[ Page 2455 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Introduction of Bills.

Revised Statutes Correction Act, 1980 (Bill 33). Hon. Mr. Williams.

Introduction and first reading –– 2455

Oral Questions.

Cargill Grain Co. Ltd. Mrs. Wallace –– 2455

Water licence on Goldstream River. Hon. Mr. Rogers replies –– 2456

Pollution at Alcan plant. Ms. Sanford –– 2456

Rent controls. Hon. Mr. Nielsen replies –– 2456

Changes in WCB regulations. Mr. Hanson –– 2457

Tree-farm licences. Hon. Mr. Waterland replies 2457

Ministerial Statement

Municipal Finance Authority bonds.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2457

Routine Proceedings

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

Mr. Nicolson –– 2458

Mr. Passarell –– 2459

Mr. Leggatt –– 2459

Mrs. Wallace –– 2460

Mr. Hall –– 2461

Mr. Skelly –– 2463

Mr. Mussallem –– 2464

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2464

Special Purpose Appropriation Act, 1980 (Bill 5). Second reading.

Mr. Skelly –– 2466

Mr. Howard –– 2469

Mr. Mitchell –– 2471

Mr. Mussallem –– 2473

Mr. Hanson –– 2474

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 2476

Mr. Nicolson –– 2477

Mr. Segarty –– 2478

Ms. Sanford –– 2478

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2479

Division on second reading –– 2480

THURSDAY, MAY 15, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

MR. HYNDMAN: On behalf of the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) and myself, I ask members to join us in welcoming today in the gallery grade 12 students and faculty from John Oliver Secondary School in Vancouver South.

MS. BROWN: In 1896, soon after their inception as an organization, the Council of Women made as one of their priorities the struggle for the protection of people who were household workers, women who came to this country as immigrants to work in homes. Agnes McPhail, during her tenure in the House of Parliament from 1920 to 1940, carried on this struggle on behalf of household workers. They were not successful either. However, today we have a breakthrough, because the women themselves have organized into the B.C. Domestics Association and four of them are in the gallery.

I am sorry if the members are not interested; however, I'm sure you are. I am sorry again that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) is not interested.

Four members of the B.C. Domestics Association are in the gallery today to carry on the struggle for protection by labour legislation. I would like the House to join me in paying tribute to the following people: Mary Brooks and Susan Hill, members of the B.C. Domestics Association; Pat Christie, a member of SORWUC; and Rachel Epstein, a member of the Labour Advocacy and Research Association, who are carrying on the struggle for the protection of workers in homes by labour legislation in this country.

HON. MR. SMITH: Following the example of the Leader of the Opposition's mother, my mother has decided to come to the gallery as well and bring some civility into this place. I would like to introduce her, together with a number of ladies from her PEO chapter: Mrs. Buffan, Mrs. Campbell, Mrs. Crombie, Mrs. Hawkins, Mrs. Housez, Mrs. Kirkham, Mrs. MacLean, Mrs. McKenzie, Mrs. Mack, Mrs. Moore, Mrs. Ridgway, Mrs. Waggoner, Mrs. Wallace and Mrs. Wallace. Will you make them welcome.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to acknowledge the presence today of 58 school children from Kingswood Elementary School, Richmond, who are touring the precincts today accompanied by their teachers, F. Lorenz and L. Broadhurst. I'd like the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I don't have my mother in the gallery to give us guidance today, but I do have a young gentleman in the gallery, and I know that the members here will show him how we carry on business in a very quiet and orderly manner in this House. I ask the House to welcome my young son, Ron Hewitt.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I thought the members would be interested to hear a brief announcement regarding the Provincial Museum, to the effect that the British Columbia Provincial Museum will today begin the celebration for International Museum Day. The museum plans to have museum staff in the galleries presenting demonstrations and talking to visitors between 3 p.m. and 5 p.m. and 7 p.m. and 9 p.m. today. There will be continuous film showings in the Newcombe Auditorium, and a bus tour of other local museums has been planned. On Sunday, May 18, special commemorative buttons will be handed out to visitors. This event has been given wide publicity by the museum and I'm sure will represent a busy period for them.

Introduction of Bills

REVISED STATUTES
CORRECTION ACT, 1980

Hon. Mr. Williams presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Revised Statutes Correction Act, 1980.

Bill 33 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

CARGILL GRAIN CO. LTD.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Recently the minister indicated that the high concentration by Cargill in the poultry business would not be serious, because people could switch to pork or beef. Mount Lehman Hog Farm is the largest in B.C., with a production in excess of 12,000 hogs per year. Will the minister advise the House whether or not he knows who owns Mount Lehman Hog Farm?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure the member also knows but she's going to ask anyway, because she raised the question in regard to the operation of the Mount Lehman Hog Farm. It's owned by Cargill. The question is facetious; she knew the answer before I gave it. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I'm a little confused on the opening remarks she made, because I don't recall at any time making the statement that she attributes to me.

MRS. WALLACE: On a supplementary, I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that I was asking whether the minister knew or not in view of the remarks which he made on a radio broadcast the other morning.

My second question is: has the minister decided to aid Mount Lehman — i.e., Cargill — in increasing their output through financial contributions or otherwise?

HON. MR. HEWITT: In what way, Madam Member?

MRS. WALLACE: Through any financial assistance, as I asked, or any other of the means at his disposal as Minister of Agriculture — for example, the continuation or extension of the Farm Income Assurance Prooram.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, this relates to a question to which the member knows the answer, as it was given in this House a few weeks ago. No, I haven't decided to

[ Page 2456 ]

make any specific aid available to that operation, but the member is fully aware that the operation at Mount Lehman does carry farm income assurance rights, as any family farm operation would have.

MRS. WALLACE: Is the minister aware that Cargill, which owns some 160 grain elevators across Canada, has a share in the new Prince Rupert grain terminal?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, I'm not aware of that.

MRS. WALLACE: I assure the minister that that is true; they do have shares in that terminal. Will the minister tell the House whether or not at this present time Cargill has any involvement in the feed grain industry in the Fraser Valley?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'll take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. WALLACE: There's just one more question in the series, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister of Agriculture tell the House whether or not Cargill Grain has made any overtures toward establishing itself in the backgrounding and feedlot operation in B.C.'s cattle industry?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'll take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

WATER LICENCE ON GOLDSTREAM RIVER

HON. MR. ROGERS: Yesterday I was asked a question by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), and in view of the urgency expressed, I thought I'd bring the answers today. The answer to his first question is: the comptroller of water rights did not receive a request from the fish and wildlife branch for a public hearing into Noranda's application.

The answer to the second question is: the consultants were retained by Noranda Mines Ltd., the applicant for the licence.

The answer to the third question is: the first three of these reports were forwarded to the fish and wildlife branch in Nelson in June 1979 for the review of the fourth report — which was the final and relatively unchanged version of one of the three reports submitted earlier and was forwarded to the fish and wildlife branch in Victoria in January 1980.

The answer to the fourth question is: on September 10, 1979, approval in principle was given to Noranda Mines to proceed with the Goldstream project. However, this approval was subject to certain provisions, among which was that the additional information requested was to be found satisfactory. The final version of the report on wildlife, submitted in November 1979, was basically similar to the preliminary report dated April 1979 and was found to be satisfactory.

For the information of the members of the House, while the environmental impact of this project will not be severe, provision for mitigation or compensation of such impacts is included in the water licences in a number of clauses, the most pertinent of which is clause (n), which states: "Programs for the protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat, for the mitigation of losses of habitat, shall be carried out by the licensee as directed by the comptroller of water rights." After consultation with the licensee and the director of the fish and wildlife branch, I'm completely satisfied that this matter has been dealt with properly, Mr. Speaker. Any members wishing to view the licence can do so in my office.

POLLUTION AT ALCAN PLANT

MS. SANFORD: My question is to the Minister of Labour. In view of the finding of the federally sponsored Brisebois report on the exposure of thousands of workers at the Alcan Kitimat plant to dangerous pollutants, will the minister assure the House that the WCB regulations will be altered to ensure that the former Alcan employees who may have suffered as a result of the inadequate pollution standards will be allowed to claim benefits?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, you are asking for an alteration in the future; part of the question would be in order, but that part would not be in order.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm not in a position to give any answer to the question. I will take the question, however, as notice and make appropriate inquiry of the WCB.

MS. SANFORD: I wonder if the Minister of Labour has considered asking the WCB to contact former workers at the Kitimat plant who may have contracted lung, skin or bone disease as a result of their work there, to be called in for an inspection so that their claims may be considered.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I will treat that inquiry the same as the previous question. I will take it on notice and make the appropriate inquiries on behalf of the member and the people affected.

MS. SANFORD: The other question I would like to pose to the minister relates to the schedule B changes that are now under review. I wonder if the minister would contact the WCB in order to ensure that those schedules will include full protection for all workers in the province who may be affected after working in plants similar to the Kitimat plant.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yes, Madam Member. Again, I will convey the request to the WCB.

RENT CONTROLS

HON. MR. NIELSEN: In response to a question asked by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) earlier this month — and the member was in his seat earlier during question period.... He said: "We've been hearing for some years that rent controls would be extended to cover permanent residents in hotels. Tenants of St. Helen's Hotel — many pensioners and people on low and fixed incomes — have just heard that effective June 1 their rents will be increased from $27 to $37 per week. Would the minister indicate what steps he has decided to take to intercede on behalf of the tenants?"

I advised the member that I would ask the rentalsman's office to develop the information on the matter for me, and I have received a response. The rentalsman's office has provided me with this information. There are 80 to 90 rooms, most of them one-bedroom sleeping rooms without private bath. Clientele is all male, primarily pensioners, loggers and out-of-towners. Approximately 20 percent of the clientele is

[ Page 2457 ]

permanent, the balance transient. The rentalsman's office talked to several of the occupants on May 6. They thought the rooms were excellent, that they were very clean and well run. The current owners have owned the building for ten years. The last rental increase was seven years ago. The rents are going from $27 to $37 per week without bath, $35 to $45 per week with bath.

In the rentalsman's opinion the rents do not appear to be excessive and the hotel is one of the better-run rooming houses. We have not received any direct complaints from the tenants, and considering the foregoing, the rentalsman advises that he does not intend to designate these rooms under the existing legislation.

CHANGES IN WCB REGULATIONS

MR. HANSON: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. The Workers' Compensation Board has been consistently developing policies which are in contravention of the Workers Compensation Act. One of the proposed schedule B changes affects the workers at Cominco. At Cominco the workers are exposed to acid mist and fumes, which results in the erosion of their teeth. The proposed change is to allow for compensation only of the front teeth. Is the minister aware that the board is now making claims decisions based on the proposed changes while the submissions from the labour movement and other interested parties are still coming in?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I am not aware of the particular concern which the member is expressing with respect to claims involving people employed with Cominco, or in any similar type of activity. However, I will take the question as notice and undertake to get an answer as quickly as possible for the member.

MR. HANSON: I have a new question, Mr. Speaker. The Workers' Compensation Board regulations call for — again this is Cominco — workers in high lead hazard areas to have time allowed for a shower, for their own personal protection. The company refuses to allow such time. The board has refused to enforce the act. Why does the minister continue to allow the board not to enforce the act?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: This is the first time this particular problem has been brought to my attention. If, in fact, the member had knowledge earlier than today, I would have thought that perhaps he would have raised it with me. I would be quite prepared to do what I can for him, but I have to advise the House that this is the first time I have heard about it today.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the minister, this matter was brought to my attention today.

I have a new question to the Attorney-General. Since the WCB consistently refuses to comply with its own act and regulations, has the minister decided to prosecute the WCB?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is out of order.

TREE-FARM LICENCES

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On May 5 the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) asked me a question about the filing of the 1979 annual reports regarding tree-farm licences 20 and 21.

The submission of the 1979 annual reports for these TFLs was retarded this year by delay in the compilation of the scale statistics which were required to ascertain the actual cut under the licences for the 1979 calendar year. The figures relating to the actual cut must be confirmed by the Forest Service before they are accepted in the annual report. The Forest Service figures are obtained from the computer printouts, which were late this year for all licensees in the Vancouver region.

Frequently there are minor discrepancies between compilations of licensees and those of the Forest Service. These do not constitute disputes but only require clarification to reconcile any differences for the purposes of accuracy. Only minor discrepancies relating to tree-farm licences 20 and 21 were encountered this year. The annual reports in question were received by the Forest Service on May 9 this year.

MUNICIPAL FINANCE
AUTHORITY BONDS

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a brief ministerial statement.

The provincial government has today announced that it is purchasing the entire $62.7 million bond issue by the Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia. Details of the agreement between the province and the MFA have already been negotiated, and the official closing will take place in Victoria at the end of May.

This is the first time that the province of British Columbia, using trusteed funds, has purchased a complete bond issue by the MFA. The $62.7 million will provide the current capital requirements for B.C.'s regional districts and their member municipalities.

Usually the MFA goes twice a year to the public market for this purpose. But this time, due to the strength of British Columbia's financial position, the provincial government has found it possible to assist the MFA in its fund-raising to a greater degree than ever before, and naturally we are very pleased to be able to do so. The coupon for this bond issue has been set at 113/8 percent, but the bonds have been discounted to yield 111/2 percent to the provincial government.

Financing in this manner now allows British Columbia's municipalities to reduce their short-term indebtedness to banks, which has been carried at a very high interest rate. This is a private placement — I use that word in the financial sense, private as opposed to public — and will have issue cost savings of approximately half a million dollars, those savings ultimately to be passed along, of course, to all residents of the participating municipalities.

HON. MR. SMITH: I ask leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SMITH: The first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) would want me to make this introduction, so I make it on his behalf and that of the second member (Mr. Hanson). I'm very happy today to have a group of 23 students from Norfolk House School, together with Veronica Blake and Virginia Marshall-Lang. They are in your gallery. I would ask the Legislature to make them welcome.

[ Page 2458 ]

MR. STRACHAN: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. STRACHAN: On behalf of myself and I'm sure the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), I would like this House to welcome Mr. and Mrs. Howard Lloyd.

Orders of the Day

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Firstly, Mr. Chairman, I would like to rise on a matter of rare but very pleasant privilege. The matter is totally in order, because it just came to my attention today. It is not all that often that Cupid establishes a contractual presence in these premises, but I'm informed that it is occasioned. I would ask all of the hon. members to express their best wishes and congratulations to the hon. member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) and his bride. I see he is having a well-deserved half-holiday today.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 6.

FOREST AND RANGE RESOURCE FUND ACT

(continued)

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I outlined some of the ways in which one of the large interior forest regions had not been replanted at an accelerated rate, in spite of a few years of accelerated reforestation funding. I expressed the hope and the optimism that this act would prove to be more than the tinsel, that it would give us what was promised but did not materialize under previous efforts of this government toward accelerated reforestation and, indeed, intensive forest management.

During second reading of this bill I would also like to indicate to the minister that we'll need more than intensive forest management if we are going to allow a continuance of the erosion of the land base upon which the forest industry is founded. The forest lands are being reduced in this province by hundreds of thousands of acres, and in many instances by four and five acres at a time.

It has come to my attention that we lose large forest areas when we embark upon new hydroelectric projects. These come out of the annual allowable cut and reduce the potential of the forest industry in this province. This problem is so serious that the Council of Forest Industries made representations to the agriculture committee for lack, I suppose, of a better public forum for presenting their concern. They talked about the diminishing forest-land base. This presentation was made a few years ago.

It has also been brought to my attention that we are back at the practice of people going out and saying, "Well, I see a piece of land, I'd like to have a home there," and then, by political pressure, they get four or five or ten acres of Crown land set aside — over the objections of the Ministry of Forests.

I have one example where land in the Creston area — under file No. KD-0354397, in the Anchor Creek area of the Goat River watershed near Creston — was alienated to a Mr. McLaren. It appears to have been done on an ad hoc basis. The alienation of this land was discouraged by the local conservation officer. The Highways district manager never even saw the application. The regional district representative turned it down. But eventually the Lands department voted in favour of it. I know that Crestbrook Forest Industries was opposed to this on the principle that it was taking more land out.... I think the expenditure for this piece of property was not really that great.

If we are going to continue to erode the land base, then all of the moneys that we appropriate in this Legislature....

If we cut down on that land base by indiscriminate dispersal of Crown lands to meet the short-term political objectives of a Crown land program that is not well thought out, then we will indeed be self-defeating and going off in many different directions.

I have letters of objection to this particular incident. I mention that in passing because I think it is typical of something that's going on on a very widespread basis. I will be addressing myself to that problem more properly in the estimates of the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) and with some of the persons who have been responsible for this. It does bring to mind that the land base is not an infinite resource. That's what this bill is about, and that's what the minister has said in introducing this bill. Yet there seems to be less coordination and less power of the local inter-sector committees to sit down and think out the alienation of Crown lands and to cause those things to happen on a rational basis. I don't disapprove of people being given the opportunity to get Crown land, but I certainly am against it when it goes into....

My first objection would be when it occurs on prime wildlife-ungulate winter range, which, in this particular instance, is the case. In respect to this Bill 6, it also alienates forest land, invades a very major watershed and creates a precedent and a pressure for the alienation of not just six acres but, of course, the many others that will follow.

I might also point out that the minister could look for some ally, I should think, in the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), who is going to get pressures on him to send school buses five miles to pick up one little family of children or something, while this indiscriminate type of non-planned development happens over the objections of almost everybody.

[Mr. Hyndman in the chair.]

So I say that it is in that minister's interest — if this money is going to be well spent and is not going to be spent in vain — that we return to strong regional coordination as it affects the land base. Presently there is a move away from that. In Nelson, for instance, the regional lands office is being moved from Nelson over to Cranbrook, away from your regional Forests ministry office, away from the land registry office and away from all of the other forest-land base ministries. Mr. Speaker, a lot more is needed if we're going to do more than just pay lip service to the forest industry.

We are going to have to look also at the wisdom and the full cost of developing hydroelectric projects when they are reducing the annual allowable cut in an area. Up to this point we have never measured that. In terms of submissions by

[ Page 2459 ]

B.C. Hydro to the National Energy Board, they didn't consider the cost of permanently destroying forest-land base in terms of the economics of exporting power.

My concern in this matter is that not only do we just lose the logs, but we lose the jobs. I suppose you could make a direct computation as to the number of jobs that are lost even when six acres of land are alienated. It might come up to a fraction of one job, but if we continue this way and if people can go in and make representations and put on political pressure to alienate six acres or one section of land when it isn't well thought out and when the interests of the forest-land base are not considered, then this money would not be well spent.

So I urge the minister to use all of the power of his office. He is the minister of the largest and most important resource in this province, and he should not preside over the destruction of that forest-land base that this bill would hope to strengthen.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of questions to raise with the minister concerning this bill. A few weeks ago I asked the minister a series of questions concerning the seedling program, and specifically, if you remember, Mr. Minister, the aspect that seedlings were being bought in the United States at three times the cost of growing the seedlings in British Columbia. I think many people in British Columbia oppose a seedling program if they're being bought in the United States, since we should be encouraging our forest companies and the Forest Service, specifically, to be growing the necessary amounts of seedlings in British Columbia and not buying them in the United States. One of the first questions I have for the minister is: does the purchase of U.S. seedlings for British Columbia come from the general stumpage revenue? The second question, if the minister is concerned, is: why must seedlings be purchased in the United States?

Mr. Speaker, we are fortunate in British Columbia to have large tracts of Crown land that can be used for seedling farms. Encouraging the growth of seedlings in British Columbia could benefit the province itself. In rural areas of this province, for instance, small communities could be encouraged to run a seedling farm with profits from the sale of seedlings going back to the community endeavours.

This is my second series of questions to the Minister of Forests. Large operators insist on clearcutting logging operations. Tree planting is imperative in B.C. at this time. It appears that the province....

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) seems to be interrupting me again. I'm wondering if he's going to make one of his famous comments again.

It appears at this time B.C. cannot meet its commitment to replant every tree it cuts. Figures vary, but it appears that for every three trees we cut, we replant one. In the state of Washington, for instance, it appears that for every tree they cut, they replant seven. The question to the minister is: would it not be wise to leave small trees standing, if at all possible, instead of strip-mining our forests? Concerning the question, I will read three unrealistic cutting specifications set out in timber licence sales. These quotes are condensed. The first specification is: — "4-051 — all living and dead trees 20 centimeters at the butt must be cut; 4-053 — all live trees 3 metres and over in height, not otherwise required to be falled, shall be falled; 4-054 — all trees will be utilized to a small top diameter of 15 centimetres when able to sell."

There is a need in this province for selective logging. All too often when one drives through this province, we go past a massive area that has been clearcut of all its growth. It is clearcut to the extent that it is an eyesore. I'm talking specifically about Highway 37, between Dease Lake and Cranberry Junction, where it appears that large operators find it more profitable to leave the mess, lose their bond, and get out without ever cleaning up the logging operation.

I'd like to read another quote from a letter sent by Mr. Harry Hanhart Sr., who is a small logger up in the area of Stewart. Mr. Hanhart says:

"I feel that the Forest Service today is a cumbersome, unwieldy instrument, highly inefficient and totally out of tune with reality. Thousands of man-hours are spent by highly paid personnel in making this department more complicated and making life more miserable for the operators. A lot of our stumpage money is absorbed in wages for these bureaucrats who have no clue at all what it is like to live by their regulations."

He goes further, making some uncomplimentary remarks about the minister that I wouldn't want to read.

The bill states: "to ensure...funding for the enhanced management of forest, range and recreation resources of the province." The fund is $146.6 million. Much of our land in the north is only suitable for growing trees, so why not cultivate it — rather than employ mining aspects in the forest industry? Trees are a crop just like wheat or hay, Mr. Minister, but with a very slow turnover.

It would be encouraging if this minister would spend some time reading the Pearse report for suggestions concerning the forest industry. The report itself was one of the first major forest reports since the Sloan report, and we need to look at our forests, which are the most important industry in this province, in terms of the future. Mr. Speaker, our forests must receive priority listing as our most important renewable resource for future generations. At this time, I would appreciate it if the minister could answer the four questions that I posed to him.

MR. LEGGATT: I rise in support of the principle of the bill. The bill makes some positive contribution to the forests of British Columbia. However, I want to make some suggestions to the minister. I hope he is going to listen to the debate. I see I have his ear. It concerns our capacity to develop these kinds of surplus funds that the minister has placed in the bill. In this particular bill he is setting aside $146.6 million, which is a significant amount of money, but what I want to suggest is that we have to make a very serious re-examination of the way we go about collecting stumpage in the province of British Columbia, because until we get to the point of reexamining the stumpage formula we will not be able to develop satisfactory revenues in terms of long-term reforestation, or you will be drawing funds from other areas where there should be additional funds and putting them into the forests when those funds could become available with a proper and adequate stumpage formula.

The principle of the bill is sound. I would commend the minister's attention to the minutes of'the public accounts committee. In that committee you would probably find some

[ Page 2460 ]

unanimity between the government and opposition members in the examination of the use of the Vancouver log market in developing stumpage revenues for the province of British Columbia.

I'm convinced that it is time for a further commission into that specific aspect around the stumpage area. Mr. Speaker, you're looking at me slightly quizzically, but I have an argument on relevancy.... But I would quite seriously suggest to the minister — and this has been a matter that has been canvassed very favourably in the public accounts committee, and commented upon by his assistant deputy minister, Mr. Johnston — that to set a surplus fund out of your surplus revenue is well and good, but if you will re-examine the stumpage rate and the stumpage formula, I'm convinced that literally millions of additional dollars can become available to any government to enhance their reforestation and range management programs.

Let me give you some examples from those deliberations in committee, which I hope the minister will look at seriously. I want to quote from his assistant deputy minister. This is what he said on April 30, 1980, in answer to a question of mine:

"I think what you're getting at is: do we have adequate staff to effectively monitor the performance of people doing the forestry work? We're just completing a workload study of the area which includes taking a look at the standards of monitoring that are required and whether we have adequate staff to meet those standards. It's just in the final stage of working it through and it would appear we may not have an adequate level of staff."

Now that is a very strong statement from an assistant deputy minister. We all know how cautious an assistant deputy minister must be in terms of his own particular responsibilities. He's made a very clear statement here and I hope the minister will look very seriously at the complaints of his own department on the lack of staff in monitoring the capacity of revenue-producing in the stumpage area.

What he was getting at specifically was monitoring the reforestation deductions that are credited to the major companies in their own reforestation program. As we know, under the stumpage formula the major forest companies of British Columbia are entitled to deduct the cost of reforestation. Admittedly those reforestation programs are under the direction of the minister's department, but the minister's department itself is now saying that it does not have adequate staff to check those deductions that are being claimed against the stumpage for those revenues.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On a point of order, the Minister of Forests.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I fully appreciate the member's discussion about stumpage and the problems that he perceives in the stumpage system. However, I hardly think that second reading of Bill 6 is an appropriate place to discuss that. My estimates will be coming along shortly and I will very pleased to have a lengthy discussion with the member. If he wishes to have an even more detailed discussion, I invite him to my office at any time to discuss the very complex stumpage appraisal systems — both the interior and the coast.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's intervention around this. I might say that if the minister is interested in seeing this bill pass, and interested in the principle of the bill which is setting aside surplus funds for the purpose of forest and range management, what I'm suggesting is within the ambit of the bill. I'm suggesting the funds should be much less if the minister had proceeded in a different manner in collecting stumpage.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: For the benefit of the member for Coquitlam-Moody, Bill 17 — also on the order paper, of course — probably affords more relevant scope, as well as the estimates, for the point which I think he's now making. If the member wishes to make some reference to stumpage in a very supplementary and parenthetical way, the Chair is prepared to allow that, so long as it is clearly referable to the concept of the bill, which is a surplus appropriation.

MR. LEGGATT: I will endeavour to do that. The second aspect of this problem, which I want the minister to seriously examine, is, firstly, his ministry's lack of capacity to monitor the reforestation deductions that the companies are charging against those stumpage rates, and secondly, the complete inadequacy of the Vancouver log market, as disclosed by the Task Force on Crown Timber Disposal in 1974. It's been a long time since that study was done. It's clearly inadequate. It's clearly a market which does not reflect the real value of the timber. The interior of this province uses an entirely different formula; it's a fairer formula, I would submit — it's one that deals with the end product rather than the log itself. Again, this cries out for either a parliamentary committee or a commission study on that specific aspect. Again, to refer to the bill in question, what we have here is a bill which sets aside $146.6 million of public money raised from the public, not from the forest sector. This bill would be unnecessary if adequate stumpage rates were collected by the minister's department. That's why I say it's completely relevant to the bill. We wouldn't be looking at this bill if the recommendations of the Pearse royal commission in 1974 had been properly followed, and we had changed the formula under which we determine lumber values for stumpage purposes out of the Vancouver log market.

This complaint of lack of staff, it seems to me, follows along a bit of philosophy. When you cut staff in your revenue-producing departments you are reducing revenue to the Crown. This is something we could apply in sales tax as well as stumpage. You must be sure you have adequate staff in your tax-collecting agency, or the result is that the public continues to lose revenues which should be appropriately brought into the public treasury.

Today I'm making a strong suggestion to the minister that he now embark upon another commission, and that commission should take a specific look at the Vancouver log market as a way of developing stumpage. He should also immediately adopt the recommendations of his associate deputy minister, and enhance the investigative staff for those deductions that are being claimed against stumpage — enhance it to the point that his staff wants and needs. Forget cost-cutting in that particular area, because we could be losing literally millions of dollars in revenue as a result of a nickel-and-dime philosophy in terms of the staffing on the investigative side.

MRS. WALLACE: I want to make just a few remarks on this bill. Some are to reiterate some of the things my colleagues have said, and there are one or two new points that I wish to raise.

[ Page 2461 ]

I certainly agree that the amount of money involved here is not adequate to cope with the size of the problem we're facing. I know the minister has pointed out on many occasions what a tremendous problem we are facing. He has said at some public functions — he's been quoted as saying — that we will be running out of trees in ten years and we have to do something about it. I have quotes here; I'm not going to read them. His deputy minister has indicated the same thing. We're all agreed that we're in a bad situation as far as our fibre supply goes. We now have the knowledge and technology to at least take some steps; we've had it for a long time, but we haven't had the money. This bill is a small, tiny step in that right direction, but it's not sufficiently big to really deal with the problem.

One of my concerns is the shortage of seedlings; it's a concern of everyone. Certainly that shortage of seedlings is increased by what is perhaps a good average survival rate; but I'm suggesting to the minister that perhaps we could have some improvement in that survival rate, were there sufficient funds available to ensure that those seedlings had some degree of attention after the first planting.

Forestry has been related to agriculture as being a crop that we grow, and certainly no agriculturalist would be satisfied to have 50 percent generation of the plants that are planted, or even 85 percent. The fact that you plant that seedling and leave it certainly contributes to the high mortality rate that occurs. I'm not saying that it's any higher than anywhere else; it's probably lower than a lot of places. But the fact remains that there is a mortality rate, and as long as we have that mortality rate and as long as we're short of seedlings we could do something to improve our position by tending that crop, as it were: by putting some kind of cap over that tree to protect it, or even by hiring more staff that could retrace the steps of the planters and water at an interval. The kind of things that any farmer would do could certainly be carried out in the forest industry as well to ensure the protection of those trees. Those things, of course, cost money; but the importance of ensuring that our forest is replanted and replenished as rapidly as possible is one that we have to face in British Columbia, because we have waited so long to start facing the very serious problem.

I'm concerned, as I said, about the amount of money set aside in this bill. I don't believe it's nearly enough, and in addition to that I have some concerns as to whether or not it's going to be spent. My reason is that when I review last year's accounts I find that we had an amount of $10 million set aside for one year, and as of the end of December only approximately half of that had been expended. I'm sure that very little reforestation was carried on between the end of December and April 1. I would suspect that when the accounts are in for the end of the fiscal year we will find that that situation still prevails. I'm concerned, when we have this amount of money spread over a five-year period, that we may find at the end of this fiscal year that nowhere near a fifth of that money has been expended.

I'm concerned for another reason as well. Another provision in the bill indicates that this fund will be established and that the interest accrued from that fund will be paid back into consolidated revenue. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, if the minister is sincere in his wish to make funds available for reforestation he could have at least provided that the interest from the unexpended moneys in the fund would also go to reforestation rather than simply return to consolidated revenue. When I look at that aspect of the bill, coupled with the fact that past experience has indicated that moneys so set aside have not been expended, I'm concerned that this is just another pocket of money for this government to set aside — take it out of the annual expenditures and collect the interest on that money back into consolidated revenue. I'm concerned that we may stand in this House a year from now and find that that fund is more or less intact.

I know that the bill includes restoration of rangeland, and I know some of the problems that are being faced in the attempted resolution of land use — the conflicts of interest over that rangeland. I would suspect that a very few dollars out of this $146.6 million — or whatever it is — will be expended on rangeland restoration within the next year, because I don't think the present conflicts as to how that rangeland is to be used and allocated will be resolved. I believe the minister needs to add decidedly to his staff to ensure that the people are available to resolve these conflicts, because until they are resolved we are not going to get on with the business of range restoration. Certainly we are not going to get on with it in any way that's going to have a long-term meaningful benefit to the province unless we do resolve the conflicts.

For those reasons, while I support the bill, I am very concerned that we don't have a more firm commitment from this government not only to expend the total dollars set forth in this bill but also to ensure that more dollars will be available. This amount of dollars is far from enough to resolve the problem, and to attempt to tell the public that this bill is going to resolve the problems that face British Columbia in the forest industry is to bring a sense of false security to the public, because it is not going to resolve those problems. It will go a little way, but it will not go anywhere near providing the total answer in solving the problems in the forest industry.

I am supporting the bill because at least it is something, but I am concerned that the minister has not seen fit to expend the moneys voted to him last year, and I am concerned that next year we may find little expended from this fund. Finally, I am concerned that the interest from that fund will not be added to it but rather returned to consolidated revenue.

MR. HALL: I want to make a confession to you: this is probably the first speech I've ever made on forestry in the House for a number of years, although in my riding there is probably the beginnings of all the forest industry in B.C. In the sense that Green Timbers nursery is there, and that is important. After the minister replies to me, it may be the last speech I ever make on forestry. We'll see.

I want to see if I can get the minister to respond to some numbers, because that is really what we're talking about. Everybody in this House has congratulated the minister for producing the document. I think everybody in the House has congratulated the minister for trying to address the problem and produce the report. Where we are going wrong is in the numbers we see and whether or not we can assess the numbers correctly and then evaluate whether the application of those numbers is going to do the job.

If I may occasionally drift from the bill, just touching lightly onto the budget and then dashing back to the bill.... It is difficult to get it together, because I think the minister wants the best of every conceivable, possible world.

MR. BRUMMET: For B.C.

[ Page 2462 ]

MR. HALL: We all want that, Mr. Member for North Peace River. But he wants the best of every conceivable world in every argument he has, and that is something we might not be prepared to give him.

The $388 million figure he's got to play with, first of all, includes the entire Forest Service budget, and the same is true of the $1.4 billion forest management program. The actual increase in the forestry budget is only $32 million. That has got to be taken into consideration, at the same time, in accompaniment with the kind of money in this bill.

The increase in the staff is what I'm bothered about, because I've seen good programs put forward from the early sixties — if I may be political for a second — by Social Credit administrations, and then no staff and no allowances put forward to put into programmatic effect those good intentions. I can think of the Attorney-General in 1952 doing that.

Interjection.

MR. HALL: Nothing was ever done. Ecological reserves, green belts, all sorts of things, Mr. Member — you, as a young teenager, driving around the wilds of north and south Delta, will have seen some of those things. Nevertheless, I always want to see where the performance is. The research staff, which is going to have a lot to do with this bill, remains unchanged. Silviculture staff increases by 12, and the estimates for temporary salaries of professional services are up. That is the basis upon which we approach this big task.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I agree wholeheartedly that it is a huge responsibility and one in which we want to see the minister succeed. Some $84 million is to be allocated from stumpage for reforestation and other matters. The $146 million will apparently be spent over five years. At most then, extra expenditures for reforestation, the intensive forest management that the minister refers to, between '80 and '81 will total about $100 million, and the bulk of this will be spent by the forest companies. The monitoring of that major effort is the one that has caused me and the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) to have some concern. Because under examination by members of the committee, members of the minister's staff have indicated.... I don't want to read the actual minister but the evidence here is that there is not the staff to do that, although there is the knowledge, the concern and, I am sure, the intention to improve that position.

I want to hear from the minister what plans there are to make sure there is an adequate staff level to achieve the standards of monitoring that are required. That was mentioned under examination April 30 and May 7, and in the workload study that's going on. I want to hear the minister give us that kind of assurance.

MacMillan Bloedel estimate, Mr. Minister, that an expenditure of $15 million to $18 million per year between '80 and '85 will create 50 to 75 salaried positions and some 70 to 100 man-years of hourly paid employment by 1985. That doesn't include any capital expenditures. If you take those figures as a rough guide, you can estimate what the expenditure of close to $100 million, which I maintain will be left over, could directly create in salaried positions and some man-years of employment. But I think we need the assurance of the minister that that's exactly what's going to happen. I want to see what broad brush-strokes in terms of manpower and monitoring services he's got in the back of his mind for this bill. It's taking place after successive governments have not done their job on reforestation, after years and years have gone past without the companies doing the correct job, and after the companies have frankly abandoned, because of lack of supervision, in my view, or lack of legislative clout, or whatever is required, some of our heritage that we should have insisted be nurtured. I admit that that probably wasn't done as well as it should have been between '72 and '75. Now we've got that to pick up, and I'm not too sure that this program is going to do it.

Those kinds of strictures I'm asking to be looked at, and I would hope the minister would give us that kind of response. This whole thing has got to be looked at against the background of unprecedented profit levels by the corporations that are enjoying this resource. For instance, the direct revenues from forests — that's stumpage and logging tax — totalled 9.3 percent of B.C. government revenue in 1973; in 1974 they went up to 13.3 percent — that was the highest they'd been for a long, long time. They fell back dreadfully in the slump of 1975 to 1976, back to 2.5 percent. When the minister's party came back to power, direct revenues from forests went to 3 percent, and in 1979.... I think they've now reached 10 percent — I obviously haven't got last year's; it's not yet reported. I hope it's a lot more than 10 percent. I wonder, however, if it's gone as high as 13.3 percent. I just don't know, and that's an interrogative, clinical, quite innocent question of the minister — I'd like to know what the last figures were.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's out of order.

MR. HALL: I don't think it's out of order, when you consider what we're doing for this resource, when I maintain that it's not been done adequately for some years.

Interjection.

MR. HALL: That's right, and I could do without the heckling too, in view of the happenings of the last couple of days.

Direct forest revenues, Mr. Speaker, are expected to fall back this coming year, probably to 5 percent. Now if the revenues are falling back and we're ploughing this money in, I'd like to see the real figures for what's going on. Nobody is saying that this side has got the only interest in this business, and I don't think anybody on that side is saying that they have the monopoly of interest either.

This, the most important industry of all, needs that kind of attention, and that's why I've been compelled — impelled, if you like — to make a speech on forestry for the first time. Normally we leave it to the members who have a direct personal contact and direct personal involvement in the business. But I think it's time that many of the city members engaged in this kind of debate and found out — perhaps for the benefit of the people who work in the finishing end of the business — a little more of what's going on in the natural and basic economy of the province. And for that I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hope the minister will answer in the spirit of those questions. There will be two or three more speakers, I think, engaged in this kind of debate on this kind of bill, the most important kind of bill in front of us in this chamber.

[ Page 2463 ]

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to take part in the debate on this bill. I'm surprised that more members of the government caucus, especially the silent back bench over there, have not taken the opportunity, since they appear to believe that this is an extremely important bill for the province of B.C.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: I'm perfectly willing to allow someone to take my place, if anybody were prepared to speak on that side. We've heard what that member has had to say before. He simply changes the words, but the speech is always the same.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: No, I counted them before I stood up, and there were none.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'll speak.

MR. SKELLY: I think you'll be next, Mr. Waterland.

In any case, I'm standing in support of the principle of this bill. I do believe that inadequate funds have been allocated in the past to intensive management of the forest resource. One of the best ways you can spend surplus funds in the province, if they are true surplus funds, is to plough them back into the industry which provides our bread and butter. I'm talking in particular about the bread and butter of the electorate of the Alberni provincial constituency. So I strongly support the principle of increasing the allocation of money to the development of our forests, especially in this critical period of transition between old growth and new growth and all the problems that attend to that transition.

I also agree with the principle of providing some kind of funding over a longer term instead of operating on a year-by-year basis. In general, when you have a lot of revenue from the Forest Service making expenditures, you meet the obligations in that year. But when you have very little revenue, you fall back. You tend to fall back more and more in the lean years when you're not getting that stumpage or taxation revenue from the resource. So I prefer to see the minister who is managing a long-term renewable resource to put money in over a long-term period and to assure the people who are involved in that resource, and whose livings depend on that resource, that they are going to have some assurance over a longer-term period than in the past.

I also support the idea of submitting the five-year descriptions of the state of the art, the state of our forests and also the five-year management plans for forest and range. I support all those in principle and, therefore, support the principle of this bill.

I do have some concerns, however. Those concerns have been expressed by other members who have been on their feet in this debate. We really don't have sufficient detail to make a good judgment on whether this is a good expenditure of public money. The minister made a brief opening statement about how the money was going to be spent. But if we're only going to be spending $19 million or so out of this bill in the first year, Mr. Speaker, and if we're going to be dividing it between the forest resource and all of those things the minister mentioned — intensive silviculture, forest protection, development of NSR sites, improvement of the range resource and the development of recreational sites — then that $19 million, which isn't very much money in today's terms, is going to be spread pretty thinly over the ministry and over the resource. I'm kind of concerned that it is not enough money. We don't really have sufficient detail about what the minister is planning to do with the $19 million in the first year and the $146 million over the balance of the five years. It's not as much as I thought it was. We don't really have sufficient detail.

This ministry has been developing in what I think is the correct way, Mr. Speaker, and it's kind of at odds with the present government in the way that it is going. The ministry is coming down with White Papers on forest policy and allowing comment from all sectors of the industry and groups in the public. We're looking at silvicultural policies, policies for tree nurseries, nurseries in the private sector, farm woodlots, and programs for allocating timber. I think that's the right way to go.

Unfortunately, he's begun the procedure, but I don't think he's followed through adequately on the procedure and allowed sufficient public comment on the policies before they're developed. People seem to have the feeling that when the White Paper comes out, the public then make statements in a very informal way or by way of letter to the minister, and then a policy is announced. There isn't kind of sufficient cross-feeding between the public, the industry and the ministry before the policy is announced in its final form.

Possibly over the next five years. or when the next plans are submitted, I hope the minister is going to look fairly carefully at the way the public is involved in making suggestions on forest policy, the way this money is going to be spent and also the way the public is involved in the management of forests and government programs after we have voted the money in this bill.

I think the minister would do well to look at the U.S. Forest Service and some of the regulations that have come down in the management of the United States' forests. They are moving very successfully and very quickly towards a program for full public involvement in the way the national forests are managed in the United States. I hope that the minister is moving in that direction and that we can see some sort of law in the area of public involvement in the development of policy and in the management of forests in the province of British Columbia.

Also, I would like to see a broadening of the involvement. This was suggested in the recent report that was done under TIDSA, where the consultants hired by TIDSA to look into the tourism resource in British Columbia made the comment that one of the problems we have in resource development in British Columbia is that in the operation of our first industry, forestry, we don't take into account enough the needs of the second industry, tourism and recreation, which provides the next highest amount of dollars to the economy of British Columbia. That one industry, in the way it's operated, doesn't take into account well enough the needs of the second industry. There should be a bit of broadening of public involvement, so people concerned about that second industry, tourism, are involved in some of the decisions made in the first industry, the operation of the forest industry, so that the two don't conflict.

When the government House Leader and I were on a select standing committee of this Legislature a few years ago — when those committees actually did some work....

[ Page 2464 ]

That particular committee hasn't done any work since the present government took over in 1976. But at that time, those committees were working and seeking public involvement and we got some very valuable comments from the public. One of the things that was brought forward to our committee was the Ontario logging guidelines, where they used landuse architects and landscape architects to develop forest openings, roads and clearcuts in such a way that they don't constitute such a problem for the tourist resource. So I would hope in the future the ministry might consult other ministries of government, and especially the ministry responsible for that second major industry in B.C., the tourism industry.

One of the things that the minister mentioned in his opening remarks was the forest protection aspect. I feel that the way the ministry handles insect control at the present time is unsatisfactory. It's based on some antiquated beliefs about insect control and it's a very costly way of going. The minister will remember the aborted spruce budworm program in the Fraser Canyon, where we were looking at spending a million dollars on control of the spruce budworm in the first year. Well, that would eat up one-twentieth of the money allocated in this coming year under this bill. If the minister had adopted that form of insect control all over the province, it probably would have eaten up the whole bill and nothing would be left for intensive silviculture, and, really, not that much wood would have been saved for harvesting and conversion.

There is a different approach to insect control, which was suggested in a letter to the minister from the Sierra Club recently, when the Sierra Club was commenting on management of beetles in lodgepole pine stems. Also, there is another approach to insect control — which is being adopted by the orchardists in the Okanagan — where they are looking at the forest as a complete ecosystem, rather than as standing wood which is vulnerable to being eaten by bugs — therefore, if you see the bugs, you go in and spray and hope that the forest won't be eaten at as rapid a rate. That's an old and antiquated system of insect management. I would hope that the minister, in adopting a new and better-financed approach to silviculture and forest management, will consider new approaches to insect control, because the old approaches have been singularly unsuccessful and extremely expensive, and I would hate to see any of this money wasted on that approach to insect control.

The new ones are based on what they call the integrated pest management movement. It was developed by a number of universities in the United States. Two of the major proponents on the west coast are Helga and William Olkowski of the John Muir Institute in Berkeley, California. They came up and discussed the basis of the movement with a number of people from the Forest Service, the University of British Columbia, the city of Vancouver — which was involved in a gypsy moth spraying program at the time — and the provincial and federal departments of agriculture. It was a refreshing new approach.

There's also a consultant, as I say, working for the orchardists in the Okanagan who has managed to reduce insect damage in those orchards, and has managed to reduce the amount of money spent on sprays simply by taking a little more care and observation of the problem. That's just one of the specific things I would like to bring to the minister's attention before he closes debate on the bill.

As I said before, Mr. Speaker, in principle I support the allocation of additional moneys for intensive forest management and I support the minister's objective in spending this money and assuring this money over a longer term.

MR. MUSSALLEM: It's nice to hear the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) being so positive and recommending this bill. Indeed it's a landmark bill. Although it is unnecessary for me to speak on it, I cannot let the opportunity pass to express my point of view and to compliment the minister on what he has brought together at this time. It is impossible to look at this bill in isolation. This bill is the sum total of long years of expertise and planning throughout the years of this government. It is also desirable to note that during that time three years of socialism has ensued. I cannot help but remark on the member for Surrey when he referred to the years of the socialist regime in British Columbia, 1972-75, but he failed to make note of the fact of how, at that time, this industry almost hit the bottom of its cycle, how everybody was out on strike and how the plywood business had practically disappeared; and chaos reigned supreme. Mind you, we don't look on that with any pride, except for the little ripple in the upward stride of this great industry in British Columbia, well managed throughout the years. The foresight used in previous years is now coming to fruition. We are fortunate to have the minister we have, who can grasp the opportunities that are here and who can produce a bill of this kind to bring us to this new plateau of greatness in British Columbia. What other industry in the year of 1970 would think of producing power from woodchips? It was unheard of; it was called ridiculous. But those were the days when that started, when environmentalists were practically unknown, and the lumber and wood industry was urged to maintain the streams and forests. It's a great opportunity. It's a time I cannot let pass, having sat in this House through those years.

Mr. Speaker smiled. Is he thinking I'm occupying valuable time? Well, of course I'm occupying valuable time. That's what should be said here. It should be said clearly that there is no negativism on our side. We are positive. The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) made some remarks; he was in favour of the bill. Everyone is in favour of the bill, except they have the word "however." "However" is only a word used by the opposition in being a little negative — sometimes more negative than others, but always negative.

Progress has been shown in this industry. This industry, which was in the foreground — and it needn't have been in the foreground — could have been mismanaged. But every step of the way throughout 20 years of Social Credit government before '72 and seven years after there was progress every inch of the way until today it's a mighty industry representing thee core employment of British Columbia. I just cannot let the opportunity pass without complimenting the minister again for producing a landmark bill of this kind. No matter how you dissect it, no matter how you take it apart, no matter how you refer to it, you must come to the conclusion that it is the sum total of a great job well done. I think this House should pay him every compliment and say: well done, good and faithful minister.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: It's quite rare in the Legislature that we do have as serious a discussion as we have had on Bill 6. I think it demonstrates the awareness of the members on both sides of the House of the importance of this forest resource and range resource in the province.

A number of questions have been asked. I don't want to

[ Page 2465 ]

take up too much of the House's time, but I do think legitimate questions have been asked with legitimate concern. I would like to go through the questions asked. I won't repeat my answers, because some questions have been repeated a number of times. I would like to run through some of the points raised.

First of all, starting with the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly).... This question was raised by most of the members who spoke — that is, that it's not enough money. Mr. Speaker, the funding provided in Bill 6, plus the budgetary amounts, plus the amounts offset against stumpage, over the next five-year period amount to $1.5 billion. I would point out — particularly to the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), who said it wasn't enough to keep up with inflation — that these funds are in 1980 dollars, and allowances will be made for inflation. This is a base amount, Mr. Speaker, in 1980 dollars. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) himself made an attempt to project future inflation in his analysis of the economy of B.C. This program is in 1980 dollars, and allowance will be made from year to year for inflation. This is the bottom line, the basic amount.

The member for Alberni talked about the White Paper approach, and the thought that he had that perhaps not enough attention is paid to feedback. Let me assure that member that in developing the White Papers — and we have had a number of them and will have more. Before the White Paper is produced, we have extensive consultation with the private sector, the general public and anybody who shows an interest. White Papers are developed as the best distillation of the comment and requirements we have for management. When feedback comes from the White Paper, that usually leads to additional modification of what was stated in the White Paper. Feedback is important. We do listen. We have taken the consultative approach because forest management is much more than just managing timber production.

The member also mentioned the fact that we don't allow enough consultation with other ministries. He will recall that the Ministry of Forests Act states that we must manage the forest in consultation and with input from other ministries and the general public, and we do. We are broadening this as much as possible. As a matter of fact, Mr. Member, we do have landscape architects on our staff and we use them extensively in areas in which forest harvesting may have visual impact. We've had these people for a year or so now and they're offering us some excellent advice. So other ministries and other needs of the land base are very important to us. We do, of course, listen and respond whenever we can.

The member went into insect control to some extent. Insect and disease control are extremely necessary. We lose the equivalent each year of about one-third of our annual harvest to insects, disease and fire, most of that being to insects and disease. We can't control pine beetles and bark beetles by spraying. I know the Sierra Club suggested that we do it through the management of the harvesting of trees before a certain age. With lodgepole pine and the problems we have now with them.... Lodgepole pine has only been a commercial species in B.C. for 15 years or so, and the trees that are under attack are usually in the 80-year age class. Yes, starting now we can do that, We can't all of a sudden harvest those older stands which have been there for many years.

The second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) is no longer in the Legislature, but I would encourage him to make additional speeches on forestry. I think he raised some very good points, primarily related to the staffing increases which he sees as necessary to carry out our programs. Let me say that we are planning for a modest staff increase, I believe 32 this year, but our objective is not to have government employees do the work. We'll monitor it and we'll direct it. The objective is to have as much of it as possible done in the private sector, and I think that's the way it should be.

Getting to the staffing and the level of expenditure.... We in the ministry prepared this program for presentation to cabinet and subsequently to the Legislature. This is the optimum level of planning that can be managed in an efficient manner. We could spend an extra $100 million this year, I'm sure, but we would waste 90 percent of it, because before you can do this type of work first of all you have to develop the people with the expertise to do it and you have to continue to learn about the response of a forest to the things we are doing. If we send inexperienced crews into stands where we perhaps don't have enough technical information, they could degrade the stands instead of enhancing them, through improper stand treatment work. This is the optimum amount and the first of continuous five-year programs. Already we are working on next year's five-year program. That has to be presented to our legislative counsel by this September. That will add one year to this program as we drop off the last year. So it's the beginning of ongoing five-year programs. As we learn more and more about the response of the forests to the things we do to it, we will be able to increase these programs and, indeed, increase the wood available to us.

As an aside, the concern expressed by the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) was that the program is not enough to provide that cut as soon as it will be needed. We have stands in British Columbia at various ages of maturity now, both naturally replanted and artificially replanted, and as these stands reach maturity great increases in their growth rate can be achieved through silviculture treatments. I have a couple of examples here. This tree, if you can see, up to about this age — I would guess that is about the 80-year age class — had very little growth, It was thinned then, and you can see the tremendous increase in wood volume that was put on at that time. I have another example, and this, I believe, is a coastal hemlock. This line in here represents an age of about 100 years, and in the following 12 or so years its volume increased tremendously.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you going to table that?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No, I won't table it. I think I'll make a table of it, Mr. Minister.

These are examples of the tremendous increases in wood volume growth that you can get through stem treatment work. This type of thing makes me very optimistic as to our ability to meet the natural falldown effect.

Members have expressed concerns about the forest-land base and that's a concern of mine as well. The forest-land base is shrinking as our population expands and as we put more and more environmental constraints on the use of that forest-land base. We alienate it for other very legitimate uses such as highways, rights-of-way, powerline rights-of-way, agricultural and urban development, wilderness areas. It erodes the land base. Most of them are legitimate needs of the people of British Columbia.

I am working right now with my colleagues, especially the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Cha-

[ Page 2466 ]

bot), to establish additional provincial forest reserves. We have some 79 of them now, and another 50 hopefully will be in place by the end of 1981. This will not take land out of other uses but will ensure that as we make these tremendous investments in forest land management we are investing the money in lands that will be kept in forest production. That is very important. The estimates given of the loss of forest land are not what we would like to see lost. In fact, it goes far beyond what we would like to see. It doesn't meet the expectations of many, but it's a good, realistic estimate of what will happen to the land base over the years, as these other demands have to be met to a certain extent.

The forest-land base is not a static thing. It increases and decreases. Some of the uneconomic lands we have now will come back into the forest-land base as our harvesting technology improves. Nothing is static. The inventory we have, the allowable cut, is not static. It changes from year to year, and it will change in an upward direction as we continue to do a better job of managing the land base.

I know I am boring some of my colleagues, but I think this is an important enough subject that we should give it the attention it deserves.

Members have mentioned that the Forest Service is unwieldy and that we don't have adequate staff with proper training to monitor the things we're doing, to monitor the expenses being made by the private sector. Let me assure the members that we do, and as we are now getting into the final stages of Forest Service reorganization the capability will be even greater, because we'll be spending much less time sending memos back and forth. The different levels of management will be making on-site decisions with people closer to the field.

So many people talk about replanting as a reforestation program. It is not a reforestation program at all. It is a total forest management program, reforestation being but one part, albeit an important part. We must not only plant where we have to; we must prepare for natural reforestation, because that is more than adequate in many, many areas. In fact, in many areas natural regeneration does too good a job and the areas get overstocked. So planting and reforestation is but one part of the total process.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) said we must look after those seedlings after they are planted. Indeed we do, but I don't think we can go so far as to have people going around with watering-cans. We do go back and check on survival rates. On average, survival in British Columbia is as good as anywhere in the world. We must remember that we have a terribly complex forest with wide variation in climatic conditions, altitude and latitude — perhaps one of the most complex forests in the world. We have a lot more to learn about it. Our survival rate is increasing all the time; in some areas it is close to 90 percent, in other areas we are fortunate to get 50 percent. But no one should expect that every seedling planted will survive into a mature tree. That's not realistic: it doesn't happen here; it can't happen here; it doesn't happen anywhere in the world.

The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) talked about seedling plantations in his area and compared 1975 to subsequent years. He will probably recall a report of the Forest Service where we had some terrible survival problems in those years. We have pulled back on the level of plantation there until we learn how to overcome some of the mortality we had in those plantations.

Mr. Speaker, I believe I have covered most of the general areas of concern raised by members. There are a number of misconceptions as to what forest management means, as to what happens when we clearcut. The member for Skeena was talking about clear-cutting policy raging throughout the province. Clearcutting is a very legitimate silvicultural tool; it is a method of harvesting used by every forest jurisdiction in the world that I have visited, and I have visited many in the last few years. Many areas get a substantial amount of their wood from commercial thinnings prior to clearcutting, but in most types of forests clearcutting is the final harvesting method. It is the way Mother Nature does it; it is the way we do it. Some of our forests lend themselves to selective logging. I think the Kamloops forest region is a good example. Last year over 50 percent of the area harvested was harvested by selective logging. The harvesting prescription is dictated by the forest: what the forest is, the species you have, its location. Clearcutting is not universally used, but it is used to a great extent.

The amount of funding over the period of this program is going to increase spending by 34 percent in 1980 dollars. As I said, that is the optimum level of spending that we can manage effectively without wasting money and without, perhaps, degrading some of our forests. New programs will come, year to year. Every year we will have a new five-year program which must be approved by the government and which, I'm sure, will be approved by the Legislature. We have to recognize the fact, and I think most members do, that our number one industry in British Columbia is still forestry. Our most important resource is still our forest and range resource. We will only get out of it in the future what we put into it now — the luxury of endless fields of untapped prime virgin forest is behind us.

I'm very happy, Mr. Speaker, that all members will be supporting this motion. I move that the bill be now read a second time.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

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

Bill 6, Forest and Range Resource Fund Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 5.

SPECIAL PURPOSE
APPROPRIATION ACT, 1980

(continued)

MR. SKELLY: I intend to vote against this bill, Mr. Speaker, unlike the last one, and for a number of reasons. First of all, I don't agree with the principle of the bill. The fact that you should take surplus funds...and I don't really agree that they're surplus funds. You just create an artificial surplus by understating your anticipated revenue and by 7 overstating your expenditures, and then cutting down on the expenditures to create an artificial surplus.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: I'm criticizing our own government, because during our term of office we ran up surpluses as well.

[ Page 2467 ]

If you read the Socred leaflets you won't find them there, but if you read the budget statements of the province for every year until the Social Credit government took over in 1975, you'll find the surpluses there, Mr. Speaker, I would urge you to reject the rewritten histories and newspeak of the Social Credit Party, which I can see you've been doing over the last little while, having taken a look at the whole process from a fairly neutral point of view. I would urge you to take a look at those old budget speeches and the public accounts of the years when the NDP was in office, and you'll find there was a surplus in every year in which we had control over the finances. But I still don't agree with it.

I think that a surplus should be an unusual occurrence. Either you should set aside funds for contingencies for the lean years and you should so state in the budget, or else you should more accurately predict the performance of the economy and the performance of the government in the way they take on revenues and expend the taxpayers' money. Mr. Speaker, that is not the proper way to do it, so I disagree with that.

I also think that most of the expenditures that have been placed in the Special Purpose Appropriation Act should not legitimately be here in this bill. These expenditures should be within the individual budgetary estimates of the individual ministries. Of course, the $26 million they talk about spending on the debt that Social Credit created after they came to office in 1975 is a piece of fiction that we can all ignore in discussing this bill. But an example is the $100 million that's being allocated here to the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser).

Now the minister, when he stood up to talk during debate on this bill, said he wasn't going to talk about how this money was going to be expended. He said it was capital expenditure and it would increase his capital budget by something like 33 percent, but he wasn't going to tell us how it was going to be spent. He said we can cover that during his budget estimates. But that's not the proper place to deal with an expenditure of $100 million; the proper place to deal with that expenditure, Mr. Speaker, is when you vote for it on the bill. The minister didn't give an adequate explanation of how he was going to spend that $100 million, which would be an addition to his capital budget. But the minister did attempt to explain — in the way that Social Credit people rewrite history in this province — how the capital budget has been spent since they took office in 1976. He called the former Minister of Highways "Pothole Lea." Well, Mr. Speaker, in my riding they call that member "Pothole Fraser."

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: No, they call him that in the riding. I don't call him that here. I call him the member for Cariboo. But in my riding they call him "Pothole Fraser," because he hasn't done sufficient work in my riding to maintain the roads that were built there by the NDP or that were sufficiently maintained there by the NDP. I've talked to the employees in the minister's own ministry, and they say that funds have been effectively cut back in that ministry and in that area since the Social Credit government took over in 1975-76. They say that they don't have sufficient money to keep up with the deterioration of roads in Alberni constituency, and that even if they spent $1 million a year on maintaining those roads, you wouldn't see any impact for the next five years. That's how badly the roads have been allowed to deteriorate in the rural areas of Vancouver Island.

Mr. Speaker, I intend to bring this to your attention at every single opportunity that I have in this Legislature, to show what a poor job the Minister of Highways is doing in Alberni constituency, and the fact that he should pull himself up by his bootstraps and get to work. Don't just vote him these $100 million funds with no explanation as to where they're going to go; we demand an explanation as to where they're going to go. That's why the people in our constituencies sent us here in the first place. This bill does not provide us adequate scope for debate to question the minister in any detail as to how this money is going to be spent.

Just within the last little while, the regional district of Alberni-Clayoquot wrote to the Minister of Highways: "Dear Mr. Fraser: At its last meeting the regional board discussed the general conditions of highways and rural roads in the Alberni Valley. It was agreed that most of the roads are in deplorable shape and in many cases propose hazardous conditions to motorists."

I was up in the constituency yesterday and met with a number of people. There were two children, cyclists, injured on one road in the Alberni Valley, and the injury was attributed by the police and by the citizens of the area to the poor condition of highways as a result of deterioration over the last several years.

I talked to the Highways employees there. They said that in the past....

HON. MR. MAIR: The roads are fine in Kamloops.

MR. SKELLY: Yes, they are fine in Kamloops, and I hope to get to that in a second, Mr. Speaker.

In the past the rural roads were maintained on a year-by-year basis, and the ministry employees in that area did a fine job in keeping ahead of the breakup and deterioration of those roads. Today they don't have sufficient funds or crews to keep ahead of the regular maintenance requirements, and it's because of the bad management of that Minister of Transportation and Highways.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, there is a member who has never spoken in the House, except in asides across the floor, and has never said anything constructive in debate on any of these bills. The only thing he has done is to promise his own ministry that he's going to remain silent in order not to embarrass them. I would urge you, Mr. Speaker, to make him keep that promise.

HON. MR. MAIR: I said that?

MR. SKELLY: I always mix you up with the other member, who is also an embarrassment to his ministry.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps all hon. members could pay attention to the member who has the floor at this point.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I was talking about the deplorable condition of highways in Alberni riding and in other rural constituencies on Vancouver Island and throughout many parts of the province where the minister fails to

[ Page 2468 ]

allocate adequate funds on an impartial basis to keep those roads in good, safe condition.

In many other provinces and in many other jurisdictions, Highways department moneys are allocated on a fair and equitable basis. The conditions of the roads, the areas and the climatic problems with frosts and breakups and that kind of thing — all those are taken into account. I suspect with this minister that nothing more is taken into account than the political affiliation of the member of the Legislature from that riding.

In the province of Saskatchewan, every year they publish — and we get nothing from the minister in advance of discussion on the budget — where road developments are going to take place, constituency by constituency. It doesn't matter whether you're a Conservative or a New Democratic Party member in Saskatchewan. It does matter if you're a Liberal or a Socred — and here they are virtually interchangeable — in Saskatchewan, because there aren't any, so they don't get advance notice. In Saskatchewan every member of the Legislature gets advance notice as to how those highway funds are going to be spent, capital funds and maintenance funds, and a map is provided so that it will be of benefit to members of the Legislature, and the electorate, and the travelling public who use those highways on a day-to-day basis.

Not here, Mr. Speaker. Those funds are allocated on a strictly political basis, and that is an element of corruption that we must deal with in this province. We must challenge this minister to work out a formula for allocating highway capital funds which is based not on the political preference of the member of the Legislature for a particular area but on the needs of highway development in that area.

HON. MR. MAIR: On a point of order, I distinctly heard the member for Alberni suggest corruption on the treasury benches and in the government. I would ask the member to withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: In the manner of the House, if the member has suggested that, the Chair would ask the member to withdraw any suggestion of corruption.

MR. SKELLY: It wasn't my intent to suggest that, but if the minister drew that conclusion I most certainly would withdraw. What I intended to suggest — and I hope that minister will listen clearly — is that when funds are allocated on a political basis, then it is possible for corruption to seep in. That should not be permitted in this province, and it should not be permitted to continue if it has done so in the past.

In the last election the minister came to my riding....

The last time I brought this up he said I was fighting the last election all over again, but I insist, Mr. Speaker, that this has to be debated. If funds are allocated for highway improvements on a political basis, then it has to be debated each and every year in each and every bill where highway funds are affected and during the minister's estimates. We cannot allow this political favouritism to continue further — political favouritism in the allocation of capital and maintenance funds which affects the lives, health and safety of the travelling public in our riding. Narrow roads, poorly maintained roads, poorly designed roads and poorly aligned roads, roads used by logging trucks, by passenger vehicles and by students walking along the shoulders of those roads to school — it's a dangerous mix, and if those roads are inadequate, then the minister should deal with them on the basis of need, rather than the basis of politics, which has been the case in the past. This is not an appropriate bill in which we should be considering the expenditure of highway funds. We should have the right to question that minister in detail during his estimates. That money should be taken out of this bill and dealt with in the Minister of Transportation and Highways' bill.

In almost every case, in almost any section of this bill, that criticism applies. And it's not a negative criticism, although the members on the Social Credit benches have difficulty in determining what a positive suggestion is and what a negative criticism is. That is not a negative criticism, Mr. Speaker. It would help the members of this Legislature on both sides if they knew what they were voting for. I am amazed at the comments that sometime come across the floor from over there when they want bills to go through without debate in the House. What do they think this Legislature is here for? We're here to question and to oppose when we find problems with a bill, and we're not here to rubberstamp, without asking questions, everything the government chooses to do. That's why the opposition and that back bench are here. They must be the easiest people in the world to deal with. These bills must go through caucus — if they even go to caucus at all — in a matter of seconds, because nobody answers, asks or criticizes; it's a rubber stamp all the way through. But I realize there's a cabinet majority in caucus, so the highly paid people are able to work their will on the easy ones in the back bench.

There are some legitimate expenditures that I can see in this bill — legitimate expenditures that probably should be taken out of surplus funds. Those are allocations to the Refugee Settlement Program. Nobody can predict how world situations are going to change to the point that Canada will be called upon to accommodate refugees from war-torn and strife-torn areas throughout the world. It's legitimate, I think, to set up a special bill to accommodate the settlement in Canada of those refugees. So taking one or two things out of this bill that I can support, I would have to say there are only those one or two things, and also the Youth Employment Program. It's legitimate to account for the requirements of summer student labour in a separate bill each year when you know what those labour requirements are going to be and how many students are going to mid-term during the summer term in any one year. So I think those are legitimate things to put in the bill, but the rest we should be dealing with in estimates.

There are very few ministers in the House today prepared to explain what the expenditures in this bill are going to cover, and we don't have sufficient opportunity to question that, so I'm absolutely opposed to the way this bill has been handled. I would like to urge, again, to the Minister of Highways that this is an inappropriate way to deal with capital expenditures in the Ministry of Highways. We need some formula and system in this province that allocates capital and maintenance funds to the various constituencies not on the basis of the political affiliation of the individual who represents that constituency; it should be based on the highway maintenance and development needs and the safety of the people in that area. That's the main thing that I would like to impress on you, Mr. Speaker, and the members of this Legislature in my opposition to this bill.

[ Page 2469 ]

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, in second reading of bills, as we all know, there is an examination and debate about the principle of the bill. That's very difficult, if not impossible, in this case. Not only does the bill have no principle but, to put it in the other sense, it's an unprincipled bill. It's an unconscionable bill, because what it seeks to do is to put all members in the House in the position of voting for something they want and, in the process, getting something they don't want. The alternative is not wanting something, voting contrary to it, and in the process defeating something that they want. That's the unprincipled part of it, as has been outlined before by the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich). The bill contains 17 separate items of expenditures identified alphabetically and embraces 11 ministries of the government, and it is all wrapped up in one piece of legislation. That's why I think it's an unprincipled thing to bring to the Legislature this type of bill and force members into the position of voting in a way in which they might not want to, and probably would not, vote on the individual items contained therein.

It is insufficient to say we can do that in committee, because we are dealing with the foundation of the bill at second reading. For that reason, and because it's a parliamentary mechanism being used by government for purposes which are not in keeping with the principles of a deliberative legislative assembly, I can't cast a vote totally in favour of the bill. To do so would be to vote for something unprincipled and unconscionable. Separate them. Put the items in the estimates where they should belong. Bring in some supplementary estimates if need be. Then we can examine in detail whatever needs to be done in that regard. Then we can talk with the minister in that particular department in detail about the specifics and about the proposal and about the ideas that the minister might have. But we can't do that when faced with this particular bill.

I also want, in a way supportive of the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) — and also on my own behalf, for the constituency I represent — to point out to the House that the highway and rural or back-road system in Skeena is an absolute disgrace. I think what we are doing here is simply carrying on the legacy left to us by a former member for the constituency of Kamloops, one-time Minister of Highways Phil Gaglardi, who could see nothing else but blacktop for any place that suited his political purposes. This government is carrying on that tradition, so the rural roads in my constituency are an absolute disgrace to any government that holds itself out as one desiring to, or claiming to, serve the interests of the people. Those rural roads in Skeena have been filled with potholes and washboard, bricks, stones, ruts and dust for years and years, and they're still in that condition.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: Well, the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), unable to fend for himself in this Legislature, unable to put up a case for roads in his own riding, has probably got the greatest length of roads in poor condition in the whole country — a direct result of his inability to fight for things that are needed in that riding. But that's his problem, not mine.

I just want to reiterate that the rural roads in Skeena have been neglected and are continuing to be neglected. The case of people who live at the ends of, or along, those rural roads is ignored completely, because we have a government that can only look at Highway 16 — the ribbon that runs through the constituency, the transprovincial highway — for blacktop, can only look at the connection down to Kitimat. They are currently blacktopping Highway 37 northwards — yes, but all to the detriment of people who live off those main roads, and that's not good enough. If you talk to the Highways department people in the region and in the district, they say they are not able to do anything, because they put matters forward here and they get shot down.

Another unprincipled thing about this bill is that one perceives, with respect, say, to the proposal for $100 million, that it won't be spent this year in any event. It's window-dressing; it's there for some...I wouldn't say ulterior, but it's there for some influencing motive. It's a good round figure — $100 million for an accelerated highway program.

I see you're about to interrupt the chatty member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair), Mr. Speaker. If you want to, that's entirely up to you; if you don't want to, I don't mind.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Skeena has the floor, and it is contrary to our standing orders to impede any member who is speaking. That said, the member continues.

MR. HOWARD: What the bill does, in part, is....

It's got this $100 million figure out there, which is a fine, round figure and sounds nice, but it's also got a provision which says that, just in case any of that $100 million isn't spent at the end of the fiscal year, then it's all wiped out and it's not there for any continuing program. If there was sincerity on the part of the government to have an accelerated highway program and to allocate $100 million towards it, and it wanted to do it by legislation, which is the case here, then it should be a piece of legislation that continues in existence until the $100 million is expended. That would be a principle that one could examine if they did that by way of a separate bill. But to lay the money out with the full intention, in my view, not of spending it but of having it left over at the end of the year, so it can go back into general revenue, so they can say, "Aren't we great money managers? We've got some money left over; we've got a surplus...." That is another unprincipled part of the bill that I cannot endorse.

Public debt was talked about earlier here. Mr. Speaker, so long as government members continue year after year to carry on the myth that a debt was created when we were in office, we have to put forward the countervailing arguments to deny it, to put it in its proper context, because that was not the case. The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), innumerable times — and I don't want to repeat the figures that he has put forward on many, many occasions — has pointed out that when we were the government the surpluses that were created were there and were used to good purpose. They were put aside in special-purpose funds; that's what their use was. And some of those special purpose funds, Mr. Speaker....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Where are they?

MR. HOWARD: They say: "Where are they?" When this crowd got into office they looked around in the savings accounts and wiped out some of the special-purpose funds to bring the money back onto the current side of the ledger and say: "Aren't we good money managers? We've now got a

[ Page 2470 ]

surplus." That $261,447,790, I believe it was, that was supposed to have been a debt was a fictitious, manipulated, manoeuvred figure. The member for Nanaimo has laid out that case on a number of occasions as well and pointed out that there was cash and that this government dispensed with the cash and distributed it out there so they could say: "Look, our pockets are empty; we need to borrow money."

HON. MR. FRASER: You're not a chartered accountant. What do you know?

MR. HOWARD: I'll tell you this much, Mr. Minister of Highways. I'm not a chartered accountant, but I know a lot more about accountancy than you know about building highways. You don't need to be a chartered accountant to examine the books and see what happened. The only time you need to be a chartered accountant is when you want to cook the books like you guys did.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will ask all members to kindly remain silent while the member is speaking. And I will ask the member, if he has imputed any wrongdoing on behalf of the members opposite, to withdraw that imputation.

MR. HOWARD: I wouldn't dare impute any wrongdoing to members opposite. The member asked me if I was a chartered accountant and I said no, you don't need to be a chartered accountant to understand the bookkeeping structure of this government. But you have to be a chartered accountant if you want to cook the books; that helps. Now if the members opposite feel....

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the member really doesn't mean what he is implying here. He in effect has stated that chartered accountants go around cooking the books for people. I suggest to him that he should clarify what he said. I'd ask him to withdraw or clarify his statement.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: A member is responsible for the remarks he makes in this House. He cannot offend another member without withdrawing that remark. I will ask the member for Skeena....

MR. HOWARD: If I've offended the Minister of Agriculture, of course I withdraw that. I wouldn't do anything in that sense.

HON. MR. CURTIS: All you can do is drag the debate right down to the bottom.

MR. HOWARD: Oh, look who's talking about the bottom, Mr. Speaker: the Minister of Finance, who played politics with the jetfoil and the Marguerite to save his political hide.

Look, if you want to engage in a debate about this public debt, you're the guys who raised it. They're the people who raised it, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to put on record the facts of the case as they've been presented to me.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Skeena will stick to the general principle of Bill 5, and all other members will kindly listen to the debate.

MR. HOWARD: There is no general principle to the bill, Mr. Speaker. However, I'll try my best.

It was raised in the introductory part of the bill, and throughout by members opposite through their across-the-floor comments from their seats, that there was a debt created by the NDP when they were government. I say that that's not an accurate statement. For the end of the fiscal year ended March 31, 1976, this government stated that there was a budgetary deficit of some $261 million, and they said that was a terrible state of affairs.

The member for Nanaimo has put on the record many times how that $261 million — a fictitious figure — was created. The government then proceeded to borrow, to place on the books, debt totalling $261 million and some hundreds of thousands of dollars. They did this in five separate stages. The first borrowing was not on March 31, 1976, but was on June 22, 1976; the second borrowing was in September 1976; the third borrowing was in November; and then into the following fiscal year, right down to March 15, 1977, two weeks before the end of the first fiscal year that this government was in office, when they borrowed $11,477,790 — the exact amount of money necessary to add up to the original fictitious figure that they said was a budgetary deficit in the year before. Not only that, but two weeks later, for the year ending March 31, 1977, the government was crowing about good management and about having a budgetary surplus of $76 million. If in fact they had this budgetary surplus of $76 million at the end of March 1977, why did they borrow $11,477,000 two weeks prior to that time? Weren't they able to predict their cash flow and their income?

I submit to you that all those activities were for the sole purpose of trying to continue to substantiate a myth, namely that the debt was created when the NDP was in office. The myth is carried forward in this particular bill, and will be carried forward, if this government continues to have its way, every year for the next eight or nine years, or whatever balance period is left, when they will presume to wipe out the debt that they created in the first place. That's another reason why one cannot vote for the principle of that particular bill.

If debt is such a disgraceful thing to government — this government particularly — why is it then that out of the so-called budgetary surplus of $76 million at the end of March 31, 1977, they didn't retire some of the debt? Why did they carry it forward? If debt is such an abhorrent thing, why was it that on March 31, 1978, when they were crowing about a budget surplus of $140 million, they didn't retire some of that debt? Why was it the same case at the end of March 1979, when they were talking about a $145 million budgetary surplus, that they didn't retire some of that debt? They carried it forward solely to maintain the fiction that there was a debt when we left office. That is not an accurate statement on their part; it's a distorting statement. Over the few years that this government has been in existence, by the creation of that fictitious debt just up to the end of the fiscal year 1978-79 — I'm not putting in this year, because I don't have the figures for it — the taxpayers of this province paid out in interest nearly $60 million on that fictitious debt that they would not have otherwise had to pay out if this government had been honourable in its dealings with the people insofar as the books were concerned.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Member for Skeena, all members are honourable.

[ Page 2471 ]

MR. HOWARD: I know that. I'm not impugning anything to any hon. member. I'm talking about the government performing an act that is not in keeping with the honourable aspect of this institution and the things which we all want to see about it. Right?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Don't look at me when you talk. I wasn't even paying any attention to you.

MR. HOWARD: I'm only looking at the minister of small industry, business or whatever it is, you know, because he happens to be there. He fell within the gaze of my eye as I swept it around the room.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm surprised you can see over the gutter.

MR. HOWARD: I'm also reminded of the fact that that hon. minister is adept as anybody at speaking from his seat. He was the one who said he didn't know the difference between cash flow and debt, when he took part in a government that distributed all the surplus cash flow in order to create the fiction of debt.

Mr. Speaker, I say the bill is not a bill with any principle, and it may reflect the attitude of a government that has an equal amount of principle as well. I can't support it.

MR. MITCHELL: I too would like to rise in this debate and state that I too am not happy with the bill and will be voting against it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Did you enjoy your dinner?

MR. MITCHELL: I enjoyed it, and I will get down to it when I get down to dealing with your section.

I sit in utter shock when I listen to the government and backbenchers and all the garbage that comes across from that side of the House where they will consider that $100 million of the public funds can be expended by anybody without an explanation, without the minister getting up and giving somebody — the public, this side of the House, their own backbenchers — an explanation of where $100 million is going. A hundred million dollars....

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, will you ask the minister to wait his turn?

To a lot of people $100 million is still a lot of money. When a government has the audacity to say that we can pass this, put it in a budget and bring a bill before parliament without an explanation, I find it shocking. I know when the historians read this in later years they too will wonder what really happened to this government.

If there is a surplus — if it is not needed somewhere else then it should be used. If it's a necessary part of the budget, it should be in the budget and it should have a proper explanation. As my fellow member from Port Alberni said: "It stinks of political patronage." It is a political slush fund that can become a grab-bag for every little by-election that may come along, for every minister that may come along....

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, while I can appreciate that the member opposite is not pleased with some aspects with this bill — and that's an understatement from what he's said thus far — I think the phrase "stinks of political patronage" is unacceptable. I take personal offence to the reference.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Offence has been taken. The Chair would ask the member to withdraw.

MR. MITCHELL: I will withdraw that it stinks of political patronage. I'll say it smells of political patronage.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, that is not acceptable either.

MR. MITCHELL: That it appears like political patronage?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will you withdraw those remarks?

MR. MITCHELL: It has a semblance of political patronage?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: "Political patronage" is unparliamentary and offensive to the Chair. Will the member withdraw?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Be a gentleman, Frank.

MR. MITCHELL: I'm always a gentleman. It's just the parliamentary procedure that I'm a little mixed up about. If "political patronage" is wrong, then I withdraw that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The member continues on Bill 5.

MR. MITCHELL: I withdraw "political patronage" and I would appreciate it if the minister would withdraw the bill.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No.

MR. MITCHELL: You shake your head no? You're still going to explain where $100 million is? You know, we're still small-time boys. Hugh, and $100 million to a lot of us is a lot of money, and we want an explanation.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It's a lot of money to me too.

MR. MITCHELL: We feel the public demands an explanation. When I asked the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) to consider paving the shoulders so there would be some semblance of safety for the pedestrians, for the cyclists, for those with a car that broke down, I was told by that minister, in a letter, that it wasn't an important priority to their department.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Levi spent more than that on pot parties.

MR. MITCHELL: I really think, Mr. Speaker, that that is an obscene remark by the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, and I think you should ask him to

[ Page 2472 ]

withdraw it. But as I say, there is one rule for that side and one rule for this side.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair cannot accept that either. All hon. members will retain their seats and not impede the debate, and the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew will continue on Bill 5.

MR. MITCHELL: What I really would ask, Mr. Speaker, is that the government give some serious consideration that when they come in with a bill of this magnitude, with the sums they are throwing around, maybe.... As someone said, $100 million is a nice even figure, but there are other figures in here. There's a figure of $3.4 million to the Minister of Transportation and Highways for the purpose of expanding and improving airport facilities. Now this is not a round figure. This is $3.4 million, Mr. Speaker. If we can come in with a figure of $3.4 million, there must be something in the estimates and the engineers' studies, some knowledge in that department of where that money is going to be expended. I feel that this parliament and the public have a right to know where $3.4 million are going to be expended. If that knowledge is there, it is the duty of the government to share that knowledge with all members of this House.

I feel that when members of the government sit back and pooh-pooh the responsibility of this Legislature, they are decrying the responsibility of each and every one of us. I feel that there is a proper place in parliament, in estimates and in procedures for moneys of this magnitude to be explained to this House.

Interjections.

MR. MITCHELL: As long as you'll show me where it is in my riding. If you want to show me where $100 million is going to be spent in my riding.... If the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) knows something that this House doesn't know, and if he can show me where $100 million is going to be spent, I feel that he should stand up and tell us. If he knows something that the rest of us have been denied, then I feel that there is.... I won't say political corruption, because I will be ruled out of order, but there is political knowledge that is not shared with this House. I didn't say political corruption. I withdrew it.

If there is certain information available and the member for Kootenay can show me where it's going to be spent and the minister denies us that information, I would like to know what kind of a back bench you have over there.

HON. MR. FRASER: Read Hansard.

MR. MITCHELL: You're going to tell me in Hansard where $3.4 million is spent? If I read Hansard, is there something...?

HON. MR. FRASER: I talked all about it. You were on one of those Thursday-to-Tuesday weekends. You weren't here.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister to withdraw that. I haven't missed a day in this House since the House opened, except one.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the Minister of Highways has imputed any wrong motive on the part of the member, the Chair will ask him to withdraw.

HON. MR. FRASER: I'm delighted to withdraw, but I want to point out that he's kept some pretty short days.

MR. MITCHELL: I appreciate that withdrawal.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: All other members, including the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) and the Minister of Transportation and Highways, will come to order. The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew continues.

MR. MITCHELL: One of the other things I would like to mention is a nice round figure of $5 million that is being granted to my friend, the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). Where is the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development?

To me this was another example of what happens when there is no planning and it's at the whim of government. A bungled transportation policy was established in 1976 when the Social Credit government took over, including the running of B.C. Steamships. Each year they had a new minister sitting on that board, and this year we got down to a deadline and we didn't have transportation to run from Victoria to Seattle. Out of nowhere, and at the whim of the Premier of this province, he called a group of political friends, business people from Victoria, and set up a company. He could take out of the funds that were being given to the B.C. Development Corporation....

HON. MR. FRASER: On a point of order, I think you should bring the member to order. That isn't anything to do with funds in this bill. He's talking about transportation and so on in regard to boats and the B.C. Steamship Company.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Second reading does allow for great latitude, hon. member, but your comments should pertain to items that are mentioned in the bill before us now, Bill 5.

MR. MITCHELL: The money that is given to this particular minister is money that is being used from that ministry under the assistance to the jetfoil. This is one of the developments that we in the greater Victoria area feel was a blunder. The explanation that this government gave as they brought in the Marguerite, the Queen of Prince Rupert and the jetfoil....

Interjections.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, if you'll keep your side of the House — I mean the other side of the House — in order, I'll carry on.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'll ask you to withdraw that remark.

[ Page 2473 ]

MR. MITCHELL: "The other side of the House?"

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, "your." Please address the Chair, hon. member.

MR. MITCHELL: No, I referred to the other side of the House, not your side. I take that back.

We feel that if we're going to spend money on the economic development in this province there should be some intelligent and long-range planning. Maybe there is a good explanation. Maybe the jetfoil is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but the fact that we now have an American ship with the Union Jack on the front, the Canadian flag flying high and an American flag flying on the back to me is not the type of development that we should be into in this province. The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who had a large part in that fiasco, now can sit back and can have an additional $5 million without any explanation. This is again part of the lack of knowledge that is being given out here.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I listened to the argument of some of the ministers that this money is needed and is important to the development of British Columbia, but at the end of this bill it says: "Any part of the money appropriated under section 1(c) to (n) that may be unexpended at the end of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981, shall not be expended after that date." If this money is needed for the needs of the people of British Columbia, then it should be expended, but when you have a grandfather clause — or whatever that clause is at the end — you're indicating that this is money that is not needed. If there is not a by-election in some area where a lot of blacktop would be appropriate, then it won't be spent. If you have an area where one of the members is having a little problem, there won't be additional money spent on park development. We have a section of the bill where it says: "an amount not exceeding $1.8 million to be administered by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources for the purpose of accelerated construction of the Sierra Yoyo access road." If this money is going to be expended, there should be some explanation from that minister. If that money is needed, it should be somewhere in the estimates, but the clause at the end is the part that really bothers me. If this money is needed, and the minister can explain it, and if he will explain it when the time comes, fine. But then we don't need a part there that says that it won't be spent after March 31, 1981.

For that reason and for the reasons I've outlined, Mr. Speaker, I find that I have to vote against this bill.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place in some amazement at the remarks of members in this House on the operation of this bill. The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) in his remarks attempted to suggest a devious expenditure of money, but withdrew. Of course he withdrew. I don't think he meant what he said, but we have the same story of negativism, totally, at all times. Negative is known with a little short line called a minus sign, and that's the "minus party." Obviously he did not read the bill. Various members here at different times stood up and said: "Yes, that's fine to spend the money, but make separate bills." But they didn't read the bill. If they had read the bill, Mr. Speaker, they would know why a bill of this kind is called for. It is called by its own name, identifying its purpose: Special Purpose Appropriation Act. Special purposes is what it is for.

I'm amazed that the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) had the audacity to attack the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), who less than a year ago, in his riding, spent $50 million when there was a disaster in that area — a flood of the Skeena River, the Bulkley and its tributaries — when the whole countryside practically melted at the river. Who was up there the same day at personal risk? I'll tell you. The members of this House have no idea.... Those listening to me do not know what a flood is like. You have no idea of the personal risk a man like that went to, with his executive staff, to see the trouble in the member for Skeena's territory. He called on the resources of the entire government and called on Ottawa to come to their aid. And not one word.... I am amazed at the member for Skeena. I think that if any member should be complimented here, it should be the Minister of Highways.

He was under attack by other members. I do not know why. There is only one reason that I can work out. It is because of the total situation of jealousy, in feeling this government has created funds that they can do things with for the people of British Columbia. That is the reason. They're just seeing red with envy. There's no other reason.

What is this bill? This is a creative bill, Mr. Speaker. It's a bill of employment, renewal, compassion, imagination and challenge. That's what it is. Why do we not speak of it as it is? These are the main issues that are on this bill. That is the principle of the bill. That is plain to see.

For employment alone.... It speaks of employment for youth. For an amount not exceeding $100 million, the Minister of Transportation and Highways is creating employment. It speaks of money to be spent by Small Business Development, and there is nothing that creates more employment than small business.

MR. MITCHELL: Where?

MR. MUSSALLEM: All over the province of British Columbia. We're not a special purpose government; we are the government of British Columbia. This bill creates, spends and proposes to spend for small business development a considerable sum of money not exceeding $5 million.

That in itself is creating employment. It's a bill of imagination for science and technology and universities. These are the things that it speaks about. That's imagination: to create employment, to put the brains of our people to work. Under that previous government there was no money for universities; they were being pinched. Now we say: "Expand your thinking. Get creative. Do things for British Columbia." It was only a few short years ago when British Columbia was considered a backwoods community. Now we're in the forefront of development, engineering, imagination and projects. And we are saying to the people in the universities: "Find new means of furthering the purposes of mankind, and of British Columbia."

This bill is a creative bill and a bill of compassion. What do we do? Here is an amount not exceeding $2.5 million for the purpose of the Refugee Settlement Act.

Mr. Speaker, can you see what I'm trying to say? I'm saying to you that we have forgotten not one thing. It isn't a bill for a specific department; it's a bill for the broad aspect of British Columbia. It is a creative bill bringing together our resources — our energy, mines and petroleum resources. It's extra money that we're able to develop for the purpose of

[ Page 2474 ]

creating new thrusts in British Columbia — not the negative idea of retracting and reducing.

Just a while ago, on the previous debate, the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) said that ICBC was $181 million in debt and that we paid them $181 million. But shortly after they paid it back. That's good business, that's all. When their funds came in they paid it back, and it was proper they did so.

MR. STUPICH: They borrowed it. They didn't pay it back.

MR. MUSSALLEM: That's a technical omission. It's all right.

The hon. member — I'm not sure which member it was referred to the debt that the NDP accumulated. Well, I'm telling you there was a debt. They suggest there was no debt. The debt was $235 million; after we had brought in every nickel that was available in all the funds of British Columbia, we were still $235 million short. Now I wouldn't have brought that up. What they did, we forget.

MR. RITCHIE: Where did they borrow it from?

MR. MUSSALLEM: I don't know where they borrowed it from. They were in terrible debt. I only bring it up because, Mr. Member, they were endeavouring to suggest that there was no such debt. They are trying to say there was no such debt, but I'm telling you that the chartered accountants of British Columbia, according to federal law, cannot monkey with the books.

It used to be that before that outfit — I shouldn't use that word; pardon me, Mr. Speaker — before that negative party was in power they always said there were two sets of books. They said it about our previous government: one book for the audit, one book for the people. But when they got into power, Mr. Barrett was asked that question: "Were there two set of books?" He was asked directly; it's in the press and in Hansard. "No, there weren't two sets of books. I found out there was only one set of books and the books were correct." "Mr. Barrett," they asked, "is it true that you have lots of money in the treasury?" "Yes, it's true. I am amazed," was his reply. I'm not digging up old coals, but you should know where we stood when we had finished: $235 million in debt. Yes, that debt could have been paid up, but it was borrowed at a low interest rate and it's not advantageous to pay it up at this time. There are reasons for all these things.

This bill is a bill of encouragement, a bill for employment, a bill for compassion, a bill for the people of British Columbia, a bill that has thought and a bill for the future to bring us up to a new plateau of business and development, a new plateau for the people to stand on to be proud they are British Colombians. British Columbia at last, by this government and by the government previously, by our 20 years in power, building up except for one little socialist pause.... I hope and pray, from the experience we had, it shall never happen again.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to speak for this short length of time.

MR. HANSON: I'd like to make a few comments about this bill. The lion's share of it is a $100 million appropriation specifically for highways and an additional $3.4 million for the Ministry of Transportation and Highways related to airport construction. I took a look at the annual report for 1978-79; that's interesting reading. I really wish that most of the citizens of British Columbia would get hold of this annual report from the Minister of Transportation and Highways. On page 89 is a breakdown of the amount of money spent per electoral district. I know all the citizens of British Columbia feel that highways are maintained and built on the basis of the technical aspect, the need within a given region for highway construction. But this page 89 of the annual report is really interesting reading, because it says the lion's share goes to the riding of the Minister of Transportation and Highways year after year. Did you know that? It happens to be a fairly large riding; there's no doubt about that.

HON. MR. FRASER: What do you know about it? You've never been there.

MR. HANSON: You bet I've been there, and I know and the people within your ministry know that a pile of money is going into your riding — on the low-volume roads, too.

HON. MR. FRASER: Public information.

MR. HANSON: That's what I'm saying. I'm saying everybody should read this. I'm just bringing it to people's attention.

There was a really interesting bill, Bill 5, in the last session, a $27 million-odd special appropriation for highways. We have 48 electoral districts in British Columbia. Do you know where 22 percent of that $27 million went? Into the minister's own riding. His own low-volume roads are better looked after than any other roads like them in the province.

Where did he go? Oh, he's over there now.

HON. MR. FRASER: How many times have you been to Kleena Kleene? You don't even know where it is.

MR. HANSON: They think it's funny to have a big pork-barrel.

Interjections.

MR. HANSON: Gosh, Mr. Speaker, I'm scaring him away. Oh, here he comes again.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: All members are reminded that the second member for Victoria has the floor, and if you'd pay attention to his comments it would be most appreciated.

MR. HANSON: It's interesting when you look at this Bill 144 and you see that the largest expenditure for highways was spent in the Cariboo riding. Then they had this special appropriation, Bill 5, and guess what — of the $27 million, $5.5 million of it was spent again in the Cariboo riding, for a total capital expenditure of $29 million, with maintenance of $11 million, a total of $40 million. It's by far the largest of any electoral district, and that's where the money is going. That's where this money on this bill is going to go, right into Cariboo, or the lion's share of it. You know it, I know it and every single member in this House knows it.

The thing that concerns us, and it was raised by the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), is that highways are not maintained on the basis of engineering and technical information and safety. They are maintained on political

[ Page 2475 ]

grounds. There is no doubt about it. It's been the Socred way since Wesley Black was in Nelson, Gaglardi was in Kamloops, and now that the Minister of Highways is in Kamloops. We know it! And you know it too, as the member for that riding.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Oh, Mr. Speaker, it's good to see you back.

You know, unless they can start building and maintaining highways on a fair technical basis, I have a suggestion for this House. They should be rotating the Minister of Highways every fiscal year, so he can plough his money into each riding and it would get evenly distributed around the province and wouldn't focus in two or three ridings.

HON. MR. MAIR: Opposition ridings.

MR. HANSON: Through the opposition ridings. It should rotate in alphabetical order through this House, right through the whole 48 ridings, and that way every single riding in this province would get its fair share.

It's very interesting because, you know, when Mr. Lea was the Minister of Highways, he did not spend as much in his riding as was spent in Quesnel and Kamloops and Prince George. In a province like this with the geography that we have, it is important that we have good roads. There is no doubt about it. We need safe roads, and we need good roads. But, you know, it really is a disgrace to build highways on the basis on which they are being built now. It really is.

An aspect of it that really concerns us — and I think it concerns every member of this House — is that nobody wants to see a big sort of day-labour pool of capital that's sitting around there that can be just used on an as-and-when basis, whenever things need to be moved along a little bit politically. That's our concern.

Interjections.

MR. HANSON: You know it. You know that the pork barrel part of it is the day-labour part of it.

Interjections.

MR. HANSON: There are people that get access off primary roads all for little special deals and so on, you know.

AN HON. MEMBER: Can you prove that? Will you say that outside?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Before recognizing the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, I must caution the member now speaking that allegations of that type are not in the parliamentary tradition. To prevent any disruption of debate, I would ask the member if he would withdraw any possible imputation that he might have made, and in so doing, continue in orderly debate in the House. Would the member so withdraw.

MR. HANSON: I'll withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Please proceed.

MR. HANSON: When a bill is brought into this House calling for the expenditure of $100 million, with no description of how it is going to be spent, and when I look at an annual report.... When a bill was brought in here and 22 percent of that special appropriation went into the minister's riding — as he said, "public knowledge" — it is a very, very dangerous expenditure of public money.

Interjections.

MR. HANSON: It is pork barrel. You know it and I know it. So I'm going to be voting against this bill.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we can't continue to allow that kind of language to be used in the House — talking about...

AN HON. MEMBER: You wrote the book on that kind of language.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: ...pork barrel and special deals, and the member continues to do it. I would ask that he withdraw that remark.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the second member for Victoria, a request for a withdrawal of a term which has been found offensive to another member has been asked. It is on the prohibited list. I would ask for a withdrawal.

MR. HANSON: I withdraw the term pork barrel.

What I wanted to say, the message that I'm trying to convey to that government, is that a disproportionate amount of money is going into the minister's riding. That is what I'm saying. You call it whatever you want.

MR. BRUMMET: Nonsense!

MR. HANSON: It's not nonsense at all, Mr. Speaker.

But anyway, I think I've made my point. We're going to be watching very carefully in the annual report for 1980-81....

MR. BRUMMET: Is that a threat?

MR. HANSON: That's our job; we're the critics. There's a parliamentary process.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: I know you would enjoy a far more authoritarian approach to politics....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

AN HON. MEMBER: Anyway, they're going to be watching very closely.

MR. HANSON: Yes. You've been in the gravel pit too long. Okay, Mr. Speaker, I'm coming to the conclusion of my remarks. [Applause.]

[ Page 2476 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: That always gets them clapping.

MR. HANSON: Yes. So here we are; we're going to be voting against a bill which is going to give carte blanche to this government to do it all again, to have a great pool of capital that they can dispense on any project they want within the broadest terms. We oppose it. We think the public should oppose it. This kind of expenditure should be included in estimates and debated in the parliamentary tradition of our country and of the mother parliament, not buried in these kinds of political bills.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I rise to support this bill. I rise in some amazement at the stance being taken by the members opposite.

Mr. Speaker, I'd really like to get things straight so that I don't stray too far from what my understanding is of some of the comments that have been made previously in this debate. Perhaps the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) and others could nod their heads if I've got this right. It's my understanding that the members, first of all, are going to vote against this bill — I assume that's correct — and, secondly, that one of the reasons they're going to vote against this bill is that they don't have the opportunity to debate the specifics of the bill. Is that correct, Mr. Member? Just nod your head, that's enough — you're out of order if you want to speak. I assume that's correct. The other reason is that they don't like the idea of....

MR. MITCHELL: On a point of order, I don't believe it's parliamentary procedure that you get into the debate by nodding your head. If the member wants me to get into the debate, it won't be by nodding my head. He can't put words in my mouth, and I don't think he can put actions in my head either.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I just wanted some help to make sure that I had the opposition's position correct, but I've been listening fairly carefully, so I'm sure I do — and he's nodding his head.

For some reason the members of the opposition are going to vote against this bill because they don't like so-called special funds appropriation of this nature.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, it's not the wrong bill. I know it's unusual to you, but I speak to the bills that are up for debate, not like the members opposite.

Mr. Speaker, it's a special purpose appropriation act, and the members don't seem to like this kind of approach to using the resources that were developed in this province through the good management of the government. But I seem to recall that when the now members of the opposition formed the government of British Columbia during those couple of years, because of the good management of the previous Social Credit government there had been a large pool of money left for that new government to squander, and they had a similar kind of idea. I asked my colleague the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) to look up a couple of these bills for me, and lo and behold we found in 1973.... I just want to remind the House, Mr. Speaker, that when the members opposite were in government they had a bill called the Special Funds Appropriation Act, 1973.

It's interesting that in 1973 they put $60 million in that bill, to be spent in various ways. That was at a time, of course, when they were new government and still had some of that large pool of money to draw from which was left to them. Then in 1974 there was a similar kind of bill. But they had been in government for a year and there wasn't quite as much money left because they'd been spending it rapidly. In 1974 they put $40 million into another bill called the Special Funds Appropriation Act, 1974: $5 million to the British Columbia Cultural Fund, $10 million to the Farm Income Assurance Program, $15 million to school...and it goes on and on. It's the same kind of thing, Mr. Speaker. The only difference, you'll notice, is the interesting relationship between those two years: $60 million the first year, $40 million the second year. I know you want to ask: how much in 1975? Well, I'll tell you, even if you don't ask. In 1975 they had squandered it all, and there was no bill in 1975. What they did instead was to call an election in a panic.

Now we're back to today, and we're talking about the Special Purpose Appropriation Act. I have to be a bit amazed that those members opposite could stand and say they're going to vote against this bill because they don't like the principle and the idea of spending government money in this way, when the same kind of bills have been put in this House many times before — including by that government.

Perhaps an even more specious argument is the one that says that you don't have an opportunity in this House to debate the specifics of where the money is going to be spent. I realize that some of the people who were speaking haven't had a lot of opportunity to take part in the debate of estimates. But when the debate of estimates comes forward, the full opportunity will be available to talk to the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) about the roads that the minister is building all over this province, and the new areas that are being opened up all over British Columbia because of the actions of that minister, the new opportunities for access to many of our smaller and remote communities, because of the efforts that this minister, for the first time in the history of this province, is putting into airport development around this province. They'll have the full opportunity to debate anything to do with the ministry. That's what estimates are all about.

The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) wants to talk about the Sierra-Yoyo road. He can talk about the Sierra-Yoyo road under my estimates when they come up, or he can talk about them under this bill, or he can talk about them any time. I can tell you, though, that the SierraYoyo road is a lot like the roads that the Highways minister will be talking about. It will open up a new opportunity for more investment and more development in this province. You're against that? You're going to vote against that.

Mr. Speaker, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) stood in this House on a number of occasions and attempted to cast some of the most terrible aspersions I've ever heard against one of the most honest and dedicated members this Legislature has ever seen, the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser). Mr. Speaker, I don't think there's anybody in this House who has a longer record of public service to British Columbia. I will tell you that that is the kind of thing that makes the people of this province ill, that kind of attempt by those kinds of members.

I just want to set the record straight about highway spending. In a most unfortunate way that member attempted

[ Page 2477 ]

to indicate that because the minister was from the Cariboo constituency he was somehow funnelling too much money into his constituency. I can understand partly that that member doesn't know what this province is all about and hasn't had much opportunity to understand the vastness of British Columbia yet. I hope he will take the opportunity to learn. It is in the Cariboo that most of the money is spent in the highways budget. There are 7,000 kilometres of road. The next closest is in the North Peace River, another vast and hard-to-service area with only 2,000 kilometres of road. There are about 100 kilometres in Victoria and about 50 kilometres in Oak Bay. Of course the bulk of the money is being spent where the bulk of the roads are.

It is about time that some of the members in this House took the opportunity to get out among the people of this province and find out what kind of a province this is and what the needs of this province are. This bill is all about trying to meet some of those needs. We can do it because of the good management, the good foresight, the opportunities that have been built — the plateau that the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) talked about, the new plateaus that are rising because of the investment opportunities that are being created in this province and the revenue that flows from them.

I am proud to support this bill. If we could have ten of them I'd support them all.

MR. NICOLSON: I don't think that anyone has suggested that in a good number of these amounts, the money is not going toward worthy causes. It's the subterfuge of this bill.... In fact, the bill really fails in syntax, grammar and just about any way. It is probably out of order, and if it isn't out of order, such a thing should be out of order. Maybe there is a flaw in the British parliamentary system, because when a person is placed in the position in this House of having to vote to retire a bogus debt, to vote an amount for the purpose of refugee settlement, and to vote amounts for student summer employment and youth employment.... Mixing all these things is like trying to mix oil with water. As I say, if it isn't unparliamentary and out of order then I think we have maybe found a flaw in the British parliamentary system.

That is the case in this bill. It isn't even a matter of where a person could perhaps get up and selectively support sections of the bill — maybe supporting section 1 but not section 2, because section 2 could be related to this bogus debt. Compressing all of these things, putting them in when the very same expenditures in many of these cases occur in the departmental estimates — if that isn't lousy....

Getting to the grammar of this bill, Mr. Speaker, do you know that there is a 500-word sentence in this bill? Five hundred words without a period! Incredible. It goes on and on and on, like that loquacious member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot).

Mr. Speaker, this bill really is a disservice to the parliamentary system and creates a choice where.... Yes, if we wanted to take the cowardly way — if we were afraid of the threats, of somebody saying, "Oh, you're against highway spending, you're against refugees, you're against this, you're against that" — if we wanted to be political cowards, we'd go ahead and we'd vote for this bill. But there is a line that must be drawn, and when you believe in something.... Believe me, I don't pretend that we're going to make great political capital out of this; in fact, perhaps there is a political liability in standing up for something that you believe in. But we certainly believe that this is not the way that bills and spending appropriations should be brought into this House, when there is such a conflict in the various aims and objectives of some of these bills.

I'm not going to comment too much on the previous speaker, except to say that some of those appropriations brought in in 1973 were regularized into departmental estimates in 1974, and that's why some of those amounts were reduced. I can refer to amounts in the housing fund, for instance.

Let's look at some of these particular expenditures. If we look at the amounts specified in the bill and the amounts specified in the estimates, for instance, in the Ministry of Labour.... Employment opportunity program. I recall that in 1974 we were appropriating about $30 million for the student youth employment program. Now the employment opportunity program has $21.6 million in estimates. Another $4.5 million here doesn't even add up to the amount.... It falls short of the amount that was appropriated almost five years ago, and we've undergone fantastic inflation since that time.

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I know that of all of the applications that were made in my riding for special summer employment programs — applications made by the Creston Recreation Commission, the Nelson conserver group and many others.... The shortfall in that program and the numbers that were turned down were something absolutely fantastic. I haven't brought the figures with me which the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) provided in explaining to these people why they were turned down, but the oversubscription to those amounts, particularly in the nonprofit sector, show that there is a tremendous demand and tremendous need to be fulfilled, particularly this summer. I think that what appears to be a special purpose appropriation is actually a shortfall in many of these projected-expenditure areas.

Another example — perhaps the most glaring example is the amount, not to exceed $1 million, to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) for the purpose of an accelerated construction program for senior citizens' housing. If you look into the estimates of the minister, you see about $13 million in total for all forms of housing grants. That would have to cover cooperative housing, and if the ministry were going to go ahead with other things it would have to cover a great many other things.

Going back to years like 1974-75, there were amounts of $12 million for senior citizens' housing in the regular estimates. Here we see $1 million, and then we see these estimates — which I certainly will be commenting on the form of, when we get to them. They are compressed; they lack detail and clarity. They are just another example of coverup in trying to bemuddle and confuse the public in terms of what is actually being done by this government.

What we see is the government generating surpluses by underspending. They are not spending as much for employment opportunities program as was expended over five years ago. Then, of course, revenues come in which could well have covered an adequate expenditure. Then, in a following year, there is a deferred payment. So this bill should probably be called "The Deferred Appropriation Act, 1980" — deferring expenditures that should have occurred in 1979 into 1980, and again into 1981, and so on.

The bill fails on these points. As I say, it might prove to be some political liability to us that we would oppose this bill. I don't know if we will get this principled objection

[ Page 2478 ]

across to the people, but there is a time when political expediency has to give way to something that people firmly believe in. It is not to say that members of this side object to many of the programs for which these expenditures are intended, but we certainly object to the principle of this bill. The principle of this bill is to make a mockery of estimates of both the revenue and expenditure, to generate phony surpluses by appropriating insufficient amounts for programs and to meet the needs of programs even five years ago, let alone meet those needs today, and then to belatedly come in and wave this as some great victory.

Mr. Speaker, this is a....

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, do I have leave to tell them about nuclear power in this bill?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No.

MR. NICOLSON: Oh, I'm sorry. Then if you'd tell the member not to interject. These members are sort of voyeurs. They're peeping Toms in this Legislature. They don't really participate, but boy they like to watch, especially that member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty). He doesn't have anything to say in this House and doesn't make any contribution, but he guffaws, snickers, laughs up his sleeve, and doesn't get involved in this House. I'd like him to get up and speak on this bill and speak out for the people in his riding in terms of what's happening in this bill and let them know. I'll give you a chance in two minutes, Mr. Member. I'd like these members to get up in this House and really let their constituents know that: "Well, yeah, we're doing okay, but not really as good as you would imagine." What they should be saying is: "Bill 5 is a little bit of a con job and, in fact, we're about $5 million behind where we were in 1974."

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we have been subjected to a variety of accusations. I find "con job," in reference to legislation which is honourably presented to this House for debate, to be offensive.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Would the member withdraw the remarks that the minister finds offensive, in the parliamentary tradition?

MR. NICOLSON: I would withdraw anything that that sensitive minister would find offensive.

HON. MR. CURTIS: At least I didn't run away from my office as you did when you were a minister.

MR. NICOLSON: Run away?

MR. SEGARTY: I am pleased to take my place in this Legislature in support of this bill. I would be pleased if the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) would spend approximately $10 million of that allocation on highway construction in the East Kootenays. For example, the Elk Valley contributes a great amount of money to the province of British Columbia, and I am disappointed that the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) would take the attitude that money can only be spent in the lower mainland and none necessarily spent in the interior, where the revenue is being generated.

Down in the Elk Valley we have a road that has two wooden bridges and a railway track crossing the main highway that the coal cars coming from Kaiser and Fording Coal cross every day. There is a desperate need for an overpass on that highway because there are delays to people coming home from work who work in the resource extraction industry in Elk and Sparwood. They are delayed about 45 minutes each day on their way home from work. I would be pleased if the Minister of Highways would consider approximately $10 million for that project.

I am also pleased to see that there are allocations for recreation facilities assistance grants in the East Kootenays. I am disappointed in the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), because I know that the senior citizens of Nelson-Creston have an application before the Provincial Secretary for funds to build a senior citizens' recreational centre in that community. The senior Citizens in Fernie and Sparwood have an application before the Provincial Secretary for funds for a senior citizens' recreational centre for those two communities, along with the people from Hosmer, who have an application before the minister as well for funds to construct a community hall.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the achievement centre in Nelson-Creston could use some of this special appropriations fund for the Silver King Work Shop. This member might not care too much about what happens to the Silver King Work Shop in Nelson, but I know that Marty Hartwell, the federal NDP nominee, was very interested in getting a grant for that workshop. More is needed, and I'm sure that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) will be able to get some there.

The $3.4 million for a small-airport development program — we could use some of that money in the Elk Valley, and I know they could use some of it in the community of Creston as well.

Mr. Speaker, the $6.5 million for the park acceleration program — we could use some money for a park development in the East Kootenays, particularly Crow's Nest Park in the Elk Valley, along with the Elk Valley Provincial Park. We could certainly use some of that fund down in that area.

Mr. Speaker, I guess the most important part of the bill is the Youth Employment Program, the on-the-job training program to prepare young British Columbians to enter the workplace. In a sense that's the most important part of this bill, and I would hope that the opposition would be more considerate and pass this bill expediently, so that we can get these young British Columbians into the labour force.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to take my place in support of this bill.

MS. SANFORD: I want to add a few brief comments on Bill 5, which is under discussion this afternoon, because I'm very concerned that one minister, namely the Minister of Finance, is not able to give proper accountability to this Legislature under 15 different sections representing expenditures from approximately 15 ministries in one bill that spends $168.65 million at once. How can one minister possibly answer all the questions posed by the opposition with respect to all these other ministries that are covered? I don't see that he can, Mr. Speaker. The problem is that if this minister is not able to answer specific questions with regard to these expenditures — because after all one minister cannot be

[ Page 2479 ]

knowledgeable and responsible for approximately 15 different ministries — then the opposition is faced with the problem that when the time comes to discuss the estimated expenditures of the various ministries included in this bill, the minister, or perhaps even the Speaker, will say: "I'm sorry, you cannot discuss that, because you are reflecting on a vote that's already been taken, namely the vote on this bill."

So I am concerned that we are not going to be able to get the specifics that we would like to have, and that we have an obligation on behalf of the public of British Columbia to obtain, with respect to all these expenditures.

The Minister of Finance is faced with I don't know how many questions over the discussions surrounding this particular bill, but I would like to give a few examples of my concern. For instance, we have this $4.5 million that has been set aside for youth employment and training programs. I would like to know if the minister knows that last year there was a $5 million appropriation out of surplus funds for youth employment; if so, can he tell me whether or not that entire $5 million was spent last year? And can he tell me how that $5 million was spent? I think he's not able to do that. How can we expect one minister to be able to come up with specific answers as they relate to these specific votes? This year $4.5 million was set aside under that program, and in his opening remarks the minister indicated that $640,000 of that $4.5 million is for training in the critical trades, because the critical trades, as everybody knows, are facing a situation where they cannot find people trained in this province and must go outside of the province and outside the country in order to obtain the skills they require.

I'd be very interested to know whether or not the minister can explain to me — and I'm talking about the Minister of Finance, not the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) — how that $640,000 is going to be spent. Can the Minister of Finance answer those specific questions? I'll be very surprised if he can, because when I called the Ministry of Labour they had no idea. The officials in the ministry had no idea how that $640,000 is going to be spent in the critical trade skills shortage training allowance program. Maybe we in the opposition can't expect to get any answer at all, because if the Ministry of Labour doesn't know, how can the Minister of Finance possibly know?

We have a situation, Mr. Speaker, in which we have this critical shortage of skilled people. We also have a situation in which women are finding a very difficult time trying to get the training they require. I know we have a special program under the Ministry of Labour that has been established. But will this $640,000 augment that program?

I'm wondering — the Minister of Finance has been wandering all over the chamber and has been talking to a number of people — if the House Leader would accept an adjournment of this debate at this time.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: No, he's not looking for that. Okay, that's fine. I was somewhat concerned, because the Minister of Finance seemed to be wandering all over the place.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Was he saying anything worthwhile?

MS. SANFORD: Oh, listen to the minister of small development over there. Really! The minister does not appreciate that the poor Minister of Finance cannot possibly expect to know all this about all of these various ministries. How can he be expected to answer specific questions related to the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, and all these others that are included in this bill? That's why we are trying to find answers to questions surrounding all of these separate expenditures under Bill 5.

The situation now, as far as women in the employment programs are concerned, is completely inadequate. They cannot obtain the training that they need. At the moment we have only 16 spaces available in the only women's centre for training for various skills. The allowances that are allotted to those women are very, very low. We have, for instance, an allowance of $240 a month for someone who is living out of the area of the training centre, down to a low of $60 a month for women who are expected to survive and take training. Is that $640,000 mentioned by the minister going to improve that situation?

The Ministry of Labour has done very little about it, and certainly the communication between the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Education, as far as trades training and vocational training are concerned, has been almost nonexistent. I think even the Minister of Labour would agree with that.

I have some specific questions, too, with respect to the $100 million that has been set aside for this accelerated highway program. How much of that, Mr. Speaker — I'm asking the Minister of Finance — is going to go to construct a bypass highway on Vancouver Island?

We have a situation on Vancouver Island which has become critical as a result of the vast number of people who travel that very narrow, winding road. I know that the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) is aware of the problem. But I'm wondering how much of this $100 million is going to go to the construction of that bypass route. The situation has become so serious that the chairman of the regional district of Comox-Strathcona, as well as directors on that regional board, came to Victoria to meet not only with the Minister of Transportation and Highways, but also with the Premier. They felt that they had to go right to the Premier of the province in order to get some funds set aside to do something about the situation which has deteriorated to the state where the highway between Parksville and Campbell River is one of the most dangerous in the province.

The Minister of Highways will admit to this readily, and has done so in the Legislature on a number of occasions. But still, in his budget, there has been no money set aside and no work done in order to start the construction of that much needed bypass route.

How much of this $100 million is going on the construction of that particular route? Does the Minister of Finance know that? He hasn't given any indication that he is aware of how much of the $5 million allotted was spent last year on the Youth Employment Program. He hasn't given any indication of whether he knows what's going to happen with the $4.5 million that's been set aside this year. It's a drop, Mr. Speaker. It's not as much as it was last year, although we don't know whether they spent all of the $5 million last year.

How much is going to be spent on constructing that inland bypass route between Parksville and Campbell River?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, in closing debate on Bill 5, one has to observe that the bill was introduced on

[ Page 2480 ]

March 11. While I do not have the evidence immediately available to me, I think the Journals of the House and Hansard will show that there has been extensive debate.

A few moments ago my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland), made perhaps the best possible summary of what this bill is all about, even better perhaps than my introduction of second reading. He noted that this practice — this type of bill — is not unique to this government, that it is not being used for the first time by this government this year. He referred to special funds appropriation acts in 1973 and 1974.

I think the most specific comments which have been directed are those from the member who has just taken her seat. On behalf of the government, through you, Mr. Speaker, to you, Madam Member, I can assure you that ministers who have appropriations within this bill will be more than happy to assist the House when we reach committee stage — to answer specific questions which members on both sides of the House may have regarding elements which make up the total.

I think that committee stage would be the next appropriate place for this bill. Some of the comments have been constructive. The debate has been lengthy. I think, really, when we put some of the feelings aside, we will realize that it is important that this legislation be approved and given royal assent as quickly as possible, in order that work in British Columbia may continue — work which the people of British Columbia clearly endorse and work which will be provided through this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 14

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

Bill 5, Special Purpose Appropriation 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.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.