1984 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 33rd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1984

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3043 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Bus accident. Ms. Sanford –– 3043

Church leaders' request for meeting with Premier. Hon. Mr. Bennett replies –– 3044

Mr. Blencoe

Bus accident. Mr. Passarell –– 3045

Funding for Crane Library. Mr. Reynolds –– 3045

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

On vote 41: minister's office –– 3046

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Howard

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Skelly

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

On vote 73: minister's office –– 3054

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Rose

Mr. Lockstead

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Health. (Hon. Mr. Nielsen)

On vote 44: minister's office –– 3065

Hon. Mr. Nielsen

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1984

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have

visiting us a number of members of the Young Socreds, a wing of the

Social Credit Party — a very active wing, I might say — and I'd like to

introduce some of the members. I'd like to introduce the president,

Dennis Sorenson; the vice-president, Darin Nielsen; the director, Ron

Finnigan; Coquitlam president, Kristy Ilic; Burnaby president, Ron

Woods; UBC president, Mike Bentley; and former youth coordinator, Peter

Wearing. I'd ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. GABELMANN: The United Transportation Union is holding a

conference in Victoria this week, and in the gallery this afternoon

visiting the House are wives of delegates to this convention from all

over British Columbia. I would like to read their names very quickly to

introduce them to the House this afternoon: Vera Maglio from Cranbrook;

Lynn Bentz from Kamloops; Carol Padze from Nelson; Vera Trower from

Cranbrook; Linda Schultz from North Vancouver; Carol McGregor from

Prince George; Rozalynd Tierney from Victoria; Colleen Court from

Burnaby; Susan Millikan from Port Moody; and Alice Court from Burnaby.

MR. PARKS: I'd like to add my words of welcome to the

president of my constituency's Young Socred Party, Miss Kristy Ilic,

and in addition introduce to the House four other members from my

constituency Young Socred group: Miss Pam Hope, Miss Brenda Brown, Miss

Wendy Oloman and Miss Angela Prefontaine. Please welcome them.

MR. NICOLSON: Also visiting us from Meadow Creek in the

riding of Nelson-Creston are Roy and Jane Lake, and I wish the House

would bid them welcome.

HON. MRS. McCARIHY: I would like to join with all others in

this House in welcoming the bright young people in the Young Socreds

and especially welcome from the constituency of Vancouver–Little

Mountain on behalf of my colleague and myself, Randy Sandhu.

MR. HOWARD: Visiting us today in the precincts, if not

actually in the gallery, is a former colleague of mine, a former member

of this House and a person who wants to come back again. I hope the

House will join me in welcoming Bill King.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Among those in the galleries today with the

members of the Young Socreds are two other people from my constituency

of Richmond. I'd like the House to welcome Sandra Chamberlain and

Michael Orrick.

MR. VEITCH: From that great riding of Burnaby-Willingdon,

where all is sweetness and light and Social Credit, I would like you to

welcome a future occupant of this House, Gabrielle Jakab, and I would

ask this House to bid her welcome.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I wish to add a name to that group of Young Socreds

we are welcoming to the House today. He is Marvin Friesen of Central Fraser

Valley.

MR. PASSARELL: In the precincts earlier was a friend of mind,

Mr. G. Hogg, from Shadowville, Yukon. I would like to have the House

bid him adieu.

MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are three

distinguished constituents of mine: Mayor John Agnew from the District

of Mission, Director Abe Neuteld from the Dewdney-Alouette regional

district and Dr. Norman Cook, the administrator of the regional

district. I would ask the House to bid them all welcome.

MR. MOWAT: I have two introductions today. In our gallery we

have a member from the Young Social Credit team. I'm sure the Minister

of Human Resources and I welcome Mr. Ed Parker.

Also in our gallery today we have Mr. Warren Brant of Surrey and Mr.

Peter Hindmarch-Watson of Point Grey; both vice-presidents of Dale and

Co. I'd ask the House to welcome my three guests.

MRS. JOHNSTON: On behalf of my colleague and myself,

representing the largest constituency in the province, I would like to

add my welcome to several of the young people who are in the gallery

with the Young Socreds representing my constituency. I ask you to

welcome Darren Olma, Craig Sicotte, Doug McLean, Carmen Whitaker and

David Murray. These are our future leaders, They'll be sitting in these

seats before too many years. I ask you to welcome them.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On behalf of the Speaker, I'd like to

introduce two young Socreds from the Delta constituency: Blake

Ledingham and Jeff Baturin. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like to join my colleagues in

welcoming to this House some future members of the government, and

please give a big warm welcome to Donna Wilde from the great Peace

River country.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery are two Young

Socreds at heart, Mr. and Mrs. George Smith from Courtenay, and I'd

like the House to bid them welcome.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Among the many Young Socreds who are here is

Josephine Wearing, who represents the constituency of Burnaby-Edmonds.

I'd like the House to make her welcome.

MR. HOWARD: I'd like the House to join me in bidding the warmest welcome possible to everybody in the gallery who isn't a Socred.

Oral Questions

BUS ACCIDENT

MS. SANFORD: I have a question for the Minister of Highways

and Transportation. The preliminary mechanical check of the Conmac

Stages bus which crashed on a Mount Washington highway, conducted by

the coroner, shows that the seats were held by lag screws with only

one-quarter-inch bite in the one-half-inch sheet of plywood. Can the

minister confirm that there are no safety standards in this area with

respect to the placement of seats in buses? If so, will he advise what

the government is doing about it?

HON. A. FRASER: I'm not aware of the coroner's expertise in

the mechanical setup of buses, but I am aware of my

[ Page 3044 ]

mechanical people, and that is correct. This bus

had a wooden floor in it, as even some new buses have, and it certainly

complies with all regulations that we have — if it has a wooden floor.

MS. SANFORD: Is the minister telling us that in the province

of British Columbia the regulations are so inadequate that a

one-quarter-inch screw or a half-inch screw into half-inch plywood is

sufficient in terms of safety standards in B.C.?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, to the member, first of all, you

go on the basis of the information you have. I don't go on that

information, that it was a quarter inch. I'll wait until the final

reports are in. It might have been three inches, for all I know. I'm

not accepting the fact that it was a quarter inch at all. They are

still investigating this fatal accident, and that bus has been taken

from Courtenay to Burnaby; it is now under control of the coroner for

his inspection.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the minister is telling

us that that particular bus met the standards that are in place in British Columbia

today. Is that correct?

[2:15]

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, to the member, that bus met the standards of our regulations and was inspected on July 19, 1983, by our people.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday I asked the minister if

he would launch a full public inquiry into safety on buses in British

Columbia. At that time he did not answer the question. In view of the

fact that the entire fleet of the Conmac company has been ruled off the

road, has the minister now decided to launch a full public inquiry into

safety on British Columbia buses?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.

MS. SANFORD: What assurance can the minister give us that

there are not other buses in this province carrying students which

would be ruled off the road if in fact they received the same kind of

attention that this particular line has received? What assurance can he

give us that the other buses in British Columbia used for these

purposes are safe? Seven of them have been ruled off the road.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I think we should go back. First

of all, I want to say something that hasn't been said: the record of

our school buses in this province is excellent and we have a highly

responsible, whether they are leased operators or owned by school

districts. I don't anticipate any difficulty there whatsoever. The onus

is on any individual to see that their vehicle is in proper mechanical

condition. That's the law of the province of British Columbia.

CHURCH LEADERS' REQUEST

FOR MEETING WITH PREMIER

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in question period

the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) asked me a number of

questions concerning requests for meetings in my office, and asked

specifically why I hadn't responded to a request for a meeting with

what he referred to during his questioning as "leading churchmen of the

province of British Columbia." I was concerned that those who make the

appointments in my office and receive requests, who usually are very

efficient, might have slipped up, and therefore I went back through the

correspondence. Last July I received not a letter but a telex from

leading churchmen — not of British Columbia but of Canada — who were at

the World Council of Churches' meeting in Vancouver. They sent a telex

expressing their concern over some of the legislation that had been

introduced in this House. Nowhere in the telex can I or any of my staff

find a request for a meeting; they were concerned that the government

reconsider some of the concerns expressed by people. I checked further

with my office and found that the telex was acknowledged immediately

and that the general tone of the telex was for the government to

reconsider its position and allow discussion with concerned groups, as

I read it.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the government's position during all of

last year was that we would consult with any group or minister on any

legislation. One difficulty was that those who were conducting the

public discussion, Operation Solidarity, refused to come and discuss

those items until we withdrew every bit of legislation that was before

the House. That made it very difficult. I re-extended that offer to the

leaders of Solidarity — Father Roberts, Art Kube and Renate Shearer —

when they met in my office. Again, of course, they did not pick up on

the request to consult. In an explanation to the people of what the

government was doing and what we hoped to achieve, I reiterated in a

provincial broadcast that I hoped concerned groups would come together

in consultation with the ministers and the government. That offer was

always open. Confrontation was not the way to go. In response to that,

I had an answer from the first signator on the telex, Rev. Edward

Scott, Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada.

"Dear Premier Bennett:

"You will no doubt remember that I was one of a group

of churchmen who wrote you last July during the assembly of the World Council

of Churches in Vancouver to express concern about certain aspects of the legislature

proposed by your government.

"I have tried to follow the course of the political

debate in British Columbia since that time, and I now write to express appreciation

for your comment printed on the front page of today's Toronto Globe and

Mail . You are quoted as 'urging special interest groups who oppose you to

come forward during the adjournment of the provincial Legislature and talk with

your ministers in the interest of cooperation, consultation and conciliation.'

"I am convinced that the way forward is always the

way of cooperation, consultation and conciliation rather than confrontation,

controversy and conflict. I am also convinced that cooperation and consultation

require greater strength of character and certainly

[ Page

3045 ]

much greater wisdom than do confrontation and conflict.

There need be no sacrifice of one's principles in being prepared to negotiate

in good faith with those who hold very different opinions from one's own.

What is important is that we be willing to have our own opinions challenged

and tested by those who disagree with us. It is for that reason that I see great

strength in your call for cooperation, consultation and conciliation as you

and your colleagues give thought to what is best for the lovely province of

British Columbia where I have spent a significant part of my life.

Yours faithfully,

Rev. Edward Scott, Primate"

MR. BLENCOE: After he gave that report, which did not

indicate that he had a meeting, I have a question for the Premier. Did

the churchmen ask for dialogue, and did the Premier grant that dialogue

face to face?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, as I have already suggested,

the telex doesn't ask for a meeting of the dialogue that the member

refers to, and the notable churchmen of British Columbia — to whom you

referred — who are leading world and Canadian churchmen.... It was not

a request for a meeting with me, but that the government hold

consultation, as I read it, with the groups. I think the Rev. Edward

Scott reaffirms that in the letter he sent to me. I hope he is not

embarrassed that you have become, on your own hook, apparently an

advocate for something he didn't request.

BUS ACCIDENT

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of

Transportation and Highways. On Tuesday the minister reported that the

Conmac bus which crashed on the Mount Washington road had last been

tested on July 19, 1983. The lawyer for Conmac says the bus was tested

by motor vehicle inspection service on November 17, 1983. The question

is: has the minister been able to resolve these conflicting statements?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I didn't make the conflicting

statements; apparently the lawyer of the company did. I stand on what I

reported that the superintendent of motor vehicles said: "This unit was

inspected on July 19, 1983, by our people."

MR. PASSARELL: A question to the same minister, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister decided to table the test records relating to this bus?

HON. A. FRASER: No, I haven't, Mr. Speaker, and I won't, in view of the fact that a coroner's inquest is ahead.

MR. PASSARELL: To the same minister, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister confirm

that the motor vehicle testing station in Victoria was closed on September 9,

1983? And will he advise what facilities have existed for testing buses since

that date?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, the date of the closing of the station is correct, but they never did inspect school buses.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker. It is a shame that the Minister of Transportation and Highways didn't know that this wasn't a school bus.

Another question: in view of the fact that the seven Conmac vehicles were found

defective yesterday, despite having been tested using current methods, has the

minister therefore decided to reopen the government testing centre for motor

vehicles forthwith, to prevent further incidents?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker. to clarify my last answer, we

never used the testing station for buses of any type — school buses or

otherwise. The answer is that we have no intention of opening the

testing station.

FUNDING FOR CRANE LIBRARY

MR. REYNOLDS: I have a question for the minister in charge of

universities. It regards a decision by the ministry to cancel a

contract with the UBC Crane Library to supply talking books for the 60

blind students at the University of British Columbia. I'd like to ask

the minister if that decision as reported by the media was a decision

of his department or a decision of the administration of the University

of British Columbia, because it drastically affects the future

education of those 60 students.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: To all of the members opposite who are so

interested in this subject, the Ministry of Universities doesn't make

special grants of this nature, because it's our opinion that the

universities should be autonomous. Therefore no small grants of this

kind are made, only large grants, which in the case of the University

of British Columbia is about $180 million. The amount which goes to

library services is something between $15 million and $16 million, so

if there is not enough money in library services for the blind people

on the University of British Columbia campus — and I'm not aware of

that — it's because the university would put $180 million worth of

other activities ahead of it and more than $15 million worth of library

services.

I can advise that I supported a request from the Crane Library that

lottery money be made available to buy special equipment so that people

outside the university could be supplied. It's my understanding that

the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) did make that award on

behalf of blind students who are not students of the university.

Perhaps there is some internal problem there that I don't understand.

But just speaking personally, I'm very regretful that the university

priorities are such that so much money would come ahead of the blind

students of this province.

MR. REYNOLDS: I would like to ask the minister in charge of

universities whether, if the university cannot find money for these

blind students, he could advise this House at some future date whether

they are still subsidizing the faculty club used by the professors at

the university. And when they were taking this money away from blind

people, did they consider cancelling the tennis bubble they're building

at the

[ Page 3046 ]

University of British Columbia — or other areas? Would he please advise this House as soon as possible?

HON. MR. McGEER: I don't know whether this is the forum to

get into the subject of subsidized meals, but I will undertake, on

behalf of the member, to make some indiscreet inquiries about

expenditures in the area that he mentioned.

[2:30]

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, during the

question period we were treated to a very lengthy response to a

question that was asked yesterday, a part of which conveyed

information, but a great deal of which might have been construed more

as a ministerial statement. A great deal of time was lost. Only two

questions were afforded to the opposition and, of course, the

ministerial answers. I would ask the Speaker to take that under review.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

(continued)

On vote 41: minister's office, $143,879.

MRS. WALLACE: I don't know how many times I've stood in the

House to discuss this same issue with the Minister of Forests. I tried,

without success, to discuss it with him during the interim period when

the House was adjourned. Of course, the subject I have in mind, as I'm

sure the minister is aware, is the situation with MacMillan Bloedel and

the Chemainus mill. This is an ongoing situation, one that has been

very much before us in the Cowichan Valley since, I believe, last

February 10. That's a whole year since we had the original announcement

that the mill was to be closed permanently. It was February 14, as I

recall, that the ministry was advised by MacMillan Bloedel that they

would not be reopening that plant. On February 15, when the Premier and

the minister were in the constituency, they were approached by a group

of the local constituents and employees of the mill asking for

information. The Premier at that time indicated that he would get them

the information as to whether or not the mill would be closing, even

though we found later that he already knew it was going down.

The saga continued and, of course, we had an election. We had the

Minister of Forests at that time coming in and promising that he would

not let MacMillan Bloedel abandon Chemainus. He told us that he would

tell MacMillan Bloedel that they would use it or lose it. He was

referring, I would assume, to the tree-farm licence which they hold

there. Later on, after the election, there was a statement issued — I

think it was just after the election; I'm not sure of the timing,

whether it was before or after — that he had given MacMillan Bloedel until the end of 1983 to make a decision before he would take any action.

The end of 1983 came and went, and on January 4, I wrote to the

minister. I referred to the previous scenario, and I asked him to make

himself available for comment. I felt that I, as the duly elected

representative of those people who were so very severely affected by

his decision — who were living from hand to mouth, day to day, awaiting

that decision, trying to decide what the future would be for them and

their families.... We at least deserved a statement from him as to

whether or not he was going to stand behind his promise to ensure that

there would be a new facility built in that area or whether he wasn't.

I got no answer to that letter.

A week later, on January 12, I wrote again, and I asked him at this time.... I'll just read briefly from that letter:

"As minister responsible for our forest industry, I

assume that you are aware that the livelihood of Cowichan Valley

residents is dependent upon your response to this situation. I would

ask once again that you follow through on your commitment to ensure

that there will be a wood-processing facility in the vicinity.

"Can local residents shortly expect a statement on

this issue from your office, or is this responsibility being shifted to

the board of directors of MacMillan Bloedel for action at their

forthcoming board meeting? Your continuing failure to clearly

articulate the government's position on this vital matter can only lead

to the conclusion that forest policy is no longer your responsibility,

but under the control of major forest companies."

I got no response to that. I have no choice but to stand in this

Legislature again, during this minister's estimates, and ask him what

the situation is. Are we going to have him follow through? Is there

going to be an assurance from that minister that he will take steps to

ensure that we have a wood-processing facility in the Cowichan-Malahat

area? I think that the Chemainus area is the logical area, but if

that's not possible, then somewhere else within reasonable distance.

I'm not trying to make his policy for him. He made the policy. He

told us that he would ensure that there was a processing facility

there, and if MacMillan Bloedel wouldn't provide it, then he would take

some of their cutting rights away and transfer them to someone who

would provide it. That was a commitment that he made. It has been

documented in pretty nearly every paper in this province. It was on the

radio; it was on television. Now we are over a month down the road from

his deadline, and we still can't get any answer from him.

I don't know if the minister realizes the situation this puts those

families in. They are sitting there. A lot of them had UIC up until the

end of December '83. A lot of them are well past middle age, so job

hunting in this particular economic climate is particularly difficult.

But they are not even sure whether they have to do that or if there is

going to be something opening up for them in the valley. To do that

means — and a lot of them are doing that.... The odd one has gotten a

job, and it means that they are boarding away somewhere — that the

family is home. The economic pressures are much greater when that

happens. The stress on the family is much greater. But the greatest

stress on that family is not knowing whether they are going to be able

to continue to live in the home that they have worked for and built;

whether their children are going to continue to be able to live and

participate in the educational facilities of the Cowichan-Malahat

constituency, in the sports and recreational activities that are there,

or whether they are going to have to be uprooted and taken elsewhere to

build a new life.

That's the kind of uncertainty that is facing those families, on top

of all the economic stress, with much-reduced incomes. It is very

unfair to leave them dangling. We want to know. We hope that you are

going to honour your word and

[ Page 3047 ]

do something to ensure that the facility is there.

If you're not going to do it, at least tell us so that we will know,

because this uncertainty is a real problem. Is MacMillan Bloedel going

to make that decision when they have their board meeting later this

month as to whether they're going to rebuild? Are you waiting for them

to make a decision and then you'll figure out what you're going to do

about it?

Where are we on this issue? It's a real concern to us. It's a

repetitive concern. We've had it with Western Forest Products, when

once before the minister came in and said: "I'll do all within my power

to ensure that this mill keeps operating." And he did nothing. At the

same time that was happening, we had the plywood plant at B.C. Forest

Products closing down and putting 50 or 60 people out of a job.

We've had so many blows in that constituency that our economy is in

distress, much more so than in a lot of other areas. We want some

assurance from this minister that he is prepared to take some steps. He

made a promise openly and unsolicited. Is he going to keep that promise

or not?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I certainly can understand the feeling of

the people who live in the Chemainus area. I know that it's quite a

blow to a community when a major employer shuts down a plant. I said at

the time it happened that I didn't expect any company to keep open any

obsolete plant that drains the resources of the company. I did say to

MacMillan Bloedel that I expect them to replace as much of that

employment as possible by a more modern plant in the general area. I

have been continuously following up with MacMillan Bloedel. Yes, the

tentative deadline which I gave to them — the end of the year — has

come and gone. I feel that progress is being made towards a decision by

the company, and yes, it is the company that will make a decision as to

whether that company builds a manufacturing plant in Chemainus or in

the general area. I cannot make that kind of a decision for them, but

they know where I stand in terms of wood supply. I stand behind the

statements that I made at that time. However, I believe that sufficient

progress is being made toward a resolution of the problem, and I think

it appropriate that they be given a bit more time. I'm afraid that I

can say no more at this time.

Your letter of January 4, which I have with me, arrived during my

absence from the House. I was trying to get a break. Your follow-up

letter came a week later, on January 12, when I was still not in my

office. I didn't respond to them; I'm sorry about that. I have had a

great deal on my desk since that time, and actually the tone of the

letters didn't seem to me to indicate requesting a response so much as

making a political statement by the member. If she were to write to me,

asking in a serious way for answers to a problem, I'll be very happy to

respond to her or have her come to discuss it with my office.

Some of the questions should have been directed to MacMillan Bloedel, rather

than to me. For example, she says: "Does MacMillan Bloedel believe that

these comments by the Minister of Forests and the relevant provisions of the

Forest Act are so much political fluff?" I don't know what MacMillan

Bloedel think. So questions like that should be directed toward them.

Madam Member, in this forum I cannot give you any more details at

the present time. I remain relatively optimistic that something will

come to pass, but I can't confirm it at this time. I do have a great

deal of sympathy for the people in the area, because I have been

involved in communities and other industries which have had a major

employer shut down. I know it is a very stressful time.

[2:45]

MRS. WALLACE: I thank the minister for what he has said. Just

to recap in order to make sure I don't misunderstand what he is saying:

once MacMillan Bloedel make a decision and that decision is to rebuild

in the vicinity, well and good; if it is not to rebuild, then he is

going to take some action? Is that what I understood him to say? How

soon is he going to take that action? How soon are we going to know

about it? Time is extremely important. How long is he going to allow

MacMillan Bloedel to make their decision? How much longer do we have to

wait? Is he telling me that if they say no, he is going to cut back on

their cutting rights? Is he saying in no uncertain terms that if

MacMillan Bloedel do not build there, he will stand behind his word and

cut back on their cutting rights, and give those rights to some company

that will provide a mill?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I cannot give the member a day and an

hour at which time a decision will be made by MacMillan Bloedel, but I

understand they will be reaching a decision in the not-too-distant

future. I cannot give you a date. My statement of a year ago, when the

plant was shut down, stands: that I expected MacMillan Bloedel to

replace as much employment in the general area as possible through the

use of that wood. I can say no more.

MRS. WALLACE: I didn't ask for a day or an hour, Mr.

Chairman. I'm asking for something in terms of months. You set a

deadline of December 30. How far have you extended that — to February

29, to June 30? How long are you going to give them to make up their

minds? Then, having made up their minds that they are or aren't, how

long is it going to be before there's a firm decision and some action

as to the actual replacement of that wood-processing facility by either

MacMillan Bloedel or someone else? When construction starts, there's

more activity; there are probably some jobs that even some of the

people who would work in the mill later could undertake. If that

doesn't happen by at least June 30....

Time has run out: that's the problem. The people involved are going

to be gone. It's going to upset our whole economic base — as it has in

the past. We have to have some kind of timeframe. To say "fairly

shortly" or "hopefully very soon" is.... Sure, all hope it will be very

soon. But you did set a deadline of December 30. Are you now setting

any deadline for February or the end of June, or are you giving them

all of next year or all of this year? Just to say, "Well, I hope it's

soon," is not the answer that is acceptable to us in Cowichan-Malahat.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I have a few brief comments, one in

the way of a representation to the minister, to deal with what is

loosely called the Skeena West area, the area on the west side of the

Skeena River between Terrace and Cedarvale. Basically it's an area that

has not been open for logging, but has been the subject of considerable

study by the Forest Service. I understand the study has been completed,

the results of which were to have been transmitted to the minister or

the chief forester — to Victoria, in any event — sometime in January. I

want to urge the minister to set that area aside for small operators —

in other words, to take whatever steps are available to him to ensure

that the area be

[ Page 3048 ]

available to small operators and not to large

corporations. We've suffered quite a bit in that area, as have other

areas as well, from having large tracts of forest land under the domain

of big corporations. There is a long-overdue need, I think, to bring

some balance into play there.

In my experience, small operators generally do a better job of

logging, because they live in the area. They're local people. They have

a continuing social relationship with the Forest Service, as distinct

from large corporations which simply have a relationship at the

managerial level of the service, as opposed to the owner-operator level

of relationship. Generally they employ more workers in proportion to

capital investment. They tend to employ and keep workers on the job,

whereas a larger corporation would tend to lay people off in awkward

economic times. Again, it's because they live in the area. Their

families are in the area, and the employees who work for them are

social friends as well as employees. They spend their money in the

area, more so than a large corporation tends to do. They seek to

establish a profit position, which is invariably ploughed back into the

community. A large corporation tends to find its net profit position

dissipated elsewhere, either to satisfy the head office demand for

distribution of net profits or dividends or reinvestment in some other

corporation, and so on. There is a great suspicion among small sawmill

operators in the area that.... This goes back to the time when

Price-Skeena, I believe it was, applied for that area to be set aside

and assigned to Price-Skeena. I understand that while that application

has not been reacted to by the ministry, it is still considered to be a

valid interest, even though the operation of the sawmill side of

Price-Skeena was subsequently sold and taken over by West Fraser. The

minister knows of that quite well. The information we were given was

that that application, that interest declared, is still valid. That has

added to the suspicion that the area may be, within the minds of the

Ministry of Forests, an area more suited to exploitation by a large

corporation as distinct from a small corporation. I want to urge the

minister to move in the direction of setting that aside for the small

operator. We'll be much better off in that area if that happens to be

the case.

That's one subject. The other is a matter that needs to be examined

and probably has been examined by other members and certainly by people

in the forest industry and in the Forest Service, in some instances. It

is a subject that probably applies throughout the province. It's the

question of functioning under

section 88. I submit, from information

that's been given to me, that much of the applied-for credit against

stumpage and much of the work done claimed against stumpage under

section 88 has been done illegally. If the minister will examine

carefully the progress that goes on with respect to that, he may

discover that that is the case. I want to refer specifically to

88(2)(b), which says that where under an agreement made under this act

or the former act, (

a) a person does certain work, (

b) the work is

approved in advance by the regional manager, (

c) something else takes

place, and (

d) the work is performed to the satisfaction of the

regional manager.... So there are two things involved there, and it

isn't "or"; it's "and." Four things must take place. One is approval

before the work is done; the second is acceptance of the work after it

is done. It is the claim that if that work is not approved — in that

instance under that subsection by the regional manager — in advance, it

could be an illegal claim and not proper.

While I'm on that subject matter, even

section 88(

l) deals with the

same sort of aspect of it; it talks about certain kinds of work. Under

section 88(l), too, the work is approved in advance by the chief

forester. I'm not talking about that aspect of it, but just simply, the

information given to me is that in instances where work is performed

under this section, the work has not been approved in advance by the

regional manager.

The second aspect I want to talk about is the inspection afterwards

to see whether the demand of paragraph (

d) of (2) comes into effect,

namely, the work is performed to the satisfaction of the regional

manager. There are instances where roadwork has been performed — on

logging access roads, for example — where the inspection thereof has

been delayed because of other demands on the time of the people in the

Forest Service, or lack of funds to do it, or whatever reason, but

where the inspection thereof has been delayed in some instances up to

three years after the work had been done — after the logging access

road had been constructed, for argument's sake. In a three-year period,

especially if the access road had not been used and had been subject to

the difficulties that roads are subject to by weather changes over a

couple of winters, it is virtually impossible to determine whether the

claim that a certain amount of dollars was put into that road is

justified. I submit that there is quite a potential abuse and, in fact,

quite an abuse that has taken place with respect to operations under

section 88. I am sure that is something the minister would want to do

to ensure that the force of the law that this Legislature passed and

that he upholds and supports is carried out to the full and that there

are no operations or functions that take place that circumvent the

demand of the statute itself.

[3:00]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I have a difficult time

dealing with generalities, as with the allegation, or perhaps

suggestion, from the member for Skeena that there are illegalities

taking place under

section 88. If the member has any specifics he can

bring to me to look at, I would be very happy to do so. I would advise

him, however, that we carry out regular internal audits within the

ministry on how

section 88 is handled in the various forest districts

in the province. My assistant deputy minister in charge of finance and

administration has just advised me that in the year 1982-83 we carried

out an audit and actually investigated 40 percent of all the

section 88

accounts that were approved that year. He advised that in every case

cost claims were supported by field inspections, and there were no

deviations found to that. Of course, 40 percent is only 40 percent, and

I'm not denying that at some point somewhere there could have been a

claim made that was not supported by inspections. But if that happened,

it certainly was done in error by someone in the ministry, and it

certainly was not the administrative policy of the ministry. Because we

are dealing with a reduction in government revenue, all of these things

are carried out in a systematic manner, and we do support credit claims

with inspections. That audit also demonstrated that approvals were made

in advance, and we found no deviation from that as well. We carry out

these audits on a regular basis. Of course, the auditor-general is

aware and concerned about

section 88, as she is about other funds and

accounts in the ministry. Our internal audits don't disclose any of

that.

[ Page 3049 ]

If the member has anything specific, I think he is bound to bring it

forward so that we can investigate it. I would appreciate it if he

would do that.

We have been looking at the road on the west side of the north-south

part of the Skeena River, and basically the problem is access. I am

sure the member is aware of the studies that have been done regarding

how access should be achieved, whether it should be from the Terrace

end or whether we should have a bridge somewhere with a lateral road

each way. There are conflicts with some private land and of course with

the railway on that side. However, I am certainly inclined to put a

major part of our small business program on the west Skeena timber

block — if you wish to call it that — providing we can get sufficient

funds internally to develop it.

I had a seminar with the Northwest Loggers' Association in Terrace,

which I was unfortunately unable to attend, although I had planned to

do so. I don't know if the member attended any of those discussions or

not. We invited the loggers, other licensees and people in the Forest

Service from that and surrounding districts to come in and have a good

discussion on the administration and success of the small business

program. As a result of that, some recommendations were made, one of

which was that this west Skeena block be set aside for the small

business program. Whether we need to set all or a major part aside, I

don't know, but I think I can assure the member that I am certainly

well disposed toward directing the small business operators into that

area once we can get good access established for them. The people in

the area gave us some good advice on how the small business program

should work in that particular area, and I'm sure the member

understands that the program has different ways of operating in

different parts of the province, depending upon the type of wood,

contractors and so on. Size of sales is also important. There are

larger sales in that type of wood than you would have in the interior,

for example. I am very supportive of the idea of having that west

Skeena side for the small business program.

MR. HOWARD: I have one question, if I might, Mr. Chairman.

I'm not sure what the official technical designation would have been at

the time Price-Skeena made its intentions or desires known. I believe

it was in 1978 or early 1979. I wonder if the minister can tell me

whether there is any validity to any application. Is anything current?

Does anybody have a large corporate prior claim in there, or is it

unfettered in every way?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the member is referring to

chart areas. Traditionally licensees in the industry will express an

interest to the ministry in a certain area in which they would like to

concentrate their operations. We call it a chart area application. It

has no basis in legality at all; it is just an indication to us that

they would like to operate in that area. We have to sort out who

operates where. Quite often different licensees in the industry will

themselves agree that somebody will stay in this area and someone will

stay in the other area, so as to be able to concentrate their operating

areas. It provides certain efficiencies in operation. I believe

Price-Skeena did indicate that they would like to operate in that area

and in effect applied for a chart area. But so far as I know we haven't

committed it to any particular group.

MR. HOWARD: I take it, then, that whatever their expression

of interest was should not now exist, because that company is no longer

there. I would assume that might be some reason to say that it's not

even in the cards any longer. In any event, I hope that is the case,

because if it does exist and if there is pressure — you know the way

these big companies operate far better than I do — if there is demand

and insistence about something, there is a tendency to lean in that

direction.

This is a suggestion: most of the highways in the province that are

on the coast — many of them in the northwest area that I know about —

were originally logging roads. In some instances they were

mining-access roads. The logger went in, built a road, logged it and

then extended it further and further. Subsequently the government

determines th at those roads then will become a part of the public

highways system, and they'll absorb them and take them over. That is in

fact now taking place with respect to the road northward from Terrace

up to the Nass Valley — what was originally a Columbia Cellulose

logging access road or main line will become a public highway. While

the minister doesn't do this directly, there exists, I understand, an

arrangement, an opportunity or a policy requiring some logging roads to

be built in their initial stages to highway standards in anticipation

of their being absorbed into the highway system so that we do not

subsequently have to widen them, straighten them or bring them up to

highway or secondary road standards.

We should recognize a fact of life: that is, at some time a highway

or a road will exist on the west side of Skeena. Its southern terminus

now is roughly Cedarvale — between there and Terrace. That's going to

happen at some point. If logging takes place in that area under the

small enterprise program, there will be feeder roads, but there will

also be some kind of main-line roads as well. I don't want to discuss

the technical part, as to what they consider to be the cheapest road

access idea — namely, the Klootch Canyon bridge or an aerial tramway

to get across there — or whether it should be a road running out of

Terrace or out of Cedarvale to get there. That's a technical thing and

I don't really want to get into it. But what I want to advance to the

minister is that if he can converse with his colleague the Minister of

Transportation and Highways to accept the principle that at some time

the road is going to be built, and at some time it's going to cost

public money, maybe he can get some advance payments so we can engage

in a prebuild. This government endorsed the prebuild of the southern

portion of the Alaska gas pipeline to export gas into the United

States. This is a prebuild concept. I think the minister can....

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: Well, it's a lovely idea to get somebody else to

spend the money, plus the fact that this year — maybe my colleague the

member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) is going to follow this up in a more

detailed way — the minister is going to have money left over in his

budget. I have to indicate for the record of Hansard that he's

shaking his head in a negative way. Do you mean you have blown it all?

Even the $50 million for fire suppression costs? I'm inclined to think

that if you look at that carefully, you will find that you didn't spend

$50 million, and by the end of the fiscal year you are not going to

spend $50 million. You are going to be underspent. But you might be

able to find some money to go in partnership with the Minister of

Transportation and Highways to

[ Page 3050 ]

prebuild that west Skeena road and give a little

leg up to the small operator to get in there and employ more people in

that area.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Briefly, Mr. Chairman, if the member will

support me in trying to get some money out of the Minister of Highways

and Transportation to build forest roads, boy, we're on the same team.

I'll go hand-in-hand with you to his office to do that.

Fire suppression: $50 million. No, we didn't spend $50 million last

year, but we cannot transfer that money into any other account of the

ministry. That money, I'm afraid, belongs to the Minister of Finance. I

wish it was not thus.

MR. HOWARD: Is the minister saying that the $50 million was a padded amount in the first place?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: It certainly is not. If the member can

figure out a way with me to determine in advance what it is going to

cost to fight fires, I'd be very happy to use his counsel in that area

as well.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm going to be relatively brief this

afternoon. Inasmuch as most of the money has already been spent anyway,

it seems a little absurd to spend much time talking about how we're

going to spend it. Hopefully we'll have a chance before April 1 to have

a good discussion about how we're going to spend the money from April 1

through to March 31, 1985. I did want to say a couple of things though,

and ask a couple of questions as well.

Before I say anything about reforestation, I should say, as I've

said at other times in this House, that my relationship with the Forest

Service offices in both Campbell River and Port McNeill is absolutely

first rate. The staff, dreadfully diminished in number as they are, are

extremely cooperative. The requests I've had of them have been handled

quickly and fairly and, in my view, very well, even though in some

cases it's meant a real strain in terms of the number of hours

available to people who are already overworked, and who are working, in

many cases, free hours for the people of B.C. simply because they can't

get their work done in the normal course of their working day. I think

they, for the most part.... I shouldn't even qualify it by saying "for

the most part." Every bit of my experience with Forest Service people

in North Island is that they perform an incredibly good service for the

taxpayers of this province. I only wish there were a few more of them

to do the work that now can't be done as quickly as it should be, and

in some cases is not being done at all.

I just want to make a few comments for the record. In a sense I

suppose they will seem like "motherhood," but perhaps we don't say it

enough in terms of reforestation. I don't think there would be any

argument from anyone in this House about the need for massive

additional funds for silviculture. What appears to be lacking in this

province, and in this country, is a public understanding of the fact

that we're not dealing with mining but with farming when we talk about

forestry. Thinking back to my days growing up on a farm in the

Okanagan, if we hadn't pruned, fertilized and thinned, and hadn't done

all the other basic maintenance agricultural requirements, we wouldn't

have had much of a crop come summer and fall in any of the tree fruit

sectors. Some farmers would let it go for a year. It would take those

farmers many years to bring their orchards back to proper production,

bringing first-quality fruit. It's the same in the woods, the same in

the forests. It's just that it might take 70, 90 or 100 years to

complete the same cycle that a farmer will complete in 12 months. For

us to view the forest industry as any different from the way in which a

farmer would view his farm is absurd; yet that's what we're doing.

[3:15]

I understand that now, for the first time in the history of the

tree-farm licence in the Nimpkish Valley, they are not replanting at

the same pace they are cutting. The first time. The funds are not

sufficient for them to replant at the level that the professional

foresters employed by the company feel is required. That allegation is

a serious one. I can't say that's happening on other tree-farm licences

in North Island, but I'm told by professional foresters that in the

Nimpkish Valley, which is prime land for growing trees, they are not

planting at the level that's required. They're certainly not.... I

don't need to say this for the minister's benefit, but I think all of

us who are concerned about forestry should be saying what we think

about it in every available forum so that we can begin to make the

public more aware and more supportive of the need to pour money back

into the forest industry so that we do have an industry in the future.

If the minister will understand that my comments are made in that

vein, then we don't need to have a quarrel about this. I suspect we

agree. But obviously, clearly, sufficient money is not being put in. I

think the minister needs some help in his dealings with treasury board,

because that is a priority for future generations in this province, one

that we should not be abandoning. In many ways we have in fact

abandoned it.

I'm concerned.... Let me put it this way. The minister may have

answered this during the course of these estimates already, and if he

has, I apologize. But what's the status of the federal shareable money?

I know there were negotiations going on. Has the provincial government

taken advantage of what I understand is some $50 million of federal

funds, cost-shared money, available for silviculture in general? What

are the numbers being anticipated for annual seedling planting over the

next four or five years? I understood that the number was about 131

million through until 1987. I'm curious to know whether those numbers

have been changed. Professional foresters argue that we should probably

be in the 160 million range. I don't pretend to know what the exact

numbers should be, but I'd be curious to know what the ministry

anticipates will be the annual production of seedlings.

I wonder if the minister can give me some information as to what

future plans are for the fertilization programs that have gone on.

Certainly in the publicly managed as opposed to the TFL-managed forest

lands in North Island, the cancellation of fertilization programs is a

severe blow. I guess we can understand it for one year, but I wonder if

that is a one year cancellation or something that will not be

reinstated in the foreseeable future. Does the minister know when that

will come back?

I also, want to know whether the minister can tell me what, if any,

plans are anticipated for the general upgrading or thinning and spacing

programs in the Sayward forests particularly, inasmuch as that program,

too, has been restrained in a severe way. That forest was in particular

need of some major work.

[ Page 3051 ]

In the paper that was produced last year, in talking about turning

over the management of our forests — I'm shorthanding, and I appreciate

that in a generality one tends to overstate a position or not state it

correctly — to the operators rather than the Forest Service, in effect,

I'd be curious to know what the minister's timetable is on that

particular report and what he plans to see happen in the next little

while with that. I should tell him very quickly and very directly that

I'm not in support of that particular program. I think we are a little

gullible if we allow the forest companies to manage their own

operations. I've already talked to professional foresters in the

private sector who ask the obvious question: is their greater

responsibility to their employer or to their professionalism as

professional foresters? If they see something going wrong or see

something being done that requires attention being drawn to it, do they

draw attention or do they not? If they draw attention, do they run the

risk of losing their jobs? That's the kind of question that's being

asked frequently. There are a lot more questions which we'll obviously

have a chance to debate at a future time, but I would be interested in

the minister's comments about the processes by which that policy will

be discussed and what his timetable is on that.

I have a couple of other smaller questions. I wonder if the minister

would give me an update on his current position on TFL 2 and the

rollover — you know the issue I'm talking about — the Crown forest

requirement in the 1949 agreement that the old growth that has been

logged by contractors revert back to the company. What is the current

position of the minister in regard to providing alternative sites for

those contractors who, in many cases, will not be or may not be taken

on by the Crown to log in TFL 2?

Another question: what is the holdup with the woodlot program? I suspect this

is an issue that's of far more interest in the interior, but certainly there

is quite a lot of interest in North Island about the whole woodlot program.

It seems as if that program has not been able to get off the ground. I wonder

if that's because the minister has changed his mind about the whole idea

or whether there are administrative reasons for not proceeding.

Another question: where are we with the Tahsish-Kwois? There was a public inquiry

chaired by a former mayor of Campbell River into the Tahsish Valley on the west

coast of the Island as to whether or not that area would be logged. I forget

the precise name of the Forest Service program, but it's the same as Meares

Island. There was a task force down in the Tahsish-Kwois river valleys. That

report was submitted, and three options were given. I'm curious to know

where we are in terms of decision making with that.

The second-to-last issue is one on which I probably need to focus

more attention with the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon.

A. Fraser). There continues to be some very real concern about public

use of logging roads. We have a considerable number of roads that have

been constructed under

section 88 by logging companies within TFLs that

are in effect public roads: the road to Zeballos, the road to Winter

Harbour from Holberg, etc. Some of these roads in the area are managed

by the Forest Service, and I think of the Head Bay road in Gold

River–Tahsis. Others are managed exclusively by the company involved,

and I think of the Holberg–Winter Harbour road. All of these roads have

more public use than they do logging company use. A great number of

them in North Island....

We really do need to develop a rational policy between Forests and

Highways for when a logging road becomes a public road. We've now got

the situation on the Winter Harbour–Holberg road whereby people hauling

fish out of Winter Harbour are required to pay a toll to Western Forest

Products for the use of that road; yet they're paying gas tax when they

purchase fuel. You'd think that maintenance should be a public

responsibility, not a private one. But there is also a general problem

of maintenance. I wonder if the government has considered developing an

overall policy on whether or not these roads should in fact be turned

over to the Ministry of Highways for maintenance.

The final point is one that would take a considerable amount of

debate in this House, and that is the whole question of the massive

control over people's lives that tree-farm licences have. I'm not going

into the whole debate this afternoon. If the fancy strikes me, I might

do that in the next set of estimates. It would be remiss on my part as

the representative for the northern part of Vancouver Island if I

didn't remind the minister again that there is considerable public

frustration, and in some cases anger, about the control that certain

companies have because of their tree-farm licences.

The one that comes to mind immediately is the Canfor licence in the

Nimpkish valley, because there are so many people who would like to

develop that area for tourism, and others who would like to live in

parts of that area. I recognize the alienation problem, and I am a firm

supporter of preserving forest land, but there needs to be a better way

of making those decisions. I appreciate that there is a process that

people can go through to apply for SUPs, but in effect the public

access to those areas is severely limited. For the people who live in

northern Vancouver Island, for the most part there is no public land,

because it's all, as they see it, under the control of tree-farm

licences. Without saying anything more about it, I wonder if the

minister has given any consideration to amending the processes that

occur now with regard to SUPs and to opening up the whole planning that

should take place through regional districts in areas such as northern

Vancouver Island, which in effect now are not planned and are

controlled by the big companies.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: As far as I know, there's no reduction in

planting in Nimpkish. Planting is part of a longer term plan. Seedlings

that will be planted this year, last year or next year are ordered

several years ahead of time, because it does take time to grow them.

All I can say is that the general level of planting is up. There may be

specific areas where for various reasons planting goes down or rises

during different years depending on the level of harvesting or whether

or not the particular areas of harvest happen to be replanted. But so

far as I know, there's no reduction. If there is some variation in

Nimpkish, I'd have to look up the reason for that.

The $50 million of federal money is, I think, largely mythical. At

least we can’t get our hands on it right now, although we have been

negotiating with the federal government for over two years now for a

newer, more expanded agreement. The objective of that agreement, as we

have expressed to them and they seem to agree, is that it will be

directed largely toward the planting of backlog, unsatisfactorily

restocked forest lands. I think I mentioned yesterday that we envision

we would catch up on most of that within ten years. We do hope to renew

the existing program we have with them. That's the program where we

have been doing stand-tending work, such as spacing, thinning,

fertilizing, and so on. We will be working towards extension, if we

achieve it, into more backlog, and then we'll be taking on the

[ Page 3052 ]

spacing and thinning ourselves. Although in the

last couple of years we have had to pull back a bit on that for

financial reasons, I hope we'll be able to expand on that type of work

again as our economics get better. I agree it's very important. It's a

big part of overall forest management work.

[3:30]

On the timing of the management partnership with industry, we have

had the discussion paper. Let me say very clearly that our initial

entry into this type of partnership arrangement will be in tree-farm

licences, where we already have much bigger participation by the

licensee. As you know, we issued a White Paper in September, I believe.

We received responses from many sources. Right now I don't know whether

it has gone out, but very shortly we'll be coming out with the modified

version, based upon the input that we got and the discussions we had

with various sectors of the public, We hope to have the final draft out

very shortly after discussion on that. I think we will probably be

moving in that direction within a few months time. How is it going to

be done? It's not going to be an automatic right of any licensee. It's

something they will have to earn through past performance. If their

past performance in management is good, we'll consider allowing them to

take on more responsibility. We will pull back as direct supervisors;

instead we will audit their performance. If the performance isn't good,

I'm sure there will be lots of people around who will direct us to

where we should be concentrating our audit work. Together with moving

away from direct supervision to the audit process, there will, of

course, be a system of penalties, and they will be severe enough to

ensure that proper management work is done.

As far as the professionalism within the professional foresters —

whether their allegiance is to their company or to their professional

ethics — I guess that's a question they'll have to ask themselves.

Through our audit process, we will not only be auditing the actual work

but, I guess, indirectly auditing the professionalism of our

professional foresters in the province.

TFL No. 2 logging. As the member knows, when that tree-farm licence

was granted some 25 years ago, there was a clause which provided for

independent loggers to log old growth timber up until, unfortunately,

January of this year. That time has expired. We have attempted to

negotiate with Crown Forest Industries to find a way of making the

transition easier, and I think we have been successful. To those

loggers who have performed well, we are granting direct sales within

the TFL until such time as we can replace in the timber supply areas

surrounding the volume which has been traditionally harvested by

independents in the TFL. That transition period is going to take a

number of months, but if a licensee has not had sufficient sales to

replace the volume, we will issue him direct sales back-to-back, I

guess, if necessary, to make sure he has an opportunity to log until

such time as he can develop that opportunity in the public timber

supply area.

There are one or two loggers there who are not happy with that

arrangement. I'm sure the member is aware of that. But we've tried to

be as helpful as we can. By and large, I think the transition will work.

The woodlot program is moving ahead as quickly as staff time will

permit. In addition to new woodlot licences, we have to roll over the

old farm woodlot licences into the new form of tenure. There are now

about 35 of them which are now in the process. We have issued about six

new woodlot licences under the new tenure form. I think there are 75 to

80 in the process right now. Altogether, I guess, there are about 300

applications, including the ones issued or in the process. This is a

good form of tenure for the practice of small forestry. Providing it's

handled properly, I think it can do a lot to not only increase the

yield of the forest but also to make the public more aware of the value

of forest practices in the province.

I can't pronounce the name Tahsish-Kwois. I understand from my

deputy that the studies are proceeding well. We expect to have a report

within a few months, and we'll probably be addressing that in the

Environment and Land Use Committee some time this spring. I can't offer

any more advice. If the member wishes more details, I'm sure that if he

contacts my staff, either locally or in Victoria, they could advise him.

Public use of forest roads. There are times when it's very clear

that a road is strictly a forest road, and there's not a problem there.

There are times when it's very clearly a public highway and there's no

problem. But we have a big in-between area when a road services

primarily the forest industry, but there is substantial use, especially

when it's servicing communities. A sort of transition thing that we now

have with the Highways ministry is that the Ministry of Highways will,

through my ministry, direct money, which is then paid to the licensees

to do the road maintenance above and beyond what they would normally

require for their forestry use. There are a lot of roads that I would

like to turn over to the Minister of Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) if he

had the money to maintain them. But this sort of transition has worked

fairly well in the past. Several roads in the member's riding are

operated that way. I guess there is always a time when we say that we

should have done it some time ago. We haven't turned it over yet. It's

just a matter of when. I think we've had pretty good cooperation from

the Minister of Highways.

The member mentioned a fisherman having to pay a toll to move his

product over a forest road to market. There is a provision in the

Forest Act for the commercial use of a forest road. The licensee who

has to maintain the road can charge other commercial users to share in

the cost of that maintenance. I don't think we envisioned it would get

into fishermen moving fish to market; it was more on the lines of

industrial use, such as rock or gravel hauling or that type of thing.

But they are certainly within their rights to do that. I don't know how

much use by fishermen this particular road you mention has. We can

discuss that with the licensee.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, we have a few quiet times, and

it's interesting to get onto a bit of a philosophical discussion of the

forest industry and how it's going to affect our way of life.

I was interested in what my colleagues the members for Alberni (Mr.

Skelly) and North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) had to say. When we look at

what has happened in the forest industry over the last 30 to 50 years,

I think the problems haven't changed that much, except on the surface.

I really do believe that the minister, and the majority of his staff,

understand the need for complete silviculture in the forest industry.

But my big fear is that we're going to continue being ripped off by the

operators within the forest industry, who over the years have had a

very easy way within British Columbia.

I think the fact that my colleague for Alberni stated, the

overcapitalization of the forest industry, only came about because

there was a lucrative and profitable business to take over. A lot of

the governments in the past, including the government that the present

minister is a part of, have not laid

[ Page 3053 ]

down the groundwork for complete forest management.

We have had forest management licences and tree-farm licences going

back to, I believe, 1949, when the first one was given in the Prince

Rupert area, but the practice of complete forest management has never

taken place.

From my consultations with both the foresters in the private

industry and the foresters in the ministry, who are the middle level of

bureaucrats — and it doesn't matter if it's in government or industry —

I find that they have a problem, and they have the expertise of what is

needed. I know it's easy to quote figures of double the cubic metres

that you get out of timber if it's properly managed, and you can use

all the other examples of what's taken place in other countries, and I

guess New Zealand leads the list. But the need that is being

developed.... I find that it's being developed only on a band-aid

attitude a lot of the time — they look at real forest management as a

kind of frill.

I know in my area we have some good examples of forest management,

practised partially by Pacific Logging and B.C. Forest Products, but

there are still thousands and thousands of acres that have never been

touched. Today it is only because of the short-term provincial

participation in EBAP and the Canada Works program that we are

utilizing a lot of those who are unemployed, on UIC, or who have run

out of their benefits under the new Canada Works program, and that they

are doing a fair amount of new silviculture, new thinning, new

maintenance of the roads, new fire protection, and the opening up of

roads for fire service. I know it's easy to say that we're in these

tough economic times, but the policies that are going to preserve the

forest industry of British Columbia should have been set, as the

minister said, maybe 50 years ago. We can't wait another day to start

bringing in some guidelines to do what the member for North Island

said, to continually look at forestry in the agricultural light instead

of that we're going to continue to cream it and mine it.

It is important that we as members, both those from the urban areas

and those of us who share a rural area, must look at it as a

job-creation program. More jobs are going to be created if we do a

proper thinning program, maintenance of the fire roads and maintenance

of the drainage program in that area. We are going to create jobs, and

I think this is the important part. I will agree with anyone that we're

not going to create only $200-a-day jobs but employment that is going

to help the small business community; it's going to help the economy in

general. I think the minister has a responsibility, Mr. Chairman, to

give some leadership and hope to the communities that we're not going

to continue to look at a sidehill, go in, log it, clearcut it, and then

walk away from it. Even if it's just a few years later that we replant

it, but there is some maintenance on it in the thinning.... There is in

every community within the forest area that opportunity to participate

in it from a long-term belief of maintenance and management. I know

that it will give the needed employment that is wanted in many parts of

my riding.

I would like to ask a couple of questions of the minister. In one of

the question periods last year, I spoke to the minister about the fire

suppression crews: where they were going to be located, especially to

service the unincorporated area of the Western Community in my

particular riding where there are no volunteer fire departments. At

that time I was led to believe by the minister that there had been some

arrangement set up with the volunteer fire departments to house them or

to coordinate them. When I checked with the fire chiefs, they told me

that hasn't taken place. I would like to know if the minister could

confirm it. What arrangements have been made?

[3:45]

A second question I would like to ask the minister is that I believe

the timber supply of B.C. Forest Products Ltd. in the Port Renfrew area

has been in operation for many years. I believe one of the criteria of

a TFL is that there would be some type of sustained yield. I've been

led by certain foresters in that area to believe that in one block

there is only a potential 15-year supply of timber, and in the second a

25-year supply, and that there may be a falldown at that point. I would

like to know if the minister and his officials have spoken with their

foresters in the B.C. Forest Products tree-farm licence area in the

Port Renfrew area. What is the long-term supply of timber, and will

there be a slowdown or not?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I realize that the member, as he said

when he started, is speaking of motherhood issues of forest management,

which I guess none of us, regardless of which side of the House we are

on, can disagree on. I have the responsibility of dealing with that

subject so far as the funding available to me permits, and I think

we've made some pretty good progress in the last few years. Hopefully

we'll make even more in the future.

A couple of specifics: the fire protection thing.... I guess when my

estimates come up every year or so a member asks me this question. I

guess the only way to really deal with it is if you wouldn't mind

contacting our protection people. I can take you there if you wish, but

I guess that's the only way we'll get down to the specifics of it, Mr.

Member.

Certain supply blocks within TFLs, of course, don't have a sustained

yield within the supply block. The overall TFL does. Sustained yield

does not mean that it's going to be a constant allowable cut year after

year after year. This can change from time to time either upwards or

downwards, depending on a number of factors.

Pacific Rim park did have an effect — or will have an effect — on

the TFL the member is speaking of. I guess we're still trying to

finalize that with the federal government after — what is it? — 13 or

14 years now. I think the park, for all practical purposes, is

established, but there was supposed to be a trade-off for forest land

which we're still trying to work out so that we can maintain the

allowable cut in that TFL without any major falldowns in volumes.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. MITCHELL: I just have one quick question. As for the

suppression crews, I have attempted to contact many parts of your

ministry, and I get conflicting stories: one, there will be no

suppression crew in the Western Community,that it will be run out of

Duncan; two, from a question I asked you in question period, that there

will be some coordination and that the location of suppression crews in

the Western Community, the Langford-Colwood area.... I want to stress

to you, Mr. Minister, that it's imperative that we do not leave the

suppression crews located in Duncan to service anywhere from Langford

out to Jordan River. There has to be some type of crew in that area

during the fire season. Although many areas in my riding are partially

covered by volunteer fire departments, there are a lot of forest areas

not covered by any type of fire district. It's important, and I'm going

to hound until I get some firm answer and commitment from your ministry.

[ Page 3054 ]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Would the member write down this phone

number: 387-3900. Phone next Tuesday morning, when my Deputy Minister

will have researched the subject and will have all the answers for the

member.

MR. SKELLY: A few years ago I was interviewed by Paul St.

Pierre, who asked me what I as a government backbencher thought of the

Legislature. I said I compared it to the Zulu kingdom. In that kingdom

the king was all powerful. All the young men lived in barracks and the

women were treated as though their value was nothing. They couldn't

even pass on the same streets as the king; in fact, they couldn't speak

to the king directly. Once a year there was a reversal of that

structure in Zulu society: the king was forced to strip down and run

through town naked, and the women could yell obscenities and throw cow

dung at him. I said that's the same purpose that the Legislature serves.

I have great respect for the parliamentary system, but I'm also

aware of how it operates: even though the government has 35 out of 57

seats, they have 100 percent of the power; the opposition has 22 seats

and zero percent of the power. So our duty is to come into estimates,

dust off the minister a little bit and give him a chance to respond. I

think we have done that in a friendly way over the past few days. The

minister has come up with a few answers, and we have come up with a few

questions. We both realize we'll be dealing with estimates again in a

very short time, and the opposition will have a chance at that time to

see the new budget and to comment more fully on the programs of the

minister. The minister announced, both at the Truck Loggers' convention

and elsewhere in the province, that he has some new ideas about raising

money for forestry purposes. Changes are taking place within the

ministry, and during the throne speech or at some time in the near

future we'll be able to see what those plans are and then to comment on

them in a more informed way.

Much of the money we're dealing with now in the minister's budget

has already been spent, and our comments are much like those of the

Zulu women and the material that they threw across the floor. We've

expressed some of our concerns to the minister: concerns about changes

in forest tenures that seem to be causing an increase in the

concentration of ownership in industry; about changes in corporate

structures which seem to be taking more out of the forest economy and

leaving less for the citizens of British Columbia; about changes in

utilization and technology in forestry that seem to be taking

employment out of the forest industry as well. The minister is aware of

some of our concerns in a general way, and that was the point we

intended to get across. We are concerned about replacement of the

forests, concerned that the province have a sound forestry policy. Too

much regulation and responsibility for management of our resource is

being transferred to private industry and outside the realm of

accountability to the people of British Columbia. We'll be back again

to forest estimates in a very few weeks, and be able to deal with these

things in much greater detail. I look forward to making more detailed

comments at that time.

Vote 41 approved.

Vote 42: forest and range management, $192,472,471 — approved.

Vote 43: fire suppression program, $50,000,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TOURISM

On vote 73: minister's office, $132,564.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, on October 7, 1983, I made

some opening remarks regarding my estimates. They were not lengthy. I

believe they were six or seven minutes long. I outlined the activities

of the Ministry of Tourism, and I think I'll leave it at that. I shall

not repeat those remarks I made last October. Should any member of the

opposition have any questions on my ministry's estimates, I would

welcome them, and my deputies shall be here at any moment to assist me.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I remember well the words the

minister gave us last October or whenever it was. It seems like months

and months ago. Not only that, he moved the committee rise, report

progress and ask leave to sit again. Here we are again. We're sitting

again. It's a wonder in B.C. You almost have it your own way but not

quite.

First, I would like to deal with the estimates in and of themselves.

I have been a bit critical of the way the estimates have been contrived

and managed in order to confuse anybody, even someone with a computer

mentality. I asked, some time ago, when I was criticizing another

portfolio, what the message was when you couldn't take one estimate

from the old system and relate it to the new. "Don't worry," I was

told, "you can get printouts and the printouts will make it quite

apparent to you exactly what's happening. You can make your comparisons

and so on." I've checked with the geniuses in our caucus and I can't

find any of them who can do any better than I can in terms of relating

those numbers. I've talked to the geniuses at universities and

elsewhere and they come up with exactly the same kind of reply. But you

know something, Mr. Chairman? This is even greater. This is the most

marvellous piece of hide-the-$5 million-or-$10 million I've ever seen

in my life.

In the minister's last report he tells us that that year — now we're

talking about '82, which ends at March 31, 1983; and this report is

signed by hand: "The Ministry of Tourism's budget for the fiscal year

ended March 31, 1983, is $13,680,900. In addition, $60,000 was

allocated to the employment development fund." In the estimates this

year we find the comparative figures. We see that last year the figure

was $8,315,312. That was brought out of the sky and into the estimate

book. Then it relates that to this new estimate of $5,942,086. So we've

got an $8 million decrease here, virtually. But there's another figure,

because this figure in the Tourism report isn't even faithful to last

year's estimates. If I can find last year's estimates around here

somewhere, and I'm sure there is a copy of them, we would find that the

figure is over $14 million in the actual estimates of last year. I've

heard of games where you use little capsules and you hide the pennies.

Here it is here.

[4:00]

Let's just contrast all these figures. First we'll take 1982-83

according to the detailed estimates of last year, issued April 3. Here

we find those estimates — $14,784,256. Then we go to his report to the

folks out there, which was tabled fairly recently, and we find it's

$13,680,900. Then we go to the comparable figure in this year's

estimates — this

[ Page 3055 ]

year being last year but, you know, we're going

into another one. God alone knows what it's going to say and what the

comparison is going to be then. But we find it's $8,315,312, then going

down to $5,942,686 for this fiscal year that we're still in but darn

near finished.

I only do that to confuse you. Mr. Chairman, like me you're

confused. Like the forever-confused government House Leader, he's

confused. I need not worry about the Minister of Tourism; he was

confused in taking the portfolio in the first place. Anyway, we're all

confused. Everybody in the House is confused.

He has, I think, made some suggestion in his opening remarks about

$5 million being moved from here to there, etc. The $5 million was

being moved to Doug Heal for government propaganda, I suspect. But in

any event, the figures that we get in the estimates today — and this is

beyond his control — with a portfolio that's worth $5,942,000.... You

don't really put a great deal of criticism in that area, except in the

area of his own administration. But so far as the government is

concerned, my plea to them would be to smarten up the whole system of

bookkeeping so that we can all understand what is going on. It's a lot

too much to expect from legislators to follow this situation — or, from

that standpoint, chartered accountants, economists or anyone else who

has an eye for numerical figures.

So I would ask the minister once again to let us know why we have

all these contrasting numbers, because they are all his. One from his

last year's estimates, one from his last year's report and one from

this fiscal year's report all have a contrasting figure from last year.

Even my colleague for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) — that vast riding — is

confused. If he's confused, then surely everybody in this House must be

confused. I note that the member from Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) is.

He always looks confused, but he is far, far more confused today than

he was yesterday, when he was listening to things about wolf packs, etc.

This afternoon I would like to ask a few questions again about the sale of our Beautiful British Columbia

magazine. I won't get into that at the moment. I'd like to know why,

for example, a Crown corporation became involved in that transaction.

As a matter of fact, I think I can give you a little documentation on

what happened. Any of us who are now confused can become unconfused

because it's so easy to read between the lines that there's no question

there won't be any confusion left at all. However, that poor, beset

ministry!

In this province tourism is supposed to become one of our major

industries. It is, in spite of this government, a very, very large

percentage of our gross provincial product. But that poor, beset

ministry suffered far worse in the hands of the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Curtis) than most. Remember the minister announced that there

would be a 25 percent cutback. So did the Premier on one of his short

visits. He suggested that there would be a 25 percent cutback, and so

did the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot). So they are all pretty

sure about that. But poor old Tourism got nicked for 30 percent. As if

they aren't in enough trouble already, they got hit 5 percent worse

than even the suggestion. They've given away their great propaganda

machine — the Beautiful British Columbia

magazine — and when I say given away, I tell you that truthfully. They

not only gave it away as a Christmas present, they applied rewards

beyond imagination to that giveaway.

I would wonder why the minister was so badly dealt with by the

Treasury Board and by his cabinet colleagues, when of all times we

should be trying to increase our gross provincial product. At the time

when we should be getting people to come and visit us and spend their

bucks.... They can't at this moment gamble on the ferries, but at least

they can buy a meal, some B.C. wine and spend money on gas, hotels and

elsewhere. At that very moment in time when we need precious dollars

from the great United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Japan or

elsewhere, we're selling the farm locally. We've demeaned the tourism

portfolio down to a point where it is being ravaged almost beyond

repair. To say this treasure-trove has been ransacked, Mr. Chairman, is

probably the only thing that I can say that would be descriptive enough

of this situation.

Since we're giving it all away, has the minister got some idea who's

going to pick up the slack? Who's going to come along and save

beautiful B.C. — and I'm not talking about the magazine now — and save

our tourist business? Or do we want the private entrepreneurs to do it

all themselves? If that's the case, then....

MR. MICHAEL: There's a stranger in the House.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether you heard that

remark or not, but it's a very serious remark, and I will sit while you

deal with it, if you wish.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Since the Chair doesn't recognize a stranger in the House, perhaps you'd like to proceed, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: Oh, thank you. I thought maybe that was a factual statement. I thought the Sergeant-at-Arms would be here immediately.

Anyway, getting back to this situation. I would like to ask one more

question before I sit down in this short series. Was Bob Saunders

fired? Was he a scapegoat? There is every indication that this high

official of the Tourism ministry, who left on January 24 and was

replaced two days later by a Treasury Board employee, Evelyn Greene....

He was in charge, as I understand it, of the finance and administration

division. I don't know if anybody else in the department had an

opportunity to apply in that short period — two days. It strikes me

that it would be moving very quickly. Has this official who has now

come in — this person, Evelyn Greene...? She's just a public servant,

and I'm certainly not aiming any darts at her. But has she been sent in

there by the Finance minister to either clean up the image or clean up

the act? It strikes me, from all I've heard, that the department is

under such a cloud at the moment that this kind of firing could be

expected, but not expected in the particular way it occurred.

So there you are. Would the minister reconcile his budgetary

situation, if he can? Would he like to tell us about why he got hit

harder than anybody else, when times are tough in this province, when

we should be promoting tourism? That is, in staffing he got hit harder

than anybody else in terms of percentages. Would he go on to tell us

all about what happened to the director of Tourism's finance,

administration and personnel department?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, I would be happy to comment on the

questions that the member has asked. First, on the question of the

budget figures, I don't find them as mysterious as the member seems to.

I think that if he really

[ Page 3056 ]

wanted to, he could find out exactly what has

happened. One way would be to refer to page 197 in the estimates, where

it is outlined in detail. But I can add for him — and he has said it

himself — that a considerable number of dollars in my budget now appear

in the estimates of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot). Those

are the dollars for advertising.

Secondly, in this past year the budget has shown full recovery figures for such things as the Royal Hudson and last year's operation of Beautiful British Columbia ;

whereas the year before there were only partial recovery figures for Beautiful British Columbia magazine and none at all for the operation of the Royal Hudson .

The member, I think, is incorrect when he quotes the staffing levels

of the ministry, because we are referring to the estimates for the year

82-83. If he refers to the time that we are discussing, he will find

that it was a 25 percent reduction.

Briefly, to talk about the year past in terms of marketing, the

ministry has spent more in the last year on marketing than has ever

been spent before. In fact, the emphasis in the last year was, and will

be in the years to come, on the marketing of this province and

attracting people here. I can give him a few figures on how we have

done this last year, which wasn't the easiest year economically. We've

done very, very well. The revenues derived from tourism throughout

British Columbia in 1983 have been estimated.... We can only estimate

the last couple of months of the year; we have data up to about the end

of October. We can estimate the last two months, and it would be at

approximately 10 percent increase over 1982. The final figures are not

available at this time, but all our indications are that we will reach

the $2.2 billion mark for 1983, which is, incidentally, the largest

tourism year ever in this province. So I would think that with our

emphasis on marketing and the amount of effort we have put into that

arm of tourism, we have done very, very well.

We have canvassed the subject of Beautiful British Columbia

magazine in this House on two or three different occasions. The member

makes reference to it being a giveaway, etc. I take issue with that,

but I have a hunch that we'll be canvassing it further in these

estimates, so I'll let it go at that until we get to that part of the

estimates.

[4:15]

The other brief remark was on the ferry situation. I think that the

management of the B.C. Ferry Corporation and the ferry workers' union

are to be complimented on settling a very good contract late last year

— a three-year agreement that will take us through to the end of Expo

86. So I am very optimistic that we will be able to continue to provide

the finest ferry service available anywhere in the world, right up to

and through Expo 86. I commend both parties in that agreement for

coming up with a tremendous contract.

On the issue of the finance manager in the Ministry of Tourism, Mr.

Saunders, I have made the statement that that was a senior management

decision about a middle management position in the ministry, and I am

not about to stand here and second-guess the deputies in my ministry.

They have made a decision regarding that position, I think a good

decision, and I will leave it at that.

I think that that answers most of what the member has asked thus far.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, you can't ask for anything more than

that. He answered more questions than I asked. He's got a guilt complex

about that ferry thing, you know. He got in a bit of trouble over

having made statements about ferries, and I'm sure that the minister

responsible for ferries probably ate him up for breakfast one morning.

But I never said a word about ferries.

MR. MOWAT: Yes, you did.

MR. COCKE: What did I say about ferries?

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Oh, gambling on the ferries! Oh, sorry! That was

an aside. I said we couldn't offer them that. But anyway, that's fine.

You signed a contract, or he did, or somebody did, and everything's

fine.

What the minister said about the mumbo-jumbo in terms of, "all you

have to do is read page 197," and this and that and the other thing....

The discrepancy is here. As for the $5 million that was turned over to

the Provincial Secretary, we said at the time it was infamous. I still

say it's infamous. All it is is government propaganda. Instead of being

aimed at the tourist market, it's being aimed at the voters in this

province. Doug Heal and his little empire are down there putting out

all the gobbledegook and so on and so forth about what a marvellous

bunch of people we have governing this province, and at the same

time....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: It is junk. You know it. I get some of the junk

mail, and I've seen some of the TV messages. You should be ashamed of

yourself. You used to be an honest man.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go do your research. You'd better research Mr. Vickers, too, you know. You're supporting him. You'd better research him, too.

MR. COCKE: Listen, when I found out, Mr. Chairman, that

Vickers had once defended one of your public servants, I said to

myself: "Well, holy doodle, there's an honest lawyer; he'll take

anybody on."

But, Mr. Chairman, the $5 million he should have fought for, the $5

million he couldn't fight for.... He tells us now — we haven't got

public accounts before us — this year they spent virtually $2.2 million

in marketing. They've only got a right to spend $1,998,434 except that

they probably got a warrant. I didn't notice it if they did. But that's

their marketing budget for this fiscal period that we're in. Last

fiscal period they had the right to spend $2,394,169 for marketing. He

gives us figures that we can't rationalize with public accounts, he

says what a marvellous job they're doing, and he also tells us that

they did a nice job in terms of signing a contract. I say it's shameful

that the $5 million is over here.

But let me tell you more about personnel. We see this guy canned. He

had nothing to do with it — a senior situation. Let's talk about

another soul, and I would like to give you a real success story. Here's

a guy by the name of Jim Pavich; he's off to Los Angeles and the good

life. Who's Jim? He's down there to replace Richard Ludwig. Richard

probably didn't fit quite the party demand — a good Socred, if there's

such a thing as a good Socred. He's out of favour, so down goes Jim.

Where does Jim come from? Ludwig came up through the public service; no

OIC appointment for Mr. Ludwig. But, my gracious, our friend Jim!

Order- in-council

[ Page 3057 ]

no. 2096 says that Jim Pavich is appointed to the

position down there in the public service at $2,769 a month, subject to

adjustment from time to time, under the Public Service Act. His

position is trade development officer 2, at the top of the salary

range. What had he done in his past? Had he been working in an agency

where they were promoting tourism? Had he a great sales career behind

him?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. COCKE: The member says yes. He was the salesman for Smithrite garbage collectors.

MR. VEITCH: You're selling garbage.

MR. COCKE: Aha! That was a marvellous remark from that witty

Whip! The member down there, that great Willingdon member, the pride of

all Burnaby.... I heard that from three people in three years but, in

any event, he's the pride of all Burnaby. He says that I am selling

garbage. I'm telling you the truth.

Let's see where Mr. Pavich really comes from, despite the Smithrite

background. He became part of the Bennett crew in Kamloops. "At the

present time the campaign team includes three regional organizers ready

in the field: David Tkachuk, former executive director of the

Saskatchewan Tories, and also loaned back to former employers to help

the Grant Devine campaign against Blakeney; and Jim Pavich, former

campaign manager in Burnaby North in the 1979 election...." He was

working against you, Eileen — ineffectively, but I'll tell you, for his

work and his faithful service, he was appointed. Did the minister

appoint him?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: This is a position in the public service, not an

appointment to a Crown corporation or a board, so don't try to give me

that phoney relationship. This is an appointment in the public service

— I read it to you; trade development officer 2 — and they put him bang

at the top of the salary range, by order-in-council, a practice that is

being increased by this government. Will we need a Public Service

Commission in two or three years down the road? No, all we'll need is a

Socred membership card and you'll get a job wherever you want it,

within reason.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Sounds like a good idea.

MR. COCKE: Put that on the record. The member for Surrey says

it sounds like a good idea. The member for Surrey is full of good

ideas; the problem is that those good ideas are not good for the people

of this province. They're not good for the trust of the people in this

province. It's taking a while, but slowly and surely it's sinking in

that there is a great deal of corruption in this government, and that

corruption is exemplified by the kind of things that we're seeing

before us at the present time.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Transportation and Highways rises on a point of order.

HON. A. FRASER: I sure do. That member for New Westminster

stands there and does more speech-making by pointing than he does by

mouth, and I want to know the ruling of this House. Can you make a

speech by pointing your finger all over the place? Are you not supposed

to use your lips, not your fingers? I'd like a ruling on that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's a very interesting question. Can I reserve comment?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, that is a good comment. Let me tell

you how he was doing it. While he made that charge — and a very serious

charge it was — he was going like this with both hands. He outdid me.

In any event, I would like to ask this question: why would Jim

Pavich have to be appointed by order-in-council? Ob, it's a fairly

significant job, and one can bask in the sun down there at 2,769 a

month. I understand it's been raised; he went up $300 a year just a few

weeks later. But was it because he was a good and faithful servant? And

don't equate that to any person with some real qualifications. Just

talk about why he didn't go through the public service and why he

didn't serve his time — maybe in the cold north. Why didn't he shiver

in Burnaby for a while beside the member for Willingdon (Mr. Veitch)?

He spent time in the neighbouring riding. The member for

Burnaby-Willingdon knows him well. He jumped to his defence immediately

when I was talking about his sales experience. But I'm not sure that

the sales experience of going around from place to place and asking

them to "let us be your garbage dumpers" is the qualification required

for a public trade development officer 2. I don't think so. Maybe the

minister can tell me. You see, on the one hand we have a relatively

senior man fired. I suspect that maybe he wasn't a good Socred. But we

know that good old Jim is. He fought long and hard between garbage

dumps, and he got his just deserts.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: He's not in the dumps any more, my colleague from

Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) tells me. I don't think so. If he likes the

sun — when he can see it through the smog — he's in a good climate.

In any event, I would just like to put those two in juxtaposition

and find out whether being part of that Lampert-Kinsella machine had

anything to do with the fact that he managed to secure this position.

It's a real winner.

I'm not going to get to Beautiful British Columbia

for a moment or two, because I think the minister was right when he

said that I'll likely get back to that. I think I would be remiss if I

didn't go into that in some more detail than has been gone into before.

I'll tell the minister this: I know every word of the agreement that

was signed, and I know that the minister signed the agreement. When I

suggested that it was a giveaway then, when I first made those

remarks.... I say it's a dead giveaway now. What a proposition for good

old Jim, who played the trumpet with him on victory night up there in

Kamloops.

[4:30]

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: He didn't? That's the message I got. Maybe it was

some other night.

[ Page 3058 ]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Wrong night.

MR. COCKE: Wrong night — okay. In any event, I would first

like to say that I'm not going to deal with McKim in any detail. I do

think, however, that it was a travesty that they went on being the

government agent after the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) decided

that a police report should be made. I think it's doubly so now,

because if it has taken them this long to get the facts and put them

before the Attorney-General, it must be a great deal more serious than

what we originally thought — and, we thought it was darned serious

then. Double and triple dipping is a very serious matter. I would just

like to suggest — I'm not going to ask the minister to answer the

question — that the government was wrong, he was wrong and the whole

place is put under a cloud as a result of that kind of arrogance on the

part of the government. I would like to say this to the public: the

government has admitted that no matter what the outcome of this report

might be, they are equally culpable, because they're keeping this group

under a cloud as their publicity agent with the ministry and the

government. They have admitted to being culpable along with that group,

so they had better be able to stand up and answer why that is.

At this point I'm not going to deal with the auditor-general's

statements, either heretofore or in the future — we'll deal with them

when the new estimates come up — other than to say this: she said that

the further she goes in terms of digging into this organization, the

worse it gets. Mr. Chairman, all I can say.... Incidentally, I

certainly won't aim all this at the present minister; he wasn't there.

As a matter of fact, I suggest it wasn't even the past minister. I

suggest that it goes back down the line for some time, before it was

even a separate ministry. In any event, it could be that the RCMP and

the auditor-general are looking further back in history than what we've

been talking about here in recent months. There's no question in my

mind that if they're not, they should be. There should be a total

investigation when you come up with the kind of auditor-general's

report on a relatively small ministry that we see here. We're not

looking at simple extraordinary mistakes. We're either looking at some

major blunders, or at something even worse.

I wonder if the minister could tell me a little bit about the

history of Mr. Pavich, and whether or not the fact that he was up there

in Kamloops doing his job had anything to do with the fact that an OIC

appointed him down to good old California in the sun. Now the OIC was

signed by.... It could be nothing to do with the minister. He might

have done it another way. He might have put him through the public

service. I'm sure that he would have prevailed, with a little patience.

But no, it was signed by the Provincial Secretary and the Premier — the

Premier who loves to have lots and lots of good, loyal folks on staff,

whether or not they know what they're doing.

Mr. Chairman, with those few questions, I'll again listen with attention to the minister's replies.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I think I will deal first with the subject

that the member has brought up regarding the Los Angeles office. I'm

glad he brought it up, but I'd like to point out that on both of his

alleged counts he is wrong — dead wrong.

First of all, he goes back into the history of Mr. Richard Ludwig,

who served us well in the Los Angeles office for five years. When Mr.

Ludwig came on board and started to work for the Ministry of Tourism,

he was hired from outside the public service. He was hired from the

private sector directly into the marketing of tourism, because that's

where his expertise lay — in marketing.

MR. COCKE: By order-in-council?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'll get to the order-in-council bit in a minute. He was hired over five years and served us well for five years.

Secondly, Mr. Member, you are wrong when you say he was canned or fired, or whatever expression you used. Mr. Ludwig resigned.

MR. COCKE: I didn't say that.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, you did. Mr. Ludwig resigned to

rejoin the private sector. In fact, he is now with the Cascade group,

working out of Calgary and doing much of the marketing for Panorama

Resorts. So he served us well for five years. He resigned to come back

to Canada and work for the private sector, and we wish him well. He is

doing a fine job, I understand, for Panorama.

Then we come to the person we put down there to replace Mr. Ludwig.

Yes, we chose Mr. Jim Pavich to do the job for us in Los Angeles. We

chose him for a variety of reasons. If you were to interview Mr.

Pavich, Mr. Member for New Westminster, you would find that he is a

very capable man. He has an extensive background in salesmanship and

marketing, and will represent British Columbia very well in Los

Angeles, as anyone who knows Jim Pavich will know. We put him in at the

same salary as had been earned by Mr. Ludwig, which hadn't been

adjusted for some time. We feel that's very fair for a man of Mr.

Pavich's background and expertise. We are confident that he will do the

job for us down there, and, as I've said, if any one of you know him or

were to interview him you would be equally as confident. He mentions

that Mr. Pavich will be down there basking in the sun in Los Angeles.

Knowing Jim Pavich as I do, I know that will not be the case; he will

be down there working very hard on our behalf. He is put down there on

an OIC for the very reason that if he isn't down there working hard for

us or whomever else, they can be as easily removed by an OIC. I know

that will not be the case with Mr. Pavich. I have every confidence that

he will do the job for us down there. He's an excellent man.

You touched on the BBC "giveway," to use your words. I would refute

that argument, but again I have a hunch you're not finished with that

topic yet.

You said that you weren't going to remark on the McKim advertising

agency but made just enough remarks to cast aspersions on that firm,

their good name and the good work that they do. For that reason I will

mention McKim and say that they are still the agency of record for the

Ministry of Tourism, and we're very pleased with their work. They do

excellent work for us; in fact, last year one of their ads on the west

coast won an international award as the best in its field for the whole

of North America. I think that speaks well for McKim Advertising

agency. Besides, Mr. Member, McKim has yet to be found guilty of

anything. I don't think we should start prejudging people until

something has come up to make us think otherwise.

Yes, the RCMP investigation is still going on. They are investigating several

aspects of what happened prior to my becoming a minister. You said there is

a cloud hanging over individuals and the ministry, and I couldn't agree

more with

[ Page

3059 ]

you. This is why I would urge them to finalize their report as quickly as

possible. It seems to be taking an interminable amount of time; however, that's

their business. I look forward, as everyone else does, to them concluding their

investigation.

You also mentioned that you weren't going to bring up the

auditor-general; yet you did manage to bring up the auditor-general and

the report. You kindly said that it goes back to a time before I became

the minister, which is true, and you alluded to a relatively small

ministry, which it is. We welcome the auditor-general into our

ministry, as any minister would, because it is the auditor-general's

job to find out if there are any discrepancies, or if someone indeed is

not doing their job. Many things in the ministry had been put on a hold

situation, pending the outcome of her report. Once again, it is taking

longer than anticipated, so we have decided that we must press on in

the ministry with whatever it is we're going to do. The

auditor-general's report will come in due course.

When you said that it goes back two, three or more ministers, you

may be right, and maybe the system should have been corrected a long

time ago. I don't know how far back the auditor-general is going to go

with her investigation or how far forward. That is entirely up to her,

and I would welcome whatever she decides to do. Perhaps it goes right

back to the time of Mr. Hall when he was in the ministry — who knows?

You said you thought she should go back further; maybe she should go

back that length of time.

MR. COCKE: We would welcome that.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, I think you would; I would too.

MR. COCKE: You have all the information, so don't give us

that kind of junk. If there was anything on Hall you would have had it

out here years ago.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The auditor-general is welcome to all the

information. You know that. As I've said, that is her job and whatever

she decides to do is fine.

It's very easy for you to stand over there, too, Mr. Member, and

talk about the money Mr. Heal is using for propaganda, but you know

very well that's not true. If you were to check into the budget that

was allocated for marketing the Ministry of Tourism and in turn

marketing the province of British Columbia, you would know where the

moneys have been spent. Certainly they have not been spent for the

purposes that you suggest. The money that is allocated to marketing in

British Columbia has been spent on that very purpose — I can't give you

the exact number. Even more than was allocated last year was spent on

the marketing in this province. Because of certain contingencies and

unforeseen things that happened, we felt it was necessary to put a few

more dollars into specific areas to counteract certain problems. I

don't know where you got the figure of $2.2 million. I didn't mention

it. I mentioned that this year the Tourism industry would generate

approximately $2.2 billion in economic activity. I'm not familiar with

the figure you mentioned of $2.2 million, but I can tell you that the

ministry is on budget, and there are no special warrants.

For Hansard , when I answered your last questions I said "fiscal years

1982-83," and I should have said "1983-84." I would like to

set the record straight.

MR. ROSE: I would hesitate to inject a lighter note into

these questions about a very serious matter and a very serious minister

of a very serious ministry, but for the pointy point of order of the

Minister of Highways (Hon. A. Fraser). It happened just a little while

ago when he spoke and did all his gestures. Because I had heard that

this might be true, I wanted to ask the Minister of Tourism whether or

not it was true that tomorrow three cabinet ministers are touring to

the metropolis of Cache Creek for the purpose of a celebration, at

public expense, of the removal of the last stop sign on the

Trans-Canada Highway. Further, a correlative question to that: just how

many Socred cabinet ministers are needed to remove a stop sign?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that would have to be answered during another minister's estimates, if there is an answer.

[4:45]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I think that's easy: one to dig, the

second one with a ladder and the third one to pull it out, and then of

course they all fall down.

How did that minister suggest that I said that he fired Ludwig? I

just asked him if he met the same fate as poor old Bob. I asked the

question; I didn't say he did. Yet the minister, with his marvellous

memory, says that I charged that he fired Ludwig. I know you hired Jim.

You didn't tell me how you hired Ludwig in the first place, because you

know perfectly well he was hired in a normal propitious way. But not so

with this guy. Then he said: "The reason we hired him this way is so we

can fire him at will." I hope he feels kind of good there down in the

sun in California, knowing that he was hired so that he could be fired

just as easily. Competence is not his long suit, but anyway that's okay.

Marketing.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: What are you yipping and yapping about? If you'd

pay more attention to education and quit sniping and barking, we'd have

something going in this province. Poor fellow.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. COCKE: Getting back to marketing, let me tell you what I

have heard. Now the minister can deny this if he likes, but I heard

that their marketing in this province has been ground to a halt. He

says everything is going marvellously. I hear that we're using a whole

bunch of old ski ads down there in a blitz in Portland. We did it in a

time when our skiing conditions were a bit horrible. We are not doing

the contemporary marketing we should be doing. You haven't got the

budget to do it. You should be ashamed. This government should be

ashamed at the lack of attention they're giving to this portfolio in a

time of need. If you say, "Well, we're doing a bit better than we did

last year," tough beans. You didn't do well enough last year or the

year before. Until we get some bucks into that Tourism ministry and

some real decisions on attracting people here, we're just going to go

on limping along, letting down the service industry in this province

and letting down all the taxpayers in this province. If there was ever

a time when we needed to develop that industry, it's now. We're not

developing it now. The minister can talk all he likes

[ Page 3060 ]

about his marketing, but when we have a bunch of

old ski ads that we shoot down to Portland to tell them to come on up

here and enjoy our great skiing, and just at that time it was lousy, I

don't know. I think it has to be a real concerted effort. Things are

not going well with respect to that.

I would like to deal for a moment or two with a little matter of Beautiful British Columbia

magazine. We've been told what the Pattison group paid for it. Seven

hundred and some-odd thousand, wasn't it? That was what the minister

suggested. His actual cheque cam e to $442,359.25. There was a subscri ption

liability of $177,640.75, and the Fraser edition was $138,906. What did

Pattison get back? The Hydro mailing, for two years free, was worth a

couple of hundred thousand bucks. According to the contract, the free

mailing of the subscription renewals was roughly $184,500. Add it up

and take it away, and you're right back down to the $400,000 figure —

marginally more. What do you get for that? You get a real moneymaker.

But the worst part of it is that the moneymaker becomes a moneymaker in

private hands, but then it becomes far less of an agency to attract

people from outside our province. I'll go over this in some detail.

"The purchase price payable by Mainland to the province

for Beautiful British Columbia

magazine assets shall be the sum of $620,000. The purchase price shall

be paid by Mainland to the province as follows: $177,640.75 by virtue

of Mainland having agreed to assume all the obligations of the province

arising in connection with the outstanding paid subscriptions as at the

date hereof for the Beautiful British Columbia magazine, to a maximum

not to exceed the amount of the purchase price, provided however the parties

hereby agree that the paid subscription liability is deemed to equal a minimum

amount of $120,000; $442,359.25 being the balance of the purchase price after

deduction of an amount equal to the paid subscription liability, by certified

cheque payable to the Minister of Finance...."

That is a marvellous situation. The subscription renewal notices

were sent out by the government after the purchase. Yes, the taxpayers

got hooked on that, Mr. Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich). The

government then set up a trust account within government to accept

these moneys and to pay them twice monthly to Pattison. You see,

government goes out and gets their money. It doesn't turn over the

subscription list but runs it off at our expense and back it comes and

the moneys are paid over. The Hydro thing is the most fascinating of

all. Remember, it says in the agreement that: "the province covenants

and agrees to exert its best efforts to cause the British Columbia

Hydro and Power Authority to continue for a period of two years

following closing" — that's the closing of the deal — "its present

practice of inserting annually in its monthly billing...." Two years!

Let's see what Hydro had to say about that before they got the

message. This is an excerpt from Hydro minutes of September 30, 1983:

"Plans to mail out the Beautiful British Columbia

magazine Christmas promotion with the customer bills have been

cancelled as a result of the provincial government's decision to sell

the magazine." In their minutes, Hydro, as of September 30, 1983, had

cancelled. Hydro had decided ipso facto. Then, of course, the

government signed an agreement with one of the Jim Pattison companies.

They said they covenanted and agreed to exert their best efforts to

cause the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority to continue, for a

period of not one but two years following closing, its present practice

of inserting annually in its monthly billing envelopes, at no cost to

the business with respect to mailing, subscription renewal notices and

other promotional material pertaining to the business.

The Premier of this province goes around talking about the pride he

has in keeping at arm's length — keeping government out of those

activities. We've always smiled when he said it, knowing full well that

every director on those Crown corporations is there at government

suffrage. They're there at the pleasure of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. When that

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council starts to frown, they go out looking for

another directorship somewhere else.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Was it different when you were in power?

MR. COCKE: We didn't pull all these funny games when we were

in power. We were an honest government. That's the difference, Madam

Member from Surrey. And it makes a great deal of difference.

So, Mr.