[ Page 761 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

Introduction and first reading — 761

Oral questions.

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

Coal fields development. Mr. Leggatt –– 762

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

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

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

Brown-Ferris-Jefferson report on company capital.

Hon, Mr. Phillips replies –– 763

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

Matter of Urgent Public Importance

Use of Picloram pesticide.

Mr. Speaker rules –– 764

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Forests estimates.

On vote 117.

Mr. King –– 764

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 764

Mr. Segarty –– 767

Ms. Sanford –– 769

Mr. Lockstead –– 769

.Mr. Passarell –– 771

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 771

Mr. Lockstead –– 771

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 771

Mr. Howard –– 772

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 772

Division on vote 117 –– 772

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

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 772

Forest Amendment Act –– 1979 (Bill 22).

Committee stage, report and third reading –– 773

Education Statutes Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 19).

Third reading –– 773

Land Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 16).

Committee and report stage –– 773

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

On section 2.

Mr. Lorimer –– 771

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 773

On section 14.

Mr. Nicolson –– 773

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 774

Division on report stage –– 774

Third reading –– 774

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

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 774

Mr. Barber –– 774

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

On section 2.

Mr. Barber –– 777

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 778

Mr. Levi –– 778

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 778

Mr. Barber I –– 778

On section 3.

Mr. Lorimer –– 779

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 779

Mr. Barber –– 779

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 779

Mr. Leggatt –– 779

Mr. Levi –– 780

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 780

Mr. Lorimer –– 780

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 780

Mr. Barber –– 780

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 781

Mr. Levi –– 781

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 781

Report and third reading –– 781

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

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 781

Mr. Lorimer –– 782

Mr. Lea –– 783

Mrs. Dailly –– 785

Ms. Brown –– 785

Mr. Nicolson –– 786

Mr. Barber –– 786

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 786

Division on second reading –– 787

Presenting Reports

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

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 787

Ministry of Health annual report, 1978.

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 787

Appendix –– 788

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Visiting Victoria this afternoon are some good friends from Langley, Mr. and Mrs. Nard Van Noort and their relatives, Mr. and Mrs. Ton Jansen, from Holland. Mr. Jansen is the Burgermeester of Geteringen and he is also with the Legislature in Gelderland, Holland. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. NICOLSON: Also visiting us in the gallery today are Scott and Dennis Banda. Mr. Dennis Banda is MLA for the Redbury constituency in Saskatchewan, and is also the government deputy Whip. I am sure the members will join me in wishing him well.

MR. KEMPF: In the gallery with us this afternoon are Mr. Al Green and Mr. Brian McGavin of Westcoast Transmission, and I'd like the House to make them welcome.

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

Interjections.

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

We have in the gallery today Miss Terri Taylor from Salmon Arm and Mr. Kevin O'Neill, both of whom are very active and effective workers for the New Democratic Party. I ask the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest success stories in the Ministry of Tourism is the number of free articles that we get from all over the world due to the importance we place on meeting and entertaining members of the travel press. Today it is my great pleasure to introduce a special guest who has spent the weekend in Victoria, having arrived Saturday on the Princess Marguerite. Please join me in welcoming Mrs. Caroline Seebohm, senior writer of House and Gardens Magazine of New York, to super natural British Columbia.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to ask you and the House to welcome a friend from Vernon, Mr. Jack Simpson. In a non-political vein, I would say that he was the campaign manager for North Okanagan in the last election. Please welcome also his guests, Mr. Bill Brooks and his son Ben Brooks, who are from Truro, Nova Scotia. Members will be pleased to know, I'm sure. that Mr. Brooks is teaching at the University of Victoria this summer. I ask you all to bid them a very warm welcome.

MR. LEA: I'd like to ask the House to join me in welcoming Pat and Lynn Rutherford from the city of Prince Rupert. I think I'd be remiss if I didn't say that the Rutherford family is originally from Saskatchewan, where 75 percent of all British Columbians are from. The other 25 percent, of course, are born right here.

Mr. Speaker, also I think I'd be remiss if I didn't say that the male member of the Rutherford family went to school in Biggar, Saskatchewan, with the Leader of the Opposition's executive assistant, Harvey Beech. So they're all watching us today as they say: "New York's big, but Biggar's Biggar." They're here today.

MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker. I'd like the members to join me in welcoming to the gallery today two former staff members of mine from Bert Bowes Junior Secondary School in Fort St. John. I say "former members" because they are now on their way to a foreign exchange teaching program, and I'd like the members to make them welcome. They are Dennis Youngberg and Bozena Uszacki.

MR. SEGARTY: In the gallery today are Richard Pinotti, his wife Pauline, his daughter Theresa, and his son Colin, from Elkford. British Columbia. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming them to Victoria.

Introduction of Bills

FINANCE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1979.

Bill 31 introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

SCHAEFFER MEMO ON
500-KV TRANSMISSION LINE

MR, LOCKSTEAD: I have a question for the Minister of Environment. I would like to ask the minister if he has received a copy of the economic-justification impact memorandum prepared by Dr. Marvin Schaeffer of the University of British Columbia on the 500-kv transmission line to Vancouver Island, which was commissioned by the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat.

HON. MR. MAIR: The report to which the member refers is an internal memorandum, and I have received it. However, it is not a document that I should or will make available to the public.

SOME HON, MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: It's interesting, Mr. Speaker, that this report was forwarded to the minister some three weeks to a month ago by the secretariat, and that last week the minister denied any knowledge of this memorandum. My question to the minister is: will he undertake to read this report and table its contents in the Legislature?

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

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Will the same minister confirm that the Schaeffer memorandum questions the economic justification of the Cheekye-Dunsmuir transmission line?

[ Page 762 ]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Next question.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: On a supplementary, in view of the contents of that so-called Schaeffer report, will the minister now agree to change his position and hold further public meetings regarding the proposed 500-kilovolt transmission line on theSunshine Coast?

HON. MR. MAIR: I think I should make these observations. When I answered the member in the House the other day I was quite truthful. I did not know I had the report; I know that now because he was kind enough to give some advance notice to my office that he wanted to question me on that. Mr. Schaeffer, I'm told, is a staff consultant — not an outside consultant — who is looking into this particular project and other projects. For your information, Mr. Member, I am taking a personal tour of the area next Monday. I do not intend, however, to make the Schaeffer report, or any part of it, public at this time.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a final supplementary question. In view of the fact that a number of residents will be visiting the parliament buildings next Thursday, will the minister agree to meet with those people from theSunshine Coast when they arrive here?

HON. MR. MAIR: Certainly.

COAL FIELDS DEVELOPMENT

MR. LEGGATT: My question is directed to the Minister of Economic Development. Last week he announced he had a firm agreement with British Petroleums in regard to their section of the coal fields in northeastern British Columbia. Could the minister advise the House what the cost of the infrastructure is with regard to that particular development?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: To correct the member, I said my ministry and officials of British Petroleums had reached a tentative agreement which still had to be ratified by the board of directors of British Petroleums and by cabinet. I'll be happy to advise you of the cost after it's ratified.

MR. LEGGATT: On a supplementary, can the minister advise the House whether the cost-sharing formula with the federal government will in fact be 50-50? Can he also advise us whether he has any commitment whatsoever from the Prime Minister and his cabinet to share in the cost of that particular development?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: As I said, Mr. Speaker — and I'll elaborate once again — my ministry, the officials in DREE and officials from British Petroleums have reached what they consider to be a good agreement. It's based on a formula of capital costs which has been used many times in Canada for providing infrastructure or for creating jobs, and I think it's a good agreement. When the board of directors have had a chance to look at it and cabinet has ratified it, then we'll certainly be most happy to make it available.

MR. LEGGATT: One of the recommendations of the Mackenzie royal commission, when they did their rather extensive study of the northeast coal situation, was that most of that infrastructure could very well wind up for the benefit of the CN rather than for the benefit of BCR, if Prince Rupert is used as the off-loading facility. Would the minister advise whether Roberts Bank is contemplated as the off-loading facility in this particular project, rather than the CN? Also, can he advise if any of the CN Railway will be used for transporting on this proposal?

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

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, part of it is yes. We're talking about the BCR being the starting line and, naturally, as you know, in transportation circles the line where the goods initiate receives the most benefit. We have done, as you know, in the last three years a tremendous amount of study, and I think it's time we all took a very positive outlook, because it's not only going to be good for British Columbia, but it's going to be good for Canada. We're talking about an international commodity. We're trying to make some decisions; we're repairing a lot of the damage that was done by that group over there when they were government; we're restoring faith in the international coke and coal markets of the world. We're moving in that direction, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEGGATT: I think the minister doth protest too much. I didn't have anything to say about this particular project, pro or con. You are coming to a very fast conclusion. But my question is this, Mr. Speaker. The wildlife resources branch has only done a preliminary study of the northeast coal area. They've indicated that they want to do much more extensive studying with regard to the value of the wildlife, the fantastic value of hunting, and the potential damage to that particular area in terms of a recreational resource.

Has the minister put something in this agreement to hedge against protection of the environment? Is there something in there to protect you in the event you've got studies coming down the pipe which say no way, because it causes too much damage to the environment?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I'd be most happy to welcome that member to my office and explain the scene. He's talking about one particular area, and maybe he doesn't understand that coal seam goes from Williston Lake right down through to the Alberta border — a very large area, and one very rich in natural resources. There are four different coal-mine areas there. The one we are talking about is the Sukunka project, which, by the way, the NDP government tried to buy an interest in and get off the ground; but it fell by the wayside because they and Ottawa couldn't agree. We have done more studies in the northeast than on any other single project. As a matter of fact, we've studied it to death. We could build a railway on the paper that has been used to do studies in the northeast.

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

[ Page 763 ]

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

MR. KING: I have a supplementary for the minister, Mr. Speaker. He has indicated that there is a tentative agreement which is being considered by the British company as well as his own ministry, and yet he indicates that the costs of the infrastructure are not known at this time. I want to ask the minister how he can consider a tentative agreement, and the need for cost-benefit analysis with respect to job-creation, when the costs of the infrastructure imposed on the provincial government are not known.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I think that I should invite the member to my office and give him a little lesson in economics. You can certainly work out a scene in which you share costs and in which you share the costs of job-creation within certain limitations. You could certainly work that out because the final portion of who bills whom for what depends on the amount of money we put in. You can work out terms of reference on anything, and it expands as the jobs expand. So you come to my office some day and I'I sit down and give you a thorough explanation.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I have another supplementary. It happens that I represent the public of British Columbia, and I assume the minister does also. I want to ask him why he feels constrained to guard this kind of information in the secrecy of his office, rather than being prepared to make it available to the public through this House.

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

SKINDIVERS AND THE
WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, last week I asked the Minister of Labour a question with respect to the relationship of the Workers' Compensation Board to skindivers and other underwater divers in the fishing industry. I wonder if the minister could tell the House now whether the compensation board has reversed itself on the constitutional question and is now prepared to accept the responsibility in this area.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it's not a question of the Workers' Compensation Board reversing itself on the constitutional issue, but rather the settlement of the responsibility which we say is shared between the federal and the provincial government with the federal Crown. That's an ongoing matter very currently and actively being pursued.

MR. HOWARD: Could the minister tell the House why it is that the compensation board or himself, if he's the responsible one, is refusing to enforce and apply the compensation board's underwater diving regulations which apply to divers but which the compensation board is using to exclude underwater divers in the fishing industry?

HON. MR, WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, no refusal is emanating from this minister or from this ministry. That would be a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board. I'm not prepared to accept that the member's premise is accurate.

MR. HOWARD: May I ask the minister if he has been in touch with the compensation board since last Thursday and, if so, what reply they gave him?

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

B.C. SUMMER GAMES
TELEVISION CONTRACTS

MR. BARNES: I have a question for the Provincial Secretary. Last week the minister indicated he would take as notice some questions I raised respecting contractual arrangements between the Summer and Winter Games organization and BCTV. I wonder if the minister is now able to reply to those questions.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, no. I have the question as notice. I will attempt to get it back to the member just as quickly as possible. I'm sorry. It could be tomorrow.

MR. BARNES: I would just suggest to the minister, while he's preparing to respond. that he keep in mind the extent of time remaining before the Summer Games start. It is imperative that we have some indication of whether or not he is going to be able to resolve the problem in time for the B.C. programmers.

5-CENT LIQUOR SURCHARGE

MR, LEVI: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Could the minister tell the House whether the 5-cent surcharge on liquor, which was introduced in respect to the moderation program by the minister's predecessor, is still in place?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The 5-cent surcharge is not in place any longer. The 5-cent surcharge was eliminated during the last modification in prices of distilled spirits.

BROWN-FERRIS-JEFFERSON
REPORT ON COMPANY CAPITAL

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I would like to answer a question posed by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Leggatt) with regard to the Brown-Ferris-Jefferson report, "Sources and Costs of Capital to Small- and Medium-Sized Companies in British Columbia," commissioned in September 1977. It was completed and delivered to the Ministry of Economic Development in April of 1978, with a copy forwarded immediately to the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

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

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

[ Page 764 ]

PRICE WATERHOUSE REPORT
ON EFFECTS OF TAXATION

MR. STUPICH: Price Waterhouse is doing a report for the Ministry of Finance on the effects of taxation on commerce and industry. Has the minister received that report?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I just want to comment to the member that this is the first question I've had in this session of the Legislature. To be ignored in this way is reprehensible. [Laughter.]

I have not received the report the member is referring to. I believe there has been a preliminary report indicating the guidelines of some kind of a study; but I've not received any report.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, just before we call the Committee of Supply, may I interrupt the proceedings to report, as I undertook to report last Friday, when the hon. member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) sought the floor to raise a matter under standing order 35, namely, the decision to allow the use of a pesticide on private land.

The statement of the member is argumentative, and on that ground alone the matter does not qualify for consideration under standing order 35. This matter is similar to a matter raised by the same member on April 24, 1978, which was dealt with on page 45 of the Journals of that year. With the exception of the reference to estimates, that decision applies in this case.

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS
(continued)

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

MR. KING: Last Friday I drew to the minister's attention a number of issues surrounding the allocation of timber resources in the province of British Columbia, and specifically two very serious allegations raised by people in the industry that the eight major, integrated forest corporations in this province were guilty of using premium sawlogs for pulping, at a tremendous waste in terms of the resource, and certainly at a tremendous loss of revenue to the Crown — to say nothing, Mr. Chairman, of the fact that independent operators have at one and the same time been deprived of an adequate supply of the resource to maintain their mills and logging operations. In the weekend Victoria Times there was an article indicating that the media had contacted people in the industry and that they had confirmed that there was a constant practice of using premium sawlogs for pulping. Indeed, the minister himself conceded that this has been an ongoing problem.

I want to ask the minister a question, Mr. Chairman. I wish to ask the minister whether or not any sanctions have ever been imposed on any of the pulp companies found guilty of using premium sawlogs to grind into chips and in that way failing to live up to the standards of proper utilization contained in the Forest Act — and certainly the standards of utilization which the minister himself, at least verbally, demands of the forest industry. I want to know whether he has ever imposed any penalties on any of these giants of the forest industry.

I asked the minister a question last week, which he failed to respond to, and that dealt with the sanctions for trespass and similar infractions which seem to be readily imposed on the small enterprises of the forest industry in British Columbia. I hope the minister can provide some information for me with respect to the kind of penalties which have been imposed on the major integrated firms. If he fails to do that, he leaves the impression that the allegations from the independents are correct, that there is a double standard in the Ministry of Forests in the treatment of the majors and the treatment of the independents. On the one hand, the majors have the monopoly on the resource in excess of their needs. They apparently have suffered no penalty for violation of the standards which the ministry set up respecting proper utilization and maintaining their annual allowable cut. On the other hand, the small independents are desperate for material to bid on in the first place, and second, if they seem to deviate from the rules and regulations of the ministry whatsoever, they are subjected to very severe penalties.

I'd like the minister to respond to these specific questions, and I wonder if he has some specific information for the House which demonstrates that, indeed, penalties and sanctions have been imposed on the majors. If so, then we can take literally his admonition that they are in fact going to have to manage it, use it or lose it. It is a bit of a mockery under the present circumstances, Mr. Chairman, and I would appreciate the minister's response.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I advised the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke last week that insofar as trespass cutting of timber is concerned in British Columbia, all companies are treated in a similar manner whether they be large companies or small companies. This is the case with all aspects of forest administration of forest resources in British Columbia. I know the opposition and particularly that member over the last several days have tried to create in the minds of the public that there's different treatment for the small and the large companies in British Columbia. That simply is not true; everybody is treated as fairly as we possibly can and in a similar manner. In regard to the utilization of potential saw log material in wood rooms, up until the present time and until our new Forest Act and the licences thereunder are fully in force, there has never been any authority in the Forest Act to impose penalties for using what could be a saw log or a peeler log in a wood room. The standards of utilization, both as they refer to extraction from a forest and utilization of those products, will become a term of the various licences and that will be enforced.

Mr. Chairman, as the member knows, there's been a very rapid transition in recent years both in the size and the quality of material available to the forest industry. The industry right now, as the member well knows, has committed many hundreds of millions of dollars in adapting their industry and industrial plants. I'm speaking of all of the industry from the large companies right through to the very smallest. They have adapted their plants to the profile

[ Page 765 ]

of forest they now have to deal with. This has taken place very rapidly, and until such times as fully enforced, we may have some firm wood going into wood rooms. We will not sanction that unless there is absolutely no way of the company getting around it.

For example, the member mentioned Rayonier and using round wood in a wood room at Port Alice, I believe. That's the case where we found the greatest abuse of wood. That company even at this time, I believe, has not completed its installation of a good byproduct-handling facility at the mill. They do have to chip round wood. Most of the round wood they are chipping now is pulp grade material. There may be the occasional saw log mixed in with pulp booms. We're eliminating and they're cooperating as much as possible, but at this time the problem still exists. It's being overcome, and until the industry's adaptation to what they have to use nowadays in terms of raw materials is completed, there may be some minor abuse, but we do not tolerate it. We cannot tolerate it on an ongoing basis.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister misses the point. These companies are able to waste material, which is precisely what is happening when sawlogs are ground into pulp for wood chips and for the pulp machine. It's not only a loss of revenue to the Crown because they're failing to utilize that fibre for the highest value, namely lumber, but at one and the same time there is a shortage of fibre in the province. There are, in fact, cutbacks in production by independent saw loggers who cannot gain access to the material. The reason that these firms are able to waste material and grind it up for lower value is because they are sitting on an excess supply of the resource. For the minister to say to the Legislature that he lacks any penalty is just absolute nonsense. The minister had the authority under the old Forest Act, and he certainly has it under the new Act if he has the determination and the commitment to enforce it. He should remove oversupply from any company that is failing to utilize it adequately.

That's his test put into the new Act. But there are two standards. When in the face of proven abuse by the big companies the minister stands back and says: "Well, they're going to invest some money. They're going to modernize their plant and will be able to utilize it better." The fact of the matter is that they should never have been allowed to let their plants run into obsolescence. They have failed to keep pace with proper investment for modernization. They have failed to do that because they've been sitting on a cushion of oversupply — known and tolerated by this minister. That's why they can afford to be inefficient. That's why they can afford to waste material.

This government, Mr. Chairman, that says they are dedicated to free enterprise and competition, are making a complete mockery of all those concepts. What we have is an entrenched monopoly — further entrenched by this minister and his policies — standing idly by and watching waste that is costing the province of British Columbia millions of dollars a year in lost revenue to the Crown, and which is responsible for the impairment, the curtailment and the destruction of many small industries in the forest sector of the province of British Columbia. The minister says that's okay. The minister says we're going to give them time. They're going to invest and modernize. Mr. Chairman, I suppose that's after they build up their subsidiary plants in Brazil and Venezuela and those South American countries, at the expense of efficiency in British Columbia, and with dollars earned in British Columbia. That's what's happening, Mr. Minister. That's precisely what's happening. And you're allowing it to happen.

On the other hand, when it comes to the small entrepreneur — and there are many throughout British Columbia, certainly in the area I represent, certainly in the Premier's riding.... A sawmill at Westbank has been crying for material, indicating they are going to have to cut back and lay off workers. Plants at Enderby that operate on the garbage of the forest industry, rotten cedar shells, and so on, can't even get access to supply. And I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the jobs that accrue, even though it may be 30 or 40 or 50 jobs in an area like that, are just as crucial to the regional economy of British Columbia as the economic impact of the majors are in centres like Prince George and the Vancouver Island area — just as crucial. But there are two standards. The minister knows that they have oversupply of inventory. He knows the inventory conducted when the tree-farm licences were awarded, and renewed without a public hearing, was not accurate. The Pearse report tells you that in some cases the inventory was 400 percent in excess of what your ministry anticipated they were awarding through tenure, through licence. And the minister sits on this and says: "Well, eventually they're going to modernize, and they're going to be able to utilize it."

On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, one group in the East Kootenay, comprising eight sawmills, became so desperate for a supply of timber that they wrote to the regional manager and said: ''Look, we may have to trespass on a powerline contract — a Hydro powerline contract — in order to gain enough fibre to stay in business." The regional manager wrote back and said: "The law will be stringently enforced. If you trespass, the full weight of triple stumpage will be applied against you." I'm suggesting that is a double standard. I'm suggesting this minister is pursuing policies which are totally discriminatory against the small independent operators in the forest industry of British Columbia.

I recognize it's not precisely the same thing, Mr. Minister. But the implications are quite clear. The big entrepreneurs don't have to trespass: they have an abundance of supply. They are banking for the future — the excess supply they are sitting on. And that minister, Mr. Chairman, would be taking it away from them. He should be commissioning new inventory studies to determine just how fat the tenure of the large integrated firms is. He should be demanding that the excess be removed from them and be put up through competitive bidding for the small-enterprise sector of the forest industry in British Columbia. That's what he is failing to do. He says on the one hand: "They're going to do something about it. Eventually they'll utilize it. So we're going to leave them with their rich rewards, hoping that some time in the future I'll have all the data together and they'I have come in with their capital investment and upgraded the plant, and will be achieving good utilization." Well, the minister knows the lead time for a new pulp mill. He knows the lead time for the kind of investment we need to modernize a plant is two or three years. That means that for the next two or three years we are going to continue with a loss that some estimate will be in the area of half a billion dollars to the economy of British Columbia each year through inefficiency, through waste,

[ Page 766 ]

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

The poor small guy is sitting there; he's getting promises too. The only thing is, he's on the outside looking in; he hasn't got a supply. And the minister is saying: "Well, eventually we're going to get our small-business program into effect. We'll be putting up some timber sales this November."

Well, I'd like to see that minister and his colleagues in the cabinet go up and log the high-elevation areas that he's going to put up for sale this November. That country is closed down for the winter. No logging can occur at the elevations of the only timber that is available up there until next June. I ask the minister what he expects those small enterprisers to do in the meantime. They're going to be closed down. They have a capital investment too; it's not on the scale of the multinationals, but in relation to that it's a very significant investment. They can't afford to have their plant down all winter. They have an investment in trucks and in skidders; they have an investment in all of the equipment for sawmilling, which runs into hundreds of thousands of dollars, even for a small enterprise. Do you expect them to stay afloat and carry that kind of capital investment in idleness? That's what's happening, Mr. Minister, and I am not prepared to accept your lame excuses that it's all going to unfold eventually and everything's going to be fine, because all I've had for the past year that I've been working to try and assist these enterprises is vague promises. "Eventually we're going to get it all together. We've instructed the regional manager to make timber available."

Then there was the cruelest hoax of all, Mr. Chairman — they did put up a sale of 100 trees, and that was a salvage sale. While Rayonier is grinding up premium sawlogs through their pulp mill, while other large integrated firms are unable to cut their annual allowable cut because they have it in such abundance, an excess supply.... This is an absolute crime and it's absolute evidence that this government, when they say that they are dedicated toward any type of competitive free enterprise system, is completely shallow and completely cynical, because you are allowing a monopoly to exist. You are aiding and abetting that monopoly. I tell you, Mr. Chairman, that there are going to be small enterprises in the forest industry go down the tube this fall and this winter in many areas of the province. The thing that I'm afraid of is once that happens, they're going to have one devil of a time ever trying to get back into operation, because we've seen the trend towards increasing monopolization that this government is apparently dedicated to.

I have absolutely no confidence in that minister's ability to get tough with the big guys. If that minister were going to get tough with the big guys and take some of their excess away, he'd be making commitments on the floor of this Legislature now. He'd be laying down firm deadlines by which time they must comply with proper utilization, by which time they must account for their failure to cut the supply that's awarded to them. None of these things are happening. The minister just shrugs his shoulders and says: "Well, eventually it's going to turn out all right."

I think, quite frankly, that this is not only a provincial disgrace; it's a national disgrace, because the forest industry of the province of British Columbia and the forest industry of the nation is at a crossroads in terms of providing a sustained foundation for the kind of economic support that the forest industry has traditionally provided to the economy of B.C. and Canada. We are never going to get on the course of providing intensive forest management, proper accountability, proper methods and highly efficient technology so long as we have a tight and a rigid monopoly in the forest industry, so long as we have the kind of monopoly which not only intimidates any competition but apparently intimidates that minister and prevents him from just applying sound business practices.

That's what we're asking for. It's not a matter of political philosophy. He doesn't have to look across the floor and say: "Well, this is an issue between the socialists and us." It's not even that. It's a matter of some sound business principles being applied to the forest industry. It's a matter of injecting some good old-fashioned competition so that in fact nobody sits on a firm supply of 100 percent of their requirements — much less in excess of that — so that there is some vestige of competition for the fibre, and so that there is a log market that they have to compete on to establish the proper worth, the proper value, of a saw log. Even those values are artificial and arbitrarily established by the ministry. I have no grounds thus far to believe and to accept that there's any high degree of competence in devising that formula and applying it, any more than has been demonstrated in the rest of the administration of the forest ministry.

Mr. Chairman, I don't know what else to say on this issue. I've tried to get it across to the minister, and the minister can't shrug it off because these are just my facts. It's not just my idea. This is the information that I am getting from all over the province, from within the industry and from within your own ministry. People are so disenchanted, so cynical, about the lack of any political direction, about the lack of any firmness in terms of a commitment to break up that monopoly, that they are writing and complaining to the opposition.

I despair of making any headway under that minister's tenure. I hope that the Premier and the colleagues of the minister, who only have to check with some of their own constituents to determine whether the charges that I have made in this Legislature are true or not, will bring some pressure to bear to perhaps change the minister. I think it would be the humane thing to do on the minister's behalf, as well as on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

I'm going to leave it at that, and I don't know whether the minister intends to reply or not. I have a number of other things to bring up which are certainly not as fundamental to the ills of the forest industry as the points I have been making.

I ask the minister one last time whether he will table in this House the Thomson report. You know, we have a Catch-22 situation going. He says the Thomson report was commissioned by the Truck Loggers Association. I know that's a fact. But the Truck Loggers Association asked for access to the minister's ministry records with respect to certain information. It's my understanding that they are not prepared to release that Thomson report without the specific authority of the minister. I presume that's a courtesy. I believe that's appropriate. But certainly the Truck Loggers Association has no objection to the release of the Thomson report, which will either repudiate the things that I have been saying, Mr. Chairman, or will validate them. It will either repudiate them or validate them because it was that

[ Page 767 ]

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

I ask the minister whether he will kindly contact the Truck Loggers Association and ask them this simple question: do you have any objection to my tabling a copy of the Thomson report in the Legislature? He's the minister of the Crown in this regard. He didn't even have to pay for the report, but since they are extending him the courtesy of not releasing the report until they have his authority, I think that he should do that. That's the least he can do. I ask the minister if he will undertake, in consultation with the Truck Loggers Association, to table a copy of the Thomson report in this legislature.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I advised that member for Shuswap-Revelstoke last week that the so-called Thomson report is a report commissioned by and paid for by the truck loggers. Tommy Thomson, the consultant who did the report, was provided access to Forest Service files. These files are open to anyone who has an interest in them; there's nothing secret about our files. We're running an open Forest Service. If the truck loggers wish to release that report, that's their decision to make. It's not my report; it's their report. They are free to do with it whatever they wish.

Mr. Chairman, just a few comments on the member's fourth rehash of the speech he gave early last week. He's been going over the same ground again and again. I have told him constantly that we, for the first time in the history of British Columbia, now have a way of granting access to small businesses without competition by the larger firms. We have a small-business program. That small-business program is ready to be implemented. It will be fully implemented as soon as we pass to the Forest Amendment Act.

Mr. Chairman, during the first three-quarters of this current decade, the forest industry has been very anxious to get on with modernizing, especially their coastal plant. Their Interior plant is quite modern, but there were a large number of projects ready to be kicked off so that industry would not have got into the rather sad state it did get into on the coast during the early part of this decade. But that industry was faced with the prospect of nationalization earlier in this decade. Many of these programs and plans which are on the table and ready to be started at that time were put on the back burner pending the removal from government of the party which now sits in opposition. These plants would have been ready now and would have been as modern as any in the world, had they felt they were being prudent as businessmen in going ahead with such modernization in the face of nationalization, which they were faced with at that time.

Mr. Chairman, I will just say once again that there is no difference in the way any size of company is treated in this industry. For the first time the small-business sector has a great deal of protection of their access to Crown timber. It's the first time ever, including the period of time when that party was in government.

MR. SEGARTY: I'm no match for the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) when it comes to public speaking and his 20 years' experience in the Legislature.

But there has been much debate in recent days on the performance of the industry in the East Kootenays. I'm generally pleased and excited about the long-term beneficial effects of the new legislation. Many of the recommendations made by the forest industry in the East Kootenays to the royal commission and to the Forest Policy Advisory Committee are in this new legislation. The legislation has eliminated to a considerable extent the concerns the industry has had about the fact that their tenures were expiring with no guidelines in place for renewal. Needless to say, this was playing havoc with the long-term planning and management of timber supply, which is so vital to a healthy industry and long-term security for the employees in the industry.

I would like to commend the Minister of Forests for writing the Act in plain English. I have some concerns with the legislation, however, and I've identified some potential problem areas, which I will discuss briefly.

The Forest Act regulations and implementation of this legislation by the Forest Service and by industry are of major concern. No matter how good the legislation. It won't work unless it is accepted and implemented by the Forest Service and by industry staff. Each must assume responsibility for doing their job and knowing their job, and must be accountable for doing their job.

No leadership in the field of intensive forestry has been shown in the Interior. We need Interior guidelines administered by the Interior. In fact, some Forest Service officials fail to recognize the beneficial effect on yield of this vital field of forestry. The forest industry will have to ensure that it maintains adequately trained staff to ensure compliance with the legislation. As logging involves the removal of old crops and replacing them with new, we must learn to log on both an economic and an environmental basis, guaranteeing rapid reforestation.

The new Forest Act goes a long way towards cutting out old attitudes by promoting a partnership in forest management. In other words, a team approach by the many users of the forest is essential. When you consider that industry is responsible for executing plans for management of the forest, it is essential that it be involved in the planning process. Decentralization of the Forest Service, when fully implemented, will be a tremendous step ahead. We should then be able to get on with the job and eliminate the duplication and distrust on all sides that has been far too common.

The industry is pleased with the length of various tenures and their renewal on an evergreen basis. They accept the fact that they must manage the forest resource, use it or lose it. They have a heavy capital commitment and long-term obligation to their employees. Timber supply areas are a new concept to the industry, but they would like to see the public sustained yield units incorporated into supply blocks. Their prime concern is that the larger the unit the longer it takes for corrective action. The Kootenays are a nightmare in determining the least possible cost to competing centres because of the long, narrow valleys and the long history of plant development in scattered communities. All those variables must be taken into account before setting PSYU boundaries.

Tree-farm licences have received recognition in the new Forest Act and can continue high standards of forestry, which in many cases are highly acceptable by international standards.

The Kootenays is one of the areas in the world of heaviest environmental conflict. Vast areas of timberland and years of intensive planning have vanished overnight.

[ Page 768 ]

Firm commitment to multiple use is an important part of this legislation. In fact, the Akamina-Kishinena drainage in the Flathead and area at the head of the Goat River would never have been taken out of forest management without this commitment. The commitment to the establishment of a provincial forest is also a major step ahead. I believe that if those forests had been in place in 1973-74 we would never have had the massive withdrawals in the forest industry. Socio-economic studies would have resulted in the protection of unique areas, while ensuring multiple use.

Because of our tight timber supply in the Kootenays, the only method of maintaining plants at current capacity is through the implementation of an intensive forest program as soon as possible. There are large areas of immature timber which lend themselves to pre-commercial thinning; but, as made clear earlier, we need direction and guidelines from the Forest Service. I hope a new intensive program will be announced shortly by the minister. My concern is that it be tied to geographical areas so that companies practising intensive forestry will receive the benefits, not those who refuse to practise.

Mountain pine beetle attacks have been ravaging lodge pole pine stands for several years, and all companies in the Kootenays are adversely affected.

There has been much discussion in this debate about the big multinational corporations and foreign ownership. In the Kootenays we have eight tie mills operating on private lands without quotas. We have 18 small operators operating without quotas, and 20 operating with quotas. The 20 operating with quotas are Wynndel Box and Lumber Co. operating out of Creston, locally and Canadian-owned; J. H. Huscroft, locally owned; Kootenay Forest Products, locally owned; Aqua Lumber Co., B.C.- and Canadian-owned; Louisiana Pacific, American owned; I and A Sawmills, Canadian owned; Hadikin Bros., Canadian-owned; Kalesnikoff Lumbering, locally owned; Columbia Cellulose, British Columbia-owned; Crestbrook Forest Industries, 50 percent Canadian-owned, 50 percent foreign-owned; FabCo, operating from Kimberley, locally owned; Crows Nest Industries, owned by Canadian Shell; Galloway Lumber Co., operating from Galloway, locally owned; Revelstoke Sawmill, operating in Radium, locally owned; Brisco Sawmills, Canadian-owned; North Star Planers, Canadian owned; Evans Products, American-owned; Stand Bros., Canadian-owned; Grasmere Industries, British Columbia owned; McDonald's Ranch and Lumber Co., locally owned.

Out of the 20 companies operating with quotas in the Kootenays, two are American-owned and one is 50 percent foreign-owned. All of those companies operating in the Kootenays are small in comparison to the giants operating in the lower mainland.

The state of the industry in the East Kootenay is not what we've been led to believe in the last few days in this Legislature. It is gratifying to see those mills locally owned and operated by British Columbians. The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) discussed the possibility of issuing new quotas in the Creston PSYU, and I would like to draw his attention to a report submitted to the regional manager of the Forest Service in Nelson. This report was signed by representatives of the Wynndel Box and Lumber Co., Kootenay Forest Products, Huscroft Logging Co. and Crestbrook Forest Industries.

The report took two years to complete and is estimated to have cost $200,000. It outlines the 20-year harvesting plan for the Creston public sustained yield units, and I would suggest strongly that you read this report in its entirety. It was put together by professional people. The handing out of additional quotas in the Creston PSYU would not be in the best long-term interests of the community whose livelihood depends on a viable industry, nor would it be in the interests of those people whose present security is tied down to long-term employment in the industry. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, the Creston PSYU is already over committed, as reported in the Nelson Daily News going back to February 15, 1978, and January 16, 1978. I'm sure the member reads the local newspaper. In fact, I would like to know which of those locally owned companies the member for Nelson-Creston would like to take part of their quotas. Would he take it away from the Wynndel Box and Lumber Co., which is small and operated locally in Wynndel, or would he take it away from Kootenay Forest Products, who have hundreds of employees in the community of Nelson whose livelihood depends on the viability of the industry in that community?

Mr. Chairman, on one hand we're locking up large parcels of forest land for single use such as the Purcell conservancy and the Mount Assiniboine Park extension. We will be giving up productive forest lands for agriculture and mining activities in the Kootenays. There is no way we can do all of those things on increased quotas. We have the responsibility as government to secure to those people who are relying on their quotas.... They have a responsibility to their employees, and have invested heavily in the industry. As long as they're responsible users of the forest they should be allowed to maintain their quotas, and increase where possible the small quota holders such as McDonald's Ranch and Grasmere Industries.

There is a new era of cooperation between small companies and large companies operating in the Kootenays. Large companies and small companies are working together to achieve total utilization of the forest products. Just recently Kootenay Wood Preservers opened a new plant in Cranbrook employing 30 people. This was done with the help and cooperation of the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland). A lot of study was done by Kootenay Wood Preservers before they invested half a million dollars in this new operation. I would like to read to you a section from that report:

"It is our commitment to work with the established forest companies in maintaining high standards of forest utilization without infringement on the raw material requirements of the established companies. Kootenay Seed Tree, operating in Cranbrook with ten employees, has an arrangement with Crows Nest Industries to utilize their cedar shells because it's uneconomical for them to mill."

Mr. Chairman, we are seeing more and more of this type of cooperation in the industry in the East Kootenays. Big and small companies are working together to make the best use of this very important resource. We must all work together to increase the security and long-term employment of the workers of British Columbia.

Sure, it is politically expedient to stand up here and say: "Anyone who applies for a quota, let's give it to them." We could log the forests off in a few years. Then what

[ Page 769 ]

would we do? We are all in this together. We must work together — environmentalists, ranchers, farmers, sportsmen, wilderness area representatives, union leaders, government and industry. We must all make decisions that will be in the best interests of British Columbians — that will provide long-term employment for British Columbia workers — and not in the interests of a selfish few.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of brief questions to pose to the minister which relate to a problem which has arisen within my own constituency. The question relates to the issuing of burning permits. A few years ago the Forest Service up in the Parksville area issued burning permits but have since decided that they will no longer do so. The reason they've given is that because there is a local volunteer fire department in existence and because that fire department is receiving funding through the regional district of Nanaimo it is up to the local fire department to issue the burning permits as well. The Forest Service, of course, will come in and help the fire department put out any fire that gets out of control — this is on private land — but will no longer issue these burning permits.

The problem is that the local volunteer firemen must give up their time and energy, as well as incurring the costs of car upkeep and gasoline and everything else, in order to drive all over the place and inspect the various requests for burning permits on private land. They have refused to issue the burning permits. As a result, no one in the area is able to get a burning permit, and they are simply sent back and forth between the volunteer fire group and the Forest Service. There is a problem here because section 123 of the new Act provides that if a fire gets out of control then the Forest Service can charge the individuals involved in the fire getting out of control. In other words, those people who have allowed a fire to get out of control, whether it is through their fault or not, can be charged under section 123, and the costs that have incurred to the Forest Service can be placed against the individuals involved.

The fire departments have some concern about their legal standing. If they issue a permit and the fire gets out of control and the Forest Service is called in order to assist in putting that fire out, the Forest Service can then attempt to charge the costs against the individual involved. But the individual will say: "But I got a permit. I got a permit from the volunteer fire department; therefore I'm not responsible." The fire departments want to know whether they in fact would be legally responsible for such a fire getting out of control on private land.

I'm asking the minister for a legal interpretation, which he may or may not be prepared to give at this stage. But I would like to get an assurance from the minister that he will discuss this particular problem with the Attorney-General and perhaps with the Minister of Municipal Affairs in charge of regional districts to see if we can get this particular problem resolved. At the moment there seems to be no resolution, because neither the Forest Service nor the volunteer fire department involved will budge.

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

Interjection.

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

I read through the Hansard Blues on debates of this particular minister's estimates last week. Mr. Chairman. One of the remarks, among a lot of others, that bothered me was the minister's question to our critic for Forests, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King). He asked our member what the NDP had accomplished in its few years of government. After 20 years of the Socreds and 80 years prior to that of other right-wing governments, they ask what the NDP have accomplished in three short years! I thought I would just take a minute to tell you a couple of the things we have accomplished.

For example, it was our minister, under our government, who commissioned the Pearse royal commission, the report on which you based your new Forest Act. You used the parts of the Pearse royal commission that suited your own philosophical approach to forests and forestry in the province. But the fact is, you didn't utilize the recommendations of the Pearse report the way they should have been fully utilized for the best interests of the people of the province, in my view. It was your former government that was prepared to let Can-Cel and Ocean Falls go down the tube.

HON. MR, CHABOT: Nonsense!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The member for Columbia River, who is very vocal at the moment but never gets to his feet, says: "Nonsense!" I want to tell you that it was one of the former Ministers of Forests under the Social Credit government, Mr. Williston, who went and told the people in Ocean Falls that community would not close prior to an election in 1972. After the election it was revealed by the company — Crown Zellerbach at the time, who owned Ocean Falls — that they were, in fact, closing that operation. Had it not been for the New Democratic Party and our government. that operation would be down the tube. That is true, and we have correspondence to prove it.

Furthermore, Can-Cel would have shut down completely and the jobs of some 5,000 people directly and indirectly involved would have been jeopardized by the closure of that operation. Plateau Mills, Kootenay Forest Products — the list goes on and on.

You asked the question and I'm giving you some of the answer. I'll give you the whole answer if you've got the time. How much time do we have, Mr. Whip?

I wanted to get the record clear that at least 10,000 jobs, directly and indirectly, were saved by the New Democratic Party when we were the government of this province — and we will be again, by the way. We will be in power again in this province, mark my words.

Let me tell you what else was done by the process of saving these operations in British Columbia, now that we're on to the topic. What else was done? The fact is that the economy has benefited, in my view, and according to my figures — by the fact that we saved Ocean Falls, Can-Cel, Kootenay Forest Products, et cetera — by over $100 million, because our government had the vision to save these operations.

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

In view of the fact that the Rivers Inlet area, the Kimsquit area and the Chilcot Plateau area, part of the last remaining un-allocated timber resource in the province, are

[ Page 770 ]

still fully controlled by the government of the day, I would like to know if the minister has any plans for the timber resources, which could amount to some seven billion board-feet of timber in those areas, probably more. What plans has he for these uncommitted timber resources in those areas?

I would like to know as well if the minister has made arrangements or guarantees, or is in the process of making arrangements, through the Ocean Falls corporation, or the Can-Cel corporation, to the Kruger company, if they.... Kruger, as you well know, Mr. Minister, is now negotiating with the government and/or government Crown corporations for the purchase of the mill at Ocean Falls, and I would like to know if your ministry has made any commitments, or are any discussions in progress with Can-Cel, the Ocean Falls corporation and/or Kruger regarding the allocation of that resource as bait to purchase the Ocean Falls corporation?

I think this is a very serious matter, and I know that the minister must have had some input into these discussions that are now taking place with the Kruger corporation. I just want to change my tack a bit here, Mr. Minister. Rather than going into detail, I have a letter here from a Mr. R.L. Jackson of Jackson Bros. Logging, operating in theSun shine Coast area, relating to stumpages and allowable annual cuts. I'll just read a portion of this correspondence, Mr. Minister, which will be better than the remarks.

Before I quote Mr. Jackson, by the way, I should say that Mr. Jackson did send me a copy of this correspondence, which was addressed to yourself. A copy went to the Premier and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe). Mr. Jackson does say to me: "Here is a copy of the letter that I sent to the hon. minister, and here also is the blood-curdling answer. After all this time, this is what we get." Mr. Jackson says, in part, in his correspondence:

"Most of our logging activities take place at the 3,000-foot elevation plus, and in stands of decadent hemlock that contain approximately 85 percent of stumps and waste in the classification of small wood or second-hand wood. To have the incentive to harvest this type of junk by way of prorated cheaper stumpage removed is entirely illogical and economically unsound. To encourage non-integrated logging companies through various means to harvest this type of wood and then clobber them by way of prorated removal can lead to only two situations: one, lose money trying to log the rubbish; two, ultimately result in harvest and having the forest floor littered with trash.

"The annual rent for annual allowable cut, being raised by several hundred percent, is shocking and crucifying. The increase of the minimum stumpage, and the removal of the maximum stumpage being based upon average selling price, has caused our stumpage on some species to more than double. This whole question, once again, is based upon some unrealistic average that might apply, or might not apply, to our particular grade of timber. "

Mr. Jackson then goes on, Mr. Chairman, to ask the minister for a meeting. The minister would not meet with Mr. Jackson to discuss this situation. Mr. Jackson is probably in the process of going broke if something isn't done. I won't read the minister's reply. He merely says he won't meet with him; he tell him to get in contact with some local people in the local area and that, overall, the new Forest Act is great.

So, Mr. Minister, I would hope you would review your answer to Mr. Jackson, and I would like an answer on how you arrive at stumpage rates for these species of wood in that area, this garbage. I know I'll get an answer from you in due course. I'm not finished yet, though.

I have a little matter, Mr. Chairman, while I'm on my feet. I might as well get them all off my chest and then the minister can answer them all.

I wasn't going to raise this topic in the Legislature, Mr. Minister, but I think in view of the fact that the Sunshine Coast Regional District has sent a protest letter to you regarding the proposed logging in Princess Louisa Inlet, up in Jervis Inlet, I would like to ask you perhaps one question. I have a statement by Mr. C.C. Knudsen, president of MacMillan Bloedel, concerning this matter. In part he says, Mr. Minister — through you, Mr. Chairman:

"We are fully aware of the scenic value of the inlet and are willing to exchange the land we own there for timberland of equivalent value in another location. To date this has not proved possible and we are now at the point where we must proceed to harvest some of the timber in order to supply the needs of our mills."

In all fairness, I should tell you, Mr. Minister, I'm aware that the MacMillan Bloedel company has agreed to log only 600 acres of the 9,000 acres involved, and log the area in such a way as to cause the least environmental impact. I'm pleased that the company has taken the time to go over this matter with me in detail, so at least I know what's happening, or what may happen. But Mr. Knudsen says you have not met with the company on this matter, that you have no timber to exchange with him. I don't think that's quite correct. I think you must have timber somewhere on the coast you could exchange with the company, and have some environmental regard for the area.

One other point, Mr. Minister, while I'm on my feet, has to do with log-salvage regulations. I think I asked you this a couple of weeks ago and you weren't quite sure; but you said the regulations were still in the process of being drafted. I hope I'm correct in making that statement, because if the regulations have been drafted, and are not out for public exposure, I would very much like to have a copy to send to some of my constituents. So you could tell me what the state of the drafting of those regulations is.

One last brief item — but it's a major item, Mr. Minister — is in regard to reforestation. That hasn't been discussed too much under your estimates. But the fact is that in your estimates you have just a little more than $20 million for reforestation for this coming year. You'll probably underspend the budget this year, as you have in previous years, and the money will return to general revenue. Not only do I hope the full amount budgeted will be spent on reforestation, but I'm asking you now, Mr. Minister, that amount of money that's really so vital to the future of the forest industry in British Columbia be increased to $100 million a year. It should be increased to catch up with the past practices of your ministry, and catch up on reforestation in the province.

It's well known that Weyerhauser in the United States spent some $13 or $14 an acre for reforestation while here in British Columbia. Your ministry spent somewhere in the neighbourhood of 12 to 14 cents an acre for reforestation, I

[ Page 771 ]

am told. One other side benefit of all this is that if the government spent $100 million a year on reforestation, you could easily and quickly create at least 15,000 new jobs in British Columbia through that one program alone. You know that, Mr. Minister, and I would very much like to hear your answer on that particular topic.

MR. PASSARELL: I have one short question to the minister. At the present time, the minister is responsible for the supervision of the road between Greenville and New Aiyansh on which Can-Cel operates. The problem is related to the school bus that travels the road from Greenville to New Aiyansh, approximately 38 miles a day when school is in session. The community is upset. They tried to work out some type of an agreement with Twin River so that the school bus would not have any further problems going to school in the morning. It seems that the logging trucks are driving the school bus off the road.

Would the minister look into this situation and see that the safety of the children going to school on this forestry road in the morning is protected.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'll take the questions I got in reverse order. To the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell), I will be very happy to look into the matter of school bus safety. It's the first time the matter has been brought to my attention and it causes me some concern.

To the member for Mackenzie, salvage regulations have not yet been finalized. He's aware of the amendment in the Forest Amendment Act which gives us the right to make salvage regulations. Originally we had planned on having the terms of salvage permits within the licensed document itself. We have simply found it much better to have them front and centre in the form of regulations, and by all means, as soon as they're published, they will be available to that member and, for that matter, to anyone who wishes them.

The problem with Jackson Brothers, I guess, refers to the end of the so-called 55-cent wood. As you know, for a period of 15 years we had an incentive to encourage utilization of this third-band wood, and it was set at 55 cents. At the time it was established it was due to expire as of January 1 of this year. The purpose of the 55-cent incentive had been accomplished and it was just allowed to revert to normal stumpage. There was nothing particular about Mr. Jackson or Jackson Brothers. The same applies to the entire industry.

The member asked about the mid-coast timber supply, referring to Ocean Falls and possible involvement with Kruger corporation and others. They have been discussing this with principals of Ocean Falls corporation and I believe with the Minister of Economic Development as well. We have accelerated or changed our priorities on timber supply area analysis. We're zeroing in on that area right now, trying to find what wood can be freed up. It's not all on allocated wood. There are a number of OTTs in there, as the member knows. There are other timber allocations.

This is a part of our ongoing program of examining the level of utilization of timber which may be licensed in one form or another to see what can be made available together with the unallocated timber. I wouldn't be surprised that once we get our numbers together...if we don't go to a bid proposal, either for forest licences or for pulpwood harvesting agreements or for tree-farm licence. We need to encourage someone to come in and use that wood and hopefully direct it toward the Ocean Falls community, because they've never had a timber allocation of their own. We are examining very closely the whole mid-coast area for timber that could be freed up. As soon as that's done, we'I be looking at ways of getting it into the stream, hopefully to be used in the Ocean Falls area.

Yes, Mr. Member, I am very pleased you pointed out the accomplishments of your government. I will agree that you did appoint a royal commissioner to study the forest industry of British Columbia. That study was taken by our government and turned into the best forest legislation of anywhere in the world.

To the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), who is not here at the present time, we are having discussions with many regional districts and municipalities insofar as the authority and responsibility for fire-burning permits is concerned. We have no intention of charging anyone on private land for the cost of fighting forest fires, providing they do make reasonable effort to put out a fire they may have started. This was the subject of a press release by me a few weeks ago.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I think the minister must have forgotten my question about Princess Louisa Inlet. Before you get to your feet, Mr. Minister, I have another question. I find it difficult to believe that the Kruger corporation would have ongoing negotiations with the government and/or Crown representatives to the Crown corporations and various ministries, without some assurance that there would be a timber supply available and that they could purchase Ocean Falls corporation and its assets. I find it very difficult to believe that your ministry does not have any input into that particular situation.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I didn't say that we didn't have any input. I will say — and I've said it many times since my estimates began — that I have no way of making a direct timber allocation to anyone, nor would I. If the Kruger corporation does make an offer on Ocean Falls, I'm sure their offer would have to be contingent upon them getting a supply of wood. They would have to obtain their wood supply through the same means available to anyone else — either through PHA agreements for which public hearings are required, new TFLs for which public hearings are required or forest licences on which competitive bidding is required. Yes, we are examining the timber supply for that area.

You say that I have not met with MacMillan Bloedel over the matter of Princess Louisa Inlet. As a matter of fact, I and my colleague, the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot), visited Princess Louisa Inlet in company with their chief forester and other members of their company. We discussed what their plans were. They have plans for harvesting about 600 acres out of a total 900 acres of privately owned forest land. I'm sure the member has spoken to Fred Moonen and has seen the photographs he has showing what part will be visible from the inlet itself. I've asked them if they could reduce even that visibility, and they're looking at that.

We have met with the people at Malibu Falls. They are quite pleased with the response that they have received and the very minimal impact that may be made because of the harvesting there — and I would point out that nothing will

[ Page 772 ]

be visible from the Chatterbox Falls end of the inlet at all. It's an ongoing study. Quite frankly, I've told MacMillan Bloedel that at this time I do not know whether or not I could ever find wood to trade or areas to trade for them. We have many alienations taking place, as you know. The Tsitika-Schoen area required trade-offs; the Pacific Rim Park requires trade-offs. If this and many other areas require trade-offs, then our timber supply situation will, of course, continue to tighten. So I'm a proponent of sensitive multi-use of the forest resource together with other resource users, and that is always the way I will have to approach it.

Management of the forest land there, because it has tree-farm taxation classification, requires the approval of the Ministry of Forests only insofar as compatibility with the sustained-yield concept is concerned — other than that, it's out of my hands.

MR. HOWARD: I wonder if I could ask the minister a very brief question relating to privately held forest land, looking initially at the Canadian National right-of-way on the extension into Prince Rupert. Have any changes been made recently — last winter or spring — in the royalty payments for timber cut from that particular privately held forest land? If so, what were they?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Royalties from privately owned timberland were eliminated. That was part of the total economic package put together in devising the new Forest Act. Royalties on private forest land were a very minimal figure anyway. The amounts received were not sufficient to pay for the cost of collection.

MR. HOWARD: Do I understand you to say that all of the royalties which previously applied to timber cut from privately held forest land have been eliminated?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: That is so under the new Forest Act.

MR. HOWARD: Pacific Logging Company also has a large block of privately held forest land. Were the royalties eliminated on timber cut from that land as well?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Pacific Logging didn't pay royalties; but if they had, they would have been removed.

In conjunction with that, there's a change in the way of taxing private forest land, which will in future be based — as we spelled out to you last year in the Forest Act — upon productivity rather than the value of standing timber. Taxing on the value of standing timber discouraged good forestry. So those changes are underway.

Vote 117 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 23

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Vote 118: ministry administration, $1,891,613 — approved.

Vote 119: Support Services Program, $4,756,140 — approved.

Vote 120: forestry, $49,223,041 — approved.

Vote 121: Timber and Range Management Program, $38,961,722 — approved.

Vote 122: Field Operations Program, $19,553,036 — approved.

Vote 123: reservoir clearing, $10 — approved.

Vote 124: implementation of new legislation, $5,000,000 — approved.

Vote 125: Intensified Forestry Program, $5,000,000 — approved.

Vote 126: building occupancy charges, $3,899,000 — approved.

Vote 127: computer and consulting charges, $2,405,069 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on Bill 22, Mr. Speaker.

I adjourned the debate, and I defer.

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1979
(continued)

HON. MR. WATERLAND: As I mentioned in opening second reading, this Act is a series of rather unrelated amendments. There was some debate on it when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) came back from his trip. Obviously he suffered from jet lag and took off in high flight here.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

[ Page 773 ]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 22 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 22, Forest Amendment Act, 1979, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

The House in committee on Bill 22; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections I to 18 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 22, Forest Amendment Act, 1979, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 18, Mr. Speaker.

EDUCATION STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

Bill 18 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 16, Mr. Speaker.

LAND AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

The House in committee on Bill 16; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

On section 5.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 5 as amended approved.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

On section 8.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 8 as amended approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 16, Land Amendment Act, 1979, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 17, Mr. Speaker.

MINISTRY OF LANDS,
PARKS AND HOUSING ACT

The House in committee on Bill 17; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. LORIMER: Mr. Chairman, I just want to mention what has been said during second reading — this is an odds-and-sods collection of different functions that they didn't know what else to do with and they put them in one envelope here. It is my opinion that the question of housing is not related in any way to the Ministry of Lands or the Ministry of Parks.

It would seem to me that although the government has done virtually nothing on the housing program, housing requires further time than merely to be put on as an adjunct to the Lands ministry. I would, certainly hope that the minister would reconsider this and create for himself another Ministry of Housing, so that the Ministry of Housing could have the length of time required to make sure that proper housing is available to all the people of this province.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I just want to thank the member for the advice. I'I pass on your information to the boss man.

MR. LORIMER: Well, I'm glad of that, Mr. Minister. Maybe he'll listen to you, but I doubt it.

Sections 2 to 13 inclusive approved.

On section 14.

MR. NICOLSON: I would ask the minister if he is taking unto himself the sweeping and broad powers contained in the Better Housing Act in the statutes of British Columbia.

[ Page 774 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, the member is well aware, I'm sure, that the Housing Act has been repealed.

MR. NICOLSON: I'm not referring to the Housing Act; I'm referring to the Better Housing Act. It's filed under "B" in Book 1 of the statutes. I was wondering if the minister was not perhaps going to either repeal that or make it clear that he will be able to implement the powers of the Better Housing Act.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I think if the member were to checked the statutes, he'd see that Act was repealed.

MR. NICOLSON: No, never.

Section 14 approved.

Schedule approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 21

Mr. Lorimer requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 17, Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 25, Mr. Speaker.

MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS ACT

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The Ministry of Municipal Affairs Act is largely a housekeeping bill, the necessity for which arose as a result of the reorganization of the ministries and the creation of Lands, Parks and Housing. Because the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Act was repealed by the new Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Act, it became necessary to introduce a bill providing for the ministry reporting to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly, for the deputy minister and employees, and for the authority to retain consultants. I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARBER: It's a bit difficult to understand on this side of the House why the provisions of the Government Reorganization Act have not been consistently applied both to the bill just passed and to the one in front of us now. When that bill came in, which was one of the first legislative initiatives of the government in 1976, we were told at that time that it would allow the government at its own initiative, without recourse to the Legislature, to engage in such reorganization of ministries and agencies as would be required from time to time. We were told as well that such a bill would allow more streamlined and more efficient operations. Today we see in Bill 25 the failure of that promise.

We see, to the contrary, that what the government told us the Government Reorganization Act of 1976 would do, it appears it could not do. Were it not so, Bill 25 wouldn't be at hand.

Among the first questions that I raise about the necessity of this bill is whether or not the minister believes that the Government Reorganization Act itself is competent. If it is, we don't need this bill here today. If the Government Reorganization Act has the authority that it was alleged to have been given, when forced through this Legislature as one of the first steps of the coalition in 1976, then this bill shouldn't be presented here of necessity today.

There are some other problems with this bill which are of concern to us as well. It has been noted in debate previously but I would like to restate it. It is a mistake, in our judgment, to separate and dissociate housing from municipal affairs. I quote no higher authority than the current Provincial Secretary. The learned man told us in 1977, anticipating in 1976 as well, that "the chief justification for combining municipal affairs and housing was streamlined organization, competent organization, efficient organization." I quote no less learned a gentleman than the current Provincial Secretary who, when justifying the amalgam of housing and municipal affairs in those days, provided the opposition today with all the arguments we need to vote against this bill.

Now if the Provincial Secretary wasn't telling the truth then, so be it. If, in fact, it wasn't more efficient, wasn't more efficacious, wasn't better streamlined — if he was wrong, simply incorrect, his judgment was faulty — then perhaps he could stand up and admit it today. If that is not the case, then perhaps this bill is faulty today and the current minister sponsoring it might want to admit that. They can't have it both ways, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 775 ]

The government can't tell us in 1976 and '77 how important and necessary it is to amalgamate housing and municipal affairs and then pretend in 1979 that we forgot all about it and wouldn't remember what they used to say. Thank God for Hansard. Blessings, Hansard, because we remember what they used to say.

The real reason for this bill is to diminish the political authority of the minister who sponsored it. That's the only reason. It is a means for the Premier to give a signal to the current Minister of Municipal Affairs that his authority in cabinet is being diminished, that his standing in his own party is being undermined and that such chances as he has to become Premier are, to say the least. shadowy and dim.

Were it not so, the bill wouldn't be here, because, as the minister points out, the bill achieves precisely nothing, save to contradict the government's own bill of four years ago. Were it not so, the Government Reorganization Act could itself have provided for every step that this bill would provide. So if you can't find justification for this legislation in the ordinary statute of British Columbia, sufficient authority already existing in another bill, then you have to look in another place for the reason behind it.

Well, we look in the place of the minister opposite. We know who's been told to shut up by the Premier. We know who now, quietly as a church mouse — door mouse, perhaps he'd prefer — is saying and doing precisely nothing in order to try and repair the rather shaky relationship he has with the Premier, the man who may or may not anoint him as Premier-to-be.

There is, other than that, Mr. Speaker, no justification for this bill. It has all of four sections. It provides no new initiative. It provides only the new information that the Minister of Municipal Affairs is falling in the political horizons of Social Credit. The once-risen star is now falling. How else can you look at it? The purpose of this bill is to undermine and undercut the authority of the man who sponsors it. It has no other purpose.

The reason he doesn't have Housing is presumably because the good advice of the Provincial Secretary has been ignored in favour of the better political advice of the Premier who worries about the bill's sponsor. There is nothing else in here that would justify it. There are some things that should be in here. We continue to argue, as did the Provincial Secretary once upon a time, that combining housing and municipal affairs is an appropriate instrument for guaranteeing that the housing requirements of the people of British Columbia are well understood by municipal government. It's an appropriate means of guaranteeing that such problems with red tape, with duplication, with overlap, with poorly drafted bylaws and all of the other things that sometimes stand in the way of good, affordable housing for the people of British Columbia can be dealt with on the spot. Separating housing from municipal affairs removes the problem of housing from that spot and diminishes thereby to some considerable extent the authority of the Minister of Municipal Affairs to act on behalf of and in the quick instance of good, affordable housing in British Columbia. Were it not so, the Provincial Secretary wouldn't have told us so three years ago. Were it not so, he wouldn't have made those arguments then. He made them then. We make them now. They were sound then; they are sound now.

The importance of combining the two portfolios is to allow the ministry in a powerful and vigorous way, with all of the authority at its command in statute and in practice, to persuade local government that housing is very, very important. Among the ways it so persuades local government can be found in the way in which Municipal Affairs approves such bylaws as may be passed from time to time at the levels of local government concerning housing within the jurisdiction of local governments across the province. Governments can, if they wish, delay the passage of those bylaws and their approval through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. They can, if they wish, expedite them in the name of good, affordable housing.

The only way they can do that in a competent and effective fashion is when the two ministries, for all practical purposes, are one, when the direction comes from under one roof, when the language comes from one tongue, when the political sensibility comes from one office. It made good sense then. It makes no sense now to divorce housing from municipal affairs.

There is another problem with this bill. It is the failure of this bill to recognize the importance of transit in British Columbia. If ever authority were to be added, it should be added in such a fashion as to present today a bill called the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Transit Act. Let me illustrate why, Mr. Speaker. I see you furrowing your brow.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs — formerly through the Bureau of Transit and now through the Urban Transit Authority — is responsible, corporately, for fashioning and developing, for funding and providing good mass transit in British Columbia. Part of the importance of the role of the ministry in this — as we see in this bill — is to provide the necessary clout and political leadership so that local governments accept their responsibility for assisting in the planning and the better coordination of mass transit.

How does a government achieve this? Well.,It can achieve this by setting certain political goals. Those goals could be stated in a bill like this; those goals could indicate the priority given by a government to the importance of transit in British Columbia; those goals could include naming a Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Transit to be chiefly responsible for the funding, the coordination, the planning and the execution of a good transit policy in British Columbia. But what do we find instead in this bill, Mr. Speaker? We find once again the authority of this particular minister — who is in trouble with that particular Premier — undermined.

He is, for all practical purposes, the Minister of Transit. Does it say so in this bill? No, of course it does not. There can be only three reasons for that: one is dumb oversight — we presume it's not an oversight; second, it's to undermine the stature of this minister in the body politic of British Columbia; third, if that's not the reason. It could be that this government simply doesn't give to transit the authority, the attention and the respect that it should. Where the government has here an opportunity to elevate transit to the status of a portfolio, to the discipline of a portfolio, to allow the public, if you will, to hold debate around transit that should take place through a ministry responsible for it.... The government has omitted, instead, to take that opportunity. In our judgment a Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Transit is an appropriate statement in title, and an appropriate means in practice, to elevate to the stature it should have the whole focus of public attention on transit in British Columbia. This bill is defective to the extent that it does not. It makes no mention of transit whatever.

[ Page 776 ]

I'm well aware the minister will say: "Well, we have another bill for that; it's called the Urban Transit Authority." There are other bills as well, passed by previous governments, which are still on the books and still give this minister authority to act in the field of transit. But to the extent that the title of a minister is symbolic of that ministry's authority, his duties and his policies, so too, all the more appropriately, would be a Minister of Municipal Affairs and Transit — a place to command the attention, to push the debate and achieve the results in the field of transit. Let me repeat, there are only three reasons one can logically deduce why the word "transit" appears nowhere in the minister's title or in the ministerial organization as we see it. First, it was a mistake — they forgot, or were asleep, assuming that's not likely. Second, the Premier chooses deliberately to understate the political standing of his colleague. Or, third, they just don't think transit is all that important. Well, we think it is important. We think it's highly important. We think it, in fact, is the significant new debate, or going to be the significant new debate, in British Columbia in the 1980s when petroleum products hit $20 and $30 a barrel, as they will very shortly; when gasoline hits $3 a gallon, as it will by the mid-1980s.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Gasoline will be $3 a gallon by the mid-1980s in British Columbia — you watch. When those predictions come to pass, as inevitably they shall, the importance of having in place by that time a competent transit policy shall be all the greater. One of the ways this Legislature has of determining that policy is through a Ministry of Municipal Affairs and — only where it is so — a Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Transit. But it's not here today, and one of the reasons why this province may be so grossly unprepared for the absolute necessity of comprehensive public transit in the mid-eighties, is because today — at this opportunity, and on other days at other opportunities — this government chose not to be responsible for transit. They chose not to elevate it to the status required, to elevate its minister to the status required, to establish in its ministry the status required to inform the public of British Columbia in every step of the way about the simple importance of a competent transit policy. Were it not so, it would today be titled the Ministry of Municipal and Transit Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, perhaps I should remind you that to create the grounds for a debate on what a bill does not say is hardly permissible in this House. I know it is acceptable to have a passing remark, or use it in comparisons. However, to debate the bill on that premise would not be acceptable. I trust the member is soon coming to a conclusion on that particular area.

MR. BARBER: I certainly am, Mr. Speaker. I am principally arguing the defects, the imperfections and the flaws of the bill in front of us — which I know is always in good order, if not good taste. What I am trying as well to argue is that it would be easier to support this bill were it to contain, as one of its component parts, that fundamental commitment to transit. Having made the point, I will continue with some other matters.

The bill tells us, if I may refer briefly to section 4, that the purposes and functions of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, under the direction of the minister, are to be the medium of communication between the municipalities and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and to perform other duties and functions the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may give to it. That is a fairly pale and pallid way of stating a much larger case. I would like to state that now.

In our judgment, insufficient opportunities exist for direct, personal and effective communications between the representatives of local government and the representatives of the provincial. The Union of B.C. Municipalities is, of course, composed to provide, in a corporate way, representation by majority vote of the opinion of its members. It is appropriate to do that, but there is nowhere within this statute any recognition of the pre-eminent authority and role of the Union of B.C. Municipalities to do just that.

Some might argue, Mr. Speaker, that it would be appropriate to recognize in this bill the standing and the status and the role of the Union of B.C. Municipalities. Some might argue that what would be appropriate, when talking about the kind of communications that should take place between local government and its minister in British Columbia, would be some specific and specifically named means of making sure that communication happens. Once again, among the several defects in the bill we find that it makes no such reference, contains no such provision, and offers no such means to the UBCM of representing its own case before the ministry. The usual fashion, in fact, has been that communication here, referred to in section 4, is entirely one-sided. The minister shows up every September at the UBCM convention. He announces a goodie or two — three or four if it's an election year. Some people dutifully applaud; others are dutifully cynical and sceptical. Occasionally they've even been heard to question the bounty of the minister who shows up and offers the good deeds. And that's it.

In an obligatory, statute-bound way there is no other commitment to meet on neutral ground with representatives of local government in British Columbia. It is a very important problem for those guys. They want to be heard. They would prefer to be respected. They would prefer to deal with this government as co-equals in the field of democratic local government in British Columbia. They would prefer to do that. But no such provision is found here. No such commitment is made by the government. No such means are provided in Bill 25 or any other place. It is an important condition of good public debate, around the nature and future of local government, that such opportunities be made available. Well, they're not.

I proposed some time ago that this government be willing to establish a royal commission on local government. The purpose of the royal commission would be to establish the whole body of guidelines for future planning of local government and local authority in British Columbia. When the minister is talking about county government and chooses as his only examples American examples, we think it is possible that the ministry hasn't done its homework properly. There are, in fact, Canadian examples, although he has never yet referred to them. When the minister talks about the failure of regional government to do its job properly, and has not, in fact, in any fair-minded or honest way consulted with local government about those problems but simply stood up, before he was clammed up by the

[ Page 777 ]

Premier some weeks ago, and denounced them, the inevitable response of regional government is to say: "Hold on, you haven't given us a fair shake. Hold on, you haven't heard our side of the case. Hold on, you haven't allowed us to make our arguments in the same vigorous and vivid way that you've made your own. That's not fair."

The reason it's not fair is because they are overwhelmed, at least in the sense that the media pay attention to these things, by one minister's criticisms of 30 agencies in British Columbia. It's not fair. Once more we find in this bill a total lack of imagination, wit and insight into the development of new forms of communicating with local government, into the development of new policies as they relate to local government, into the development of some new means of making local government — in every human way — more sensitive to local and neighbourhood interests in the cities and towns of British Columbia.

Why does this bill appear to us questionable? It is questionable precisely because it doesn't raise those matters, doesn't deal with them in any genuinely thoughtful or imaginative way. To the contrary, it is a rehash of dull old arrangements, put forward in dull old language, representing dull old thinking.

AN HON. MEMBER: Put it in poetry.

MR. BARBER: If you could read it I might do so, but I know you can't, so I won't waste my time.

The bills fails, by want of imagination, to address in a new way the new problems of organization of local government in British Columbia. It fails, significantly, to pay any respect whatever to the debate and the device of transit in British Columbia. It fails to incorporate all of the interests of those who want good, affordable housing for the people of British Columbia. It fails for all those reasons.

I can only presume the reason such an ordinary, dull-witted and dull-minded bill would come forward is to be found in some political rather than policy object. The programmatic objects of this bill can be met by other bills; the Government Reorganization Act already provides for that. If there is no new policy object to be met here and if it's only a matter of housekeeping, then I say throw out the housekeeper, because he demonstrates no imagination, no vigour of intellect and no discipline of intellect in this means of dealing with the future problems of local government in British Columbia. It's a shame. This bill could do a lot more. It does nothing but maintain the boring, inappropriate and ineffective status quo in British Columbia. That's a shame too. Such a bill shouldn't come forward.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I move second reading of Bill 25, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 25 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 25, Ministry of Municipal Affairs Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS ACT

The House in committee on Bill 25; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. BARBER: Section 2(3) reads: "The minister may establish branches or divisions of the ministry he considers advisable." Could the minister tell us whether or not he has given consideration to any reorganization of the current agencies in his ministry and, if so, what form that reorganization might take?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: There is no intent to reorganize.

MR. BARBER: I've repeatedly received complaints from people with whom I consult in local government about the relative slowness of the bylaw approval procedure. In years past I've raised this question with the former Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis), and I propose to raise it again this year. The question was: does Municipal Affairs have too few staff to do the job it is supposed to do as speedily as it should do it? Your predecessor agreed — "Yes."

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No.

MR. BARBER: Don't shake your head. He agreed — "Yes." I'll show you what he said in Hansard.

Per capita, it is one of the smallest Municipal Affairs ministries in all of Canada. Presumably that's to save money — an admirable objective if the overall objective weren't undermined by the lack of staff.

The former Minister of Municipal Affairs agreed on several occasions that the ministry was understaffed. That continues to be a problem for local government. It continues to be a problem for all of those first-rate public servants who are trying to work under impossible conditions.

Would the minister be willing to consider such reorganization of staff and such addition to their numbers as may be required in order that local government can get from the ministry the services it needs when it needs them? At the moment the complaints are numerous. They are too numerous to be caused by anything other than a lack of the most effective organization that could be put into place and by a lack of the numbers required to do the job. The minister was previously unwilling to consider it. Would he now consider the advice of his predecessor, who freely admitted the ministry was understaffed in comparison to other ministries across the country' The understaffing problem continues to this day. I'll raise it again it estimates, but it can be raised now. Will the minister consider such reorganization and increase in the numbers of staff required in order to meet the burdens it has and its obligations under this section to deal quickly and effectively with the requests of local government for not just bylaw approval — although that's certainly a large part of it — but for many other aspects of the ministry's duties as well'? I don't think simply saying "no'' is really a very good answer. There's a problem there; you should know it. If you talk to your

[ Page 778 ]

predecessor, he'll certainly tell you — although I'm sure Mr. Long would tell you the very same thing I'm telling you now. Will you confront the problem?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We have no problems in the ministry. We have adequate staff. I do not intend to create a growing bureaucracy. I would advise the Legislative Assembly that municipalities in British Columbia are the best and the most satisfied and the healthiest anywhere in Canada.

MR. BARBER: That's a typically ridiculous and insupportable boast, contradicted by what local governments themselves say about the speed — or lack of it — with which this ministry responds to their problems.

Dealing with section 2, which gives the minister authority to reorganize, are you willing to ask the deputy minister to propose within, say, three months' time such new organization as may be required to do what the minister's boast will not persuade us is currently being done — that is to deal more quickly and more effectively with the requirements of local government? If you yourself, from your present experience — weeks old as it is — don't think there is a problem, would you be prepared to ask your deputy minister to indicate, he having been there and being much respected in his field, or to at least consider and give to you — maybe even give to us; maybe we could help here on the floor — a plan for such reorganization, if you don't want to increase the staff, as would increase the efficiency?

I know personally and respect highly a great many members of the ministry. I know them, and I know them to be people who work very, very hard. They work with discipline, they work with conscience and they work with dispatch. They do all of those things under difficult circumstances.

It now appears that one of the difficult circumstances is the hopelessly unrealistic and naive attitude of the minister, who would stand up and tell us: "It's the best in Canada. We've got no problems here in British Columbia." That's laughable nonsense. It's childish, laughable nonsense to parade such a boast across this floor and pretend that deals in a mature way with the problems of local government in British Columbia.

Will you consider asking your deputy to prepare for you a new organization and a new means within Municipal Affairs of doing a job which, if you'll only consult your predecessor, it is widely agreed around local government in British Columbia is not being done anywhere near as well or effectively as it could be? Ludicrous comparisons to other provinces, pro or con, in any case, don't solve our problem here in British Columbia. The problem for local government is that they want more effective and more speedy action on all of those matters they bring to the ministry. Further, the problem is that they're not getting it now. If you won't increase the staff, will you at least rearrange the organization so that it can be dealt with more effectively?

MR. LEVI: Could I just ask the minister which Act he proposes to operate his department under — the present one, the one that's in existence now, or the one that we're dealing with now? I don't see a repeal section in this bill. Isn't it necessary to have a repeal section 1n the bill? Perhaps the minister would like to comment.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned at the outset, the Act was repealed when the split took place between Municipal Affairs and Housing. When that split occurred, and the new Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing was established, the need for our bill arose.

MR. LEVI: Perhaps the minister could tell us what Act he was operating under since the time Housing and Parks were split. Presumably there was an Act. If there was, something has to be repealed; otherwise you're going to have two Acts here.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, in answer to that, the Government Reorganization Act provides that a ministry might be established by order-in-council. However, it was felt, and rightly so, that it certainly should be brought forth in a bill so that it's a matter of public record as to what the functions of the various ministries are.

MR. LEVI: That's great. We're right back to square one. As I understand it, if we pass this bill we're going to have two municipal Acts. Which one are you going to govern under?

Mr. Minister, I think that there's been a slip-up here. They haven't put in a repeal section. They've got to repeal one Act, under which you're operating now, in order for this Act to take force and effect. I would suggest that you might want to just hold it for a day to check with your counsel. There is a problem here, I think.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I would refer the member to Bill 17, the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Act, on page 4, under "repeals," section 11.

MR. LEVI: Perhaps the minister could read it, and then we'll know what you're talking about.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: "The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Act, the Housing Act, and the Ministry of Recreation and Conservation Act are repealed."

MR. BARBER: We've had an in advertent admission from the minister. Quite by accident, I'm sure, he has admitted that the purpose of this bill and the authority it requires are already found in another bill. The minister just admitted that the whole purpose of this bill is political. He agreed that by order-in-council under the Government Reorganization Act, every provision in this bill could have become law. The minister said so himself. Why then is this bill before us today, when the minister himself...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are discussing section 2 of the bill, not why the bill is before us. I would ask you please to be specific to section 2.

MR. BARBER: section 2(l) says: "There shall be a ministry of the public service of the province called the Ministry of Municipal Affairs." I am referring specifically to that section. I'm arguing again, Mr. Chairman, in debate on that section that the whole purpose in this section, and presumably in the whole bill, although I am only debating this section, is political. The policy and the program objects

[ Page 779 ]

of this bill and this section can be achieved, as the minister himself admitted three minutes ago, under the provisions of the Government Reorganization Act. So why is this section here? Can we state the obvious again? It's a way to undermine and undercut the political authority of the current office-holder, the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The bill could already be provided for elsewhere. Provisions are found elsewhere. The only purpose is political. It's the Premier's way of getting at the minister. I would appreciate the minister's comments in self-defence.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. LORIMER: Mr. Chairman, in subsection (1), you refer to your deputy minister. I was wondering whether you were going to change your structure in your ministry by, whether you were going to appoint or reappoint associate deputies and so on, and how you intended to restructure the Ministry of Municipal Affairs now that there is no housing involved and also possibly no transit involved.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, we do not have associate deputies. We do, however, have assistant deputies in this particular ministry. We have two assistant deputy ministers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 3 pass?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So ordered.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Section 3 has already been passed.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave then.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Agreed.

On section 3.

MR. BARBER: In section 3, entitled "Deputy and employees," it says in subsection (3): "The minister may, notwithstanding Public Service Act but subject to the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, engage and retain persons he considers necessary as consultants, experts or specialists, and may fix their remuneration." I would like to ask whether or not such persons are currently engaged as specialists, et al, by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No.

MR. BARBER: Does the minister contemplate hiring a specialist to examine his monorail proposal?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Who knows'? It sounds exciting. Perhaps.

MR. BARBER: Well, if the minister doesn't know, I suppose no one does. But he said in the paper — if I misread, I apologize — that in fact he had asked his own ministry to study the matter. I can't find anyone in the ministry who knows anything about transit. To the contrary, they're all working for the UTA now. The UTA is not part of the ministry. Who has he asked? Who in the ministry knows anything about transit? If you haven't hired a consultant under here, do you intend to? If so, when and who will it be?

HON, MR. VANDER ZALM: Hopefully, Mr. Chairman. But unless it's necessary, I can assure you we don't intend to hire them unnecessarily.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, I noted how very careful the Chairman was over the sections of the bill, and we had to have leave and so on. I would ask whether the Chairman might also take a further look at the way he is identifying the members. I have been listening to "Burnaby-Willingdon, " "First Victoria, " et cetera, et cetera. As I recall, it s normal to identify "the member from," not "First Victoria" or "Burnaby-Willingdon" or whatever. Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring this to your attention.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry. Your point is well taken, hon. member.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister a question somewhat supplementary to the one that was asked by the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber). In looking at this monorail proposal, which is a fascinating and interesting one, I am wondering whether the minister has any cost studies in terms of converting that median on both the 401 and the Deas Island freeway to the United States into a fast bus-lane.

After all, the rolling stock is already there. The cost of doing that, it seems to me, is not incredible. Instead of going for these million-dollar proposals with monorails, I want to ask the minister whether he has in fact embarked on studies to see whether we couldn't just convert that middle lane down both those freeways and get some action in terms of commuter traffic.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, with all due respect, that is not at all relevant to the section that we are discussing, by any stretch of the imagination.

MR. LEGGATT: On a point of order, in terms of relevancy, you've already accepted the questions from the first member for Victoria on this particular section dealing with the question of the monorail.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Only with some difficulty, hon. member.

MR. LEGGATT: Well, I'm just wondering, with leave, if the minister may wish to provide us with an answer on that, because he seems interested in the subject. I just wonder, with leave, if he may wish to comment on it.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I can hardly wait for my estimates.

[ Page 780 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: It would be a much more appropriate position for a debate.

MR. LEVI: The minister said he can hardly wait for his estimates. Now maybe he might tell us if he is going to be responsible for transit within this bill. Could he tell us that? Would he like to share that with us? Is he going to be responsible for that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, again I must say there is no relevance to that particular question and the bill presently before us, section by section. I must ask you to return specifically to the sections we are discussing, to be strictly relevant to the section. That, with all due respect, hon. member, is not within those confines.

MR. LEVI: We really don't know, Mr. Chairman, what really is within the confines because in one section they talk about: "...may establish branches or divisions...."

Let me put it another way. Will one of the branches or divisions that you are going to establish deal with transit? Now that's in the section, Mr. Chairman. Can the minister tell us whether one of the divisions or branches of his ministry will deal with transit? That's a fair question, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Not directly.

MR. LEVI: What does he mean, "not directly"?

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Twenty questions, yes. Well, we're up to 16.

Would the minister mind being frank, Mr. Chairman and tell us if is he going to be dealing with transit?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, I could explain to the member that certainly every division of the ministry will work in some way with transit, no doubt. But there is not a direct branch, as you suggest, responsible for transportation.

MR. LORIMER: On the previous question you answered you said that you had two assistant deputies. I presume one is in finance. Is the other in administration, or is there one in transit?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: One is in finance and one is in administration.

MR. BARBER: I'd like, if I may, to refer again to the possibility of creating, under section 3(3), a royal commission on local government. This section — and I want to make sure I understand it properly — is the one that would empower the minister to establish such royal commission. In debate on that section, one thing to ascertain is that he indeed has ministerial authority to do it. I'd like as well to put the case why he should, in order that we can decide for ourselves whether this is a section that could be supported.

The best support we could offer is by proposing a royal commission that looks at the way in which local government finances, composes and governs itself.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, again I must bring to your attention the fact that this is not really relevant to section 3(3), and it would possibly be much more relevant during the estimates of the minister. I think if you just consider that for a moment you will really have to agree with it. We must stay strictly to the section before us.

MR. BARBER: Sure, that's fair, and I respect that. What I am trying to determine here is whether a royal commission, such as I would briefly outline it, could be composed as the result of the authority which we are currently debating under section 3(3).

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's not relevant in this section, hon. member.

MR. BARBER: Have you read it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, hon. member. It is not relevant in this section.

MR. BARBER: I think it is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, hon. member, I rule that it is not.

MR. BARBER: I challenge your ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has been challenged.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, during debate the first member for Victoria challenged the Chair's ruling that the section under debate was not being discussed in a manner relevant to that section.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained?

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 23

[ Page 781 ]

MR. BARBER: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It is a little unusual to stop, on a point of order, in the middle of a vote.

MR. BARBER: On the division — in order that the vote not be recorded improperly — I distinctly heard the name "Davidson" read out. Mr. Davidson was acting as Chairman at the time the dispute occurred. Could the Speaker inform the House whether or not it is permissible for the person whose ruling was challenged to vote? Is that the practice?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member know of any standing order that it offends?

MR. BARBER: I'm asking a question.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS ACT

The House in committee on Bill 25; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

On section 3.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, could the minister inform the committee for what purposes, if any, he would hire a consultant, an expert or a specialist under the authority being granted here in section 3(3)?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: As few as possible, I assure you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BARBER: The bill would go through a lot more quickly if the minister were more forthcoming. Can you anticipate, and if so can you tell the committee, for what purposes if any you would engage a consultant? I know the minister is notorious for wanting to cut and hack at every aspect of public expenditure. He's made his reputation, such as it is, on that principle.

What I'm asking now is: given the authority, apparently about to be granted, for what purpose — if any — would a consultant, an expert or a specialist be hired? If there are no purposes, why is the section here?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't know of any particular purposes at this time, Mr. Chairman. And certainly I don't go about dreaming up reasons as to why we might hire a consultant. We will not hire consultants unless there is the need, and I don't know of any area now where the need may arise. When it does, then certainly the provisions are there.

MR. BARBER: It leads to an obvious question, Mr. Chairman. If even in that minister's wildest moments of imagining he can't think of any good reason to hire a consultant, an expert or a specialist, why does he want the power to hire a consultant, an expert or a specialist'

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you know if it was in the bill?

MR. BARBER: "Do you know if it was in the bill?" If you can't imagine a single good purpose to which you're going to put a consultant, an expert or a specialist, why do you want permission to hire them in the first place? If you've got no good reason, why is this section 1n the bill?

MR. LEVI: We've got a real problem here with this section 3. Can the minister perhaps tell us whether section 3 envision the appointment of an inspector of municipalities?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Under the Municipal Act the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council appoints inspectors of municipalities.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: 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 25, Ministry of Municipal Affairs Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Second reading of Bill 26, Mr. Speaker.

METRO TRANSIT
OPERATING COMPANY ACT

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, the Metro Transit Operating Company Act creates a corporation with the purpose of taking over the operation of transit services from the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority in greater Vancouver and greater Victoria, where they presently operate.

The Act provides for the transfer of employees, guaranteeing all their existing rights, so that they will not be prejudiced by moving to the new Crown corporation. In every way we are committed to fair, reasonable treatment of these employees. For example, in addition to guaranteeing rights under the existing collective agreements, the Act provides for the transfer of pension rights from B.C. Hydro to the new Crown corporation. In fact, retired Hydro transit employees will receive any additional costs of increases in their indexed pensions from the new operating company rather than from B.C. Hydro. Employees are further given seniority rights to apply for any job vacancies in Hydro within one year of transfer.

The Act pen-nits the province to allocate assets from B.C. Hydro transit to the Metro Transit Operating Company and the Urban Transit Authority, and from B.C. Hydro Transit to the Pacific Coach Lines as well. Most of the buses will go to the Urban Transit Authority for the purposes of a unified provincial fleet.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this Act provides the means whereby the transition can be made from B.C. Hydro to the

[ Page 782 ]

new operating company, and will certainly provide for a cost saving to the municipalities, with a most generous agreement.

I move second reading.

MR. LORIMER: I was going to help out the minister, Mr. Speaker, in making that motion for him. In any event, the bill we're dealing with presumably transfers the assets of Hydro in the Victoria and Vancouver areas to a new corporation. But there is no indication here of when this will be done and whether it will be done piecemeal or whether it will be done wholemeal or whether it will be done at all. After introducing the bill last week, the minister had an interview with the press which is reported in the Vancouver Sun. He was asked whether Hydro had agreed to the bill. After a lengthy pause the minister said: "There have been long negotiations between Hydro and ourselves as to — naturally — how such transfer of assets might best be accomplished. I'm not sure that Hydro would agree to all that's in this bill." So obviously there is no agreement between the government of British Columbia and Hydro as to the transfer of the assets of Hydro to this new corporation of the province.

Later on in the report it states that when he was asked when this would take place, the minister said it could be one year, two years or it could be never. So what we're debating here is a "maybe" bill. It seems to me that we're not assisting the buildup of transit operations by having this bill before us when we're not sure what we're going to do with it. The indecision as to whether it's going to come about or when it's going to come about has a very poor effect on transit throughout. Hydro obviously will make no effort at this stage to upgrade their services, knowing that whatever they do now is possibly going to be transferred at some later date to another authority.

The purchase of new vehicles will obviously be stopped, not that there have been too many vehicles purchased in the last three years. But I believe some 15 have been purchased over that period, which is basically nothing compared to the need for new vehicles, which probably rates anywhere from 75 to 100 annually for replacement and for extension of the services provided by transit. Obviously Hydro is not going to involve itself now in the purchase of new vehicles. There's no new corporation here to do those purchases, and we can see that transit throughout the province will go downhill faster than it has gone downhill in the last three years.

What are we going to do about maintenance? What kind of maintenance are we going to see supplied to our Hydro buses now? Hydro will undoubtedly continue to do it, but the replacement of maintenance equipment in the Hydro garages will, I suggest, very likely suffer. The deterioration of the Hydro fleets will become much more rapid than we've seen in the past.

Now what effect will the sale of these assets have on B.C. Hydro's bond issues and on B.C. Hydro's long-term borrowings? I suggest that there has been no agreement with the borrowing agencies of B.C. Hydro to allow the transfer of assets from the corporation. I suggest that there has been no indication of how or in what way the borrowing authorities will allow Hydro to transfer their existing assets. Also, the long-term bonds which are bearing interest at a very low rate could very likely be called in for redemption. In that case, further borrowings, to replace those that are called in, will probably increase the rate of interest about 6 or 7 percent, which will have a very severe effect on the rest of the Hydro operations. I'm convinced that there has been no basic consultation with Hydro, with the government or with the bond-holders as to how this can best be carried out. The employees are now in a state of uneasiness and indecision because the government hasn't decided what exactly it's going to do.

Section 6 of the bill — to refer to it briefly — states that the Lieutenant-Governor may order that certain things and people be appointed from Hydro into the new company. Now what does this mean? Does this mean that all present employees of Hydro will soon be employed by the new company? Or does it mean that some of them will be and some not? Does it also mean that some who are left in the transit field could possibly be transferred from the transit into the gas or electric divisions of the corporation?

There is certainly no guarantee to these employees in the transit field that they will, in fact, be employed by the new company. The problems, worry and so on in this respect have very great effect on the morale of the workers driving for Hydro and employees in the transit field.

Also there could well be people transferred from the gas or electric fields into transit, and subsequently transferred to the new corporation. These are things that are not clear. Certainly it is not clear in the bill what is going to happen to the existing Hydro transit employees. I am suggesting that the transfer from Hydro to this present Authority is really a ploy to force local governments to be more receptive to the idea of financing a transit system, due to the fact that Hydro is no longer in the picture. Regardless of what we think of Hydro's efforts in the transit field in the last three or four years, they've been as good as the government would allow them to be. An operation like Hydro, which had substantial profits of over $100 million, I believe, last year, less the transit area, could afford to spend some money on transit from their surpluses. Now the position will be a little different in that Hydro will not be involved in the transit field, and any money for transit will have to come from general revenue, and if not from general revenue then from the local homeowners in the urban areas of the province. This, I fear, is what will happen. This is merely transfer of expenses and costs to the local residents of the province.

If the government was committed to a transit answer to the mass movement of people, I wouldn't be opposed to this proposal as such. But, due to the fact that the history of this government has been that they have not encouraged the expansion of transit in the province, and considering that the efforts which were made in the years between '72 and '76, when great strides were made in transit, have been cut off and there have been no strides since.... In fact the number of vehicles that are being brought in is very limited and basically non-existent at this time.

I'm not criticizing the minister on this. I think he would like to see a good transit system, but he won't be allowed to carry out his ambitions in that field — I'm quite sure of that. But if the government was committed to a transit solution and were prepared to get transit moving, then I would be inclined to support this bill. But with the transit history which this government has, I can see no way that we can support this measure.

Transit at the present time, as you probably know, is basically in a state of confusion. The number of new vehicles is 15 in three years. The decline in the routes has

[ Page 783 ]

been steady over a period of three years. Transit itself has declined over the period, instead of at least keeping up to where it was in 1976.

One of the other problems is the maintenance area. Maintenance is a substantial part of the transit picture. Maintenance areas of transit need substantial improvement and have always needed substantial improvement. During the time that I was involved in transit we still hadn't accomplished substantial improvements in the maintenance area, and I understand that it is still not in good shape. But what concerns me now with this legislation on the books, which will probably never come about in the next number of years.... I'm afraid that B.C. Hydro will not be prepared to substantially improve the situation, and as a result the transit aspects will decline in all ways.

I think the bill is probably proposed for one major reason, and that is that it will appear to the public that the government is doing something about transit. They've got a bill before the House to debate, and although the bill costs nothing, some people might think that there has been big action in the transit area. But those people who are waiting in queues for the buses to come home at night, I think, will find out very shortly that this bill really means absolutely nothing, and nothing will come of it. They are still going to have to wait in line for their buses at 5 o'clock in the evening.

My opinion of this bill is that it has not been properly prepared — not in its wording maybe, but the initial stages that are required before we can do anything of this nature have not been complied with. The fact that B.C. Hydro is unable to transfer assets of their corporation without the approval of the debenture holders and bond holders is one item that's of major concern. The second one, of course, is the agreements between who is going to pay for transit if, in fact, any action is taken in accordance with the requirements and figures of the bill. This bill, as I say, is a sham to make the public feel that something is being done in transit, and the rest of us here all know that nothing is being done in transit, and nothing is likely to be done under this bill.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I think the most amazing thing about this piece of legislation was the rather short introduction from the Minister of Municipal Affairs. People are saying: "Well, it's a new minister. Give him time to become acquainted with the problems. Don't expect him to be too expansive talking about transportation as this new minister learns his portfolio."

But I find it strange because I know this minister is no stranger to public transportation, and especially public transportation in the greater Vancouver area. He sat as the chairman of the Greater Vancouver Regional District transportation committee, and therefore I would assume he knows a great deal about the problems that he has to face in this new portfolio. It seems peculiar, Mr. Speaker, that this minister wouldn't expand on this bill and tell us a few of his views as the minister representing government policy in transportation, especially for the Greater Vancouver Regional District.

I noted with interest about 18 months ago a nice paper that came out from the Greater Vancouver Regional District called The Greater Vancouver Regional District Livable Plan. In that plan we had development and transportation, and all of those different areas that you have to deal with if you're going to look at a sensible transportation policy coming forward.

But what would one have to do in order to put a transportation system in that would serve passengers who are on their way back and forth to work or going shopping — in other words, a public transportation system that would serve the area? Well, there are a number of things that you'd have to do, and I think when the minister closes second reading he should give us his opinion as the government member responsible for transportation as to what the government plans to do. First of all, what we've had for years and years and years all throughout the greater Vancouver area is that transportation has been following developers all over the area. You have people who build commercially or industrially who expect that those areas will be served by a transportation system that will get their workers to work and home from work. But is transportation ever involved at that stage?

For instance, I remember, Mr. Speaker, when I was a minister visiting with the municipality out there, an alderman from Delta who was complaining about the traffic in the Deas Tunnel.

I asked: "Where do you live?"

He said: "Well, out here in Delta."

I said: "Where do you work?"'

He said: "Oh, I teach school in Vancouver."

The obvious answer is that the transportation system isn't at fault; he is. Surely he should try and live closer to his place of work. That would cut down on a lot of the transportation problems, and we could do that in a mass way. There's the problem. We cannot have transportation chasing around housing developments, commercial developments or industrial developments. Surely transportation should be part of the planning when we're looking at these kinds of developments.

But what do you have to do. Mr. Speaker. If you're going to have that kind of planning? First of all, you have to have a zoning practice that I'm not sure any one of us as politicians is willing to take on. When you speak about public transportation, it's like speaking about motherhood. Everyone agrees: "Gosh, wouldn't it be nice to have a nice public transportation system?" But I often suspect that not too many people want to take it. What they're hoping is that it will be a public transportation system that their neighbours will use that which will make the freeway just a little nicer for them to drive their car into work.

So we can do what we want, Mr. Speaker, with this bill. It isn't going to solve anything unless the minister and his government start dealing with the problems long before we ever get to this stage of saying: "Let's build a public transportation system to move people around the greater Vancouver area." It just won't work. It hasn't worked and it won't work.

What I would like the minister to do also is talk about what are the plans of the government for fixed-rail. Because once you've put fixed-rail in, you're stuck with it. Wherever you put it in, you are saying that this is going to be the transportation corridor almost for now and forever.

What's the government's policy on fixed-rail? Are you going to go ahead with it in Vancouver, and if you are, where's it going to go from and where to? Because if you take a look at transportation systems that have been designed to serve the core of cities, I don't know of one

[ Page 784 ]

that's worked. I've looked into it. You take BART in San Francisco. Does it work?

If it does, what does it do? As far as I can see, BART picks people up downtown, and usually it's the middle class or the upper middle class who are working downtown and want to move out farther into the country. All you're doing is adding to urban sprawl, which is one of the things that we say we're against.

So if you're going to put a transportation system in, who is it going to serve? Is it going to serve the downtown of Vancouver or is it going to move people from Vancouver farther and farther out into the Fraser Valley? Or up towards Mission? What are we trying to get out of a transportation system?

Mr. Speaker, I think it's incumbent upon this minister, who I know is familiar with all of these problems that I am talking about, not to get up and read a tight little piece of paper that he obviously received from his ministry. He must speak about the situation as he knows it and what he plans to do about it on behalf of government.

When the minister was the chairman of the Greater Vancouver Regional District transportation committee, he came to see me when I was the minister of my office. The one thing we agreed on at that time was that you couldn't do a darned thing as long as you had about 12 municipalities out there not agreeing with each other on anything in terms of putting in a transportation system. Has the minister found a way around that, which I couldn't when I was the minister and he was the chairman of the transportation committee? If so, I would like to hear about that because I told him at that time to go out and get agreement from all of those municipalities and then come back. Then we could talk. He didn't come back to my office; he came back to the chamber. He became the minister now responsible.

I would like to hear what the minister has to say about those problems that we talked about which neither one of us could solve. I would like to hear what the minister has to say about bringing those municipalities together in a central planning way. It doesn't seem to be happening.

Mr. Speaker, the thing that has to be done, if you're going to have a rational transportation system, is that you also have to have a rational industrial planning system. You need to know where you're going to put industry so you know where future transportation is going to be needed. You are then going to have to take a look at the housing minister and ask what kind of housing we are going to put next to this industrial complex, because obviously the people who work here are making a certain amount of money. Wouldn't it make sense to put housing projects that are affordable by this new industry so that you don't have to have the kind of public transportation system which moves people clear across town, when it would be more desirable for them to live close to where they work?

Now these are all problems that have to be looked at and have to be solved, but it's going to take a tough government to do it because you're going to have to say: "You cannot do this here because we're not going to zone it for that. You're going to have to put this kind of housing here to serve this industry. You're going to have to do all of those things."

I don't think it's fair that the minister comes in here and feigns that he doesn't know anything about the problems that exist. I think the minister should share with us what he sees as the problems facing any transit system that you want to put in and that's going to be there to move people back and forth, public transportation.

What about the parking in downtown Vancouver? If you're going to deal with transportation, you have to deal with parking because one of the ways to get people into public transportation is to deal with the kind of parking that you have available downtown. Don't expect rational thought out of the people that are going to use their own automobiles.

As an example, a graduated toll system was put in on the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco. If one person came across in a car it cost more than if two came; more money for two than if there were three or four. People actually went out and bought mannequins and put them in their cars so they could fool the toll-bridge operator. Even if you put the public transportation system in, what plans do you have to get people out of their cars and onto the public transportation system? What are you going to do there?

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Burnaby? You don't even have any roads to bring transportation through in Burnaby. All of the roads there are east-west; none are north-south. It's the worst planning in the whole world. When it comes to a road system in Burnaby, how are you going to put in a public transportation system when you haven't anything to run the transportation system on? Those are the kinds of problems you are going to be facing. I think the minister owes us just a little bit more about what he plans to do, rather than standing up and saying: "I want this Act. Please pass it. I know I've got enough votes in the back bench to pass it."

What are the minister's views about all of the areas I've touched on? I think it would be worthwhile for this House to discuss those issues, and we'I get the opportunity when we get to committee stage if the minister will only let us know what's in his mind and in the government's mind for the future in transportation. Unless the government has a way of solving the problems I've laid out, then this piece of paper isn't worth anything, nor is the one that was passed before in transportation. You won't be able to pass anything in this House that's worth anything until you come to grips with the real problem of a way to plan your area so that industry, new commercial ventures, residential an housing and transportation can all come under one planning umbrella with the authority to do it. How does this minister plan to get enough political gumption to take the move that has to be made if you're going to put it all together?

I look at the Greater Vancouver Regional District livable plan, and I think that's just great. I like it; who doesn't? How do you put it together? How do you actually implement it? How do you make sure that transportation routes aren't ripped off in terms of land development? How do you make sure that the kind of development you need for society along those transportation corridors is the kind of development we want? How do you do all of those things? I know that the minister has thought about it. From his experience as the mayor of a large municipality in the lower mainland and as a member of the Greater Vancouver Regional District and as the chairman of the transportation committee, I know that he has a long and varied background in this. It's not good enough that he sits there quietly and hopes that the back bench will carry him through this vote. I want to hear what he has to say on behalf of government.

[ Page 785 ]

MRS. DAILLY: Transit is, I would say, the major issue in the municipality which I represent, Mr. Speaker, and I know that my other two Burnaby colleagues feel exactly the same. The member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) has already expressed his concern, and I know the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) will also be speaking on it.

The member for Burnaby-Willingdon spoke in general terms which, of course, reflected down to the basic problems we face in the municipality of Burnaby. When I, too, listened to the minister introduce this bill — and prior to that listened to him when he was interviewed by the press following the introduction of the bill — I was somewhat taken aback at his almost apathetic, resigned manner. When he was actually questioned by the reporters as to when we might see this new bill in effect, the minister became even more resigned. If I recall, he said: "Well, perhaps; maybe never." Now I don't think that gives much hope to the people of Burnaby, whom I represent, in this particularly vital area of transit.

I can understand, however, that the Minister of Municipal Affairs would have a very resigned manner about this whole issue because he has inherited a real mess, not only from his predecessor who, of course, inherited it from the general policies of his government, which refuses to accept the fact that the financial impact of transit on the municipalities, particularly an area the size of Burnaby, is absolutely intolerable if it is going to be presented and continued in the original manner in which the GVRD was presented with it by the former minister.... Naturally the Minister of Municipal Affairs has now inherited this, and he has a real problem, Mr. Speaker.

But you know, I would like to remind him that when he is dealing with the GVRD on this matter.... And I certainly hope he'll tell us later that he has been having a number of meetings, or intends to have them, because the GVRD, naturally, is anxious to get ahead, but certainly not with the majority of the financial burden being placed on them, Mr. Speaker.

Now just to point out to the minister the situation in which the municipalities in the Greater Vancouver Regional District find themselves financially, apropos the property tax, which, of course, is the area which is causing the greatest concern to them if they find that this taxation could be used to finance a transit system in the GVRD area.... Just to emphasize to the minister the reason for their concern, I have in front of me a recent release from the GVRD, which I am sure the minister is aware of, in which it is stated that they intend to lobby the provincial government to amend its whole property tax formula, following the release of a study which just came out which shows that the taxpayers in the greater Vancouver area — and Burnaby, of course, makes up a large part of that area — pay 47 percent more toward the cost of the province's basic education program than taxpayers in other parts of the province. Mr. Speaker, 47 percent more is borne by the taxpayers in the greater Vancouver district toward the cost of the basic education program than taxpayers in other parts of the province. Can you blame them for expressing concern over moving into a new transit system which could primarily involve an area of more property taxation?

Their study goes on to show, Mr. Speaker, that the average single-family taxpayer in greater Vancouver paid $76 in net school taxes in 1979 after deducting the provincial homeowner grant, while average single-family taxpayers in the rest of the province paid no net school taxes, and in effect some of them even received a subsidy.

The point is, Mr. Speaker, that the GVRD does have a case in saying: "Look, how can we possibly accept this new bill, this new transit Authority Act, if it is going to mean an increased burden on the taxpayers whom we all represent?" The government's share of the basic education program in the Greater Vancouver Regional District has declined from 45.3 percent to 28.8 percent, according to this latest GVRD study. In the remainder of the province, though, the government's share declined from 50.7 percent to 45.0 percent. The point is that the government's share is decreasing and the local taxpayers' share is increasing, but it is particularly onerous on the taxpayers in the greater Vancouver area. As a matter of fact, this requires that the average taxpayer in the greater Vancouver area has to pay about $2,500 more in after-tax income than owners of comparable properties in other parts of the province.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for letting me get into this property taxation in some detail. I feel it's very necessary to bring it once again to the attention of the minister who is now in charge of trying to create an adequate transit system for the greater Vancouver area. I would hope when he closes second reading that he will give us, and the people of the area which I represent, some hope that he is going to come forward with some formula which will at least be more equitable, as far as the people of Vancouver are concerned. We await with great interest his closing remarks.

MS. BROWN: I was quite interested in the fact that the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) raised the regional plan update for 1979, because, in fact, in going through that regional plan we find transportation is dealt with in one paragraph. It talks about the absence of effective transportation provisions, and it raises a number of the questions which the member for Prince Rupert raised as to how one decides. Is the decision made on the basis of what is best for industry, or made on the basis of what is best for people living in the area? I know in Burnaby-Edmonds, for example, Mr. Speaker, there was an article in Business Week, I think recently, which talked about Burnaby as being the transportation hub of the lower mainland, and described the whole municipality in terms of moving goods and services and people. There was no mention at all about the fact that people live there.

What the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) said is true. It is the number one issue in that particular part of the country. The traffic congestion, the absence of a decent transit system, the roads that are continually congested, people not able to move from one end to the other in a reasonable period of time or even to move goods from one end to the other, are major problems. That is the reason, Mr. Speaker, why I am so disappointed with this particular piece of legislation. It is good public relations. It is just a piece of window-dressing — that's what it is. It is not going to cost the government anything, and it certainly is not a clear commitment to introducing a decent transit system so that people in Burnaby can move around and through that municipality, and in and out of it. Nor is it even going to deal with the moving of goods as well as people.

The minister is trying to do what he was unable to do earlier this year when the transit Act was introduced and all

[ Page 786 ]

the municipalities insisted that they were not interested in assuming the financial burden for this particular piece of legislation and they would not cooperate with the minister. He called for a meeting with them and they refused to meet with him. And so he has taken it back to the drawing board and he has introduced this particular piece of legislation — and it does not change anything. The cost of transit is still going to come out of the taxpayers' pockets via the municipalities. It is all going to come out of general revenue. That is very disappointing.

I also agree with the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) that there is absolutely no time commitment in this piece of legislation. When is it going to happen, or is it going to happen at all? Or is this just something like the denticare program that we're going to hear about over and over and over again, but never ever see implemented? I have no great love for B.C. Hydro and I don't think they were doing a good job — transit was deteriorating. But moving it out of B.C. Hydro and putting it in isolation like this and putting the full cost of it on the municipalities is not the solution to this particular problem, Mr. Speaker, and I certainly would like to speak in opposition to this bill.

MR. NICOLSON: One brief but, I think, very important point that I would like some reassurance on by the minister is the point raised earlier by the member for Burnaby-Willingdon. I would like the minister to realize that there are many first mortgage bonds, callable bonds and others which were issued prior to B.C. Electric, being taken over by the government. Some of these bear interest rates of 4.25 and 5 percent; some are even in the 3 percent range. And these amount to millions of dollars.

Can the minister, in summing up second reading, give absolute assurance that the transfer of these assets is not going to necessitate the premature refinancing of these bonds at current interest rates, which are well in excess of 10 percent?

That is one thing that I think should be understood in this House by all members. We should know whether or not the minister has done his homework and whether or not he can give us that assurance, because I believe that is the condition in the terms of some of those early bonds that were issued.

MR. BARBER: If this bill offered a new deal for transit, we'd support it. If this bill offered a new and more appropriate structure for servicing the interests of the transit system in Vancouver and Victoria, we'd support it. If this bill offered a better tax break for the local homeowner, we'd support it. It does none of those three things. To the contrary, it maintains a series of promises made by the coalition which led to their considerable loss of popular support in Vancouver during the last campaign.

This bill does nothing but add to an already discredited commitment which this government made during its first and now, it would appear, its second term of office. Most of all it appears they've learned nothing at all from the extent to which the people, particularly in greater Vancouver, simply do not respect, do not honour and will not pay for transit Social Credit style in British Columbia.

The current government has created four new taxes to support transit in British Columbia. There's a tax on gas at the pump; there's a tax on natural gas at home; there's a tax on electricity used at home; and there's a property tax. If this bill did anything at all to overcome that onerous and unfair burden on the homeowner and the consumer in British Columbia, we'd be prepared to support it. To the contrary, in his remarks on the bill and its content, the minister makes it clear that the Socreds intend to do what they've always done: under finance, under organize and undershorts transit in British Columbia. This bill is no improvement whatsoever on their dismal, failing record in the administration of transit in British Columbia. To the contrary it confirms every worst suspicion about the best interests of a government of car dealers. The best interests of a government of car dealers clearly do not lie in the field of promotion of effective transit in British Columbia.

If this Act took even one step toward remedying the defects of Socred transit policy as were made manifestly clear in the last election, as the people of Vancouver made very clear in the three Burnaby ridings, we would be prepared to consider support. To the unhappy contrary, it simply continues a bad record and will inevitably make that bad record worse in the field of transport. We cannot support this bill, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I will try to answer those questions first raised by the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer).

The employees who are required for transit will be transferred, but only those who are required for the transit operation.

On the question raised with respect to the bond-holders and the same question was raised by the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) — a study was done by Coopers and Lybrand. Certainly their solicitors contacted the bond-holders, and it was generally felt and agreed that the lifting of a $60 million per year deficit would be of benefit to the bond-holders.

I was very impressed by the remarks made by the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), and I wholeheartedly agree with everything he said. He took a long time to say it, but I agree. He gave us a good outline of why it is absolutely necessary that the local government become involved in the provision and planning of transit, because you can't isolate the planning of transit from the other planning. You must know where the residential, commercial and industrial development is to take place, and you then coordinate the two.

I think he said it very well. I think he made an extremely good case for the establishment of the Urban Transit Authority, and for the Greater Vancouver Regional District, the Capital Regional District and all of the other bodies that are presently involved or about to become involved being together in the provision of transit with the provincial government.

We certainly do not have any plans for fixed-rail transit. That question was asked. I think perhaps it is something that the Urban Transit Authority will want to look at. There is presently a study which is being presented by the Greater Vancouver Regional District on the 25th of this month, and I hope to have the benefit of that study. I'm sure the Urban Transit Authority will particularly want to see it.

There was a comment made by the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) regarding the tax report or the study that was done by Mr. Carlisle for the GVRD. I've had a brief look at that particular report, and I don't buy it. There were some immediate, glaring omissions, and I would

[ Page 787 ]

suggest that if any of the northern members found a bright administrator in any of their particular districts or areas or constituencies, they could very well come up with a report which would contradict this entirely. I don't believe that the taxpayers in Vancouver are subsidizing the taxpayers in the north.

Mr. Speaker, I think that answers the questions. This is the vehicle which will give hopefully all the things that the members mentioned with respect to getting local governments involved in the provision of transit. This is a first step, a must, a very necessary thing, and I move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

NAYS — 20

Bill 26, Metro Transit Operating Company Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order. Before summing up, the minister referred to a document by Coopers and Lybrand, and I would ask if he were prepared to table that. If not, I would raise a point in regard to a procedure on page 431 of Sir Erskine May.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the practice of the House is that if a minister reads from a document or even refers to it extensively, he normally would require to file it. However, if he only refers to it, it is left to the discretion of the minister. Do you wish to change that?

MR. NICOLSON: On the same point of order, I don't want to belabour it, but it does say in May, on page 431 of the nineteenth edition, that "this restraint is similar to the rule of evidence in courts of law." Since the minister did use the document in order to sort of allay whatever fears some members of this House might have had, I would ask that he consider tabling the document. I think it should be in order, Mr. Speaker.

MR, SPEAKER: The request is certainly in order; but there is no power in the Chair to demand that it be done.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: There's no fear in this House.

Presenting Reports

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm presented the annual report for the Urban Transit Authority of British Columbia. 1978-79.

Hon. Mr. McClelland presented the annual report of the Ministry of Health for 1978.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:04 p.m.

[ Page 788 ]

APPENDIX

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

16 The Hon. J. R. Chabot to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 16) intituled Land Amendment Act, 1979, to amend as follows:

Section 5: By adding the following section after section 5:

"5.1. section 46 is amended by repealing subsections (1), (2), and (3 ) and substituting the following:

"(1) A disposition conveying Crown land in fee simple may be in a form prescribed by the minister.

"(2) Where

(a) in a Crown grant timber is reserved to the Crown, and

(b) the timber so reserved is not held by any other person under licence, lease, permit, sale, or other instrument from the Crown, the minister may issue a supplementary grant of the timber to the registered owner of the land and the supplementary grant may be in a form prescribed by the minister."

Section 8: By adding the following after section 8:

"9. The Land Amendment Act, 1976, S.B.C. 1976, c. 27, is amended by repealing section 8."