1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JULY 13, 1987

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2411 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 2411

Oral Questions

Sale of West Kootenay Power and Light Co. Ltd. Mr. Harcourt –– 2411

Mr. Clark

Admission fees to provincial museums. Ms. Edwards –– 2412

Possible addition of third SeaBus. Mr. Clark –– 2412

Mr. Sihota

Soliciting practices of funeral homes. Mr. Blencoe –– 2412

Jobs for disabled. Mr. Cashore –– 2413

Overrun on Coquihalla I project. Mr. Miller –– 2413

Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy replies –– 2413

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Tourism, Recreation and Culture estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Reid)

On vote 59: minister's office –– 2415

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Rose

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

On vote 34: minister's office –– 2417

Mr. Williams

Mr. Kempf

Ms. A. Hagen

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Forest Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 40). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Parker –– 2425

Mr. Williams –– 2426

Hon. Mr. Parker –– 2426

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Health estimates. (Hon. Mr. Dueck)

On vote 38: minister's office –– 2427

Hon. Mr. Dueck

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy

Mrs. Boone

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. Rose

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Cashore

The House met at 2:09 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VEITCH: In the members' gallery today we have the

president of the Burnaby-Willingdon Social Credit constituency

association, Bill McCarthy; my ministerial assistant's wife, Anne

McNaughton, her daughter, Karen Wantke, and her sister, Joyce Taylor,

who is a resident of greater Victoria. I'd ask the House to bid them

welcome.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I have an introduction and a

congratulations. I'd like to introduce and have the members of the

Legislature give a warm welcome to Kathleen Baker, the granddaughter of

one of our more illustrious previous members, Rae Eddie.

I'd like to congratulate those members of the Haida who participated

in the wave-eating — eating up the waves — from Vancouver to the

Charlottes. Twenty people participated in this historic voyage in a

canoe carved under the supervision of the master artist of the Haida

nation, Bill Reid. On behalf of us all, I'd like to pass on

congratulations to those who participated so successfully in that

voyage.

MR. PELTON: In the gallery today, from the beautiful city of

Mission, British Columbia, is Mr. Hans Rummel and his daughter Marina.

Visiting with Hans and his daughter is Nathalie Stappert from Essen,

West Germany. On behalf of the second member for Dewdney (Mr. Jacobsen)

and myself, I would ask the House to give them a warm welcome.

MRS. BOONE: I'd like the House to join me in welcoming

friends of mine who are in the gallery today, Jeremy and Ann Smith, and

their daughters Lindsay and Allison — visitors from England — and my

mother, Anne Chudley.

MS. CAMPBELL: One of the advantages of having a session that

lasts into the summer is the opportunity it allows members to share the

Legislature with visitors who might not otherwise see it in action. In

your gallery today are members of my own family to whom I have been

revealing the wonders of the House and its practice. I was a bit

disconcerted when their greatest response came from the disclosure that

my colleague and seat-mate, the hon. second member for Cariboo (Mr.

Vant), is a member of the Anglican clergy. But there are other wonders

and points of amazement in the House.

Would the House join me in welcoming my mother-in-law, Marcelline

Eddy, from Mercer Island, Washington, my stepchildren, Abby and Andrew

Eddy, from Aylmer, Quebec, and my husband, Howard Eddy.

MR. MILLER: Despite our good qualities, we all know we're here because

of the hard work of people in our constituencies. Today it gives me great pleasure

to introduce Steve Boggis, president of the Prince Rupert NDP club, and one

of the key people in terms of my being in this House today. In the precincts

today as well is Steve's wife, Marjorie, and his two children, Shannon and

Kenneth. Not only do they have the distinction of being very good, hard-working

NDPers from Prince Rupert, but Marjorie is the daughter and Steve the son in-law

of the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich). So I'd like the House to

join me in making them welcome.

MR. BLENCOE: Today I had the honour of having lunch with two

old friends from Calgary, Alberta: David and Sherri Wylie. They are

here visiting our community and of course talking about the Olympics,

which will happen in Calgary next year. I also sent them to visit the

museum — the last few days, of course, that the museum is

admission-free. Would the House please make them welcome?

MS. A. HAGEN: I would like to ask the House to join me in

welcoming two very good friends from my constituency of New

Westminster, Len Bonn and Ann McLeod, who are seated in the members'

gallery. Would you join me in welcoming them.

[2:15]

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like the House to join me in making

welcome a very good friend of mine, Andrea Eaton. She's a member of the

South Surrey-White Rock constituency and a very active community worker.

Hon. Mr. Veitch tabled the annual report of the British Columbia Buildings Corporation for the year ending March 31, 1987.

Oral Questions

SALE OF WEST KOOTENAY

POWER AND LIGHT CO. LTD.

MR. HARCOURT: I'd like to ask the Premier about the recent decision of the Utilities Commission regarding

West Kootenay Power. The recent decision by the Utilities Commission states clearly that the commission does not have

jurisdiction to control foreign investment in a utility. The sale of West Kootenay Power and Light to UtiliCorp will

create no jobs for British Columbians and will put consumers at risk. My question to the Premier is: will the Premier

now intervene in the sale of West Kootenay Power to ensure that the ownership remains in Canada?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I think it's fairly evident that at some point in the past when Cominco, a large Ontario

company, became involved in the supply of power to residents of British Columbia. no one intervened, and obviously

the government stayed out of it then. They have provided a service to the residents effectively and at a good price.

I think perhaps we might expect the same from the new private owner of this particular corporation; and certainly the

recommendations or the conditions provided by the B.C. Utilities Commission will assure this to a large extent.

So there will be no intervention in the marketplace by the government.

MR. CLARK: A supplementary to the Premier. This will be the first time in Canadian history that we allow this

monopoly resource, a strategic sector of the economy, to be controlled by Americans. Is the Premier aware that Utilicorp

has a questionable reputation in Missouri and that it is in the process of being forced to pay back $10 million to

consumers in that region because it illegally overcharged them?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: One of the advantages of having a private corporation providing a service to people is

that they are probably much more closely monitored than a

[ Page 2412 ]

public company might be; and if a public company overcharged its people by $10 million, it would

perhaps never come out in the open. So there is an advantage oftentimes in the policing and the controls that are

provided on a private corporation.

I am not aware of what happened in Missouri, but certainly these, I'm sure, were considerations for the federal

government when they reviewed the application initially and approved it. So with that approval and with the careful

scrutiny that's been given this whole operation through the hearings held by the Utilities Commission, I am satisfied

that the process has served us well.

MR. CLARK: A supplementary to the Premier. It is interesting that the Premier will depend on the Mulroney

government to protect B.C.'s interest. Well, we won't on this side of the House. Is the Premier aware that three years

ago this same company in Missouri was found guilty again of overcharging $2.6 million to the residents of Missouri?

I assume he isn't, so I'll give him that information. Will the Premier guarantee in this House that power rates to

residents in the region will not go up as a result of this American takeover?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I cannot guarantee what the price will be for power or any other commodity in British

Columbia now or at any other time, nor can anyone else, unless we have complete state control over all things.

I think the question is somewhat facetious, but on the other hand, let me assure the hon. member that if he has

read the report which was provided us by the Utilities Commission, I am sure he must be satisfied that this issue

has been well addressed.

MR. CLARK: The fact is that I'm not satisfied. The Utilities Commission said that foreign ownership was not

within their mandate. Has the Premier decided to include the question of nationality of ownership as a consideration

for the Utilities Commission in future takeover attempts by America? Or is everything for sale? Is B.C. Hydro going

to be sold to American companies?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It's a little tiring to hear some of this hypocritical comment. The one constituency or

riding in the whole of this country which has more foreign ownership than any place in Canada is Oshawa, which happens

to be the riding for the leader of the NDP federally.

ADMISSION FEES TO PROVINCIAL MUSEUMS

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier.

Admission fees to the Provincial Museum and the two heritage parks go

into effect on Wednesday, Mr. Premier. Have you decided to ask your

Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid) to reconsider his ill-conceived

action in imposing these fees on the heritage resources of this

province?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The answer is no.

POSSIBLE ADDITION OF THIRD SEABUS

MR. CLARK: A question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Since the start of service in 1977, the number of passengers carried on

the SeaBus has steadily increased and last year tripled to almost six

million. The need for a third SeaBus is clear in terms of service; and

it makes sense in terms of jobs as well. Has the minister decided to

put another of these popular carriers into service'?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I understand the matter is under discussion by the transit officials at this time.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Last Friday there was a question taken on notice, and I'd be very pleased to give the answer now or after question period.

MR. SPEAKER: I think, hon. minister, under our rules we'll leave these until after question period.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'd be happy to do it after question period.

MR. SIHOTA: A supplementary on the last question from the

member for Vancouver East to the Premier. In the shipyard in Esquimalt

we have gone from a high of 1,400 people being employed there to around

62 now. On December 12, 1980 — and I have the press clipping here — the

Premier when he was Minister of Municipal Affairs indicated that a

third SeaBus would be en route by 1983. Is the Premier now willing to

live up to that commitment and fast-track any plans that may be in the

wind so that we can create those jobs necessary before we get on line

with the Polar 8 in the shipyards in Esquimalt?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, that has already been

answered by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston), but

obviously in time we'll definitely be reviewing the needs of transit in

the province and a decision will be made by government.

SOLICITING PRACTICES OF FUNERAL HOMES

MR. BLENCOE: A question for the Minister of Labour and

Consumer Services. As the minister knows, I have put before him all

sorts of evidence of the phone solicitation for cemetery services,

which continues to offend thousands and thousands of British

Columbians, and that offence continues on a daily basis. It's now

mooted and rumoured in the industry that the government is about to

allow uncontrolled telephone solicitation for funeral services. Will

the minister confirm that that will be the policy of the government?

HON. L. HANSON: No, I will not confirm, because it's not the

policy of government. Certainly as government evolves policy it will be

announced, but there is no determined policy at this point about

cemetery or funeral solicitation.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister and the

government must be aware that the lack of action by this government in

this very sensitive area is creating all sorts of concern. I

continually, as I'm sure we all do, get calls from people who are

coming out of hospital or are ill, having been subjected to

heavy-pressure sales for funeral services.

The last question for the minister. Is the minister aware that there

is currently a major buy-up program, or association program, going on

in the province of British Columbia, particularly by a Texas-based

corporation, Service Corp.

[ Page 2413 ]

International, which is buying up, or associating

with, locally owned funeral homes? The thing they do, which they

specialize in, is high-pressure sales phone solicitation. Is the

minister aware of this concentration of efforts by this industry?

HON. L. HANSON: Yes, I am aware that that corporation is

endeavouring to purchase a number of firms in British Columbia. I'm not

sure that the government's policy as it relates to solicitation —

which, as I said earlier, will be determined — has any relationship to

who owns the particular operations.

For the interest and information of the member opposite, there was a

task force created of funeral directors, cemetery owners and consumers

in British Columbia — Mrs. Ada Brown. There was also a representative

of the clergy, as well as a representative of senior citizens'

societies. The result of their investigation and discussion is being

tabled in my ministry very shortly; that will be submitted to cabinet

when that report has been tabled with my ministry. It hasn't been an

ignored situation. It certainly is in the process, and I expect that

report to be tabled within days.

MR. BLENCOE: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure the

minister is aware of the report circulating in the industry that this

government is about to allow unchecked, unfettered phone solicitation

for funeral services and cemeteries. That will be — a total offence to

the people of British Columbia. My question to the minister: is the

minister aware that in the province of Ontario they have just announced

on June 25 that Ontario is now moving and will introduce legislation

quickly to ban phone solicitation for funeral establishments and to ban

extra fees for arranging prepaid services? Will the minister follow the

lead of Ontario and ban such phone solicitation?

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first question,

yes, I am aware of that legislation. But I would suggest to the member

opposite that British Columbia doesn't follow Ontario or any other

province. We develop our own policies within government and administer

them within the province. When that policy is adopted, I'm sure that

the members opposite as well as general British Columbians will be made

aware of what the policy is.

JOBS FOR DISABLED

MR. CASHORE: To the minister of Social Services and Housing.

Four months ago the throne speech stated the government's intention to

"soon name a task force to work with the private sector to open up job

opportunities for the disabled." The disabled in this province are

waiting to consult with you on ways they can become more independent

and integrated into society. What action has been taken to date?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'd like to inform the member that I've

had several meetings with the associations and individuals regarding

the disabled. Further to that, there is a task force being put together

at this moment under the auspices of the Premier, which includes Rick

Hansen and, of course, is being spearheaded by our own second member

for Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat). So it has not been ignored; in fact,

it's very active at the moment.

MR. CASHORE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I would be

interested in knowing when the task force will be completely stated in

terms of its membership and when it will meet. Has the minister decided

to recommend to his cabinet colleagues an affirmative action program

for employment of disabled persons in the public sector?

MR. MOWAT: It's already in place.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for

all the help. I really appreciate that. It's nice to get that kind of

help after being away for two or three days.

The member and the House and the people of B.C. will be informed as

soon as the task force is in place as to the makeup of that task force.

As the member for Little Mountain said, there already is affirmative

action by this government regarding the disabled.

MR. CASHORE: Supplementary to the same minister. Other

provinces, such as Ontario, have made use of cost shared training funds

which are available under the Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled

Persons Act, to help the disabled into the workforce. Why has this

government failed to take advantage of this program?

[2:30]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The question is why we have not taken

advantage of this program; it's a program for Ontario. We don't follow

Ontario's lead or Manitoba's lead in this province. We're not followers

over here, Mr. Member; we're leaders. Having been to conferences twice

now with social services and housing ministers, I can tell you we're

far out in front of most of the rest of this country.

OVERRUN ON COQUIHALLA I PROJECT

MR. MILLER: One wonders why Mr. Rogers went to Great Britain;

nevertheless, a question to the Minister of Transportation and

Highways. I wonder if the minister could confirm that a project let on

the Coquihalla Highway — namely, the Great Bear snowshed project —

which was originally tendered for some $5 million, has in fact come in

at just about double that, at about $10.5 million?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I can't confirm the exact

dollars. He's talking about a project in Coquihalla 1, and there was a

significant overrun on that particular project because of the seasonal

nature of the work.

VANCOUVER TRADE AND CONVENTION CENTRE

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'm responding to questions

regarding the opening of the new Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre.

The questions were graciously taken on notice by my colleagues the

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Veitch) and the Attorney-General (Hon.

B.R. Smith) last Friday. I'm disappointed that the member, who made

this Legislature a bit of a circus last week by giving me the name of

Marie Antoinette — the first member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Williams).... I'm sorry that Madame Dufarge is not in the Legislature

today to listen to the answers. I would think that when the questions

were put to me in such a way, when I was absent on government business,

he would have been here, because it seemed a matter of such

[ Page 2414 ]

great importance. I want to put those questions in

context, and I want to respond to the questions, and have each member

of the House understand the plain, hard, bottom-line, true facts about

the opening of the trade and convention centre. Those are the kinds of

facts that never get headlines next to the ridiculous and completely

ill-founded comments and suggestions that that member of the opposition

uses to grab a few drops of ink in the daily press.

So first, Mr. Speaker, there never was any such thing as a

$500-per-plate dinner at the opening of the trade and convention

centre. There wasn't even a $50-a-plate dinner. The dinner on the eve

of the convention centre's opening was paid for by the company which

won the contract to be the centre's official supplier....

Interjections.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: You know, the members opposite should

know that each of the contractors who bid to be an official supplier to

the trade and convention centre had the official dinner as part of

their contract. Everybody dealt on the same level playing-field. There

was no cost to the trade and convention centre budget for the opening

dinner. So they supplied dinner as part of their contract. They

supplied dinner to British Columbians as part of their contract.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, official suppliers to the convention centre,

whether they be sound and electrical contractors or staging and setup

companies, each provided a certain amount of free services for the

opening as part of their official supplier status.

On behalf of the hospitality industry in our province — men and

women who work very hard every day to make British Columbia a

first-choice travel destination — I resent and I deny the suggestion of

the member for Vancouver East that airlines, hotels and tour companies

sponsored visiting convention planners at a cost to themselves of some

$750,000, on probably the busiest weekend in the whole year with July 1

and the July 4 American holiday, so that they might receive some

special treatment in the awarding of government or convention

contracts. I think that is a sad reflection on the member who made that

intimation and a sad reflection on the psychology and the thinking

processes of the NDP in this House.

Mr. Speaker, those companies looked at the opening of the convention

centre with a great deal of pride, and like so many other British

Columbians, they recognize its potential as an economic generator of

tremendous importance, not just for the hospitality industry, but for

the entire economy.

Every time one of those convention delegates buys a boiled egg for

breakfast or uses a paper napkin at lunch or buys a souvenir made in

B.C., they are sending economic ripples throughout our whole economy.

Mr. Speaker, any suggestion that those corporate sponsors will

receive extra-special treatment from the government or the convention

centre is a slight against those firms and the staff of the centre. No

one pressured those firms to participate in the opening. They

themselves recognized the importance of the convention planners being

invited and realized that in the long term, this opportunity would give

them potential customers bringing several thousand delegates to

Vancouver and British Columbia. It is on that strictly business basis

that the centre and this government will work with those firms and

others, to promote the convention industry in British Columbia.

Finally, let me address the cost of the opening, the open house in

support of Variety Club "Special Kids," and the convention buyers

brought to B.C. as guests of the industry and the centre. Almost 200 of

the world's most influential convention planners were our guests. They

represent a potential of $450 million in convention sales if they bring

only one convention to British Columbia. That in no way accounts for

repeat business, and I think that members in this House will know and

will agree that any one who visits British Columbia — certainly our

Minister of Tourism will agree — definitely will be back again.

As part of our marketing strategy for the centre, we budgeted almost

$300,000 to showcase the centre, its versatility and its potential.

This strategy covered a five-day group of activities and concentrated

particularly on July 3 and 4. That figure, Mr. Speaker, amounts to

about 6/10 of 1 percent of potential sales.

We were showing off, and we were presenting to the world a $130

million convention centre, cruise ship facility and hotel combination

on probably one of the most beautiful harbours in this world. I'd like

to invite members across the floor to try to identify any other firm or

any major business that was able to spend as little and gain as much as

the new Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre has done with that

marketing plan. I'd like you to name any major firm or business that

believes that 6/10 of 1 percent is too much to launch a brand-new

product into a very competitive industry such as the convention

industry; an industry that is worth $30 billion annually on this

continent.

I can tell members of this House that the dollars were well spent.

They were an investment that has put the Vancouver Trade and Convention

Centre at the forefront of the destinations being reviewed by those

convention planners. In addition, not only were the planners and buyers

impressed with what the centre could do, but the 14,000 British

Columbians who toured the centre on opening day and gave so generously

to Variety Club's children felt a real sense of pride and

accomplishment — the same feeling we had when Expo 86 opened its doors

a year ago.

Just to show how much the centre....

MR. SPEAKER: The minister is really making a statement.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker, in order to answer the many questions raised by the member for Vancouver East last Friday.

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister wants to continue, I'll also allow the opposition time to reply. I think that's only fair.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I will answer anything that

Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition wishes to put to us in regard to the

opening of the trade and convention centre. I think it's really sad, in

the year following Expo 86, when I think the whole of the province grew

up, to know that the official opposition in this province didn't get

the message from the rest of the province when they put negativism

behind them and decided to get on with being a real sophisticated part

of world trade in this province and in the trade and convention centre.

MR. ROSE: You made the point, Mr. Speaker. What we got was a ten-minute sermonette. We got from the hon. lady

[ Page

2415 ]

not an opportunity, really, to make a full

explanation of this; it was more like her part of the estimates. A

soliloquy of this length is fine, but I have trouble, Mr. Speaker, as

you did, distinguishing between what is a statement on motions, or a

ministerial statement.... The minister is free to make those at any

time, but to make them as an answer to a question on notice is really

unfair to the House, because a response cannot be made to a question

taken on notice.

If a question is to be non-argumentative and denied personal

references, certainly an answer or a reply to a question taken on

notice should be the same. This was filled with personal references. It

was filled with propaganda. It obscures the tendering process, and it's

an insult to business. I think it's unbecoming of a minister of long

experience — a venerable minister in this House — to respond in that

way, and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you'll be able to caution the

minister and ask her to respect the House and the members in it.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't want to get into a debate on this issue.

Could the minister take her seat for just a moment. I know that when

the question was asked last week, there were some personal references

made, and I think there were some on both sides. That does not make it

correct. If the opposition is asking a question of a minister who is

not here, they maybe should expect something to come back in the next

week.

I think both sides have had a fair go at this issue. The minister's

estimates are coming up, and I think we should proceed with the normal

House business.

Hon. L. Hanson tabled an answer to a question from the member for Kootenay (Ms. Edwards) on July 7.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call Committee of Supply.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TOURISM, RECREATION AND CULTURE

(continued)

On vote 59: minister's office: $228,460.

MS. EDWARDS: I want to conclude my remarks in fairly short

order. What I have to say to the minister.... If he has any responses,

I'll be delighted if they're positive.

What is clear when one examines what's going on in the Minister of

Tourism, Recreation and Culture, and what has been clear with the

amount of debate that we've had on these estimates, is that there has

been an absolute lack of planning and coordination in the ministry, and

there is a centralization of control and a lack of consultation.

[2:45]

I'd like to go over those three issues. If the minister can refute

them, I would hope that he can show that this is not the normal way the

ministry should be run.

I think it's very clear that there needs to be some planning and coordination.

An object lesson is the imposition, mid season, of fees at the Provincial Museum

and the heritage parks, and at several of the smaller facilities that the province

runs. It becomes very clear when the minister, asked whom he has consulted,

says: "The Attorney-General's mother." Evidently it's going

to cost $3.50 for each of the $5 fees that is being collected; he would not

let the Friends of the Museum go ahead and collect what they assured him would

probably be at least $2 on a voluntary basis. He's charging the locals in

order, he says, to put on a travelling show. He's going to see that the

birds-of-prey show travels. He says it's going to be of some benefit for

the people who are here when that show will travel out of the area, and for

some reason we're going to charge locals and our visitors to take our artifacts

away.

It's very clear that planning was missing on the South Moresby issue

as far as the Ministry of Tourism was concerned. The Ministry of

Tourism said at the first of the session that they were totally in

favour of South Moresby as a park. They were going to work toward

getting it as a park. In fact, I was told we weren't going to do

anything about the problems of the Strathcona borders because all of

the ministry's efforts were going to go toward South Moresby park. All

of a sudden the minister says that South Moresby park will be far too

expensive for tourists, and he doesn't know if it's going to be a real

attraction. It has been an inconsistent response.

The minister's fuzzy thinking comes through when he talks about the

cultural tourism campaign put on by the province and the federal

government, which began about a year ago. The program was there to coax

tourists from various west coast cities in the United States up to

Victoria and Vancouver. The minister has claimed, in fact, that the

business to the Provincial Museum depends largely on that tourism

promotion, and that there were 18,000 more visits to the museum,

probably based on that promotion. When we look at what else happened

with that promotion, it turns out that the Playhouse Theatre in

Vancouver had one of those tickets turned in to the end of February.

The Marcuse dance society had one ticket turned in. The Vancouver Opera

did better, with six of them. The Pacific Cinematheque had four turned

in, but they all turned out to be local people. The Arts Club Theatre

had 54 of those promotion tickets turned in to them. There's a great

anomaly there, Mr. Chairman. Either the minister is missing something

or he is misleading, because what happens.... Either it's because the

Provincial Museum is free and therefore can attract 18,000, compared to

the largest number — 54 — that were attracted anywhere else, or

something's wrong. It's just not a matter of having been coordinated at

all.

The minister has had some problems, I think, in planning and

coordinating. Look at the way he has treated the hotel industry:

increasing the hotel tax by I percent and removing tax relief from

seasonal resorts. He has done this in the face of presentations from

the Hotels Association for 1984 indicating that this area has probably

the highest basic fixed tax for hotels on the continent. He has failed

to address the problem of venture capital, which is one of the greatest

needs in the tourism industry. The tourism and service industry is

where we expect employment to regenerate the economy of this province,

and instead of addressing one of the major problems of small business

and the tourism industry, which is access to capital, he has done

practically nothing in that regard.

His whole approach to casinos and slot machines — which of course is

not his alone — has been totally confused. There's a suggestion that

there will be some test of slot machines in casinos on boats to see

whether we can put them throughout the rest of the province. He has not

made any

[ Page 2416 ]

orderly approach to that one. We're not sure what

has happened with Gameplan 2000. It has been laid out, but there are

people suggesting that it has no particular coordination to it. All

these programs have come from the minister, and they really show a lack

of coordination.

The centralization of control is an issue that seems to be on the

minister's mind. Not only is the government centralized; it seems the

minister was reported as having told an organization in the Okanagan

that he would see about their request for about $7,000, because he was

going to ask the Premier. That kind of centralization is something that

I think everybody should know about. He has appointed boards and chairs

of boards in these non-profit societies that he has set up to run the

facilities within the heritage areas — the museum, the heritage parks

and so on. That is obviously totally in the hands of the minister. The

minister has chosen that he be in charge. He is going to continue to

move the games into the ministry. It's a centralization that I think he

perhaps hasn't managed to mention to us all.

Another place where in fact there is a centralization of control is

in the number of areas where the minister has some interest, although

he may not have some direct control. We wonder how much he has put into

the idea of government party hearings for things such as Project Pride,

liquor hearings, and so on and so forth, when in fact they could be

better heard, better dealt with, by a legislative committee. We wonder

if the minister recognized the kind of centralization he was in, and we

think he probably did when it came to the PNE and the York-Hannover

issue, where Expo equipment was to be sold to the York-Hannover company

to set up another theme park related to the PNE, and so on and so

forth, all of which was handled by a single person, and the minister

recognized that that was going to be happening. That kind of

centralization of control is of concern.

The consultation I was talking about that we believe is not there

comes out in a number of areas, and I think that it's very clear when

we come back to the issue of fees for the museum and the heritage

parks. For example, we have the president of the museums association

saying that they were not consulted about fees for the Provincial

Museum. One begins to wonder.... The minister said that he thought that

he had consulted with the museums association because he had consulted

with some member of the association. One wonders, then, if that was the

same kind of consultation that took place with the librarians. We asked

him about his bill the other day, which said that they did not need to

be a librarian in order to be appointed a director of that part of his

ministry.

On South Moresby, for example, the Tourism Industry Association of

British Columbia made it public that they had asked the minister to

make South Moresby into a park, and he wasn't listening at the time.

Again, the Hotels Association have said that it took a month to arrange

an appointment on liquor hearings. These kinds of things that indicate

there is no consultation going on, Mr. Chairman, are of great concern

to us.

It seems to me that one of the most important things that the

minister could do to enlarge the idea of consultation, and also to

indicate that there is not this total centralization of power again, is

to refer the issue of fees for the Provincial Museum and for the

heritage parks, which he says will be under review, to a legislative

committee on tourism. There is no reason in the world why that issue

should not have a broad look. The minister has obviously not set up a

system that has general support. I think that would be a very wise move

on his part.

Mr. Chairman, just to try to get to the end of the general remarks

that I wanted to make, I want to express my concern with the minister

saying that one of the objectives of the ministry is to increase the

gross provincial revenues from tourism, culture, recreation, sport and

heritage resources. I think that that emphasis, Mr. Chairman, is not

what most of the people in this province would want. I think they want

an emphasis on culture, recreation and heritage to be different than

just increasing revenues for the province.

Before we leave the ministry estimates altogether, Mr. Chairman, I

want to ask the minister a very specific question. He told us on Friday

that Mr. Ron Butlin, who was the coordinator of the Summer and Winter

Games, was not fired. In fact, he repeated that statement. I guess

we're going to have to ask Mr. Minister what he means by "fired,"

because in fact I understand that Mr. Butlin received a communication

on May 27 which told him that under paragraph 16 he had been given

notice of termination. That is termination for cause. Is that firing,

Mr. Minister?

I see the minister chooses not to respond. I think the minister

perhaps would like to answer the question whether he meant to mislead

the House when he said on Friday that Mr. Butlin was....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, sorry; "mislead the House" cannot

be tolerated. Will you retract that, please?

MS. EDWARDS: I will retract that, Mr. Chairman.

Did the minister mean to say other than that Mr. Butlin was fired?

Because in fact it seems that the evidence shows that he was given a

termination notice by the ministry.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as the question of Mr.

Butlin is a personnel matter within the ministry, I refuse to answer

the question.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman, when the issue is as public as it

has been, I am surprised that the minister is unwilling to give some of

the true information. I would think that he would want the truth to

emerge at this point. I would like to make it very clear: did the

ministry send the letter to Mr. Butlin terminating his contract?

MR. ROSE: I don't think it's satisfactory, Mr. Chairman, for

the minister to evade a question on the grounds that it is a personnel

matter.

HON. MR. REID: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Butlin is still an employee of the B.C. government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order, Mr. Minister; I'm sorry about that. The opposition House Leader continues.

MR. ROSE: The minister told us explicitly that he had not

been fired. We have a termination notice terminating his employment

with the ministry. It's got to be one way or the other. Either the

minister was — not misleading the House, but — unintentionally

misleading the House on Friday, or there is something wrong. Somebody

forged a document called a termination order. You can't have it both

ways. You are either fired or you're not fired. Which is it? Was Mr.

[ Page

2417 ]

Butlin fired with cause, or would the minister like

to apologize for giving to the House information which is at best

questionable?

HON. MR. REID: In answer to the member for Kootenay, Mr. Butlin and the ministry reached a severance package that was mutually agreed upon.

MR. ROSE: Well, it's a little bit like the old question: did

he fall or was he pushed? The termination notice that we have in our

possession indicates that he was terminated for cause. It doesn't

matter how you bought him off; that's irrelevant. The point is, he was

fired and you told the House he wasn't. The minister, I think, should

very seriously consider apologizing to the House.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, if agreement for severance is

"fired," then he was fired. We had reached a mutually agreed

settlement. I did not fire Mr. Butlin.

MS. EDWARDS: Through you, Mr. Chairman, I think that if in

fact you may have changed your mind after the ministry sent a letter to

Mr. Butlin which told him he was terminated, the question that you need

to answer is: are you aware that the ministry sent a letter to Mr.

Butlin that his contract was terminated?

HON. MR. REID: There is no question that we have communicated

with Mr. Butlin on an agreeable settlement by correspondence from the

ministry. He is still an employee of the ministry for 60 days following

the agreement for separation.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Minister, would you call his employment right now direct employment, or is he employed through a contract currently?

[3:00]

HON. MR. REID: He's currently employed by contract, which he

was.... When I took over the ministry, he was also employed by

contract. He was a contractor up until the agreement for him to take

the job that he was offered in Washington state.

MR. ROSE: I wonder if the minister can confirm to the House

whether or not there was an agreement reached with Mr. Butlin for his

termination after he threatened to sue the ministry for wrongful

dismissal.

HON. MR. REID: Not to my knowledge.

MR. ROSE: Could the minister advise the House whether or not

Mr. Butlin's resignation was requested by the ministry, or was it

something he did on his own?

HON. MR. REID: I understand or I recall it was as a request from Mr. Butlin.

MR. ROSE: I wonder if the minister could confirm then that

actually he was fired on request. I wonder if a termination notice for

cause would not be considered dismissal.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman, I have another question of the

minister. The minister said yesterday that we will not continue to

operate in the province of British Columbia with somebody who is

working with some other employer at the same time. Now I wonder if the

minister has any indication for me that Mr. Butlin was working for

someone else at the same time as he was working for the province of

British Columbia, at any time before the letter of termination was sent

to Mr. Butlin.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, we currently have under contract

an employee who has a job in Washington state, by agreement, to

finalize the Delta Summer Games, by virtue of an agreement with Mr.

Butlin.

MS. EDWARDS: Has the minister any indication that Mr. Butlin was working for anyone else before the time of his termination?

HON. MR. REID: The answer is no.

MR. ROSE: According to the Blues, this Mr. Butlin was

terminated because he was engaged by someone outside British Columbia.

Now he's just contradicted.... The minister said that he had no

indication that he was employed by some other jurisdiction at the time

he was working for British Columbia. If that's the case, then why was

he fired?

Vote 59 approved on division.

On vote 60: ministry operations, $50,675,347.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Minister, I see by the very broad figures

that are in vote 60 that there is a 30 percent increase in operating

costs. Only 12 percent of that is for salary and benefits, and in fact

overall the total increase is only 23 percent. So the operating costs

have gone up considerably more than anything else. I wonder if you

could give me some idea why that is the case, that that is where the

major increase rests.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, the answer to that one is the

attractions.... There is an increase of about $500,000 as a result of

improvements and administration in the two major historical towns of

Barkerville and Fort Steele.

MS. EDWARDS: Which part would that be in, Mr. Minister? As I

understand the estimates, the major rise is in land, buildings and

works. Is that part of it? The other major rise is in data and word

processing systems.

HON. MR. REID: If the member is talking about vote 60, the

increase over '86-87 in vote 60 is under attraction operations of

almost $500,000, and that specifically is for the improvements to the

facilities at Fort Steele and Barkerville.

Vote 60 approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS AND LANDS

(continued)

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Welcome, Mr. Premier; we appreciate your work

on the weekend. I think all British Columbians and Canadians do. As to

who worked more, yourself or the Prime

[ Page

2418 ]

Minister, that is a moot point; but the benefit is there for all of us and we appreciate that.

I'd like to discuss, Mr. Chairman, the situation of the truck

loggers here on the coast; and I'm sorry that the second member for

Dewdney (Mr. Jacobsen) has not participated in this debate, as far as

I'm aware, on the question of the truck loggers, having been a truck

logger through most of his career.

The truck loggers have a serious problem — and I understand that

they met with the government caucus in the last week or two. They have

basically been getting a flat price over the last five or six years

which hasn't gone up with inflation and hasn't gone up with labour

costs or equipment costs — has not significantly changed. At the same

time, the companies have been able, through the stumpage system, to

handle costs beyond what contract prices have been. That's only of

importance in good market years, as the past year has been, but the

Hopwood report suggested that there could be something in the range of

a $100 million difference between the allowances the Crown allows and

what the actual truck loggers get.

So these people feel desperately squeezed in the current

circumstances. They are, in effect, something like southern

sharecroppers: locked into the tough dirty work in forestry, without

getting the returns that are justified for them. Some of then have said

to us that they think they're being pushed well beyond reason. Some of

them said: "We're going to be reduced to mama-and-papa operations,

living in a tent, if the big companies have their way," And they say

that the only way that they can be saved in the circumstances is if the

Ministry of Forests develops a standard contract that will give them

some protection, and if the Ministry of Forests demands or requires

that there be an arbitration clause, so that they are not just victims.

These are medium and small operators dealing with multinational

companies, so they're in the squeeze. The companies have been pocketing

— certainly in the last year — significant differences between what is

allowed under stumpage for the cost of stump-to-dump work and what

these people have been getting.

If the government has a strategy to push them against the wall and

convert them into non-union gyppo operations, I think you should be

honest about it. I don't think that's good for the coast. I think it'll

be turmoil. The IWA and trade unions have worked through much of this

century to establish reasonable working conditions. That is now in the

balance, in terms of the squeeze play that has been going on with the

truck loggers.

They point to the examples of the prices for pulp logs, for example.

Right now they're getting $21 a cubic metre for truck loggers' work, as

I understand it. The member for Dewdney might confirm that, but that's

in my notes from the meeting that we had with the truck loggers. At the

same time, pulp prices have been going up. The pulp companies are doing

extremely well, but they say that the costs are something like $45 in

terms of their work. That's a tremendous gap for them to swallow. In

effect, the companies are asking the truck loggers to log at a loss. It

partly explains why as much pulpwood is left on the ground as is left

there. At any rate, what they face is a real squeeze play, regardless

of the numbers.

They desperately need an arbitration clause. It's reasonable that

the Ministry of Forests should have a standard contract. It's

reasonable that they should have arbitration, so that they're not

totally at the mercy of the major companies.

The truck loggers also say that there has been collusion in terms of

the contract price, that there are monthly meetings between all of the

majors on the question of prices and payments to the truck logging

people. That as well shouldn't be tolerated by the Ministry of Forests.

They clearly have a reasonable case. They've been doing good work.

It's hard, tough work, and it deserves more consideration by the

minister and the Ministry of Forests in order to have this sector of

the industry survive and make a decent living.

They are also concerned about a whole range of forest policy

matters, and I won't take much time on that. You have their brief, as

do we. But the whole question of log exports is there, still to be

grappled with. A year ago this government approved log exports on a

scale unheard of in the modem history of the province, in an area as

big as the country of France: all of the central coast, all of the area

back of the panhandle, and the Queen Charlotte Islands. There may have

been a rationale for it in the tough times in the forest industry.

These are not tough times in the forest industry; the rationale is not

there. If my memory serves me right, one of the major orders-in-council

was in July of last year and was for a year. I haven't checked to see

if another order-in-council has come through. But clearly it is not

justified. The companies are doing extremely well. There is no need for

those levels of export at all, even in terms of your rationale in the

past. Those logs should be used for the future of British Columbia, for

industry in British Columbia, for new finished products in British

Columbia.

Finally, just a little more on tenure. There is a need for that

tenure system to be opened to a much greater extent. You can see it as

close as 20 or 30 miles away from Victoria. We have these major tenure

systems that lock up the land for other uses, and for the reasonable

range of uses that we might achieve. I mentioned the north Island

Highway from Campbell River to Port McNeill. You get nothing at all

along that highway in terms of pluralistic human economic development.

You don't get motels, Mr. Minister; you don't get stores or reasonable

development; you don't get bed-and breakfast places; you don't get the

odd small farm; you don't get the mixture of activity you should

reasonably get as you move through countryside — that is, the mixture

of human settlement and the genius of individuals working the land.

Those are locked-up lands in this whole northern half of Vancouver

Island. There has to be a different policy, particularly when you open

up highways like the highway north of Campbell River. It's a tremendous

opportunity in terms of tourism and a whole range of activities, and

all you've got is one little grocery store and gas station at Woss

Camp, and maybe one other thing that I can remember. That doesn't make

any sense.

Look at the southern half of Vancouver Island, at the range of human

activity on the southern Island between Campbell River and Victoria.

It's extraordinary what human genius is doing in the southeastern part

of the Island. But the western and northern halves of the Island are

really locked-up forest empires, and we're the losers. You could have a

much more flexible policy, without hurting the forest companies to

speak of, and that would be beneficial in economic terms for everybody.

You can apply that here just, say, in Victoria. Look at all the

tourism you get in Victoria. You could relate that to some kind of

movement through the forest tenures in Cowichan — you've got Duncan,

the Cowichan Valley, Port Renfrew and

[ Page

2419 ]

Jordan River. You could have a significant loop if

you opened up those lands to a greater extent for a wider range of

human activities. That would be an interesting tourist loop, an

interesting highway diversion from Victoria, and it would be a nice,

pleasant day trip. That's a real opportunity.

[3:15]

The same applies in places like Alberni, Cumberland and Qualicum.

You could have a similar loop on that part of Vancouver Island as well.

They're now dead ends. There needn't be dead-end roads going to

Alberni. There needn't be a dead-end road going to Port Renfrew. Those

could be loop roads, tourist roads, providing a whole range of economic

activity within the forest. That would be beneficial for us all.

So those tenures are not only limiting new people in terms of the

industry; they're also limiting diversity and limiting employment in

British Columbia. You don't have to throw them right out, tempting as

that might be, because you have an industrial structure there to deal

with. But there could certainly be some loosening of these

strait-jackets that prevent development in far too much of the province.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, just to start with the last

point first, there is nothing stopping a review of any proposal for an

alternative use of a piece of forest land. We'll take a look at each of

those cases on its own merit, with a view to a possibly higher land use

value. As far as recreational use of the tenures is concerned, that too

is part of the integrated land use requirements of this government, not

just this ministry. There are opportunities there to be sure, and as

these tenures and the management plans mature, those sorts of needs and

desires could be addressed — each on its own merit, of course.

Just to drop back to log exports, log exports are a relative matter.

If there isn't a market, then the Timber Export Advisory Committee will

recommend that an export permit be allowed. If they don't, then it

doesn't go out. As far as the standing-green export permits are

concerned, they are available in the North Kallum-Bell-Irving area, and

will be until 1990, I believe. It was a five-year commitment to the

licensees there. In the meantime, those of us from the northwest are

trying to get B.C. Hydro to consider extending the power grid from

where it ends presently — basically the substation at Aiyansh — to

Stewart, and someday maybe we'll see it move right on up Highway 37.

Just to touch a moment on the comment about collusion on prices,

it's fine to make those kinds of statements in the House here on behalf

of another organization, but if that other organization feels it has

absolute proof of collusion on prices, then there is a legal route to

take. As I understand it, that's contrary to Canadian law. The truck

loggers have been constantly in touch with the ministry offices over

the years. They're always welcome. I know a number of them personally.

I understand that they would like to see a standard industry-wide

contract. Government doesn't normally get involved with individual

contracts and individual business. But when we're talking major

resource in the province, we've told the truck loggers that we'll

certainly take that under advisement. I know I have worked on a

standard industry contract committee with the British Columbia Interior

Logging Association. It took several years, and we came up with a

sample. Some people use it; some people don't.

I can assure the member opposite that neither this ministry nor this government

is on a non-union strategy as far as the truck loggers are concerned or any

other organization in the province is concerned. Whether the truck loggers are

making $21 a metre or $41 a metre or $61 a metre — I have no way of knowing

— that's between the licensee and the contractors. If you want to go into

the business. I guess you go in and you negotiate. If they feel they're

not getting a good deal, then the recourse, in some cases, is through civil

law; in other cases, I guess they have to come to government because they feel

they're being frustrated any way they turn.

So we've agreed to keep the doors open and keep the lines of

communication open and work with them. Perhaps one thing we might think

about is looking at a sample contract development, using perhaps the

Select Standing Committee on Forests and Lands as a vehicle to help

develop something like that. It's something to think about anyway.

MR. WILLIAMS: What about the arbitration clause?

HON. MR. PARKER: Whatever develops with the sample industry

contract that's acceptable to all par-ties is fine. If there's one of

those in there, I guess that's fine.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'd just like to pursue this point. The big

companies don't want it but it's the reasonable thing to do, because

we're talking about rabbits bargaining with elephants. They need some

help, those rabbits. And that's what we're asking for. We want an

arbitration clause in there so that these companies can't be arbitrary.

Right now they're saying: "We don't care what your wage costs are,

that's what we're paying." They're saying: "We're not considering

depreciation, because we don't care about your depreciation problems on

equipment." That's not reasonable. So they say they need arbitration

clauses in there so that some reasonable third party can deal with the

mess they're getting into. They have been squeezed now for half a dozen

years. They've been freeloading on the public. They've been putting

money in their pocket in the form of stumpage that belongs to the

Crown, because they've been squeezing the contractor. The time has come

to clean up the act. So the question is: will you accept an arbitration

clause in those contracts? Will you require it so that this remaining

independent sector of the industry can survive?

HON. MR. PARKER: Yes, we can take that under consideration.

I'm not sure that government should be involved in everybody's

business. The next thing we know, we'll be involved in your contract

with your dry cleaner and yourself. It's tantamount to the same thing

when you start poking around in people's private affairs. I don't think

that's quite correct. Anyway, sure, we'll take that under consideration.

MR. KEMPF: On that point, Mr. Chairman, the minister is

absolutely correct. But what has to be done is that a place has to be

made for the small entrepreneur in British Columbia. I was asked about

the arbitration clause too, and it's second-best. If that's the only

thing they can get, so be it. But that's not the answer, Mr. Chairman.

The answer is to make a place in the forest industry in the province of

British Columbia for the little guy. If we did that, we wouldn't have

to talk about arbitration clauses — not at all. Six or seven years!

They've been downtrodden for 40 years. There is no place. Of the annual

allowable cut, 6 percent is going to the small business enterprise

program. Then you think there's a place for the small guy in the

province's major resource. Not at all;

[ Page 2420 ]

there's no place at all. That's why they have to go after such things as arbitration clauses.

I wasn't even going to talk about that. In passing, I wish I could

share the enthusiasm of the first member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Williams) in regard to what went on on South Moresby on the weekend,

but I don't. This province — this country — will rue the day that that

happened, mark my words. It's a black day for British Columbia that we

couldn't have had the best of both worlds. And we could have; we had a

marvellous opportunity. But raw, bare politics was played in Victoria

last Saturday afternoon, and that's why we have a national park reserve

on South Moresby. We couldn't use a little bit of logic; we couldn't

have forestry and tourism together in that most beautiful spot. But we

could have. Raw politics was played by two people who think to use that

to get re-elected. I'm afraid that at least one of them — the one that

has to go to the polls first — is going to have great difficulty.

We were fairly general in our questioning last week in this

minister's estimates, but I wish to get a little more specific. First,

I'd like an answer to the question I asked last Tuesday, I believe it

was. It was: can the minister assure this House that no

section 88

money will be utilized to upgrade the extension of the BCR? Can the

minister assure this House that no

section 88 money — seeing as we're

not going to cut out that corporate welfare — will be used in the

extension necessary in the British Columbia Railway?

The minister said he didn't know where the money was coming from,

and I accept that. I just want to make sure that none of that money is

coming out of

section 88 credits, because then, in effect, the

taxpayers of this province will have paid for the upgrading of that

railroad, not the forest companies and the multinationals, who should

be paying for it.

I'd like to touch a little more on the truck logger situation, .

It's not just the Truck Loggers' Association. It's every small

entrepreneur trying to hang on by his very fingernails in this

province's major resource industry, the forest industry. What's going

on in regard to the prices paid those truck loggers is the same as

what's going on in the Vancouver log market. It's price-fixing. You

know, the boys get together and say: "Oh, well, we'll pay them so much

this year, and if they squawk, they're down the road," And where have

they got to go? Nowhere. There is no timber for them in this huge and

beautiful province. A bountiful forest industry, but only for a very

few who can partake of it.

I called for a proposal to look into what was going on in the

Vancouver log market — not just in the log market itself; in the towing

and scaling practices on the coast of this province. I want to read

into the record of this House the object of the proposal I called for,

and I then want to ask the minister if he's still reluctant to call for

this proposal and to let a little sunshine in onto that mess over there

which has been taking place for 40 years and which has robbed the

people of this province of an estimated $1 billion a year.

I read from the proposal which I asked for and received to identify

"the true free market value of logs floating free and clear in the

vicinity of the port of Vancouver for the years 1948 to 1987," and to

reveal what has happened over those years in the Vancouver log market.

If I'm wrong, fine. Let a little sunshine in. The concept of free

market value to be addressed is as follows:

"Free market value is defined as the highest price in

terms of money which a log will bring if exposed for sale in the open

market in a quantity, form and provenance of supply such that it will

maximize its utility to the purchaser, and further, that it is exposed

in the market, allowing a reasonable time to find a purchaser who buys

with full knowledge of all the uses to which the log is adapted and for

which it is capable of being used, and which the purchaser buys

unfettered by any restriction other than those imposed by economics."

What's wrong with that, I ask you, Mr. Minister? What's wrong with

finding out what our timber is worth in British Columbia? What's wrong

with seeing what's been going on in the Vancouver log market and the

towing and scaling practices on our coast? I think we had a bit of a

window into that in the Shoal Island situation.

[3:30]

What's been going on since 1947, and are, in fact, those goings-on

correct? I have reason to believe they're not, and I'll read into the

record, Mr. Chairman, from Timber Rights and Forest Policy ,

volume I of the report of the Royal Commission on Forest Resources by

Mr. Peter H. Pearse. He said back in 1976 — and I quote from the Pearse

report:

"The transactions that now dominate the log market are

not those between independent sellers and buyers, but rather trades

between the large integrated companies. These sales are frequently made

subject to an explicit or implied condition that the purchaser will

later make available to the seller other logs more suitable to his

needs on a reciprocal basis at the market price prevailing at the time

of the subsequent transaction.

"Such trends raise serious questions about the

continuing effectiveness of log market" — these are Mr. Pearse's words,

not mine, Mr. Chairman — "both as a mechanism for efficiently

allocating timber to its highest use and for generating prices that

accurately reflect log values."

"The task force which studied the log market in some

detail was primarily concerned with the reliability of log prices as

accurate indicators of timber values, and the high proportion of

non-competitive trading was one of several factors that led to doubts

about the dependability of indicated prices for stumpage appraisal

purposes."

For stumpage appraisal purposes: I didn't say it; it was said by Dr.

Peter Pearse back in 1976. And that was 11 years ago. Eleven years ago,

and nothing has been done the same as nothing has been done about the

chip prices since 1974. We're not only giving the resource away in the

forest industry of British Columbia; we're paying to have it taken. Who

is the loser? The taxpayer of British Columbia is the loser, to the

tune of an estimated $1 billion a year. That would pay our deficit. We

wouldn't have to have all those punitive taxes heaped on our heads. So

what's wrong with spending a paltry $50,000 to have a proper report

done, to know once and for all whether in fact that is the case in

British Columbia?

I've got to ask that question of the minister, Mr. Chairman: what is

wrong with going ahead with this proposal? I said I was going to get

specific, but I'll give the minister a chance to answer.

HON. MR. PARKER:

Section 88: I can't say what's going to come

to pass on the B.C. Rail extension and financing, whether it's going to

go ahead, because I don't know at

[ Page

2421 ]

this time. But I do know there are no

section 88 funding applications for that activity to date.

To deal with the log market question, we have a stumpage proposal

going out today that's going to be followed through by Deloitte Haskins

Sells on behalf of the ministry with industry and other interested

parties. If this proposal is acceptable, then the log market won't be a

player.

There is nothing wrong with investigating the log market to find out

just how good it is or how effective it is or how realistic it is or

who the real players are, or any of these other questions that have

been raised. As for the proposal that the member for Omineca (Mr.

Kempf) keeps waving around in the House, I don't have a copy of that

myself.

MR. KEMPF: I tabled it.

HON. MR. PARKER: That proposal may be appropriate, and it

might not be appropriate. I think we should have several bids when

we're talking about dealing with public funds.

MR. KEMPF: I have no problem with that at all. I don't care

whether in fact this exact proposal is used, but something of a similar

nature. The reason I say that is because these objects have to be met.

We have to find out; we have to do a thorough investigation. I know

without a doubt that this proposal will do it.

As far as

section 88 money and the BCR are concerned, it's the

minister's decision. You make those kinds of decisions, Mr. Minister,

so why can't you assure this House that you won't make that kind of

decision; that

section 88 money will not be used for the extension of

the BCR? It shouldn't be used for anything else either, for that

matter, because it's coming right out of the taxpayer's pocket. Can you

assure this House that

section 88 money won't be used to upgrade the

BCR? It's no different from a road. Maybe we haven't used it for

railroads in the past, but it's no different than road building or road

maintenance, and

section 88 moneys are used for that: $105.73 million

section 88 credits in this fiscal year alone.

I want to get to another subject, Mr. Chairman. It's having a

detrimental effect on small businesses in my constituency and

throughout the north, and in the minister's constituency as well.

That's the practice, this year for the first time, of having a Bell 205

helicopter roam the region — I'm talking now of the Prince Rupert

forest district — effectively on standby. That makes it unnecessary for

the local small entrepreneurial companies to be on standby in many

instances, and they lose that revenue, placing them in a position

of.... In a couple of cases they're facing bankruptcy. If small

helicopter companies cannot rely on some of the firefighting business

during the summer, they can't hope to exist in these small communities

and provide a service year round. So it's a case either of taking a

serious look at that or of writing some of these small companies off,

and I don't think that's good enough.

I have a couple of questions with respect to that Bell 205

situation. Was the contract for the Bell 205 service obtained through

public tender? Will the cost of having this machine do what it's doing

compare with the annual expenditure for standby time paid in previous

years to local small operators? As I said before, some of these

companies exist in your own constituency, Mr. Minister, and I would

suggest that it's something we should be seriously looking at. We need

these small people. These operators are needed in these very small

rural communities, and unless they can depend on some of that business

created by forest fire watch standby in the summer, then we're not

going to have them. It's as simple as that.

Maybe the minister can answer those questions.

HON. MR. PARKER: Can the member clarify if it's a Bell 205? Or is it a 204 or 206?

MR. KEMPF: I'm told it's a 205.

HON. MR. PARKER: Would that be similar to a helicopter operated by a private individual in Houston?

MR. KEMPF: I know what the minister is trying to do, and that

is not acceptable. You're not going to stand here in this House and

tell me that because it's a larger machine it can do a better job,

faster — ta-da. ta-da, ta-da! I won't accept that. Who cares whether

it's a 205, a 204 or a 206. That's immaterial. The fact of the matter

is the small entrepreneur is going out of business.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, I'm just trying to get a

little clarification here, but sometimes that's not possible. There are

several independent helicopter outfits along Highway 16 West that fly

Bell 206 equipment or its equivalent. Where they are properly equipped

to carry out whatever duties they may have, whether it's fire

suppression or ignition of slash-burning, I believe we should take a

good hard look at using local operators wherever possible. But if we're

talking about a situation of need, where the terms of reference are

that a larger machine than is available locally is required, then I

guess we'll go elsewhere and take it under tender. There were two

questions asked. First: was the contract obtained through public

tender? And second: will the costs compare to the costs of using local

operators in previous years? We'll take those two on notice and bring

answers back to you.

MR. KEMPF: I'd like to talk for just a moment about woodlots.

I'd just like to ask what happened to the legislation that was in the

works being drafted with relation to changes in woodlot size. I didn't

see any such legislation show up during this session, which I

understand is winding down fairly quickly. I'd like to know where it is

and why it isn't coming forward. You don't have to be much of an expert

to know that the woodlot program is not working very well out there.

It's not working very well for the same reason that the small business

enterprise program isn't working very well. To make it work well, you

have to put more wood into it. And where would you have to get that

wood but from the multinational monopolies in this province, and they

probably wouldn't like that. It's quite clear in the minds of many

people out there that with the woodlot size now in effect in this

province, practically no one can make a success of operating on a

woodlot — if they can get one. That's usually very, very difficult.

However, I would like to know what the minister is going to do about

that and when we're going to see some legislation in this House

pertaining to woodlots and their size.

[3:45]

[ Page 2422 ]

HON. MR. PARKER: The purpose of woodlots is not to be the

sole means of support. They're a means of supplementing income on a

rural enterprise, usually a farm or a ranch. There has been no

introduction on woodlot sizes in this session, Mr. Chairman, because we

in the ministry decided that for the time being the size of woodlots

would not exceed the current limit of 400 hectares. Woodlots are part

of the forest management strategy, so they are part of the allowable

annual cut. If we want to increase that program or any other program,

because the allowable cut is a finite amount, we'll have to decide

where it's going to come from — whether it's going to come from other

allocations, whatever they may be. At this time there is no plan to

enlarge woodlots.

As far as the comment that if people can get a woodlot — they can,

but it's not of a sufficient size for them to make a living.... I would

like to see woodlots more readily available to the people of British

Columbia, and for the next little while I'll be working towards that

end. I've already had discussions with several woodlot owners'

associations. There's nothing like having individuals buying onto

forest management programs to see forest management a success. Woodlots

are a good means for public education, and they're a good means for

intensive silviculture operations, and I'm certainly in favour of

woodlots. This time we're not going to increase their size, but we are

going to do everything we can to make them a little easier to obtain.

MR. KEMPF: Swift change in the direction of philosophy since

March 6 in the Ministry of Forests and Lands, Mr. Chairman. That

legislation was already in the works. But you know, you can talk as you

like. You can talk glowingly about wanting to make more woodlots

available to British Columbians, but in order to do that, it's the same

as in the small business enterprise program. In order to make more

wood. available for the entrepreneur in British Columbia, you're going

to have to bite the bullet, and take it from some of those who already

have too much — and there's some of that around too; in fact, there's a

great deal of it. I could read you some figures — and I won't bore the

House with it today — but there's a great deal of that around.

For the life of me I don't know how this minister is going to live

up to a promise made in question period not too long ago to work toward

the 25 percent in the small business enterprise program, as has been

promised by successive ministers over the years and never come to

fruition.

I stood in this House last week and said it should be more; and it

should. The only way you're going to create a log market in British

Columbia is to make some wood available to the people of this province.

The only way you're going to get away from the need for arbitration

clauses in the truck loggers' contracts is to put a little free market

system back into the forest industry in British Columbia. Since 1947 it

has been eroded, and there is no more free enterprise in the forest

industry of British Columbia. It's all in the hands of multinational

monopolies; it's in a stranglehold, but if you're going to make more

woodlots available, if you're going to make at least 25 percent of the

annual allowable cut of the province available to the small business

enterprise program, you're going to have to bite the bullet. You're

going to have to take on the Adam Zimmermans of this world.

Why do you think it is that a member of this Legislature can't get any

coverage in the Vancouver Sun or Province ? You need only get this magazine,

Report on Business , May 1987, and read an

article to find out who owns those

newspapers and who sits on, the board of those newspapers. It's the same

Adam Zimmerman who is on the cover. Try to change it as you might, Mr. Minister,

and I wish you luck — I did it last week, and I do it again here today. Try

to change it if you like, but it goes much deeper than you might think, although

I think as a registered forester, Mr. Chairman, the minister knows. You can't

get the true story about the forest industry printed in the major newspapers

in this province because Mr. Zimmerman doesn't want it, and he sits on the

board of both the Noranda organization and the Vancouver Sun . Funny, isn't

it? That's why you can't get the truth printed in the media of British

Columbia about the forest industry. That's why it's in the mess it is,

and has been since 1947, and probably will be until all of our good timber is

gone. And then they too will be gone, and the people of British Columbia will

be left to clean up the mess. We're seeing it all over this province, mess

after mess left by those multinationals who take what they want and leave what

they want, and do exactly as they please. Lots of luck, Mr. Minister.

I want to get a little closer to home. I have a situation here.

We've talked a lot about forestry issues, but this minister has

responsibility for lands as well, and I'd like to talk for a moment on

behalf of one of my constituents, in regard to what I think to be

unacceptable practice by the ministry, and how that individual was

treated — how any individual is treated with respect to work done on

agricultural leases. This little guy.... I wish we would treat the

large multinationals in the forest industry the same as we treat the

ordinary citizen in British Columbia, Mr. Chairman. Then we'd get

someplace. But we don't do that. This guy can't fight back, so we sock

it to him. It's unacceptable.

He couldn't get some of his work done on a particular lease because

of weather conditions. The minister can understand that; he's a

northerner. He knows what our summers can be from time to time. I know

that your people in the field don't exactly love this individual,

because he speaks his mind. That goes for a lot of people who speak

their mind: they're not very well liked in some sectors, Mr. Chairman.

But that doesn't make them wrong. This guy is in that situation.

Mr. Minister, I have a response from you, saying: "No, I'm sorry.

I'm sorry we can't do anything; that's the policy." Well, anything

can be changed. I know — I was minister for a while. You know, we can be just

in cases such as Ron Ray. We can help out just a bit that little guy out there

who's had a bit of a tough time, and has had some lousy weather, and couldn't

get some work done. There's no problem with it at all, and I just want an

assurance from the minister here today that he's going to look once again

at the Ron Ray situation with a view to helping this fellow out, not with a

view to simply saying: "Well, I'm sorry. That's the way it is.

You're going to have to pay the trespass."

Again, I say that if we treated other people or the multinational

corporations in this manner, we'd probably regain that estimated $1

billion in a heck of a rush. I just want to hear the minister say he'll

take another look, with a view to assisting my constituent in this

situation. I think it merits just another look.

One last thing: I want to talk a bit about a situation that the

minister is very familiar with. I touched on it last week. I know that

there's a mess in the area north of Stewart. I know that the practices

carried on by some of those companies there are just not acceptable,

and I had asked for an investigation of what was going on there, with a

view to doing something

[ Page

2423 ]

about it. We've got one company in particular,

Tay-M, which is not living up.... Mr. York is not living up to his

contract with the provincial government, with respect to his forest

tenure; I know that. But not only that; as the minister knows, he's let

many, many entrepreneurs hang out to dry, and is not paying them for

services rendered, when he has shipped the logs and gotten his money,

to the point where logging contractors and log haulers are losing their

equipment, going belly-up and having family problems because of it.

It's just not acceptable. I know the minister can't do anything

about that, but the minister can sure as heck ensure this House that

the practices of companies like that are to the letter of the contract

that they signed with this province. I just want to have that assurance.

HON. MR. PARKER: I share the concerns of the member for

Omineca on the manner in which forest licensees operate in the Stewart

area. He's quite right: your hands are tied from getting involved

between the licensee, his contractors and his subcontractors, and it is

rather frustrating at times. But you do want to make sure that they are

following the absolute letter of the contract between the ministry and

the licensee.

On the other matter, I would be pleased to take another look at Ron

Ray's agricultural lease problem with a view to seeing what we could

do, and I would be pleased to meet with the member for Omineca to

follow it through.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'd like to ask the minister to turn his

attention to the matter of reforestation and silviculture. In the

budget there is a major appendix which outlines the ministry's

performance over a number of years, its goals for 1987 and 1988 and

gives a thorough outline of the various sources of funding.

I'd be the first to note that this is an area that I've been

listening to with much interest because, although I live in a town that

has thrived with the lumber industry, it is not an area that I know

from the resource management perspective. But I do know that at various

times over the last number of years the silviculture activities of the

Ministry of Forests have been touted as a major source of employment in

the province and that agreements with the federal government for

costsharing in this area are in the multimillion-dollar range.

[4:00]

When we are looking at the various communities of the province, many

of which have unacceptably high rates of unemployment, when we're

looking at the fact that British Columbia still has a major

unemployment problem, the highest of any province west of the Atlantic

provinces, then activity in this area is extremely important to our

economic activity, both in terms of providing employment for workers

and also of protecting the long-range interests of our forests.

One area that I have been following with particular interest on

behalf of this side of the House is that area of economic activity

through job creation that is targeted to the long-term unemployed — the

social assistance recipients who have been unemployed for a period of

eight months or more, a group of people that both this government and

the federal government have identified for special initiative.

The goal of the program which is reflected in what the provincial government

has labelled JobTrac is to seek to see what effectiveness there is in providing

jobs through various sectors for this group of people. As the budget speech

notes in its appendices, the forest JobTrac program, which is funded through

the forest stand management fund, provides for the employment of social assistance

recipients in forest improvement — primarily silviculture — and notes that this

is one of the major activities under that JobTrac program.

There are a number of things that I would like the minister to

perhaps help me know a little bit more thoroughly. I am informed, first

of all, that last year under this program there was an under

expenditure of $6.5 million, and I'd like the minister to indicate what

dollars were spent, why that $6.5 million was under expended and what

reasons there were for that under expenditure.

In this year's estimates there is an amount of $19.5 million which

is allocated for this particular activity under the forest stand

management fund, and I understand that that is made up of the $6.5

million and something in the order of another $13 million. The

Vancouver Island mayors' fund of about $2 million is in that particular

budget and there also is some contribution by Westar of about $0.5

million.

[Mr. R. Fraser in the chair.]

To date I have not been able to get any significant information

about activity to utilize those funds, although I would presume, Mr.

Minister, that the prime time for employment in the expending of these

funds would he in the spring, summer and fall months. When, for

example, our human services committee visited Prince George a month ago

— almost a month ago to the day from this particular date — we were

informed by the one-stop JobTrac office that not one single contract

had been let in the Prince George forest region, to their knowledge.

They had no information whatsoever about what was happening in the way

of hiring under the JobTrac program. They had no information about how

that hiring was to take place. They had some vague knowledge that it

was happening through the ministry, although this was the one stop shop

where the recipients of these job programs should have been referred.

At that stage, well into what I would presume to be a high time of

activity, nothing was happening.

When we come to JobTrac and all of that employment activity, which

is a major economic thrust — the major economic thrust of this

government in the way of employment creation — I presume that people in

the field would be the very first to know about the activities of

government in steering people into projects for those jobs.

Clearly it appears that the people in the field don't know what's

happening, I understand that proposals need to come to the ministry

through various forest sector people. I would like the minister to

outline what is going to be happening with this portion of his

silviculture funding. It's a relatively small number of dollars in the

total number of dollars outlined in the appendices of the budget

speech. I hope that what's happening in that sector is not some

indication of what's happening under the ministry operations vote or

the

section 88 vote or the small enterprise account or the forest

resource development agreement, where there are significantly larger

numbers of dollars supposedly going into silviculture and reforestation.

So if the minister could give us some indication of what's happening

under the forest stand management fund and those proposals, then

perhaps we can start with that and see what's happening in the other

areas as we follow up.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the member's question on the amounts being spent, in different

[ Page

2424 ]

regions, specifically the Prince George region, I

don't have those hard numbers at hand. But I can tell you that the

advice I have is that the JobTrac programs are fully subscribed in that

region.

The other question goes back to the under expenditure last year in

the forest stand management fund. I don't see that little gem of

information in my briefing book either, so I'd like to take that on

notice, and I'd be pleased to return with an answer.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, the minister states that the

program is fully subscribed in the Prince George region. Could the

minister perhaps provide us with some additional details: when that

particular activity was carried out, the number of jobs, and any

information about the subscription of programs in other parts of the

province? In other words, where are we at this stage of the game with

that part of the silviculture program in this province?

How far along are we in other regions of the province in

subscriptions to the utilization of those funds? Can he tell me how

many people have been employed, either globally or — if he has the

information — by region? Can he also tell me how those projects are in

fact managed? Are they managed through his ministry, or are they

managed through operations like the JobTrac program in Prince George?

How are people employed in those programs?'

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, entry into those programs is

basically through our ministry and also through local employment

offices. In Prince George they have the one-stop centre.

We have proposals throughout the province that should cover all the

funding for JobTrac in the forestry sector this year, generating about

180,000 man-days. The purpose of JobTrac is to help build a

silviculture workforce, and there are some refinements to the JobTrac

program in our ministry that we're addressing at this time in

consultation with Advanced Education. We hope we'll see a more

effective delivery of the program to the people who need it. As far as

the training is concerned, we certainly need them as trained

silviculture workers, and that's why the program's in place.

MS. A. HAGEN: I understand that last year about 133,000

man-days were created. It would be useful to have clear figures for the

number of dollars that were spent last year on this program to generate

those dollars, so we could then compare the 180,000 man-days which the

minister is projecting for this year.

The other question I would like to ask is: when the minister

addresses the matter of refinements, perhaps he would define what those

might be. I assume that they might involve more of a training

component, but would the minister please identify what he means by that

or what kinds of refinements you were looking at in consultation with

the Advanced Education and Job Training ministry? So there are those

two questions, please.

HON. MR. PARKER: It would probably be best if I could ask the member to please just give me two quick shots, one on each question.

MS. A. HAGEN: Let me first go back to the number of man-days.

I understand that last year 133,000 man-days were generated. I wanted

to ask the minister what dollars were expended in 1986 and '87 to

generate those man-days, given that there was an under expenditure last

year — and I still haven't got a clear explanation of that under

expenditure of the $6.5 million. So if we could look at last year — the

under expenditure, the reason for the under expenditure and the dollars

that were actually expended — then we'd have that comparison point. In

asking that question, I'm concerned that there was that under

expenditure last year, because those are significant job creation

dollars, and I think that that's probably something like a third —

maybe more — of the budget that should have been expended in '86-'87.

HON. MR. PARKER: There was approximately $12 million spent

last year for the forestry worker assistance program, as JobTrac was

called in the forestry sector last year. The number of man-days that

generated was 139,176. As to the under expenditure on the forest stand

management fund, I took that question as notice, Madam Member, and I'll

be happy to bring it back to you.

MS. A. HAGEN: The other question was regarding the minister's

general comment on the nature of this program and the refinements that

you're working on with the AEJT ministry. One of the reasons I want to

pursue this — through you, Mr. Chair — is that this whole program is a

multi-ministry program and I want to get some handle on who's

responsible, who's accountable for various aspects of the program and

what the goals of the program are. It's clear that we're looking for

job creations and clear that we're looking at training, and I want to

know what you have in mind regarding this with your discussions with

the Advanced Education and Job Training ministry.

HON. MR. PARKER: We have some ideas that we think might work.

We have yet to discuss them with the minister, and I think, out of

respect, I should withhold my comments. But there has been a program

both on Vancouver Island and in the northwest delivering JobTrac or

FWAP or whatever you want to call it — activities. People that have

been involved have some suggestions, and we think they're good

suggestions, and we'd like to discuss them with the minister. The

Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training (Hon. S. Hagen) is

basically responsible for JobTrac. Each of us in other ministries has a

portion of JobTrac that pertains to our ministry. We think that we can

refine it a little bit, and we want to discuss that with the minister,

and once I've done that I'd be happy to share it. There's nothing

secretive or derogatory about it; I'm just extending a courtesy to a

colleague.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As Minister of Environment, I'll just

respond briefly. I recognize the member's concern on her visit to

Prince George, and I'll advise the committee that in terms of my

ministry and its JobTrac programs, on June 20 I heard of three within

the Ministry of the Environment — that's in the Prince George area — so

they probably came after your visit. But as far as I'm concerned,

they're going well. That's what the parks officials, in my case, told

me. So I think we're on track with JobTrac, if you'll pardon the pun.

[4:15]

MS. A. HAGEN: When I asked the minister how people were hired into these programs, he said through his ministry,

[ Page

2425 ]

through the local employment office. These

particular employees are to be social assistance recipients. Can the

minister please tell me how social assistance people are recruited? Are

they people who apply directly to his ministry or through the local

employment office? Are we in fact hiring social assistance recipients

for the JobTrac program?

HON. MR. PARKER: Yes, we are hiring people from social

assistance programs — as I understand it, the 17-to-24-year age group.

People come into the program in a number of ways: through the advice of

a friend or acquaintance; through somebody they bumped into who's

working on the program; through their social worker, Manpower or the

forestry office; any number of ways. We want to keep the doors open. We

accept references, but the criterion that we have to pay attention to,

of course, is the fact that they are social assistance recipients.

MS. A. HAGEN: I would be quite happy to have the minister

take this question on notice: is there information available on the

number of employees who have been hired in the various forest districts

of the province, if the program is fully subscribed at this time?

Vote 34 approved.

Vote 35: ministry operations, $267,798,152 — approved.

Vote 36: fire suppression program, $60,000,000 — approved.

Vote 37: forest resource development subsidiary agreement (ERDA), $68,883,468 — approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call second reading of Bill 40.

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

HON. MR. PARKER: During first reading of the Forest Amendment

Act, I informed the House that this bill introduces the designation and

management of wilderness areas in our province, and allows us to take

action on changes to our stumpage-pricing procedures, rentals on

various forest tenures, royalties charged on timber licences, reducing

the impact of the United States export costs when upward stumpage

revisions are made — providing the current level of the federal export

tax remains in place — and obtaining information on product prices and

cost to establish timber prices.

I would now like to take a few moments to enlarge upon these amendments. First,

the designation and management of wilderness areas. Our province has a truly

exceptional natural heritage. This requires us to make many decisions on the

management and wise use of our land and its resources, which calls for all the

wisdom and commitment we can muster. Such a commitment also requires knowledge:

a clear understanding of precisely what we're dealing with and where the

directions we are taking are likely to lead us. Our present system for managing

wilderness lands evolved over a long period of time in response to a variety

of factors and pressures. These have changed over the years, along with the

attitudes towards resource stewardship. What we have seen in the eighties is

not a gradual trend in public interest but a dramatic upsurge, with correspondingly

urgent demands on government to formulate and implement policies for the wilderness

areas under their jurisdiction.

In our province our natural public forest endowment is matched by an

extensive provincial park system that has evolved over more than 75

years. Thus, some of the best and most representative wilderness lands

have received park protection. However, the demands for wilderness

preservation go beyond the existing and potential capacity of any park

system and raise questions that extend across our entire provincial

land base. Our policies and our legislation reflect this reality. This

is exactly what sections of the Forest Amendment Act allow us to do:

have an equitable balance between protecting wilderness and encouraging

resource development. It will use existing mechanisms in our resource

ministries for planning, interagency referrals, and public consultation

on land use decisions, and expand these systems where necessary.

Central coordination will be handled through the Environment and Land

Use Committee and the deputy ministers of the agencies involved.

Most importantly, this legislation will provide a process for

addressing individual wilderness areas in a coherent context by

establishing a land use strategy which fairly reflects all relevant

public interests. This was a key recommendation of the Wilderness

Advisory Committee. We believe it is fair to say that this legislation

represents the most significant stage in the implementation of the

committee's report.

I know that this House will have a strong interest in the

forthcoming changes to legislation and to other measures. Over the next

number of months our government will be consulting with those who are

directly concerned with wilderness issues as part of the communication

process established by the legislation. Recreation groups, conservation

organizations, tourist associations and resource industry groups will

all have the opportunity to find out more about the direction in which

this legislation will take us, how we plan to get there and how it will

affect their activities.

Mr. Speaker, the public has a part to play in the process. To a

great extent the success of this legislation will depend on the

approval and understanding of all British Columbians. We are confident

that this legislation will meet with their enthusiastic support.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned during our first reading of the Forest

Amendment Act, the government has been considering for some time

changes to our stumpage pricing procedures. Our current stumpage prices

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

increases in silviculture expenditures over the past years. As I have

said, Mr. Speaker, the government will establish a level of timber

pricing that is appropriate for British Columbia. We will announce the

changes to accomplish this objective in due course.

While stumpage is the largest contributor to direct forest revenue,

rentals on various forest tenures and royalties charged on timber

licences are also significant. Sections 11, 14 and 15 of the Forest

Amendment Act will allow us to take action on rentals and royalties as

part of a balanced package of revenue measures. Changes regarding

rentals and revenues will also be announced in the near future.

[ Page 2426 ]

Under

section 16 the government wishes to pursue the replacement of

the 15 percent federal charge on lumber exports to the United States

with measures suitable to British Columbia. As I stated earlier,

stumpage increases appropriate to British Columbia will be made. The

corresponding reduction in the export tax will then be negotiated with

the United States. The timing of such negotiations is unpredictable and

beyond our government's control. Mr. Speaker, we do not want the

British Columbia forest industry to pay both increased stumpage charges

and the full 15 percent export tax on shipments to the United States;

therefore

section 16 provides a legal basis for refunding a portion of

stumpage increases, providing the current level of the federal export

tax remains in place. To do otherwise would amount to a double charge

on such shipments.

Mr. Speaker, over the years information regarding product prices and

cost has been collected from the forest industry for use in

establishing timber prices. This information is usually provided

voluntarily by most companies, but there has not been a legal

requirement to this end in our Legislature.

Section 19 of the Forest

Amendment Act provides a legal basis for collecting cost information if

this is required in the future.

Finally, Mr. Speaker,

section 24 of the Forest Amendment Act ensures

that stumpage, rental and royalty changes can be implemented for all

forest tenures as soon as possible. This will enable us to move

effectively and decisively to complete changes in an orderly manner.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, these amendments have been introduced to

enable the Ministry of Forests and Lands to be a more effective and

efficient manager of the resources in our forested lands. I would like

to ask all the members of this House to support these amendments. I

move that the bill be now read a second time, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WILLIAMS: The opposition has made it clear for some time

how we feel about the revenues we get from this resource. They're

totally inadequate; they're totally out of date. We've gone through the

whole exercise of the Americans exposing that and putting a whole

industry at risk because this administration has been willing to live

with essentially a non-collection of rent of the resource, to the point

where we get minus numbers for the great public timber of British

Columbia. That continues till now.

The amendments brought about here are clearly necessary in order to

achieve some modicum of equity in terms of this great asset that the

people of British Columbia own. It remains to be seen, though, whether

we achieve that through this legislation. You've been promising — this

administration and the last — significant change in this area for some

time. It is yet to be delivered. It is still some date down the road

when it will be dealt with.

Nevertheless there is a need for the legislation, and clearly the

export tax has to be accommodated, since it's a reflection of our

inadequacies and bad government of the past, and some structure is

necessary. Whether this is the rig ht structure is a neat question.

Since this government feels so beholden to the major forest industrial

companies, this is clearly the way they see the future in terms of

dealing with their close linkages with that sector.

Clearly there is a need for information, and it certainly makes

sense that royalties, stumpage and rentals be dealt with in a more

flexible manner than has been the case in the past. When this kind of

flexibility is given to a minister, it carries a significant

responsibility. The minister can use these powers for good or for ill,

and in accepting this legislation, we're making the pretty grand

assumption that he will use them for good. We think it's necessary to

make that assumption.

That is a considerable burden on the minister. It's a considerable

responsibility, so those kinds of burdens and responsibilities should

carry with them processes for openness and access. We've had no

evidence of that to date from this minister, in terms of him accepting

the need for openness and access in a democratic system.

We've got some concerns about that. I'm a little concerned when he

talks about an "appropriate level." That's a nice civil service term;

it doesn't mean very much. Maybe I shouldn't say that. It's a nice term

that can be used to mean anything.

[4:30]

What happened to the old concept of market value, Mr. Minister — the

idea of us getting what the trees are worth? It seems to me a

reasonable idea. Market value seems to me a reasonable idea in terms of

the pricing of public timber. So when I hear things like "appropriate"

and when I hear terms like "balanced" in terms of a pricing system for

the public forest, I get a little worried. There is certainly a lot

more balance necessary than what we have now; no doubt about that. If

that's what balance means, that's good news.

There is such a thing as real value and real market, and we

certainly expect that will be the level of income for the province and

that they will be real numbers, real value and real market at long

last, relative to pulp prices, relative to the real market evidence

there, relative to the prices being paid for tenure, which is a

reflection of non-collection of rent.

That's what the Queen Charlotte Islands issue is about in terms of

compensation to third parties; that's what capitalized value of

licences is all about; that's a reflection of the uncollected stumpage

and uncollected annual rent that gets capitalized into a huge new

capital value in the licence. That's what that is a reflection of. It's

an automatic economic truism.

It is the same as for the pulp sector. The underpricing there has

been gross, and this legislation allows that to be dealt with. It

doesn't require that it be dealt with. So in that sense it's good news.

The whole question of public timber is a question of provincial

rights. Accommodating the export tax and bringing this jurisdiction

home is important in terms of the constitution of this nation, and in

terms of the rights of provinces in Canada to determine their own

destiny insofar as the land base is concerned. So with some

qualifications Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition see this as a potential

benefit for the people of British Columbia, and we welcome it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Pursuant to standing orders, I advise the House that the minister closes debate.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, I ask your assistance. I've

just received a proposed amendment to the bill. It's a small item

changing the word "rental" and substituting the word "rent." I'm not

clear on procedure. It has to do with

section 14, item (b)(4): "In

prescribing the rates of annual rental" should read "In prescribing the

rates of annual rent...."

MR. SPEAKER: I might advise the member that that could be done in committee. You can give informal notice in

[ Page

2427 ]

closing second reading debate, and move the actual amendment in committee stage.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We'll deal with this one as a matter of

courtesy to the member of the opposition, as if we had sent him a note.

When it gets to committee, then the information is known to the member,

since it is a floor amendment, if you will.

HON. MR. PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker — and through you to the government House Leader, thank you for that advice.

Bill 40, Forest Amendment Act, 1987, read a second time and referred

to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting

of the House after today.

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

On vote 38: minister's office, $220,893.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be able to

present the estimates for the Ministry of Health for 1987-88. The

1987-88 estimates total $3.2 billion. This represents an increase of

$237 million — more than the entire budgets of most ministries of the

provincial government. The Ministry of Health estimates are a strong

reflection of the government's commitment to people, particularly those

in need. They reflect our concern to protect and enhance essential

expenditures, while recognizing the costs of these services. Health

services cannot grow without limit, and health services are not free.

The Ministry of Health shares the overall government concern to guard

the interests of taxpayers and to spare future generations from

excessive debt.

The hospital sector is one of the key elements of our health care

system. British Columbia has one of the finest hospital systems in the

world. To ensure that these essential services remain strong and

effective, hospital programs estimates are increased by $204 million

over last year. These funds will enable our hospitals to remain on the

leading edge in terms of new technology, such as magnetic resonance

imaging, a new technology used for diagnosing central nervous system

diseases and other conditions. MRI will be installed in hospitals in

hospitals in Vancouver and Victoria. Kidney and bone-marrow

transplantation services will continue to expand, and programs will be

developed to permit heart transplants to take place in British Columbia.

While moving forward with the most modem technology advances, we

must not neglect to maintain the basic core of our hospital system. In

1987 and 1988, health care projects valued at $120 million will

commence construction. The construction will create 145 man-years of

employment for 1987-88 and 464 in 1988-89. Included in this are four

acute care hospital projects, five extended-care projects and two

intermediate-care projects. Completion of these projects will provide

an additional 23 acute-care beds, 235 extended-care beds and 75

intermediate-care beds.

Presently under construction and due to open this fiscal year are

new psychiatric beds at the Queen Alexandra Hospital for Children. and

additional extended-care beds at White Rock, Nanaimo, Maple Ridge,

Williams Lake, Vancouver and Abbotsford. In Squamish an existing

hospital will be replaced with a new hospital.

Improvements, upgrading and renovations will take place in hospitals

in Nanaimo, Langley, Vancouver, Prince George and White Rock. A new

cardiac unit will be provided at Vancouver General Hospital, and a new

cancer clinic in Victoria.

All across the province new funds will be provided from the health

improvement fund to meet the increasing demands being placed on the

hospital system due to factors such as our aging population. These

initiatives, Mr. Chairman, ensure the protection and enhancement of

essential hospital services for all British Columbians.

Mr. Chairman, I should also mention the increased allocation of

funds to cover the loss in revenue to our hospitals from patient user

charges. In order to comply with the Canada Health Act, user charges on

hospital services have been eliminated. This was a necessary,

responsible step to protect the revenues of the province and to recoup

moneys withheld by the federal government. However, I regret the loss

of hospital user fees, because these fees were an effective reminder to

British Columbians that health care is not a free service. These

charges were a nominal payment which have been a traditional part of

our hospital services. I have urged in the past — and I will continue

to do so in the future — the federal government to reconsider its

punitive legislation, which limits the capacity of provinces to control

the growth in health care costs.

Mr. Chairman. along with hospitals, medical services constitute a

major component of our health care system. This year's estimates for

the Medical Services Commission, including Medical Services Plan

premiums, reflect an increase of $28 million over last year. This is a

modest increase, as a number of steps have been taken to moderate the

growth in costs and medical and supplementary benefit services.

British Columbia has experienced dramatic increases in the cost of

physician services. Between 1971-72 and 1984-85 — in other words, 14

years — fee-for-service billings by physicians increased by a

compounded rate of 14 percent per year, compared to an 8 percent

inflation rate. Rising per capita utilization is one of the primary

clauses of these growing costs,

To moderate these costs, an agreement between the Ministry of Health

and the B.C. Medical Association was reached in 1986 which limited

utilization to 2 percent annually over and above an increase in

population. In the event that utilization increased beyond 3 percent,

it was agreed that negotiations would reopen. Mr. Chairman, I regret to

say that increases in utilization have exceeded 5 percent. Accordingly,

negotiations with the BCMA have been reopened.

British Columbia's fee

schedule continues to be the highest of any

province in the country. Moreover, British Columbia faces a significant

oversupply of medical manpower for the foreseeable future. In this

province we have an average of one physician for every 511 people — the

highest ratio in Canada. This compares to one for every 542 in Quebec,

one for every 562 in Ontario and one for 678 in Alberta. These facts

and the economic circumstances of British Columbia mean that we must

limit expenditure on medical services in

[ Page 2428 ]

this fiscal year. I am hopeful that we can do this with the cooperation of physicians in the province.

In this budget it has been my objective to ensure access to the

broadest possible range of first-class health services. The services of

chiropractors, physiotherapists, optometrists, massage therapists,

naturopaths and podiatrists make up supplementary benefit services

under the Medical Services Plan. This constitutes the broadest range of

insured health services of any province in Canada. Moreover, the

supplementary benefit services are provided without any cost-sharing by

the federal government. In recent years the use of many of these

supplementary benefit services has grown substantially. Between 1981-82

and 1985-86 the cost of these services rose 64 percent per capita, or a

total of almost $24 million. In order to exercise some control over

these increasing costs, effective July 1 of this year a $5

patient-visit charge was introduced for all supplementary benefits,

except orthodontic and optometric services. The cost savings associated

with this modest patient charge are estimated to be $15 million.

Mr. Chairman, to ensure that these small charges do not inhibit

access by those on low income, the charges do not apply to persons

whose Medical Services Plan premiums are subsidized in any way. I

should also note that an enhanced premium assistance plan was

introduced on July 1. The income level for eligibility for premium

assistance has been raised so that more low-income persons receive

premium assistance. Not only have the income levels been raised, but

the premium charge has been reduced from 10 percent of the full rate to

5 percent for those on full subsidy, and from 50 percent to 45 percent

for those on partial subsidy.

While protecting those who can least afford to pay, the Ministry of

Health is asking other British Columbians to help maintain their

medical services. Effective April 1, MSP, premium rates increased by 10

percent. These increases were announced earlier.

[4:45]

Mr. Chairman, in the past year the Pharmacare program has been

transferred from the Ministry of Social Services and Housing to the

Ministry of Health. This transfer will permit increased efficiency of

administration, and is a more logical arrangement of services. The

Pharmacare program offers an important and vital service to many

British Columbians by reimbursing residents for prescribed drugs and

certain nondrug items. Between '81-82 and '86-87 the cost of this

program increased threefold, from $54 million to $161 million.

Increases at this rate cannot go on forever.

To preserve the integrity of this service while moderating costs,

two measures have been taken. As of April 1, senior citizens, except

those in long-term care facilities, are being asked to pay 75 percent

of the dispensing fee, up to an annual maximum of $125. However, to

ensure that this does not harm low-income seniors, recipients of GAIN

for Seniors as a supplement are receiving an increase of $125 through

the Ministry of Social Services and Housing. Moreover, it is estimated

that the average cost per senior will be well below $125, or

approximately $78 per year. This is based on an average of 13

prescriptions per year and an average dispensing fee of $6. The full

cost of the drug, an average of $16 per prescription, continues to be

covered by Pharmacare. We're asking seniors to make a small

contribution relative to the cost of the drug. Moreover, by shopping

around for lower dispensing fees, seniors can save for themselves and

for government.

The second measure intended to control the growth of Pharmacare

costs is an increase in the deductible for residents of the province

who are under 65 and not eligible for social assistance. For these

persons, who make up most of the residents of British Columbia, the

deductible has been increased from $200 to $275.

These measures keep prescription drugs affordable for the people of

the province while increasing consumer awareness. Further, I believe

these measures are responsible steps to control health care costs while

ensuring a broad range of services available to all, regardless of

their income.

In his budget address, my colleague the Hon. Mel Couvelier, Minister

of Finance and Corporate Relations, announced a number of initiatives

to help the disadvantaged of our province. I am pleased to say that the

estimates of the Ministry of Health continue this theme, with new and

strengthened programs to assist the handicapped, the mentally ill and

the aged.

Services to the handicapped is a new division within the Ministry of

Health, established to develop alternatives to institutional care for

severely-handicapped children and adults. Its primary function is to

develop systems for supporting families that are caring for handicapped

members and to develop community-based service alternatives. Estimates

for services to the handicapped are increased by $5.9 million over last

year. This will permit increased funding for a number of initiatives.

The child-development centres funded by the Ministry of Health,

which are located across the province, will be strengthened. These

centres provide physiotherapy, occupational therapy and speech

pathology services to children suffering from cerebral palsy and other

neuromuscular disorders. Additional funding will permit centres to

alleviate shortages of therapy staff and increase the provision of

early intervention and health therapies to special-needs children. A

new travelling pediatrics specialist team will assist professionals in

isolated areas to provide assessment and treatment to these children.

In addition, services to the handicapped will be able to increase

funding for community placements and group homes for the disabled, day

programming and increased funding to Glendale Lodge Society.

Before moving on to other areas in the estimates, I'd like to tell

you a little more about the innovative programs that the services to

the handicapped division of the Ministry of Health is involved in. Two

pilot projects are being carried out, one involving severely

handicapped adults and one severely handicapped children. Eleven adults

who previously lived in institutions such as Glendale will now live in

group homes. A further 60 severely-handicapped adults are planned to be

moved to non-institutional settings in this fiscal year.

In the second pilot projec