1979 Legislative Session: ist Session, 32nd 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)

MONDAY, JULY 16, 1979

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

761 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 31). Hon. Mr, Wolfe.

Introduction and first reading — 761

Oral questions.

Schaeffer memo on 500-KV transmission line. Mr. Lockstead –– 761

Coal fields development. Mr. Leggatt –– 762

Skindivers and the Workers Compensation Board. Mr. Howard –– 763

B.C. Summer Games television contracts. Mr. Barnes –– 763

5-cent liquor surcharge. Mr. Levi –– 763

Brown-Ferris-Jefferson report on company capital.

Hon, Mr. Phillips replies –– 763

Price Waterhouse report on effects of taxation. Mr. Stupich –– 764

Matter of Urgent Public Importance

Use of Picloram pesticide.

Mr. Speaker rules –– 764

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Forests estimates.

On vote 117.

Mr. King –– 764

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 764

Mr. Segarty –– 767

Ms. Sanford –– 769

Mr. Lockstead –– 769

.Mr. Passarell –– 771

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 771

Mr. Lockstead –– 771

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 771

Mr. Howard –– 772

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 772

Division on vote 117 –– 772

Forest Amendment Act –– 1979 (Bill 22). Second reading,

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 772

Forest Amendment Act –– 1979 (Bill 22).

Committee stage, report and third reading –– 773

Education Statutes Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 19).

Third reading –– 773

Land Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 16).

Committee and report stage –– 773

Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Act (Bill 17). Committee stage.

section 2.

Mr. Lorimer –– 771

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 773

section 14.

Mr. Nicolson –– 773

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 774

Division on report stage –– 774

Third reading –– 774

Ministry of Municipal Affairs Act (Bill 25). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 774

Mr. Barber –– 774

Ministry of Municipal Affairs Act (Bill 25). Committee stage.

section 2.

Mr. Barber –– 777

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 778

Mr. Levi –– 778

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 778

Mr. Barber I –– 778

section 3.

Mr. Lorimer –– 779

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 779

Mr. Barber –– 779

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 779

Mr. Leggatt –– 779

Mr. Levi –– 780

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 780

Mr. Lorimer –– 780

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 780

Mr. Barber –– 780

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 781

Mr. Levi –– 781

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 781

Report and third reading –– 781

Metro Transit Operating Company Act (Bill 26). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 781

Mr. Lorimer –– 782

Mr. Lea –– 783

Mrs. Dailly –– 785

Ms. Brown –– 785

Mr. Nicolson –– 786

Mr. Barber –– 786

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 786

Division on second reading –– 787

Presenting Reports

Urban Transit Authority of British Columbia annual report. 1978-79.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 787

Ministry of Health annual report, 1978.

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 787

Appendix –– 788

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Visiting Victoria this afternoon are some good friends from Langley,

Mr. and Mrs. Nard Van Noort and their relatives, Mr. and Mrs. Ton

Jansen, from Holland. Mr. Jansen is the Burgermeester of Geteringen and

he is also with the Legislature in Gelderland, Holland. I would ask the

House to bid them welcome.

MR. NICOLSON: Also

visiting us in the gallery today are Scott and Dennis Banda. Mr. Dennis

Banda is MLA for the Redbury constituency in Saskatchewan, and is also

the government deputy Whip. I am sure the members will join me in

wishing him well.

MR. KEMPF: In the gallery with us

this afternoon are Mr. Al Green and Mr. Brian McGavin of Westcoast

Transmission, and I'd like the House to make them welcome.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I also have two friends in the gallery who are visiting us.

Interjections.

MR. KING: I certainly have none on the other side of the House, that's obvious, Mr. Speaker.

have in the gallery today Miss Terri Taylor from Salmon Arm and Mr.

Kevin O'Neill, both of whom are very active and effective workers for

the New Democratic Party. I ask the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest success stories in the Ministry of

Tourism is the number of free articles that we get from all over the

world due to the importance we place on meeting and entertaining

members of the travel press. Today it is my great pleasure to introduce

a special guest who has spent the weekend in Victoria, having arrived

Saturday on the Princess Marguerite . Please join me in welcoming Mrs. Caroline Seebohm, senior writer of House and Gardens Magazine of New York, to super natural British Columbia.

MRS. JORDAN:

Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to ask you and the House to welcome a

friend from Vernon, Mr. Jack Simpson. In a non-political vein, I would

say that he was the campaign manager for North Okanagan in the last

election. Please welcome also his guests, Mr. Bill Brooks and his son

Ben Brooks, who are from Truro, Nova Scotia. Members will be pleased to

know, I'm sure. that Mr. Brooks is teaching at the University of

Victoria this summer. I ask you all to bid them a very warm welcome.

MR. LEA:

I'd like to ask the House to join me in welcoming Pat and Lynn

Rutherford from the city of Prince Rupert. I think I'd be remiss if I

didn't say that the Rutherford family is originally from Saskatchewan,

where 75 percent of all British Columbians are from. The other 25

percent, of course, are born right here.

Mr. Speaker, also I

think I'd be remiss if I didn't say that the male member of the

Rutherford family went to school in Biggar, Saskatchewan, with the

Leader of the Opposition's executive assistant, Harvey Beech. So

they're all watching us today as they say: "New York's big, but

Biggar's Biggar." They're here today.

MR. BRUMMET:

Mr. Speaker. I'd like the members to join me in welcoming to the

gallery today two former staff members of mine from Bert Bowes Junior

Secondary School in Fort St. John. I say "former members" because they

are now on their way to a foreign exchange teaching program, and I'd

like the members to make them welcome. They are Dennis Youngberg and

Bozena Uszacki.

MR. SEGARTY: In the gallery today are

Richard Pinotti, his wife Pauline, his daughter Theresa, and his son

Colin, from Elkford. British Columbia. I'd like the House to join me in

welcoming them to Victoria.

Introduction of Bills

FINANCE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

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

a bill intituled Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1979.

Bill

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

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

Oral Questions

SCHAEFFER MEMO ON

500-KV TRANSMISSION LINE

MR, LOCKSTEAD: I have a

question for the Minister of Environment. I would like to ask the

minister if he has received a copy of the economic-justification impact

memorandum prepared by Dr. Marvin Schaeffer of the University of

British Columbia on the 500-kv transmission line to Vancouver Island,

which was commissioned by the Environment and Land Use Committee

secretariat.

HON. MR. MAIR: The report to which the

member refers is an internal memorandum, and I have received it.

However, it is not a document that I should or will make available to

the public.

SOME HON, MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

It's interesting, Mr. Speaker, that this report was forwarded to the

minister some three weeks to a month ago by the secretariat, and that

last week the minister denied any knowledge of this memorandum. My

question to the minister is: will he undertake to read this report and

table its contents in the Legislature?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is not in order. Next question.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Will the same minister confirm that the Schaeffer memorandum questions

the economic justification of the Cheekye-Dunsmuir transmission line?

[ Page

762 ]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Next question.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

On a supplementary, in view of the contents of that so-called Schaeffer

report, will the minister now agree to change his position and hold

further public meetings regarding the proposed 500-kilovolt

transmission line on theSunshine Coast?

HON. MR. MAIR:

I think I should make these observations. When I answered the member in

the House the other day I was quite truthful. I did not know I had the

report; I know that now because he was kind enough to give some advance

notice to my office that he wanted to question me on that. Mr.

Schaeffer, I'm told, is a staff consultant — not an outside consultant

— who is looking into this particular project and other projects. For

your information, Mr. Member, I am taking a personal tour of the area

next Monday. I do not intend, however, to make the Schaeffer report, or

any part of it, public at this time.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I

have a final supplementary question. In view of the fact that a number

of residents will be visiting the parliament buildings next Thursday,

will the minister agree to meet with those people from theSunshine Coast when they arrive here?

HON. MR. MAIR: Certainly.

COAL FIELDS DEVELOPMENT

MR. LEGGATT:

My question is directed to the Minister of Economic Development. Last

week he announced he had a firm agreement with British Petroleums in

regard to their

section of the coal fields in northeastern British

Columbia. Could the minister advise the House what the cost of the

infrastructure is with regard to that particular development?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

To correct the member, I said my ministry and officials of British

Petroleums had reached a tentative agreement which still had to be

ratified by the board of directors of British Petroleums and by

cabinet. I'll be happy to advise you of the cost after it's ratified.

MR. LEGGATT:

On a supplementary, can the minister advise the House whether the

cost-sharing formula with the federal government will in fact be 50-50?

Can he also advise us whether he has any commitment whatsoever from the

Prime Minister and his cabinet to share in the cost of that particular

development?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: As I said, Mr.

Speaker — and I'll elaborate once again — my ministry, the officials in

DREE and officials from British Petroleums have reached what they

consider to be a good agreement. It's based on a formula of capital

costs which has been used many times in Canada for providing

infrastructure or for creating jobs, and I think it's a good agreement.

When the board of directors have had a chance to look at it and cabinet

has ratified it, then we'll certainly be most happy to make it

available.

MR. LEGGATT: One of the recommendations of

the Mackenzie royal commission, when they did their rather extensive

study of the northeast coal situation, was that most of that

infrastructure could very well wind up for the benefit of the CN rather

than for the benefit of BCR, if Prince Rupert is used as the

off-loading facility. Would the minister advise whether Roberts Bank is

contemplated as the off-loading facility in this particular project,

rather than the CN? Also, can he advise if any of the CN Railway will

be used for transporting on this proposal?

MR, SPEAKER: The first part of the question is in order.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Well, part of it is yes. We're talking about the BCR being the starting

line and, naturally, as you know, in transportation circles the line

where the goods initiate receives the most benefit. We have done, as

you know, in the last three years a tremendous amount of study, and I

think it's time we all took a very positive outlook, because it's not

only going to be good for British Columbia, but it's going to be good

for Canada. We're talking about an international commodity. We're

trying to make some decisions; we're repairing a lot of the damage that

was done by that group over there when they were government; we're

restoring faith in the international coke and coal markets of the

world. We're moving in that direction, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEGGATT:

I think the minister doth protest too much. I didn't have anything to

say about this particular project, pro or con. You are coming to a very

fast conclusion. But my question is this, Mr. Speaker. The wildlife

resources branch has only done a preliminary study of the northeast

coal area. They've indicated that they want to do much more extensive

studying with regard to the value of the wildlife, the fantastic value

of hunting, and the potential damage to that particular area in terms

of a recreational resource.

Has the minister put something

in this agreement to hedge against protection of the environment? Is

there something in there to protect you in the event you've got studies

coming down the pipe which say no way, because it causes too much

damage to the environment?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr.

Speaker, I'd be most happy to welcome that member to my office and

explain the scene. He's talking about one particular area, and maybe he

doesn't understand that coal seam goes from Williston Lake right down

through to the Alberta border — a very large area, and one very rich in

natural resources. There are four different coal-mine areas there. The

one we are talking about is the Sukunka project, which, by the way, the

NDP government tried to buy an interest in and get off the ground; but

it fell by the wayside because they and Ottawa couldn't agree. We have

done more studies in the northeast than on any other single project. As

a matter of fact, we've studied it to death. We could build a railway

on the paper that has been used to do studies in the northeast.

MR. LEGGATT: My final supplementary, Mr. Minister, is: I notice you still haven't got an agreement with Ottawa, right?

[ Page 763 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I don't hear a question.

MR. KING:

I have a supplementary for the minister, Mr. Speaker. He has indicated

that there is a tentative agreement which is being considered by the

British company as well as his own ministry, and yet he indicates that

the costs of the infrastructure are not known at this time. I want to

ask the minister how he can consider a tentative agreement, and the

need for cost-benefit analysis with respect to job-creation, when the

costs of the infrastructure imposed on the provincial government are

not known.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I think

that I should invite the member to my office and give him a little

lesson in economics. You can certainly work out a scene in which you

share costs and in which you share the costs of job-creation within

certain limitations. You could certainly work that out because the

final portion of who bills whom for what depends on the amount of money

we put in. You can work out terms of reference on anything, and it

expands as the jobs expand. So you come to my office some day and I'I

sit down and give you a thorough explanation.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, I have another supplementary. It happens that I represent

the public of British Columbia, and I assume the minister does also. I

want to ask him why he feels constrained to guard this kind of

information in the secrecy of his office, rather than being prepared to

make it available to the public through this House.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you. Mr. Speaker, I don't think that if I did bring the information he'd understand it.

SKINDIVERS AND THE

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker,

last week I asked the Minister of Labour a question with respect to the

relationship of the Workers' Compensation Board to skindivers and other

underwater divers in the fishing industry. I wonder if the minister

could tell the House now whether the compensation board has reversed

itself on the constitutional question and is now prepared to accept the

responsibility in this area.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr.

Speaker, it's not a question of the Workers' Compensation Board

reversing itself on the constitutional issue, but rather the settlement

of the responsibility which we say is shared between the federal and

the provincial government with the federal Crown. That's an ongoing

matter very currently and actively being pursued.

MR. HOWARD:

Could the minister tell the House why it is that the compensation board

or himself, if he's the responsible one, is refusing to enforce and

apply the compensation board's underwater diving regulations which

apply to divers but which the compensation board is using to exclude

underwater divers in the fishing industry?

HON. MR, WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, no refusal is emanating from this minister or from this

ministry. That would be a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board.

I'm not prepared to accept that the member's premise is accurate.

MR. HOWARD:

May I ask the minister if he has been in touch with the compensation

board since last Thursday and, if so, what reply they gave him?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The answer to the question is yes. A reply is forthcoming.

B.C. SUMMER GAMES

TELEVISION CONTRACTS

MR. BARNES: I have a question

for the Provincial Secretary. Last week the minister indicated he would

take as notice some questions I raised respecting contractual

arrangements between the Summer and Winter Games organization and BCTV.

I wonder if the minister is now able to reply to those questions.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, no. I have the question as notice. I will attempt to get

it back to the member just as quickly as possible. I'm sorry. It could

be tomorrow.

MR. BARNES: I would just suggest to the

minister, while he's preparing to respond. that he keep in mind the

extent of time remaining before the Summer Games start. It is

imperative that we have some indication of whether or not he is going

to be able to resolve the problem in time for the B.C. programmers.

5-CENT LIQUOR SURCHARGE

MR, LEVI:

I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

Could the minister tell the House whether the 5-cent surcharge on

liquor, which was introduced in respect to the moderation program by

the minister's predecessor, is still in place?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

The 5-cent surcharge is not in place any longer. The 5-cent surcharge

was eliminated during the last modification in prices of distilled

spirits.

BROWN-FERRIS-JEFFERSON

REPORT ON COMPANY CAPITAL

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I would

like to answer a question posed by the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Leggatt) with regard to the

Brown-Ferris-Jefferson report, "Sources and Costs of Capital to Small-

and Medium-Sized Companies in British Columbia," commissioned in

September 1977. It was completed and delivered to the Ministry of

Economic Development in April of 1978, with a copy forwarded

immediately to the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

MR. LEVI: Is the minister prepared to table the report?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS : Mr. Speaker. the answer is no.

[ Page 764 ]

PRICE WATERHOUSE REPORT

ON EFFECTS OF TAXATION

MR. STUPICH: Price Waterhouse

is doing a report for the Ministry of Finance on the effects of

taxation on commerce and industry. Has the minister received that

report?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I just want to comment to the

member that this is the first question I've had in this session of the

Legislature. To be ignored in this way is reprehensible. [Laughter.]

have not received the report the member is referring to. I believe

there has been a preliminary report indicating the guidelines of some

kind of a study; but I've not received any report.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, just before we call the Committee of Supply, may I

interrupt the proceedings to report, as I undertook to report last

Friday, when the hon. member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) sought the floor

to raise a matter under standing order 35, namely, the decision to

allow the use of a pesticide on private land.

The statement

of the member is argumentative, and on that ground alone the matter

does not qualify for consideration under standing order 35. This matter

is similar to a matter raised by the same member on April 24, 1978,

which was dealt with on page 45 of the Journals of that year. With the exception of the reference to estimates, that decision applies in this case.

If the member wishes to proceed on the matter it would be necessary to submit the customary notice of motion.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

(continued)

On vote 117: minister's office, $115,544 — continued.

MR. KING:

Last Friday I drew to the minister's attention a number of issues

surrounding the allocation of timber resources in the province of

British Columbia, and specifically two very serious allegations raised

by people in the industry that the eight major, integrated forest

corporations in this province were guilty of using premium sawlogs for

pulping, at a tremendous waste in terms of the resource, and certainly

at a tremendous loss of revenue to the Crown — to say nothing, Mr.

Chairman, of the fact that independent operators have at one and the

same time been deprived of an adequate supply of the resource to

maintain their mills and logging operations. In the weekend Victoria Times

there was an

article indicating that the media had contacted people in

the industry and that they had confirmed that there was a constant

practice of using premium sawlogs for pulping. Indeed, the minister

himself conceded that this has been an ongoing problem.

want to ask the minister a question, Mr. Chairman. I wish to ask the

minister whether or not any sanctions have ever been imposed on any of

the pulp companies found guilty of using premium sawlogs to grind into

chips and in that way failing to live up to the standards of proper

utilization contained in the Forest Act — and certainly the standards

of utilization which the minister himself, at least verbally, demands

of the forest industry. I want to know whether he has ever imposed any

penalties on any of these giants of the forest industry.

asked the minister a question last week, which he failed to respond to,

and that dealt with the sanctions for trespass and similar infractions

which seem to be readily imposed on the small enterprises of the forest

industry in British Columbia. I hope the minister can provide some

information for me with respect to the kind of penalties which have

been imposed on the major integrated firms. If he fails to do that, he

leaves the impression that the allegations from the independents are

correct, that there is a double standard in the Ministry of Forests in

the treatment of the majors and the treatment of the independents. On

the one hand, the majors have the monopoly on the resource in excess of

their needs. They apparently have suffered no penalty for violation of

the standards which the ministry set up respecting proper utilization

and maintaining their annual allowable cut. On the other hand, the

small independents are desperate for material to bid on in the first

place, and second, if they seem to deviate from the rules and

regulations of the ministry whatsoever, they are subjected to very

severe penalties.

I'd like the minister to respond to these

specific questions, and I wonder if he has some specific information

for the House which demonstrates that, indeed, penalties and sanctions

have been imposed on the majors. If so, then we can take literally his

admonition that they are in fact going to have to manage it, use it or

lose it. It is a bit of a mockery under the present circumstances, Mr.

Chairman, and I would appreciate the minister's response.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Chairman, I advised the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke last week

that insofar as trespass cutting of timber is concerned in British

Columbia, all companies are treated in a similar manner whether they be

large companies or small companies. This is the case with all aspects

of forest administration of forest resources in British Columbia. I

know the opposition and particularly that member over the last several

days have tried to create in the minds of the public that there's

different treatment for the small and the large companies in British

Columbia. That simply is not true; everybody is treated as fairly as we

possibly can and in a similar manner. In regard to the utilization of

potential saw log material in wood rooms, up until the present time and

until our new Forest Act and the licences thereunder are fully in

force, there has never been any authority in the Forest Act to impose

penalties for using what could be a saw log or a peeler log in a wood

room. The standards of utilization, both as they refer to extraction

from a forest and utilization of those products, will become a term of

the various licences and that will be enforced.

Mr.

Chairman, as the member knows, there's been a very rapid transition in

recent years both in the size and the quality of material available to

the forest industry. The industry right now, as the member well knows,

has committed many hundreds of millions of dollars in adapting their

industry and industrial plants. I'm speaking of all of the industry

from the large companies right through to the very smallest. They have

adapted their plants to the profile

[ Page 765 ]

forest they now have to deal with. This has taken place very rapidly,

and until such times as fully enforced, we may have some firm wood

going into wood rooms. We will not sanction that unless there is

absolutely no way of the company getting around it.

For

example, the member mentioned Rayonier and using round wood in a wood

room at Port Alice, I believe. That's the case where we found the

greatest abuse of wood. That company even at this time, I believe, has

not completed its installation of a good byproduct-handling facility at

the mill. They do have to chip round wood. Most of the round wood they

are chipping now is pulp grade material. There may be the occasional

saw log mixed in with pulp booms. We're eliminating and they're

cooperating as much as possible, but at this time the problem still

exists. It's being overcome, and until the industry's adaptation to

what they have to use nowadays in terms of raw materials is completed,

there may be some minor abuse, but we do not tolerate it. We cannot

tolerate it on an ongoing basis.

MR. KING: Mr.

Chairman, I think the minister misses the point. These companies are

able to waste material, which is precisely what is happening when

sawlogs are ground into pulp for wood chips and for the pulp machine.

It's not only a loss of revenue to the Crown because they're failing to

utilize that fibre for the highest value, namely lumber, but at one and

the same time there is a shortage of fibre in the province. There are,

in fact, cutbacks in production by independent saw loggers who cannot

gain access to the material. The reason that these firms are able to

waste material and grind it up for lower value is because they are

sitting on an excess supply of the resource. For the minister to say to

the Legislature that he lacks any penalty is just absolute nonsense.

The minister had the authority under the old Forest Act, and he

certainly has it under the new Act if he has the determination and the

commitment to enforce it. He should remove oversupply from any company

that is failing to utilize it adequately.

That's his test

put into the new Act. But there are two standards. When in the face of

proven abuse by the big companies the minister stands back and says:

"Well, they're going to invest some money. They're going to modernize

their plant and will be able to utilize it better." The fact of the

matter is that they should never have been allowed to let their plants

run into obsolescence. They have failed to keep pace with proper

investment for modernization. They have failed to do that because

they've been sitting on a cushion of oversupply — known and tolerated

by this minister. That's why they can afford to be inefficient. That's

why they can afford to waste material.

This government, Mr.

Chairman, that says they are dedicated to free enterprise and

competition, are making a complete mockery of all those concepts. What

we have is an entrenched monopoly — further entrenched by this minister

and his policies — standing idly by and watching waste that is costing

the province of British Columbia millions of dollars a year in lost

revenue to the Crown, and which is responsible for the impairment, the

curtailment and the destruction of many small industries in the forest

sector of the province of British Columbia. The minister says that's

okay. The minister says we're going to give them time. They're going to

invest and modernize. Mr. Chairman, I suppose that's after they build

up their subsidiary plants in Brazil and Venezuela and those South

American countries, at the expense of efficiency in British Columbia,

and with dollars earned in British Columbia. That's what's happening,

Mr. Minister. That's precisely what's happening. And you're allowing it

to happen.

On the other hand, when it comes to the small

entrepreneur — and there are many throughout British Columbia,

certainly in the area I represent, certainly in the Premier's

riding.... A sawmill at Westbank has been crying for material,

indicating they are going to have to cut back and lay off workers.

Plants at Enderby that operate on the garbage of the forest industry,

rotten cedar shells, and so on, can't even get access to supply. And I

want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the jobs that accrue, even though

it may be 30 or 40 or 50 jobs in an area like that, are just as crucial

to the regional economy of British Columbia as the economic impact of

the majors are in centres like Prince George and the Vancouver Island

area — just as crucial. But there are two standards. The minister knows

that they have oversupply of inventory. He knows the inventory

conducted when the tree-farm licences were awarded, and renewed without

a public hearing, was not accurate. The Pearse report tells you that in

some cases the inventory was 400 percent in excess of what your

ministry anticipated they were awarding through tenure, through

licence. And the minister sits on this and says: "Well, eventually

they're going to modernize, and they're going to be able to utilize it."

the other hand, Mr. Chairman, one group in the East Kootenay,

comprising eight sawmills, became so desperate for a supply of timber

that they wrote to the regional manager and said: ''Look, we may have

to trespass on a powerline contract — a Hydro powerline contract — in

order to gain enough fibre to stay in business." The regional manager

wrote back and said: "The law will be stringently enforced. If you

trespass, the full weight of triple stumpage will be applied against

you." I'm suggesting that is a double standard. I'm suggesting this

minister is pursuing policies which are totally discriminatory against

the small independent operators in the forest industry of British

Columbia.

I recognize it's not precisely the same thing, Mr.

Minister. But the implications are quite clear. The big entrepreneurs

don't have to trespass: they have an abundance of supply. They are

banking for the future — the excess supply they are sitting on. And

that minister, Mr. Chairman, would be taking it away from them. He

should be commissioning new inventory studies to determine just how fat

the tenure of the large integrated firms is. He should be demanding

that the excess be removed from them and be put up through competitive

bidding for the small-enterprise sector of the forest industry in

British Columbia. That's what he is failing to do. He says on the one

hand: "They're going to do something about it. Eventually they'll

utilize it. So we're going to leave them with their rich rewards,

hoping that some time in the future I'll have all the data together and

they'I have come in with their capital investment and upgraded the

plant, and will be achieving good utilization." Well, the minister

knows the lead time for a new pulp mill. He knows the lead time for the

kind of investment we need to modernize a plant is two or three years.

That means that for the next two or three years we are going to

continue with a loss that some estimate will be in the area of half a

billion dollars to the economy of British Columbia each year through

inefficiency, through waste,

[ Page 766 ]

through failure to cut the material that is available for harvesting.

The

poor small guy is sitting there; he's getting promises too. The only

thing is, he's on the outside looking in; he hasn't got a supply. And

the minister is saying: "Well, eventually we're going to get our

small-business program into effect. We'll be putting up some timber

sales this November."

Well, I'd like to see that minister

and his colleagues in the cabinet go up and log the high-elevation

areas that he's going to put up for sale this November. That country is

closed down for the winter. No logging can occur at the elevations of

the only timber that is available up there until next June. I ask the

minister what he expects those small enterprisers to do in the

meantime. They're going to be closed down. They have a capital

investment too; it's not on the scale of the multinationals, but in

relation to that it's a very significant investment. They can't afford

to have their plant down all winter. They have an investment in trucks

and in skidders; they have an investment in all of the equipment for

sawmilling, which runs into hundreds of thousands of dollars, even for

a small enterprise. Do you expect them to stay afloat and carry that

kind of capital investment in idleness? That's what's happening, Mr.

Minister, and I am not prepared to accept your lame excuses that it's

all going to unfold eventually and everything's going to be fine,

because all I've had for the past year that I've been working to try

and assist these enterprises is vague promises. "Eventually we're going

to get it all together. We've instructed the regional manager to make

timber available."

Then there was the cruelest hoax of all,

Mr. Chairman — they did put up a sale of 100 trees, and that was a

salvage sale. While Rayonier is grinding up premium sawlogs through

their pulp mill, while other large integrated firms are unable to cut

their annual allowable cut because they have it in such abundance, an

excess supply.... This is an absolute crime and it's absolute evidence

that this government, when they say that they are dedicated toward any

type of competitive free enterprise system, is completely shallow and

completely cynical, because you are allowing a monopoly to exist. You

are aiding and abetting that monopoly. I tell you, Mr. Chairman, that

there are going to be small enterprises in the forest industry go down

the tube this fall and this winter in many areas of the province. The

thing that I'm afraid of is once that happens, they're going to have

one devil of a time ever trying to get back into operation, because

we've seen the trend towards increasing monopolization that this

government is apparently dedicated to.

I have absolutely no

confidence in that minister's ability to get tough with the big guys.

If that minister were going to get tough with the big guys and take

some of their excess away, he'd be making commitments on the floor of

this Legislature now. He'd be laying down firm deadlines by which time

they must comply with proper utilization, by which time they must

account for their failure to cut the supply that's awarded to them.

None of these things are happening. The minister just shrugs his

shoulders and says: "Well, eventually it's going to turn out all right."

think, quite frankly, that this is not only a provincial disgrace; it's

a national disgrace, because the forest industry of the province of

British Columbia and the forest industry of the nation is at a

crossroads in terms of providing a sustained foundation for the kind of

economic support that the forest industry has traditionally provided to

the economy of B.C. and Canada. We are never going to get on the course

of providing intensive forest management, proper accountability, proper

methods and highly efficient technology so long as we have a tight and

a rigid monopoly in the forest industry, so long as we have the kind of

monopoly which not only intimidates any competition but apparently

intimidates that minister and prevents him from just applying sound

business practices.

That's what we're asking for. It's not a

matter of political philosophy. He doesn't have to look across the

floor and say: "Well, this is an issue between the socialists and us."

It's not even that. It's a matter of some sound business principles

being applied to the forest industry. It's a matter of injecting some

good old-fashioned competition so that in fact nobody sits on a firm

supply of 100 percent of their requirements — much less in excess of

that — so that there is some vestige of competition for the fibre, and

so that there is a log market that they have to compete on to establish

the proper worth, the proper value, of a saw log. Even those values are

artificial and arbitrarily established by the ministry. I have no

grounds thus far to believe and to accept that there's any high degree

of competence in devising that formula and applying it, any more than

has been demonstrated in the rest of the administration of the forest

ministry.

Mr. Chairman, I don't know what else to say on

this issue. I've tried to get it across to the minister, and the

minister can't shrug it off because these are just my facts. It's not

just my idea. This is the information that I am getting from all over

the province, from within the industry and from within your own

ministry. People are so disenchanted, so cynical, about the lack of any

political direction, about the lack of any firmness in terms of a

commitment to break up that monopoly, that they are writing and

complaining to the opposition.

I despair of making any

headway under that minister's tenure. I hope that the Premier and the

colleagues of the minister, who only have to check with some of their

own constituents to determine whether the charges that I have made in

this Legislature are true or not, will bring some pressure to bear to

perhaps change the minister. I think it would be the humane thing to do

on the minister's behalf, as well as on behalf of the people of British

Columbia.

I'm going to leave it at that, and I don't know

whether the minister intends to reply or not. I have a number of other

things to bring up which are certainly not as fundamental to the ills

of the forest industry as the points I have been making.

ask the minister one last time whether he will table in this House the

Thomson report. You know, we have a Catch-22 situation going. He says

the Thomson report was commissioned by the Truck Loggers Association. I

know that's a fact. But the Truck Loggers Association asked for access

to the minister's ministry records with respect to certain information.

It's my understanding that they are not prepared to release that

Thomson report without the specific authority of the minister. I

presume that's a courtesy. I believe that's appropriate. But certainly

the Truck Loggers Association has no objection to the release of the

Thomson report, which will either repudiate the things that I have been

saying, Mr. Chairman, or will validate them. It will either repudiate

them or validate them because it was that

[ Page 767 ]

kind of study of the inventory and the annual allowable cut of certain key industries in the province.

ask the minister whether he will kindly contact the Truck Loggers

Association and ask them this simple question: do you have any

objection to my tabling a copy of the Thomson report in the

Legislature? He's the minister of the Crown in this regard. He didn't

even have to pay for the report, but since they are extending him the

courtesy of not releasing the report until they have his authority, I

think that he should do that. That's the least he can do. I ask the

minister if he will undertake, in consultation with the Truck Loggers

Association, to table a copy of the Thomson report in this legislature.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Chairman, I advised that member for Shuswap-Revelstoke last week

that the so-called Thomson report is a report commissioned by and paid

for by the truck loggers. Tommy Thomson, the consultant who did the

report, was provided access to Forest Service files. These files are

open to anyone who has an interest in them; there's nothing secret

about our files. We're running an open Forest Service. If the truck

loggers wish to release that report, that's their decision to make.

It's not my report; it's their report. They are free to do with it

whatever they wish.

Mr. Chairman, just a few comments on the

member's fourth rehash of the speech he gave early last week. He's been

going over the same ground again and again. I have told him constantly

that we, for the first time in the history of British Columbia, now

have a way of granting access to small businesses without competition

by the larger firms. We have a small-business program. That

small-business program is ready to be implemented. It will be fully

implemented as soon as we pass to the Forest Amendment Act.

Mr.

Chairman, during the first three-quarters of this current decade, the

forest industry has been very anxious to get on with modernizing,

especially their coastal plant. Their Interior plant is quite modern,

but there were a large number of projects ready to be kicked off so

that industry would not have got into the rather sad state it did get

into on the coast during the early part of this decade. But that

industry was faced with the prospect of nationalization earlier in this

decade. Many of these programs and plans which are on the table and

ready to be started at that time were put on the back burner pending

the removal from government of the party which now sits in opposition.

These plants would have been ready now and would have been as modern as

any in the world, had they felt they were being prudent as businessmen

in going ahead with such modernization in the face of nationalization,

which they were faced with at that time.

Mr. Chairman, I

will just say once again that there is no difference in the way any

size of company is treated in this industry. For the first time the

small-business sector has a great deal of protection of their access to

Crown timber. It's the first time ever, including the period of time

when that party was in government.

MR. SEGARTY: I'm

no match for the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) when it comes

to public speaking and his 20 years' experience in the Legislature.

But

there has been much debate in recent days on the performance of the

industry in the East Kootenays. I'm generally pleased and excited about

the long-term beneficial effects of the new legislation. Many of the

recommendations made by the forest industry in the East Kootenays to

the royal commission and to the Forest Policy Advisory Committee are in

this new legislation. The legislation has eliminated to a considerable

extent the concerns the industry has had about the fact that their

tenures were expiring with no guidelines in place for renewal. Needless

to say, this was playing havoc with the long-term planning and

management of timber supply, which is so vital to a healthy industry

and long-term security for the employees in the industry.

would like to commend the Minister of Forests for writing the Act in

I've identified some potential problem areas, which I will discuss

briefly.

The Forest Act regulations and implementation of

this legislation by the Forest Service and by industry are of major

concern. No matter how good the legislation. It won't work unless it is

accepted and implemented by the Forest Service and by industry staff.

Each must assume responsibility for doing their job and knowing their

job, and must be accountable for doing their job.

leadership in the field of intensive forestry has been shown in the

Interior. We need Interior guidelines administered by the Interior. In

fact, some Forest Service officials fail to recognize the beneficial

effect on yield of this vital field of forestry. The forest industry

will have to ensure that it maintains adequately trained staff to

ensure compliance with the legislation. As logging involves the removal

of old crops and replacing them with new, we must learn to log on both

an economic and an environmental basis, guaranteeing rapid

reforestation.

The new Forest Act goes a long way towards

cutting out old attitudes by promoting a partnership in forest

management. In other words, a team approach by the many users of the

forest is essential. When you consider that industry is responsible for

executing plans for management of the forest, it is essential that it

be involved in the planning process. Decentralization of the Forest

Service, when fully implemented, will be a tremendous step ahead. We

should then be able to get on with the job and eliminate the

duplication and distrust on all sides that has been far too common.

The

industry is pleased with the length of various tenures and their

renewal on an evergreen basis. They accept the fact that they must

manage the forest resource, use it or lose it. They have a heavy

capital commitment and long-term obligation to their employees. Timber

supply areas are a new concept to the industry, but they would like to

see the public sustained yield units incorporated into supply blocks.

Their prime concern is that the larger the unit the longer it takes for

corrective action. The Kootenays are a nightmare in determining the

least possible cost to competing centres because of the long, narrow

valleys and the long history of plant development in scattered

communities. All those variables must be taken into account before

setting PSYU boundaries.

Tree-farm licences have received

recognition in the new Forest Act and can continue high standards of

forestry, which in many cases are highly acceptable by international

standards.

The Kootenays is one of the areas in the world of

heaviest environmental conflict. Vast areas of timberland and years of

intensive planning have vanished overnight.

[ Page 768 ]

Firm

commitment to multiple use is an important part of this legislation. In

fact, the Akamina-Kishinena drainage in the Flathead and area at the

head of the Goat River would never have been taken out of forest

management without this commitment. The commitment to the establishment

of a provincial forest is also a major step ahead. I believe that if

those forests had been in place in 1973-74 we would never have had the

massive withdrawals in the forest industry. Socio-economic studies

would have resulted in the protection of unique areas, while ensuring

multiple use.

Because of our tight timber supply in the

Kootenays, the only method of maintaining plants at current capacity is

through the implementation of an intensive forest program as soon as

possible. There are large areas of immature timber which lend

themselves to pre-commercial thinning; but, as made clear earlier, we

need direction and guidelines from the Forest Service. I hope a new

intensive program will be announced shortly by the minister. My concern

is that it be tied to geographical areas so that companies practising

intensive forestry will receive the benefits, not those who refuse to

practise.

Mountain pine beetle attacks have been ravaging

lodge pole pine stands for several years, and all companies in the

Kootenays are adversely affected.

There has been much

discussion in this debate about the big multinational corporations and

foreign ownership. In the Kootenays we have eight tie mills operating

on private lands without quotas. We have 18 small operators operating

without quotas, and 20 operating with quotas. The 20 operating with

quotas are Wynndel Box and Lumber Co. operating out of Creston, locally

and Canadian-owned; J. H. Huscroft, locally owned; Kootenay Forest

Products, locally owned; Aqua Lumber Co., B.C.- and Canadian-owned;

Louisiana Pacific, American owned; I and A Sawmills, Canadian owned;

Hadikin Bros., Canadian-owned; Kalesnikoff Lumbering, locally owned;

Columbia Cellulose, British Columbia-owned; Crestbrook Forest

Industries, 50 percent Canadian-owned, 50 percent foreign-owned; FabCo,

operating from Kimberley, locally owned; Crows Nest Industries, owned

by Canadian Shell; Galloway Lumber Co., operating from Galloway,

locally owned; Revelstoke Sawmill, operating in Radium, locally owned;

Brisco Sawmills, Canadian-owned; North Star Planers, Canadian owned;

Evans Products, American-owned; Stand Bros., Canadian-owned; Grasmere

Industries, British Columbia owned; McDonald's Ranch and Lumber Co.,

locally owned.

Out of the 20 companies operating with quotas

in the Kootenays, two are American-owned and one is 50 percent

foreign-owned. All of those companies operating in the Kootenays are

small in comparison to the giants operating in the lower mainland.

The

state of the industry in the East Kootenay is not what we've been led

to believe in the last few days in this Legislature. It is gratifying

to see those mills locally owned and operated by British Columbians.

The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) discussed the possibility

of issuing new quotas in the Creston PSYU, and I would like to draw his

attention to a report submitted to the regional manager of the Forest

Service in Nelson. This report was signed by representatives of the

Wynndel Box and Lumber Co., Kootenay Forest Products, Huscroft Logging

Co. and Crestbrook Forest Industries.

The report took two

years to complete and is estimated to have cost $200,000. It outlines

the 20-year harvesting plan for the Creston public sustained yield

units, and I would suggest strongly that you read this report in its

entirety. It was put together by professional people. The handing out

of additional quotas in the Creston PSYU would not be in the best

long-term interests of the community whose livelihood depends on a

viable industry, nor would it be in the interests of those people whose

present security is tied down to long-term employment in the industry.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, the Creston PSYU is already over

committed, as reported in the Nelson Daily News

going back to February 15, 1978, and January 16, 1978. I'm sure the

member reads the local newspaper. In fact, I would like to know which

of those locally owned companies the member for Nelson-Creston would

like to take part of their quotas. Would he take it away from the

Wynndel Box and Lumber Co., which is small and operated locally in

Wynndel, or would he take it away from Kootenay Forest Products, who

have hundreds of employees in the community of Nelson whose livelihood

depends on the viability of the industry in that community?

Mr.

Chairman, on one hand we're locking up large parcels of forest land for

single use such as the Purcell conservancy and the Mount Assiniboine

Park extension. We will be giving up productive forest lands for

agriculture and mining activities in the Kootenays. There is no way we

can do all of those things on increased quotas. We have the

responsibility as government to secure to those people who are relying

on their quotas.... They have a responsibility to their employees, and

have invested heavily in the industry. As long as they're responsible

users of the forest they should be allowed to maintain their quotas,

and increase where possible the small quota holders such as McDonald's

Ranch and Grasmere Industries.

There is a new era of

cooperation between small companies and large companies operating in

the Kootenays. Large companies and small companies are working together

to achieve total utilization of the forest products. Just recently

Kootenay Wood Preservers opened a new plant in Cranbrook employing 30

people. This was done with the help and cooperation of the Minister of

Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and the Minister of Forests

(Hon. Mr. Waterland). A lot of study was done by Kootenay Wood

Preservers before they invested half a million dollars in this new

operation. I would like to read to you a

section from that report:

"It is our commitment to work with the established forest

companies in maintaining high standards of forest utilization without infringement

on the raw material requirements of the established companies. Kootenay Seed

Tree, operating in Cranbrook with ten employees, has an arrangement with Crows

Nest Industries to utilize their cedar shells because it's uneconomical

for them to mill."

Mr.

Chairman, we are seeing more and more of this type of cooperation in

the industry in the East Kootenays. Big and small companies are working

together to make the best use of this very important resource. We must

all work together to increase the security and long-term employment of

the workers of British Columbia.

Sure, it is politically

expedient to stand up here and say: "Anyone who applies for a quota,

let's give it to them." We could log the forests off in a few years.

Then what

[ Page 769 ]

would

we do? We are all in this together. We must work together —

environmentalists, ranchers, farmers, sportsmen, wilderness area

representatives, union leaders, government and industry. We must all

make decisions that will be in the best interests of British Columbians

— that will provide long-term employment for British Columbia workers —

and not in the interests of a selfish few.

MS. SANFORD:

Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of brief questions to pose to the

minister which relate to a problem which has arisen within my own

constituency. The question relates to the issuing of burning permits. A

few years ago the Forest Service up in the Parksville area issued

burning permits but have since decided that they will no longer do so.

The reason they've given is that because there is a local volunteer

fire department in existence and because that fire department is

receiving funding through the regional district of Nanaimo it is up to

the local fire department to issue the burning permits as well. The

Forest Service, of course, will come in and help the fire department

put out any fire that gets out of control — this is on private land —

but will no longer issue these burning permits.

The problem

is that the local volunteer firemen must give up their time and energy,

as well as incurring the costs of car upkeep and gasoline and

everything else, in order to drive all over the place and inspect the

various requests for burning permits on private land. They have refused

to issue the burning permits. As a result, no one in the area is able

to get a burning permit, and they are simply sent back and forth

between the volunteer fire group and the Forest Service. There is a

problem here because

section 123 of the new Act provides that if a fire

gets out of control then the Forest Service can charge the individuals

involved in the fire getting out of control. In other words, those

people who have allowed a fire to get out of control, whether it is

through their fault or not, can be charged under

section 123, and the

costs that have incurred to the Forest Service can be placed against

the individuals involved.

The fire departments have some

concern about their legal standing. If they issue a permit and the fire

gets out of control and the Forest Service is called in order to assist

in putting that fire out, the Forest Service can then attempt to charge

the costs against the individual involved. But the individual will say:

"But I got a permit. I got a permit from the volunteer fire department;

therefore I'm not responsible." The fire departments want to know

whether they in fact would be legally responsible for such a fire

getting out of control on private land.

I'm asking the

minister for a legal

interpretation, which he may or may not be

prepared to give at this stage. But I would like to get an assurance

from the minister that he will discuss this particular problem with the

Attorney-General and perhaps with the Minister of Municipal Affairs in

charge of regional districts to see if we can get this particular

problem resolved. At the moment there seems to be no resolution,

because neither the Forest Service nor the volunteer fire department

involved will budge.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a few questions to the minister at this time, Mr. Chairman, and I won't be too long.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: All right, I'll be a couple of hours.

I read through the Hansard

Blues on debates of this particular minister's estimates last week. Mr.

Chairman. One of the remarks, among a lot of others, that bothered me

was the minister's question to our critic for Forests, the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King). He asked our member what the NDP had

accomplished in its few years of government. After 20 years of the

Socreds and 80 years prior to that of other right-wing governments,

they ask what the NDP have accomplished in three short years! I thought

I would just take a minute to tell you a couple of the things we have

accomplished.

For example, it was our minister, under our

government, who commissioned the Pearse royal commission, the report on

which you based your new Forest Act. You used the parts of the Pearse

royal commission that suited your own philosophical approach to forests

and forestry in the province. But the fact is, you didn't utilize the

recommendations of the Pearse report the way they should have been

fully utilized for the best interests of the people of the province, in

my view. It was your former government that was prepared to let Can-Cel

and Ocean Falls go down the tube.

HON. MR, CHABOT: Nonsense!

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

The member for Columbia River, who is very vocal at the moment but

never gets to his feet, says: "Nonsense!" I want to tell you that it

was one of the former Ministers of Forests under the Social Credit

government, Mr. Williston, who went and told the people in Ocean Falls

that community would not close prior to an election in 1972. After the

election it was revealed by the company — Crown Zellerbach at the time,

who owned Ocean Falls — that they were, in fact, closing that

operation. Had it not been for the New Democratic Party and our

government. that operation would be down the tube. That is true, and we

have correspondence to prove it.

Furthermore, Can-Cel would

have shut down completely and the jobs of some 5,000 people directly

and indirectly involved would have been jeopardized by the closure of

that operation. Plateau Mills, Kootenay Forest Products — the list goes

on and on.

You asked the question and I'm giving you some of

the answer. I'll give you the whole answer if you've got the time. How

much time do we have, Mr. Whip?

I wanted to get the record

clear that at least 10,000 jobs, directly and indirectly, were saved by

the New Democratic Party when we were the government of this province —

and we will be again, by the way. We will be in power again in this

province, mark my words.

Let me tell you what else was done

by the process of saving these operations in British Columbia, now that

we're on to the topic. What else was done? The fact is that the economy

has benefited, in my view, and according to my figures — by the fact

that we saved Ocean Falls, Can-Cel, Kootenay Forest Products, et cetera

— by over $100 million, because our government had the vision to save

these operations.

Anyway, now to my questions. I just thought I'd make a couple of remarks on this in passing.

view of the fact that the Rivers Inlet area, the Kimsquit area and the

Chilcot Plateau area, part of the last remaining un-allocated timber

resource in the province, are

[ Page 770 ]

still

fully controlled by the government of the day, I would like to know if

the minister has any plans for the timber resources, which could amount

to some seven billion board-feet of timber in those areas, probably

more. What plans has he for these uncommitted timber resources in those

areas?

I would like to know as well if the minister has made

arrangements or guarantees, or is in the process of making

arrangements, through the Ocean Falls corporation, or the Can-Cel

corporation, to the Kruger company, if they.... Kruger, as you well

know, Mr. Minister, is now negotiating with the government and/or

government Crown corporations for the purchase of the mill at Ocean

Falls, and I would like to know if your ministry has made any

commitments, or are any discussions in progress with Can-Cel, the Ocean

Falls corporation and/or Kruger regarding the allocation of that

resource as bait to purchase the Ocean Falls corporation?

think this is a very serious matter, and I know that the minister must

have had some input into these discussions that are now taking place

with the Kruger corporation. I just want to change my tack a bit here,

Mr. Minister. Rather than going into detail, I have a letter here from

a Mr. R.L. Jackson of Jackson Bros. Logging, operating in theSun shine

Coast area, relating to stumpages and allowable annual cuts. I'll just

read a portion of this correspondence, Mr. Minister, which will be

better than the remarks.

Before I quote Mr. Jackson, by the

way, I should say that Mr. Jackson did send me a copy of this

correspondence, which was addressed to yourself. A copy went to the

Premier and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe). Mr. Jackson does

say to me: "Here is a copy of the letter that I sent to the hon.

minister, and here also is the blood-curdling answer. After all this

time, this is what we get." Mr. Jackson says, in part, in his

correspondence:

"Most of our logging

activities take place at the 3,000-foot elevation plus, and in stands

of decadent hemlock that contain approximately 85 percent of stumps and

waste in the classification of small wood or second-hand wood. To have

the incentive to harvest this type of junk by way of prorated cheaper

stumpage removed is entirely illogical and economically unsound. To

encourage non-integrated logging companies through various means to

harvest this type of wood and then clobber them by way of prorated

removal can lead to only two situations: one, lose money trying to log

the rubbish; two, ultimately result in harvest and having the forest

floor littered with trash.

"The annual rent

for annual allowable cut, being raised by several hundred percent, is

shocking and crucifying. The increase of the minimum stumpage, and the

removal of the maximum stumpage being based upon average selling price,

has caused our stumpage on some species to more than double. This whole

question, once again, is based upon some unrealistic average that might

apply, or might not apply, to our particular grade of timber. "

Mr.

Jackson then goes on, Mr. Chairman, to ask the minister for a meeting.

The minister would not meet with Mr. Jackson to discuss this situation.

Mr. Jackson is probably in the process of going broke if something

isn't done. I won't read the minister's reply. He merely says he won't

meet with him; he tell him to get in contact with some local people in

the local area and that, overall, the new Forest Act is great.

So,

Mr. Minister, I would hope you would review your answer to Mr. Jackson,

and I would like an answer on how you arrive at stumpage rates for

these species of wood in that area, this garbage. I know I'll get an

answer from you in due course. I'm not finished yet, though.

have a little matter, Mr. Chairman, while I'm on my feet. I might as

well get them all off my chest and then the minister can answer them

all.

I wasn't going to raise this topic in the Legislature, Mr. Minister, but I think in view of the fact that the Sunshine

Coast Regional District has sent a protest letter to you regarding the

proposed logging in Princess Louisa Inlet, up in Jervis Inlet, I would

like to ask you perhaps one question. I have a statement by Mr. C.C.

Knudsen, president of MacMillan Bloedel, concerning this matter. In

part he says, Mr. Minister — through you, Mr. Chairman:

"We

are fully aware of the scenic value of the inlet and are willing to

exchange the land we own there for timberland of equivalent value in

another location. To date this has not proved possible and we are now

at the point where we must proceed to harvest some of the timber in

order to supply the needs of our mills."

In all fairness, I

should tell you, Mr. Minister, I'm aware that the MacMillan Bloedel

company has agreed to log only 600 acres of the 9,000 acres involved,

and log the area in such a way as to cause the least environmental

impact. I'm pleased that the company has taken the time to go over this

matter with me in detail, so at least I know what's happening, or what

may happen. But Mr. Knudsen says you have not met with the company on

this matter, that you have no timber to exchange with him. I don't

think that's quite correct. I think you must have timber somewhere on

the coast you could exchange with the company, and have some

environmental regard for the area.

One other point, Mr.

Minister, while I'm on my feet, has to do with log-salvage regulations.

I think I asked you this a couple of weeks ago and you weren't quite

sure; but you said the regulations were still in the process of being

drafted. I hope I'm correct in making that statement, because if the

regulations have been drafted, and are not out for public exposure, I

would very much like to have a copy to send to some of my constituents.

So you could tell me what the state of the drafting of those

regulations is.

One last brief item — but it's a major item,

Mr. Minister — is in regard to reforestation. That hasn't been

discussed too much under your estimates. But the fact is that in your

estimates you have just a little more than $20 million for

reforestation for this coming year. You'll probably underspend the

budget this year, as you have in previous years, and the money will

return to general revenue. Not only do I hope the full amount budgeted

will be spent on reforestation, but I'm asking you now, Mr. Minister,

that amount of money that's really so vital to the future of the forest

industry in British Columbia be increased to $100 million a year. It

should be increased to catch up with the past practices of your

ministry, and catch up on reforestation in the province.

It's

well known that Weyerhauser in the United States spent some $13 or $14

an acre for reforestation while here in British Columbia. Your ministry

spent somewhere in the neighbourhood of 12 to 14 cents an acre for

reforestation, I

[ Page 771 ]

told. One other side benefit of all this is that if the government

spent $100 million a year on reforestation, you could easily and

quickly create at least 15,000 new jobs in British Columbia through

that one program alone. You know that, Mr. Minister, and I would very

much like to hear your answer on that particular topic.

MR. PASSARELL:

I have one short question to the minister. At the present time, the

minister is responsible for the supervision of the road between

Greenville and New Aiyansh on which Can-Cel operates. The problem is

related to the school bus that travels the road from Greenville to New

Aiyansh, approximately 38 miles a day when school is in session. The

community is upset. They tried to work out some type of an agreement

with Twin River so that the school bus would not have any further

problems going to school in the morning. It seems that the logging

trucks are driving the school bus off the road.

Would the

minister look into this situation and see that the safety of the

children going to school on this forestry road in the morning is

protected.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'll take the

questions I got in reverse order. To the member for Atlin (Mr.

Passarell), I will be very happy to look into the matter of school bus

safety. It's the first time the matter has been brought to my attention

and it causes me some concern.

To the member for Mackenzie,

salvage regulations have not yet been finalized. He's aware of the

amendment in the Forest Amendment Act which gives us the right to make

salvage regulations. Originally we had planned on having the terms of

salvage permits within the licensed document itself. We have simply

found it much better to have them front and centre in the form of

regulations, and by all means, as soon as they're published, they will

be available to that member and, for that matter, to anyone who wishes

them.

The problem with Jackson Brothers, I guess, refers to

the end of the so-called 55-cent wood. As you know, for a period of 15

years we had an incentive to encourage utilization of this third-band

wood, and it was set at 55 cents. At the time it was established it was

due to expire as of January 1 of this year. The purpose of the 55-cent

incentive had been accomplished and it was just allowed to revert to

normal stumpage. There was nothing particular about Mr. Jackson or

Jackson Brothers. The same applies to the entire industry.

The

member asked about the mid-coast timber supply, referring to Ocean

Falls and possible involvement with Kruger corporation and others. They

have been discussing this with principals of Ocean Falls corporation

and I believe with the Minister of Economic Development as well. We

have accelerated or changed our priorities on timber supply area

analysis. We're zeroing in on that area right now, trying to find what

wood can be freed up. It's not all on allocated wood. There are a

number of OTTs in there, as the member knows. There are other timber

allocations.

This is a part of our ongoing program of

examining the level of utilization of timber which may be licensed in

one form or another to see what can be made available together with the

unallocated timber. I wouldn't be surprised that once we get our

numbers together...if we don't go to a bid proposal, either for forest

licences or for pulpwood harvesting agreements or for tree-farm

licence. We need to encourage someone to come in and use that wood and

hopefully direct it toward the Ocean Falls community, because they've

never had a timber allocation of their own. We are examining very

closely the whole mid-coast area for timber that could be freed up. As

soon as that's done, we'I be looking at ways of getting it into the

stream, hopefully to be used in the Ocean Falls area.

Yes,

Mr. Member, I am very pleased you pointed out the accomplishments of

your government. I will agree that you did appoint a royal commissioner

to study the forest industry of British Columbia. That study was taken

by our government and turned into the best forest legislation of

anywhere in the world.

To the member for Comox (Ms.

Sanford), who is not here at the present time, we are having

discussions with many regional districts and municipalities insofar as

the authority and responsibility for fire-burning permits is concerned.

We have no intention of charging anyone on private land for the cost of

fighting forest fires, providing they do make reasonable effort to put

out a fire they may have started. This was the subject of a press

release by me a few weeks ago.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I think

the minister must have forgotten my question about Princess Louisa

Inlet. Before you get to your feet, Mr. Minister, I have another

question. I find it difficult to believe that the Kruger corporation

would have ongoing negotiations with the government and/or Crown

representatives to the Crown corporations and various ministries,

without some assurance that there would be a timber supply available

and that they could purchase Ocean Falls corporation and its assets. I

find it very difficult to believe that your ministry does not have any

input into that particular situation.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Chairman, I didn't say that we didn't have any input. I will say —

and I've said it many times since my estimates began — that I have no

way of making a direct timber allocation to anyone, nor would I. If the

Kruger corporation does make an offer on Ocean Falls, I'm sure their

offer would have to be contingent upon them getting a supply of wood.

They would have to obtain their wood supply through the same means

available to anyone else — either through PHA agreements for which

public hearings are required, new TFLs for which public hearings are

required or forest licences on which competitive bidding is required.

Yes, we are examining the timber supply for that area.

You

say that I have not met with MacMillan Bloedel over the matter of

Princess Louisa Inlet. As a matter of fact, I and my colleague, the

Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot), visited

Princess Louisa Inlet in company with their chief forester and other

members of their company. We discussed what their plans were. They have

plans for harvesting about 600 acres out of a total 900 acres of

privately owned forest land. I'm sure the member has spoken to Fred

Moonen and has seen the photographs he has showing what part will be

visible from the inlet itself. I've asked them if they could reduce

even that visibility, and they're looking at that.

We have

met with the people at Malibu Falls. They are quite pleased with the

response that they have received and the very minimal impact that may

be made because of the harvesting there — and I would point out that

nothing will

[ Page 772 ]

visible from the Chatterbox Falls end of the inlet at all. It's an

ongoing study. Quite frankly, I've told MacMillan Bloedel that at this

time I do not know whether or not I could ever find wood to trade or

areas to trade for them. We have many alienations taking place, as you

know. The Tsitika-Schoen area required trade-offs; the Pacific Rim Park

requires trade-offs. If this and many other areas require trade-offs,

then our timber supply situation will, of course, continue to tighten.

So I'm a proponent of sensitive multi-use of the forest resource

together with other resource users, and that is always the way I will

have to approach it.

Management of the forest land there,

because it has tree-farm taxation classification, requires the approval

of the Ministry of Forests only insofar as compatibility with the

sustained-yield concept is concerned — other than that, it's out of my

hands.

MR. HOWARD: I wonder if I could ask the

minister a very brief question relating to privately held forest land,

looking initially at the Canadian National right-of-way on the

extension into Prince Rupert. Have any changes been made recently —

last winter or spring — in the royalty payments for timber cut from

that particular privately held forest land? If so, what were they?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Royalties from privately owned timberland were eliminated. That was

part of the total economic package put together in devising the new

Forest Act. Royalties on private forest land were a very minimal figure

anyway. The amounts received were not sufficient to pay for the cost of

collection.

MR. HOWARD: Do I understand you to say

that all of the royalties which previously applied to timber cut from

privately held forest land have been eliminated?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: That is so under the new Forest Act.

MR. HOWARD:

Pacific Logging Company also has a large block of privately held forest

land. Were the royalties eliminated on timber cut from that land as

well?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Pacific Logging didn't pay royalties; but if they had, they would have been removed.

conjunction with that, there's a change in the way of taxing private

forest land, which will in future be based — as we spelled out to you

last year in the Forest Act — upon productivity rather than the value

of standing timber. Taxing on the value of standing timber discouraged

good forestry. So those changes are underway.

Vote 117 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Williams

Hewitt

Mair

Vander Zalm

Heinrich

Ritchie

Strachan

Brummet

Ree

Segarty

Curtis

McCarthy

Phillips

Gardom

Bennett

Wolfe

McGeer

Fraser

Jordan

Kempf

Davis

Smith

Rogers

Mussallem

Hyndman

NAYS — 23

Howard

Lorimer

Hall

Nicolson

Lea

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Barrett

Macdonald

Levi

Sanford

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Gabelmann

Mitchell

Passarell

King

Skelly

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Vote 118: ministry administration, $1,891,613 — approved.

Vote 119: Support Services Program, $4,756,140 — approved.

Vote 120: forestry, $49,223,041 — approved.

Vote 121: Timber and Range Management Program, $38,961,722 — approved.

Vote 122: Field Operations Program, $19,553,036 — approved.

Vote 123: reservoir clearing, $10 — approved.

Vote 124: implementation of new legislation, $5,000,000 — approved.

Vote 125: Intensified Forestry Program, $5,000,000 — approved.

Vote 126: building occupancy charges, $3,899,000 — approved.

Vote 127: computer and consulting charges, $2,405,069 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on Bill 22, Mr. Speaker.

I adjourned the debate, and I defer.

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

(continued)

HON. MR. WATERLAND: As I mentioned in

opening second reading, this Act is a series of rather unrelated

amendments. There was some debate on it when the Leader of the

Opposition (Mr. Barrett) came back from his trip. Obviously he suffered

from jet lag and took off in high flight here.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

[ Page 773 ]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 22 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill

22, Forest Amendment Act, 1979, read a second time and referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

The House in committee on Bill 22; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections I to 18 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 22, Forest Amendment Act, 1979, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 18, Mr. Speaker.

EDUCATION STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

Bill 18 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 16, Mr. Speaker.

LAND AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

The House in committee on Bill 16; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

section 5.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 5 as amended approved.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

section 8.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 8 as amended approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill

16, Land Amendment Act, 1979, reported complete with amendments to be

considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 17, Mr. Speaker.

MINISTRY OF LANDS,

PARKS AND HOUSING ACT

The House in committee on Bill 17; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. LORIMER:

Mr. Chairman, I just want to mention what has been said during second

reading — this is an odds-and-sods collection of different functions

that they didn't know what else to do with and they put them in one

envelope here. It is my opinion that the question of housing is not

related in any way to the Ministry of Lands or the Ministry of Parks.

would seem to me that although the government has done virtually

nothing on the housing program, housing requires further time than

merely to be put on as an adjunct to the Lands ministry. I would,

certainly hope that the minister would reconsider this and create for

himself another Ministry of Housing, so that the Ministry of Housing

could have the length of time required to make sure that proper housing

is available to all the people of this province.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I just want to thank the member for the advice. I'I pass on your information to the boss man.

MR. LORIMER: Well, I'm glad of that, Mr. Minister. Maybe he'll listen to you, but I doubt it.

Sections 2 to 13 inclusive approved.

section 14.

MR. NICOLSON:

I would ask the minister if he is taking unto himself the sweeping and

broad powers contained in the Better Housing Act in the statutes of

British Columbia.

[ Page 774 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, the member is well aware, I'm sure, that the Housing Act has been repealed.

MR. NICOLSON:

I'm not referring to the Housing Act; I'm referring to the Better

Housing Act. It's filed under "B" in Book 1 of the statutes. I was

wondering if the minister was not perhaps going to either repeal that

or make it clear that he will be able to implement the powers of the

Better Housing Act.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I think if the member were to checked the statutes, he'd see that Act was repealed.

MR. NICOLSON: No, never.

Section 14 approved.

Schedule approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Williams

Hewitt

Mair

Vander Zalm

Heinrich

Ritchie

Strachan

Brummet

Ree

Segarty

Curtis

McCarthy

Phillips

Gardom

Bennett

McGeer

Fraser

Jordan

Kempf

Davis

Smith

Rogers

Mussallem

Hyndman

NAYS — 21

Howard

Leggatt

Lorimer

Hall

Nicolson

Lea

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Barrett

Macdonald

Levi

Sanford

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Gabelmann

Mitchell

Passarell

Mr. Lorimer requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 17, Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Leave granted for the division to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 25, Mr. Speaker.

MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS ACT

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs Act is largely a housekeeping bill,

the necessity for which arose as a result of the reorganization of the

ministries and the creation of Lands, Parks and Housing. Because the

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Act was repealed by the new

Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Act, it became necessary to

introduce a bill providing for the ministry reporting to the Lieutenant

Governor and the Legislative Assembly, for the deputy minister and

employees, and for the authority to retain consultants. I move second

reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARBER: It's a bit

difficult to understand on this side of the House why the provisions of

the Government Reorganization Act have not been consistently applied

both to the bill just passed and to the one in front of us now. When

that bill came in, which was one of the first legislative initiatives

of the government in 1976, we were told at that time that it would

allow the government at its own initiative, without recourse to the

Legislature, to engage in such reorganization of ministries and

agencies as would be required from time to time. We were told as well

that such a bill would allow more streamlined and more efficient

operations. Today we see in Bill 25 the failure of that promise.

see, to the contrary, that what the government told us the Government

Reorganization Act of 1976 would do, it appears it could not do. Were

it not so, Bill 25 wouldn't be at hand.

Among the first

questions that I raise about the necessity of this bill is whether or

not the minister believes that the Government Reorganization Act itself

is competent. If it is, we don't need this bill here today. If the

Government Reorganization Act has the authority that it was alleged to

have been given, when forced through this Legislature as one of the

first steps of the coalition in 1976, then this bill shouldn't be

presented here of necessity today.

There are some other

problems with this bill which are of concern to us as well. It has been

noted in debate previously but I would like to restate it. It is a

mistake, in our judgment, to separate and dissociate housing from

municipal affairs. I quote no higher authority than the current

Provincial Secretary. The learned man told us in 1977, anticipating in

1976 as well, that "the chief justification for combining municipal

affairs and housing was streamlined organization, competent

organization, efficient organization." I quote no less learned a

gentleman than the current Provincial Secretary who, when justifying

the amalgam of housing and municipal affairs in those days, provided

the opposition today with all the arguments we need to vote against

this bill.

Now if the Provincial Secretary wasn't telling

the truth then, so be it. If, in fact, it wasn't more efficient, wasn't

more efficacious, wasn't better streamlined — if he was wrong, simply

incorrect, his judgment was faulty — then perhaps he could stand up and

admit it today. If that is not the case, then perhaps this bill is

faulty today and the current minister sponsoring it might want to admit

that. They can't have it both ways, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 775 ]

The

government can't tell us in 1976 and '77 how important and necessary it

is to amalgamate housing and municipal affairs and then pretend in 1979

that we forgot all about it and wouldn't remember what they used to

say. Thank God for Hansard . Blessings, Hansard , because we remember what they used to say.

The

real reason for this bill is to diminish the political authority of the

minister who sponsored it. That's the only reason. It is a means for

the Premier to give a signal to the current Minister of Municipal

Affairs that his authority in cabinet is being diminished, that his

standing in his own party is being undermined and that such chances as

he has to become Premier are, to say the least. shadowy and dim.

Were

it not so, the bill wouldn't be here, because, as the minister points

out, the bill achieves precisely nothing, save to contradict the

government's own bill of four years ago. Were it not so, the Government

Reorganization Act could itself have provided for every step that this

bill would provide. So if you can't find justification for this

legislation in the ordinary statute of British Columbia, sufficient

authority already existing in another bill, then you have to look in

another place for the reason behind it.

Well, we look in the

place of the minister opposite. We know who's been told to shut up by

the Premier. We know who now, quietly as a church mouse — door mouse,

perhaps he'd prefer — is saying and doing precisely nothing in order to

try and repair the rather shaky relationship he has with the Premier,

the man who may or may not anoint him as Premier-to-be.

There

is, other than that, Mr. Speaker, no justification for this bill. It

has all of four sections. It provides no new initiative. It provides

only the new information that the Minister of Municipal Affairs is

falling in the political horizons of Social Credit. The once-risen star

is now falling. How else can you look at it? The purpose of this bill

is to undermine and undercut the authority of the man who sponsors it.

It has no other purpose.

The reason he doesn't have Housing

is presumably because the good advice of the Provincial Secretary has

been ignored in favour of the better political advice of the Premier

who worries about the bill's sponsor. There is nothing else in here

that would justify it. There are some things that should be in here. We

continue to argue, as did the Provincial Secretary once upon a time,

that combining housing and municipal affairs is an appropriate

instrument for guaranteeing that the housing requirements of the people

of British Columbia are well understood by municipal government. It's

an appropriate means of guaranteeing that such problems with red tape,

with duplication, with overlap, with poorly drafted bylaws and all of

the other things that sometimes stand in the way of good, affordable

housing for the people of British Columbia can be dealt with on the

spot. Separating housing from municipal affairs removes the problem of

housing from that spot and diminishes thereby to some considerable

extent the authority of the Minister of Municipal Affairs to act on

behalf of and in the quick instance of good, affordable housing in

British Columbia. Were it not so, the Provincial Secretary wouldn't

have told us so three years ago. Were it not so, he wouldn't have made

those arguments then. He made them then. We make them now. They were

sound then; they are sound now.

The importance of combining

the two portfolios is to allow the ministry in a powerful and vigorous

way, with all of the authority at its command in statute and in

practice, to persuade local government that housing is very, very

important. Among the ways it so persuades local government can be found

in the way in which Municipal Affairs approves such bylaws as may be

passed from time to time at the levels of local government concerning

housing within the jurisdiction of local governments across the

province. Governments can, if they wish, delay the passage of those

bylaws and their approval through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

They can, if they wish, expedite them in the name of good, affordable

housing.

The only way they can do that in a competent and

effective fashion is when the two ministries, for all practical

purposes, are one, when the direction comes from under one roof, when

the language comes from one tongue, when the political sensibility

comes from one office. It made good sense then. It makes no sense now

to divorce housing from municipal affairs.

There is another

problem with this bill. It is the failure of this bill to recognize the

importance of transit in British Columbia. If ever authority were to be

added, it should be added in such a fashion as to present today a bill

called the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Transit Act. Let me

illustrate why, Mr. Speaker. I see you furrowing your brow.

The

Minister of Municipal Affairs — formerly through the Bureau of Transit

and now through the Urban Transit Authority — is responsible,

corporately, for fashioning and developing, for funding and providing

good mass transit in British Columbia. Part of the importance of the

role of the ministry in this — as we see in this bill — is to provide

the necessary clout and political leadership so that local governments

accept their responsibility for assisting in the planning and the

better coordination of mass transit.

How does a government

achieve this? Well.,It can achieve this by setting certain political

goals. Those goals could be stated in a bill like this; those goals

could indicate the priority given by a government to the importance of

transit in British Columbia; those goals could include naming a

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Transit to be chiefly responsible for

the funding, the coordination, the planning and the execution of a good

transit policy in British Columbia. But what do we find instead in this

bill, Mr. Speaker? We find once again the authority of this particular

minister — who is in trouble with that particular Premier — undermined.

He is, for all practical purposes, the Minister of Transit. Does it

say so in this bill? No, of course it does not. There can be only three

reasons for that: one is dumb oversight — we presume it's not an

oversight; second, it's to undermine the stature of this minister in

the body politic of British Columbia; third, if that's not the reason.

It could be that this government simply doesn't give to transit the

authority, the attention and the respect that it should. Where the

government has here an opportunity to elevate transit to the status of

a portfolio, to the discipline of a portfolio, to allow the public, if

you will, to hold debate around transit that should take place through

a ministry responsible for it.... The government has omitted, instead,

to take that opportunity. In our judgment a Ministry of Municipal

Affairs and Transit is an appropriate statement in title, and an

appropriate means in practice, to elevate to the stature it should have

the whole focus of public attention on transit in British Columbia.

This bill is defective to the extent that it does not. It makes no

mention of transit whatever.

[ Page 776 ]

I'm

well aware the minister will say: "Well, we have another bill for that;

it's called the Urban Transit Authority." There are other bills as

well, passed by previous governments, which are still on the books and

still give this minister authority to act in the field of transit. But

to the extent that the title of a minister is symbolic of that

ministry's authority, his duties and his policies, so too, all the more

appropriately, would be a Minister of Municipal Affairs and Transit — a

place to command the attention, to push the debate and achieve the

results in the field of transit. Let me repeat, there are only three

reasons one can logically deduce why the word "transit" appears nowhere

in the minister's title or in the ministerial organization as we see

it. First, it was a mistake — they forgot, or were asleep, assuming

that's not likely. Second, the Premier chooses deliberately to

understate the political standing of his colleague. Or, third, they

just don't think transit is all that important. Well, we think it is

important. We think it's highly important. We think it, in fact, is the

significant new debate, or going to be the significant new debate, in

British Columbia in the 1980s when petroleum products hit $20 and $30 a

barrel, as they will very shortly; when gasoline hits $3 a gallon, as

it will by the mid-1980s.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER:

Gasoline will be $3 a gallon by the mid-1980s in British Columbia — you

watch. When those predictions come to pass, as inevitably they shall,

the importance of having in place by that time a competent transit

policy shall be all the greater. One of the ways this Legislature has

of determining that policy is through a Ministry of Municipal Affairs

and — only where it is so — a Ministry of Municipal Affairs and

Transit. But it's not here today, and one of the reasons why this

province may be so grossly unprepared for the absolute necessity of

comprehensive public transit in the mid-eighties, is because today — at

this opportunity, and on other days at other opportunities — this

government chose not to be responsible for transit. They chose not to

elevate it to the status required, to elevate its minister to the

status required, to establish in its ministry the status required to

inform the public of British Columbia in every step of the way about

the simple importance of a competent transit policy. Were it not so, it

would today be titled the Ministry of Municipal and Transit Act.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. member, perhaps I should remind you that to create the grounds for

a debate on what a bill does not say is hardly permissible in this

House. I know it is acceptable to have a passing remark, or use it in

comparisons. However, to debate the bill on that premise would not be

acceptable. I trust the member is soon coming to a conclusion on that

particular area.

MR. BARBER: I certainly am, Mr.

Speaker. I am principally arguing the defects, the imperfections and

the flaws of the bill in front of us — which I know is always in good

order, if not good taste. What I am trying as well to argue is that it

would be easier to support this bill were it to contain, as one of its

component parts, that fundamental commitment to transit. Having made

the point, I will continue with some other matters.

The bill

tells us, if I may refer briefly to

section 4, that the purposes and

functions of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, under the direction of

the minister, are to be the medium of communication between the

municipalities and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and to perform

other duties and functions the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may give

to it. That is a fairly pale and pallid way of stating a much larger

case. I would like to state that now.

In our judgment,

insufficient opportunities exist for direct, personal and effective

communications between the representatives of local government and the

representatives of the provincial. The Union of B.C. Municipalities is,

of course, composed to provide, in a corporate way, representation by

majority vote of the opinion of its members. It is appropriate to do

that, but there is nowhere within this statute any recognition of the

pre-eminent authority and role of the Union of B.C. Municipalities to

do just that.

Some might argue, Mr. Speaker, that it would

be appropriate to recognize in this bill the standing and the status

and the role of the Union of B.C. Municipalities. Some might argue that

what would be appropriate, when talking about the kind of

communications that should take place between local government and its

minister in British Columbia, would be some specific and specifically

named means of making sure that communication happens. Once again,

among the several defects in the bill we find that it makes no such

reference, contains no such provision, and offers no such means to the

UBCM of representing its own case before the ministry. The usual

fashion, in fact, has been that communication here, referred to in

section 4, is entirely one-sided. The minister shows up every September

at the UBCM convention. He announces a goodie or two — three or four if

it's an election year. Some people dutifully applaud; others are

dutifully cynical and sceptical. Occasionally they've even been heard

to question the bounty of the minister who shows up and offers the good

deeds. And that's it.

In an obligatory, statute-bound way

there is no other commitment to meet on neutral ground with

representatives of local government in British Columbia. It is a very

important problem for those guys. They want to be heard. They would

prefer to be respected. They would prefer to deal with this government

as co-equals in the field of democratic local government in British

Columbia. They would prefer to do that. But no such provision is found

here. No such commitment is made by the government. No such means are

provided in Bill 25 or any other place. It is an important condition of

good public debate, around the nature and future of local government,

that such opportunities be made available. Well, they're not.

proposed some time ago that this government be willing to establish a

royal commission on local government. The purpose of the royal

commission would be to establish the whole body of guidelines for

future planning of local government and local authority in British

Columbia. When the minister is talking about county government and

chooses as his only examples American examples, we think it is possible

that the ministry hasn't done its homework properly. There are, in

fact, Canadian examples, although he has never yet referred to them.

When the minister talks about the failure of regional government to do

its job properly, and has not, in fact, in any fair-minded or honest

way consulted with local government about those problems but simply

stood up, before he was clammed up by the

[ Page

777 ]

Premier

some weeks ago, and denounced them, the inevitable response of regional

government is to say: "Hold on, you haven't given us a fair shake. Hold

on, you haven't heard our side of the case. Hold on, you haven't

allowed us to make our arguments in the same vigorous and vivid way

that you've made your own. That's not fair."

The reason it's

not fair is because they are overwhelmed, at least in the sense that

the media pay attention to these things, by one minister's criticisms

of 30 agencies in British Columbia. It's not fair. Once more we find in

this bill a total lack of imagination, wit and insight into the

development of new forms of communicating with local government, into

the development of new policies as they relate to local government,

into the development of some new means of making local government — in

every human way — more sensitive to local and neighbourhood interests

in the cities and towns of British Columbia.

Why does this

bill appear to us questionable? It is questionable precisely because it

doesn't raise those matters, doesn't deal with them in any genuinely

thoughtful or imaginative way. To the contrary, it is a rehash of dull

old arrangements, put forward in dull old language, representing dull

old thinking.

AN HON. MEMBER: Put it in poetry.

MR. BARBER: If you could read it I might do so, but I know you can't, so I won't waste my time.

The

bills fails, by want of imagination, to address in a new way the new

problems of organization of local government in British Columbia. It

fails, significantly, to pay any respect whatever to the debate and the

device of transit in British Columbia. It fails to incorporate all of

the interests of those who want good, affordable housing for the people

of British Columbia. It fails for all those reasons.

I can

only presume the reason such an ordinary, dull-witted and dull-minded

bill would come forward is to be found in some political rather than

policy object. The programmatic objects of this bill can be met by

other bills; the Government Reorganization Act already provides for

that. If there is no new policy object to be met here and if it's only

a matter of housekeeping, then I say throw out the housekeeper, because

he demonstrates no imagination, no vigour of intellect and no

discipline of intellect in this means of dealing with the future

problems of local government in British Columbia. It's a shame. This

bill could do a lot more. It does nothing but maintain the boring,

inappropriate and ineffective status quo in British Columbia. That's a

shame too. Such a bill shouldn't come forward.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I move second reading of Bill 25, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 25 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 25, Ministry of Municipal Affairs Act, read a second time and referred

to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS ACT

The House in committee on Bill 25; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. BARBER:

Section 2(3) reads: "The minister may establish branches or divisions

of the ministry he considers advisable." Could the minister tell us

whether or not he has given consideration to any reorganization of the

current agencies in his ministry and, if so, what form that

reorganization might take?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: There is no intent to reorganize.

MR. BARBER:

I've repeatedly received complaints from people with whom I consult in

local government about the relative slowness of the bylaw approval

procedure. In years past I've raised this question with the former

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis), and I propose to raise

it again this year. The question was: does Municipal Affairs have too

few staff to do the job it is supposed to do as speedily as it should

do it? Your predecessor agreed — "Yes."

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No.

MR. BARBER: Don't shake your head. He agreed — "Yes." I'll show you what he said in Hansard .

Per

capita, it is one of the smallest Municipal Affairs ministries in all

of Canada. Presumably that's to save money — an admirable objective if

the overall objective weren't undermined by the lack of staff.

The

former Minister of Municipal Affairs agreed on several occasions that

the ministry was understaffed. That continues to be a problem for local

government. It continues to be a problem for all of those first-rate

public servants who are trying to work under impossible conditions.

Would

the minister be willing to consider such reorganization of staff and

such addition to their numbers as may be required in order that local

government can get from the ministry the services it needs when it

needs them? At the moment the complaints are numerous. They are too

numerous to be caused by anything other than a lack of the most

effective organization that could be put into place and by a lack of

the numbers required to do the job. The minister was previously

unwilling to consider it. Would he now consider the advice of his

predecessor, who freely admitted the ministry was understaffed in

comparison to other ministries across the country' The understaffing

problem continues to this day. I'll raise it again it estimates, but it

can be raised now. Will the minister consider such reorganization and

increase in the numbers of staff required in order to meet the burdens

it has and its obligations under this

section to deal quickly and

effectively with the requests of local government for not just bylaw

approval — although that's certainly a large part of it — but for many

other aspects of the ministry's duties as well'? I don't think simply

saying "no'' is really a very good answer. There's a problem there; you

should know it. If you talk to your

[ Page 778 ]

predecessor,

he'll certainly tell you — although I'm sure Mr. Long would tell you

the very same thing I'm telling you now. Will you confront the problem?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

We have no problems in the ministry. We have adequate staff. I do not

intend to create a growing bureaucracy. I would advise the Legislative

Assembly that municipalities in British Columbia are the best and the

most satisfied and the healthiest anywhere in Canada.

MR. BARBER:

That's a typically ridiculous and insupportable boast, contradicted by

what local governments themselves say about the speed — or lack of it —

with which this ministry responds to their problems.

Dealing

with

section 2, which gives the minister authority to reorganize, are

you willing to ask the deputy minister to propose within, say, three

months' time such new organization as may be required to do what the

minister's boast will not persuade us is currently being done — that is

to deal more quickly and more effectively with the requirements of

local government? If you yourself, from your present experience — weeks

old as it is — don't think there is a problem, would you be prepared to

ask your deputy minister to indicate, he having been there and being

much respected in his field, or to at least consider and give to you —

maybe even give to us; maybe we could help here on the floor — a plan

for such reorganization, if you don't want to increase the staff, as

would increase the efficiency?

I know personally and respect

highly a great many members of the ministry. I know them, and I know

them to be people who work very, very hard. They work with discipline,

they work with conscience and they work with dispatch. They do all of

those things under difficult circumstances.

It now appears

that one of the difficult circumstances is the hopelessly unrealistic

and naive attitude of the minister, who would stand up and tell us:

"It's the best in Canada. We've got no problems here in British

Columbia." That's laughable nonsense. It's childish, laughable nonsense

to parade such a boast across this floor and pretend that deals in a

mature way with the problems of local government in British Columbia.

Will

you consider asking your deputy to prepare for you a new organization

and a new means within Municipal Affairs of doing a job which, if

you'll only consult your predecessor, it is widely agreed around local

government in British Columbia is not being done anywhere near as well

or effectively as it could be? Ludicrous comparisons to other

provinces, pro or con, in any case, don't solve our problem here in

British Columbia. The problem for local government is that they want

more effective and more speedy action on all of those matters they

bring to the ministry. Further, the problem is that they're not getting

it now. If you won't increase the staff, will you at least rearrange

the organization so that it can be dealt with more effectively?

MR. LEVI:

Could I just ask the minister which Act he proposes to operate his

department under — the present one, the one that's in existence now, or

the one that we're dealing with now? I don't see a repeal

section in

this bill. Isn't it necessary to have a repeal

section 1n the bill?

Perhaps the minister would like to comment.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned at the outset, the Act was repealed when

the split took place between Municipal Affairs and Housing. When that

split occurred, and the new Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing was

established, the need for our bill arose.

MR. LEVI:

Perhaps the minister could tell us what Act he was operating under

since the time Housing and Parks were split. Presumably there was an

Act. If there was, something has to be repealed; otherwise you're going

to have two Acts here.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr.

Chairman, in answer to that, the Government Reorganization Act provides

that a ministry might be established by order-in-council. However, it

was felt, and rightly so, that it certainly should be brought forth in

a bill so that it's a matter of public record as to what the functions

of the various ministries are.

MR. LEVI: That's

great. We're right back to square one. As I understand it, if we pass

this bill we're going to have two municipal Acts. Which one are you

going to govern under?

Mr. Minister, I think that there's

been a slip-up here. They haven't put in a repeal section. They've got

to repeal one Act, under which you're operating now, in order for this

Act to take force and effect. I would suggest that you might want to

just hold it for a day to check with your counsel. There is a problem

here, I think.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I

would refer the member to Bill 17, the Ministry of Lands, Parks and

Housing Act, on page 4, under "repeals,"

section 11.

MR. LEVI: Perhaps the minister could read it, and then we'll know what you're talking about.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

"The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Act, the Housing Act,

and the Ministry of Recreation and Conservation Act are repealed."

MR. BARBER:

We've had an in advertent admission from the minister. Quite by

accident, I'm sure, he has admitted that the purpose of this bill and

the authority it requires are already found in another bill. The

minister just admitted that the whole purpose of this bill is

political. He agreed that by order-in-council under the Government

Reorganization Act, every provision in this bill could have become law.

The minister said so himself. Why then is this bill before us today,

when the minister himself...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon.

member, we are discussing

section 2 of the bill, not why the bill is

before us. I would ask you please to be specific to

section 2.

MR. BARBER:

section 2(

l) says: "There shall be a ministry of the public service of

the province called the Ministry of Municipal Affairs." I am referring

specifically to that section. I'm arguing again, Mr. Chairman, in

debate on that

section that the whole purpose in this section, and

presumably in the whole bill, although I am only debating this section,

is political. The policy and the program objects

[ Page

779 ]

of this bill and this

section can be achieved, as

the minister himself admitted three minutes ago, under the provisions

of the Government Reorganization Act. So why is this

section here? Can

we state the obvious again? It's a way to undermine and undercut the

political authority of the current office-holder, the Minister of

Municipal Affairs. The bill could already be provided for elsewhere.

Provisions are found elsewhere. The only purpose is political. It's the

Premier's way of getting at the minister. I would appreciate the

minister's comments in self-defence.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

MR. LORIMER:

Mr. Chairman, in subsection (1), you refer to your deputy minister. I

was wondering whether you were going to change your structure in your

ministry by, whether you were going to appoint or reappoint associate

deputies and so on, and how you intended to restructure the Ministry of

Municipal Affairs now that there is no housing involved and also

possibly no transit involved.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Chairman, we do not have associate deputies. We do, however, have

assistant deputies in this particular ministry. We have two assistant

deputy ministers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 3 pass?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So ordered.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Section 3 has already been passed.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave then.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Agreed.

section 3.

MR. BARBER:

section 3, entitled "Deputy and employees," it says in subsection

(3): "The minister may, notwithstanding Public Service Act but subject

to the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, engage and

retain persons he considers necessary as consultants, experts or

specialists, and may fix their remuneration." I would like to ask

whether or not such persons are currently engaged as specialists, et

al, by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No.

MR. BARBER: Does the minister contemplate hiring a specialist to examine his monorail proposal?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Who knows'? It sounds exciting. Perhaps.

MR. BARBER:

Well, if the minister doesn't know, I suppose no one does. But he said

in the paper — if I misread, I apologize — that in fact he had asked

his own ministry to study the matter. I can't find anyone in the

ministry who knows anything about transit. To the contrary, they're all

working for the UTA now. The UTA is not part of the ministry. Who has

he asked? Who in the ministry knows anything about transit? If you

haven't hired a consultant under here, do you intend to? If so, when

and who will it be?

HON, MR. VANDER ZALM: Hop efully, Mr. Chairman. But unless it's necessary, I can assure you we don't intend to hire them unnecessarily.

MR. COCKE:

On a point of order, I noted how very careful the Chairman was over the

sections of the bill, and we had to have leave and so on. I would ask

whether the Chairman might also take a further look at the way he is

identifying the members. I have been listening to "Burnaby-Willingdon,

" "First Victoria, " et cetera, et cetera. As I recall, it s normal to

identify "the member from," not "First Victoria" or

"Burnaby-Willingdon" or whatever. Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring

this to your attention.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry. Your point is well taken, hon. member.

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister a question somewhat

supplementary to the one that was asked by the first member for

Victoria (Mr. Barber). In looking at this monorail proposal, which is a

fascinating and interesting one, I am wondering whether the minister

has any cost studies in terms of converting that median on both the 401

and the Deas Island freeway to the United States into a fast bus-lane.

After

all, the rolling stock is already there. The cost of doing that, it

seems to me, is not incredible. Instead of going for these

million-dollar proposals with monorails, I want to ask the minister

whether he has in fact embarked on studies to see whether we couldn't

just convert that middle lane down both those freeways and get some

action in terms of commuter traffic.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Mr. Member, with all due respect, that is not at all relevant to the

section that we are discussing, by any stretch of the imagination.

MR. LEGGATT:

On a point of order, in terms of relevancy, you've already accepted the

questions from the first member for Victoria on this particular

section

dealing with the question of the monorail.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Only with some difficulty, hon. member.

MR. LEGGATT:

Well, I'm just wondering, with leave, if the minister may wish to

provide us with an answer on that, because he seems interested in the

subject. I just wonder, with leave, if he may wish to comment on it.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I can hardly wait for my estimates.

[ Page 780 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: It would be a much more appropriate position for a debate.

MR. LEVI:

The minister said he can hardly wait for his estimates. Now maybe he

might tell us if he is going to be responsible for transit within this

bill. Could he tell us that? Would he like to share that with us? Is he

going to be responsible for that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon.

member, again I must say there is no relevance to that particular

question and the bill presently before us,

section by section. I must

ask you to return specifically to the sections we are discussing, to be

strictly relevant to the section. That, with all due respect, hon.

member, is not within those confines.

MR. LEVI: We

really don't know, Mr. Chairman, what really is within the confines

because in one

section they talk about: "...may establish branches or

divisions...."

Let me put it another way. Will one of the

branches or divisions that you are going to establish deal with

transit? Now that's in the section, Mr. Chairman. Can the minister tell

us whether one of the divisions or branches of his ministry will deal

with transit? That's a fair question, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Not directly.

MR. LEVI: What does he mean, "not directly"?

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Twenty questions, yes. Well, we're up to 16.

Would the minister mind being frank, Mr. Chairman and tell us if is he going to be dealing with transit?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, I could explain to the member that certainly

every division of the ministry will work in some way with transit, no

doubt. But there is not a direct branch, as you suggest, responsible

for transportation.

MR. LORIMER: On the previous

question you answered you said that you had two assistant deputies. I

presume one is in finance. Is the other in administration, or is there

one in transit?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: One is in finance and one is in administration.

MR. BARBER:

I'd like, if I may, to refer again to the poss