[ Page 2431 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Introduction of Bills.

Pension (College) Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 26). Hon. Mr. Wolfe.

Introduction and first reading –– 2432

Pension (Municipal) Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 27). Hon. Mr. Wolfe.

Introduction and first reading –– 2432

Pension (Public Service) Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 28). Hon. Mr. Wolfe.

Introduction and first reading –– 2432

Pension (Teachers) Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 29). Hon. Mr. Wolfe.

Introduction and first reading –– 2432

Public Service Benefit Plan Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 30). Hon. Mr. Wolfe.

Introduction and first reading –– 2432

Oral Questions.

Purchase of Maplewood Poultry. Mr. Barrett –– 2432

Water licence on Goldstream River. Mr. King –– 2432

Asbestos levels on Queen of Prince Rupert. Mr. Mitchell –– 2433

Kemano 11 project. Mr. Howard –– 2434

Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 2). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2434

Mr. Stupich –– 2435

Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 4). Committee stage.

On section 8.

Mr. Stupich –– 2436

On the amendment to section 8.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2436

Mr. Stupich –– 2436

Division on the amendment to section 8 –– 2436

Report and third reading –– 2437

College and Institute Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 15). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 2437

Mr. Lauk –– 2438

Mr. Nicolson –– 2440

Mr. Ritchie –– 2441

Mr. Cocke –– 2442

Mr. Leggatt –– 2443

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 2444

Division on second reading –– 2445

School Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 20). Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. Lauk –– 2445

On section 2.

Mr. Lauk –– 2445

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 2445

On section 12.

Mr. Lauk –– 2446

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 2446

On the title.

Mr. Lauk –– 2446

Report and third reading –– 2446

Forest and Range Resource Fund Act (Bill 6). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2446

Mr. King –– 2447

Mr. Stupich –– 2450

Mr. Howard –– 2450

Mr. Lockstead –– 2451

Mr. Nicolson –– 2452

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I have a few introductions. The first is to welcome to the House the Richmond superstars girls' soccer team, who are here with their, coach, Steve Byrne — I should say coaches and manager, because I haven't got all the names, but they're travelling with them. This team won the Canadian championship in 1978 and 1979 and provincial championships in 1978, 1979 and 1980. They will be travelling to Winnipeg later this year for the western Canadian championships, and hopefully from that they will be hosting the Canadian championships in Richmond. They are to be congratulated for their outstanding record and also for the dedication and example they bring to young athletes in other communities. They show they can be among the best if they apply themselves, and with the coaching and dedication of coaches they can be champions. I'd ask this House to welcome them today.

I have two other introductions, Mr. Speaker. One is of a class from Pearson Road Elementary School in my community, Kelowna. They are in the precincts; I'm not sure if they are in the chamber at this present time. I ask the House to welcome them.

There is also a class from the Dorothea Walker School in Kelowna. I ask the House to welcome them as well.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bid welcome to three citizens from the constituency of Vancouver East where it all began — much of the good that's happened to British Columbia and very little of the bad–– Messrs. Jarvis, Mavius and Sutherland.

HON. MR. WOLFE: In the galleries this afternoon are eight students who have just joined our tour guides' organization and will be working in these buildings during the summer this year. As we all know, the members of this tour guides' organization, which I am proud to have in my ministry, have always provided the best of service. They are the only official representatives of this province that many of our visitors meet during their visit with us. The tours that are conducted by these young men and women in this building and in the museum are informative and very widely appreciated.

I would like to introduce these new tour guides: Donna McEwen, Mary Williams, Dora Nipp, Terry Barnett, Helene de Celles, Janice Dumont, Margaret Layton and Jillian Stirk. Also, four tour guides who are repeats from last year and other years but who are not present in the chamber today are the following: Cathy Gower, Ken McCartney, Michael Doherty and Colin Stewart. Would members please join me in showing our appreciation of the work that is done by the tour guides by welcoming these newcomers to the province.

MR. D'ARCY: With us in the gallery today we have the mayor of the city of Rossland, Mr. Bill Profili. Also we have the manager of CJAT in Trail, Mr. Barry Clark, who is here with the B.C. Association of Broadcasters. Mr. Clark is also chairman of Trail Chamber of Commerce and president of the Rossland–Red Mountain development committee. I would ask the House to give these two gentlemen a very warm welcome.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Speaking of good things from all parts of the province, it's a very good day for the member for Okanagan North. If you'll look across the way you'll see some of the most beautiful, happy and healthy faces that you could find in British Columbia: 26 grade 7 students from Mission Hill Elementary School in Vernon, with their very brave teacher, Mr. Jed Astin. They are here this afternoon to witness question period and to see Victoria. I'd ask the House to give them a very warm welcome, and at the same time to welcome two other very good friends from Okanagan North: Rev. Funk, who is here meeting with Municipal Affairs and who is a very strong worker for the good of the valley; also Mr. Antony Stamboulieh, just back from England where he was visiting British Columbia House and on his way back to Vernon. Thank you all for giving them a warm welcome.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today is Mr. Ken MacDonald from Montreal. Ken and I were classmates at Notre Dame University some years ago.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, today we have some additional guests from Richmond visiting the precincts and the House. I'd like the House to acknowledge the presence of 37 students from Donald E. McKay Elementary School, accompanied by their teachers Jean Warburton and Frank Bourassa.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have four very special guests today. Mrs. Warren, Mrs. Barkuski and Mrs. Tradjak from Vancouver are accompanying a very special guest. I would ask the House to put aside yesterday's acrimony and at least for half an hour or three-quarters of an hour put on the best parliamentary display possible because we have with us today my mother, Mrs. Gordon. I would ask the House to welcome them.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome a hard worker visiting from the royal city of New Westminster, Frank Owston.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in the precincts are 26 grade 6 students from the Okanagan Falls Elementary School, accompanied by their principal, Mr. Wall, and one of their teachers, Mr. Al Forsey. I would ask the House to bid them a warm welcome.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, also in the precincts today is a group of students from the Central Fraser Valley South Poplar School. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Dirksen, Would the House please welcome them.

Introduction of Bills

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, may I alert the members that I have a series of five separate messages from His Honour the Administrator, having to do with pension acts.

[ Page 2432 ]

PENSION (COLLEGE)
AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Pension (College) Amendment Act, 1980.

Bill 26 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

PENSION (MUNICIPAL)
AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Pension (Municipal) Amendment Act, 1980.

Bill 27 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

PENSION (PUBLIC SERVICE)
AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Pension (Public Service) Amendment Act, 1980.

Bill 28 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

PENSION (TEACHERS)
AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Pension (Teachers) Amendment Act, 1980.

Bill 29 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

PUBLIC SERVICE BENEFIT PLAN
AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Public Service Benefit Plan Amendment Act, 1980.

Bill 30 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

PURCHASE OF MAPLEWOOD POULTRY

MR. BARRETT: I have a question for the Premier. Before I do, Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to make a brief statement. I welcome the Premier's very strong statement in Quebec on Monday last on behalf of all British Columbians.

I want to ask the Premier a question. With the announcement by the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) of the government's support for the Foreign Investment Review Agency with respect to Cargill's bid to buy Maplewood, can the Premier tell us what date the decision was made to reverse his policy that B.C. is not for sale?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, no date was made to reverse the policy.

WATER LICENCE ON GOLDSTREAM RIVER

MR. KING: I have a question for the Minister of Environment. On March 17, I asked the minister whether he was aware that the fish and wildlife branch had requested the water comptroller to hold public hearings into Noranda's application for a water licence on the Goldstream River. The question was taken as notice. Does the minister have an answer now?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I undertook at the time to take the question as notice. I can get a reply. I believe I've requested one from the ministry, but the indication I have in my preliminary investigation is that the fish and wildlife branch did not respond to a request by Mr. Debeck when he asked if there were any objections.

MR. KING: The water comptroller has indicated that four reports were prepared on the environmental impact on fisheries and wildlife by International Environmental Consultants Ltd. Who retained this firm to undertake these reports? Was it the licence applicant?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I'll have to take that question as notice.

MR. KING: Did the fish and wildlife branch at Nelson, B.C., have an opportunity to study those reports and offer a reaction?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, Mr. Speaker, in view of having taken the earlier question on notice, I'll just have to take this one on notice as well. I wouldn't have that information if I didn't have the answer to the earlier question.

MR. KING: The fourth report on environmental impact was completed in October 1979. Mr. J.E. Farrell, deputy comptroller of water rights, had issued a letter of approval in principle on September 10, 1979, one month before the final report on the environmental impact. How could the final report on the environment bear any relevance to a decision which had already been made, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I wasn't the minister responsible at the time, as the member well knows, and I have no knowledge of this particular report. I'll just have to assemble that with the other questions I've taken on notice and endeavour to get that answer for the member as soon as possible.

MR. KING: I wonder if the minister can explain why he takes these questions as notice — particularly the one I asked on March 17 regarding the fish and wildlife branch's involvement where he personally wrote a letter on March 5 to an objector. I'll quote from that letter. "In view of the relatively minor environmental impact identified in a number of reports prepared for Noranda's proposed project on the Goldstream River, it is felt that a public hearing cannot be justified at this

[ Page 2433 ]

time." If the minister knew on March 5 that a public hearing was not justified, why is he so reticent to answer the questions in the House today?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is out of order, hon. member.

ASBESTOS LEVELS ON
QUEEN OF PRINCE RUPERT

MR. MITCHELL: I have a question for the Minister of Health. The Victoria Princess, formerly the Queen of Prince Rupert, is about to be in service and as yet there has been no assurance that the passengers and crew can travel in safety. Have there been any reports from the Minister of Health?

HON. MR. MAIR: From me or to me?

MR. MITCHELL: From your department on my previous questions.

HON. MR. MAIR: I'm sorry, I'm not sure whether the member is asking whether there have been reports to me or my ministry or from me or my ministry. I wonder if he could clarify that.

MR. MITCHELL: Have there been any reports to you that you can give to this House to assure this House and the public that it is safe to travel on the ex-Queen of Prince Rupert?

HON. MR. MAIR: I can assure the member that my ministry has been working with the Ministry of Labour and the Workers' Compensation Board. However, I'm not aware of any reports that may be in my possession, but I will search for them and if there are any that I can release I'll bring them back to the House.

MR. MITCHELL: I have a question to the Minister of Labour. Can the minister assure the House that the ventilation system has been thoroughly cleaned of any asbestos fibre on the same ship?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I had taken some questions as notice earlier, and I explained to the House at the beginning of the week, I think, that I wasn't satisfied with part of the answer which had come back. At noon today I received an answer which I think should satisfy the member. Approximately three weeks ago tests were taken and the samples, which were then analyzed, did show that the threshold value was exceeded. Yesterday there were 17 samples taken and all were tested. I was interested in where the samples were taken from: two were taken from the filter bank for the ventilation system, four were taken from the dining lounge, one was taken from the lounge deck, one was taken from the lounge itself, two were taken from the Union Jack bar, two were taken from the upper car deck, one was taken from the lower deck corridor, two were taken from the cafeteria, and two were taken from the engine room. The tests all showed that none had exceeded the permissible concentration, and that there was no violation, and the employer is now in compliance with the WCB regulations.

I was also advised, and specifically requested in this instance, that the employer, B.C. Ferry Corporation, and the union involved will be sent a copy of the WCB report.

MR. MITCHELL: Could the minister tell the House what the permissible level is that he is referring to as having not been exceeded? All my studies revealed that there is no safe level of asbestos fibres in your lungs. What is the level at this time that you are saying was not exceeded? Is there asbestos in the air filters or is there asbestos in the air on the ship?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I find that rather a difficult question. It is not that I don't want to answer, but I might suggest that I made an inquiry but I'm not familiar with the technology which is used. There was something about 5.3 to a certain cubic metre of air, and the asbestos which was found within that particular sample was 60 percent of the permissible level; in other words, 40 percent below that which is permitted and accepted under occupational health and safety requirements. I asked further: just what can we compare this to? We wonder what the permissible level is for noise factors. There are always impurities in water. I don't think it can ever be foolproof. There is no evidence that asbestos, because it is being used.... There must be.

I think the important thing, Mr. Speaker, through you to the member, is this: the evidence that was given to me today was that the asbestos levels are below the threshold value. It is perfectly safe for passengers and crew on the ship.

MR. LAUK: On a supplementary to the Minister of Labour, can the minister assure the House that when the tests were taken the ventilation mechanism in the ship was turned on?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I cannot specifically answer that question, but I will tell the member this: as a matter of fact, I did ask about the internal ventilation system and whether or not there had been a sample. I was assured that a sample had been taken from the system. Of course, it was in the process of being cleaned out. I presume it was on when it was done. That's one way of taking the air out of the ventilation system. The implication in the answer I received was that the sample which did come out of the system was not tainted in any way.

MR. LAUK: The minister indicated that he received an initial report and he was not satisfied with it. Did the minister interfere at all at any time with the subject matter of the report, as to its actual figures?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not. I might say the reason the report was not satisfactory at the time I received it was that it did not give me the particulars I wanted with respect to the sampling and testing which was conducted. The second report made no reference to it at all.

MR. MITCHELL: The minister reported to the House that he is releasing today results from the samples taken yesterday. Why did it take three weeks to release the samples that were taken right after the accident, and why were the employees still working in it prior to the release of this sample? If it took one day to get the results of yesterday's samples, why did it take three weeks to get the results for the samples that were taken three weeks ago?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I thought I made

[ Page 2434 ]

reference to the fact that the samples which were taken approximately three weeks ago did indicate levels of asbestos above the threshold value. There was no question about the fact that there was excessive asbestos in the air. I found that out. I think the important thing is to determine what the tests say now. I also made reference — I advised the member and, as a matter of fact, tabled a response — as to whether or not the WCB was aware of a problem and what they were doing about it.

KEMANO II PROJECT

MR. HOWARD: I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Has he determined if the government is bound by the terms of the 1961 agreement between the province and the Aluminum Company of Canada Ltd., and bound by the terms of the water licence which was issued to the company, which licence purports to give that company the right to unilaterally proceed with the Kemano completion project?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'm sure the member meant 1951 rather than 1961. All those matters are under discussion at the present time. There are many legal ramifications and we are pursuing those at the present time. Nevertheless, the important question at the present time is that the government is bound, and has said repeatedly — and I'm happy to be able to say it again — that there will be no development of that hydroelectric proposal without full public hearings.

MR. HOWARD: Is the minister saying that there is a moratorium with respect to the commencement of the project? If there is a government decision preventing Alcan from proceeding, what's the length of time of that moratorium?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: If the project not being able to go ahead without full public hearings means there is a moratorium, there is a moratorium. The moratorium will be on until the public hearings are held, and until the public hearings satisfy the people of British Columbia that the project is either in their best interests or not in their best interests; if that's a moratorium, it will be on until then.

DEPUTY SPEAKER The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources on a point of order.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I rise at the first opportunity to raise this point of order. During question period the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) referred to a number of studies that he'd done, indicating that there was no safe level of asbestos contamination. It was my understanding that the tradition in this House was that when you referred to documents of that sort, they were tabled in the House at the first opportunity. I would ask the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew if he would table those studies, because all of us are extremely interested in them.

MR. BARRETT: I welcome the point of order raised by the minister. I would remind the House that a week ago I asked the Chair to give a ruling on this point of order. Indeed it was raised by me when the Premier during his estimates quoted from a document and then refused to table that document in the House. I would welcome your ruling, along the lines suggested by the minister. I think everybody should table all documents they refer to — including the Premier.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm very sorry that I wasn't present in the House when the hon. leader of the official opposition introduced his mother. I would very much like to join in the welcome, and to say that her influence in here is already being felt. If her daily attendance could initiate such a spirit of continuing tranquillity, that indeed would be most welcome.

MR. BARRETT: Obviously you don't know my mother well enough.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I want to know where the woodshed was.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 2, Mr. Speaker.

FINANCE STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

HON. MR. CURTIS: In introducing for second reading Bill 2, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1980, I would like to offer a few remarks to the hon. members today. The act before us proposes amendments to 12 statutes administered by the Minister of Finance. Generally, as members will have noted, inasmuch as this bill has been on the order paper for some considerable time, the amendments reduce some taxes, increase exemptions, eliminate fees, provide for payment of interest on overdue payments from the province, broaden the group entitled to gasoline tax refunds and correct a number of administrative deficiencies in current legislation.

Specifically, sir, the proposed amendments are: firstly, as part of the program to cushion the impact of energy costs on British Columbians, the Fuel-oil Tax Act is to be repealed, effective retroactively to March 11 of this year. The loss of revenue in this fiscal year from the repeal of this act is estimated at $1 million.

Secondly, the gasoline tax provision of 2.6 cents a litre or 12 cents a gallon rebate on gasoline used by persons who have lost a limb or are permanently confined to a wheelchair or who receive a 100 percent disability pension is to be expanded to include handicapped persons in receipt of benefits under the Guaranteed Available Income for Need program and persons who, except for age, qualify as handicapped under that program. It is estimated this expanded category will result in an additional 5,000 persons being eligible for gasoline tax refunds at an estimated cost of $85,000. The same expanded category will be added to the Motive-fuel Use Tax Act by amendment to the present regulation under that act. The Gasoline Tax and Motive-fuel Use Tax acts are also amended to delete the provision which would have required a bulk agent to collect urban transit tax on sales of fuel delivered out of a prescribed area designated by the UTA act.

Thirdly, as part of the program to encourage small

[ Page 2435 ]

businesses, the income tax rate applicable to small businesses is to be reduced from 12 percent to 10 percent, effective — again retroactively — January 1, 1980. Mr. Speaker, an estimated 20,000 small businesses will benefit, and the loss in revenue from this rate reduction is expected to be $21 million in the 1980-81 fiscal year. Hon. members will note that the proposed small business income tax rate in British Columbia will be lower than the small business rate in effect in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and equal to the rate in effect in Ontario and Prince Edward Island.

Fourthly, the Insurance Premiums Tax Act is proposed to be amended to have a 2 percent tax applied on the reinsurance premium at the originating company rather than at the reinsuring company. This measure will mean no difference in revenue but will change the tax basis, as requested by the companies, to the same basis as is used in all other provinces. It is also proposed, commencing in 1981, for companies whose tax payable is over $25,000 to introduce a system of instalment payments of that tax.

As part of the program to encourage industrial diversification, the fifth point deals with the Mining Tax Act, which is to be amended to give an incentive for processing and manufacturing mineral resources. The existing deduction from taxable income based on the undepreciated capital cost of processing and manufacturing assets is to be changed to a deduction from the base of original cost of the processing or manufacturing assets, and the maximum allowance changed from 65 percent to 70 percent of the taxable income, dependent on the amount of manufacturing done. These changes will, we know, offer encouragement to the producer to process the product beyond the raw material stage. In place of the present $10,000 exemption, a new exemption is proposed which will eliminate from taxation the small operator whose taxable income does not exceed $50,000. This will result in about 40 fewer businesses having to pay mining tax. The changes will result in a revenue loss of $1 million and are to be effective July 31, 1979 — again retroactively — to eliminate any tax discrimination resulting from the 1979 amendment to the Mining Tax Act.

Sixth point. Mr. Speaker, as part of this government's continuing program to simplify required returns or information necessary to be made or given, the fees now required to be calculated under the Probate Fees Act are eliminated effective March 11, 1980. I would advise the House that the act has not been repealed in its entirety now, as information gathered under it is needed and it also acts as a central registry of estates in British Columbia. However, we hope to have legislation introduced at some later time to have this information and central registry function moved to the Ministry of the Attorney-General, and at that time the Probate Fees Act could be repealed. The loss in revenue from the elimination of the fees to which I have referred will be $1.5 million.

The seventh point, the amendment to the Revenue Act to permit payment of interest on late payment of government accounts payable and overpaid taxes, is one which I have personally sought for a good number of years and which I am most pleased to propose today. Reference was also made at the time of the budget for this fiscal year. This measure will mean that, like most business operations, the ministries will be penalized if they are delinquent in paying their bills. The fact that interest will be payable on accounts unpaid after 60 days should, we believe, encourage prompt payment by the ministries and assist business dealing with government with their financing costs. This will be made effective, by regulation, after passage and royal assent for this bill. The estimated cost — and frankly I tell the House that it is an estimate only — of this payment of interest on overdue accounts and overpaid taxes is some $2 million per year.

The proposed amendment to the Revenue Sharing Act by deletion of the Fuel-oil Tax Act, now proposed for repeal, will not substantially affect the share of revenue going to British Columbia's municipalities. This is because the revenue from the Fuel-oil Tax Act was a relatively small $2 million, with only $120,000 to be distributed, when in fact the municipalities' share, under revenue-sharing in 1979, was some $141 million.

Next, an amendment to the Succession Duty Act is proposed to allow interest on overdue duties to be set by an order of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. This is the same as provisions in force in all the other taxation acts. Although the act was repealed effective January 24, 1977, there is still approximately $2 million in duties outstanding. Application of the current rates of interest, now 16 1/2 percent, to these duties should give the executors of the estates an incentive to pay these outstanding duties.

The last proposed amendment in this bill is one to eliminate the present double taxation of coal leases and licences. This will mean an approximate $40,000 reduction in revenue from 24 companies now paying the double tax.

I thank the House for its patience during the recital of these various aspects of this particular bill, and I now move second reading with the observation that indeed committee discussion may be seen to be more appropriate by members of the House.

MR. STUPICH: I suppose it's a sign of the times that relatively minor amendments to some ten taxation acts add up in total to something like $48.4 million as an estimate of reduction of revenue. As the minister suggested, the detailed discussion of this legislation would better be left to committee. The opposition certainly doesn't intend to debate this bill long in second reading. Most of the tax changes are progressive and we would support them. I suppose the $48 million could have been spent in ways that would have suited us more, but certainly most of the changes will be supported. In some areas we might have wished that the minister had gone further; in some changes we might have wished that he had not moved at all. But I'll reserve my comments with respect to those changes until we get to the committee stage, when we will be dealing with them one at a time. The opposition will support the bill.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I thank the member opposite for his comments; indeed there will be discussion in committee. I now move second reading of Bill 2.

Motion approved.

Bill 2, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1980, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 4, Mr. Speaker,

[ Page 2436 ]

CORPORATION CAPITAL TAX
AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

The House in committee on Bill 4; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 7 inclusive approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On section 7 or 8?

MR. STUPICH: Halfway between. We passed number 7, Mr. Chairman. What I have is an amendment to move that would add a new section 8. That's why I say halfway between. I would like to move the amendment. Well, I guess I'd better speak on it first.

I made this point yesterday, I think, in discussion of second reading as to how we started levying a corporation capital tax in the province. The levying of this corporation capital tax does impose an additional burden on the payers of this tax. It's a new set of records, a new set of calculations, new tax forms. It does impose a burden on government, because it means that some people have to administer this act and have to try to keep track of the tax returns that are being filed to see whether or not the corporation capital tax is being properly calculated. It brings in approximately the same amount of revenue as an additional one point on the corporate income tax. The income tax is levied on the basis of income, whereas the capital tax is levied, in some cases, on debt — certainly not on income. I think it's a tax that we could well do away with completely. For that reason, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper [see appendix], which would insert a new section 8 — and I take the direction from the way in which the probate fees amendment is being introduced — the effect of which would be to do away with this tax in future, but would not do away with the legislation which would allow the government to straighten up anything that may remain in abeyance from previous filings under this legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please. For the benefit of the Chair, could I ask the member for Nanaimo if this amendment was to strike out section 8, or to renumber it section 9?

MR. STUPICH: Depending upon what happens to this new section 8, we might then have to renumber the existing section 8, but I thought I'd wait until we find out whether or not we have a new section 8.

MR., CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member, that helps the Chair greatly.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. CURTIS: While we indicated in second reading, as a matter of fact, that the position taken by the spokesman for the official opposition is very interesting and suggests a subject which we would want to consider in the course of time, we cannot accept the amendment, and the government therefore must oppose it. I would like to be cooperative but we can't accept this amendment. As the member has observed, Mr. Chairman, it would in effect repeal the Corporation Capital Tax Act effective April 30, 1980, and therefore wouldn't just amend it as the government has intended, but would shut it down completely. I wonder if, in fact, the amendment was in order. However, the government cannot accept it, should you again rule that it is in order. I thank the member for the amendment.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I'm rather surprised that the government finds itself unable to accept this amendment. Certainly the party that now forms the government in the province took a very strong stand on this legislation when it was introduced, I believe, in 1973. They had no difficulty in making up their mind with no notice then. They've had four years' experience in government, and surely during that time should have confirmed or abandoned their earlier position with respect to the corporation capital tax. I don't understand why the government, after all that experience, is unable to reach any decision with respect to eliminating this legislation.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 19

NAYS — 29

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

On section 8.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, although it's not proper to reflect on a vote, it should be noted that after the division bells had rung the hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree) left the chamber and refused to support that government in defeating this good motion on behalf of the small businessmen in British Columbia. I should have said the member....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I meant the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis).

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Let the record indicate that the first member for Vancouver Centre erred in indicating that the member indicated was to be the member for North Vancouver–Seymour and not the member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

[ Page 2437 ]

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

Bill 4, Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1980, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 15, Mr. Speaker.

COLLEGE AND INSTITUTE
AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

HON. MR. SMITH: In 1977 the Legislature passed the Colleges and Provincial Institutes Act, which provided a new framework for post-secondary education in colleges and institutes — that is, all institutions other than universities. About two and a half years' experience under that act have shown that this legislation requires some refining and polishing to ensure that our 14 community colleges and 6 provincial institutes can continue to meet the educational needs of British Columbians today.

I've tried to devote major attention to the colleges and institutes, and I have toured a dozen of the 14 colleges and a number of the institutes. They are the major area of growth in the educational system. The average growth this year in these institutions was 15 percent, which of course contrasts with a really zero growth rate in the schools overall. In order to meet the challenge of this major increase in the number of people attending colleges and institutes, it was necessary to introduce some immediate amendments, and this has been done.

In introducing this bill, it should also be pointed out that the colleges and institutes operate under the authority of three councils. They have an Occupational Training Council and an Academic Council which review financial operating requests, make recommendations to the minister, and allocate funds. In addition to that, there is a Management Advisory Council, which has some further responsibilities, including long-range planning and the recommendation of capital budgets. The relationship of these three councils to each other and to the colleges and institutes still requires some refining.

The three councils did an exceptionally fine job in this their first year of budgeting under the new act, and received high praise from Treasury Board officials. I'm very impressed with the efforts that were made by the boards of our colleges and institutes as well as by the councils, and I will be seeking ways of strengthening the operation of this system in the year ahead.

Many of the amendments proposed in this bill are housekeeping and mechanical. They address some of the lapses and ambiguities in the existing act. They do not, however, pretend to be a comprehensive revision at this time.

Included in the amendments is a proposal that the minister be able to designate programs such as libraries and student services, in addition to instructional programs, to either one of the post-secondary institutes.

Also included is a clarification of the minister's power to allocate funds. Under the existing legislation there are at least three functions that are not assigned to any of the existing councils — that is, continuing education, debt servicing and ancillary services. It will now be clear that the minister can allocate funds for those; there was some doubt before this.

Another provision will increase the number of government appointees on the college boards to one greater than the total of school board appointees. The present act provides that the school boards outnumber the total government appointees by one. Of course, the reason that school boards were appointing people to the boards of colleges grew out of the original funding arrangements. The school boards had a role in that — coming down from 100 to 50 percent, and then recently to 20 percent and 10 percent; and now they have a zero role. None of the operating or debt costs of community colleges are paid from property taxes. Nevertheless, it was a very good reason to keep school boards involved in community colleges, and to have each school board in a region to continue to appoint a member to a community college board. But it was not unreasonable to expect that the government should appoint one more than the sum total of those appointees, as the government was funding the colleges by 100 percent.

Because these community colleges represent the views of a region — and the region may be a very large and diverse region, such as the region that Northern Lights College serves, a region of some 800 miles in length — it is most important that reflected in these boards is not just the sum total of five school districts but the regional character of the area served by the college. I think it is important that the minister has to have an overview of the college region when he is making appointments.

Also in this housekeeping bill are some provisions which deal with the term of appointment, clarifying that appointments to college boards may be for a period of two years but need not be two-year appointments. In other words, they could be for one year or two years. In the case of school districts, they will make their appointments for one year. That is the existing law, because a number of school boards do change their character every year and still have annual elections.

There is also a clarification in the appointment of members of institutes. They also can be appointed for a period of up to two years, but need not be for a period of two years; and they can be appointed to the councils for up to three years, but they could be for one, two or three years.

There is a minor alteration which eliminates the necessity of all resolutions and bylaws that are dealt with at a board meeting being forwarded to the minister. The minister now will only have to see those that are actually passed. This will prevent a good deal of unnecessary paperwork and timewasting in forwarding material that is only considered and not passed.

Borrowing powers of colleges and institutes are restricted under the 1977 act to a savings institution, and these are now proposed to be broadened so that they will have the same borrowing powers as other educational institutions.

There is also clarification contained in this bill that will

[ Page 2438 ]

ensure that the pension rights of employees will be clearly known, so that the professional staff of the colleges and institutes will be covered by the Pension (College) Act and the support staff by the Pension (Municipal) Act — except in the case of either of these being former public servants; they shall continue to be covered under the Pension (Public Service) Act.

There is also a provision that in order to sit on the Management Advisory Council, the appointee of the board chairman of an institution.... The board chairmen of the various colleges and institutes make up the Management Advisory Council. If the chairman wants to designate someone in his place, that person has to be a member of the college or institute board.

Also there is a clarification of the rights of members of councils to receive reasonable expenses as well as their honorarium, and also provision that a public service employee who serves on one of these councils can also receive such expenses and an honorarium.

In summary, the proposed amendments are for the most part housekeeping in nature, with some fine-tuning to assist the colleges and institutes, as well as the ministry, to meet their post-secondary mandate in a more effective way.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, it's interesting that the minister brings this bill in at this time. He describes it in a way that is rational, logical, soft and smooth; but it is a bill which has received, since its introduction in this chamber, considerable opposition from the various groups that are going to be affected by it, and I'll deal with that in a moment.

But I want to ask the House today to consider these remarks which were delivered to people interested in education, and for the public to hear throughout the province, and I want you to guess who made them. I'm quoting here directly, and you've got one guess only:

"Maybe you'd rather have me sit in Victoria surrounded by snowy-haired officials, swimming in paper like some great sort of benign educational midwife and hand down pronouncements; tell you how to run your programs; tell you how much sex education we should have; tell you exactly the size of your school board offices; and do all these gorgeously paternalistic things. I could dry your eyes and hold your hand."

This should be said to music, Mr. Speaker.

"I'm not going to do those things."

Guess who.

MR. NICOLSON: Agnes Kripps?

MR. LAUK: Wrong. Any more guesses? I have heard Agnes Kripps; do I hear any more?

AN HON. MEMBER: Mary Worth?

MR. LAUK: You would think so, because not only were the recipients of that message drowned in a vat of melted Hershey bars, drowned in liberal generalities, but so were all of the organizations affected by this act. The act itself is in total contradiction to the speech, and the speech that I quoted is that of the new Minister of Education speaking to the School Trustees Association of British Columbia.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

MR. LAUK: Yes. On March 3 he said.... Let's run through this again; it's a great speech. He said: "I'm not going to be some sort of benign educational midwife...." I'm certain he wouldn't pass the medical inspection anyway, unless he's referring to the part about sex education.

Then he says: "I'm not going to do all these gorgeously paternalistic things " The words just flow from the mouth so easily, Mr. Speaker — much too easily. Do they have meaning? Did he really mean it? The answer is no. He didn't mean a word of it. He likes to hear the sound of his voice: soft, fatherly. He knows best. Great big central government will control education in this province under this benign, benevolent dictator, this would-be midwife surrounded by snowy-haired officials — dwarfs, I assume, little gnomes whispering into the great Gandolf's ear. The Wizard of Oz speaks out and decides for us little people, little Mr. and Mrs. Rabbit, who don't know any better. We have to listen to the dictates of a man who knows what's best for us, our colleges, our children, our education — even on a regional and district basis.

Mr. Speaker, what is the reaction from the people who work every day in the colleges and institutions of this province? What was their reaction? Amazement. On the heels of a statement such as that from the Minister of Education, he brings in Bill 15, College and Institute Amendment Act, 1980, which wrests power with the stroke of a pen from school boards and regional representatives who have been duly and democratically elected. His excuse is that the province now provides 100 percent of funding. That is — I use his language — sophistry, Mr. Speaker. It's also nonsense, because the people of the regions pay provincial taxes and contribute heavily to the provincial coffers, and they have a right, when they vote.... The same people that vote for us in this chamber vote for the people on school boards and municipalities. They are democratically elected people who have sacrificed their time from family life and ordinary work to work in the regions and the school districts to assist in providing a local and regional characteristic. The member for Prince George, who has devoted many, many years to the service of his own school district, knows full this full well.

These people are democratically elected. They are responsible to their electors, and this minister gives them a back of the hand and says: "You are not capable of making decisions, because I'm going to be gorgeously paternalistic, surrounded by my snowy-haired officials, and I'll swim in paper like a benign educational midwife and hand down pronouncements." We must take the opposite of what he said as being true. What is the reaction, Mr. Speaker? The latest word I have is that the College Faculties Federation, the organization that represents college teachers, has passed a motion condemning the bill. I understand that the Union of British Columbia Municipalities will have a similar motion to consider. The British Columbia School Trustees Association passed the following motion in relation to Bill 15. I'll read their news report.

"The proposed formula for revising college board composition is a major amendment, and trustees are concerned because it would tip the balance of ministerial appointees as opposed to school district appointees in the ministry's favour. At the recent B.C. School Trustees Association annual general meeting, trustees reacted to the proposed amendment by make-

[ Page 2439 ]

ing a special resolution that states: 'A unilateral decision to amend the Colleges and Provincial Institutes Act....'"

I underline the word "unilateral," because this minister did not consult with the Colleges Association before these amendments were made. He didn't even have the democratic grace to accept their submissions and thoughts on the proposed amendments.

" '...a unilateral decision to amend the Colleges and Provincial Institutes Act so that the number of government appointees is one more than the number of school board appointees is regrettable, particularly in light of the positive atmosphere of cooperation and consultation that was set by the new minister so recently. School trustees are accountable to the local voters, whereas government appointees are accountable to those who appoint them. The responsiveness of the community colleges to their constituents at the local level will be totally undermined by this action. Increasing the number of government appointees to one more than the number of school board appointees increases the size of college boards by two members. Some college boards already have 11 members, and an increase could be both cumbersome and costly. Be it resolved that the School Trustees Association urge the Minister of Education to maintain the existing formula for the make-up of college boards.' "

My understanding, Mr. Speaker, is that the resolution was passed by a vast majority of the delegates, if not unanimously. There is no question that all of the school trustees in British Columbia represented there at that annual meeting are totally and strenuously against the minister's action. He would have found that out had he done what he's been promising on the School Act — have his ear to the ground, go out there and listen to people, talk to them, consult with them. So we now see that this minister says one thing and does another. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said: "The things that you do speak so loudly, I can't hear the things that you say." People in the educational institutions and colleges throughout the province are saying that today about this new Minister of Education.

Mr. Speaker, what were the press reports and what were the statements of the minister when the bill was first introduced? He said: "The change reflects the fact that the provincial government now provides 100 percent of the funds for community colleges. Considering that, we felt that the government should have overriding responsibility." Today he used the word "overview" when he was talking about regional appointments. He's going to have an overview.

On April 30 he said "overriding responsibility." Contrast that, if you will, with this statement: "I'm not going to do those things. I'm not going to be gorgeously paternalistic. I'm not going to tell you how to run your programs, tell you what size of school boards and offices you're going to have. I'm not going to swim in paper and be surrounded by snowy-haired officials." He's over there talking to the school trustees, and he's even attacking his own ministry officials. I mean what kind of a minister would do that? I ask you. Calling them snowy-haired....

AN HON. MEMBER: They've got hair!

MR. LAUK: You ought to know, Mr. Minister. H2O over there says he's got hair.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Anyway, what was the reaction of Rubymay Parrott, recently past president of the BCSTA? She said she was disappointed with the change, and she said this: "That really shows that the Social Credit government is in favour of centralization of control of the college system. I would prefer to see an elective process for college boards. It doesn't mean, just because it's funded totally by the provincial government, that they have to look over their shoulder to this extent." Amen to that, Mr. Speaker. These people pay taxes.

When the minister said in his opening remarks on this bill that the reason that there were locally appointed members to college boards in the first place was because the school districts provided some financial support, that was only one reason. We were the ones that set up this system. There were other more important major reasons why there were locally appointed people. If all hon. members will read Hansard, in the days when the original act came before this House, the minister of the day — now the hon. member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) — stated clearly: "This is a first step, and the second stage is a development of the college system. The regional college system, the community college system, will be giving more and more control and administrative authority to school districts, and not the other way around."So the Minister of Education is dead wrong.

It was only a minor reason to give local appointments — that is to say financial sharing. The major reason was that the community colleges would be influenced predominantly by regions and local boards and the interests of the region — that is to say the people, the voters and the students that would come from that region should have the democratic control and guidance of these institutions. To take a paternalistic approach, in contradistinction to his remarks, is a harbinger of things to come. This minister has travelled around the school districts of this province promising decentralization, promising that we'll move away from this massive control of the ministry over every aspect of education and allow the people some room to breathe — a breath of fresh air. But the only action he's taken — not just words, actions — has been a move towards greater centralized dictatorial control of education right here in his hands in Victoria.

The B.C. Colleges Association executive are upset. They met last week, and they're very, very disturbed by this turn of events. The British Columbia Teachers' Federation is very upset at this turn of events, not only because of the move towards centralization but clearly because they can see that the minister says one thing and does another; clearly because they can see that all of his promises to listen to the interested people, to listen to the public, may just be promises that will never be kept. They're losing confidence in the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: You hope.

MR. LAUK: No, I don't hope. Through you, Mr. Speaker, to that member — he should know this. Education for our children and post-secondary education are far too important in this province to play politics with, and I want to charge today that the Minister of Education is playing politics with the colleges; he's playing politics with education. It's playing politics to go around this province saying one thing and then doing another. That's politics. Instead of playing those

[ Page 2440 ]

games with the people and offending the credibility of the minister — which is an office, not a person. He is offending the credibility of his office when he goes about this province saying that he's going to decentralize on the one hand, but bringing in Bill 15 on the other.

There is more to come, Mr. Speaker, because we can see that all the Minister of Education is is Pat McGeer with a smiling face. That is the same. He is his predecessor with a smiling face, Mr. Speaker. The former Minister of Education went around this province....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I was just quoting a slogan; I won't use a personal name. The former minister went around this province undermining the morale of the public education system. He attacked the colleges. He attacked mass education. He was an academic elitist with a frown on his face. Now we have a Minister of Education who is an academic elitist with a smile on his face. I think we'd be better off with the predecessor, Mr. Speaker. At least we knew where we stood. So wipe that smile off your face, Mr. Minister. If you're going to do it to the people, do it with a frown so they'll know what's happening.

HON. MR. FRASER: Socialists are against smiling now too?

MR. LAUK: There is the man who has survived 56 years solely on porcupine pie, Mr. Speaker. We get all of it in his speeches. The opposition to this bill is 100 percent. It makes you wonder whether we're living in a democratic system or not, when an academic elitist, dictatorial minister can bring in a bill like this in the face of 100 percent public opposition. It is incredible, yet he does it. He says, "Well, after all, we're paying the bill," as if it was his money. "We're paying the bill; therefore I'm going to call the shots." Well, that is a very sad attitude to have, I say to the minister through you, Mr. Speaker.

Finally, I would like to point out that the minister has made great promises over the last several months. The newsletter and the communications from the School Trustees Association have requested the minister to withdraw the bill and to leave things the way they are. My understanding is that there were other concerned trustees who individually have sent their special concern to the minister and have not yet received a reply. In addition, to date, there is still no reply to many inquiries urging the minister to withdraw the bill. He is stiffly, steadfastly and stubbornly going to take this bill through the chamber in the face of such public opposition.

The dream of the community college is over. The idea that it would reflect local community values, that the curriculum could have some local flavour, that it would be an institution to educate people of all ages at night and during the day is all over. The Minister of Education is taking centralized control into Victoria's hands. We might as well go back to the old system where we didn't have regional or community colleges at all. It is a sad commentary on this new, bushy-tailed minister that four or five months after his appointment he would....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: For that hon. member's sake, I'll ignore the remark, Mr. Speaker. People in that member's area — on the Selkirk College board and other institutions in that area — have informed me of their very grave concerns about this bill. I'm sure that hon. member has received these concerns and I'm sure.... I won't breathe a word of it, Mr. Speaker — about that hon. member's laughing during the debate of this bill — that he didn't take it seriously. I won't breathe a word outside of these four walls to his constituents. I promise I won't tell a soul. To those who request a copy of my speech, of course, I will have to send it, but I'm sure they will keep the secret too. The people of Selkirk, the people of those school districts in that hon. member's ridings, are very, very concerned. And that minister considers it a laughing matter. There is no more regional control and governance available to school districts because of this bill, and the opposition will vote against it.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister, who, from all appearances, made a good start — when he was first appointed, he seemed to be making the welcome types of moves — has, with this bill, undone a great deal of work and effort. And for what? It is probably the principle rather than the practical application of this change which would, in effect, put two more government appointees on the various community college boards in order to give the government the position of outnumbering the school board appointees by one member instead of being outnumbered by one. It is the principle. What might happen in terms of the actual control is hard to determine. I suppose that some of the government appointees.... I suppose some boards do exist where the government appointees line up and vote one way and the school board appointees vote another way. I would hope that in most community colleges they would tend to make decisions based on the information placed before them — the resolutions under consideration.

Look at the principle that is embodied in this bill. It says that Big Brother government has to have centralized control, because a couple of years ago we went to 100 percent funding. Therefore we've got to pull the strings. Really, what's been the change? They've gone to 100 percent funding. How did they go about that? One of the things they did was increase the statutory mill rate levy so that school taxes all over the province, during a time of increasing property assessments, went sky-rocketing. On the other hand, they took them away and removed a burden. So if you look at what local people are paying for their school tax bill, you probably haven't noticed much change, except that it has continued to go up. They probably didn't even notice that about 3 mills or so were removed by the act of the government assuming 100 percent funding. It really is the people's money after all. What we should be asking is: who is best to decide?

How do government appointees get appointed? It's amazing, you know, that when we came to government we looked at certain appointees. Certainly local MLAs were consulted, as I'm sure the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) is consulted if there are any re-appointments to be made. But members on this side aren't. I do know that we re-appointed a lot of the former government's appointees. They were doing a good job. I remember the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) coming into this House and reciting people as being political hacks and political appointees. He named the government agent in the city of Nelson and smeared his name — the very member who is now chief of all government agents in the

[ Page 2441 ]

Ministry of Finance. I won't name a name, but that's what happened. That was their attitude. Their attitude is that you make political appointments and you don't look at qualifications and you don't consult local MLAs, regardless of party; you just replace them with your own.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), touched on the point that in British Columbia we have a community college system. We made a conscious choice not to go to a junior college system, such as exists in the United States. We came up with something here in British Columbia that was a little bit unique. How did some of these community colleges come into existence in the first place? Selkirk College, located near Castlegar, was brought into existence by the passage of a referendum. In those days it was not government deciding for people; it was people deciding for themselves after they were given the facts. They made a decision and that decision was to go ahead, knowing full well that they were going to have to face and carry a greater tax burden. So in the first instance, Selkirk College was set up as, I think, the first campus of the original community colleges. I think Selkirk College was the first campus built in one of the regions in which several school districts came together and cooperated; and of course we got started on the community college system. It operated very well.

Quite frankly, recently I have been critical about the lack of leadership, which is exemplified at Selkirk College by the fact that they've gone about a year and a half without a permanent president; they were a very long time without a bursar; they've had trouble in filling positions and so on. I could be quite critical. But these are the things that locally responsible people must take responsibility for — the things they can do better. Really, while there are any government appointees in large numbers on a college board, when it is in difficulty one could very easily shift the burden of responsibility from the local area, which is the only area that has the wherewithal to solve the problem. One could very well blame the leadership — almost certainly in the future — on the preponderance of government appointees. The minister is not going to have an independent operating board; he is going to have to accept full blame and responsibility for whatever happens.

The minister was in our area recently and made an announcement, which I welcomed, that the University of Victoria was going to take over the lead role in the management of the David Thompson University Centre — take it away from Selkirk College. Unfortunately that statement was a little bit premature, but it shows again that the minister, rather than following his original instincts and his original good beginnings, probably feels that he can tell the University of Victoria what to do. Well, I have news for the minister: there's a thing called academic freedom. Like it or not, the minister is going to have to consult with the universities. If he wants the college system to work, he is going to have to have the cooperation of local agencies.

This is a slap in the face. It is a rude awakening to the B.C. School Trustees Association, and it's a warning to the B.C. Teachers' Federation. When they see this kind of unilateral action, as was pointed out in that emergency resolution presented by Kamloops School District 24 to the BCSTA convention, and carried.... They started it off by saying that it was a unilateral decision to amend the colleges act.

I can look at other parts of this act and say, yes, they should be passed. Some of them, I think, are good, because they are somewhat reassuring. I don't know if it's necessary to enshrine the rights already granted to people under their collective agreements and under successor status of the Labour Relations Board, but it certainly is reassuring and good. I welcome such guarantees as that employees who through reorganization come under community colleges will be allowed to continue their benefit plans under what I think is the most beneficial thing in each case, and that they've been given continuance, as in the case of many of the employees at Selkirk College and, I would imagine, throughout other parts of the province where there have been some rather complicated successions of authority, and there promise to be even further ones. The government has taken it upon itself to ensure that these are done under the most favourable circumstances in terms of their pensions and other aspects of their collective agreements.

The housekeeping aspects of this, many of which are useful and important, cannot be separated from a principle of the bill that once again says that senior government knows best. Really, Mr. Minister, you could make yourself a hero and you could recoup any loss of face. It would not diminish your stature if when we go into committee you were to withdraw this offensive section. It really would be well advised. Frankly, I don't think it's worth it. I'll tell you, if I were in your shoes, if I, for whatever reason, had been convinced of the logic — which I don't accept now — that because we're paying 100 percent we should have two more members on every board, so that instead of having one member less we can have one member more.... Mr. Minister, it isn't worth it.

As has been said, politics aside, I think that there are — or at least have been — very high hopes riding on your shoulders. Education has taken quite a kicking in this province for the last three years, and it has been hoped that there could be a new dawn of cooperation. If you want to maintain the cooperation which I feel has been extended to you by the B.C. Teachers' Federation, by the BCSTA, by teachers in the colleges and by everyone who is concerned with education, I would urge you to remove the offensive section of this bill. It would be, perhaps, one of the finest and wisest things you've ever done.

MR. RITCHIE: I'm compelled to say a few words here in support of this bill but more particularly in support of our Minister of Education. I am concerned about the remarks made by the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) in respect to the minister, because only last Friday I had the wonderful experience of having the minister in my constituency where he met with people representing the private and public school system. One meeting in one of our senior high schools he met and spoke to approximately 350 people — teachers, principals, trustees and all of those representing our school district. He was extremely well received. He left a tremendous impression, and I am sure that those remarks by the member for Vancouver Centre are all wrong.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, we are on Bill 15 and your remarks might be more appropriate during the estimates of the minister. If you could speak to Bill 15 and the general principle of the act, it would be appreciated by all members present.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I just thought I should take

[ Page 2442 ]

this opportunity only because of the remarks that were made. But the things mentioned by the member for Vancouver Centre in respect to the minister are all wrong.

MR. COCKE: I'll try to speak to the principle — what we can find — of Bill 15. In the first place we have a rather confusing situation before us. We have Bill 15, the College and Institute Amendment Act, 1980, and that's an amendment to good old Bill 82 that I seem to recall very well in 1977 in this House. Bill 82 at the time was intituled Colleges and Provincial Institutes Act. There's a word that slipped out of there along the way.

HON. MR. SMITH: Statute revisions.

MR. COCKE: The minister says "revisions." The statute revisions have not been passed in this House. I think you've confused everybody. The statute revision doesn't become law until it's passed by this House.

Frankly, I'm not quite sure that that was the proper place for that kind of change. That kind of change could have been instituted with Bill 15 if they wanted to change the title of the original act of parliament. But we have a bill before us that is incorrectly titled. What happened is that we have a bill here that amends what I consider to be one of the most thoughtless acts of a government who were dedicated at the time of their first and second elections, they told the public, to decentralization.

The first bill, Bill 82 — and this is the one that we're amending now, the Colleges and Provincial Institutes Act — was criticized across the province. I don't know how many critiques I've got of it here, and I could dig up a zillion more from people that were basically interested in the community college concept. What we did with the original Bill 82 was to centralize the program under the authority of the Minister of Education. And what we've done now is to further centralize and create more power in the minister's hands.

I remember when the minister was first appointed. There was a great sigh of relief that went up all over the community. It was a sigh of relief saying: "At long last we are rid of that authoritarian, that elitist from UBC who is carrying us to infamy." It was the former Minister of Education who brought in the original Colleges and Provincial Institutes Act, pushed it through the House and begged all sides across this province to slow down.

Think about what you're doing. You're taking away all of the local decision-making. You're crippling adult education and other things. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this amendment carries that one step further: local input is again reduced. Now the minister has personal charge of each and every college. The appointments that the minister makes are not arm's length appointments on these boards; they're order-in-council appointments. And a two-year appointment is no longer lasting than the minister's pleasure or the pleasure of the government. That order-in-council can be rescinded a month later if, in fact, the government has decided that they're not being well served by the appointment.

MR. LAUK: Politburo.

MR. COCKE: My colleague says: "Politburo." He's being a little rough, but this is the kind of elitism that we see coming from this government, who falsely identified themselves as people who were dedicated to the principle of decentralization. We have never seen a government more contradictory to its own proposed policy. Oh, don't we remember that seagull flying around on those ads and in the papers. We saw the seagull, the symbol of freedom. Instead of the symbol of freedom, what we're getting from this government is a centralized authority — as shown here again today in Bill 15 — to further command and centralize the college system in B.C. I really think it's shocking.

The college system was started to really give emphasis to community response. Well, Mr. Speaker, that's been further de-emphasized. I watch the frustrations around the college in my area, Douglas College. I watch the frustrations of a college that's being moved around, shifted around, forced to play the game the way the government decides. Oh, I know we have some lofty thinkers out of UBC who have a great deal to do with the college system now because of their access through the Universities Council. I suggest that the former Minister of Education decided that communities were not to be trusted, local school boards were not to be trusted; therefore they've been dealt with this way.

Now here is a concern, here is a large critique, of good old Bill 82. On one of the pages it says: "In much of what the bill describes and implies with respect to government structure, there is a clear diminution of the authority of the local level in college governance, with which Vancouver Community College council may wish to take issue." That diminution has accelerated.

And so, Mr. Speaker, all the way through we're seeing what we thought would be a change in the right direction from the new Minister of Education.... In this bill we see him just going down the good old party line. We make the decisions here in Victoria; we're the ones who know what's best for you. That's a sort of Stalinist approach to things — the approach probably best known, I would think, by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland); he loves that power in his hands. But, you know, we expected more from this new Minister of Education. We expected a bill amending the Colleges and Provincial Institutes Act to give a little life to it, to give back to the communities an opportunity for the input that they deserve. But this forever takes away any kind of real access to decision-making. You know, Mr. Speaker, the original bill.... We had so many councils and so many ministerial appointments in terms of the distribution of money, etc., that it was very difficult to have community input. Now it's become impossible.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly can't deal with every college in the province and how they feel about it. As the education critic indicated, he's getting letters from everywhere. I know they must be terribly frustrated. But they're getting used to it and that's a shame. I've often wondered why it was, when we were government, we had so many people giving us strong advice. Then it suddenly occurred to me. That criticism was because they knew they could criticize safely. This government can't be criticized safely. Any time you criticize that government you find that you've been reduced in terms of your power. Any time you see this government under threat, the threat is then removed by taking away the access to decision-making. It is the Stalinist approach.

During that 1977 debacle we had councils, college teachers, students and people coming into this building from all over this province, pleading, giving recommendations, suggesting changes that could be made that would make that bill at that time a little more viable. No, the advice wasn't

[ Page 2443 ]

taken. They let three years go by and what are we faced with now? More of the same. I really think it's a shame. I really do. I guess there's not much point in going over the old times, but I just want you to remember one thing. Remember Friday, August 5? We were in the heat of summer that year. That was rather a long session.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Wait till this one's over.

MR. COCKE: The Minister of Agriculture, who just sold out to Cargill, says: "Wait until this one's over." He's quite right.

But, Mr. Speaker, on Friday, August 5, BCIT asked to be left out of the colleges act. They didn't do that lightly. They did that because of the fact that they had no confidence in the legislation. They would rather remain under the old system. Now we've got more centralization of authority. I realize that there are some amendments here that have some value, but that basic amendment is where this government's head is at. I am really sorry, and I would hope that the minister will possibly repent before it's too late, before this bill is proclaimed. If he does, he will gain a good deal of respect from the whole community. If he doesn't, he is going to be placed in the same category as his predecessor.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pat II.

MR. COCKE: My heavenly days! That's a lot, you know, Mr. Speaker, and we shouldn't let any minister have to face that kind of prospect. There's no reason why he should have to take that kind of a reputation into the community. As a matter of fact, we'll keep his secret. We will. Just like the member for Vancouver Centre says, we'll make sure that no bad news gets out — about him, providing he forsakes the leadership of the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who sits on his throne dictating energy policy and health policy.

Bill 15 must be unacceptable to us in principle just because of this kind of arrogance and this type of approach. I could not go back to my community and hold my head up if I had voted for more centralization in Victoria. With good reason, my community says: we don't trust this government to make all the decisions. I second that, Mr. Speaker. I don't either. I don't think they should.

MR. LEGGATT: I wanted to, first of all, tell the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, a story about Douglas College. I was one of the founding members of Douglas College and spent some nine years on our local school board. It directly concerns the amendment that the minister is attempting to pass this afternoon in terms of the composition of those boards.

When Douglas College was originally envisaged, the local representatives, in their wisdom, decided that the proper approach was to create two colleges, one on the south side of the Fraser River and the other on the north. At that time — that was after a great deal of local discussion and democratic input — the provincial government and the Minister of Education, in his wisdom, rejected that proposal. They decided we needed one college and administration covering both the north and south of the Fraser River. Today the ministry is about to create two new colleges, one on the north side and one on the south side, exactly as was recommended by the local representatives at that time. The reason I bring that to the minister's attention, and he is well aware of it, is the strength of local representation. Those were people who were not appointed from Victoria; they were elected and responsible to the voters of their community. For the minister to stand in his place and say these are some minor changes, and to issue a press release which says "minor improvements in the form of housekeeping amendments" is the closest the minister has ever come to a con.

I regret to use very much rhetoric, because the minister is new in his portfolio. He's still on a honeymoon. The honeymoon period always goes on for the first few months, but it's coming to a shattering conclusion for the minister. The honeymoon is really over. This is the first serious spat the minister is going to have with people who are interested in education. You can't get away with coming in front of this House and calling it a "minor improvement" or ''polishing and housekeeping." This goes to the very root of how we run the community college system. It's absolutely fundamental and it won't wash to say: "Oh, but we're paying the shot now. We're paying 100 percent of the operation of colleges. Therefore we have the right to have a majority on every single college board in the province of British Columbia." That won't wash.

First of all, every homeowner in the province knows that his school taxes have not gone down. In fact, they've gone up. All that's happened is that there's been a little juggling going on and they've taken from Peter to pay Paul. The reality is that while they were shifting away the cost of regional colleges from the local ratepayer, they simply added it on to the general cost of running the school system. So that argument won't wash.

The second argument, which certainly won't wash, is that just because you're not a ratepayer and a homeowner, it doesn't mean you don't pay taxes. The Municipal Act recognized that a long time ago and the Public Schools Act recognizes that. Every school trustee in the province is elected not only by homeowners but by renters and people who pay liquor and gas tax and all the revenues that the government takes in. They elect those school trustees not only to look after the problems surrounding their tax on their home, but they have a general responsibility to look after those taxpayers. Therefore they are just as responsible on those college boards as an appointee from the provincial government. That's the key to this. They are just as responsible in regard to who's paying the tune and who's paying the piper. It won't wash anymore that a provincial government says: "We're paying the shot." Who is "we"? "We" are the taxpayers of every municipality and school district in the province of British Columbia. They are entitled by right to have a majority on every community college in the province of British Columbia. It's that simple.

The arguments that the minister has heard today about centralization are valid arguments. They are arguments which are unassailable. This is a major change in the philosophy of the community colleges as they were envisioned. When we envisioned Douglas College, we saw a certain resistance in the community of Simon Fraser at that time. Simon Fraser was in a state of some protest and unrest, and a good number of people said: "Well, we'd like a college that maybe reflects more of what we were concerned about — more of our day-to-day concerns." That college has fulfilled that role very well indeed. In fact, all of the community colleges are remarkably popular in this province. They've

[ Page 2444 ]

done a superb job of reflecting the values of the local community.

The minister is about to destroy that fantastic record. He is about to take away the democratic aspect of the operation of those colleges. And he calls it a minor improvement? "It's a little polishing — a little refining." It's a little bit like the polishing and refining that was done to J.F. Kennedy in Dallas. This is a very serious amendment. It's an amendment which in fact changes the kind of philosophy that those who initiated the community college system had. It's about to make it an elitist, centralized, government-knows-best community college system.

I urge the minister to rethink this bill. I urge him to at least withdraw this amendment and have another look at it. You can have your bill and all the other amendments today. There's no problem. But I would seriously urge, through you, Mr. Speaker, that the minister reconsider this very serious amendment, because it's not the first. I don't really believe the minister adopts the centralist philosophy. I haven't heard him promoting the county system which the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) continually promote. This is the first time I've been aware that this minister is a centralist. Because in general his appointment was well received; there was a feeling that he understood that we wanted democratic input into the community college system.

Look at the direction it's gone. We had resource boards in British Columbia; they're gone. If you took at a bill that's coming up, the liquor act, you'll find that here again the minister's going to make the final decision about liquor licences; that's centralization, big government. ELUC: what happened to the Land Commission? You find now that the cabinet makes the final decision. We don't trust those people out there to make decisions about their own affairs; we're going to make them for you. Mr. Speaker, the people in this province are going to make a decision in the next election that they would rather run their own affairs than have someone else do it for them.

No, Mr. Speaker, these are not minor amendments. They are not refining and polishing. They are an attempt, in a very low-key, modest approach by the minister.... I could hardly hear him, in fact, when he introduced the bill. This bill seemed so insignificant; I think he hoped that everybody would go fast asleep and watch it slip right through. It's a watershed in terms of education in the province of British Columbia, and the minister's going to rue the day that he decided to grab control of community colleges from the democratically elected representatives.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) was in better humour today, having had some Grecian Formula for lunch, and I thought that he was in very, very good form. He was very amusing. He read passages of a speech that I made to some school trustees, and he read it two or three times, which I thank him for.

Mr. Speaker, there's a great difference between the funding and the operation of the public school system and the post-secondary college system. I am somewhat amused to see all the expressions opposite of tremendous profession of faith in decentralization. I do not recall that same faith in decentralization and local decision-making when they demolished and obliterated municipalities in this province by amalgamating them against their wish.

MR. LAUK: Nonsense. That is known as a red herring.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, it isn't. It was not a red herring in my constituency. In my constituency they're still terrified of your getting back and wiping them out — which you'd do, too.

MR. LEGGATT: Yours is the last one.

HON. MR. SMITH: Listen, they'd be down here with their knitting needles camped at the building for a month if you got back in, to stop you from your perfidious designs.

MR. LAUK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the Speaker to consider that the word "perfidious" is offensive, and I would ask the Speaker to order the minister to substitute "democratic and beneficial."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair could ask the member to withdraw if the member finds the word "perfidious".... Would the minister withdraw.

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes. I'm delighted that he's able to translate the meaning of it. But I certainly will withdraw it. It wasn't intended to be offensive.

MR. LAUK: There's an another elitist statement. Do you think you're the only one that reads a book?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, the only one who had to take Latin.

A few points in summary, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I just wanted to dispel the myth that somehow this bill is going to destroy the regional character of community colleges. All the members of the board, appointed either by the minister or school boards, will live in the region, or be associated with the region or the college.

MR. LAUK: Not true.

HON. MR. SMITH: That is true.

MR. LAUK: It's not in the act.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, it isn't, but there have not been any appointments where they haven't either resided in or had an association with the institution.

MR. LAUK: Are you going to make an amendment?

HON. MR. SMITH: No.

That's the first thing: they are and they will be regional boards. The provincial institutes — all the appointments of those are made by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Also, Mr. Speaker, I point out that the school boards do not have to and have not always appointed elected trustees. They can appoint a non-elected person to their boards. Usually they do appoint elected trustees, but sometimes they don't.

There is absolutely no eradication of local decision-making in this act. For about six weeks I have discussed the proposed amendments in meetings with individual college boards, new college board members and with various associations. I answered questions on this section.

[ Page 2445 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: With your appointees?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, they're not. There has barely been a ripple of opposition to this provision. Some of them don't like it. B.C. school trustees passed a resolution. I discussed that provision at their annual meeting. I discussed it with them in a lengthy question period, and many of them told me afterwards that they thought it was an acceptable change.

I think what is really so distressing, Mr. Speaker, is that in the remarks made by these gentlemen opposite there wasn't one indication of any constructive grasp of post-secondary education. They're fastening on this: that this one change is destroying the regional nature of colleges and flying in the face of democracy. It's very, very unconstructive — what we're used to.

In response to what the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) said about the institution in his riding, the plans for that institution were made only after extensive consultation with the president of the University of Victoria and also with the board of Selkirk College. I believe, from his remarks, that he supports the new proposals for that institution. I really can't imagine how he thinks that would come about without a great deal of consultation — which it did.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to pass on to the president of the university the negative point of view of the member for that area, who never approached me and requested that anything be done for the institution in his riding. We did something regardless of his input.

In summary on this bill, apart from the one criticism we've heard, there have been no constructive remarks. Apparently the other sections are acceptable. I move the bill be now read a second time.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 21

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

Bill 15, College and Institute Amendment Act, 1980, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. BARNES: I ask leave to introduce a guest.

Leave granted.

MR. BARNES: We have in the galleries with us this afternoon Reverend Ron Lindsay, a constituent, and Ms. Marguerite Shigehiro, community recreationist. I would like to have the House welcome them this afternoon.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 20, Mr. Speaker.

SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

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

On section 1.

MR. LAUK: I am just getting the bill out, Mr. Chairman, so the government doesn't pull a fast one here. I rise to point out that the deputy minister has now arrived. Looking at him and the way the light is shining down upon him, I wonder if the Minister of Education can confirm that he is one of those snowy-haired officials to whom he referred in his speech.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. LAUK: Section 2 allows the cabinet to provide a greater or lesser amount for indemnity to board members. Why does the minister think it's wise not to have a limit stated in the act? We can see some problems with the cabinet having power over the indemnity of board officials. It can be changed at their whim, rather than have it set by the Legislature.

HON. MR. SMITH: There are three different ways of handling the indemnity question. One is to simply increase a blanket amount, prescribing it across the board. The act now has $2,000.

The second way would be to set some guidelines for setting the indemnities based on geography and population — the number of students in the district — something like that.

The third way would be to say to the districts: "You set your own." Those are generally the three ways that it could be done.

What I said to the trustees was that I'm not really wedded to any one of those approaches. I would like to hear what you have to say. In answer to the member, I really haven't decided what approach to recommend to cabinet. It was felt that by doing it this way there would be that flexibility in time for consultation. But if the member has any suggestions as to how this would be done, I would certainly appreciate it.

MR. LAUK: I'm not saying this minister would ever be found guilty of such a practice, but with the vagaries and

[ Page 2446 ]

exigencies of political office and systems, would it not be possible for a Minister of Education to misuse this section and punish a particular school board? The minister has just stated to this committee that the limitations on the amount of indemnity and the conditions that would be requisite for the receiving of the indemnity would be set by order-in-council. What if some future malevolent Minister of Education, who wishes to punish a school board for its misbehaviour or disobedience, sets conditions and limitations on that particular school board that will discourage them and be an interference in the democratic process? I would argue that no conditions be set, that that be eliminated from the section, that a limitation that is uniform be set in the act and not at the whim or fancy of a cabinet that can use this provision to punish an errant — in their view — school board.

Could the minister respond to that? Why has he given himself this flexibility except with that spectre, that Sword of Damocles, hanging over school board trustees who want to be independent of control from Victoria? But you control the purse strings and the conditions, and I think you should just set a uniform limit for all school boards and keep the provincial government's nose out of that.

HON. MR. SMITH: It certainly would be much easier. I understood from my discussions with them that this is what they wanted me to do so they could make a varying number of recommendations.

MR. LAUK: Well, that's not good enough. You didn't talk to all the school board trustees, and you have a responsibility to the province as a whole. It may be they did not see the problem here, but I can see a serious problem.

MR. HANSON: The carrot and the stick routine.

MR. LAUK: That's right. These are elected officials at the local level. There should be no suggestion in the School Act that they can be whipsawed by any cabinet — yours or ours or whatever.

Sections 2 to 11 inclusive approved.

On section 12.

MR. LAUK: Could the minister explain section 12? The amendments to sections 143 and 144 are puzzling to me. This repeals a requirement for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to approve rules for Teachers' Federation fees and bylaw changes. Was that requested by the federation? I don't think it was.

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, it was.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. minister, it is very confusing for Hansard. The first member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: The minister has indicated yes. Well, I'm instructed by the B.C. Teachers' Federation that they did not request the change, and the puzzling part is....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, the bylaw changes will still have to be presented for acceptance to the registrar of companies. Anyway, I just wondered why there was the change. It seems to me a fairly good change from one point of view, but is there some explanation why the minister has gone this far?

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes. Not only did they request it, but at the first meeting I had with the president and the executive they brought it up. They felt it was a very demeaning thing that all these bylaws had to await government approval each time they changed them. I must say that looking at their bylaws and the kind of activity they had, I really felt it was quite out of place to have the government approving every one, so I readily recommended it to my colleagues. But they asked for it both verbally and in correspondence.

Sections 12 to 15 inclusive approved.

On the title.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, again I want to strongly point out to the Minister of Education that these are minuscule amendments to the act. The title School Amendment Act gives the image that substantial revisions to the School Act are underway. It ignores the major recommendations of the Evans report; it ignores the major recommendations of the Teachers' Federation and school trustees and the resolutions over the years, and it ignores the modern society we live in. For the minister to use an excuse that he's still wet behind his ears is no longer going to wash.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 20, School Amendment Act, 1980, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 6, Forest and Range Resource Fund Act, Mr. Speaker.

FOREST AND RANGE RESOURCE FUND ACT

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the Ministry of Forests Act passed by this Legislature in 1978 required that by this session of the Legislature a complete analysis of the state of the forest and range resource, together with a five-year management program, be presented to this Legislature. That required that this program and resource analysis be first presented to the government; following that it was tabled in this House on March 14 of this year, two months ago.

That resource analysis, Mr. Speaker, indicated very clearly that in British Columbia we are beginning to come to the end of our old-growth timber, and that we are beginning to make the transition from the liquidation of old-growth timber stands to the management and harvesting of second-growth stands. This has happened in every forest jurisdiction in the world and it will happen in those in which it has not yet happened. When this takes place there is a falldown effect,

[ Page 2447 ]

and that falldown effect is simply the fact that an acre of forest land can produce a much higher volume of wood if the wood is allowed to accumulate over centuries, as has been the case with our old-growth forests. When we move to a second-growth stand, the harvesting will be done in anywhere from 40 to perhaps 100 years, and the volume per acre will be much less under normal unassisted conditions.

Another problem that this resource analysis indicated to us is that there is a constant reduction taking place in the area of forest land in British Columbia that we can manage for timber production. These two factors, a natural falldown effect and the reduction of our forest land base, made it very clear that the province of British Columbia must do much, much more in the future in order to be able to produce more wood on less forest land. That led to the presentation of the program to the government, its acceptance by the government and presentation to the Legislature. This program lays out those things which must be done in the years to come if we are to avoid significant falldowns in the forest harvest available to our very important forest industry in British Columbia.

As you will recall, and as you know by the budget before this House now, the Ministry of Forests will be substantially increasing the moneys allocated to it over the next five-year period by an amount equal to about 34 percent in 1980 dollars. We will be substantially increasing funding in forest management areas, in intensive and basic silviculture, in planting, in protection and in other areas where benefits can be realized with the result of increased timber yield from the forest land base we have left. We will be making substantial increases to the areas that we plant, areas where we do site-preparation work, and areas where we do management work such as brushing, weeding, spacing, thinning, fertilization — the many things that can be done to increase the yield from our forests above that which would take place from a natural stand.

In order to assure a continuation of funding over the years, and especially during those parts of the years which, for reasons set down long before, were the transition period between fiscal years in government, we are making provision in this bill for $146.6 million to be used over a five-year period to provide this continuity of funding for forest management work. Many such programs are ongoing year by year — the growing of seedlings, the tending of stems....

All the silvicultural techniques we use are not things that we can start and stop year by year; there must be assurance that funding will continue through the years and will actually, in our case, increase through the years.

So this bill is a part of a more fully realized commitment of this government to the need to invest more and more money in this very important forest resource, which leads to more and more work by many hundreds and hundreds of British Columbians in the management of this resource. The forests that we had in the past were left to us by nature. They have been used by successive governments in this province for the purposes of developing our economy and our social measures. But, as I mentioned earlier, the luxury of these old-growth forests is now becoming a thing of the past and we must begin to manage second-growth forests. We will get out of our forests in the future no more than we put into them. To a large extent we have already used that vast storehouse of timber which was left to us by nature, and now it's up to us.

This government has made a commitment in accepting the five-year management program. This bill before us today is a part of that commitment. a part that will assure that this funding will not be intermittent but will be continuous and will give the Forests ministry, in cooperation with the private sector, the opportunity and the chance to do an excellent job in forest management. In British Columbia we have already done a better job than any other area in Canada. With this bill before the Legislature, with the program that we have presented to the Legislature, in a very short number of years British Columbia will lead the world in its ability to manage its forests. In that way we can assure future generations of British Columbians a heritage of a forest resource which will be passed on to them in at least as good condition as we found it. Hopefully, as we go on, we will be able to leave them a forest resource in much, much better condition than we found it — not only for our industry but for the total multi-use of the forest land base.

I'm sure the opposition recognize the importance of forest management and that they will support this bill. With that, Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. KING: I want to assure the minister that the opposition will be supporting this bill. However, I do have some criticisms of it in terms of the adequacy of the allocation in meeting the needs of greatly increased intensive forest management in the province of British Columbia. I seriously question whether or not an allocation of $146.6 million spread over a five-year period even comes close to meeting the kind of intensive forest management that is required in the province. That means that we have the expenditure of somewhat less than $30 million a year.

The minister has made reference to the resource analysis that was compiled by his ministry. As I indicated earlier when the report was released, it is a very thorough and comprehensive document, giving an outline of the state of health of the forest industry in British Columbia. In fact, it's a very good piece of technical work. But I'm more concerned with the translation of that resource analysis into the five-year plan which the minister referred to. The five-year plan is a pretty pale 30-page document, whereas the resource analysis is something like 1,200 or 1,400 pages. The five-year plan which the minister has introduced, and on which this bill before the House is based, in no way amplifies the kind of approach necessary to catch up with the backlog of understocked forest land in the province of British Columbia, much less to catch up with that backlog and keep pace with the clearcutting that goes on each and every year.

We know that there is some natural regeneration. But because much of the land that has been logged in the past five or ten years has not been tended properly in terms of site preparation and replanting, it has been overtaken by a variety of weed species in the forest industry, such as alder, birch and other non-merchantable timber, or very low-value merchantable timber. Accordingly, now the cost of recovering those areas as productive forest land is very, very high, if not prohibitive. I honestly feel that the allocation in the bill before the Legislature at this time is woefully inadequate in terms of coming to grips with the kind of falldown in the forest resource that we can anticipate and which is acknowledged in the resource analysis. We are looking at pretty major curtailments of operation in the forest industry of logging and manufacturing and job creation. Unless we're

[ Page 2448 ]

prepared to give major economic priority to the need to start regenerating our forests at a faster pace now, then that falldown and the negative impact on the economy is certainly going to be exacerbated.

There are a whole variety of other things here that bother me. I'm disappointed that the minister has brought this allocation forward without providing any specific program as to how this money is going to be expended. Talking about intensive forest management and talking about silviculture today is like talking about motherhood; everyone believes in it. But without identification of the site-specific plans for expending this money and for increasing the nursery capacity in the province to grow enough seedlings to keep pace and to catch up with our backlog of NSR land, we are in effect writing a blank cheque to the minister. When we start to expend the kinds of sums that should be expended to ensure that our forests are going to be a perpetual source of resources to our province, certainly there should be a more specific program than what the minister has introduced either in his five-year plan or in the statute before the House at this time. He's asking us to accept on faith the allocation of $30 million a year for the next five years without outlining any specific areas to which he intends to apply these funds for regeneration, for intensive management. I don't think that's good enough. I think that's rather irresponsible, quite frankly.

Another concern I have is that the whole Ministry of Forests is now — and, I believe, has been traditionally — oriented to protection of the forests from fire hazard and from infestation of various forms of pests; and, of course, that's important. But what usually happens is that when the time is appropriate for restocking the forests, the allocations are made and the crews hired to go out and prepare sites for planting seedlings, it's usually coincident with the high-risk, high-hazard fire season. Of course, when fires do occur, then everything in the regional offices of the ministry is geared toward dealing with that fire hazard — and the replanting crews. I suspect that in many cases a good deal of their budget is directed toward fighting wildfires, rather than giving the continuity of priority to the regeneration program which should be an ongoing factor of the ministry's policy.

That's the kind of thing that has happened around the various regions within the ministry, and I think the minister must be aware of that. Certainly I have talked to regional staff in many areas of the province and they confirm that that's the case. I think that the minister should be prepared to give a very, very strong political statement, indicating that he requires major priority to be laid on continuity in this very real crisis of regeneration of our forest crops in British Columbia, and should not be deterred from it even for fire hazard risks and so on. For those purposes, new staff, equipment, facilities and budgetary allocations should be made as required ' without diminishing the efforts of the regeneration staff and facilities in the ministry.

I have some great problems, though, with this proposition that intensive forest management is going to curtail the falldown in the timber supply that is predicted in the resource report. If we get involved in regeneration in a very, very major way, that certainly involves more research on the most appropriate species — supertrees, as they are called, which have a better chance of withstanding disease and maturing — and it involves major allocations for site preparation, increased nursery capacity, juvenile thinning and spacing, probably fertilization in some cases, and commercial thinning at a later date — 30 years down the road. It's a major investment.

Mr. Speaker, I think it was very, very irresponsible of the ministry to recognize all of these needs and provide no specifies in terms of the areas that the ministry intends to apply this in — not even a vestige of a cost-benefit analysis of what we expect to capture from this huge public investment, and nothing but a vague promise that this kind of investment applied now in a scattergun approach — because we're throwing a lot of money at it — is going to ease the shortage of timber supply, which his own report predicts five, ten or fifteen years down the road. The average rotation time — as the minister has pointed out in his opening remarks — is 40 to 100 years to mature a tree in the province of British Columbia, depending on the particular part of the province, elevation, terrain and so on. How a major regeneration and intensive management plan instituted now is going to result in maintaining the level of annual allowable cut — which the ministry apparently intends to do, and in some cases increase — when we're looking at reaping the rewards of this investment at least 40 years down the road, escapes me completely. We are asked to accept as a matter of trust that this kind of allocation — which, as I indicated earlier, I don't think is enough — is going to be wisely spent, even though it's not indicated where the priorities lie, what kind of cost controls are going to be involved, what kind of approach is going to be taken to any cost-benefit analysis initially, five years down the road, or ten years hence. I want to suggest that that is a pretty haphazard way of approaching what is admittedly a much-needed area of attention in the province of British Columbia.

I am not a professional forester, nor is the minister. I know that he has to proceed on the basis of advice that he receives from his staff. Certainly, in trying to offer some intelligent criticism of the forest policy, I seek out the advice of professional people, professional foresters, people involved in the industry, and people involved in other uses of forest land — the environmental concerns, fisheries, trade unions involved in the forest industry, and so on — so that we can get some kind of balanced approach to understanding where we're at with the forest industry and what kind of approach is needed. I've received some pretty devastating criticisms of the five-year plan from people in the industry and a variety of other interested parties, some of whom are professional foresters.

This may not be the most appropriate bill to discuss all those criticisms under. I would have liked an opportunity to discuss them more fully in second reading and in committee stage on another bill that is before the House, but that opportunity seems to have eluded me so I am going to serve notice on the minister that I am going to be asking a variety of very particular and precise questions in the committee consideration of both the bills that are before the House. I very much hope that the minister is able to offer to the House some particulars on precisely how this money is going to be spent. What kind of cost-benefit analysis is he prepared to put forward to justify this expenditure, rather than just the vague notion that because our forest crop is dwindling we have to throw money at it? The public will accept that. The public is prepared to invest but the public also has a right to insist — and certainly the opposition must insist — that that money is well spent on intelligent programs that do, in fact, achieve the benefits that that investment is designed to bring.

That's what is absent in the approach the minister has taken thus far. As I indicated at the outset, I don't think that

[ Page 2449 ]

$30 million a year is nearly enough to restock the backlog of NSR land in the province. I think it's somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1.8 million acres that are inadequately restocked. That's a gigantic piece of real estate in the province of British Columbia, to say nothing of the — what is it? — 75 million cunits that are cut annually, most of it clearcut. It's somewhere in that area anyways — a very large amount. I see no way that $30 million is going to come to grips with meeting that backlog and avoiding a very much more serious falldown in timber supply in the intermediate period of ten to 20 years. I don't think that I should have to point out to the minister and the government that the economy of British Columbia simply cannot afford to anticipate that kind of curtailment of the economic mainstay of our province.

I am also very apprehensive about certain provisions which I seem to see both in the five-year plan and in legislation that is before the House now, which would indicate an increase in the annual allowable cut. I am very much concerned about the withdrawal of vast tracts of forest land from the forest inventory, apparently with the wave of a wand, and with no explanation. I think in the Vancouver forest district we have something like.... Productive forest land, which is defined as the base for allowable annual cut, is reported as 3.8 million hectares. This excludes substantial acreages of private forest land which are also part of the base.

There appears to be a reduction of 26 percent, from the statistics the ministry supplied to the royal commission in 1975. Where did that land go? A reduction of 26 percent in the forest land base for the Vancouver forest district? That is a major discrepancy between the statistics supplied by the Ministry of Forests to the Pearse royal commission just five years ago, and what the ministry tells us the forest land base is now. What happened to that land? To suggest that that kind of reduction in our forest land base can occur, without some detailed explanation, is a very serious matter, and it leads me to question whether the ministry really has any handle on what is going on, particularly in the inventory section of the ministry.

I think it is indicated that a deduction of 16 percent is obtained by classifying 600,000 hectares as economically inaccessible, or protection forest. Withdrawals removed 36 percent of productive forest land in the Prince Rupert region, or 1.2 million hectares. For what, Mr. Minister? These are the kinds of things that have been inadequately explained. I think in total 1.8 million hectares have been arbitrarily withdrawn from the resource supply base for the coastal industry. This is about 4.4 million acres, equal to double the land area on the east half of Vancouver Island from Victoria to Campbell River.

Before we allocate $146 million to the minister to apply to intensive forest management, I think it would be useful to know that this minister and his administration are capable of protecting the integrity of the forest land base. This kind of arbitrary exclusion of thousands and thousands of acres of productive forest land without any vestige of explanation whatsoever is completely unacceptable to me.

These are the kinds of things that lead me to have some grave reservations about voting any amount of money to this minister without a specific program on the table before the House so that we can be assured that the taxpayers' money is going to be spent wisely and bear a realistic return in terms of our investment in the forests.

I want to say that as far as I am concerned this is the only source of new funding being provided to the ministry for intensive forest management, The minister indicates in his five-year plan that there are other sources of funding available. I reject that. I think the other sources of funds that had been identified are simply arrived at by a manipulation of the bookkeeping procedures. That is, the ministry's total budget has been multiplied on a five-year basis and it's suggested that that large amount achieved and obtained by adding up the ministry's normal budget over a five-year period is available for intensive forest management too. That's a bit of a sham and a mockery, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, that budget entails the total administration of the ministry, including the minister's salary, which has absolutely nothing to do with intensive forest management. So there's no source of new funds there.

Neither, I suggest, is there any source of new funds provided by now adding the cost of private industry reforestation programs and allocating that cost to the ministry because of a stumpage write-off provision. That is not new money. That is simply the ministry claiming the credit for investments in intensive forest management that the private sector has been making for many years.

The only source of new funding, as I see it and understand it, is the $146.6 million that is contained in the bill before the House at the moment. And if I misunderstand the intention or the provisions in this regard, I'd be very pleased if the minister would correct me on that point.

This business of allowing the private sector to write off their costs for intensive forest management is another matter which gives me a great deal of concern, Mr. Speaker. I regard this as a carte blanche to the private sector, particularly the major licence-holders — well, really, only the major licence-holders — to, you know, pad the accounts. I just don't believe that the ministry has the staff. I don't believe that they have the ability to monitor adequately the tax write-offs which are being claimed by private corporations. I see no indication that the ministry thus far has been able to adequately monitor the performance regarding annual allowable cut for the major licence-holders. And I see no reason, then, to believe that they have the staff, the expertise, or perhaps the potential at all to adequately monitor those tax write-offs that are being claimed by the private sector for intensive forest management.

I think that's a bit of a dangerous proposition, and again there is no explanation from the minister or contained in the act of precisely how he intends to accomplish this. Any time that a private company, whether it be in the forest industry or anywhere else, has a right to spend money and then claim a write off from the public purse.... There should be a very, very strict accounting system to make sure that the public is receiving full value for the bills that they are being asked to cover. I see no such protection, either in the statutes which the minister has introduced to the House or in the five-year plan which he has proffered as the new age of forest management in this province. I consider that that's a bit irresponsible as well.

There is one other thing that the minister hasn't addressed in any way, and that is the question of the survival rate of seedlings planted in the province of British Columbia. I know that it varies according to the terrain where crops are replanted, but there doesn't seem to be a very adequate handle on the kind of survival rate we are getting from the planting of seedlings. I understand that in some areas the survival rate is only about one-third. If we are going to continue investing large amounts of public funding, then I

[ Page 2450 ]

think the public is entitled to expect a better kind of cost control than has been available from the ministry thus far in regard to important questions like that. We can grow all the seedlings we want, we can expand our nursery capacity, we can go out of the province — as the ministry apparently intends to do — and purchase seedlings from other areas, but if we are simply sticking them in the ground and because of inadequate site preparation and other factors we are getting something like a one-third survival rate, then common sense would dictate that that kind of farming operation is not going to be very successful.

The ministry has been very weak in these areas in terms of outlining the program and the kind of control they intend to exercise in the expenditure of the funds which unquestionably are needed; but I would certainly like to know that there are greater controls. There is a complete absence of any specific program. All we have is a bill before the House asking us to approve the expenditure without any program design to consider, in terms of ensuring that the money is spent wisely and the investment of that public money is reasonably justified in any event.

I know the minister must have the same concerns that I do in this regard, that we not just throw money at the problem but that the money be spent in such a fashion that it really does the job we are all interested in having done. That is to have a perpetual forest crop in the province of British Columbia.

Another matter which concerns me greatly.... I guess it's really not appropriate to discuss it under this particular bill. The problem I have is that we have the basic resource analysis and five-year plan, and then we have a couple of bills here dealing, really, with different aspects of it. I am kind of limited in dealing at this point with all of the points I would like to raise. Perhaps it is just as well to let it suffice at that. I will be asking the minister during committee stage on the bill very specific questions regarding precisely what his program entails and what kind of controls he is going to put on it.

I have raised some of the basic and more pertinent concerns I have. I would ask the minister to take them under advisement and, if he is not able to respond in his concluding remarks on this reading of the bill, to be prepared to provide more specific information to the House in the committee stage consideration.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, we were given to understand that the government and the Minister of Forests intended to bring in a great scheme for reforestation, one to rebuild the forest inventory, a scheme that is so needed and so necessary in this province and that would be so widely accepted. The Premier indeed spoke, I think late in 1979, and suggested that people watch for the opening speech and the budget speech to see great announcements as to what the government was going to do in the field of reforestation.

My observation is that if this bill is an example of the great plans that we were led to expect, then something certainly happened between the time the cake was mixed and the time it came out of the oven. It's great to set aside $148 million and say this is going to be spent over a period of five years. But to follow it up by saying $19 million of it will be spent in the first year.... That sum is less than the interest that will be earned on that fund, and the interest will go back into consolidated revenue. There is very little increase here. There is very little to provide for the kind of reforestation, silviculture and research program that is so necessary in this province.

I don't intend to speak for long in this debate. We are supporting this bill, as little as it is. We are concerned that it isn't a great deal more. During the course of the budget debate I read figures into the debate to show what the government's record has been — both governments — since 1952. It is such a sorry record of abandoning the best resource, the greatest natural resource, that we have in this province. It is a total failure to do anything to make sure that that resource will be a continuing resource and that there would be trees to cut at the rate at which they should be cut to meet the market.

Research. There has been no increase in dollars for many years, and even when there was a slight increase in dollars, it was an increase less than the inflation rate. After all that time, after all the work that has gone into bringing up a government program, we now have a program introduced this year which in total does nothing more than keep up to the rate of inflation. There isn't much more in all of the programs that the minister has announced so far that will do more than keep up to the rate of inflation.

I read some figures into the record when I was speaking in the budget debate, made some statements, and the minister said from his seat that I was wrong. I'm waiting for an opportunity to discuss those figures and those statements with him during his estimates. This is not the time to try to get those answers, to try to get him to explain what he meant.

AN HON. MEMBER: You'll never get any answers from that guy.

MR. STUPICH: We'll try, during estimates, to get the answers, but at this time all I can say is that we're sorry we can't vote for this bill with the enthusiasm that we would like to have, not because we're opposed to it, but because we're concerned that it is doing so little for the forest resource in the province of British Columbia.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, the question of forest management in a formal sense, as far as government activity is concerned, probably had its origin in the royal commission on forestry headed by the late Chief Justice Gordon Sloan in the immediate post-war years — '45, '46, and so on. One of the conclusions that the chief justice came to at that time — a conclusion, of course, that people in the industry knew of — was that prior to his appointment and examination of the forest industry, there had been rather a careless approach to forestry; that the practices loosely identified as "clearcutting" had been raging and rampant throughout the forests in British Columbia, causing fire hazards and soil runoff and all of the deleterious effects that flow from just sweeping every conceivable piece of timber off the land and leaving it virtually barren and available for the natural regeneration processes that nature itself provided. He concluded that we needed a process of forest management, that the forests needed to be managed, needed to be harvested, needed to be looked at and dealt with as if they were an agricultural plot, and that there needed to be programs that would ensure timber availability for future generations — indeed forever.

The first response of government at that time to the royal commission report was to amend the Forest Act to bring in a system of tenure for forest land identified then as "forest management licences. " Under that program companies engaged in the logging and forestry industry could apply for and

[ Page 2451 ]

receive non-competitive timber over whatever area was approved by the then Forest Service. In return for receiving that non-competitive timber companies were, in theory, in any event, and by the licence issued, required to engage in logging practices, cutting plans and programs that would result in the regeneration of forests in the future.

The first forest management licence applied for and granted is partly in the constituency which I represent, partly in the constituency of Atlin and, to a limited extent, partly in the constituency of Prince Rupert. Something in the neighbourhood of three-quarters of a million acres of forest land was made available to the Columbia Cellulose Co., and that company embarked upon a cutting program initially just at the edge of the community of Terrace.

The first logging took place there in 1951 — generally speaking. The program that the company talked about, that the then Ministry of Lands and Forests — I believe it was — talked about, was a 60- or 70-year cycle. In other words, the area initially logged in 1950 or 1951, on a 60- or 70-year cycle, would be available for logging the second growth in the year 2000 or 2010 — something of that sort. We are now some 30 years into that so-called second-growth cycle. In other words, that timber that was logged 30 years ago was halfway through the expected 60-year cycle, when we would be able to go back and cut that second-growth timber.

It doesn't take very much; someone with a completely unpractised eye and with limited knowledge about forestry could travel today through that area that was logged 30 years ago and see the size of the second-growth timber, and could come to the conclusion that that is not going to be ready to be logged in another 30 years, that there was a misjudgment of some nature on the cycle itself. Whether it had to do with the growing capacity of the area, or whether foresters at that time were applying the criteria of timber growth in the warmer, rain-filled climate on the coast to an area which was just at the line of demarcation between the coast and the interior — for administrative purposes for logging — or what, the guessing was out. People in that particular area have appreciated for some time — as I'm sure has been the case in other areas — that something was awry in the concept of managing the forest resource, that it wasn't clicking along the way it should have been.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, one moment. There appears to be an awful lot of conversation going on on both sides of the House. The member for Skeena has the floor. Please continue, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: As I said, there seemed to be something amiss, wrong, improperly calculated or projected in terms of the availability of timber into the future. People in that area, and elsewhere, had that suspicion. It was general, common conversation around Terrace that that was the case there, and I'm sure it's general conversation around other areas as well that the regeneration program wasn't as it was anticipated to be.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

We now have a bill before us which seeks, hopefully in theory in any event — to take some steps to correct that situation. Evidence was provided here not too many days ago that in the Nass River valley, an area within what was originally the Forest Management Licence 1 — granted in 1948 to Columbia Cellulose Ltd. and now reidentified as a tree-farm licence and the like — that whereas 5,000 or 5 million seedlings were required for reforestation purposes, only 1,000 or 1 million — whatever the proportion is — were available. In other words, 20 percent of the requirement was available. There was a shortfall. That shortfall, I understand, is of greater proportion in that area than it is elsewhere in the province where the shortfall is, I'm told, somewhere in the 60 percent bracket, although the figures themselves are not really germane to the force of the conversation here.

I have put this idea forward on other occasions and I put it forward to the minister now as a matter that should, in a specific way, be considered. We have, just south of Terrace, a publicly owned hot spring facility, a resort — land, water and the hot springs — that was acquired by the Crown, the Government, about a year ago, acquired by the efforts of my predecessor whose efforts, so it is related, extended over quite a period of time. He was successful in bringing what before that time had been a privately owned operation back into the government fold and under public ownership. He deserves all commendation and credit for doing that. But that hot springs sits there now, currently under a process of examination by a consulting firm to determine to what use that hot springs might be put. Regretfully, in my view, the government, in awarding the contract to DPA Consulting Ltd., restricted the area of examination to the tourism recreational concept as distinct from multi-use.

I would like very much for the minister, who wants to get involved in and wants to see us enlarge the use and operation of nurseries for seedling purposes, to look at those hot springs as a source of natural heat to be used in a greenhouse or seedling nursery to assist in this shortfall. Whether that is an acceptable course of action or not, whether the minister finds it agreeable or disagreeable, I have no way of knowing at this time. But certainly a lot of people in the area think it would be a commendable thing to do, the process being simply one of a heat exchange with fresh water — so pipes don't get corroded and filled with deposits of minerals from the hot springs — circulating to provide heat for the germination of seed and for the growing of seedlings. That would be a very worthwhile contribution, I think, to the need for additional seedlings in the area as well as to the economy.

If the minister can find his way clear to use some of this — whatever it is — $146 million that might be available to move in that direction and assist the situation locally, his credit would go up and the prospects of having timber available into the future on a more guaranteed basis than has been the case in the past would be greatly appreciated.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a few words on this bill, since forestry, as the minister is very much aware, is a major industry in my riding. I have had the opportunity over the years to look at such reports as the Sloan commission report of 1948, the Pearse commission report of 1976 and now the timber analysis and range resources study of 1980. I'm inclined to agree with our critic of forests that while any improvement in reforestation in the province is very welcome, the government, in view of the Sloan commission report and the Pearse report, is not going nearly far enough.

What bothers me a bit is that the minister and his ministry have had information on reforestation available to them for many, many years, particularly the study that was completed by Dr. Pearse in 1976. If the minister would refer to that study, and particularly starting on page 274, where Dr.

[ Page 2452 ]

Pearse goes into a great deal of detail on what is required, in his view, for the reforestation and future growth of the industry in British Columbia and the type of funding that should be expended in that process.... It's of some concern to me that this government seems to have extracted from the Pearse report the parts of that report which suit itself, and has not, in fact, applied the recommendations of that report in its entirety, as it should have done.

There's a great deal of concern in my riding — as I'm sure there are in many other ridings in British Columbia — where logging is probably extracting more timber at the present time than we are planting and reseeding. A cutoff point will come in time, and I suspect that this is part of the reason why we now see the demise of Ocean Falls. We see the large forest companies increasing their capabilities in areas like Powell River, Alberni and elsewhere, and they will require fibre for those operations. As a result, they are competing for this fibre, particularly on the coast of British Columbia, but in the interior as well. So, as a result of all this, we see operations like Ocean Falls, which required an assured timber supply, being shut down. Certain other companies in this province will have access to that timber supply.

I'm further concerned that nothing is being done about the proposal for a camp and chip mill in Ocean Falls. The company that's interested in moving into the community to initiate that program can't do anything, because this minister has not made available a wood supply to that company. Obviously you can't have a sawmill and a chip mill if you have no timber. I feel that the government is probably reserving uncommitted timbers on the central coast for two other major companies in this province so that they can meet their wood fibre and lumber markets in the future.

In any event, like my colleagues I will vote for this bill. It's a step in the right direction, and I must admit, quite frankly, that I'm quite impressed with the work that the ministry has done on the in excess of 1,000 pages of their 1980 forest and range resource analysis in a five-year program. There is some very good work in that study. I'll take this opportunity to compliment the ministry on that work.

The problem is, Mr. Speaker, in my view, the minister and the ministry are not going far enough in reforestation in this province, quite obviously. While the situation is going to be improved a bit with this program, I think the ministry has a long way to go and could be doing a better job in this regard.

Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the minister would take the time some day to read the Pearse commission report on this very important topic.

It just occurs to me that in this province — and the minister will be getting up soon to close the debate on this bill, I presume — we are spending somewhere in the neighbourhood of 30 cents per acre on reforestation, while in the United States the Weyerhaeuser company, for example, is spending $13 per acre. I see the minister is shaking his head. If those figures are not correct, I'd be pleased to hear from the minister and be corrected. Once again, I believe these figures did come from the Pearse commission report, issued in 1976. I look forward to hearing from the minister.

MR. NICOLSON: I rise to perhaps echo some of the concerns expressed by the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich). While some $140-odd million dollars certainly sounds impressive and it makes for good press — it probably grabs the headlines — when we look at the facts, in terms of the amount of planting that has been going on.... I must admit, Mr. Speaker, I've been kind of taken in by the minister. We've seen accelerated forestry appropriations and special fund bills over and above the expenditures in the regular estimates. I certainly had quite a few tree planters coming to me over the past five years. We worked together and we got some changes made in the workers' compensation assessments for tree planters. I guess I've maybe been just more aware of this problem recently and of the activity of tree planting. Because I know a lot of people who are involved in various tree-planting cooperatives, I actually thought that there must be more activity going on than usual.

I'd also like to pay tribute to the.... You know, when we criticize and say that the Ministry of Forests should be doing more, what we're saying is that Treasury Board should be doing more for the Ministry of Forests. I'm sure that's what my colleague said, and I totally agree. Some of the personnel that we have in the Ministry of Forests are of such high quality, I couldn't really give them the praise due them in terms of their devotion and in terms of their concern — which is felt not just by people in the forest industry but is really something which will pull out crowds of people to talk about forest management practices and intensive forest management. If there's a meeting held in Creston or Nelson, you'll get a fantastic amount of interest and great participation by the regional and district people and by the foresters.

I think that probably everybody in British Columbia is willing to do more than just pay lip service to intensive forest management. We are willing to really go ahead. What concerns me is that after a 1976 budget, a '77 budget, a '78 budget and a '79 budget, again this year we've got another new wrinkle in terms of bringing in a special fund. I wonder if it is enough for the job and if what we're doing is enough to meet the needs.

For instance, I must confess that I was kind of led to believe by the people that I was in contact with that under the Social Credit government there must be more reforestation going on than there had been during the NDP years. I know for a fact that when we tried to step up the rate of reforestation, one of the first problems we met was the lack of seedlings, and there were special problems attendant to that. In fact, in the Nelson forest district I made some inquiries. Mr. Cufford, the forestry manager, provided me with the information. It is rather surprising to find that in 1975 the number of trees planted was 9,094,000 and 7,275 hectares were planted. In 1976 it dropped down to 7,650,000 and only 6,120 hectares were replanted; in 1977 it dropped even further to 5,106,000, and only 4,085 hectares planted; in 1978 and 1979 back up to about a 7,400,000 trees planted and about 5,900 hectares planted. But it is obvious that it did not approach that 1975 year.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I hope members that have interjected about the Purcell Wilderness Conservancy, and even throw in Valhalla as well, would perhaps get up and make those statements rather than just throw them out as interjections, because since the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) has mentioned the Purcell Wilderness Conservancy, I would point out to the minister that his government and his ministry have further enshrined the Purcell Wilderness Conservancy, and I'm sure that we all would accept, so that....

[ Page 2453 ]

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry that these members are trying to get me off this topic, but maybe I've surprised them. Maybe they too, with all of the propaganda, have been convinced that accelerated reforestation was actually taking place when indeed it wasn't.

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding from the House Leader that he would accept an adjournment at this time, so I would move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Because the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Hon. Mr. Gardom) last evening was so thoughtful in telling us what the business would be for today, I wonder whether the Attorney-General could advise us what we'll be dealing with tomorrow.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No. Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the hon. member that the House Leader is meeting with his Whip. I think they have had a discussion and the Whips will be advised in the morning what the order of business will be. And therefore, in all good humour, Mr. Speaker, I move the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.