[ Page 2513 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Mineral Act Clarification Act (Bill 25) Hon. Mr. Chabot.

Introduction and first reading –– 2513

Family Relations Act (Bill 22) Hon. Mr. Gardom.

Introduction and first reading –– 2513

Constitution Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 38) Hon. Mrs. McCarthy.

Introduction and first reading –– 2513

Presenting reports.

British Columbia Petroleum Corporation annual report. Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 2515

Oral questions.

Racing camels. Mrs. Dailly –– 2515

Fair wages for public construction employees. Ms. Sanford –– 2515

Assessment burden on motel owners. Mr. Stephens –– 2516

Federal subsidy for Fort Nelson extension. Mr. Lauk –– 2516

"Sneaky and deceptive practices" by municipal governments. Mr. Barber –– 2516

Surcharge to ICBC for truck parts. Mr. Cocke –– 2517

Public Libraries Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 20) . Committee stage.

On section 4.

Mr. Levi –– 2517

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 2518

Mr. Gibson –– 2518

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 2518

Mr. Nicolson –– 2518

Division on section 4 –– 2519

Report and third reading –– 2519

Science Council of British Columbia Act (Bill 23) . Second reading.

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 2519

Mr. Lauk –– 2520

Mr. Nicolson –– 2521

Mr. Macdonald –– 2522

Second reading –– 2522

Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 37) . Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2523

Mr. Macdonald –– 2523

Second reading –– 2523

Fire Marshal Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 35) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2523

Mr. Macdonald 6 –– 2524

Mrs. Wallace –– 2525

Mr. Rogers –– 2525

Mr. King –– 2525

Mr. D-Arcy –– 2526

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2527

Coal Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 27) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 2528

Mr. Macdonald –– 2530

Mr. Gibson –– 2534

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 2535

Second reading –– 2538

Ministry of Forests Act (Bill 12) Committee stage.

On section 3.

Mr. King –– 2538

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2538

Mr. Gibson –– 2538

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2539

On section 5.

Mr. King –– 2539

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2539

On section 8.

Mr. Gibson –– 2541

On the amendment to section 8.

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2541

Mr. Gibson –– 2541

Mr. King I –– 2542

On section 8.

Mr. King –– 2542

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2542

On section 11.

Mr. Gibson –– 2544

Report and third reading –– 2545

Range Act (Bill 13) Committee stage.

On section 7.

Mr. King –– 2545

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2545

Partnership Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 39) Hon. Mr. Mair.

Introduction and first reading –– 2545

Presenting reports.

Ministry of Human Resources annual report, 1977. Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 2546

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased today to be able to introduce two members in the gallery. They are Mrs. Jackie Newman and her daughter, Barbara, who are constituents of Vancouver-Little Mountain. I join with my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) , in welcoming them and asking all members of the House to welcome them to our House today.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, touring the buildings today is a group of students from the Willow Point Elementary School in Campbell River. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Piercey, and I would ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are Mr. and Mrs. Alan H. Ashton. Mr. Ashton is better known as "Al", I think. I believe also that this is Mrs. Ashton's first visit to the Legislative Assembly and I trust that she finds the discussions today to be interesting.

I should point out, and it is with a great deal of pleasure, that Mr. Ashton is the president and business agent of the Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 101134. In view of activities in this House, we have already started to have very productive discussions with individuals who have a keen interest in transit, not the least of whom are Mr. Ashton and his associates.

Would the House welcome them?

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, may I introduce a very good friend and an employer in the constituency of Dewdney, Mr. Leo Noel, who represents a group of mill operators in that constituency. I wish you would bid Mr. Noel welcome.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, in the precincts today we have Sister Taylor, a number of parents and a group of grade 6 students from Our Lady of Good Counsel school in Whalley and Surrey. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I noted a newcomer to the gallery sitting up there with a little bit of silver hair, Mr. Bill Clancy. I think all members would like to bid him welcome.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, along with the Attorney-General, I would like to welcome B.C.'s best known leprechaun to the gallery.

Introduction of bills.

MINERAL ACT CLARIFICATION ACT

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Chabot, Bill 25, Mineral Act Clarification Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

FAMILY RELATIONS ACT

Hon. Mr. Gardom presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Family Relations Act.

Bill 22 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Constitution Amendment Act, 1978.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move first reading of the bill accompanying the message.

Leave not granted.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I move that the said message and the bill accompanying the sample be referred to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

Motion approved.

The House in Committee on Bill 38; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise, recommending the introduction of the bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no debate on this stage. Are you on a point of order?

MR. LAUK: It's a debatable motion. It's debatable in committee; you know that. This procedure was followed for years.

MR. CHAIRMAN: At this stage of the debate this is not debatable. I refer to the

[ Page 2514 ]

Speaker's ruling of February 22,1973, page 98.

MR. LAUK: That decision has nothing to do with this procedure.

MR. CHAIRMAN; I have made the ruling, and there is also a ruling in Hansard of June 22,1977; also in Hansard of 1973 on page 98.

MR. LAUK: You cut up the province. Now, are we allowed to speak in the Legislature any more?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: MR. Chairman, I refer you to standing order 45 (l) (k) . Where it is not otherwise stated, it says:

"And such other motion, made upon routine proceedings, as may be required for the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the appointment or conduct of its officers, the management of its business, the arrangement of its proceedings, the correctness of its records, the fixing of its sitting-days, or the times of its meeting or adjournment."

That means the following motions are debatable, and that clearly falls within that subparagraph.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, unfortunately it doesn't. That is not applicable. However, I will read you from page 98 of the Journals of this House for the year 1972 and 1973, second section of 1972, the first of 1973 and second of 1973, where, on page 98, it points out:

"Resolution on a bill reported. The Hon. D.D. Stupich moved the adoption of a report from the Committee of the Whole House recommending the introduction of a bill. Upon a point of order being raised as to whether or not a debate on the motion was permissible, Mr. Speaker observed that no authority had been quoted to displace the long-established practice and usage of the House, namely that there was no debate, either in the Committee of the Whole House or in the stage of the report from the Committee of the Whole House relative to the message bill. Mr. Speaker further referred hon. members to standing order 45 (l) , and noted that the motion in question did not fall within the ambit of the debatable motion and was accordingly governed by standing order 45 (2) . "

So I put the question.

MR. LAUK: What was that Speaker's name again? Dowding? It must be correct.

Motion approved on the following division:

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, when reporting to the Speaker could you report that a division took place on this black bill, this mark against democracy, and ask leave that the division be recorded in the Journals of the House? That is the division just announced stating that 18 brave opposition members were opposed to this bill.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee rises and reports recommending introduction of the bill.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I move that the bill be introduced and now read a first time.

Motion approved.

On a motion by Hon. Mrs. McCarthy, Bill 38, Constitution Amendment Act introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MS. BROWN: I notice that there is a group of young people in the gallery who are having translated to them by sign language what is going on in the House, and I wonder whether

[ Page 2515 ]

the House would give me leave to bid them welcome.

Leave granted.

MS. BROWN: Welcome.

reports.

Hon. Mr. Chabot presented the annual report of the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation for the year ending March 31,1978.

Oral questions.

RAGING CAMELS

MRS. DAILLY: A question to the Provincial Secretary: it is my understanding that two racing camels were rented for a parade in the city of Chilliwack. I'll have to do a preamble to get to the question. These two racing camels, unfortunately, were kept in quarantine and could not be brought over, even though a $2,000 down payment was placed on them. Subsequently the people who were involved in this had to rent a camel from Alberta. As the money for these racing camels, which never did get across into Chilliwack, came from Captain Cook grant money, my question to the hon. minister is: does she condone camels on the government payroll? (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I think it is a real question.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to try to provide a real answer. I'd like to thank the hon. member for Burnaby North for her question. As far as I know, I have heard of a camel race in the Chilliwack area - I don't know of the subsequent actions of that race - and I only know that through the news media. Because of an extremely active Fraser Valley community effort, Mr. Speaker, which you would understand.... In every community in the province there have been bicentennial grants given and it is up to each community, of course, to spend the money as they see fit. That may be part of the dollars; I don't know. I can't confirm nor can I reject the supposition made by the hon. member for Burnaby North. If there is a question to be asked on the expenditure of funds, however, that should be rightfully made to the municipality and the community involved. If the hon. member would like me to obtain that information for her, I'll be only so glad to do so.

MRS. DAILLY: I have a supplementary question to the hon. minister. Would you say, then, that it's perhaps easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than through the gates of Chilliwack? (Laughter.)

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary question, I wonder if the minister regards the camel as a tall horse? (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think we can let that question through the eye of the needle.

MR. LAUK: I don't know what all the levity is about. I would like to ask a supplementary of the Provincial Secretary to be answered on behalf of the Speaker of the House. Is is true that four out of five Chilliwackians prefer camels?

FAIR WAGES FUR PUBLIC

CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYEES

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have a real question for the Minister of Labour. The Public Construction Fair Wages Act was given royal assent on June 30,1976. Presumably, the reason for this Act being brought in was to ensure that public construction employees receive a fair wage. As no fair wage has been established by regulation, could the minister advise the House how the provisions of the Act are being carried out?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: With difficulty, Mr. Speaker.

MS. SANFORD: On a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, section 7 (1) of the Act reads as follows: "On application of an employer, worker or other person affected by a schedule, the board may, if in its opinion a schedule established by the director does not constitute fair wages, order the director to amend the schedule."

Now how can an employee, who feels he has a complaint with respect to wages, receive satisfaction under this section when there are no regulations and there is no schedule?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: By reference to the Board of Industrial Relations, Mr. Speaker.

MS. SANFORD: On a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker, the particular employee has been to the board and has been told there is nothing the board can do, because there are no regulations, and there is no schedule and there is no fair wage established. I'm just wondering why the minister, two years later, has not ensured that that fair wage has been estab-

[ Page 2516 ]

lished.

ASSESSMENT BURDEN

ON MOTEL OWNERS

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. It is becoming very, very clear that, because of this government's new assessment procedures, the hardest hit people in this province today are probably the motel owners, many of whom own family businesses. The information that I have been able to collect indicates increases of approximately 40 per cent for the motel owners in the Okanagan area. I wonder if the Premier is now aware of the seriousness of the situation, and whether he intends to intervene to save some of these business people from bankruptcy.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the member made some statements or an assumption which may or may not be correct on bankruptcies and on the effect of the Assessment Equalization Act. I can take that question to look into classifications as notice on behalf of the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for the Assessment Act, and eventually bring any information to the House on the variances in various areas.

MR. STEPHENS: With respect, I would point out to the Premier....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Was the question taken as notice?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes.

MR. STEPHENS: Only part of it was.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, I took all of it.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed. Perhaps the question can be formed in such a fashion as not to do injury to the rules.

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Speaker, it's becoming impossible to get this issue before the House. I've tried every way. I've tried an emergency debate. Now the Premier will not answer the questions. Surely these people who are suffering.... It's an emergency. Surely he should stand up and give them some assurance. That's all I'm asking him to do. If you take it as notice they may be out of business before you get on your feet.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, we cannot use question period to bring a speech to the House, regardless of how short that speech might happen to be.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a similar question for the Premier, and this is based on the fact that I've had representations from motels in North Vancouver where it is also running about 40 per cent, I can assure him. I asked him and he said he would bring information to the House. I would ask him another question: will he do something about it? That is the basic question because of the very high differential impact on some small businesses in this province.

FEDERAL SUBSIDY FOR FORT NELSON EXTENSION

MR. LAUK: My question is to the Premier. Last April comments were made in this Legislature by the Premier that he and his officials had been negotiating with federal officials pursuant to negotiations on the Alcan pipeline for some kind of federal contribution to the Alcan pipeline builders for the Fort Nelson extension subsidy that would be required. I'm instructed that no such negotiations preceded April 10,1978. Can the Premier confirm that information?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Member, the negotiation instructions have been given to the cabinet ministers responsible and they were identified in the House. The member is incorrect in his assumption.

MR. LAUK: Could the Premier indicate on what approximate date submissions were made to any federal government officials vis-à-vis the Alcan pipeline construction and a proposition that the feds should share in the subsidy for the Fort Nelson extension of the railway? Could he give me approximate dates and who contacted whom? Ottawa has never heard of it.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it a matter of cabinet confidentiality? The Chair is not aware.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, it's a question of the government dealing with the government in Ottawa and the cabinet. The member will see the results of the strong position British Columbia has taken on the conclusion of an agreement with Ottawa.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, the economic collapse of British Columbia.

"SNEAKY AND DECEPTIVE PRACTICES"

BY MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, some years ago,

[ Page 2517 ]

when Premier W.A.C. Bennett attacked municipal governments in this province for sneaky and deceptive practices in regard to the allocation of highway funds, one of the defenders of local government was the now Minister of Municipal Affairs. Days ago this minister and the Premier told this House that some local governments were guilty of sneaky and deceptive practices. Years ago, when W.A.C. Bennett made the charge, he refused to name names. He never did, even though the now minister asked that names be named. Days ago these charges were laid and they've yet to name names. I ask the minister today to tell this House which municipalities, by name, are guilty of sneaky and deceptive practices as so described by the Premier and the Minister of 'Municipal Affairs.

RON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) , who seems particularly agitated today, I had to wait for quite some time to learn if the question was in fact directed to me. I take the question as notice.

SURCHARGE TO ICBC

FOR TRUCK PARTS

MR. COCKE: Hr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the talented Minister of Education, who runs ICBC with one hand tied behind his back.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct the minister's attention to the fact that ICBC is paying retail-plus - plus an overhead and plus a markup - on truck parts when trucks are repaired at auto body shops. I would ask the minister: why isn't ICBC able to keep up with private insurers, who will not put up with that kind of expenditure, particularly when he's dealing with the money of all the people in British Columbia?

I think it's a disgraceful practice, Mr. Speaker. I think it's entirely incorrect and I don't think that it's ethical for automobile dealers in British Columbia to charge more than the recommended retail price to lCBC.

I agree that that has happened to some extent in automobile parts but not to the same extent. Will the minister put his ICBC team to work and get the truck companies to agree to give discounts that are only right and proper, and sell to the body shops wholesale, as they should do?

HON. MR. McGEER: I agree with the member. I'd settle if they'd just sell for retail. If the member has suggestions as to how ICBC can get a fair price from the automobile dealers of British Columbia, I'd be terribly pleased to have his advice.

MR. BARRETT: Check your cabinet colleagues and back benchers.

Hon Mr. Mair files answers to questions.

HON. MR. CURTIS: If it is appropriate, I ask leave to correct a statement I made in debate yesterday.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. CURTIS: In committee debate yesterday on the Urban Transit Authority Act, Bill 19, 1 cited an example with respect to the British Columbia Housing Management Commission and indicated that the present chairman of that commission is receiving $75 per them when in fact the chairman receives $150 per diem: $75 as member and $75 as chairman for each meeting day. I would not want the record to go incorrectly.

Orders of the day.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, by leave, 1, move the House proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 20.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

The House in committee on Bill 20; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On section 4.

MR. LEVI: Could I just ask the minister a question with respect to section 4? Would the minister see part of the function of the advisory committee being involved in giving advice on books in general, so that we don't get ourselves into this continuing situation in the province where school boards are censoring books? Does the minister see any role at all for the commission as an advisory body in respect to books that go into schools? We have had some instances where books have been censored by the request of various trustees in the schools. It would seem to me that if such an advisory body were being set up, that would be the advisory body that would have, hopefully and presumably, the expertise to carry

[ Page 2518 ]

out that very function. Would he be prepared to say that the committee would receive such referrals in respect to these books?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Chairman, it is not the purpose of this committee to advise directly upon books for schools, except as might be requested through the Ministry of Education. In the longer term, Mr. Chairman, I think we can anticipate that it would be very desirable to have a greater cohesion between library resources in the education system in the province and community libraries on the other hand. However, at this time it is not proposed except should a request arise through the Ministry of Education that this body perform that function.

MR. LEVI: Just to follow up with the minister, there are at the moment a number of school libraries that are incorporated into the library system.

HON. MR. BAWLF: By specific agreement.

MR. LEVI: The minister agrees. Well, it seems to me, then, that the way is open for this kind of work for the committee to do, rather than leaving it to what it has become in the Richmond situation with "Go Ask Alice." I think that taking it out of the realm of the heated, political area and putting it into such a body would be of enormous advantage to have very practical decisions being made by people who have an involvement in this area. Now that possibility is there because of the integration of some of the school libraries. I just wanted to make that point.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, this is the section that, as I understand it, is of particular concern to the B.C. Library Trustees' Association. Their concern essentially is that an additional bureaucracy is being set up, that trustees and people who Are giving up their time to the Library Development Commission will be sidelined in an advisory role rather than in the more direct role that they have now with the Library Development Commission.

My understanding is that the B.C. Library Trustees' Association asked the minister for a meeting either over the weekend or just before the weekend. Now what I would like to know from the minister is: has he given that group a response? It seem to me that it is only fair that these people in the communities around British Columbia should have the courtesy of a response from the minister with respect to a meeting before this bill is passed.

Has the minister received such a request -and I am told that he has - and has he made a response to it?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to meet with concerned people in regard to this legislation. It is not my proposal to delay passage for the purpose of that meeting, but I would be happy to meet with them.

I would like to stress, Mr. Chairman, that this does not anticipate the establishment of an additional bureaucracy or even one additional person. Basically, it clarifies the role of the public advisory body on the one hand and essentially civil service reporting lines on the other hand. The same people will be consulting and there is no intent to create some kind of - the member used "bureaucracy" -in this regard.

MR. GIBSON: I cannot pretend to be any kind of an expert on this question of the public library system, but I do say that when a lay group in the province, which is most knowledgeable and most intimately affected by a piece of legislation, asks for a meeting prior to its passage, it seems to me only right that they should receive that kind of meeting prior to its passage, particularly when, as I said last night, this bill was introduced only on June 9 and there hasn't really been time for library trustees around the province to respond and get their message to the minister.

All I'm asking, Mr. Chairman, is that this bill not be further proceeded with until he's had that meeting with them, and it seems to me that is entirely right. Without particularly trying to oppose or support what the minister is doing, I'm just supporting the democratic concept that he should meet with the people most seriously affected.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is beyond the scope of this committee, though.

MR. GIBSON: But the thing is, Mr. Chairman, if we pass this section, then what they're concerned about comes into effect, and that's the only way I have to get across that point. I won't be longer on that point; I won't elaborate. I'll certainly vote against this section, though, because it effectively denies the B.C. Library Trustees' Association their day in court.

MR. NICOLSON: On section 4, I'd like to associate myself with the remarks of the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson.) It's really incredible that the next

[ Page 2519 ]

piece of legislation we will discuss today will be putting into place this very type of an outside agency that under this piece of legislation and under section 4 we're going to seek to abolish, and actually throughout the entirety of this Act. It's largely an Act to abolish the library commission.

Really, there has been undue haste. 1 can't imagine the excuse for having delayed bringing this bill in for so long. It's such a short little thing that it could well have been introduced months ago. So I would certainly associate myself with the remarks of the previous speaker.

Section 4 passed on the following division:

Mr. Gibson requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Sections 5 to 22 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 20, Public Libraries Amendment Act, 1978, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Leave granted for the division to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Hon. MR. WILLIAMS: Second reading of Bill 23, Mr. Speaker.

SCIENCE COUNCIL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, 1 am happy -in fact delighted - to move second reading of Bill 23. The member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) , noting my snappy dress today, wanted to know whether I was at the track. What we're doing with this bill is engaging in the establishment, for the first time, of a council to give advice to the government on science and technology. It's always a gamble when one goes into new ventures but, in the realm of science, you're always betting on the favourite, the one that will come home and bring to British Columbia the payoff. That's why this particular bill is being introduced and that's why I'm so delighted to be the mover.

Science Council, Mr. Speaker - with the consent of the Legislature - will be an evolution of the research advisory board which was chaired by Dr. William Armstrong and which I appointed last year. This Science Council will give the advice to government on implementation of science policy. It will formulate recommendations respecting the acquisition, development and dissemination of scientific, scholarly and technological knowledge to promote the industrial, economic and social development of the province. It will gather and organize information on scientific research. It will facilitate discussions on science policy with other provinces and the federal government. It will recommend the establishment and awarding of fellowships, scholarships, et cetera, to encourage development of improved technology and retention of skilled research personnel in the province. It will evaluate research and development proposals submitted to it by the research secretariat of government. It will make recommendations to the government respecting funding of these proposals.

Why, Mr. Speaker, does the government deem it particularly advisable at this time to establish such a council here in British Columbia? The answers can be found by examining the record of many of the advanced nations in the world today and comparing their performance with that of Canada as a whole. When the output, employment and price performance of high-technology industries were studied in comparison with the kinds of resource industries that British Columbia depends upon, these three fundamental principles emerged.

First, high-technology industries grow nine times as fast as low-technology industries.

[ Page 2520 ]

Secondly, the high-technology industries provide a positive trade surplus for countries while low-technology industries, in general, do not. Lastly - and this is important for the consumer - the price of goods from high technology industries rises much more slowly then does the price of low-technology products. One only has to look at the dramatic drops in the sorts of digital watches that one wears, pocket calculators and so on to recognize that high technology frequently causes a reduction in price and, at the very worst, a much more modest rise in price than do low technology industries.

When the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development studied the 110 most significant technological innovations since the end of World, War II, it discovered that not one was made in Canada. For the past decade, Canada has been in the Dark Ages of science. Each year in the past decade the percentage of gross domestic product which has gone into science and technology has declined in this country, making it unique in the western world.

As a consequence of that, or at least a partial consequence, in Canada we find ourselves with a chronic unemployment problem because the industries we have backed have been the kind that grow only a ninth as quickly as the high-technology industries. We find ourselves with a chronic trade deficit because the kinds of industries that we back are those that don't pull their weight on international markets.

Finally, we wonder why prices in Canada are rising so fast, when it is the industries that have high price increases that Canada, again, has backed.

In my opinion, it was an important step when the federal minister of science and technology, Hon. Judd Buchanan, gave us the first hint a few weeks ago that Canada may be experiencing a renaissance in science and technology, and may be emerging from this decade of the dark ages that has enveloped the land. He has set as a target for this country the increasing of effort in research and development to 1.5 per cent of the gross domestic product - by no means outstanding in the western world but, at least, not at the bottom.

He has also come forward with a number of specific proposals involving industry in Canada and the basic research that goes on in universities and in some Crown corporations that will support the future industry in Canada; the kind of industry that is essential for us to commence to develop if we expect even to hold the slipping position that Canada holds in world markets today.

In keeping with this new spirit in Canada, one which our government hopes will lead us to new heights of prosperity in this province, we have undertaken a number of initiatives to capitalize on the regional opportunities for science and technology that are special to this part of the world. Accordingly, the government has already established a research secretariat within the civil service. It has announced a policy of developing discovery parks at suitable locations in the province. It has formed the Grown corporation, Discovery Park Industries, to further that development.

It has tried to develop close relationships between our existing high technology industries, small and nascent though they be, and the graduate schools and science faculties of our universities. Accordingly, grade awards and post-doctoral fellowships to retain our brightest students in the science and technology realms have been instituted.

A vital element in this growing complex of moves and organizations being developed in the province to lay the foundation for a new industrial future is the Science Council of British Columbia. It will be charged with heavy responsibilities for deciding the appropriate courses of action this province should follow in developing innovative strategy for the future.

We have high hopes for the Science Council of British Columbia. I take great pleasure in recommending it to the Legislature of this province by moving second reading.

MR. LAUK: In the twilight hours of this session of the Legislature when there are heated debates over many currently - at least apparently - serious bills, Bill 23, Science Council of British Columbia Act, is now being debated in second reading.

I predict that this bill, not by virtue of the statute as it reads but by virtue of the fact that a council is going to be established, will become the most important piece of legislation that this session has seen. I say that with this sense of knowledge and this understanding of history. The debates over redistribution, the Forest Act and other serious pieces of legislation will fade away when one can perceive a discovery in science which is eternal.

It's typical - the Minister of Forests is laughing. The grade 4 mining inspector is laughing; that's very typical of the Minister of Forests. He's a man who is very, very keen on mocking and deriding that which he considers to be his superior.

The Science Council of British Columbia Act is ever more important in the light of the

[ Page 2521 ]

announcement by the minister that one of the world's most respected scientists of type, Dr. Bill Armstrong, will be associated with the council. I hope that doesn't prejudice the minister's respect for the man. My feeling for him and my respect for him as a citizen of this province and of this country are profound, and I'm delighted that he is being asked to associate himself with the council as it is being established. We look forward, Mr. Speaker, to great things coming from the Science Council. I do hope that it achieves some of the things that the minister has indicated in his opening address.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to join with my colleague in commending the minister on this bill. I'd like to say that I think the minister does have reason for optimism. Given the lack of support and the lack of focus for science research which has existed to a large measure in this province and in Canada, we have nevertheless managed to see the development of high-technology industry as a spinoff of scientific research. I didn't have enough time to get down to my office and pick up some of the materials that I have from the electronics industry, but certainly there is one manufacturer in Winnipeg who is using the latest developments in semi-conductor electronics to build medical instrumentation which is exported throughout the world today.

There is a very high degree of interest. Indeed, right here in Victoria, there is Endira Instruments, funded by Norwegian capital because of the level of oceanographic research which existed here about 12 years ago. Endira Instruments builds instruments which can perceive changes in pressure of up to one part per million, and thus can actually measure depths themselves to, I think, one part in 10,000. These instruments, manufactured right here in Victoria using an online to computers, are exported in such a manner that their order board looks like a United Nations. It has had just about every country that is engaged in oceanographic research on its order board at one time or another, and it provides many jobs right here in Victoria. It was Norwegian capital - a subsidiary of a Norwegian company - and attracted here because of the level of research that we have.

The minister might have given, perhaps, a little bit more praise to some of the achievements, and pointed out the way in which we have lost some very top-level scientists from British Columbia. One thinks of Dr. Neil Bartlett, chemist, who was the first person to form a compound of what was considered to be an inert gas. The old inert gases such as helium, neon and zenon were defined as elements that would not combine with any other element, and yet it was Dr. Neil Bartlett who, in his pure research, partly through accident created a compound of zenon fluoride - zenon and fluorine - and, of course, had the knowledge and the intelligence to recognize the very fortunate accident. This has led to another branch of chemistry being formed about that compound, and a whole new explosion of areas and possibilities for future and expanded understanding of the elements themselves. We have managed to produce a great number of top-flight scientists here in British Columbia. We've had others come, attracted to British Columbia, and work here.

I'd like to just point out to the minister, though, that we must build not only at the top - as we're doing in this institution - but we do have to look at an emphasis on science. I am thinking of a neo-movement towards science comparable to what- took place during the Sputnik era. We have seen the decline in interest in sciences. And, as I perceive it, there is a resurgence of interest in things such as sciences and applied technologies. We should build in order that - when the minister talks about retaining our brightest students with fellowships and bursaries that could be made available through this council, and about follow-up work which will be done by the secretariat on behalf of the council - we would produce our scientists right from K through grade 12, through our universities, and then through our graduate programmes.

I would particularly call for some increased level of recognition in the senior high-school years. Some of these scholarships could perhaps be made available to outstanding students, because we have not really increased the level of scholarships and assistance associated with the writing of scholarship exams at the high-school level. Perhaps the council could make some special awards available. We've had Governor-General's medals for outstanding students, but there should be some way of recognizing and encouraging many of the top graduating high-school seniors in this promise to make it worth their while to study for scholarship and to look toward excellence.

With that in mind, I think that some reappraisal of even things such as the semester system.... That, in my opinion, is a negative aspect towards really taking on an attitude toward total proficiency understanding and total retention of what one learns in mathematics and sciences. It, in my opinion, is counter-productive. There should be a reassessment of the semester system. There

[ Page 2522 ]

should be, in my opinion, more incentive for students to write scholarship exam . I feel the incentive has really been eroded to some extent by the fact that these things have not really kept pace in their growth with the increased cost of living and the increased cost of education.

But we certainly do welcome this. I've noted sections 6 and 7 pertaining to the labour aspects of this bill. I would maybe look at it or hope that our labour critic would have a little bit of a look at these. I don't completely understand that aspect of the bill, but I do welcome the concept. I welcome this in principle.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Oh, here's the expert on gas. Stick with the facts!

MR. MACDONALD; Mr. Speaker, I just want the minister in summing up to say what the relationship will be between this council and the B.C. Research Council, because it has been doing excellent work in, aid to industry, in pure research and in very practical research products. We don't want to just have a bureaucracy without a working thing happening in the community with very decisive technological aid to the industries and potential industries in B.C. You've got a very good working group that's operating now. What's going to be the relationship?

HON. MR. McGEER: I want to thank the members opposite for their kind words about this legislation. I do not know, as a consequence, if I should be reassessing my position. I find it very difficult to cope with compliments from the members opposite. But in any event, the members having completely discombobulated my thinking, I'll do my best to reply to them.

First of all, to the member for Vancouver East, I thank the member for paying compliments to the B.C. Research Council because they've done just an excellent job. They will have a close and important working relationship with the Science Council. The B.C. Research Council will continue to operate and provide all the functions that it's provided in the past. We will look for it to undertake further tasks assigned by the Science Council.

One of the new developments that has been announced by Mr. Judd Buchanan, in his package before the federal government that I hope might be taken over by the B.C. Research Council, is the development of an industrial research and innovation centre. The federal government wants to build a number of these across Canada. It would be logical for this to be developed in some close relationship as a specific project for the B.C. Research Council so that they can continue in a much more effective way and work in conjunction with individual inventors and industry to do the things that they have done so well.

But the Science Council itself, Mr. Speaker, will have a broader mandate than just to manage the B.C. Research Council, because it will be looking at broader projects involving established industry, new strategies for the government to finance and so on. It will be the difference between an operating company and economic council or an advisory body. It will operate perhaps the same way as the Science Council of Canada operates. The B. C. Research Council would be like the National Research Council of Canada.

May I as well, Mr. Speaker, say that I agree with the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) in that we've got to put a little more life and fire into the scholarship aspects and the science side of our high school programmes.

I'm hoping that we'll be able to make a statement about dealing with the gifted children generally. In particular we're trying to bring along those that have a bent for science. But in order to develop a deep understanding within the population itself you've got to do much more than just select a few gif ted ones. We would hope to be able to give more life and meaning to the general science courses so that the population as a whole would have an appreciation of what can be done.

Finally, one can always hope that we will strike it big in British Columbia or somewhere in Canada. While we've drifted in Canada in the past decade, I'd like to mention - to refresh the memories of the members - that other parts of North America have not been like Rip Van Winkle in this past decade. The most famous development has been in San Mateo county, California, which many members may have visited, where mostly in the past decade, but stretching a bit earlier than that, what was formerly an agricultural community has turned into an industrial complex where 1,800 firms have been located and 160,000 jobs provided. Every one of them is high-wage, high-profit, in a zero-pollution industry. That's the kind of thing that can happen when you get the anticipated payoff for technology.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we have a heavy schedule ahead of us. I take great pleasure in moving second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 23, Science Council of British Columbia

[ Page 2523 ]

Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Second reading of Bill 37, Mr. Speaker.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, this bill contains a number of specific items related to a variety of different matters. I think it would be in the interest of all members of the House if it was considered in committee as opposed to at this time, and accordingly I move second reading.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I agree the various technical amendments in this bill would not be understood in a debate on second reading. The debate should be conducted in committee where they will not be understood either.

Motion approved.

Bill 37, Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1978, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Second reading of Bill 35, Mr. Speaker.

FIRE MARSHAL

AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I think we have a very significant bill here and I'd like to say by way of opening remark that the fire marshal's office in B.C. dates back to 1921. It was initially under the supervision of the superintendent of insurance; it came under the jurisdiction of the provincial attorney by an Act of the Legislature way back in 1924. Since that time there have been four fire marshals: Mr. J.A. Thomas, Mr. W.A. Walter, Mr. B.O. Nixon and our present fire marshal, Mr. Henry Jenns. All of these gentlemen have performed admirably in public service, and a great deal of gratitude and appreciation of the people of this province, I think, is owed to them.

In its 57-year history, Mr. Speaker, there have been few major changes in the makeup of the fire marshal's office. In 1944 after the tragic Coconut Grove fire in Boston, regulations with respect to assembly occupancies were established; about 25 years ago a training branch was developed-to circulate the province, giving instruction to local firefighters; several years later two other divisions, engineering approval and investigations, were added, and it was at this point, really, that the fire marshal began to play a far more active part in fire prevention and public safety.

As all hon. members are aware, a report by Dr. Hugh Keenleyside was released in 1975 and it raised a variety of issues about B.C. fire services. That report was assessed and a number of its recommendations have already been adopted, including the increasing of penalties for the violation of fire regulations, which have been done by virtue of amendment to the Summary Convictions Act, where maximum penalties are now up from $500 to $2,000. The release of fire statistics are now made available. Rather than on a yearly basis, they're available on a bi-monthly basis in a bulletin known as "In-Fire-Mation." It's a publication which indeed contains relevant and timely statistics.

Regulations concerning mobile homes are under active review and legislation concerning the most effective method of adoption of the fire code is embodied in the bill that is now in front of us today. The price paid to local assistance to the fire marshal for fire reports has also been increased.

I think hon. members would like to hear a word about fire statistics because it seems very difficult for us to at least publicly receive, notwithstanding that we're publishing these matters on a bimonthly basis, some information as to fire statistics.

I would like to say that British Columbia is ahead of a great deal of other jurisdictions in this regard, and I think this initiated during the tenure of my predecessor or shortly after the beginning of mine - I'm not too sure which. But in any event, it was developed through the fire marshal's office. Unlike many jurisdictions that don't report either marine or automobile fires, B.C. reports all fires. So comparative evaluation of Canadian statistics is not that meaningful. Not that any individual can ever be comforted by a statistic involving even one death, a review of our own indicates that the deaths caused by fire in B.C. last year were the lowest in eight years: 94 people died as a result of fires in 1977, compared with 110 the year before and 129 in 1974.

It's gratifying also to note that the number of fires per capita in B.C. has been steadily decreasing since 1940. But nonetheless, fire and the amount of property that it consumes each year continues to be a major concern to all of us. A better means of combatting and

[ Page 2524 ]

preventing it is, in our view, a top priority, and hence this bill today.

I do note, though, that one-third of last year's fire fatalities were caused by careless smoking and many more by other accidents. In a high, high number of cases they were caused by alcohol and drug-related causes, which I think certainly underlines the need for public educational programmes designed to increase the awareness of fire safety.

By this bill, we trust that we will improve not only the provincial function but also the quality of operational fire services. The proposal is to replace the present fire marshal's office with an entirely new system, consisting of two balanced components under the supervision of a B.C. fire commissioner. This will reflect the important division between (a) operational fire services and (b) fire inspection and prevention.

On the one hand, there will be a division of fire safety with its own director, whose responsibility will be fire prevention and inspection. This will be where the processing of building plans for buildings the general public use and have access to will take place, a function which we've given very high priority to. We wish to have these procedures much more streamlined than they have been in the past so that plans for these kinds of buildings anywhere in the province can be processed with all possible dispatch. You will recall from the estimates that we've also made already considerable strides in this area.

The division of fire safety will engage in research and development of programmes related to fire prevention, public safety and public awareness of each. There will be increased and regularized provincial visitation, and this will be a part of the concept to be considered and to be dealt with by the fire commissioner.

Finally, the bill provides for a fire services advisory board. This will be chaired by the fire commissioner. It will be structured much like the Police Commission and will be composed of a number of appointees with experience and with knowledge in various aspects of fire-related matters - the professionals, the builders, the insurers, engineers, architects, product manufacturers. Its role will be to advise the establishment of standards in the province in all matters connected with operational fire services and to liaise with fire-fighting forces.

The fire services advisory board will be the avenue through which government will be able to respond to the differing needs and problems of the communities. It will be the nucleus around which a cohesive and standardized system of fire services can be assembled. It itself will be working in close conjunction with the building regulatory activity investigation committee.

So, Mr. Speaker, before I sit down, I would like to say that through the commissioner and the advisory board, the quality of fire services throughout the province will be monitored and improvements sought. We're going to be able to maintain a very vital two-way communication link.

Finally, we propose to develop a comprehensive training programme for fire services personnel. This will be in conjunction with the newly established justice institute, which is the ministry's central training facility for police corps, sheriffs and correctional workers. The programme, insofar as it relates to fire services, will be formulated on the advice of the fire commissioner and the advisory board, and will indeed be a major step towards establishing uniform standards of training for firefighters, both professional and volunteer, throughout the province.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, I do think it's legislation that all members of the House will find very easy to support. I'm very happy myself to be able to present it and I would have liked to be able to have done it last year. But we worked darn hard in getting to this point this year and I'm happy with that degree of accomplishment. I move second reading.

MR. MACDONALD: The Attorney-General has introduced a tentative approach to the recommendations of the Keenleyside report. I don't want to repeat what it said, but it pointed out that British Columbia had - and it gave the figures for this - the worst fire record of any of the provinces of Canada; so we were facing a crisis situation. I quote from page 22 of the report:

"For the same years" - this is 1974 back to 1970 - "our average per capita financial loss by fire in British Columbia was $12.33. This was 30 per cent higher than the second worst record, that of Quebec, and 74 per cent higher than the average of all Canadian provinces except British Columbia." Now that's the background, and while the statistics in terms of deaths last year have improved - and we are delighted to hear that -the basic fire loss in this province constitutes a provincial crisis.

Dr. Hugh Keenleyside, in an extremely important report, made no less than, I think, 37 important recommendations to government. The first of these was, of course, to begin by having a fire commission with an executive

[ Page 2525 ]

officer, and that is being implemented in this bill. Dr. Keenleyside's recommendation that there should be a provincial fire college executive officer is being implemented in this bill. Dr. Keenleyside's recommendation that there should be a provincial fire college is possible under this bill, but has yet to be seen because this government has a habit, Mr. Speaker, of legislating things without putting the resources behind them.

Now it can be done under this bill; you can have a fire college. You can have, as recommended, a fire research laboratory. You can go ahead with others of the recommendations in the Keenleyside report, but you need to put the resources of government behind these recommendations. And I don't see much evidence of the government moving in that direction. That means Treasury Board, quite frankly. It means looking at the losses that are happening, including the destruction of a school by fire just yesterday - and a very tragic circumstance it was - in, I think, Langley. That means going to Treasury Board and saying: "There is a need for training; there is a need for professionalization of our firefighters; there is a need for aid to the volunteer fire groups throughout the province; there is a need for central purchasing of equipment and supplies and protective clothing, which would save money." But the Attorney-General has to go back to Treasury Board and put the resources of government behind the improvement of fire protection services in the province of British Columbia.

So I have to call this a halting, tentative step towards implementation. Results still have to be seen, and a paper charter creating the fire commission is just not enough unless those resources are made available, and unless the other recommendations in the Keenleyside report are implemented.

MRS. WALLACE: I just want to say a few words on this bill, much in line with what my colleague for Vancouver East has just indicated.

It is interesting to note that the Attorney-General has seen fit to include in the new definition of fire services personnel a reference to voluntary firefighters. Later in the Act he talks about - and he mentioned in his introduction of the bill - training and so on being available for volunteer people. That's all well and good, but I am very disappointed, Mr. Speaker, to see what is missing from this Act - and that is some firm financial support to those voluntary organizations that contribute so much around British Columbia towards the control and prevention of fire. There is nothing available to assist those groups from the provincial government.

In my own area, at the present time, they are faced with the need of putting in a second fire truck and building a bay on the fire hall to provide accommodation for that truck. It's going to have to come out of the pockets of the local people there on a voluntary basis, because there is absolutely no assistance available from the provincial government.

I've had occasion just recently to be in contact with many of the personnel in the Attorney--General's ministry in an attempt to try and find some way that we can get assistance, and all I can get is that there's a recommendation that something be done. Well, Mr. Speaker, may I suggest to the Attorney-General that that recommendation should be included in this bill? There should be some provision for financial assistance to those voluntary groups because we're quite prepared to use their services and they're quite prepared to give them. But unfortunately we do not see fit to provide any financial assistance whatsoever, not in the way of wages or salary, but rather in the way of assistance with the kind of equipment and buildings and the various things that are needed. We're saying: "Okay, you must go back; you must have an increase on your local taxes."

I can tell you the climate out there right now is not prepared to accept any increase in the mill rate to support anything, no matter how much needed it is. It leaves these people in a very bad position. Certainly the provincial government has a responsibility to provide not just lip service and recognition in an Act, as we are given here, but some financial aid. I am disappointed that that is not included in this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. first member for Vancouver South.

MR. ROGERS: Just two words - thank you.

Interjection.

MR. KING: It appears that the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is not too fond of his seatmate, Mr. Speaker. He's trying to get rid of him. The Premier says it's a matter of tossing a coin between the member for Columbia River and the member for Shuswap (Mr. Bawtree) , so we'll have to wait and see who is going to lose their seat.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few remarks on this bill and ask the Attorney-General if he would comment, in closing the debate, on the

[ Page 2526 ]

direction that is going to be taken. This bill is rather conspicuous for what is absent from it, rather than the particular amendments and provisions.

One of the things that I have been concerned about and received many representations on is the lack of any real financial assistance to rural fire districts where community-minded citizens have put together some kind of a volunteer service, with perhaps minimal equipment that they have been able to purchase -old pumper trucks and one thing and another.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It applies to the cities as well, you know.

MR. KING: I think that the problem that sets the rural areas apart from the cities is that they just do not have the tax base to raise money for those purposes. Consequently it's frequently done not through the regional district concept so much as on a localized community volunteer basis. Of course, there is the dimension of the very high insurance costs for buildings in those areas - for homes, commercial enterprises, and so on - unless there is some form of fire protection. That in itself carries its own particular and peculiar kind of discrimination, and so there is an inducement on local isolated communities to try and come up with some reasonable volunteer service.

I have a number in mind in my own area, not all in my own riding. I have had correspondence from - I don't know whether I should say this or not, Mr. Speaker - the Shuswap riding in respect to this very particular problem. I want to be able to respond in a very positive way to anything that emanates from that riding or any other riding in the province.

One of the problem they have is that they have acquired rather antiquated but nevertheless functional machinery but have nowhere to house it. So the equipment is subjected to the elements, and that kind of exposure, of course, interferes with the reliability of the equipment and certainly erodes the remarkable and very commendable volunteer efforts that have been put forward to provide these facilities without additional taxation burdens on the people of the area.

I want to ask the Attorney-General if he has anything in mind that would provide some kind of financial assistance at least on that limited basis for these areas, or if he anticipates, Mr. Speaker, that this kind of assistance may be available now through any other particular agency of government. Or is there some joint effort planned by he and his colleagues in terms of sharing the responsibility not only for the development of the protection facilities themselves, but also for the buildings necessary to house and protect them so that they will be functional and available when the need arises. I would appreciate it very much if the Attorney-General would comment on that need, which is a real and a very prevalent problem out in the communities of British Columbia.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MR. DARCY: Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in this bill and I want to commend the Attorney-General for bringing it in and acting on some of the recommendations of the Keenleyside report. I am somewhat interested, though, in the advisory board. I hope it's going to be heavy with fire service personnel, and also I would hope there will be some representation from the underwriters as well. Perhaps the minister will make some comment on those things, but certainly the advisory council or board is a very good idea, and let's hope we have the right kind of people on it.

Mr. Speaker, I had gathered that there had been some recommendations. I don't know whether it was from Dr. Keenleyside or from the firefighters themselves but they had requested some time ago that the fire marshal's office, or the fire commissioner as he now is to be known, would perhaps have a couple of major thrusts rather than simply one office, but that the inspection services in terms of construction and facilities installed be separated from what are normally called the operational services, which are the investigations into fires and how they happened and how they perhaps could have been avoided or how the damage could have been made less - in other words, the cause of fires. I don't see any provision in this bill for that duality of those two obviously separate functions of the fire commissioner's office.

Perhaps the minister can comment on whether he hopes to go in that direction. Also, Mr. Speaker, again I had believed that there had been discussions or some commitment that there may be some regional offices of the fire commissioner. Certainly I believe that that would definitely be a step in the right direction.

Another concern I have is the long-standing request that there be a training program for firefighters - something not on the same plan as the police college but certainly on the same philosophy as the police college. At some point there had been a hint that possibly some of the facilities at Jericho may be made available for that. Also, I would note that

[ Page 2527 ]

certainly a practical training ground would have to be an integral part of that. Whether Jericho lends itself to that, the minister perhaps would have some more knowledge on.

Also, with reference to the many outstanding volunteer firefighting corps around the province, it would seem to me that there is a very strong, fundamental need for a thrust of upgrading and training in this area. All the best intentions and hardest work and dedication in the world is one thing but some good training is another, particularly when you have people who are earning their living in other ways.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to ask the minister if he is going to make any provision to make sure that the firefighting facilities on site correspond with the equipment which may be used. I raise this because very recently we had a very serious fire in my constituency involving a substantial part of the Canadian Cellulose sawmill. Fortunately, the damage was not as great as it could have been. Most of the damage was structural rather than machinery. However, there is certainly a loss of production for the main part of that mill at considerable cost to that company and a substantial layoff of employees, hopefully for only a short time.

One of the reasons as much damage was done was that the Trail fire department, which is 25 miles away, in a very responsible way responded to a call to this fire, even though it was an industrial fire and it did not directly threaten life or limb. They came out with their main equipment and found that the pumping or the watermain facilities and the connections in that plant had been designed for the smaller facilities available in the plant and in the city of Castlegar. In fact, the equipment that they sent out, the major pumping equipment, could not be used properly to help contain that fire. The male and female fittings didn't connect, or something of that nature.

In any event, I would think that it would be a responsibility of the minister and of the underwriters to make sure that the firefighting connections in industrial and publicly owned facilities match the kind of firefighting equipment that is available in the communities. Perhaps nobody had even thought about this. As I say, I think it was commendable that the Trail department was prepared to go 25 miles out of town to fight an industrial fire, and I commend them for that.

I would like to ask if the minister is contemplating expanding the training officers programme. I gather the fire marshal's office already has some people going around the province; I think you have an A programme and a B programme. That kind of on-site training or touring training I think is an excellent programme. It's very highly thought of by firefighters. Is there provision in this bill to beef up those kind of services?

MR. SPEAKER: The Attorney-General closes the debate.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would like to thank all of the speakers for their thoughtful comments and the contribution that they have made to this debate. I would like to assure them that I will be seeing that a Hansard of these remarks will be made available to the fire commissioner and the fire advisory board once they are in place.

Dealing first of all with the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) , I must say I do feel that we really do have a trail-blazing step forward with this bill. It's the first significant statute and measure that has dealt with the fire commissioner in literally decades in this province. We have come to grips with the problem, and rightfully come to grips with the problem. I'm proud to say that we have been able to do that. It is not window-dressing. There is going to be a commitment to the programme and we hope to have it underway as soon as reasonably and feasibly possible.

The member for Cowichan Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) and the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) referred to the concept of assistance in local areas and, again, the concept of training. I developed, during my opening remarks, Mr. Speaker, the very fact that it was our intention to utilize the resources of the fire services advisory board to determine local needs, to determine what can be done to better homogenize, rationalize and increase the standards of fire service throughout the province of British Columbia. Occasionally, if we have any fires in the mines, we've got to put them out for the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) , who, I hear down the street, is creating a little bit of turmoil at the present time.

But all joking aside, Mr. Speaker, these are matters that have not yet ever been considered on a provincial basis, and we're looking forward to the consideration and recommendations to be received from the fire services advisory board and also the fire commissioner.

I'd specifically like to thank the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) for his very thoughtful remarks. I don't wish to repeat my opening remarks, hon. member, but I think you will see in them that I have covered the bulk

[ Page 2528 ]

of the items that you did refer to. So rather than take the time of the House in developing them at length, I would like to say that yes, there certainly will be an entirely new system. There will be two balanced components, one under the supervision of the fire commissioner, which will reflect the very important division between the operational fire services and fire inspection and prevention. So on the one hand we'll have a division of fire safety with its own director, whose responsibility will be fire prevention and inspection. That division will also engage in research and the development of programmes related to fire prevention and public safety, and public awareness of each. It will increase and it will regularize the provincial visitation that you've referred to, and some regionalization, if it is necessary, if it is called for, and if there's dollar value to receive that.

Then, on the other hand, the fire services advisory board, to be chaired by the fire commissioner, will be structured much like the police commission. It will have as its components the very kind of people that you did talk about, people who are knowledgeable in the field - underwriters, firemen, professionals, builders, engineers, architects, product manufacturers and the works.

Training? Yes, there will be a comprehensive training programme for fire services personnel and that will be part of the training system in the soon to be established Justice Institute at Jericho. That will be a very major step towards establishing uniform standards of training for firefighters, both the professional and the volunteer, throughout the province.

Vis-à-vis equipment, again, I thank you very much for those remarks. Again, this is something that to this point in time has not been be addressed in the province, and it's one of the matters that will be given to the fire services advisory board for their consideration and recommendation for action where appropriate to the government.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do you want to move second reading?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I thought I did before. My apologies, Mr. Speaker. In any event, I would move second reading of the bill at this point in time.

Motion approved.

Bill 35, Fire Marshal Amendment Act, 1978, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 27.

COAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, in moving the second reading of the Coal Amendment Act, 1978, allow me to say that the Coal Act is the statute which controls the issuance of title and the conditions under which title to Grown coal land may be held. It is a titles document. Coal mining operations are controlled by the Coal Mines Regulation Act and other statutes on the guidelines for coal development.

The Coal Act, 1974, updated the former Coal Act of 1960, which had not been amended for many years, and was unrealistic in terms of today's operating practices. The 1974 amendment, however, retained the principles of the former Act regarding the issuance of title. That amendment confirmed the priority system for issuing licences, began a system of work commitments for the renewal of licences, defined a lease for production and increased the coal royalty from 25 cents per ton to not less than $1 per ton for metallurgical coal and 50 cents for thermal coal.

The present amendments are being made after three and a half years of experience with administering the Coal Act, 1974, and after a comprehensive review of coal policy and a detailed study of both tenure and royalty systems. This review has been carefully done; decisions respecting it are complex and have taken time.

In the last five years, approximately 600,000 acres of coal land have been held as Crown coal licences. Approximately 400,000 acres were held as freehold coal land. And it has been estimated that at the end of 1977 more than 600,000 acres of coal land remain to be issued, much of it less favourable for development than that currently held.

Since 1972, very few new coal licences have been issued. There have been, however, 34 applications for 778 licences between then and the end of 1977. During 1978 there have been 14 applications for 681 licences. About 20 per cent of the applicants are very small companies or individuals. It represents approximately 10 per cent of the area.

In keeping with the overall coal policy objective, a tender system for the disposition of Crown coal rights was carefully analysed. Those overriding policy objectives led to the decision in early February not to adopt a tender system but to continue issuing coal

[ Page 2529 ]

rights following the requirements of the Coal Act, 1974, and to subsequently amend those requirements to conform to the new policies. In making this decision, a large number of factors had to be considered against the background of anticipated coal development in the province and the need to learn more about provincial coal resources. The more important of these factors are the following:

The administrative difficulties and policy weaknesses of the existing system were examined.

The amount of government cost and administrative control required to prove up and plan the development of Grown coal land for a tender system.

The amount of revenue to be expected from the tender system.

The relationship of the tender system to a more general coal taxation system in the province.

The response of the industry to a bidding system.

The ability of present owners of coal land to extend and maintain viable coal properties.

The competitive financial position of those seeking to acquire coal rights.

The competitive position of those who acquire new coal rights, existing owners of Crown coal rights and holders of freehold coal.

MR. COCKE: Author, author!

HON. MR. CHABOT: I prepared that over the last two to three weeks, and carefully prepared it because this a very important bill; it's one which will have long-time implications on the orderly development of our coal lands and future licences and leases in this province.

In summary, the decision was made to continue the present system in order to minimize the administrative costs and government red tape in issuing licences, to provide existing and potential licensees with confidence that the administration will not be changed to a new and untried system, and to give individuals, small companies and those with imagination and foresight an opportunity to obtain coal land in competition with the large companies with a high cash flow.

The principal amendments of the Coal Act are the following: the amount of work requirements to extend the terms of a licence has been increased. The first year work requirements are the same as at present - $3 per acre. The second year it's increased from $4 per acre to $5 per acre. The third year it's the same; it's #5 per acre. The fourth- and fifth-year requirements have been increased from $5 per acre to $10 per acre. The sixth and subsequent years have been increased from $5 per acre to $20 per acre.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, that's $50 per hectare. Mr. Speaker, the member for Vancouver East is a little confused. I'm trying to simplify the comparison between the old charges against the new imposed charges in the mind of that member. If I were to indicate to him in hectares versus acres, I would completely confuse that member for Vancouver East, and I'm not about to do that. I want to make sure that there is a very clear understanding of the comparisons of old charges versus new charges.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. May I ask the Minister of Mines to address the Chair?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Certainly.

This work commitment represents the least cost required to bring a new coal property to the development or pre-production stage and is based on actual industry experience. If production is considered feasible, the licensee will want to carry out additional work to plan for production and assess his decision to apply for a production lease. If production is not feasible, a holding lease will be issued. This provision is contained in section 26 (5) of the present Act, but the conditions for the issuance and the renewal of a holding lease are now clearly spelled out in the amendment.

The coal royalty has been changed to a proportion of the minehead value of coal produced. In order to retain the present level of royalty on metallurgical coal - that is, $1.50 per long wet ton - the proportion has been set at 3.5 per cent.

In addition, the collection procedures have been amended. This change in the royalty system is based on experience in administering the current royalty provisions.

The main problem with the present fixed royalties on the rate for metallurgical coal and for thermal coal are unrelated to the quality of coal, the energy or commodity value, or any other prime characteristics of the coal and its location. In addition, metallurgical coal has been defined as having a free, swelling index of less than four. This is an arbitrary distinction, unrelated to actual end use, metallurgical or thermal quality, or price. The 3.5 per cent formula makes it unnecessary to distinguish between metallurgical coal and thermal coal by an arbitrary definition. It gives the developer of a coal mine a firm basis on which to calcu-

[ Page 2530 ]

late Crown royalties and allows fluctuations of royalty with price.

The amendment also introduces a number of important, though minor, changes. The rents on licences have been increased from $1 to $2 per acre, and on leases from $2 to $4 per acre.

It provides the rules for reference to the Mineral Act, under which a free-miner's certificate may be suspended.

It reduces uncertainty by clarifying the rules under which the minister will consent to a transfer of a coal licence or lease.

Section 10, which permits the government to get into the coal mining business, has been repealed.

The grouping of licences, as amended herein, encourages the selection of a viable mining area after the fourth year to give the licensee flexibility in selecting the area in which he wishes to work in the first three years. The use of excess work credits is restricted in the first years, and application of that excess during the fourth and subsequent years is allowed. The issuance of a lease is clarified by removing the reference to operations which are controlled under the Coal Mines Regulation Act.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be read a second time.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the saddest days in the province of British Columbia in terms of resource development. We're confirming a giveaway policy that whoever passes through the door first and lines up, or is beholden to the minister or whatever, or contributed campaign funds - who knows what the tests are - will get a piece of paper, a licence and then a lease, and will simply have to meet the work requirements and pay so much an acre. It has been increased a little bit in terms of hectares, from about $1 to $3....

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, you're all confused. That is an improper figure, really.

MR. MACDONALD: The hon. Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) , and the only member of that party in this House, has very ably pointed out the flip-flop that has taken place in the government thinking. I'm not going to go back over that ground because it is pretty obvious what has happened from the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources announcement that there would be a bidding system and the Premier's announcement that there would be a bidding system. We come back to this: first through the door and you get your licence.

How many millions has that cost us, Mr. Speaker? The applications lined up in the B.C. Gazette for licences, under a bidding system, would have brought in some of the kind of revenue that is coming in now from the issuance of natural gas and petroleum ground licences. I say we will lose about $200 through the decision of that cabinet committee.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Why don't you say a billion? You're just as far out.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm being realistic. I want to make this clear, Mr. Speaker. If anything has been proven in this House and in this session it is that the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources does not know and understand his portfolio.

Now let's get the facts out for a change, because here we're dealing with what will be unquestionably British Columbia's second industry....

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down, Alex, so we can get the facts.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm not going to listen to yahoo shouts from the back of the hall when we are giving away our second most important industry to international capital. That's the story of the Canadians and that's the story of that back bench. It's a story that ought not to be repeated in this industry but is being repeated under this government. It's a giveaway of astronomical proportions. Our second biggest industry, as from this day, Mr. Speaker, is going to be controlled by Shell, by Texaco, by Exxon, by German capital, by Japanese capital - not by British Columbia control, not by British Columbia equity, not a bit of it. And they make fun of that.

The whole story of our province has been the giveaway of resources, and this government perpetuates it. "Small people are applying for licences, " says the minister; 20 per cent of them are small.

MR. KEMPF: How could they have bid?

MR. MACDONALD: I'll tell you what is going to happen. Those licences are not going to be for the production of coal. Those licences will be issued and sold and traded. Let me repeat that: those licences will be sold and traded and speculation will be the order of the day, not coal development, not mining development, not jobs for miners in the province of British Columbia. You are ushering in here with this bill a new era in speculation

[ Page 2531 ]

in pieces of paper which the minister calls in this bill either a licence or a lease. They're going to be sold on Howe Street - bought and sold. Sure they are. Look at the history of what happened in the Sukunka. area, and I'll just rehearse it for a moment for the minister.

What happened? Not a ton of coal was mined, but the speculative profits taken out of the pieces of paper, which the government issues for nothing and is going to do again as in the bad old days, under this bill are traded on Howe Street and speculated in. That's what this bill is doing. In the Sukunka. area, the coal leases were originally held by Pine Pass Company, and then they were sold at a prof it by the Pine Pass people to Brameda and Teck. Then there was the Brascan option which failed. They made some money on that because Brascan paid for the option. And then finally 87 per cent of the Brameda leases - which isn't all of them, by any means - was sold to British Petroleum for $30 million. So the piece of paper that was issued by the government for nothing, except to do the work and pay $1 an acre at that time, was sold finally to the last speculator who came into the game - and hopefully will be producing coal, but I don't see any prospect of it at the present time - for $30 million.

Now that's what you're doing under this bill. You're going to issue these pieces of paper again on a large scale and some of them will be, as you say, to the little people who will look around for a sale, somebody to buy them, not to produce coal. This government has no sense of resource management; it has no sense of creating jobs and productivity in the mining industry. Its whole record has been a succession of failures in development.

You are creating a speculative era in this province with coal licences and not creating a mining industry in the province of British Columbia; your grand plans for development of the northeast sector of the Sukunka area, with the grand announcement that was made by this Minister of Mines and by the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) , have become a belly-flop, absolutely a belly-flop. And the Minister of Economic Development's trip to Japan, where he was going to sign up new contracts, was finished off by him receiving what they call "a comfort letter" -go home. It was an absolute disaster for mining in the province of British Columbia.

Now in this bill you turn your back, of course, upon any public revenue from the mining industry, except 3.5 per cent of the net minehead price, which would be less than the 3.5 per cent of what the coal is selling for at the coast at Point Roberts.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Read the Mining Tax Act.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I'll come back to the mining tax. 1 would think it's less than the $1.50 that we were getting under the NDP government. I don't know what the net minehead cost of a long ton of coal is going to be up in the Kootenays, but I would think that it it would be considerably less than the value of that coal at tidewater. I would think 3.5 per cent of maybe $40 or something in that order for metallurgical coal up in the Kootenays is going to be less than $1.50.

So not only has this government refused to increase the royalty of $1.50, which the NDP wanted to see increased in January, 1976, to $2.50 and bring in another $8 million or $9 million a year with that modest $1 increase into the public treasury, but they turned their back on that.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You were going to do a lot of things.

MR. MACDONALD: They turned their back on that at a time when the price of coal has increased in the international markets from around $20 - and it's only a few years ago -to about $56 today. But they haven't increased the royalty at all. They've turned to the ordinary people of the province and they've hit them with every kind of tax you can imagine, whether it's electricity, education rates, your ICBC or your medical hospital stay. It doesn't matter. For the ordinary people of the province its pay more, but for Kaiser Resources it's increased profits, from about $3 million net in 1974 to $71 million in 1975, running around $50 million to $60 million net profit. So don't talk about the mining tax. That's after that's been deducted.

When you see an international company making that kind of money out of the province of British Columbia and you do not increase the royalty, you are a giveaway government; you are a government that is giving lavishly to the rich and to the international resource companies and putting the costs of all of that programme on the common, ordinary people of the province of British Columbia in a variety of charges and excess imposts in the last two-and-a-half years that could make your head spin. It's a giveway government to the rich and it's a giveaway government to the international resource companies. I've got nothing against Kaiser Resources ....

HON. MR. CHABOT: No?

[ Page 2532 ]

MR. MACDONALD: No. But they are a middle-man company whereby we, the peasants of the province of British Columbia, decide that to develop our Kootenay metallurgical coal resources, we should bring in an American company to yard our coal down to the coast to sell to Japan. And that's the way we do business and that's the story of Canada. That's the story of a Canada, where every hour of every day we pay in interest and dividends for the sellout that has taken place in the resources of Canada - $616,000 across the border. That's why our interest rates are high. I've said this before, but I'm going to repeat it for a moment.

That's why our interest rates are way up in the sky; that's why our unemployment is way up in the sky. The intolerable pressure on the Canadian economy of the giveaway of natural resources is such that we cannot survive it as a nation. And if Rene Levesque says, "Break it up, " then how can we deny him if we're not willing to defend that nation in terms of some control and equity in our own resources?

There isn't another country in the world that would allow this banana republic stuff to continue, but we have to bring in a giant, multinational, American company to export our coal to Japan, and then see their prof its go up like this and we do not even increase the royalty. So you're losing, in the kind of royalty that's proposed in this bill, at least $20 million which could be flowing into the coffers of the province of British Columbia.

There are other little features of this bill, but I'm touching on the main ones. I think it's a tragedy in terms of what could be done. What we should do, Mr. Speaker, instead of seeing in the B.C. Gazette all these licences applied for by Shell - and, if not applied for by Shell, Shell will buy them, or Texaco will buy them, because they've made enough money in the oil industry that they can put some of it into the future of coal in British Columbia, which is a very important resource.... Are they going to develop that? Do you think Shell Oil is going to develop coal mining in the province of British Columbia? Look through the B.C. Gazette. They are there; they are looking for ground. Do you know what they're going to do? They're going to put it in a deep freeze until they've' sold their oil to us at the international OPEC price, and then, in their own good time, when they've made everything they can out of the oil business, they might be so kind in their hearts as to think of employing and developing the coal resources of the province of British Columbia, for which this minister has given them the piece of paper. That's what we're talking about; that's why I say it's a sellout; that's why I say it's not jobs or development, it's a disgraceful mismanagement of resources.

I have no hesitation in saying what should be done in this industry. I have no hesitation in saying that we should have a B.C. Coal Board similar to the marketing agency that we set up under the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, and which the minister is thinking of abandoning in that field too. That was what his first brief said - the brief that reached the Energy Commission and that he quickly drew back because he didn't want it to seem that all his briefs were written by the international companies. That's what you said.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Stick with the facts.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, you dropped your briefs on that one, didn't you? Just at the last minute, then you had to.... I know what happened.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're guessing again.

MR. MACDONALD: In this bill that we have before us, you had your capable experts saying that you should not give away the leases for nothing - first come, first served - but that you should, at least, have a bidding system, a checkerboard system where you save some of the ground back for the public use in the future, so that the people of British Columbia are not totally robbed of their resource in terms of any equity ownership in it. Then a little cabinet committee met in February and reversed the experts and said that we're back to the bad old days of international resource speculation in the province of British Columbia.

I asked the minister why he would not publish, you know. If he's not engaged in a massive giveaway, why would not he publish volume 2 of the Coal Task Force report?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Do you mean the old Hart Horne study?

MR. MACDONALD: No, I do not mean that at all. If you do not know what it is, you should know. You know perfectly well: the Coal Task Force report, volume 2. You published the first one with some technical facts and figures, very carefully and well compiled -and I think it was under Professor Armstrong, as the general chairman of the task force, if I'm not mistaken. But why did not you publish volume 2? Do you think that the people of British Columbia are not entitled to see the discussion and recommendations of that task

[ Page 2533 ]

force in terms of whether they favoured a bidding system, whether they favoured a marketing agency such as I am proposing, whether they favoured - if you're going to give a licence - that that part of that ground remain in the public domain? Why was that book banned from public discussion or sight? Is the minister willing, even at this late hour when the give away has been all sealed and wrapped up - to allow the public to see volume 2 of the Coal Task Force report, which was paid for by the public? Just nod your head. No - of course. We've been asking for that for years and we're not getting it.

HON. MR. CHABOT: "Have you stopped beating your wife. Just say yes or no."

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. MACDONALD: No, I'm asking you a very specific question that isn't ambiguous in the slightest. I'm asking you whether the recommendations that are contained in volume 2 of the Coal Task Force report will be' made available so that the people of the province of British Columbia, who up to this point have owned some of that resource, can see what they say. The minister, so far, has refused.

I think it's absolutely reprehensible, disgraceful and intolerable that in a democracy the people of the province should pay for a coal report from some of the experts in the field, who give careful consideration to it, and then the government won't let them see the report. You know, that is disgraceful, high handed, arrogant - call it whatever you will. If the government wasn't engaged in this massive giveaway we would have that report, and we would have a sensible debate around the policy recommendations that are contained in that report. But no, they won't produce it; no, they won't increase the public revenue -that's for peasants to cough up, the ordinary people of the province; no, they won't levy any impost on the international corporations.

No, they won't consider a marketing board in the field of coal production in this province of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker. There is no chance whatsoever that that opportunist coalition will consider such a thing. But a marketing board with about 20 to 30 people on it -some experts, some engineers, some businessmen, similar to B.C. Petroleum Corporation -could easily be created and contain the provision that all of the coal exported - not the coal that's bought by a residential owner - from the province of British Columbia pass through that board, so that the public would own the coal sufficiently long enough to make sure that the producers got a fair price and a fair return, and that the public got a fair return from the international price.

I have no doubt that this province could raise substantial revenues which could then be redirected into the opening of some of the coal properties that are of higher cost. What we are seeing at the present time is riches being made and lost to the province of British Columbia in the Kootenay formations, and no development in the northeast, in the Sukunka area. The public interest requires that we help to develop those resources in the northeast and not lose the revenue and excess profits that are being drained off from the southeast quarter of the province.

So that is a very simple proposal which would spark new development. It would undertake proper resource management. It would make sure that the companies that were receiving licences received licences to produce, not to speculate in the pieces of paper. And it would return a fair return to the public treasury from a resource which the people of this province own.

Mr. Speaker, I guess I've said all I can about this thing. I think it is in line with what this government has done. I have no hesitation in saying to the people of this province that we've never seen anything like this coalition in terms of their resource management and their giveaways.

AN HON. MEMBER: Say it again, Alex.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I think we have to say it in other places. I think we have to say it in every village and hamlet and city and town in the province of British Columbia. I offered to debate this minister on the natural gas giveaway and, once again, I say: name the time and the hall. I'll pay for the hall - any place in this province of British Columbia -to debate this natural gas giveaway or what he's doing for the oil companies.

You won't do it. There is no danger whatsoever that you will accept that challenge, because you want to do it quietly, just as you suppressed volume 2 of the task force report on coal. You want as little attention as possible paid to what you are doing. There is no chance whatsoever, Mr. Speaker, that that minister would accept that challenge. No, just proceed quietly, in secret; let the things flow through. He's even changed one section - I think it is section 26 of the Act.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'll send you some more amendments; I'll send them over.

[ Page 2534 ]

MR. MACDONALD: The minister is very flippant about a serious subject, and I'm glad that he's in what I thought was a good humour; but I realize it is nervousness.

He has even changed section 26 in this bill, Mr. Speaker, so that a coal lease, which is a very important document, doesn't even go to the cabinet any more - just in the minister's office. It used to be that before a lease could be granted under that bill, it went to the cabinet; it was an order-in-council. Now the minister just issues it; you sign your name, Mr. Minister, and that's it.

You know, our coal industry in the province of British Columbia is going through a bit of a difficult time in terms of export markets. Steel production has been down a little bit in Japan; there has been competition from Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong. Our exports are not all that easy in a world where mainland China is beginning to think in terms of exporting coal. And Australia has large coal deposits and is in the export trade.

The need to develop new markets, and to make sure that we are not ripped of fin terms of excessive, profits and huge startup costs that have to be paid by whoever wants to go into production and whoever holds the licence, demand that we have a prudent, vigorous policy that promotes export markets and sparks development throughout this province. This bill isn't doing anything of the kind. It is merely authorizing, through this Legislature, the issuance of pieces of paper which are going to be speculated on on Howe Street. It does nothing for jobs and it does nothing for a revenue return to this province. It does everything for the international companies that are running the province and running that government.

MR. GIBSON: This bill, unfortunately, is no really very big deal. It makes some changes in the Coal Act, but not nearly of the consequential and far-reaching nature that this enormous resource deserves. It was only last year - I think it was June 2 of last year - that the Premier, up in Nelson, announced a new coal policy. He said: "This is the most important resource announcement that this government has made." He said that last June. He said a new system of granting licences to incorporate competitive tendering while not effecting existing or planned development would be incorporated in the government's new coal policy. That's what the Premier said only a year ago. It was a tremendously important announcement; no question about it.

Well, the minister has laboured in the year that followed. He made a fine speech to the

Canadian Conference on Coal in which he reaffirmed the bidding system and said that great progress was being made in working it out with the industry.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That was a feeler.

MR. GIBSON: Who was the feelee?

HON. MR. CHABOT: You!

MR. GIBSON: Back in October, 1977, he gave no hint that there were going to be changes from the announcement the Premier had made. Now we have a bill before us, Mr. Speaker, that really, after the waste of a year - I have to say that - confirms existing policy. The industry has lost a year for no good reason, because they're getting the same policy as before. The minister brings this bill before the House and pretends it's something good and important.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're delaying the licences.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, a minister says across the floor of this House that I delayed the issuance of some licences by raising proper questions of public policy in this Legislature as to the proper way to dispose of our important coal resources which the Premier said could become an even more important resource than timber in our province. I raised questions and said this House ought to have the right to debate it before these rights are given away. Now the minister's not suggesting that that's a delay. The delay came from the fact that the minister took a year to go flipflop in his policy, from June 2,1977, to June 21,1978.

There are some changes in this bill. Whether it's in acres or hectares, the work requirements are somewhat raised for the first five years. Then after that they're very considerably raised. I question to what extent these higher work requirements are ever going to come into play, because now that this provision for a holding lease has been more explicitly defined without any specification of the rents that are to be paid on a holding lease, I think what we may see is the work requirements undertaken during a time when it's relatively low cost. Thereafter a holding lease has been applied for and the land has been kept in a holding lease without further development at a relatively low cost. I'm very concerned about that aspect of the bill, Mr. Speaker. We'll be able to go into it more deeply at committee stage. The minister can

[ Page 2535 ]

tell us his intentions. I have to express concern about that and 1 have to say because of this that I really wonder what meaning these higher work requirements have.

Now the new royalty rate in terms of percentage rather than absolute dollars means very little at the present. It will mean, as the minister said, that in the future it will vary with prices, but we see no immediate sign of any very important fluctuations of price on the coal market. Nevertheless, to the extent that you're going to have a flat-rate royalty, you're better to express it in percentage than in dollar terms, so I won't object to that.

I'm very disappointed, however, that the minister has not brought before this House or before the public any study as to the various alternatives on disposition methods and revenue methods for our coal resource. The minister stood up in opening remarks and said a study had been done - a very careful study, he said. We have no evidence of that. The public is entitled to this careful study. That was the whole reason for the delay which the Premier announced on his estimates several weeks ago now. That, as 1 understood it, was the whole reason for the delay -to give a chance for this dialogue to take place, both on the minister's estimates and on the discussion of this bill. How can that dialogue take place without the propositions of the government and the alternatives and options being laid before this House and before the public of British Columbia? I'm very disappointed in that.

There's the issue of first come, first served - what the minister calls the priority system versus the bidding system. We know that on that one, Mr. Speaker, there has been a very major flip-flop.

According to the Premier on June 2,1977, there is going to be bidding. According to the minister on June 21,1978, it's going to be priority - first come, first served. We simply have not had laid on the table the reasoning for bidding in the first instance and for the priority system in the second instance. Who was wrong? The Premier was wrong or the minister was wrong - which one? Because they were exactly opposite. So which one is going to resign? That's all I want to know.

If it's a most important resource and if you've got exactly opposed views on how it ought to be developed, it seems to me that the public is entitled to somebody putting his seat where his mouth is, so to speak.

HON. MR. CHABOT: We're not going to ask you for your seat because you're going to Ottawa. Your seat isn't worth too much; you're leaving.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, the White Paper that the government should have put out in addition to the allocation system - first come, first served or bidding - should have discussed the potential kinds of bidding and the potential ways and means of recapturing what the economists call the economic rent. The value of the public ownership in that coal which, in a low-grade deposit, may be quite low and, in . high-grade deposit, may be quite high, is not necessarily at all well captured by a fixed royalty.

The kinds of bidding, of course, are numerous. The most familiar to most people is cash bidding - cash bonus up front. I will go on record right now saying I believe that is the wrong way in the coal industry. I told the Minister of Forests I think that's the wrong way in the forest industry too. That upfront money should go into the ground to get exploration cores to get information on the ore body. In the forest industry it should go into equipment to do the logging.

But to the extent there is an increment above the standard royalty in the economic rent, what about a royalty bonus bid? In other words, bonus payments on the royalty as the production is carried out. What about slidingscale royalties depending on what turns out to be, after the fact, the actual wealth of the property? What about bidding on a work-bonus basis where the bidder would say: "I believe so much in the future of this property that in order to establish my priority to it, I am prepared to put double or triple or whatever your requirement is into this land in the first few years so that we get the exploration done quickly."? What about some kind of a system that would take into account the differential wealth of various deposits around this province?

Mr. Speaker, these are just some possibilities. I think they are obvious possibilities to anybody who has thought very long about this question of our coal resource. I can't say that the answer is obvious to me as to what is the best way to go, because these are complex arguments. They're not only economic in nature, they're technical and factual in nature. They have to do with capital markets; they have to do with world coal markets.

For the public of British Columbia to properly understand the question and for this House to properly debate the question, we deserve from the government a position paper on each of these options giving the pros and cons. I say that was the implied promise of the Premier's undertaking that there would be

[ Page 2536 ]

time to debate this before licences were issued. I say that that implied promise has not been realized. I asked the minister to put forward a position paper, a White Paper, and I very much regret he hasn't done it. The end result is that while we have a Coal Act and amendments to the Coal Act we still have no philosophy underlying it.

Where there is no philosophy, there can be no continuity. It's not good enough to say, as the minister has said, that we can change the royalties any time. Of course that is true. But we in this House should plan further ahead than that. I think that the companies and individuals that are putting their investment into the coal lands deserve a bit more certainty than the statement that we can move the goal posts any day if we don't really like the way the game is going.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The certainty is in the Act.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Minister, the certainty may be in the Act but there's also a certainty that the government of the day can change the Act any day, too.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You have to live with that uncertainty, I guess.

MR. GIBSON: The minister says: "I guess you have to live with that uncertainty." There is much less you have to live with if there is a philosophy behind it all. It's well understood. I'm afraid there's not in this Act. There's still no solution to the question of the small miner, the Canadian-owned mining company or individual.

When the minister mentioned existing licences, he gave his terms in acres. I have my information in square miles. It's about 939 existing square miles of coal licence. What are the applications?

HON. MR. CHABOT: About the same size as Douglas Lake Cattle Company.

MR. GIBSON: There's a lot of good land under licence now, I believe.

On the applications as of June 15,1978, the minister gave his figures in acres. I have mine in square miles. I want to read into the record my understanding of the pending applications and who holds them.

Denison Mines - 311.5 square miles; Master Exploration - about 282; Shell Canada - 242.9; Utah Mines - about 153; Cominco - about 66; Mrs. Gail Thompson - about 77 (these, I believe, are up in the Groundhog area) . Netherlands Pacific - about 66; Canadian Superior Oil and McIntyre Coal Mines - about 38; Imperial Oil - about 28; Ramm Venture Corporation - about 20 (1 don't know who they are) ; Mr. Waklaw Filipeck - 15.2; Dupont of Canada - 15.2; Sage Creek Coal - about 13; Quintette - 12; Lloyd Gething - 11; Brameda -10; BP - 10.3 (they have, of course, already very considerable holdings) ; Mr. William Kleinhou - 10; J.W. MacLeod - 9; Granby Mining - 6.8; Fording - 4.4; Byron Creek - 3; Hat Creek Energy Corp. - about 3; Ranger Oil -2.9; Pan Ocean Oil 2.3; Pacific Petroleum -1.7; Kaiser Resources - 1.7; Imperial Metals -1.5; W. Weymark and W. Chang - 1.5.

As far as I can see, what you might call the small independent miner on that list amounts to about 9.2 per cent of the land under application. The minister said, I think, about 10 per cent ....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Ten per cent of the land; 20 per cent of the applications.

MR. GIBSON: That could be, but it's the land that I'm looking at because the land is the resource base.

Even under this system, which the minister says is the one that gives the greatest chance to the small miner, the small miner is hardly in there; he is in there to the extent of only 10 per cent of the land. I wish I had an answer to that. I say very frankly that I don't have one. I don't think the minister does either. But there may be some ideas around this province as to how we could improve the opportunity of access to the small miner to these coal lands.

I have one idea I do want to throw out. It's not for the small miner but it's at least for British Columbians. We now have a British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation established by this Legislature. I say that that resources corporation should be taking a major position or at least looking at taking a major position in British Columbia coal. I think it's a very important part of our resource base. This Legislature gave that corporation large oil and gas blocks. Perhaps we should be looking at something of that kind in the field of coal in British Columbia, or they as a corporation should be looking at it independently. On behalf of the government, I hope the minister will encourage the corporation to at least consider that. It's not a corporation controlled by the government, but the minister should transmit that idea to the B.C. resources corporation.

I have to say that I am most unsatisfied as to the debate and the information that the

[ Page 2537 ]

minister has brought forward on this most important resource. The whole question of allocation of coal licences and of revenues from those licences and production leases, once they have been granted, is not an easy one; I am the first one to admit that. I say, therefore, that we deserve, this House deserves and the public deserves a White Paper on coal - on the pros and cons of dealing with that resource base. It deserves it sometime during the next year. This shouldn't be delayed any longer. Basically what we have here is a patch-up and a band-aid and a holding operation on the existing Act. It improves the existing Act a little bit in some areas, so I'm not going to oppose it. But I'm also saying that it is not good enough. The public deserves more information on coal and, above all, it deserves options. It deserves to know what basic directions there are to go in so they can be discussed.

I say again, this is a tremendously important resource. We have in sight .... Whether they have reached the minister's desk or not I don't know, but they are in the pipeline. Working their way through the B.C. Gazette and other places, we have these applications for much more now than is currently under licence, and roughly as much as is currently under a combination of licence and freehold in the province. It's a very, very consequential decision and, Mr. Speaker, frankly, I am very disappointed that at this point in the debate, after having lost a year through the action of the government in flip-flopping on its policy since last June, now we have another loss of time and we still do not have a coherent philosophy on coal, and the pros and cons of the various ways of going, brought before this Legislature.

I say it is not good enough, and I take the minister to task for that.

HON. MR. CHABOT: First of all I want to comment very briefly on some of the outrageous statements made by the member for Vancouver East when he discussed the amendments to the Coal Act just a few moments ago. He suggested that it was a giveaway policy. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to you that if this is a giveaway, in which we double the rental fees and increase the work requirements by 400 per cent, what kind of policies did they have when they were government for three and a third years?

A lot of his remarks aren't worthy of response, Mr. Speaker, but he goes on to say that we are the giveaway gang, giving away the coal licences to Texaco, and Texaco is going to own all the coal land in this province. Mr. Speaker, Texaco does not own one coal licence in this province. Texaco has not applied for one coal licence in this province.

He talks about Shell Oil as well$that Shell Oil has some coal licences. Shell Oil has no coal licences in this province. Shell Oil now has a coal position in British Columbia, through an acquisition of Grows Nest Industry, which was approved by the Foreign Investment Review Agency in Ottawa. That's how Shell Oil has a coal position in British Columbia. It wasn't by the issuance of any licences by this government, Mr. Speaker, it was by the approval of FIRA in Ottawa.

Then he talks about Howe Street coal, and hanky-panky on shares. Now I don't know what he means. I am not aware of anyone.... Mind you, I am not as familiar with the people on Howe Street, possibly, as that member for Vancouver East. Maybe he's got more friends down on Howe Street than I have, but he suggests that there is hanky-panky on Howe Street with coal licences. Well, I wish that member, Mr. Speaker, would bring that information to my attention so that I can be aware, at the time of issuance of coal licences in this province, of those people he refers to as playing hanky-panky.

MR. MACDONALD: Totally misquoted.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it is not in order to stand up and correct statements made during the time of a member's address to the Chair. If corrections are to be made they mu t be made at the end of the speech.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, Mr. Speaker, as 1 said before, he might be familiar with what he refers to as the Howe Street gang, but I'm not.

He goes on to talk about the sale of Sekunka coal. He thinks it is a tremendous ripoff and a giveaway of the assets and the resources of this province. Mr. Speaker, would you believe that that former government had an option for some considerable period of time on that coal property, which they failed to exercise? If they thought, as the government, that the coal industry was that lucrative an industry to be in, they had that opportunity to be in it. Section 10 of the Act gave them that right. Section 10 of the Act has now been removed, Mr. Speaker, because we don't believe that government should be in the business of coal mining.

He raised the other question about the minehead value of coal in the Kootenays. I want to

[ Page 2538 ]

say that it is $43 to $44 per ton. The percentage royalty application to coal gives the province a greater opportunity to share in the increased value of that resource than the fixed royalty, as it was heretofore. It gives the province an automatic opportunity to share in the increased value of this resource.

He talked about the low taxes. This is probably one of the highest mineral tax regions in all the province. It is one which can have up to an effective tax rate of 62 per cent, which is a full 5.5 per cent more than the hard-rock mineral taxation rate in this province. So it is being adequately taxed on the front end and on the profit stage as well.

The member for North Vancouver-Capilano talked about the holding lease and the annual rental on the holding lease. The annual rental on the holding lease is the same as the regular lease in the amount of $4 per annum per acre, where it has been converted to hectares.

MR. GIBSON: So it's nothing. I mean, it's much less than the work requirements, in other words.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, but they are based on commitments and programmes submitted to us. We have the option of .... First of all, we give a lease based on the inability to produce coal. There is a lease for five years; it is renewable up to a period of five years. In the event that the holding lease is not issued because it is deemed feasible for coal to be produced from that land, they then have the option of reverting to the licence stage at $20 per acre of work requirement or payment in lieu.

MR. GIBSON: What if somebody else says they could produce? What if the company that holds it says they can't, and somebody else says they can?

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's a hypothetical question, and it's one which would have to be decided at the time of the application or the renewal of the holding lease. However, that debate is better in the committee stage than at this stage.

I share the view of the member for North Vancouver-Capilano regarding the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation. I have no way of directing them; they are a private corporation - or will be a private corporation.

MR. GIBSON: Send them a copy of my remarks.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Send them yourself. (Laughter.) Anyway, I would hope that down the road they would be involved in the development of this natural resource as well.

I appreciate many of the constructive suggestions that have been made by the member for North Vancouver-Capilano in regard to the amendments. I'm appreciative of his support of all the work that has been done in my ministry and the Ministry of Economic Development in making the changes in the Coal Act of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 27, Coal Amendment Art, 1978, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Committee on Bill 12.

MINISTRY OF FORESTS ACT

The House in committee on Bill 12; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. KING: Perhaps the minister could tell me under section 3 (c) , where tie sets up the regional manager for the various regions established under the Act, how many regional managers the minister contemplates. I'm not sure what the apportionment of the regions is at present, and whether or not there are any changes anticipated in the designation of the current regions. Haw many regional managers do you expect to have under this section?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The regional manager is a change of name fran what we now call a district forester. At the present time we have six district foresters, and we are anticipating the addition of one additional district or region, as they will be called in the future. So we anticipate having seven regional managers. How soon we move on that, or if in fact we do, will depend upon further study being done for the organization of the ministry.

MR. GIBSON: There is an important statement here: "The minister shall establish a forest research council, and may establish other committees or councils." I wonder if the minister could give us at least some shadowy outlines of this forest research council, the kind of money it might have to spend, and any

[ Page 2539 ]

information he could give us about what other committees he might have in mind.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The forest research council is an attempt to really co-ordinate the research activities that presently take place both within the public and the private sectors. Unfortunately we do have areas of research being carried on in parallel, so to speak - one group working on the same or similar project to another. The objective of this research council is not to establish a body to do research themselves, but to really be a co-ordinating body to see that duplication does not take place in the province.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister could say who would be on this council. What would be the nature of the appointees, how will they be selected and so on?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The appointees will be from the provincial government - the Ministry of Forests probably, and I would suspect the Ministry of Economic Development might be involved. The federal government would have members on this, as would different sectors of the industry, those people who will be doing research, professional associations and this type of thing.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

On section 5.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, under section 5 it indicates:

"The purposes and function of the minis try are, under the direction of the minis ter:

" (a) to encourage the attainment of maximum productivity of the forest and range resources in the province...."

Also it is to protect and conserve the forest and range resources, to plan to use of the forest and range resources and so on, so that production of timber and forage and harvesting of timber, et cetera, is integrated in consultation and co-operation with other ministries.

Well, two questions arise. It seems to me that in this particular section where the purposes and the functions of the ministry are established and enunciated, it's peculiar and, I think, regrettable that there is no articulation of the sustained yield concept. There is no indication that the resource is going to be managed in such a way as to preserve the sustained yield of the forest resource on a proper rotation basis. It seems to me that it's a very weak section without that particular direction and function being articulated.

The second thing that I question is the relationship of the ministry to the stated concerns with the other functions for land management in the province. It outlines fisheries, wildlife, water, outdoor recreation and other natural resource values, but these functions and considerations are going to be worked out in consultation and co-operation with.... It seems to me that certainly the priority is inferred to rest with the Forest ministry. 1, quite frankly, feel that the words "in conjunction with" those other ministries would be more appropriate than "in consultation and co-operation with." That indicates to me that the Ministry of Forests will suffer these other considerations while retaining the control - while retaining the power, in the final analysis - to make decisions in an absolute way.

I don't know whether the minister intends that that should be the case. I don't know whether that's his objective. I would think not, but certainly the wording of a statute is very important in terms of giving a signal not only to his own personnel who are charged with the administration of the Act, but in terms of making it clear to the other agencies of government such as the fish and wildlife branch and, indeed, to those groups out in the community who are interested and concerned in the proper priorizing of land use that it will truly be a joint and conjunctive kind of decision-making process, rather than one where the real power resides with the Ministry of Forests. While these other interests may be a consideration, there is no real authority that rests with those branches and those departments of government in the same way that the power under this statute is vested in the Ministry of Forests.

I'd like to hear the minister elaborate on those two questions: Why the absence of the sustained-yield concept, enunciated clearly and strongly in this section? Why what seems to be an imbalance of power and authority to the Ministry of Forests, rather than the conjunctive sharing, if I may term it that, with the other interested agencies of government?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I think we must keep in mind that this legislation is companion to both the Range Act and the Forest Act. The concept of sustained yield is spelled out quite clearly in both those other bills. We, of course, will be managing our forest and range resource on a sustained-yield basis, and we spell out in the Forest Act what considerations must be made when determining sustained

[ Page 2540 ]

yield and allowable cuts as far as forestry is concerned, and use of range in relationship to the Range Act.

They are spelled out in the other legislation, and I see no need to repeat it here. We say here, of course, that priority of usage must be done in consultation and co-operation with other ministries. Now the legislation under which those other ministries work spells out what their priorities are - fish and wildlife, lands water resources, mines, other resource users - and we are simply saying here that we must consider other resource values in determining the use of the forest land base.

I don't see what else I can say, Mr. Member, other than that other statutes provide - the Forest Act, the Range Act, the Mineral Act, the Placer Mining Act, land legislation, and so on - for the needs and desires of those ministries, and we are just recognizing the fact that the Forests Ministry cannot ride roughshod over those without consultation and co-operation - in setting the priori ' ties of the government for the use of the land base as a whole.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I really don't accept the first response that the minister made to the question of the sustained-yield principle being articulated in another bill.

This particular statute before us is the one we are considering now. It is the Ministry of Forests Act and it provides the authority and the structure for the minister and his minis try to function pursuant t o this statute, and to a number of others - I appreciate that.

But it seem to me most appropriate that the direction of the ministry, with their regulatory powers over the totality of the forest industry, should be clearly articulated here.

Surely there is nothing wrong with stating in more than one statute that the ministry is proceeding on the basis of the sustained-yield concept, that they are still committed to the sustained-yield, concept. I don't think that can be said too often. I disagree with the minister that there is any adequate dedication to that principle contained in the Forest Act, which we are not debating at the moment.

Perhaps in the minister's mind, and in the minds of his technical advisers in the ministry, they are clear on that. I suggest that from the opposition point of view, from the point of view of the whole variety of groups in the public area who are also concerned, it is not nearly clearly enough articulated. I would certainly suggest to the minister that this particular section should be amended. This is a very appropriate section for the direction of the department to be outlined: purposes and functions of the ministry. What's it all about? What's going to be the approach to forest management? What's going to be the approach to setting criteria and regulations governing annual allowable cut and governing the proper formulas for replantation and regeneration of our forests? All of these different considerations are technical in themselves; but as an approach and a direction, I think it would be most appropriate that the sustained-yield concept - sustained yield on a proper rotation basis, or an even-flow basis as an objective - be outlined and articulated in the Act. I do not know why the minister cannot accept that and amend this particular section accordingly.

The other proposition that Fish and Wildlife, Parks and so on will be consulted and their co-operation sought in developing policy which reflects all those uses of our Crown land is fine again. The minister may administer it very well; his departmental personnel may be very sensitive to checking with those other interest groups in the public service, and working with them in a co-operative spirit. But, you know, statutes shouldn't rely on the good will and the personality of the players. They should make it very clear that no one ministry has the superior power in this regard.

I suggest to the minister that there is a subtle but very important distinction between offering that kind of consultation and co-operation and the mandatory requirement to come to conclusions regarding line use in a way which is in conjunction with those other departments, where there is equal authority in making those assessments - some balanced approach that is guaranteed by the statute. This particular section talks of "consultation and co-operation." Well, what's consultation and co-operation? It may be a phone call saying: "We've got a meeting at 5:30 this afternoon to consider some important policy regarding a certain tract of Crown land. Hope you can make it." Five minutes' notice is consultation, I suppose. It's very vague, very ambiguous, with no guarantee that these other dimensions of public land use are going to be properly vented.

I have come to the conclusion, as I'm sure many others have, that there's a top dog approach in the three companion statutes that are before the House for the Forests ministry. I'm not attempting to downgrade the importance of the forestry concern in this province. Anyone would be mad to do so and the minister shouldn't be so defensive as he has been thus far. We want a proper, intelligent balance in

[ Page 2541 ]

determining and priorizing land usage in this province. There are legitimate interests that go beyond the narrow political confines and charges of the minister's responsibility. He shouldn't resent that interest being expressed and asserted. I think if he has a true grasp of his responsibilities as a minister of the Grown, he will look beyond little empire building attitudes and look at the total balanced, integrated needs of this province. That is not reflected in this language and I certainly think the minister should reconsider this section with amendments that would reflect the two propositions that I put forward.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: May I just respond very briefly to the member? Subsection (b) of section 5 states that we will protect and conserve the forest and range resources. Conservation, of course, includes the enhancement and sustaining of the resource. That, together with the definition of "sustained yield" in the other Act, I think is very adequately covered. I must differ with the member. Even flow of timber supply is not a good thing, as stated by Dr. Pearse. We must have more flexibility for them to insist on a constant, even flow of timber. It's not good economics; it's not good management of the resource.

Sections 5 to 7 inclusive approved.

On section 8.

MR. GIBSON: Section 8, 1 think, presents a first-rate proposition: that the resource should be the subject of a detailed analysis not less than every 10 years. Of course, there's one next year and one in 1984. There is just, as I see it, one thing that is left out. There is no obligation to include in this resource analysis any comparison of the competitive cost situation of British Columbia as compared to the rest of the world.

There is a provision for an analysis of trends in and a forecast of domestic and international demand for uses of the forest and range resources of the province and products manufactured from them. That's good, but that is only one side of the equation. The other side of the equation is the possibility of British Columbia meeting that demand in a competitive way at a competitive cost. Had we had this kind of Section 1n effect in law in this province over the past 10 years, let us say, it would have been uses of, but it would not have caught in its net the situation where some of our coastal mills, through increasing age and changing character of the log supply, were becoming less efficient. It wouldn't have told us how changes in the many cost factors that go into manufacturing, including the value of the Canadian dollar, transportation costs and so on, were changing the competitiveness of British Columbia in the world market.

Therefore I would like to propose to the minister what seems to me to be an innocuous and useful addition. I would draw his attention to subsection (d) (1) . At the end of that section 1, 1 would suggest that the words "the competitive cost position of British Columbia and" be added. So that that subsection would read as follows: "domestic and international demand for and uses of the forest and range resources in the province and products manufactured from them, and the competitive cost position of British Columbia and..."

I would move that amendment, Mr. Chairman, if you find it in order.

I'm sorry, I had no time to send notice of that to the minister, I regret.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: I guess you never wrote out a last-minute amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment before the members at the present time reads as follows:

"In section 8 (d) (i) after the words "manufactured from them, " the amendment then reads: "the competitive cost position of British Columbia, and..."

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, subsection (d) states: "an analysis of trends and a forecast of (i) domestic and international demand for and uses of forests, " et cetera, and "the supply of forest and range resources...." Now when you speak of demand and supply, implicit in that is the cost position. If we cannot produce our products at a price which can be sold on the market, there would be no demand for them. So implicit in the determination of demand and supply is the economic evaluation.

I think this amendment is unnecessary. It's spelled out clearly in the Act without saying specifically "cost" and so on. This is implicit in supply and demand determinations.

MR. GIBSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, if it's implicit, I don't see why the minister should mind it being made explicit, just for greater certainty. Personally, it doesn't seem to be implicit, as far as I can see. Supply is an obvious thing; there it is - annual allowable cur or whatever. Demand is demand at a price -

[ Page 2542 ]

so much demand at this price and so much demand at that price, and so on.

Really, it seems to me that if the cost competitive situation in British Columbia was required to be highlighted, definitely and explicitly, we would really be doing a favour to our population in terms of a public understanding of just where we have to be in this world to produce competitively. It seems to me to be very important that those figures be always kept before the public, so we know what our room for manoeuvre is in this province. Therefore I'd like to see that explicitly in the law.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I certainly support the amendment. I think it's an intelligent amendment (laughter) and I think one that would.... I didn't realize that kind of comment would provoke such hilarity in this chamber. I guess there is something about intelligence that members on that side find peculiar. That's what they are snickering at - they think it's a very humorous amendment.

I think the proposition of taking a more detailed look at the competitive position of our forest industry implies a great deal more than the minister has suggested. It does not only involve the actual harvesting of the trees and what the international market happens to be. What about shipping costs? What about the costs of getting the product to tidewater? What about the relationship between our industry and other areas of competition with respect to those particular costs? Surely that relates and affects the health of the B.C. market and the B.C. industry.

I think it's about time that a more detailed look, not just a superficial look in a restricted way, be taken at whether or not the logging operation itself is efficient and modern. Look at the plant. Look at the impediments to competing in the world market, or the advantages that British Columbia enjoys, as opposed to the Pacific northwest and such other areas. That's certainly not implicit in the provision before the House now.

I think the amendment put forward by the hon. Liberal leader is a sound one and, I repeat, an intelligent one. I'm sure that the government members would want to support something that is intelligent, and I commend them for their acceptance.

Amendment negatived.

On section 8.

MR. KING. The analysis every 10 years is, I think, a provision and an initiative which everyone generally approves of. But I'd like the minister to explain in a little more detail just how he....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Revelstoke-Slocan has the floor.

MR. KING: It's all right, Mr. Chairman, I'm in no hurry. I've lots of time.

Mr. Chairman, I'm interested to know just how the minister anticipates conducting this resource analysis. Who does tie intend to use? Does he intend to strictly use personnel from his ministry? Does he intend to use people just from his ministry, and does he intend perhaps, to make appointments on an ad hoc basis for that kind of periodic review? Does he intend to use the industry? Does he intend to accept the data and the statistics that have been developed in the mining industry with respect to inventory and so on?

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

I would like the minister to explain for me, if he would, just how this analysis is going to work, and to what extent tie is going to concentrate on this inventory. What's he going to look into? Does he intend that it be the market, as the purpose of the motion was put forward by the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) ? He said it is implicit in the bill. Really, I do not see anything that indicates that, but perhaps he could elucidate and tell us precisely what he has in mind.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, this resource analysis every 10 years, of course, will begin with the inventory of the resource - harvesting costs and cost trends, manufacturing costs and cost trends and market trends, as spelled out in section D (2) . We will work within the Ministry of Forests. I'm sure we will have the expertise within the Ministry of Economic Development, and I'm sure also that we will be using consultants and experts in international marketplaces, together with information perhaps provided us by the industry. But we are not going to have the industry give us figures and accept them without being quite comfortable with them ourselves. So we'll draw expertise from wherever we need it in order to produce these analyses every 10 years, beginning next year.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the minister, in answering earlier on, used the Pearse commission report to put down the idea of , a

[ Page 2543 ]

sustained-yield evenflow objective, and fair enough, that's the minister's idea. But it does intrigue me how the minister can rely upon the Pearse recommendations and the Pearse findings on the one hand while completely rejecting them on the other. Pearse did deal to a great extent with the problems that were created by the ministry relying on data from the private sector over the years. Let me quote just briefly from page 128 of the Pearse report:

"Policy relating to the division of responsibilities for forest development and management between licensees and the Forest Service has not been well articulated, except in connection with tree-farm licences, which were deliberately designed to delegate most managerial activities to the corporate holders. But over the years, in the face of its own inadequate financial resources, the Forest Service has tended to rely increasingly on licensees to carry out functions ranging from access development to cruising, planning and reforestation; and it has evolved a variety of complicated arrangements for reimbursing the costs through adjustments to stumpage levies.

"This reliance of the private sector is now very heavy relative to other important forest jurisdictions with extensive public ownership. To some observers our present dependence on licensees to not only carry out management and development functions but also to initiate their planning and determine their priorities is alarming."

Pearse in another area goes on to point out: "If the public is to underwrite all forestry costs, it is essential that financial criteria be used in conjunction with biological information in determining the standards and setting priorities for expenditures on silviculture.

"In the tree-farm licence area, treefarm licences are required to take periodic inventories of all the lands within licensed areas as part of their obligations for management working plans. They gather the field data, compile it, and calculate allowable annual cuts according to procedures approved by the Forest Service. The Forest Service reserves the right to check the field data, but it has done so in few, if any, cases."

My information, Mr. Chairman, is that the Forest Service has not done so in any case.

So I ask the minister: realistically, in light of this finding on current and past practices, how is lie going to come up with, firstly, the personnel to take on what would be a ma the undertaking in its initial stages to develop a data base independent from the licence holders?

How long in advance does the minister feel that he will have to undertake this kind of data- gathering procedure in order to comply with the 10-year analysis provision of this statute? Secondly, it seems to me that this would imply a tremendous expansion of the Forest Service, and I wonder what he has in mind in that regard. Pearse has stated his concern and alarm about the reliance on private industry to develop their own statistics and their own assessment of these very important and very fundamental considerations. I'd like to hear how the minister intends to overcome that problem.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: In the Forest Act it spells out that the Forests ministry can determine inventory allowable cut, access and so on within tree-farm licences, and we will do so. In fact, we have great suspicion of some of the inventories and AACs of tree-farm licences. We will be determining these for ourselves. We don't anticipate having to add a great number of staff to the inventory division or other divisions of the Forest Service. In recent years our capability in the inventory division has been increased tremendously through modern computer systems; with that, together with the people we have, and perhaps some modest increases, I'm advised by the ministry that we can accomplish these requirements even by the end of next year, having our first inventory and resource analysis in place.

The following one will probably be much more detailed than the first one, but we are going to have an inventory next year, to the best of our capability, and we will be continuing to do our own assessment of the inventories of cuts and all types of tenure.

MR. KING: I'm not placated too much by the suggestion that a new computerized system is going to improve the ministry's ability to take proper inventory. Indeed, again one of the very wide and general criticisms of the control on forest management in this province and one of the general criticisms of the ministry over the years has been the degree to which they miss the mark on inventory in this province or any reasonable system of developing an accurate inventory. This point is tremendously important because the annual allowable cut for licence holders is based and prepared, to some extent at least, on the basis of that inventory.

I wonder if he has in mind simply looking at

[ Page 2544 ]

the lean volume of timber on an average section of land hectare by hectare, or by acre, or whatever, and calculating some kind of mathematical mean average. Does he have in mind the extensive use of aircraft and photography as a method of establishing the timber and, hence, the intelligent yield?

These things, in my view - and according to the best information I have received from many operators around the province - are just so far off the mark that it is a serious problem. They are off the mark to the extent that the terrain is so important in terms of whether or not the timber is economic to log and get to the market. Indeed there are a lot of areas that because of the geography - rock bluffs and so on - are impossible to log at all, although there may be a significant growth of timber on that particular terrain.

I would like to have some reassurance that firstly, the foresters within the ministry are going to get off their chairs and get out into the timber tracks of this province and do some cruising in a way that can accurately measure the resource. The minister shouldn't take that as any crack at the foresters and the public servants. I think that it has been one of the shames of this ministry, along with many others over the years, that professionals in their field are not allowed to exercise the function that they were trained to do. They have been tied up with paperwork. They have been tied up with counsel to the minister, teaching him as a new recruit what the forest is all about, when they should have been out in the bush making sure that the trees are properly husbanded and that there are as many there as we say there are.

So the minister's reply that we are going to take proper inventory is not very reassuring when he suggests that it is going to be computerized and, therefore, done more quickly. Gee whiz, I think that has been one of the problem with the forest industry over the past years. There has been a departure from close scrutiny and close regulation by the foresters, and too much paperwork. Perhaps the minister would comment on that a little bit more.

MR. COCKE: The minister is really a beautiful guy!

MR. KING: I agree. That's the first time you and the Attorney-General and I have agreed for years. The only thing I don't agree on is that the sun does not always shine upon the righteous.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the member and I, I think, are in agreement that inventory assessment of resources is very important. We do have a good inventory on Grown land, and we need more information on some private and TFL lands. We are not only going to do it acre by acre and hectare and hectare, but square foot by square foot.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the minister has put his foot in it; he's going to pay now. I think we'll work on the next section.

Sections 8 to 10 inclusive approved.

On section 11.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, this says: "...after commencement of the first session in the year following the end of the year for which it is made." This is a question of interpretation I have to ask the minister.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: What section are you on?

MR. GIBSON: This is section 11, having to do with the tabling of the annual report. Actually I had a question in section 10, too, but I guess I....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Section 10 has passed.

MR. GIBSON: I know. I did not catch your eye, unfortunately.

The section says: "...the year following the end of the year for which it is made." Is the minister considering the year end for the purposes of this section to be December 31 or March 31?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: We are working with the calendar year here.

MR. GIBSON: Just for greater certainty then, let's look at the current year. If we were acting under this Act, the report of the ministry for the calendar year 1977 would have been laid before this Legislature around about April 15. Do I understand that correctly? The minister is nodding.

Sections 11 to 14 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

[ Page 2545 ]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 12, Ministry of Forests Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 13, Mr. Speaker.

RANGE ACT

The House in committee on Bill 13; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

On section 7.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister would comment on how this particular section for the hay cutting licences is going to be governed. How does his ministry expect to regulate and formulate policy here? Presumably it would be in some consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture? Is the ministry going to make its own judgments on the right to cut hay and, presumably, plant in areas designated as forestry land?

I'd appreciate it if the minister could explain just how the regulation of this is going to work and whether or not applicants are going to be able to make application on areas they themselves designate. Is the ministry going to make certain general designations throughout the province where these kinds of permits and licences can be acquired or will they simply respond to applications as they come in and make their own check? And particularly, will the Ministry of Agriculture be involved?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I guess we're really talking about the four types of tenures: the hay-cutting licences and the hay-cutting permits, the grazing licences and the grazing permits. Before licences are granted, we expect to have a co-ordinated range plan in place, which is developed by the industry with the forest range division and the Ministry of Agriculture. Before the longer-term licences are initiated, a coordinated plan must be in place.

Now the shorter permits are really what we have now in the way of permits, except they can go up to five years. They'll be used in a few circumstances, one in which a co-ordinated range plan is not in place and is being developed. We will issue the shorter-term permits until such time as the co-ordinated plan is in place or when there is a fear of imminent withdrawal of use of the resource for other purposes such as urban development, highways, the letting of storage dams of hydro-electricity or other storage purposes.

It will be a transition, really, from the existing system to established licensees or permittees into a longer-term licensing programme. They will be by application, providing that the resource is available. The only time that we will have to go to competition under this quota competition is when there is equal need and equal programmes or plans put forward for the same piece of land. But the licensing system is to develop co-operatively with the Ministry of Agriculture, the industry and the Forest Service range division when a coordinated plan is in place.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, with respect to this particular provision, I have encountered problem over the years with applicants for grazing permits and so on, with the fish and wildlife branch particularly. The problem is often with respect to the particular elevation at which the grazing permit is sought. The conflict develops from the use of that land as a priority - perhaps summer or spring range for deer and elk and so on. Particularly up in the Kootenays I think this is true. And while I appreciate the minister's explanation of the general application in consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture, I wonder if the same consultation is going to be developed with Fish and Wildlife.

Of course, there is the other dimension about spawning streams and so on, where herds of cattle or sheep could interfere with vital spawning areas. So I do hope that that consideration is taken into account when developing the policy for permits and licences in this area.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

PARTNERSHIP AMENDMENT

ACT, 1978

Hon. Mr. Mair presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Partnership Amendment Act, 1978.

Bill 39 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 2546 ]

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm tables the annual report for the Ministry of Human Resources, 1977.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would take pleasure in sharing with the House some very important and valuable information from London, England, if I may have leave to make this statement.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, a distinguished honour was bestowed upon British Columbia's Agent-General, Lawrie J. Wallace, in London, England, today. Mr. Wallace, former Deputy Provincial Secretary and long-time public servant, was made a freeman of the city of London.

Mr. Speaker, because the freedom of the ancient city is an honour usually reserved for London's own outstanding citizens who have performed some particular deed or given long and meritorious service to its interests, this is a great honour to be bestowed upon our province. The honour was bestowed on Mr. Wallace for his services as Agent-General for British Columbia in the United Kingdom and Europe, and for association with several Lord Mayors of London in the last quarter-century during their visits to British Columbia and Canada.

I know that all of the House will extend good wishes to Mr. Wallace on this honour.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to join in the expression of good wishes to Lawrie Wallace. Mind you, as a freeman of the city of London, he'll have to fight in defence of that city if the occasion should arise, but I think he'll be up to the task. We all wish him well. It's good news.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:03 p.m.