that there are outdated plants, that's not good enough

for us. We want you to reinvest, to build modern plants. We want you to

put some capital in this province for the right to come in here and

make a profit off our resources"? Why did you fail to do any of that

kind of thing? Is it this simple-minded ideological position you have

that whatever business wants to do is somehow correct, that you have no

responsibility for protecting the interests of the people you are

elected to protect?

It comes as a real shock to me that we

have this kind of incompetence when it comes to dealing with major

players. They somehow seem to be able to come in here and just walk all

over successive administrations of this government and this party.

think we have to pursue this and pursue the failure of the minister to

deal in any kind of adequate way with the interests of British

Columbians. They are not your resources, Mr. Minister, and they don't

belong to your party, either. They belong to all British Columbians,

and you somehow approach them without that sense of responsibility.

Why didn't you do the things that I have talked about? Why didn't you act in the interests of British Columbians?

HON. MR. PARKER :

On several occasions this morning we have reiterated what has taken

place in discussions with Fletcher Challenge on the matter of B.C.

Forest Products and Crown Forest. The discussions were long and

involved with my predecessors and subsequently with myself, and what we

were concerned about was the utilization of the resources of the

province, the levels of employment and the levels of investment. But we

didn't dictate to them what that would be. We asked them what their

business case was; we reviewed it and discussed it. They revised it; we

discussed it. They revised it, and when we were both satisfied with the

business plan, we agreed. As a result, we see substantially investment

throughout the province by Fletcher Challenge, and we see substantial

increased levels of utilization and value-added by that corporation and

other major corporations, as well as small corporations in the province.

The

realities of life are that we have diversity in this forest industry.

There are large corporations and there are small corporations. Fletcher

Challenge is out of New Zealand. They saw fit to invest in British

Columbia, and invest they did. They can't take the

[ Page 8578 ]

trees

away, and they can't take the plants away. They're here, and everything

they've earned they have plugged back in. That's a matter of record;

that's auditable; that's real; that's fact. I know the people opposite

don't deal in facts; they deal in partial facts and convenient facts,

but not real facts.

The investment and commitment to the

province by Fletcher Challenge and, indeed, by all licensees in the

province is extremely significant. When you get into the small

industry, often as not it's a total commitment of just about everything — house, home, all savings and probably the wife's earnings too There's

total commitment, and that commitment really is reflected in all levels

of the forest industry throughout the province.

As I said

before, we have a very diverse industry. It includes major international

firms and small individual firms, and we will continue to foster that

kind of diversity and those kinds of opportunities in this province.

Madam Chairman, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

MR. KEMPF : Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, I stand on a question of privilege.

Following

remarks made in this House yesterday afternoon by the Minister of

Forests in which he alleged that my comments regarding the Prince

George timber supply area were based on information received from my

son, who is employed in that region, I wish to have it on the record

that his remarks were unbefitting the stature of this chamber. They were

totally out of place and unfounded. Let the record show that I have

been careful, in the extreme, to avoid involving my family in any of

the work that I do as the member for Omineca.

His remarks,

Mr. Speaker, have wider ramifications. All members of this House should

be able to carry out their duties without fear of causing hardship to

members of their families as a result of the work they do.

HON. MR. PARKER : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I'll quote from the Blues yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. There will be no point of order until the member finishes his question of privilege.

MR. KEMPF :

I have discovered since last evening that my son has been harassed for

the past while in everything he has done, and everything he has done

has been called into question. This information has been substantiated

by his colleagues. Is the minister going to vent his wrath on the

entire staff of the Prince George region? My son has been an exemplary

employee for the past 15 years. He is — or I should say he was — doing

work which he enjoyed and which he has wanted to do from the time he

was a young boy.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker: where does the

potential for abuse of this system end? Are Members of the Legislative

Assembly to be muzzled for fear of causing grief to members of their

family, or could it extend to friends and associates also?

seems fitting that on this day, July 14, the anniversary of Bastille

Day, I am taking a stand for democracy. You can groan if you like, Mr.

House Leader of the government, but I'm taking a stand for democracy

and freedom of speech, possibly also for freedom of association.

The

implications are horrendous. Do we go on to consider freedom of

association? Do we go on to consider family? Will family and friends

and associates of Members of the Legislative Assembly begin to wonder

if they can be seen talking to them? Is that the case? Is there freedom

of speech and association under this administration? I doubt it, after

the remarks yesterday, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rest my

case. Let it be noted that this member believes that no one should be

harassed on the speculation that they might be providing information to

any member of the Legislative Assembly; and that all members should

have the peace of mind to voice their opinions, and the opinions of

their constituents, with impunity to themselves and those connected

with them.

Mr. Speaker, I will table my motion, which I will move if you should so positively find.

HON. MR. PARKER :

First off, I'd like the House to know that I have never had the

privilege of meeting young Mr. Kempf; I have never harassed young Mr.

Kempf; I wouldn't know the fellow to see him. The allusion that that

member has made that I have harassed his son I find offensive, and I

ask him to withdraw that, Mr. Speaker.

Furthermore, he was

alluding to remarks in the House yesterday which I withdrew, and the

House record shows that those remarks were withdrawn. They were in

response to catcalls from the member for Omineca while he was seated,

saying what he knew about the way the personnel of the Forest Service

felt about the Minister of Forests; therefore I made the comment, which

I withdrew. I wish the House to know that I withdrew that comment in

good faith and out of respect for this House and out of respect for the

member's son — and I did that without hesitation.

I really

take offence at the suggestion that I was harassing his son, now or at

any time in the past. I ask the member to withdraw that statement.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER :

Order, please. I've listened to both the members on this question of

privilege. I will review the matter over the weekend, look at the Blues

and make a ruling on Monday.

[ Page 8579 ]

Introduction of Bills

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS, RECREATION

AND CULTURE STATUTES AMENDMENT

ACT (No. 3), 1989

Hon. Mrs. Johnston presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a

bill intituled Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture Statutes Amendment

Act (No. 3), 1989.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

Bill 75 contains amendments to the Municipalities Enabling and

Validating Act and the Municipal Act. It contains measures designed to

assist our municipalities in combatting insect pests.

This

bill validates a city of Vancouver bylaw under which property tax

penalties and collection dates have been deferred for businesses

experiencing particularly severe 1989 tax increases.

The

bill also makes provision for the transfer of the Whistler Conference

Centre and golf course from the Crown provincial to the municipality.

Under these special arrangements, the property in question will remain

in the public sector and consequently will enjoy property tax

exemptions. Operating costs will be covered in part by a negotiated

allocation of hotel tax revenue and in part by contributions from the

Whistler Resort Association.

This bill also contains a measure designed to help municipalities control the proliferation of graffiti.

Bill

75 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

SOCIAL SERVICE TAX

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1989

Hon. Mr. Couvelier presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a

bill intituled Social Service Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1989.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Bill 81 amends the Social Service Tax Act to address the implications

of the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision concerning the

application of provincial sales tax to interprovincial and

international aircraft operated in British Columbia. The bill confirms

that from May 5, 1983, social service tax is payable by all

interprovincial or international carriers, including airlines, in

respect of conveyances and other property used by those carriers in the

province, based on the proportion of their use in British Columbia to

their total use.

It also places into the statute the

formulas for determining the amount of tax payable by such carriers. It

retains money paid as social service tax for the period 1983 to 1989 by

those carriers, and it modifies — effective with the passage of this

act — the social service tax payable for contractors and others bringing

equipment into the province for temporary use, and lastly, it retains

money paid as social service tax by those contractors and others in

respect of equipment brought into the province for temporary use for

the period 1983 to 1989.

Bill 81 introduced, read a first

time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading

at the next sitting of the House after today.

TEMPORARY USE TAX

VALIDATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Couvelier presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a

bill intituled Temporary Use Tax Validation Tax.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Bill 82 also addresses the implications of the recent Supreme Court of

Canada decision concerning the application of provincial sales tax to

interprovincial and international aircraft operated in British

Columbia. This bill confirms that from 1960 to 1983, social service tax

is payable by all interprovincial or international carriers in respect

of conveyances and other p