[ Page 4735 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Presenting Petitions

Montreal Trust Co. and Montreal Trust Co. of Canada petition.

Mr. Ree –– 4735

Oral Questions

School tax levy. Mr. Lauk –– 4735

Attendance of deputy minister at Social Credit Party meeting. Mrs. Dailly –– 4736

Mr. Howard –– 4736

Mr. Lea –– 4736

B.C. Systems Corporation. Hon. Mr. Curtis replies –– 4737

PCBs in B.C. hospitals. Hon. Mr. Nielsen replies –– 4738

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

On vote 98: minister's office –– 4738

Mr. King

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Lorimer

Mr. Howard

Mr. Leggatt

Mr. Lea

On vote 99: provincial forest and range resource management –– 4747

Mr. King

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Howard

On vote 100: regional forest and range resource management –– 4749

Mr. King

Mr. Lea

On vote 103: fire suppression program –– 4752

Mr. King

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Howard

Hon. Mr. McGeer

Mr. Lea

Oral Questions

PCBs in B.C. Hospitals. Hon. Mr. Nielsen replies –– 4757

Tabling Documents

Liquor distribution branch annual report for the year ending March 31, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Hyndman –– 4758

Liquor control and licensing branch annual report for the year ending March 31, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Hyndman –– 4758

Milk Board annual report for the year ending December 31, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 4758

TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I would like the House to join me today in welcoming to the House Mrs. Mary Kerr, chairman of the B.C. Housing Management Commission.

MR. LEA: I ask the House to join me today in welcoming two visitors from Saskatchewan who are in the gallery. One is an old friend to most members on this side of the House and I suspect to some on the other side who have had to deal with Eiling Kramer, who was the Minister of Highways in Saskatchewan for a number of years and served in the House for 28 1/2 years, which proves masochism — we all know what that's all about. With him today is his wife Dorothy.

HON. MR. SMITH: I would ask the House to join in welcoming Miss Helene Minishka and her executive and about 50 members of the Home and School Federation who are visiting here today.

MR. MACDONALD: From Vancouver East, I would like the House to pay welcome to Mrs. Betty Greenall, who has been a community worker in that section of the city for many years in many projects and is well respected in the community.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are the new president of the Health Labour Relations Association, Mr. Peter McAllister, his wife Ann-Louise and their son Chris. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. HALL: On behalf of the first member and myself, I'd like the House to welcome students from Surrey who are visiting the House today as part and parcel of the Crown Zellerbach organized visit to the assembly to see us work. These students are accompanied by their teachers from Sur rev and other areas, but I'd like particularly to welcome them from Surrey.

MR. REE: In the precincts today, and they shall be visiting the chamber later, we have 50 students from Carson Graham Secondary School in North Vancouver. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mrs. A. Pound. I would ask the House to welcome them today.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I would like you and the House to join with me in welcoming Mrs. Melody Boyle, who is the president of the John Stubbs home and school association. She is here today with her executive.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Would members join me in welcoming a good friend and a keen student of public policy, Miss Carol Gilmore, from Duncan.

MR. HOWARD: We all in this chamber know how valuable and helpful constituency secretaries are, and we probably don't take the opportunity to express that appreciation to them as much as we should. So I'd like the House to join with me today in welcoming a couple from Kitimat, Nick and Leni Sluyter. Leni is our constituency secretary in Kitimat, and I'm sure the House would appreciate that.

MR. COCKE: In line with my colleague, the member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), I would also like to extend a welcome to the students sponsored by Crown Zellerbach from the Royal City. They're accompanied by their teachers, Maurice Knight and Tony Hester. While I'm on my feet, there is a delegation of five people from the home and school association in New Westminster I'd also like the House to welcome.

MR. LEGGATT: I'd like the House to welcome a group of students from Hastings Junior Secondary School, accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Bob Cristofoli and Mr. Phil Wright. I'd also like to welcome a lady in the gallery named Margaret Andrusiac, who happens to be one of the nicest ladies in the province. I think we should all give her a special welcome.

Presenting Petitions

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker. I beg leave to present a petition.

Leave granted.

MR. REE: It's my pleasure to present the petition of the Montreal Trust Co. and Montreal Trust Co. of Canada praying for the passing of an act intituled An Act Respecting Montreal Trust Company and Montreal Trust Company of Canada.

Mr. Speaker. I move that the rules be suspended and the petition of Montreal Trust Co. and Montreal Trust Co. of Canada be received.

Motion approved.

Oral Questions

SCHOOL TAX LEVY

MR. LAUK: I have a question to the Minister of Education. Under section 196(7) of the School Act of this province, the minister is empowered to reduce the basic levy for taxation on property on or before April 20 of this year, contrary to the indications made to delegations to the minister in recent days. Has the minister decided to lower the basic levy and relieve the onerous tax burden oil homeowners in this province"

MR. SPEAKER: Is this a question which requires legislation?

HON. MR. SMITH: The question is somewhat premature since the announcement on the final basic mill rate levy is made in April. I really don't think. Mr. Speaker, that the member who asked that question understands the formula or understands also that many school districts in this province, some 44 or more, are receiving more provincial basic operating grant money this year than last year.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister will concede — if I don't understand the basic levy — that there are hundreds of thousands of homeowners in this province who are going to pay double and triple taxes, because they do understand what the basic levy is. Has the minister decided to lower the basic levy to relieve the onerous and unfair tax burden, based on assessments this year to homeowners in the province?

[ Page 4736 ]

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

HON. MR. SMITH: No final decision has been made, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: Does that mean that there is any possibility that it will be lowered?

MR. SPEAKER: That's a matter of future policy; the question is not in order. Next question, please.

ATTENDANCE OF DEPUTY MINISTER
AT SOCIAL CREDIT PARTY MEETING

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, to the Provincial Secretary, yesterday on page 586 of the Blues the minister confirmed that Deputy Minister Heal attended the Social Credit Party meeting at Harrison Hot Springs on government business. This was confirmed by the deputy minister himself, who stated that he regarded his appearance at the meeting as government business. Does the minister confirm that his deputy minister was on legitimate government business?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, as I recall what I stated yesterday to the member, I ascertained that the item of communications was on the agenda of that meeting and I felt it would be helpful and appropriate for this person, who is knowledgeable in this field, to attend. I invited him, if he chose to, to attend the meeting, which I believe he did. It's as simple as that. I think Mr. Heal is attempting to be very much up front and open in terms of our communications policy. His information is available to any party, and is also available to the press. The Leader of the Opposition laughs — this supercilious smile always sitting there. We're used to this.

I think I explained yesterday as well as I could that the item was on the agenda. He appeared to answer questions and did so for a brief period. He did not participate in the conference from the point of view of policy, and departed forthwith. He is here to represent, in effect, all ministries, although he works under my ministry, in developing a broad range of communications policies for all ministries. In that capacity, I think he has a different responsibility than other deputies in the government.

MRS. DAILLY: The minister has not answered the question I posed to him, which I want to just reiterate again: was Mr. Heal on legitimate government business? As he did not answer that, I would have to assume it was illegitimate government business. Is that correct, I'd like to follow that with a question to the minister....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'd just like to point out, with respect to the member, that she's made a reflection and what would be an inappropriate assertion for this ministry and this minister. I'd ask her to withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: The breach of rule which was committed was that the hon. member asking questions was making statements rather than asking questions. I must ask the hon. member to ask questions during question period.

MRS. DAILLY: I understand that the Provincial Secretary stated that Mr. Heal took part in communications discussions. I wish to ask the minister if at any time Mr. Heal also took part in discussions specifically on the image of the Premier with the public.

HON. MR. WOLFE: To my knowledge, the answer is no.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the time in question period is limited, and we have a member seeking the floor.

MR. HOWARD: I too would like to direct a question to the Provincial Secretary — a minister who in this subject matter seems to have an egg-shell sensibility. Inasmuch as the minister has conceded and Mr. Heal has also said that he was there on government business, has the minister decided to disclose the full, unexpurgated, unedited transcript of Mr. Heal's discussion with, and advice given to, that secret Social Credit Party meeting?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I can only say what I said yesterday. He attended for the purpose of answering questions to help those interested in the subject to be better informed. I cannot respond to the question he asked, because I don't know the answer to it. There is no such thing.

MR. HOWARD: Perhaps I should rephrase it. Has the minister decided, because Mr. Heal was there on government business at the request of the minister, to provide the general public and this assembly with an unedited, unexpurgated transcript of what took place there? That's the question. If the minister is unable to answer, perhaps all I can take from his circumventing answer is that he has no intention of doing that. That's shameful.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister has the question. It was asked in a slightly different form yesterday.

MR. LEA: The Provincial Secretary has stated that in his opinion Deputy Minister Heal was at Harrison Hot Springs in an official role as a deputy minister for the province of British Columbia. Does the Premier now say today that Mr. Heal's expenses for that trip should be paid?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of saying anything. The Provincial Secretary is quite able to speak for himself as to any invitation or visitation that took place. I could properly suggest that you ask the Provincial Secretary.

MR. LEA: A question to the leaderless ship. To the Provincial Secretary: now that the minister has confirmed that Mr. Heal indeed was at the meeting on legitimate government business — he was not requested to go at his pleasure, but told to go by the minister — are the expenses of Mr. Heal going to be paid for the trip to Harrison Hot Springs?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, it seems fruitless to waste the time of the question period going over questions that we answered yesterday. You keep referring to it as

[ Page 4737 ]

official government business and suggesting that the minister ordered Mr. Heal to attend. I did no such thing. I saw the item on the agenda and invited him. If he wished to go, he chose to go. Now you can interpret it the way you do — which I'm sure you will — and you can call it government business, if you will. He's anxious to make public the information programs to all of the people of British Columbia. If you wish to hear this matter discussed and hear a description of what he wants to do, which has already been made public, I invite your party to invite him to such a meeting that your party might hold.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say one further thing. Mr. Heal has not submitted an expense account and does not intend to submit one. There will be no expense to the taxpayers for his visit to this meeting to answer questions.

MR. LEA: The minister has now said that Mr. Heal was not there in an official capacity as a deputy minister, but was invited there as a citizen to attend the meeting and will therefore not be putting in expenses. I'd like to know from the Provincial Secretary how Mr. Heal could have refused to go. It's like the general saying to the captain, "Look. would you mind going over the wall now," and the captain says: "No, I'm afraid I don't feel like it today."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member is debating rather than asking a question. Let's have the answer.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I don't know what kind of relationship this member had when he was a minister of the Crown. Was he in a position where he directed, ordered and instructed everybody in a "you do or else" manner in the typical fashion of that party? That's not how I function with my employees. We're functioning in a democracy where, if I invite a person to attend if he wishes, it's his free decision to make, and I'm sure he would make it. That's all I want to say.

MR. LEA: We have already ascertained from the government and from the minister that the deputy minister was there on official government business. Whether he was told or invited to go, he was there on official government business explaining, as the minister said, a government position paper or policy. If he wasn't there doing that, what was he doing there? What did Mr. Heal do at that convention that made it unofficial business as a deputy minister?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I presume Mr. Douglas Heal, like any other normal individual, enjoys spending some time at a wonderful place like Harrison Hot Springs. And I invite any of you, who have probably been there as well, to enjoy such an experience. It's a wonderful resort. Let me tell you about it, Mr. Speaker. I'm wondering whether that's where the former Deputy Minister of Labour. Mr. Jim Kinnaird, attended NDP conventions, when they were meeting perhaps at Harrison. It might be interesting to know.

MR. SPEAKER: The bell concludes question period. The next order of business.

HON. MR. CURTIS: If appropriate. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to some questions which were raised in question period several days ago.

Leave granted.

B.C. SYSTEMS CORPORATION

HON. MR. CURTIS: I refer the hon. members to page 4549 of Hansard. This is in response to questions which were put to me at that time by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi). I will have to give a little bit of the preamble of the question in each case, but I will keep it as brief as possible, Mr. Speaker.

To quote the member opposite: "Last July the B.C. Systems Corporation announced they were opting for the IBM main-frame architecture. I would like the minister to tell the House what steps have been taken to dispose of $11 million worth of Honeywell equipment that presumably will become surplus to the needs of the Systems Corporation."

Mr. Speaker, the $11 million figure is in error. The NDP, when it was in government here, contracted for some $8 million of Honeywell architecture in 1975 — not $11 million, as was stated in the question. Perhaps the member was mistaken, but he will have an opportunity to explain that later. Further, that equipment has been depreciated at a normal depreciation rate. It is now depreciated to approximately $2.6 million — that is as of 1980 — and as I've answered before, that equipment is to be sold.

Later in question period the hon. member said: "Can the minister confirm that the conversion to the IBM main frame option that the Systems Corporation has opted for, which is proposed to be completed by September of this year, will cost in excess of $25 million more than what appears in the budget?"

Mr. Speaker, the figure is completely incorrect. It is expected that the Systems Corporation will face an out-of-pocket expenditure of $5.6 million, plus or minus. The member referred to a cost in excess of $25 million. I would think that in fairness I should point out that I've emphasized the out-of-pocket figure; it could rise to another $1.5 million or $2 million within the Systems Corporation. But I emphasize and underline for the member "out-of pocket."

The third question: "Can the minister confirm B.C. Systems Corporation staff has ballooned to nearly 600 people?"

Well, Mr. Speaker, as of February 28 of this year there were 482 regular employees and 39 auxiliaries, totalling 521. The authorized complement is not far off the 600 to which the member referred. The authorized complement, with some positions not filled, is 589.

The other question, I think, Mr. Speaker, really referred to future policy, and that is the inclusion of the B.C. Systems Corporation within the ambit of the Crown corporations reporting committee.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order relates to standing order 16(2), which is the one that sets out the time limits with respect to the division bells ringing. Yesterday in the Committee of the Whole there was a considerable amount of difficulty with respect to the bells not being heard in various parts of the building and so on, and an undertaking was given by the Chairman in committee that he would discuss this with you and seek to do it.

I wonder if Mr. Speaker could advise the House now whether the bells are in order and can be heard throughout the buildings in order that, when we get into Committee of Supply, we will be bound by the provisions of standing order 16(2) and be able to follow them.

[ Page 4738 ]

MR. SPEAKER: I have two observations. First, matters of committee are not of concern to the House, except through the report of the Chairman. The other observation is to do with the bells, which have at various times rung in various places. They were checked last evening through the 7 o'clock to 8 o'clock hour — and I apologize for those of you who were having dinner at that time — and as of this moment the bells appear to be in order.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I didn't have the opportunity of responding today during question period to an oral question which I took as notice the other day, and I know the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) would like the answer as soon as possible.

Leave granted.

PCBs IN B.C. HOSPITALS

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The member asked if any hospitals in the province had electrical equipment which contained PCBs. I'm advised by ministry officials that there are no hospitals in the province which contain transformers or other equipment containing PCBs.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

(continued)

On vote 98: minister's office, $160,231.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I want to say how much the opposition appreciates receiving a copy of the agreement which the minister finally and somewhat reluctantly tabled with the House this morning. I want to go through that agreement and seek some explanations from the minister regarding the meaning of the agreement. As you will recall, this is the agreement governing the trade of certain Crown lands on the coastal area of the province with Pacific Logging lands on the Sunshine Coast area and Vancouver Island. I couldn't help but notice that the front of the agreement is marked with the word "confidential." I wonder why that would be. The agreement was entered into last November, and it involves approximately 5,000 acres of Crown land in a trade with Pacific Logging. The minister said he saw no reason why the public should not be brought into the confidence of the government with respect to the wisdom of consummating this trade with Pacific Logging, which is a subsidiary of Canadian Pacific. So I wonder why this word "confidential" appears on the cover page of the document. Was it the attempt of the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing to hide the whole transaction from the public until the deal had been completed? It would appear that way. The minister never revealed the deal or the negotiations rather they were revealed by someone at a lower level in the ministry who thought the public had a right to know. One of my questions is: why is it marked confidential? This is public business; this is public land. Why was there no announcement by the minister that negotiations were taking place for the proposed exchange of this very valuable Crown land?

On page 2 of the agreement I read a definition. It says: "Pacific lands means the land described in schedule A. Provincial lands means the lands identified by the parties under article 2 and includes timber standing on those lands." So Pacific Logging is clearly, according to this agreement, receiving the land and the forest resource that stands on that land. Why is there a discrepancy between the descriptions of the provincial lands and Pacific land? The land that is being traded by Pacific is identified just as "land described in schedule A." It doesn't refer to the forest resource at all.

My question to the minister is: does Pacific Logging retain their cutting rights on the land they are trading to the province, or does the lack of any reference to the timber flow from the fact that the land has already been totally logged? I pointed out very clearly to the minister this morning that if the opposition and the public of the province are to have any ability to make an intelligent judgment as to whether this deal is a fair one and is good for the people of the province, then we have to know what's involved. Certainly that discrepancy in the definition of the two blocks of land that are being traded warrants some clarification by the minister. Perhaps he'd like to comment on those two points before I proceed further.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The word "confidential," as the member states, is hand-written across the top of the cover of this document I tabled today. I would assume that it was written on there so that the document itself would be confidential until such time as it was signed. Another reason could be that this document is within ministry files, and the staff is not authorized to release confidential documents without the authority of the ministry. Quite often other documents are sensitive to corporate activities or to the activities of the other party to the document, and some are confidential. This one is obviously no longer confidential as it has been tabled in the House.

The question as to lands. It specifically states in the contract that Pacific Logging shall acquire title to the timber, because in many cases land is sold and the Crown retains the timber rights when it is sold. This is not the case in this trade. Of course, the government will acquire the rights to the timber on the lands being received from Pacific Logging.

MR. KING: I don't want to belabour the point, but on the first point — the confidentiality issue — I think the contract is dated November 1980. It's obvious that it was the minister's intent to keep the negotiations for this exchange of Crown land secret and confidential from the public who own the land. The minister has failed to explain why he felt that was necessary. Surely this was public business. It is a public resource. I want to know why the minister felt it necessary to hide his planned transaction with Pacific Logging.

This leads the opposition to believe that there is more than a coincidence between the timing of this transaction and the government's desperate need to acquire the False Creek property in the City of Vancouver from CP Rail, in order to accommodate their plans for B.C. Place and the Transpo '86 project. They were desperate to acquire those lands. It looks very much to someone who is not overly cynical, I think, as if CP Rail has held the government up to ransom through their preferred position in bargaining terms. As a result, they've said: "Okay, we will deal on False Creek land, but we want some well-stocked timber land on the Sunshine Coast in return for providing the government with the ability to proceed with a project they've already announced but lack the land to accommodate."

[ Page 4739 ]

I haven't received a satisfactory explanation from the minister as to why he felt it was necessary to enter this negotiation and consummate this agreement in secret from the public. I suppose we're not going to get a satisfactory explanation from him.

The other point in the agreement that I noticed and found interesting is: "The province shall make personnel available to Pacific Logging to assist it to locate and identify approximately 5,000 acres of land owned by the province in coastal B.C., classified as forest land within the meaning of the Forest Act." Pacific Logging, it would appear, is virtually writing its own ticket with respect to this exchange of land, and using the minister's staff to locate and identify well-stocked timber land that will be acceptable to it. All the minister has offered us in the way of justification is to say that, well, the province will in return receive some valuable recreation land. He hasn't offered any identification of the kind of recreation benefits that will accrue to the province. He hasn't offered any economic cost-benefit analysis — not one whit of evidence that the public interest is being served and furthered by entering into this agreement. It's apparently just the political whim of the minister and his colleagues.

I don't think the people of the province trust the political whim of that minister or any other minister. It's not good enough for him to come in here with his bland statements and then stonewall with respect to giving a rationale for entering the agreement in the first instance.

I'm intrigued too by article 3 of the agreement, section 3.02 states:

"If the values established by the appraisers" — there's no appraisal until after the agreement is signed — "for the provincial lands or the Pacific Lands, or either of them, differ by more than 10 percent of the greater of the two values, the value shall be determined by mutual agreement of the parties, but failing such agreement, within ten days after obtaining the values from the appraisers, the value shall be determined by reference to a single arbitrator under the Arbitration Act."

My question is this: why lock yourself into a deal with no analysis of the relative values of the land that's being exchanged? Why lock the people of the province into this kind of contract where after an independent appraisal — which, incidentally, comes after the fact — it may be revealed that the value of Crown lands being deeded to Pacific far exceeds, by perhaps millions of dollars, the value of the recreational land being acquired by the province? If it's found that there is that kind of discrepancy, the minister hasn't got the right to say: "No, the deal's not good enough, and I'm backing out." He's committed to it anyway. What happens if there cannot be agreement with respect to meeting a mutually acceptable level after the real value is known through appraisal? Then it goes to arbitration. In other words, we're committed to going ahead with it, regardless of how negative the deal may be for the people of British Columbia. This is really a scandalous business.

You know, it's ironic that this government call themselves or used to like to — somewhat shrewd business entrepreneurs. When we look at the mess that was made of the acquisition of False Creek from CP Rail.... When we look at this kind of shoddy business practice, in terms of protecting the interests of the province. I suggest that they should go back to school. I don't believe that any member of the executive council on that side would conduct this kind of business when it came to his own personal assets, but they're prepared to play fast and free with the assets of the people of the province. It's a shameful kind of contract.

I want to ask the minister to give a commitment today to the committee that this agreement, which calls for final consummation on June 30 of this year, will not be consummated until such time as the full appraisals on both parcels of land and their timber assets are tabled for study in this Legislature, so that the members in this House and the public of the province of British Columbia might have an opportunity to know precisely who is getting the best of this particular deal. I ask for that commitment from the minister. Otherwise you're committing the people to a deal in an absolutely blind fashion, with no ability whatsoever to assess its merits. I ask for an undertaking that the minister will table those appraisals when they come in, before this deal is finally consummated. I would appreciate having the minister respond to that request.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Assuming that the Legislature will still be sitting at that time. I'm more than happy to give my commitment to table the appraisals in the Legislature: if not, to make them available to the public or the members by whatever means he may suggest.

The member is going on at great length about this secret deal. He's trying to say that we wouldn't make such a deal if it were our own land. Well, I'll tell you. Mr. Member, if I could make this type of deal for myself, I would do it in a moment, because the government cannot lose. We are obtaining twice as much land as is Pacific Logging. The value of the properties will be determined by independent appraisals. If the member would read section 4.01, it states that:

"If the value established for the provincial lands under article 3" — which the member quoted — "exceeds the value of the Pacific Lands established under article 3, Pacific shall on the completion date pay an amount equivalent to that excess to the province. If the Pacific Lands. however, exceed the value of the provincial lands, Pacific shall not be entitled to any compensation for that excess."

The government cannot lose, as long as the appraisals are fair and equitable and are being done by independent appraisers. The member smiles. If I had 10,000 acres of land and could make that type of deal, I certainly would do it. The Government is getting a good deal. The secrecy of this document.... A joint press release went out on November 14 advising of this trade arrangement. It's been public knowledge. There's no secrecy. The document is now tabled in the Legislature. The details and terms and conditions are very clearly spelled out. When the values are determined, the deal will be consummated. I'll give the member my undertaking that the appraisals will be fully disclosed to the public through whatever means he may wish.

MR. KING: I thank the minister for his further information, but I would remind him that we're not dealing with a dwelling: we're dealing with forest lands which Pacific Logging has held for years and years. As was explained to the minister this morning, if that land which the province is acquiring has already been totally logged by Pacific Logging and perhaps not replanted, the province is in fact inheriting a liability in terms of restocking that forest land. I don't know that such is the case, and apparently neither does the minister. So how on earth is an appraiser going to make that kind of

[ Page 4740 ]

evaluation — that kind of calculation? What are the relative rotation cycles for the forest crops on the two parcels of land? In terms of evaluation, these are the things that should be known to the public before we are committed to the deal. I would think that if a person in the private sector, whether it was a homeowner or any other type of businessman, were interested in either selling or trading an asset or facility, an appraisal would be sought before a deal were negotiated, so that we would not be talking about apples and oranges in terms of a trade, but about assets of relative value and similarity.

The problem here is that the minister has no information to offer the Legislature on why the deal is justified in the first place. All he has said is: "Well, we're getting some land with recreational value." Well, I suppose so. Any chunk of real estate in the province of British Columbia today has value, and most of it has some recreational value. But when it comes to the point of equating a recreational potential against a forest timber harvest potential, it's no contest.

MR. MACDONALD: Not at the bank, anyway.

MR. KING: "Not at the bank" — and the Minister of Forests should know that better than anyone else. We just don't have this kind of information. I think it's shocking that the minister himself apparently doesn't know what he's getting into. He's waiting for an evaluation. What are the terms of reference of the evaluation? Are they going to look at it like any chunk of real estate, or are they people trained in forest appraisals? What's the value of the forest inventory on the Crown land? What is the state of the forest inventory, if any, on the Pacific Logging land that we are acquiring? This is the kind of information that should be available to the House. I can see we're not going to get it. It grieves me to think that any minister of the Crown....

The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) is used to stonewalling, and I know that he doesn't like questions. He usually conducts a little in-house inquiry in his own ministry when the going gets too hot for him. But if he wants to join this debate, tell him to get up on his feet. He's been stonewalling for years with internal investigations inside his own ministry. Now he wants to come in here and cover for his colleague. Shame on him! We know how it is with renegade Liberals.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I don't know whether the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke spent too long in a locomotive engine tooting his whistle and he's gone deaf, or he's just plain dumb. I've been through this for him a number of times. No, you can't compare apples and oranges, Mr. Member, but you can compare the value of apples with the value of oranges. That's what evaluation and appraisal of the value of land does. Do you understand that?

MR. KING: After the fact.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No land trades have been made, Mr. Member. All we've done is agree on the terms by which we will arrive at an agreement. That can't be too difficult for the member to understand. The lands that Pacific Logging and the Crown will get have value. This value consists of the real estate value, if for another use, and it consists of the timber values — and the age of the timber helps to determine the value of the timber on the land. As far as I am aware right now, most if not all of the land which has been harvested is restocked. That juvenile and immature timber has value which will be related in the appraisal. Its value will be much less than the current value of mature timber. Those values related to dollars and cents — the medium by which we compare values in this country — can and will be determined by very reputable people in the appraisal business who have full knowledge of the values of timber and of forest land. As that immature timber continues to grow after we acquire the land, the value will continue to be enhanced.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I don't know if that's a sign of recognition that he finally understood something or if he's just going to go back and start grinding the same old organ again and again. I'll say it this last time, Mr. Member. The value of the land, before any trades are finally made, will be determined in a fair and impartial way by independent appraisal people knowledgeable in the field. Once that has taken place and the values are determined.... I'll read section 4.01 again:

"If the value established for provincial lands...exceeds the value of the Pacific Lands established under article 3, Pacific shall on completion date pay an amount equivalent to that excess to the province. If, however, the Pacific Lands exceed the value of the provincial lands, Pacific shall not be entitled to any compensation for that excess."

I would hope that the latter is the case, because that means that we're getting an even better deal. If the Pacific lands are worth more, they have to pay us money in addition to our getting twice as much acreage as they have. The value for forestry is not just the value for standing timber; it's the productivity value of the land to grow timber. And timber is growing and there are recreational values, lakefronts and ski hills. There are lands which can be put to great use by the people of Vancouver Island. I think it's great when we can transfer some private ownership from Vancouver Island — where there's a great demand for public use of lands — to the mainland where the demand is much less.

Mr. Chairman, we cannot lose. If I owned the land that the Crown owns and had an opportunity to make such a trade, I would jump at it in a moment. I'm sure the members opposite would as well. The appraisal is underway. No trades will be made until the appraisals are completed, and it will be value for value with the exception that we may get some additional dollars in addition to the two-for-one trade in land that we're getting.

You can get up, Mr. Member, and go through it again and again, but that is the way it is. Anyone who wishes to read this agreement will understand fully that it's a very good deal for the Crown and for the people of British Columbia.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I really didn't need the condescending lecture from the minister. He may resent the fact that I'm going to be up grinding the same old organ again but, yes, indeed I shall until I get the monkey off the public's back. In this case, it'll be as long as it's necessary to grind the organ.

The minister may well be right in terms of it being a good deal for the province. I hope it is, but the problem is that the minister doesn't seem to understand that he has entered a deal

[ Page 4741 ]

without any data base whatsoever to demonstrate whether it's a good, bad or indifferent deal. He's provided none to the Legislature and there's none contained in the contract. Indeed, this contract does commit us to the land exchange. Yes, it does provide for an evaluation and additional payment by Pacific Logging if the land the Crown is trading is found to have a larger value.

The kind of information I want is whether or not the forest crop is being taken into consideration in this evaluation. Mr. Chairman, he hasn't provided the House with the terms of reference of the evaluator at all. He talked about the value of a young forest crop. Of course we all know that that has value. We also all know that the potential value of a young forest crop, which may mature 30 or 40 years hence, is a far lower value than a mature forest crop that exists on the Crown lands now that are being deeded over to Pacific Logging. The minister comes here and asks us to accept his agreement apparently on faith and trust. Certainly I am not prepared to do that. I don't believe that that minister or his colleagues are that astute in the marketplace, and I believe that the public has a right to know when the assets that are being traded and wheeled and dealed with on the market belong to the people.

I don't imagine that we're going to get anywhere with the minister on this matter, but he's done a very poor job of providing the House and the public of the province with any justification for entering this deal in the first instance. There is no data base or detail whatsoever, just some assurance by the minister that we're going to obtain some valuable recreational land. There's nothing to back it up with.

We're going to have an appraisal after we're committed to the deal. If it's not a good deal then, if we're trading away more valuable land than we're receiving, we'll get more money from Pacific Logging. But if they can't agree, then it goes to arbitration. In arbitration anything can happen on this kind of exchange. There's slim protection for the public of the province of British Columbia. Mr. Chairman, unless my colleague wants to offer something on this, I'm going to leave this subject because I don't imagine we're going to get anything more from the minister. We simply agree to disagree on the matter. I'm concerned that he wouldn't be more forthcoming with the public.

We've been talking in pretty general terms regarding the total administrative duty of the ministry. There are one or two other things I want to bring up of a regional and local nature as we get into the votes. I want to say specifically on vote 98 — the minister's office vote — that I see some cost increases that concern me greatly. I refer to a number of votes here that seem to have accelerated in rather spectacular fashion. I would ask the minister if he's prepared to justify the kind of cost increases we see here under his office vote. I draw his attention particularly to building occupancy charges, vote 104. This has been mentioned but not dealt with in detail previously. Last year's appropriation for building occupancy charges was $3,156,000. It's up in this year's estimate to $10,392,117.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is it the intention of the member to cover all votes in one? I would remind him that we are on vote 98 at this time. You are at this point discussing vote 104.

MR. KING: No, vote 98. It's No. 104 within vote 98, the minister's office.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Vote 104, building occupancy charges, is separate from vote 98.

MR. KING: I beg your pardon. Under the general vote I see an increase in computer and consulting charges, building occupancy charges, and such things as office furniture. On vote 98 particularly, I'd like to refer the minister to the increase in the office furniture that we see and ask him why this is justified: office furniture and equipment — up from $1,000 to $2,172 office expenses — up from $5,000 to $8,688: travel expenses — up from $19,477 to $27,150. This is quite a substantial increase over the previous budget. Mr. Chairman. we've had very onerous increases in taxation this year I wonder why we lee the rather high percentage increases in these particular votes that in no way relate to the real and necessary administrative functions of the minister's office. I would ask him to comment on that.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman. we did discuss this same matter yesterday. I mentioned at that time that travel expenses have been increased because we actually didn't budget enough last year to cover what the actual expenses were. So we've increased the request to more closely relate to what we anticipate are actual expenditures for the year. Office furniture and equipment — from $1,000 to $2,172. I guess there's some furniture getting worn out in my office that may require replacement, Mr. Member — the cost of equipment, such as typewriters and so on. I haven't talked to my secretary lately, but as the budget is drawn up we try to anticipate what expenditures we'll be having for furniture and equipment in the office, and perhaps she's worn out her typewriter. I really can't be specific about it.

The item that is included this year that wasn't last year is salaries for temporary replacement and periods of overload work. That wasn't included last year but is this year to more closely reflect the actual operation of my office.

MR. KING: I can appreciate that perhaps some of the minister's furniture is getting a little worn and well used, but I would suggest to the minister that in a year in this province where we've seen virtually every government service to the public increased to provide additional revenue to the government and where we see the cost of homes in Vancouver accelerating beyond the ability of young people to acquire a home, perhaps he could cut a few corners too. Perhaps he could pull in his belt, as he and his government colleagues are fond of telling the public to do. Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I would move that vote 98 be reduced by$12,533, restraining the particular articles I've discussed at their last year's level and showing some restraint by this government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the amount indicated is somewhat of an unusual amount to that usually referred in such a motion, but barring anything unforeseen the motion will proceed.

MR. KING: I would just draw the attention of the Chair to a precedent that has been established for the reduction of various votes by varying amounts, sometimes to $1, sometimes by $1, in one instance a reduction to $3 — and I think the significance of that was explained at the time.

The motion stands on its own merits. This is not a large amount to reduce the minister's office vote by, but I think it's salutary in nature. It would speak to the public of a government recognizing that perhaps revenue might not be what they would like this coming year and a government being prepared to pull in their belts and suffer a little bit along with

[ Page 4742 ]

the overburdened taxpayers out there through the length and breadth of this province. I suggest the minister and his colleagues support this amendment.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 27

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

MR. MACDONALD: I just want to add a word to what's been ably said by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) about the Pacific Logging transaction. I hope the minister is listening. I think it's very regrettable that you went into the transaction so quickly and committed yourself. I think it's a great mistake not to have made use of your Forest Service to determine whether it's a good deal or not — a respected, trusted body that could evaluate the two parcels of land, which are very large in this case, so that we might know whether or not this was a giveaway to the CPR.

I want to put the other point I want to make down in the records of the committee. You have given vast power to two private appraisal firms to evaluate 5,000 acres that are going to be selected as timber land on the Sunshine Coast and, on the other hand, a very motley collection, including mountaintops, lakes, some timbered property and some potential recreational property. The appraisers who try to sort that one out ought to have full appraisals and give their reasons in detail. What is laid before the Legislature should not be just a final-figure result, which would be totally unacceptable, but should include reasons in detail, dealing with the different kinds of land. Frankly, I don't understand how you can evaluate land that is going out of logging and into recreational use and take its value and compare that with merchantable timber. At any rate, it should be spelled out in full in those appraisals. You've given vast power to two private firms. You've told them to go off in a corner, and you've kind of given them an invitation to agree by saying: try and come within 10 percent of each other. I think it's an abdication of public responsibility. When you've got a Forest Service that's as well respected as yours, Mr. Minister, you ought to have used it and have some idea what you've gotten into. Coming from a public body of that kind, that would protect the public interest.

MR. MITCHELL: I would like to review some of the applications and requests that I made to the minister last year. It's not that I'm trying to stake out my own constituency of a group to defend or policies to promote — BCRIC is being well defended and the CPR has had many spokesmen today for their cause.

There is one group of citizens in this province which is becoming larger and larger every day. That is the group of people who are using wood as a fuel. With the high cost of oil today, there are more and more citizens turning to wood as a substitute to help with their heating bills. Not a week goes by without one of my three constituency offices receiving phone calls to ask about some location where they can go out and harvest wood for firewood. Every week, when I phone the ministry or the local ranger, I am continually told that there is no wood available. Mr. Chairman, the minister knows more than anyone else in this House the vast amount of merchantable salvage wood that is burned every year in the bush prior to reforestation.

I feel it's imperative that the minister give some leadership not only to his own ministry and to timber harvest on Crown lands, but also to the logging industry to make available to the citizens of this province some of the slash and some of the merchantable, recoverable timber that is presently lying as waste in the woods or is being burned each year.

I know that the minister will say that a lot of this land is private land. But a lot of this land, Mr. Minister, is also being subsidized by the public, because when they're collecting their stumpage, they are allowed to deduct their roadways, their reforestation and many of the costs of harvesting or maintaining this tree-farm licence. So I feel that the province has a right to say that some of this wood should be made available to the many people who are burning wood, and the many people who are not only burning it but who want to go out and harvest it, salvage it and sell it. There is a small group of citizens who work hard in the woods; they are prepared to go out and salvage cedar, or the thinnings out of the areas that are being thinned, and to recut some of the broken logs into timber.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I ask, Mr. Minister, that you give some leadership within your ministry — that you set up a task force to show that this timber should be salvaged and not wasted, so that the people who are utilizing wood for fuel have an opportunity to get into the woods. Many senior citizens who do burn wood can't go out themselves, but they are more than ready to buy it from someone who is prepared to go out and salvage it.

I know there are all kinds of excuses being made — that we can't do it because this is private land or this is tree-farm licence or because there may be some vandalism in the woods. I realize all that; we've heard those arguments for the last 50 years. Any time that we wanted to develop a multi-use policy in our forests.... To those who wanted to do hunting, for years and years, Forests said: "We cannot allow the hunters in there because of vandalism." But with public education and with the cooperation of many sports groups, we did get the utilization of the forest lands for hunting. We're getting better access into the same lands for hikers and

[ Page 4743 ]

campers under different circumstances. I think we are now at the point, because of the OPEC nations and the high cost of fuel, where we must develop a policy within this province of getting out there and salvaging what is being wasted and burned year after year. I say on behalf of the constituency people who are phoning my office week after week. who are talking and writing to me — and I imagine if they're doing it to me, they're also doing it to many other members — that we must develop that policy, and that policy can't be put off year after year.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I couldn't agree more with the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. It is difficult to allow access to as much fuel wood as the public would like. The current system is that the Forest Service attempts to define areas where fuel-wood cutting can take place, and this information is usually available at our district offices. We've had difficulty meeting all the demands. So we are trying to expand ways of doing that, and this business of getting into logged areas, into landings where perhaps small tops are left, into areas that have been thinned and spaced.... All of these things are possible. and the ministry is trying to develop a more comprehensive policy for making sure that as many people as possible can have their fuel wood needs satisfied.

The member will recall that last year we did have a minor amendment to the Forest Act which gave us the right to issue various licences and permits over areas that had been harvested for the purpose of commercial salvage, but also for fuel-wood gathering. We're still trying to get the mechanics in place of how that can be done. The member would also recognize the fact that we have to pay considerable attention to the hazards that people are confronted with in their fuelwood gathering endeavours. I would have no hesitation if I knew a person were a competent logger and knew how to handle both equipment and also the hazards of the actual logged areas. Therefore, I guess, we have to have some ways of getting people who are less experienced into places where the hazards are less, and find other ways for the more hazardous areas, Of course during the dry time of the year there is also the problem of fire hazard.

I know the member will agree that it's quite justifiable to not allow any fuel-gathering during the closures of the forests. We are trying to expand the availability of fuel wood to the average person, under a fuel-wood permit at no cost to him. As the year goes on, we hope to be able to expand it and make it possible for more people to gather wood. If after having talked to people in his constituency, the member has any suggestions about detailed ways of improving that, I'd be very happy to hear from him.

MR. MITCHELL: I have one short suggestion for the minister. One of the problems that happened when some of the commercial groups were salvaging.... The ministry did bring in a regulation. Up until a couple of years ago, in one particular firm the owner was a qualified log scaler: he had his provincial ticket. Then they brought in a policy that the timber had to be brought out and scaled by a provincial scaler each day before 4:30. This was kind of a hindrance to this particular operation, because they were 20 miles back in the bush. By the time they loaded up to get out at 4:30...It meant they had to shut down at 2 o'clock in the afternoon. I'm suggesting that the ministry sit down with some of the people who are in the business, draft some type of regulation that they can live with, so that the people can be qualified to do their own scaling. I know that the ministry, the sales department and everybody else can do some spot-checking to make sure that the scale they are putting in is honest and truthful. An honest and straightforward policy should be developed so that the people out there can work within the new regulations. There are some regulations that must be brought in for the larger corporations. But for the smaller groups who are actually out there doing the hard work, who haven't the highly technical equipment to go with it, regulations should be drafted for that group.

I think there is a large group out there who are prepared to go out and harvest it and produce the shakes. There is an unending market in the States for cedar shakes and for many products that are now being burned. I think, Mr. Minister, that if you can sit down with these groups, it would be a beginning. From there, you can go into the home group that are harvesting timber for themselves.

MR. LORIMER: For a few moments I would like to take the minister's memory back a few months to the Riley Creek case in the Charlottes, where slides occurred due to the logging practices in that area. To me, the unfortunate thing about that particular slide was the fact that the minister really did nothing. The only group prepared to assist in saving the fishery resource were the federal fishery officers who took action in that particular case. I realize there are Riley Creeks of varying severity throughout the province, that rivers are being polluted and destroyed; the habitats for fish are being destroyed by the construction of roads and so on by many of the forest companies.

There are two things I would like to know. First, are the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) and the Minister of Forests able to come to an agreement on a number of these areas? It would seem to me that both the forest resource and the fish resource are quite compatible. All it needs is some reasonable management in both cases, and then fisheries and forestry can live side by side and both do very well.

I would like to ask the minister whether there has been a change in policy regarding your cutting standards: whether there has been any action taken as a result of the Riley Creek episode: and whether we can be convinced that Riley Creeks will no longer happen. Maybe the minister can tell us.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Unfortunately, I cannot guarantee that at some point in the future there will not be slides as a resultof forestry activity. I can't guarantee that such slides will not have an effect on rivers, but where there's an interface between Fisheries, Forests and other values, all the planning is done in consultation and cooperation with other agencies, including provincial Fish and Wildlife people and federal Fisheries people.

The situation at Riley Creek, which we went through at great length in the Legislature last year, was unfortunate. Consultation had been taking place with federal Fisheries people, provincial Fish and Wildlife people and my ministry right through the process of approvals in that area, which began back in the early seventies. Cutting in that area actually began under the previous government and progressed along. The particular cutting permit in question, CP151 — I believe that was the number of it — was where the slide started. It started after all the planning and development work had been done in consultation and cooperation. One individual in the federal Fisheries branch in the area asked for a stoppage immediately after that heavy rain and flooding in 1978. It was

[ Page 4744 ]

too late to stop then, and special precautions were taken which were supposed to prevent material from getting to the creek. Unfortunately they weren't adequate and some material did get into the creek.

We issue in the order of 6,000 cutting permits a year. Sometimes we make mistakes, and I guess we will in the future, but we don't make them intentionally. But the value of that incident was that a much better and more formalized working arrangement has been developed between federal Fisheries people and our people in order to resolve differences of opinion in areas where it's a judgment value — and we do have differences. That working relationship has improved considerably as a result of that, and I hope it will continue to be good.

MR. HOWARD: We oftentimes have difficulty in appreciating what the needs are in forestry because there's a tendency to look at forestry in a rather confined time-frame. Many people don't appreciate the length of time it takes for a conifer or evergreen to grow and become merchantable timber. I think in order to appreciate where we are today in forestry it's necessary to continuously look to our history and past practices, both in government and in the forest industry itself, and perhaps try to identify what some of the problems are today. From reading about it in the earlier years in B.C., in the 1920s and 1930s standard logging practice was the so-called clear-cut approach — or cut out and get out, in a less friendly way. A great deal of Vancouver Island and a great deal of what is now called the Sunshine Coast was logged in that fashion. With the activities of groups like the old Campbell River Timber Co., who just went in and cut tree after tree of virgin growth timber and had no thought for the future because there was an unlimited supply of trees in front of them, the area around Campbell River was almost like desert land at one time.

At that time some few lone voices were decrying that practice and suggested alternatives. In the post-war period the late Chief Justice Gordon Sloan was a royal commissioner into forests in B.C. He conducted a very extensive royal commission examination on forestry and came along with what I think was the primary recommendation in that report: that the forest resource in British Columbia needed to be managed in such a way that there was timber available for future generations.

The government of the day was another coalition government of Liberals and Conservatives who read the report of Chief Justice Sloan about forest management to mean that the management of the forests should be turned over to private industry and that private industry could manage the forests best because they worked with them and in them every day.

Accordingly, the Forest Act at that time contained provision for things which were then called "forest management licences," later transformed into "tree-farm licences" and other similar names. The first forest management licence in the province was extended to a company in my hometown of Terrace — Columbia Cellulose Co. It gave Columbia Cellulose Co. three-quarters of a million acres, I believe, of noncompetitive timber on the understanding that they would build a pulpmill, which they did at Prince Rupert, and also on the understanding that it would be managed so that future generations would continue to have logs available to them.

There is some serious doubt as to whether that particular management program has been effective. There is also serious doubt because, while Columbia Cellulose was the first company to receive a forest management licence in this province, it wasn't the last. Company after company — even those who said they would never apply for such a licence — found themselves in the position of having to. Gradually over the years more and more companies received licences to large blocks of forest land which they had unto themselves on a non-competitive basis forever.

That also contributed to the disappearance of the small business person in the logging industry, first on the coastal area and then later in the interior areas. They were the ones that had to compete for timber through timber sales. The small operator found that groups like MacMillan Bloedel, Powell River Co., B.C. Pulp and Paper and others who held timber licences of non-competitive timber virtually in perpetuity could enter the market and bid against a timber sale that a small logger would be interested in. With the resources behind corporations like Columbia Cellulose and Powell River Co., as it was at that time — multi million-dollar integrated companies — it was of no consequence to them financially to bid the price of timber up to a point where it would be uneconomical to the small logger, but inconsequential to the large company. By that process they gradually consolidated control and drove the small guy out of business.

The trend to bigger companies also brought with it concepts about the need to have larger pieces of logging equipment. Even though this trend was always there on the coast, it expanded into the interior area. The capital required for such operations necessitated using that equipment to the maximum in terms of getting wood out of the bush, but not using it most efficiently insofar as conservation of the forest resource was concerned. We really had for a long period of time — and still do in some areas — the same "cut out and get out" concept that existed in the twenties and thirties in this province. This time it's sanctioned and organized and structured in a way that is accepted by a great many people and presumably accepted by the Forest Service

Earlier this morning we had some brief discussion about MacMillan Bloedel, Noranda Mines and other companies and the amount of forest resource that they are able to hold and have control over. It seems to me that the Forest Service, the minister or the government has accepted, without question, the idea that bigness is the way to go. I want to submit, though, that there is plenty of opportunity — and it should be made available — for the small operator or the small businessman interested in the logging or log processing business to be able to get his hands on some timber and to operate in that small way.

As well, we need to impart the idea of farming forests rather than simply reaping the harvests that nature develops, both into the departmental philosophy and into the concept of the general public and the acceptance by the general public. We're partway there with the idea of planting seedlings, but we haven't taken the other step of managing the growth of those seedlings as a farmer would manage the growth of a crop which he produces annually.

To give you an example of that, there are some trees planted in the corridor between Terrace and Kitimat that was clearcut by Crown Zellerbach, I believe, and Powell River Co. or MacMillan Bloedel might have been one of the others. I'm not sure of the companies, in any event. They took the approach of cleaning that valley out on a clearcut basis. I think that was a wise move, because there was a great deal of overmature timber, according to the assessment of it, which was substantially correct as the logging proceeded. I had

[ Page 4745 ]

heard references to some of the logs taken out of some patches in that area a number of years back that were up to 50 percent rot. The Forest Service and the companies perceived that the way to go was to get the good and rotten timber out and clean the area so that it would be available for transplanting or for natural regeneration. Transplanting was undertaken in that area. As you drive by that area between Terrace and Kitimat, you see from the highway what looks like a fairly good stock of growing hemlock and spruce, but which I'm told could result in about a 50 percent loss of the new growth in that area.

That loss results from the fact that no weeding or thinning took place. Some of those trees, in their desperate bid to grow and compete with alder and other broadleaf trees, are spindly, top-heavy with growth and insecure in their root systems. That will lead to losses of probably 50 percent of what exists there now. I don't know whether that's correct or not. I'm advised by people in the area who are in the logging business that that will likely be the case. They think that the alternative at this point — and this prospect doesn't attract me tremendously — might be to spray the area with defoliants and destroy the broadleaf trees with 2,4-D or one of those chemical sprays. As I say, that prospect doesn't attract me, knowing what we do about the effect of those kinds of chemical defoliants, but this is argued as the thing that may be necessary.

The point I'm trying to make with the minister....

I'm sure the minister appreciates that I'm not saying this in a critical sense, or whatever. I'm saying this in a way of trying to examine publicly what we need to do. I submit that what we need to do is to treat — perhaps not our entire forest land at one fell swoop in this fashion — those areas and portions which are amenable and susceptible to it as a farmer would treat a farm; that is, to care for, to cultivate, to weed and thin it, and to make sure that when those trees do get to maturity they get there in the shortest possible period of time with good solid growth on them, with the result being that the timber harvested in the future is of sound, high quality. If we treat our forests in that fashion and move in that direction by enticing smaller operators to get into the practice of dealing with our forests on a farming basis rather than the "cut out and get out" concept that exists in far too great a proportion in the forest industry, in my view, we will be serving the interests of future generations far more than they have been served in the past and far more than I think they are being served now — not being served in a practical, natural sense, but being served in a conceptual sense. I think this is something that really needs to got through to the whole of society, and to the logging and sawmilling and pulping industries. We need to do more than just pay lip service to the idea that we'd like to have trees growing there somewhere in the future. We should be doing something about it in a real, practical sense, and I suggest that the concept of agricultural development in use of forest lands is the way to go.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I don't think there's much to add to what the member said. I have to largely agree that that type of trend is going to be the way of the future. In fact, that's exactly what the five-year planning is all about — more intensive ongoing management of forest plantations. That area he speaks about in the Kitimat valley is probably one of the most productive forest sites in the province. It's extremely good timber-growing land. I spent some time up there last fall. I flew over a lot of that area in a helicopter, was on the ground and, of course, drove up the highway. There are some excellent plantations. It won't be long before some of them need thinning. I believe that to a large extent they're above the brush; there may be some examples where some brushing is required. Of course, these applications will be carried out as they're needed. The best return you get is in the high-site forest land such as that. I would ask the member, though, to perhaps talk to the council up there as I have, regarding the status of the Kitimat valley insofar as provincial forest classification is concerned.

These treatments we talk about are very expensive. They're worthwhile if you can have reasonable assurance that the land will be maintained in timber production. There are suggestions that there be industrial parks in the valley. Sure, these can be accommodated. If at the time they do materialize, we have to remove some land from timber production, a cost benefit analysis would probably justify that for an industrial park. In the meantime we have to justify the expenditure. We can insofar as the growing site is concerned, but I would certainly appreciate support for provincial forest status in that valley. I believe public hearings on the establishment of that provincial forest will be happening within the next few months.

Yes, I agree that we should farm our forest. That was the concept when tree-farm licences were issued, in fact. In spite of some variations, they have provided us with one of the best levels of management we have. The woodlot concept, combining small-parcel private with provincial lands to intensively remanage smaller areas is another thing that we're getting along with. Of course, at the present time we're trying to work out a program of assistance and advice to private landowners, to encourage them to put some of their marginal agricultural land back into timber production — which is, in any case, probably a better use for it. The concept of farming our forests is basic and the direction in which we're moving.

MR. HOWARD: Apropos the proposition that there be a provincial forest established in the Kitimat-Terrace valley, the minister knows the arguments on the other side that basically say, oh, if it becomes a provincial forest, then the land is locked in forever, they can't find the key, and we'll never be able to get it out again to do something else with it. I don't buy those arguments. I'm partial to the multi-purpose use of land. In order to get to that point, though, I think you must start from the point of preservation and conservation and ensure that land is retained as forest land to produce a renewable resource. If it's necessary and found desirable, taking all the other factors of a balanced use of land into account, to use a portion of that forest for another industrial purpose, then you could accommodate it at that time. But if you go in the direction of saving — no. It's not going to be a provincial forest. It's going to be an industrial corridor — like the Ruhr valley concept all the way from Kitimat up to Terrace — then you'll never get it back into forest land if you desire to do it. It's far better to hang onto it in that concept.

I have no hesitation whatever in endorsing the provincial forest concept, and I know full well that there are others who have a different point of view. To me, that's the starting point — the preserving point — and that's where it should stay. Alterations to that policy should come alone later on, on an accommodating basis and not just to satisfy the growling demand of somebody to see a smokestack belching smoke out of some place, as distinct from a logging, sawmilling and pulping operation.

[ Page 4746 ]

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to raise a couple of questions with the minister. One of them affects all of those constituencies that are along the Fraser River. For some time now it's been a major problem on the Fraser to have some kind of decent clean-up for driftwood that lies on the shores of the Fraser and deadheads that are constantly in the river. I realize that's not the minister's primary responsibility, although he has some input on the subject. There has been a dam constructed at Crescent Island — I believe with the sponsorship of the Council of Forest Industries — which has apprehended a good deal of the driftwood that comes into the Fraser. It nevertheless continues to be a very serious problem, particularly for boaters and fishermen who have no access to a good number of the bars that are situated along the Fraser as a result of the activities that take place in the forests under the minister's jurisdiction.

I want to ask the minister a couple of questions which are directly related to this. Firstly, what has this minister done with regard to clean-up of the waterways, particularly in the lower mainland where there are more people trying to get access to that river than probably any other area? What has the ministry done with regard to clean-up? It seems to me that we have in this province probably the most important new source of energy, which is firewood. If you look at the new subdivisions that are being constructed, almost all of them now contain zero-clearance fireplaces or Fisher fireplaces. The whole question of firewood is becoming more and more important. Yet in my constituency we live right next to a river with literally masses of wood products that are lying useless on the banks of the Fraser River. It seems to me the minister should take a leadership position in terms of organizing a method of obtaining....

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, if my counting is correct, it appears that we do not have a quorum — at least we did not a moment ago, Mr. Chairman. We do, I note, with the arrival of one member.

MR. LEGGATT: It's a pleasure to see that the Minister of Finance is really on his toes today. This must be the first time this session.

AN HON. MEMBER: Cheap shot.

MR. LEGGATT: Was that a cheap shot?

Mr. Chairman, I hope the minister will respond to this. Perhaps he wanted to consult with his officials in terms of what kind of programs are going to be available to assist people in obtaining firewood from the banks of the Fraser River and other major rivers. There should be a provincewide clean-up campaign in which we put firewood onstream at minimal cost to everybody who needs firewood, because there is waste firewood everywhere. Instead what we're getting is private entrepreneurs going into the forests and, in fact, removing firewood and paying nothing whatsoever to the Crown for the removal of that firewood. Instead of seeing that activity encouraged, what we should be doing is zeroing in on sources of firewood which are polluting the waterways of British Columbia — certainly polluting the banks of the Fraser River. I'm wondering if the minister has anything in mind or whether his ministry is engaged in any activity along these lines. Would the minister like to respond to that?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I think the member is familiar with the Debris Control Board, which is a cooperative arrangement between the federal and provincial governments and the Council of Forest Industries. We jointly fund the maintenance of catchments on the Fraser River in order to attempt to prevent logs from coming down the river and, as a result, being hazardous floating in the waters in the Vancouver area and out to the gulf. While this is effective, some logs do get through, and therefore we do have a fairly good log salver business. In the lower mainland they pick up much of the material that does come down and material which originates from other areas. This fin-boom — there's one up at Laidlaw and there's another at Crescent Island which you mention.... These catchments, in effect, concentrate the driftwood into areas where they're extracted from the river, and they are sold or disposed of by the Debris Control Board meeting.

As far as individual logs along the riverbank go, I know of nothing that prevents people from salvaging those logs for their own use. If they were to attempt to sell them, then it is wood, and I believe they'd have to go through Gulf Log Salvage in order to dispose of them. But there is an active program which is improving the situation insofar as driftwood and hazards are concerned, and I hope it will continue to improve. I would like to explore some formalizing of means of making the otherwise unusable wood, or the stuff along the banks, available as fuel wood. I haven't done that. I don't know whether the ministry or the Debris Control Board itself has done that, but I'll certainly explore that.

On the same line, I've had some correspondence with the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) about debris in Prince Rupert harbour. I just recently sent him a follow-up letter in which I advised him that I'll be asking the National Harbours Board, together with industry in the area and my ministry, to make an assessment to see if we can't perhaps do the same type of thing in Prince Rupert that we're doing in the Vancouver area. I won't have those answers for some time, but we will be looking into that in detail. Once we determine how serious the problem is, perhaps some steps in the same direction can be taken.

MR. LEGGATT: I'd like to thank the minister for the answer. It does seem that there has to be some organization which coordinates.... It's not just the minister's responsibility there's federal responsibility — the Public Works department of the federal government. A plan could be devised to provide firewood, and I would think it could be provided free to the public, because the benefits of cleaning up those beaches from the point of view of bar fisherman are tremendous. It seems to be long overdue. Somehow we can't get the various levels of government together to come to some kind of an agreement to remove that firewood.

The boom at Crescent Island that the minister and I referred to is never going to solve the ultimate problem. It seems to me that barging of logs is the key, particularly for those of us who live around the Fraser River. The boom system has denied recreational interests access to that river for many years, and the use of barging, while it may not yet be economic.... I don't know, it still seems to me that here is an area in which the economic development ministry could perhaps, in cooperation with the forestry ministry, go out and assist those entrepreneurs who are now trying to sell the barging system as a preferable means of moving logs in the province of British Columbia. If you just examine the

[ Page 4747 ]

potential for recreation in the Pitt Lake, Pitt River and Fraser River area, right down to the gulf and all around those traditional areas of log-booming, the value to the province of British Columbia in terms of recreational potential is simply enormous — it's not calculable. At the moment we're allowing private industry to sharpen its pencil around this and make a decision on the booming system as being preferable to the barging system. I'm quite willing to accept that it probably continues to be a cost problem for the industry; but somewhere, it seems to me, government has a role to play in resolving this particular economic dispute to see what can be done to move forward in terms of the barging of logs. Any person flying over those areas of tremendous recreational potential can see that the use of a barging system — particularly in the lower mainland where the number of tourists is so tremendous — would be preferable. It seems to me we could see some leadership coming from the forestry minister in terms of moving into that system and away from a system which pollutes the beaches and the fish habitat, and which uses pilings all over, which simply creates hazards for all kinds of navigation other than that connected with the logging industry.

MR. LEA: Following up on my colleague's concern about the pollution of the beaches, I haven't yet received the latest communication the minister has sent me, but I do thank him for taking it seriously and taking a look at the problem, because indeed it is a problem, not only for reasons of pollution, as pointed out by my colleague, but in the Prince Rupert harbour for navigation and for  light planes that use the area to land. So in our case it's not only a problem of wood waste or of an eye-sore; it's a problem of saving lives in many instances with small planes and other means of water transportation coming into our harbour area.

The thing I've never been able to understand — I know that the minister was not the minister when this came into effect, so I'm not in any way trying to lay the blame on his doorstep — is that I just don't know how history has allowed us to develop to the point where part of the province is being looked after to some degree by the Debris Control Board, with financing from the federal government, the provincial government and industry, while other parts of the province have nothing. It's always been a point of confusion with me. I've tried many times to find some agency, federal or provincial, that would take some responsibility for the clean-up of the Prince Rupert harbour. This is the first time I've had any indication from any level of government, by any ministry, that there was going to be a serious look at it. I'd like to thank the minister for doing it, and I look forward to reading the communication you're sending to me. I know you're serious about it. Next year I'll be back to talk in all seriousness of how far we've advanced to make some clean-up.

MR. KING: I have just one more point I'd like to briefly question the minister on before we get on with other business. I believe the minister has a copy of Noranda's offer to purchase 49 percent of MacMillan Bloedel shares — I think it's 8.9 million shares. Inherent in that offer is, I think, a proposal by Noranda to divest themselves of other holdings they have in the province of British Columbia, which would apparently — or so they feel — put them in compliance with the minister's stated policy of not allowing any corporate holding larger than that which MacMillan Bloedel now holds. Now that the minister has had an opportunity to study that offer, I wonder whether he can give any reaction to the offer by Noranda.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I received a telegram while sitting in the House this morning. I have read it, but I certainly haven't had an opportunity to study it. There is much left unsaid in the telegram. I'm sure I'm going to have to meet with people from Noranda to discuss in great detail just what their offer means. I'm afraid I can't judge at this time, because I don't have all the information that may be necessary. I'll apprise the House of all the information as I receive it and of the decisions as I make them, if the House is sitting at that time.

Vote 98 approved.

On vote 99: provincial forest and range resource management. $40,167,894.

MR. KING: I'd like to ask the minister a few general questions in this area, with respect to encouraging greater utilization of the forest resource in the province. It is my understanding that one of the ministry objectives is to try to develop specialty mills for higher utilization of the various kinds of wood which we have in the regions of the province. I want to ask the minister if he could give me any further advice or any full explanation of what went wrong with the specialty mill developed at Revelstoke by Downie Street Sawmills, now owned by Federated Co-ops. They developed a mill basically to utilize decadent cedar products, and some hemlock, I believe. The opening of that plant was attended by the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty), who represented the Minister of Forests. He spoke about the policy the ministry had encouraged and how this kind of innovation by that particular company was going to be a pilot and a model for more and better things to come in the forest industry in terms of higher utilization. It's my understanding that some special concessions — reductions of minimum stumpage — had been offered to the Federated Co-ops people to assist them with the low margin they would realize by using this basically decadent material in a fairly new and untried kind of processing. Apparently, according to Federated Co-ops anyway, they certainly did not receive the kind of encouragement — in fact, did not receive fulfilment of the commitment — that had been given by the Ministry of Forests for a break on stumpage.

I did have some discussions with senior ministry staff about this during the course of the operation of the mill. I understand one of the problems initially was two different appraisal systems. which existed in the Nelson and Kamloops districts, and I understand there was some disparity in terms of the stumpage-appraisal systems there. I believe the ministry moved to bring about the rationalization of that stumpage-appraisal system in the two areas, which would have resulted in a better break for this particular utility mill. It is my understanding that because the initial commitment that was given was not followed through, Federated Co-ops was obliged to close that utility mill. Now, instead of having high utilization of the decadent material in that area, that test utility mill is out of operation.

It seems to me that we've certainly lost some incentive to get into higher utilization, because if that is the case, then any company is going to be somewhat reluctant to trust these commitments given to it by the ministry, before it goes into

[ Page 4748 ]

the fairly heavy capital investment of bringing on stream new facilities and technology to facilitate higher utilization. It's a fairly serious matter. That's one side of it. I don't doubt for one minute that the ministry probably has another, but I would certainly like to hear from the minister what the problems were and why it couldn't have been reconciled in time to preserve the operation of that mill and the 30 jobs that went along with it. Perhaps the minister would let me know.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The member is quite right in saying that he heard one side. There is another side to it and, as a matter of fact, we did quite a bit to try to help that mill with their new utilization plant. There were some discrepancies in procedures between the mills and the forest districts, which caused a bit of a problem. We sorted those out. The idea was, of course, that they would use that material which was below the normal utilization standard in this "utilization mill," as they called it. In recognition of that, we agreed with them and actually changed our appraisal manuals to accommodate them, saying that we'd give them strictly a salvage rate for that material below the utilization standard. We are obliged by law to charge something for the wood, but the salvage rate is a very minimal amount.

To make the administration of that more convenient — we knew approximately what percentage the salvaged material would be of the total expanded cut — we prorated that across all of their wood, because of difficulties we would have in scaling. The net result was that they would get material below the normal standards at salvage rates; however, they wanted us to go even further and we knew we couldn't. I believe it would have resulted somewhere in the order of three-quarters of a million dollars in saved stumpage costs, and the benefit would go to us as well because we would be getting the use of that material. However, even after doing this, they saw fit to close the mill, and as a result of their closing that mill, we had to go back to the normal stumpage system because they were no longer utilizing this low-quality material or running the "utilization mill."

I think the problem is largely a market problem, if we look at the realities of it. Everyone is having difficulty selling products right now, including Federated Co-ops and their Downie Street sawmill. I would hope that once market conditions come back they will be able to use that lower-quality material again. We would certainly be willing at that time to reinstate the special concessions we made to see that happen.

MS. SANFORD: I wanted to ask the minister a brief question with respect to the log dump that has been approved for Buckley Bay. This is a MacMillan Bloedel log dump, approved there last year, and I would like to know whether or not the minister was involved in those discussions. As the minister knows, the dump is approved by the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing. I know that the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing and the Ministry of Environment were involved in the discussions surrounding the granting of that licence or permission to dump. I'm wondering what discussions the minister or his officials have had with the company or with the other two ministries in determining whether or not that particular log dump should be allowed.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I wasn't personally involved in any discussions on that particular dump proposal. As the member stated, the responsibility of the issuance of the lease to have a dump lies with the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot). I'm sure that he consults with the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers). Advice is sought from staff within the ministry on a technical basis as to the need of it. I have not been personally involved, so I'm afraid I cannot be of any assistance to the member.

MS. SANFORD: I'm wondering, Mr. Chairman, whether people within his ministry might have been involved in any discussions that took place. For instance, I would be very interested to know whether or not the Ministry of Forests pursued with the company alternate sites for dumping. One of the proposals that was made was that the E&N rail line would be utilized to haul the logs down to an existing dump in the Parksville area. I would like to know whether or not the company was involved in those discussions, whether they felt it was feasible or whether they took any interest in the issue at all, because they are not responsible for granting the lease.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I can only repeat that I was not personally consulted. The consultation on a thing like that would take place at the district operational level. I'm afraid I can't help the member.

MR. KING: I just wanted to return for a moment to the discussion regarding Downie Street utility mill. I thank the minister for his answer. It seems to me that when you're dealing with really rotten cedar products, in all probability they're going to be burned up on the forest floor if someone doesn't devise a particular and specialized use for them. It would be prudent for the ministry to waive stumpage on that material when you consider the cost of moving that material into a mill-site. Those costs are fairly high. It's a fairly labour-intensive operation to actually put it though a utility mill. I wonder why the ministry wouldn't have considered waiving stumpage on it rather than seeing this plant close down.

It seems to me that the province would still be obtaining a better use and better value through that process than they would by fiddling around and getting into an altercation with the company as to whether or not you delivered on the commitment they thought you had given them — prorating it over their total cut and giving them a stumpage appraisal to compensate. I wonder whether it might not have been more prudent to scale that particular material that was utilized and waive stumpage altogether. In that way, it seems to me that it would be some encouragement for people to get into this kind of utilization of the resource — the saving of energy and the creation of jobs that are now being lost — rather than leaving it to lie and rot on the forest floor. I'm perplexed over that aspect of it, and I wonder if the minister could enlighten me any more.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: It perhaps would have been more prudent, Mr. Member, but the law requires that something is charged. The salvage rate is something in the order of 20 cents per cubic metre, which is a token charge. I guess the reason for that token charge is to make sure that we do have a scale of the material. In addition to that salvage rate, we provided additional cost allowances because of the higher cost of running it though the utilization mill. Even if we could have reduced it by another 20 cents per cubic metre or about 60 or 70 cents a cunit, I suspect now that the market conditions wouldn't have allowed them to do it. Again I say I'm

[ Page 4749 ]

hopeful that that mill will start up again once market conditions improve. We did everything that we were legally able to do; we changed appraisal manuals to accommodate them. Market condition, I'm sure, was the real reason. We fulfilled all of our obligations, even though there is some disagreement with the company that we did.

MR. KING: In vote 99 we see some very high cost increases for some of the areas that I think are questionable in terms of the needs of the ministry. Certainly I wouldn't want to see any restriction on budget allocation for those very essential and crucial parts of the ministry's activities dealing with the actual management of the forests, but when I see all kinds of rentals, motor-vehicle cost increases and office expenses increasing at a higher rate than budget allocations for some of the other more fundamental forest services, that bothers me. Travel expenses under this vote have gone up from $1.5 million to roughly $2.5 million. Advertising and publications are up from $212,000 to $846,000.

We've seen no indication that this minister is really bringing the public into the decision-making process. We find rather secretive activities by the ministry in terms of any real decisions being made on the renewal of tree-farm licences. The public is shut out of the process, in terms of the kind of agreements we discussed earlier today, where the public was not a party at all to the discussions and negotiations for the exchange of important Crown lands. We have to assume that the increased costs for publications and advertising relate more to the political needs of this government than any motivation of bringing the public into dialogue and into a position where they might, in some way, have a role to play in decisions on the important forest industry. Quite frankly, we think that we could slice some of the fat out of this vote, as we suggested doing out of the minister's office vote.

Accordingly I move that vote 99 be reduced by $1,976,342.

MR. HOWARD: I've just seen some members on the other side shake their heads indicating that they probably weren't going to vote for the amendment. I just wanted to advise the Legislature that this really isn't an amendment put forward by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke. He physically did it, but he did it on behalf of somebody else who can't be here today. He's not able, in fact, to attend the sittings. The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke is representing a former member of this chamber who, if he were still here, would have moved this amendment himself.

Looking at the account in the Vancouver Sun of that love-in the Socreds had at Harrison Hot Springs over the weekend, I want to quote from somebody who said that there's a continuing need for weeding out red tape and trimming government fat. He said: "We could cut enormous sums out of the budget and still not reduce services to people." That person identified is former MLA and delegate, Elwood Veitch, a former member of the cabinet. This is from the inside. He was there when part of this fat was developing. Now that he's freed from the constraints, he's able to put forward his views about it. So the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke is really putting forward and advancing, in this motion, something which a well-known. well-respected and loved Social Crediter — loved internally within Social Credit, that is — would put forward if he were in this House and able to do it. On that basis and with that kind of support, I'm sure that it will be a unanimous decision to vote yes for this reduction.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 27

Vote 99 approved.

On vote 100: regional forest and range resource management. $45,626,030.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister a few questions on this particular vote. Some of the inventories have now come in for the different regions of the province. I've had an opportunity to look at the inventory report for the West Kootenay and Kamloops districts. I think some of the others are expected shortly. These regional inventories confirm the falldown problem in timber supply that was predicted in the five-year range and resource analysis.

What concerns me is that the ministry seems to be relying on a program of intensified silvicultural treatment to minimize, if not completely offset, the falldown in some of these areas. They basically seem to be saying that if in fact you start applying intensive silvicultural treatment now, it will be possible not only to offset that potential shortage of timber supply but to actually accelerate the annual allowable cut in those areas to increase the harvest of the forests. I would like the minister's view on that. I personally don't buy it.

I think that it's possible that that can happen in an area where you have sufficient old-growth timber in inventory. But that is certainly not the case in the Kootenays or the Okanagan. It alarms me greatly to feel that the ministry might encourage a faster pace of harvesting when there is already a predicted and acknowledged shortfall in timber supply. By applying silvicultural treatment, we are looking to the benefits that return to the province perhaps 30 or 40 or 80 years down the road, depending on the terrain. I'm very concerned that we don't fall into the trap of speeding the forest harvest on the basis that we're spending more dollars on thinning, spacing, fertilizing, various treatments, site preparation and so on for some of these areas.

[ Page 4750 ]

I would like the minister's views on this matter. I've discussed it with a number of people in industry, and there are conflicting views. I would very much like to hear the minister's attitude to this proposition that by increasing silvicultural treatment, one can accelerate the annual allowable cut on the basis that you'll be developing a faster growth pace and a higher volume of timber available in the long term.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I think the member is reasonably accurate. Each timber supply area — we do it by timber supply area rather than forest region — is different. In some areas we'll have to go just as fast and hard as we can to maintain the cut; in some areas we won't be able to do that. The Kootenays is a good example where we have some serious problems ahead of us. The member is well aware of the very serious infestation of a beetle in the Kootenays. We're accelerating our cut there now in order to try to recover some value, but at some point in time there will be a timber supply problem in that area. In the Okanagan it appears that we're going to be able to maintain the level, and with intensive silviculture and that type of thing and a planned program at some point in time, there is every likelihood that we will be able to increase the cut.

Each area is different. In some areas we are tight; in some areas we've already had reductions of plant capacity. In Merritt, for example, the plywood mill was shut down a year and a half ago because the supply of peeler logs was no longer sufficient, so adjustments have been taking place. But it's not only in intensive silviculture that we gain allowable cut; it's in better utilization, protection and forest management. All of these factors coming together will, in most cases, allow us to maintain the level of cut we have now, with some exceptions, and in some cases allow us to increase the level of cut. These timber supply analyses will be done about every five years. The next complete assessment of the forest and range will be five years hence, and the timber supply analysis will be under constant revision. As conditions change, the member would be surprised at some of the very quick responses you get to thinning, spacing and fertilization. If he wishes, I can give him some samples from our office of just what happens to suppressed trees when they're freed up because of crowding, and when they are fertilized, there are some very dramatic increases in very short periods of time. Each area is different, and the circumstances and conditions are different, and each one has to be assessed and managed according to the conditions there. Some areas will be tight, in some there will be a falldown, and others we can increase.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I am familiar with the accelerated growth that can take place. I had some of the tours and looked at the results too, and I'm also familiar with the beetle problem in the West Kootenays, but that's not what I was referring to. What I was referring to is the proposition that where the projected falldown in timber supply is about 20 percent in a supply area over the next 15 years, I fail to see, under those circumstances, that intensive forest management is going to allow the same pace of harvest, much less create a situation where we can increase it, unless there is an adequate inventory of old growth to provide to sustain the annual allowable cut now over that 15-year period. I'm concerned that that seems to be a general proposition which is used to justify increasing the annual allowable cut in some of these regions.

I'm also a little bit concerned.... The minister says, "Well, there has been the odd plant closed down," but in other areas of the province, notably the Okanagan, there is a crunch coming in terms of supply. It seems to me what's happening now — and there is a real danger of it happening in widening circumstances — is that existing firms are going to be competing for a scarcity of timber. I think it's incumbent upon the minister to start giving some long-term indications of what's in store for some of the existing operators. He says it will be reviewed in five years. That's true, but in many cases some of the operators are in a position where they have to make fairly significant capital investments now. If they're going to do that, Mr. Chairman, they have to know that there will be a role for them for the next 10 years, not the next five years. They're in a bind in many of these places, and all they get from the ministry is: "Well, our inventory is not complete." They're expected to continue along and to comply with a whole variety of regulations that are costly, when they don't really know whether they have a future in the forest industry in the province of British Columbia or not. The thing that's unfair about that, Mr. Chairman, is that this just applies to the small operators, it seems, and some of the medium-sized ones, but when it came to MacMillan Bloedel, Crown Zellerbach and the big integrated firms, there was no hesitation whatsoever; there was complete continuity of their timber supply. There was increased control delivered to them by the minister under the new act. It's a double standard, and it's unfair, in my view.

MR. LEA: While the minister is thinking over his answer, I'd like to ask a few more questions. The Prince Rupert forest region. Mr. Jack Biickert was kind enough to invite me and some other people down to a presentation of the timber supply analysis for one of the supply areas in the Prince Rupert region — no TFLs in that particular one. Just carrying on from what my colleague said, it frightens me. I don't suppose there's any good in going back over the years and talking about this side of the House saying to that side of the House: "You know, we're going to be running short of timber," and that side of the House yelling back at us: "What a woolly-headed bunch of thinkers you are — a bunch of goofy intellectuals who don't have any idea what you're talking about!" It seems to vindicate in many ways what we've done over the years — the stress on forest management, and the scoffing that went on on that side of the House over the years when we talked about a short timber supply in this province.

One of the things that really worries me — I'd like to get this from the minister; I've received it from the department — is that in this new allowable annual cut that's going to be increased.... As I understand it, what your department is saying to the industry is that you're going to expand the annual allowable cut, or at least you will in some areas. There's some timber that's economic — you can go and get it now. There's some that would be uneconomic on its own. What they're saying to the industry is: we want you to be innovative and to come up with ways of going after this uneconomic timber now and making it economic.

I see some real problems down the line. For instance, if you expand the annual allowable cut, there are going to be new jobs — or maintenance of the jobs that are there, but I think in some areas there will be new jobs — with new facilities, such as sawmills, that are going to spring up around this new, more grand-scale annual allowable cut. Politicians

[ Page 4751 ]

being what they are, a review will be done five years down the road — and this is a worry expressed to me by industry. I maintain that if there are new jobs created and a new sawmill opened, it won't matter what sort of a record the timber company has in that one particular area — they're all going to be renewed. That's bad enough in resource management. But what about the timber operator who goes in there and actually does do a good job, mixes the uneconomic with the economic and comes out with an average, is being innovative while his next-door neighbour on the next piece of forest land isn't doing any of that, but is just going in and creaming off the economic and not even taking a look at the so-called uneconomic areas? What's going to happen five years down the road? The pressure is going to be on all of us as politicians, regardless of resource management practices, to not close down a sawmill, to not lose jobs in the woods — jobs that are going to be created because of an annual allowable cut that can't be maintained over the years. As my colleague for Shuswap-Revelstoke has said, you can’t go out and borrow money in the marketplace and start up a sawmill on a five-year basis. You have to have a little bit more security of tenure than that in order to go out and borrow money. or you just won't get the money.

There's no use blaming each other for bad logging practices and bad forestry management over the years. But I think that we all have to admit that that's what's happened in B.C. It's partly out of ignorance on our part — all of us in B.C. — partly out of greed on our part, all over B.C., but I think it's mostly out of government not playing a role in resource management that would look down the years and try to have a sustained yield over the years. It just wasn't done. Now we've got a real problem. Industry knows it, the people who work in the woods know it, the minister knows it and everybody in this House knows it. We are going to have a real problem in getting enough timber and wood to keep our industry going so we can have a live and vibrant economy in this province. We are in trouble and we all know it.

I can't see how we're going to do away with the problem by putting it off for five years. I see that happening. There are companies that are going to go in there and not go after the uneconomic timber; they're going to take the economic. They're not even going to go after it. Five years down the road we're going to come along and say: "You've been a bad boy. We're going to take it away from you. The sawmill's going to close and those guys are going to be out of work." Politicians don't operate like that. The time to do the proper planning and the proper thing is now, so that future politicians — and it probably won't be any of us — don't have to face that situation. But they're going to the way we're going.

To increase the annual allowable cut by saying, "We're now going to open up these hithertofore uneconomic areas. They're still uneconomic, but we want innovative industry. Show us how you can do it, " I maintain that at the end of five years it won't matter a tinker's damn how they operated. It's going to be renewed because of the pressure on us as politicians — or whoever comes after us — not to lose the jobs and not to shut down the sawmills. All we're going to do is create a time-frame for us to get by the bad time, and we're going to leave it for somebody else down the road to face some pretty dicey problems.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I must make a statement for the record, because the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) has a misunderstanding of what it is the timber supply analyses are doing. One of the chief differences in what we're doing in the current timber supply analyses is that we're currently removing uneconomic timber from the inventory which establishes the allowable cut. We're saying at this time that that wood is not economic, so therefore it's not going into the basket of wood we have to plan with. That factor is being addressed, and I'm sure Jack Biickert, our regional manager for Prince Rupert, went through that with you. So that uneconomic wood is not in. As the economics change and it can be harvested, it will go back into the allowable cut.

MR. LEA: In the mid-coast?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The mid-coast included. This is why the Ocean Falls experiment is so important right now. That wood we have granted special experimental licences to Ocean Falls Corporation on is wood that is outside the allowable cut, and if it can be demonstrated that it can he used, then we have a tremendous amount of that type of wood which would then become usable to us. That is the process. We do consider the economics.

We do not have real problems. I know a message the members opposite would like to portray to the province of British Columbia is that we have real problems. I don't know what that member thinks sustained yield means. Does he think that means a constant even-flow supply of wood forever? That's not what sustained yield means at all. Sustained yield simply means that you ration out the old-growth timber at such a level that when the natural biological falldown takes place, which says you cannot grow as much wood on an acre in 80 or 100 years as it took Mother Nature 1,000 years to accumulate, that natural biological falldown effect will take place. When we reach that level, we have to adjust our level of cut to be able to maintain that lower level. That lower level can be increased — in most cases back up to the rate we have chosen to harvest in the past — by applying the things that are outlined in the forest management program.

The only area in the province right now where our age class distribution is leading us to problems, Mr. Member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), is in the Fort Nelson area, and it's the age-class distribution on the spruce. If the utilization of the aspen there can be achieved, then we have no problems; if it can't, we will have a falldown there because we don't have enough mature spruce to harvest.

So we don't have problems. These things you are mentioning have all been considered, and it's a matter of proper management for the future. There's no disaster coming, my friend. Our forest industry will always be at least as significant in our economy as it is right now, and as we add value in British Columbia, it will become an even more significant factor.

MR. KING: I just wish I had the confidence the minister has. Professional foresters in the province, people in the industry and many voices out there who have a great deal of expertise just do not see it that way. When I read the minister's own inventory reports on the West Kootenay, Okanagan and Kamloops areas, it doesn't really seem to bear out what he's saying either. I guess I'd feel better if I were satisfied that the five-year range and resource fund was adequate to really meet the standard of intensive management that is required. I really haven't got confidence that that's the case.

Again on vote 100 I'm going to move a motion for a reduction for some of the specific items that I see in the

[ Page 4752 ]

estimate that I think are rather excessive. We find office furniture and equipment up from $94,000 to $184,000 — doubled. In fact in this particular estimate, which contains some very significant and important functions of the ministry out in the field in terms of range and resource management, we don't see anything like a doubling of the budget for those important and inherently necessary functions of the ministry. We see fantastic increases in office and travel expense, advertising and publications. Against the backdrop of the very punitive tax increases that have been imposed on the people of British Columbia this year, we think that's fat, excessive and extravagant. Accordingly, I move that vote 100 be reduced by the sum of $386,871.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 24

NAYS — 27

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. LEA: I'd like to ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. LEA: I fooled you a little, Mr. Chairman. It's not an introduction, actually, but it is an announcement that I know all members of the House will greet well. Today is the sixty-third birthday of one of our members.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Gary!

MR. LEA: Barbara, come out of hiding — the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace). It's also her fortieth wedding anniversary. On Barb's twenty-third birthday she gave herself one of the best birthday presents you can get: she married her present husband. Today we remember both Barb's birth and the day she got married, and we all wish you both well.

MR. LAUK: All I can say, Mr. Chairman, is that if certain people had the tough life that I had to lead, you'd look older than your age too.

Vote 100 approved.

Vote 101: district forest and range resource management, $58,710,846 — approved.

Vote 102: reservoirs, $10 — approved.

On vote 103: fire suppression program, $8,418,971.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, again on this vote I find some pretty excessive increases in the frills that I believe are unnecessary. Office equipment and furniture are up from $1,500 to $14,000 — 1,400 percent on the frills of office. Travel expenses, advertising and publication were $7,000 last year; they're up to $12,000 this year. These increases have nothing to do with the fundamental purpose of the Forests ministry or the fundamental needs of ensuring that our forests remain productive and provide a yield to sustain our province, both in terms employment and in terms of revenue return to the Crown. Rather, these are things that we believe were inserted by an affluent government that is becoming fat and lazy in office — an affluent and fat government that is prepared to gouge the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia with ever-increasing, ever-accelerating punitive tax burdens, while they inject these inflated amounts in each and every vote for renewal of office equipment and for padded chairs that will be easier as the ministers recline in their padded offices.

We think it's unnecessary. We think that this is excessive. We think it's insensitive to the problems that the people out in the real community are facing in this day of inflation. I want to say that I was convinced before, and after those few remarks I'm all the more convinced that I have to move a motion here to reduce this particular vote by $58,303.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is in order. The minister rises to speak.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'm quite convinced that within the ministry we can make efficiency savings which can be done without jeopardizing the accomplishments of the programs which we have. In fact, the Minister of Finance has asked that I make savings to the tune of 2 1/3 percent of the total funds allocated to the ministry, and that will be done. However, I think that I and my ministry are much more competent to judge where this can be done without affecting our programs than can be done by these frivolous motions by the opposition.

MR. KING: I'm pleased that we have an acknowledgment from the minister that there is excessive fat in the budget estimates. The minister has acknowledged that he has been directed by the Minister of Finance to slice out some of this extravagance and waste. Well, why did it not occur? We find the ministry apparently directed to effect cost savings, nevertheless the whole weight of raising the revenue projected in this budget is being exacted out of each and every working person, each and every senior citizen in this province, through increases in the sales tax, gasoline tax, cigarette and tobacco tax, liquor tax — you name it.

I don't trust the minister to know where to slice the fat. If he had known where to do that effectively and managed the affairs of his ministry properly, we wouldn't have had these inflated figures in the budget estimates in the first instance. I

[ Page 4753 ]

think it's significant and I think it's noteworthy that the minister has acknowledged that there is indeed a need for these cuts. We ask his support when it comes to voting on this as a matter of principle.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I was pleased to hear the minister's admission. However, I was shocked that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who has cast himself into a shroud of Simon Legree — you know, that he's tough with the budgets and tough on the ministers — stood up and said, "Yes, we should be making more cuts," and admitted that they're not making enough here. We could understand if there was an inflationary increase or something that would match inflation. We've got thousands of dollars over any normal inflationary increase, and the minister suggests that they're trying to be frugal. Mr. Chairman, they're not being frugal at all in the areas that count for them. As far as running the ministry in terms of doing something for the Forest Service, that's where they can be frugal, but not in the minister's office and not in the ministry itself. We live in a fool's paradise here. We're building nice gold-plated- spots for our ministers and some of their very close associates.

We've learned the truth. We know the truth: the taxpayers in this province are being asked to perform an impossible task for a wastrel government.

MR. NICOLSON: If what I heard was correct, I'd like to thank the minister for being honest. I believe he said that he will be paring 2.3 percent off his total budget because of these areas. He is indicating that indeed these areas were put into the budget — I can only assume, by Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance — so that they can inflate the expected expenditures, underestimate revenues and go back to the old Socred flimflam, which shows, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Finance has completed his synthesis from the Liberal Party through the Conservative Party into an absolute perfect reincarnation of a Social Crediter.

What we have here is something that is perhaps refreshing: the admission by the minister that he has been told to inflate his particular estimates of spending by 2.3 percent and that his real budget is not what we see before us in the estimates, but is 2.3 less than that. We can expect that the areas that have been inflated are the very items which we are suggesting can be reduced. If these items can be reduced, then the taxes which are being increased to pay for these bogus expenditures can also be reduced.

This is a watershed day in the province of British Columbia. This is an admission by a member of the executive council to something that has been suspected, something that the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) for years and years used to refer to in his alternate budget. This is living proof that what we have always suspected and accused the Social Credit governments of doing with their budgets is indeed the case. I congratulate the minister for being forthright and admitting that his budget is 2.3 percent inflated. We can only hope that other ministers are going to be forthcoming and admit to us the amounts that their budgets have been fattened.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, we had revealed here by the minister something that runs completely contrary to our whole history of budgetary matters. A budget is supposed to be an honest document-financially honest, never mind politically honest. The Minister of Finance said he spent three months preparing it along with Treasury Board.

I'm talking about financial matters — about the taxpayers' money. The budget is....

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: The Minister of Finance can yap back and forth if he feels like it; it’s entirely up to him. This is a serious matter. When a Minister of Finance comes to the House with a budget, he should stake his reputation on the financial reliability of that budget. We now have the Minister of Forests basically calling the Minister of Finance a liar and a dishonest minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Again, I would caution all members in the use of language in this House — that it be parliamentary at all times. And, hon. members, at no time is proper language and descriptive phrasing more necessary than when we are canvassing the opinions of others, particularly on a motion that is presently before us.

MR. HOWARD: I'm not calling the minister that. I'm just saying that this is what, in effect, the Minister of Forests is doing. He's now coming along and saying that he, the Minister of Forests, as a part of the cabinet that prepared that budget, has presented us with estimates of expenditure which are false — which he has now admitted he is going to reduce. If he's going to reduce them, the correct and honourable thing to do, within our financial responsibility and the question of responsibility of government to the Legislature and through the Legislature to the people, is to bring those cuts in right now — not sometime in the future, maybe. But if these estimates are improperly prepared and do not reflect the true situation — and the minister has admitted that they don't, that they're padded — then it's his responsibility to legitimize the whole process.

I submit to you. Mr. Chairman, that if the Minister of Forests is not prepared to do that at this time — and he said to this House that these estimates, this account of the projection of expenditures for his department for the coming year, contain improper and incorrect figures — if he is not prepared to provide the House with the proper figures, then he has no alternative, I submit, than to resign his post.

He came to this Legislature with the estimates, went through votes 98, 99, 100 and —  where are we? — 103 now. He never said a word that those estimates were improper or inaccurate and incorrect, and now finally, towards the end of the day when we have one or two votes left in his department, he finally says: "Oh well. Look, the accounts are padded." The budget is a fraud insofar as the estimates of the Ministry of Forests are concerned. If what the minister is saying is correct — that they are inaccurate, padded, and incorrect, and he can reduce them — then he's obliged to bring those reductions in and face the Legislature with them right now. To do anything other than that, I submit, challenges the whole concept of budgetary financial honesty. It shows to me that at least insofar as the Ministry of Forests is concerned, Mr. Chairman, the budget is phony, fiscally irresponsible and financially dishonest — if we are to take the words of the Minister of Forests at face value, and I do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Again, I must ask if the member is imputing any particular motive to the minister, personally, in his remarks — any impropriety.

[ Page 4754 ]

MR. HOWARD: I'm not dealing with the Minister of Finance personally; I'm dealing with him as the Minister of Finance. I say if we take the words of the Minister of Forests at their face value, as he has said in this House in his place — and we're obliged to accept his statement — then that proves that the budget is financially dishonest insofar as the Ministry of Forests is concerned.

I don't know what other ministers are going to do or if they've got padded accounts or not, but if we had not embarked upon this program of trying to save the taxpayers of this province some $12 million out of this account for things like advertising, travel expenses, office expenses, office furniture, and rental occupation paid to BCBC and B.C. Systems Corporation, we would have never discovered or revealed to the general public that we are faced with dishonest figures insofar as the estimates of the Ministry of Forests are concerned — bogus figures, padded figures, inflated accounts.

I'm only taking the Minister of Forests on what he said. If he wants to retract what he said and apologize for misleading the House, he can do that. But so long as the minister's words stand as he enunciated them, then he's saying that the estimates prepared by him, the Minister of Finance, the Ministry of Finance and the Treasury Board over a three-month period — as I understood his remarks during the budget speech — are phony. The Legislature has no business dealing with estimates of expenditure put forward to it that the minister says are not correct figures.

I think, Mr. Chairman, with due respect all the way around, that there should be some recess of activities here. There should be time for reflection on this matter other than here in the Legislature. The minister should have an opportunity to have the business of the Legislature at this moment set aside and proceed with something else, in order that he can sort this out in his mind and come back in a calmer moment and relate exactly what it is. He should either bring in reductions to effect what he says can be done and thus legitimize the figures, or say that he was in error in making that statement and these figures are an accurate reflection of what he anticipates spending in this coming year. He has to do one or the other. In order to give him the time to do that, the committee should rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, and I accordingly move.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS-23

NAYS-27

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind the minister of how serious the revelation is that he has brought before the House this afternoon. He has indicated that he's received a directive from the Minister of Finance to trim the estimated budget of his ministry by 2.3 percent, I believe he said, which means that we have before us here a document which is totally meaningless. This displays a contemptuous attitude toward the Legislature, Mr. Chairman. The whole theory of free democratic government in a parliamentary democracy is that the government is called to account for their spending estimates, and they have to justify their spending estimates in an open and frank forum. How can that possibly take place in this kind of climate when we have before us here a document which has one set of figures, which the minister has now conceded to the House, after two days of debate, are inaccurate and meaningless?

To add insult to injury, the minister said: "Well, I won't accept your amendment to cut some of the fat out of these estimates, because I and my ministry know better than the Legislature where to do the cutting." Now if that is not contempt for the Legislature of the province of British Columbia, then I don't know what is. What is the debate in the Legislature all about? Are we going through some shabby exercise here that is totally meaningless in terms of bringing any accountability by the government to the people of the province? Mr. Chairman, this is indeed a serious matter. It's contemptuous and fraudulent in terms of the estimates that are contained in the budget.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, I must again bring it to the hon. member's attention that the words he is using are clearly not in the best traditions of parliamentary language. While not interfering with this debate, I would ask the member to continue using parliamentary language of a more acceptable nature.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I certainly never meant to impute any improper motives to members across the way. But the fact of the matter is, it angers one to learn that we have been studiously addressing ourselves to the contents of ministerial estimates which the Minister of Forests and the Minister of Finance admittedly knew were not valid and accurate.

I am not suggesting that either one of the gentlemen tried to mislead the House or do anything fraudulent. But in the world outside this Legislature, if this kind of document were passed and the persons purporting to sponsor this document had knowledge that the facts and figures contained therein were false, they would be subject to proceedings on the basis of fraud. They would indeed. I just think it's absolutely scandalous. I don't recall any day in the Legislature of this province, as long as I've been here, where this kind of open admission has been made which demonstrated a complete contempt and disregard both for the rights of the opposition in a free, democratic parliamentary system and for the rights of parliament itself. How can we go on and address ourselves to any of the estimates of the ministers, if there is a secret agenda and secret instructions from the Minister of Finance altering the document that we have before us as the basis for debate?

It's a shameful day in history of this province! It's a sham and a sorry day for respect for the parliamentary system in

[ Page 4755 ]

our province today. I suggest to the government that if this kind of directive has gone out from the Minister of Finance to the Minister of Forests, then unquestionably it's gone to every other member of the executive council as well. If they want to do the honourable and decent thing, they will bring in an amended budget and an amended projection of spending estimates for the coming year. Otherwise, they are making a complete and utter mockery out of this whole legislative sitting. They know that the figures contained in this budget and the estimates are totally meaningless. They are going to — behind the scenes as the minister explained — use their own priorities in the secret of their offices, free from parliamentary debate and the spotlight of public attention, to decide how much the budget will be altered and where the cuts should be made. How can we debate, in honesty and integrity, a document that is admittedly and patently false, by the admission of the government that sponsors the document?

I would think the Speaker of the House might want to have a look at this situation. I think it's unique in the annals of this parliament, certainly. It's absolutely shocking and scandalous. If people of any conviction on that side, particularly those who used to call themselves Progressive Conservatives and Liberals, can continue to associate themselves with this kind of sham in terms of the people's business of the province of B.C., then I say heaven help them. They must have an all-consuming  lust for power, even at the expense of principle.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, it will come as no surprise to the members opposite to learn that I will be supporting this particular vote in the minister's estimates, because....

AN HON. MEMBER: That figures.

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, it figures, because the difference between this side of the House and that side of the House is the difference between fiscal responsibility, as brought forward by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), and fiscal irresponsibility which has been preached by the NDP for over 40 years and practised, to the dismay of the province, for over three years. It's the broad issue of socialism versus free enterprise; it's the broad issue of fiscal responsibility versus fiscal irresponsibility.

Only a week ago we had a totally ridiculous amendment to the budget debate brought forward by the NDP. If they stood for any fiscal responsibility at all, they would not have moaned and complained on the one hand about taxes which are necessary to bring in a balanced budget, and then complained on the other about attempts to bring under control the spending by government. What do they want us to do? On the one hand they want us to spend more money, and on the other to attempt to cut taxes. That's the kind of inconsistency that has characterized the debate of the NDP as long as I've been in this House and the kind of inconsistency and irresponsibility that characterized them when they were in office.

The people of British Columbia made no mistake when they defeated them in 1933; they made no mistake when they defeated them in 1937; they made no mistake when they defeated them in 1941; they made no mistake when they defeated them in 1945 and 1949 and....

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I must remind all hon. members that presently before us is an amendment to vote 103 that vote 103 be reduced by $58,000. That is, by the way, on the fire suppression program. I would ask all hon. members to relate their remarks more carefully to the amendment presently before us.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

HON. MR. McGEER: What does the amendment ask us to do? The amendment asks us to act irresponsibly on a budget matter. That's what this whole exercise is about: fiscal responsibility versus fiscal irresponsibility. I told you about all the defeats of the NDP. Mr. Chairman, it was for the same reason that the NDP brought in this amendment now. That's why they were defeated in 1960, '63, '66, '69, '75 and '79; and it's why they'll be defeated in 1984, '88, '92, '96 and 2000. Somebody may ask: "What happened in 1972?" Was it that they suddenly found fiscal responsibility? Did they follow their great leaders, Harold Winch, Arnold Webster, Robert Strachan, Tom Berger, Dave Barrett? No, no. no. Do you know what happened? They had the greatest socialist of all. George Scott Wallace — the invention of the NDP. That's why they got in power — not because of fiscal responsibility but because of the Pied Piper of Oak Bay. You think you've invented another one, but you haven't. You lost the only man who could play that member anyway —  your former leader Strachan.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, I am having some slight difficulty in relating all of your remarks to the amendment presently before us.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, what I'm trying to do is to get across to the other side of the House some small sense of fiscal responsibility, because that's the essential first step: to have this glimmering of a sense of fiscal responsibility. That's necessary before you can develop good policies. It's certainly necessary before you should aspire to government. That's the problem with our opposition; they cannot understand the budget. They cannot speak for fiscal responsibility in debate. And believe you me, Mr. Chairman, they cannot perform at all when they're in office. Look what they did at ICBC. Look what they did with the ferries. Look what they did with B.C. Rail.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, again. It is very difficult for the Chair to relate all the points that the members bring into the vote amendment that is presently before us. I must ask again. hon. member, that we relate our remarks a little more specifically to the amendment that is presently before LIS,

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, they're pleading for me to carry on. It's only because the member over there is beginning to understand, after all these years, what has been the fundamental problem with the NDP. It's been their inability to develop policies in debate and in government that represented the kind of fiscal responsibility that is necessary for wise government in this province. I reject the amendment as I reject all the fiscal measures of that fiscally irresponsible opposition.

[ Page 4756 ]

MR. LEA: I'd like to rise in support of this, mainly because of the statements made by the minister who just sat down — not today but when he was a Liberal over here. Can you imagine that member not supporting this amendment if he were still on this side as a Liberal?

MR. BARRETT: That's different.

MR. LEA: That's right; that's different.

What we have in front of us is a piece of fraud brought in by the Minister of Finance, admitted to by the Minister of Forests and admitted to by the government. We are dealing in this Legislature with a fraudulent piece of paper brought in by a Conservative and backed by a Liberal turncoat. It figures, all right. Once you've left your principles over here, it's easy to drop them every step of the way when you're over there — a Minister of Finance who brings in a fraudulent budget and takes three and a half hours to tell us about it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I must again stress that the phrase "fraudulent budget" is one that the Chair regretfully cannot accept as parliamentary terminology. It is not at all acceptable, and I must ask the member to withdraw the term.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the term. I just find it very hard to describe a piece of paper that comes into this House and says something that they know is wrong. How do you describe that? Are we not going to be allowed to use the English language in this House? It is fraudulent. There is no other word.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member got up, sought the floor, agreed to withdraw the word, and then at the conclusion of his address used the word again.

MR. LEA: No, I didn't. I used "fraud" the first time and "fraudulent" the second.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's just an unequivocal withdrawal, hon. member, that the Chair is requesting. I would so ask the member to make a withdrawal of any improper imputation of motive on that particular point. Would the member so do?

MR. LEA: Yes, I would — in respect to you, Mr. Chairman. But I have a request of the Chairman. I request that the Chairman report to the Speaker and ask Mr. Speaker to come back to this House with some other word in English that describes fraud, because that's the word that we have to use, unless we have a word that's an alternative to the word. How can you take the English language and say we can't use it in here? When we see dishonesty, we have to call it dishonest. When we see something that's fraudulent, we have to call it fraud. I realize we can't, and so I withdraw the word. But I request that you bring in some other word that describes fraud in some other way.

MS. BROWN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, when you are conferring with the Speaker about the use of the word "fraud," I wonder if you could also ask him why the word....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. The Chairman will not be reporting such; that is not the Chair's responsibility.

MS. BROWN: I thought the member for Prince Rupert asked that....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, all people have equal access to dictionaries, and it cannot be the responsibility of the Chair to do such.

MS. BROWN: The word "fraud" is used very often in this House as it relates to welfare. We are often being told by that government over there about welfare, fraud. Now why is it acceptable when it's used referring to the poor people of this province but not acceptable when it's used referring to that fraudulent government over there?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sure that on reflection the member will be able to understand that the Chair is able to differentiate the cases in which reference is made directly or indirectly to members in this House and the other, of which the member is also aware.

On the same point of order...

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Nelson-Creston is also on a point of order and will be recognized.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the Chair recognizes persons first on their feet. At the conclusion of the remarks of the member for Prince Rupert, he sat down and then the Chair raised a point of order. I was on my feet, and out of respect for the Chair I took my place while the Chair raised that point of order. But I was definitely on my feet for a good 15 seconds before I sat down, and now the Premier is being recognized, when he was not on his feet at that time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Again I would point out that one of the many precedents in this House has been that we go from one side to the other on occasion to give both sides ample opportunity to speak — often intermittently — and that is the responsibility and direction of the Chair. The Chair exercised that responsibility and recognized the Premier. However, I'll take the point of order from the member and recognize the Premier.

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to raise a point of order with you, Mr. Chairman, because it is approaching 6 o'clock and you'll be reporting to His Honour the Speaker shortly. Could I get some advice from the Chair on two points. One is, I used the words "fraud" and "fraudulent" when I was speaking earlier this afternoon, and that was accepted by the Chair, yet my colleague from Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) was ordered to withdraw. I look upon that as passing strange.

The point of order I want to raise, Mr. Chairman, is this. May says: "It is a breach of privilege to present or cause to be presented to either House or to committees of either House forged, falsified or fabricated documents with intent to deceive such House or committees...." I submit that is what has taken place this afternoon, an indication by the Minister of Forests that he and the Minister of Finance in his budget have presented what I consider to be and what May says is a falsified document, namely a budget and these estimates of expenditure which we have just been considering. I ask the

[ Page 4757 ]

advice of the Chair in this regard — because a question of privilege must be raised at the first opportunity — whether this is the first opportunity to raise it, or should I raise it when Mr. Speaker is in the chair? I seek your guidance on that matter. If I need to do it now to be within the ambit of the rules, then I will so do it now; if, at your suggestion, I need to raise it when Mr. Speaker is in the chair, I'll do that. But I would like some advice on how to proceed on that matter.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the question raised by the member for Skeena. If the member does feel that he has a point of privilege, then this is the appropriate time to raise that point of privilege. It may not be dealt with at this very instant, but certainly it will be considered as to whether or not it qualifies as a matter of privilege, If it is the member's intention therefore so to do, he should proceed forthwith.

MR. HOWARD: Then I do that, Mr. Chairman. The privilege of the House has been breached.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion must be a motion of privilege.

MR. HOWARD: I've already given notice to the table of a motion, Mr. Speaker. If you find a prima facie case of privilege, I would move that particular motion. Do you want me to read it? It says that this House expresses the view that the Minister of Forests must resign his....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. The notice of motion which is currently before us is dated Thursday next. Are you wishing to change this for right now?

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, that is your ruling. You just ruled that Thursday next is the time to do it. I'll do that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair will not be used in a political form in any way whatsoever. That is not what the Chair said. The motion that's presently before me for Thursday next.... Did the member wish to amend the motion at this particular point and resubmit it right now?

MR. HOWARD: The question of privilege then, as I raised earlier, is that there has been caused to be presented to this House a falsified document — namely the budget, but in this instance the estimates of the Ministry of Forests. I would move, founded upon that item, that this House express the view that the Minister of Forests must resign his portfolio as a result of his admission that he has been responsible for knowingly presenting to this House estimates of expenditure which are, by the minister's own admission, not true.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members can appreciate that this is a matter of grave concern and will therefore be held until we can have the matter appropriately examined, and a report brought back to the committee.

MR. BARRETT: To assist in the deliberations, may I quote from Sir Erskine May, sixteenth edition, chapter 8, page 114. There are three particular sections in this chapter of Sir Erskine May that deal with specific instances of knowingly having documents presented to the House that are not true. One of the instances, of course, deals with a deliberately altered document, which is not appropriate in this case. What we stress is the specific area in May, and the specific section of May, if you care to take it to your attention, is the section dealing with conspiracy to deceive either House or committees of either House. It is clear that when a minister or any official of the government knowingly presents a document to the House that is not an accurate reflection of government intention, and when there is admission by the minister — as there has been this afternoon — that he intends to alter the substance of that document in terms of expenditures, then this particular section of Sir Erksine May follows.

Also, Mr. Chairman, I have done some very quick checking with Beauchesne, and I refer the Chair to chapter 13 of Beauchesne, "Business of Supply and Ways and Means," and General presentation of estimates. In that particular instance, in following practice of parliamentary procedure. Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that there cannot be any deviation from an expressed statement of the government — that is, the Crown — through one of its ministers.

What also has to be clarified by the Chair — and I would appreciate your taking it as notice — is whether or not it is the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) who is knowingly involved, as described by May, or purely the minister who is presenting the estimate. I would like that clarified as well.

If there are any further references, Mr. Chairman, certainly we would be pleased to meet with the Speaker on this very important matter.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. hon. member.

Again. hon. members. I must caution that when explaining any particular reference or whatever, we must be careful that we do not engage in debate on the matter.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I draw your attention to the clock.

The House resumed: Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to expand and correct a statement I made earlier to the House today.

Leave granted.

PCBs IN B.C. HOSPITALS

HON. MR. NIELSEN: In response to an oral question from the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) with respect to any transformers with PCBs in hospitals in British Columbia, I advised the member in the House today that officials in hospital programs had advised me that there were none. Since that time we have had further information provided to us that in the 1950-52 period nine transformers with PCBs were installed at the Vancouver General Hospital. Three at the Heather Pavilion have been replaced — they're out of service and awaiting disposal. There are three others at the nurses' residence, and the cost of replacement has been established and a funding request is being prepared for sub-

[ Page 4758 ]

mission. As for the three at the Heather pavilion, cost estimates are being prepared for a funding request for replacement. The additional information with respect to these was provided to us through contact with the electrical consultant who did the design between 1950 and 1952.

Hon. Mr. Hyndman tabled the fifty-ninth annual report of the liquor distribution branch for the year ending March 31, 1980, and the fifty-ninth annual report of the liquor control and licensing branch for the year ending March 31, 1980.

Hon Mr. Hewitt tabled the annual report of the Milk Board for the year ending December 31, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:11 p.m.