[ Page 8205 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Expenses of Health minister. Mr. Howard –– 8205

Mr. Macdonald

Northeast coal. Mr. Leggatt –– 8206

Small-business bankruptcies. Mr. Leggatt –– 8206

Marina leases. Mr. Nicolson –– 8207

Formaldehyde gas safety level. Ms. Sanford –– 8207

Home Purchase Assistance Amendment Act, 19821 (Bill 46).

Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Chabot)

Third reading –– 8207

Municipal Amendment Act (No –– 2), 1982 (Bill 49).

Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

Third reading –– 8208

Housing And Employment Development Financing Act (Bill 39).

Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

Mr. Stupich –– 8208

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 8208

Division –– 8208

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

On vote 42: minister's office (continued) –– 8208

Mr. King

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Lea

Mr. Howard

On the amendment to vote 42 –– 8219

Division

On vote 43: forest and range resource management –– 8220

Mr. King

On the amendment to vote 43 –– 8221

Mr. Nicolson

Division

On vote 43: forest and range resource management –– 8221

Mr. Howard

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Human Resources estimates. (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy)

On vote 49: minister's office

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy

Ms. Brown

Urban Transit Authority Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 51). Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Introduction and first reading –– 8227

Tabling Documents

B.C. government aircraft services logs.

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 8227

Appendix –– 8228

TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to announce that in the gallery today we have pupils and teachers from the Chilcotin Indian School on the Anahim reserve six miles from Alexis Creek, which is 65 miles west of Williams Lake in the famous Chilcotin. The teachers who are here with the pupils are Joanne Brecknock, Jim Ritchie and Uella Ritchie. The parents who are here with the students, Dina Billyboy and Angelina and Sammy Stump, Francie Stump, Katie Stump, McClure Jim, Norah Sam and Norah Paul. For the members' information, many of these students have never been to the bright lights in the lower mainland before, and they're certainly enjoying their trip. I'd like the House to welcome them.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, in the galleries today there sits a former Page of this Legislature, my daughter Jane. She is accompanied by a friend, Bob Goold, and two other friends from South Africa, Tony Sin and Stephanie Low. I would ask the House to welcome them.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, it must be students' day today, because I too have the pleasure of advising you that in the precincts we have 15 grade 7 students from Whitevale Elementary School, which is in Lumby in the Okanagan North constituency. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Lawrence Hystad, as well as a chaperon, Mrs. Kienlein. I'd ask the members of the House to make them welcome in their first visit to the Legislature and, for many, their first visit to our capital city.

MS. SANFORD: I'd like to introduce to the Legislature today Bert Linder, a constituent from Comox who was formerly the supervisor of recreation for the town of Comox. He recently retired and is now a full-time painter, boater and musician. I'd like the House to make him welcome.

MR. BRUMMET: I would like to make two introductions, if I may. First, I'd like to introduce a group from Fort St. John who have come down to give a firsthand account of conditions in that area. I'd like the House to welcome Messrs. Short Tompkins, Ted Pickell, Al Jones, Don Clark and Sterling Kerr. Secondly, we have with us today a group of grade 6 and 7 students from the Upper Halfway School in my constituency, which is approximately 100 miles north and west of Fort St. John. They are here with their teacher, Mrs. Nora Zeman. I'd like the House to welcome both these groups.

MR. GABELMANN: I'd like the House to welcome a director of the RNABC who is in the gallery today. Peggy Mika is also the wife of our candidate in Saanich and the Islands.

MRS. WALLACE: Another school visiting the precincts today is Alexandria from Duncan. I would like the House to welcome the 20 very lively grade 5 students who are visiting, We only regret that they couldn't get into the gallery this afternoon.

Oral Questions

EXPENSES OF HEALTH MINISTER

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Health. On October 15, 1979, the minister hosted a dinner for 16 people in Prince George. The bill was submitted by the Inn of the North in the amount of $178.50. Included therein was S72.90 for liquor. Ministry officials rejected the bill on the grounds that "we cannot reimburse for alcohol; only food." Can the minister explain why a new invoice was later prepared which removed the liquor item and inflated the food cost so as to cover the total bill?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I would have to check back to October 15, 1979, Mr. Speaker, to determine the circumstances of that dinner or lunch or whatever it was.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I have a further question for the minister. Can the minister explain why the altered or doctored invoice was passed through his office and was forwarded by his executive assistant, Mr. Bob Orrie, to the deputy minister, Mr. Bazowski. for payment?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that as notice as well. I'd have to look into the details of that dinner on October 15, 1979. It would be a different ministry, and I'd have to try to get that information.

MR. HOWARD: The minister was the minister at that particular time. Can the minister advise whether there are any other incidences or circumstances in which he or his staff coerced B.C. suppliers into collaboration to obtain payment for goods and services under fraudulent or false pretences.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members. any charges which would impute an improper motive to a member are not in order, but the question itself could be allowed.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'll re-examine that question, because it seems to me that the member is making a statement rather than seeking information.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Premier. The Premier stated a short while ago that in his opinion there was no parallel between the abrupt police investigation of the the hon. member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) and the situation of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) with respect to the Clark Davey dinner.

In the matter raised here today we have a memo of October 20, 1979, from accounts in the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs saying that they could not reimburse for alcohol but only food. Then the new invoice comes in with the cost of the food miraculously raised to look after the alcohol. I ask the Premier what the difference is between getting $72.90 from the government coffers, which would nototherwise have been paid to cover the cost of the liquor, and the abrupt police investigation that took place in the case of the hon. member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

[ Page 8206 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: I am unable to give the member legal advice. The question he asked is seeking a legal opinion. I do say that there is no parallel with the case of the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis).

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, will the Premier come back to the House and give us a report as to whether there is a difference between these two cases, in his opinion? He's the one who's talking about what is parallel and what is not. I'm asking him to come back and report the difference, as he was the initiator in the case of the member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

NORTHEAST COAL

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. It was expected that on Monday of this week Denison Mines would announce that their financing is in place in the northeast coal development. This is the major private player in this development. In spite of that, no announcement was made; in fact, we continue to expend tax funds on the construction of that railroad. Would the minister advise, and can he assure the House, that no guarantees are provided by this government to private companies in the northeast coal development, and can he also advise that it is the policy of this government that no such guarantees will be provided?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the member's question, I have stated, and I'll state again, that this government will not guarantee the private sector in the development of northeast coal. No guarantees exist at the present time, and none is anticipated. I'd further like to advise the member, as I have said before, that no project has ever had so much legal documentation and so many guarantees by the private sector to the government, not only in British Columbia but indeed in Canada and in North America, as does the development of northeast coal.

SMALL BUSINESS BANKRUPTCIES

MR. LEGGATT: This question is to the same minister on a different subject. Municipal tax notices are finally out, and bankruptcies in British Columbia increased a staggering 140.8 percent in April alone. In my own community of Port Coquitlam, commercial taxes, land taxes, are up 47 percent: small businesses all over this province are crying that this is the straw that's breaking the camel's back. Would the minister advise the House whether he has made representations to the minister responsible, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), to restore revenue-sharing grants which have been cut? That's the key reason for these disastrous commercial tax increases and the increasing bankruptcy of small businesses in this province.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is in order.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in an endeavour to answer the member's question, I would like to inform him that this government is continually analyzing the situation and looking at the economy. Over here we work together as a team. It isn't like it was when the socialists were in power, when every minister went off in every direction, the Minister of Finance had no control, and the former Minister of Economic Development had the thumb put on him by the then Minister of Lands, Forests and.... Bob Williams, I think his name was. We work together as a team over here, and we're analyzing the situation.

There are some communities in this province that have failed to realize we are in a period of restraint. They haven't taken the leadership that has been provided by this government over here. Taxes have indeed gone up. But in the long run there's a plan which will be good for the homeowner in this province, which will relieve him of school taxes, and which everybody in the province has been asking us to do.

We are certainly looking at the situation, and we're working together on it. We talk together as a cabinet — always have and will continue to do so. We're going through some very difficult times, and no one realizes better than I do that the small businessman has problems. But I also want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that during the last few years there have been literally tens of thousands of new businesses established here, and some of them have established during good times. We recognize that some of them are not going to survive in tough times, but we are certainly looking at the situation. Thank goodness the socialists over there aren't in power, because they'd be bringing in more punitive taxation and making it tough. They wouldn't have built up the climate for investment that we have built up in this province to encourage the small businessman to come here.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Minister. The scope of the question need not be exceeded in the answer.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that long-standing, competitive, efficient businesses in this province are now going bankrupt, like Bow Mac, the largest car dealership, Swiftair of Abbotsford, Neto Industries Canada Ltd., Harkley and Haywood, the best-known sporting goods firm in the province....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEGGATT: My question is this. Surely the minister now recognizes that an emergency exists in the small- and medium-sized business sector in this province. Given the fact that there is now an emergency in that industry, why hasn't the minister recommended to his colleagues and to Treasury Board that emergency relief be provided right now to municipalities to stop these bankruptcies in the province'?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to that member's question.... Every time he stands on his feet in this Legislature and starts talking about economic policies, I have to ask myself.... When that member was in Ottawa, where the government is really creating economic chaos in this province, why did the NDP in Ottawa get together to defeat the Conservative government that might have brought in policies that would have saved a lot of the small businessmen and preserved the economic climate?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The NDP were truly in bed with the Liberals in Ottawa; they supported them during some of the most devastating policies ever brought in in this country.

[ Page 8207 ]

That member over there stands in this Legislature and piously....

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Coquitlam-Moody has a question.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. LEGGATT: My question is to the same minister. I hope the minister realizes that it was the Socreds who abstained and caused the Liberals....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This is not a debate: this is question period. The question was not in order. In that there was no question, I cannot accept an answer to a non-question.

MARINA LEASES

MR. NICOLSON: My question is to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. During the current recession the government has increased foreshore leases of freshwater marinas by from 300 percent to 1,000 percent. In addition, these marinas have been told to pay the next five years' rent in advance or remove their floats from the water. Many marinas have been forced to take this action; for instance, Mike's Marina on Christina Lake has actually pushed its floats onto the beach and gone out of business as a result of this policy. Has the minister decided to place a moratorium on these rate increases and to review the disastrous impact of this war on small business?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'll take the question as notice and report to the member.

MR. NICOLSON: While he's taking the question as notice, would the minister inquire of his department how many marinas have been given an increase and how many of those have actually agreed to the new lease conditions?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Is that a new question or a continuation of the first question?

MR. SPEAKER: No, hon. minister, the question was whether, while you are taking the former question as notice, you would consider a further question.

FORMALDEHYDE GAS SAFETY LEVEL

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health. The federal government has set 0.1 parts per million as the acceptable level for formaldehyde gas in public places. That level is applied in portable classrooms in British Columbia. Dr. Benson of the Upper Island Health Unit in Courtenay has closed portable classrooms in district 71 with levels well below the 0.1 figure because of the numerous adverse health effects on children. I'm wondering if the minister has decided to reduce the gas safety level to 0.03 parts per million, as has been recommended by the ministry officials.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker. the member said that if we're going to reduce it to 0.03, as recommended by ministry officials....

MR. GABELMANN: That's not what she said.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: That's not what you said? I'm sorry.

MR. SPEAKER: The question will be clarified by the member for Comox.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, the question that I was asking the minister relates to whether or not the minister is prepared to reduce the 0.1 parts per million, which is now in effect for portable classrooms in this province, to 0.03 parts per million, as has been recommended as the desirable level by officials within the Ministry of Health.

MR. SPEAKER: No answer is forthcoming.

Mr. Clerk.

MS. SANFORD: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, the minister was on his feet just as you called for the orders of the day. I also wanted to raise as a point of order, Mr. Speaker, that earlier in question period a significant amount of time went by when you were seeking advice from one of the Clerks. At that time I think the clock was still ticking and time was passing. I'm wondering, in view of that, if you would accept the minister's answer at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: If you look at the clock, you'll also notice that we've gone two minutes over time.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 46, Mr. Speaker.

HOME PURCHASE ASSISTANCE
AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

The House in committee on Bill 46: Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed: Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 46, Home Purchase Assistance Amendment Act, 1982, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 49. Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 8208 ]

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2), 1982

The House in committee on Bill 49; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 49, Municipal Amendment Act (No. 2), 1982, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 39.

HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT
DEVELOPMENT FINANCING ACT
(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The debate on Bill 39 was adjourned by the hon. Minister of Finance, who was speaking on the amendment. The amendment has since been ruled out of order, and so we are back on second reading.

MR. STUPICH: Very briefly, there is nothing in this bill to tell us what the government's plans are with respect to spending the money that it intends to raise. I would invite the minister to go into that aspect of the legislation when he winds up in second reading.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think that one of the problems which occurred in the debate which followed my remarks in opening second reading was the fact that there was a tendency to focus on this as an initiative in isolation. I appreciate that with one bill before us, still there is very little that can be done. However, I attempted to make it very clear that this was one of a series of thrusts being taken by the government, and if one looks at this in isolation then it is relatively narrow. It is simply the establishment of an authority to issue, under certain terms and conditions, housing and employment development bonds. But it is not sufficient, if one is discussing the total thrust of government in employment activities, to rely on this bill alone. That led to other matters, and I will not reflect on those.

Very definitely this was identified in the budget as one part of a broadly based program to encourage development within the province of British Columbia. Much of this is permissive, but it should not be viewed in isolation. It must be viewed in the total context. I move second reading of Bill 39.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

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

Bill 39, Housing and Employment Development Financing Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS
(continued)

On vote 42: minister's office, $170,140.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister a number of questions regarding the change from PSYUs, as they used to be under the old public sustained yield units. As indicated by the name, they provided for a unit of forestry to be managed on a sustained-yield basis. In other words, the harvest was conducted in such a way that the timber would not be exhausted; it would be farmed, in effect, and managed on a sustained-yield basis. In changing to the timber supply areas under the new act, I wonder if it was contemplated by the minister that the sustained-yield concept would still be maintained, even though we changed over to the different unit of management. Can the minister tell me that, please?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it is and has been the practice of successive governments in British Columbia to practise sustained-yield forestry. The name has no implication whatsoever to the philosophy of management. As a matter of fact, under the timber supply area concept, which provides for larger management areas, it is much more realistic to be able to practise sustained yield because generally you have a wider distribution of age classes of timber and species of timber, so sustained-yield management is much more readily accomplished under the timber supply area concept.

MR. KING: Well. Mr. Chairman, perhaps the minister could explain to me why in the Okanagan timber supply area — Okanagan-Shuswap, as it has been changed to — there is, indeed, a reduction in the annual allowable cut, but at the same time two new timber licences are being offered to companies in the South Okanagan, namely Yellow Lake and Gorman Bros. One is for 45,000 cubic metres of wood a year and the other for 55,000 cubic metres per year. Indeed, the forestry's plan provides for not a sustained yield but in fact liquidation of 64 percent of the mature timber supply in that area. That doesn't sound to me like it's a sustained-yield basis of management; that sounds to me, Mr. Chairman, like we have a shortage in timber supply in that area as reflected by the new apportionment figures in the annual allowable cut. Now we're seeing two new forest licences issued which will have the effect of reducing the mature timber stand up to 64 percent. As I understand it, that does not include the decadent hemlock and cedar. Is this not going to have the effect of depleting the forest resource in that area much more rapidly than would have been the case? Is it not going to have the effect of abandoning altogether the concept of sustained yield?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I think the member is somewhat confused as to what is meant by sustained yield. Sustained yield has never meant even-flow

[ Page 8209 ]

sustained yield. It was never intended to mean that at all. Sustained yield means that you sustain the optimum yield from the forest, and this can vary from year to year, decade to decade, depending upon the nature of the forest. In the Okanagan timber supply area during the allocation plan development, we did reduce the total allowable cut that could be committed, but even with that reduction we had a larger cut than was actually committed in the forest. There was uncommitted wood volume available that had not yet been allocated, and these are the licences that are being put up for tender now. In the rollover, as we make provision for the small business program, we have found it necessary, in order to make a provision for approximately 10 percent wood in the small business program, after making provision for these new licences of uncommitted timber, to reduce some licensees by up to about 8 percent, I believe, in the Okanagan. I could find the exact numbers for the member, and that is the wood that is going into the small business program. That is the option we had in rolling over licences. The wood that is being put up for tender to what we call "have-not companies" — that is, companies with less than 60 percent of the wood need in-house — is wood that was not previously committed. After that commitment we make provision for the small business program. Our sustained yield is based upon a 20-year forecast. That yield can be sustained if we carry on with our basic forest management program as we are doing right now. It can be increased if we apply more intensive management, as is our intention in the future. We can sustain that yield with the basic forest management plans that we have in place.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I understand the concept of sustained yield, and I appreciate what the minister has said: that if adequate investment is returned into intensive management, then indeed the sustained-yield concept is adhered to. I also appreciate that in some cases it is prudent to harvest overmature forest land and return it to the growth of a thrifty new forest. The fact has already been well established in this Legislature, and acknowledged by the minister himself, that the Southern Okanagan Forestry Association has shown where insufficient reinvestment is occurring in that particular part of the province to provide for the new forest the minister is talking about. We are not plowing back in to the Okanagan timber supply adequate reinvestment to justify and support the level of harvest that is taking place now, much less to increase it. That's well established; the ministry has acknowledged it. So it's not good enough for the minister to put forward the proposition that we are accelerating the rate of harvest. But it can be sustained if we practise intelligent silvicultural treatment. The fact of the matter is that that is not happening. The fact of the matter is that there is a timber shortage in the area, and the minister is now manipulating, Mr. Chairman, and sharing the scarcity between the companies up there, rather than biting the bullet and confronting the shortage as a problem to be addressed. He's sharing the scarcity in that area by manipulating boundaries and by setting up what I consider to be a highly questionable new policy, the policy of establishing two new forest licences for what he refers to as have-not companies.

Mr. Chairman, over the years in this Legislature we have had very serious charges levelled against ministers of forests for exercising too much ministerial discretion in the issuance of forest licences, tenure arrangements, and so on. Indeed, at one point there was a charge made in this Legislature that money talked in the issuance of forest management licences. I'm not suggesting such a thing now at all — make no mistake about that — but I do think it's significant that the minister has established two new licences with special circumstances, to the point where only two companies in the Okanagan can qualify — Gorman Bros. and Yellow Lake in the Premier's riding. In order to do that, he is pilfering some of the resource from the Shuswap area, where the operators are already short of timber, to provide new forest licences for which only Yellow Lake and Gorman can qualify. Mr. Chairman, I want to submit that under these circumstances the proposition of a competitive bid is a ruse and a farce. These two licences were specially designed for those two companies. His own apportionment plan shows that the minister exercised ministerial discretion in this manner. It shows that there are already shortages and that there were special circumstances set up for these two. In his apportionment bulletin it states in the Okanagan TSA that applications for the two new forest licences will be restricted to established licensees who have a timber processing facility, including barker and chipper, in the TSA and have a Crown timber supply of no more than 60 percent of the Forest Service estimate of their mill capacity at 440 shifts per year.

Mr. Minister — through you. Mr. Chairman — you know perfectly well that only two companies are going to have the opportunity to bid here: only two companies meet the criteria set out politically by you. I don't think I'm being unduly cynical or suspicious when I look at the location of those two operations in the Premier's riding and when I look at the starvation of those firms who have equally major problems with a shortage of timber in the Salmon Arm area or in the Adams Lake area, the boundaries of which now have been manipulated in such a fashion that the minister was able to come up with a major new supply — two new big licences, all for Yellow Lake and Gorman.

It's pretty suspicious, and I don't think for one moment that any politician, regardless of party or anything else, should have the kind of authority in his hip pocket to give out these kinds of new licences, established with a political criterion, that lend themselves to patronage of the worst possible kind. It's significant that this is not he only area it's happening in — two areas and four new forest licences in a province with a major timber shortage. All kinds of companies in the Merritt Area and in the Okanagan are crying out because of a shortage of timber and wondering whether or not they are going to be able to reinvest in and update their technology in their existing plants because they have no secure supply of timber.

Who gets the new timber amid all this scarcity? Two firms in the Premier's riding, and another two in the minister's home town — Ardew and.... What's the other one? There are two at Merritt anyway. It may or may not be significant that one of those firms at Merritt, the minister's home town, has a close connection with the minister's political campaign. It may or may not be significant, but I'm going to tell you. Mr. Chairman, that any time a politician exercises this kind of control — this kind of political dictation — on the terms and the criteria for the issuance of major forest licences, he sets himself up for suspicion of patronage of the worst kind.

Why is it that the terms of these competitions were so restrictive as to exclude anyone but Yellow Lake and Gorman in the Premier's riding, and anyone but Ardew and Aspen in the minister's riding? How is it that amid all the scarcity of timber supply in both those areas the minister was able to

[ Page 8210 ]

issue these new licences? Sure they have an existing processing plant; I appreciate that. But many of the others do too. What of Holding Lumber at Adams Lake? Their whole operation was shifted right over one mountain range to intrude on an area that Federated Co-ops previously logged in. They have less than a 20-year timber supply. Where do they go from that point on, Mr. Minister'?

In the Merritt area — the minister knows it better than I do; it's his constituency — there are other firms operating there that have far less than their secured supply of timber. It has not restricted them from investing in processing plants. I'm not knocking either Aspen or Ardew. They're probably doing a good job and showing great innovation. But there are many small specialty mills in the province that are showing great innovation, developing their own markets and developing new technology, and they have no timber supply whatsoever. What was so special in these cases, in the Premier's and the minister's ridings, that these special licences were set up for these four companies? I'd like to hear the minister's response.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the critic of the opposition is now getting into innuendo and veiled suggestions that there has been some political favouritism expressed. In quite a number of timber-supply areas in the province we have what we call have-nots — people who have less than 60 percent of their timber needs — and licensed people who have really demonstrated their ability to, in a very efficient manner, use timber supplies that could be made available to them. I correct the member: Yellow Lake Sawmills is not in the Premier's riding; it happens to be in the Boundary-Similkameen riding. I also advise the member that in the Lillooet, Merritt, Okanagan, Golden, Kootenay Lake, Bulkley, Kispiox, Lakes, Peace, Prince George and Boundary timber-supply areas there are just such licences being put up. There are quite a number of them around the province. Because the people involved in these concerns who have a need for wood happen to be very aggressive, hard-working, innovative people who add to the economic activity in this province, produce goods and employ people, I would be very surprised indeed if any of them were socialists. I suggest that most of them are probably the kind of people who would support a free-enterprise party in this province. Therefore I guess that no matter who gets the timber because they use it well in this province, I could be accused of giving preferential treatment to people who support the free-enterprise system. If that is the charge, Mr. Chairman, I plead guilty.

Regarding the timber supply area of the Okanagan, the old PSYUs which were incorporated into this timber supply — and parts of them, because they did not necessarily follow the old boundaries of the public sustained yield units....

They were originally allowed an annual cut of 2,618,000 cubic metres in the area that is now called the Okanagan TSA. That TSA now has an allowable cut of 2.7 million, so there was actually a 3 percent increase in the allowable cut, not a decrease.

The member is somewhat confused as to the difference between commitments of the government under sustained-yield forest management and the capacity of the industry. Of course, there is more capacity than there is allowable cut to fill that capacity, because over the years the industry has expanded and expanded, and there's no way, if we wish to practise sustained-yield forestry in British Columbia, that we can possibly provide for those needs. But there are those smaller operators, such as Yellow Lake, Gorman, Ardew, Aspen and many others in other timber-supply areas in the province, that are very short of wood, and we are making these sales available to them. In all cases there is competition. There are more people needing the wood than there are licences available for them.

If the member wishes to start talking about preferential treatment and political means of getting wood into specific hands, I would remind him again of the former Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources and his pet company — one which he purchased from the private sector — Plateau Mills, for which he said: "I will get wood to this plant because we as a government now own it." In a handwritten memo sent to the people at that mill he said: "I don't have any legislative authority to do it now, but I will provide myself with that authority." If that is not abuse of political and ministerial authority, I don't know what is.

I recognize the need of some of these plants that have demonstrated their ability to make efficient use of the raw material. When there is an uncommitted amount of wood available, we are doing what we can to make sure that plants that need it to sustain their level of employment will get it. There is no political preference even considered. As I said before, I would be very surprised if any of these innovative entrepreneurs are socialists.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could have leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman and members of the Legislative Assembly, with us today from Giscome, a great little community just east of Prince George, is Ms. Sherry Lynne Standen, a teacher, with 16 students and five adult chaperons from Giscome elementary school.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I listened very closely to the minister's response in terms of his political analysis as to no one in the industry being socialist. Indeed, if these people are so innovative, if they are so inventive and able, I think they would have great difficulty identifying with the minister. But that's a point of view. In any event, if he wishes to test their political persuasions, I wish he would persuade the leader of his party to call an election in this province and let's find out what the people want. I would welcome that, and I believe the people in the industry who are tired of inaction by this government and this minister would welcome it as well.

In terms of the minister's trying to excuse himself by making allegations against a minister who occupied a seat in this house back in 1975, I have no intention of allowing him to conduct that dodge. We are debating the minister's estimates now, debating his responsibilities, and the sins of Bob Sommers or Ray Williston or Bob Williams are of no consequence here. Certainly I don't put Bob Williams in the same category as the former two. However, we are debating the minister's estimates, and if the minister wants to be free from the taint of any political considerations.... He charges innuendo. Sure, there's going to be some cynicism if the minister takes unto himself as a politician the right to dispense licences having a value of millions of dollars. It was the minister, in this case, who decided what the criteria would be for the competition. It was the minister, in effect, who decided, by very tight control, which companies would

[ Page 8211 ]

qualify. Sure, the ministry came forward with a number of options, but the minister set the tight controls which guaranteed that just two companies would qualify, both in the south Okanagan and the Merritt area. If he wants to be free from political suspicion, he should allow the same competitive criteria to operate for all areas of the industry.

I can advise the minister that it's not only the opposition that finds this kind of policy initiative highly questionable; there are reverberations throughout the industry over these particular licences. I don't know how the minister can suggest that Yellow Lake or Gorman are any more innovative or practise any higher degree of utilization than Federated Co-ops, for instance, at Canoe. They not only have a sawmill at that location; they also have one in Revelstoke. They have a plywood plant, a chipper, and they are a long-established operation. How is it that they did not receive similar consideration to Gorman and Yellow Lake? Sure, they have some supply, but it's a long way short of their needs at the same time. The same with Holding Lumber Company in the Adams Lake area, another long-established operation. I don't think they're the most modern operation in the world, but they're certainly long established. If they had the kind of security that the minister seems to dispense politically, perhaps they could invest in some upgrading of plant and technology too.

It's a poor way to conduct business, and if the minister wishes to remain free from charges of political patronage, tainting decisions through his ministry, then he should stand back from the issuance of these licences and administer them in the normal fashion by which his staff and the technical people deal with normal renewal of tenures, the awarding of new licences and tenure arrangements through competitive bidding. The procedure in this case is vastly different, and the minister knows it; I don't think that's good enough.

I'm going to give the minister an opportunity to respond. I do have a number of other questions to raise before I complete my remarks on his estimates.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I just have a very brief response, Mr. Chairman. There are companies that do not have sufficient wood to sustain their operations, even at a modest level. As I have said, we have uncommitted allowable cut that we are making available on a restricted basis. The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke surprises me somewhat, because he's suggesting that this should be wide-open competition. Under normal circumstances it would be, but in the Okanagan and the Boundary-Similkameen areas, for example, who would be competing for this limited available supply of wood? You would have such multinational companies as Crown Zellerbach and Weyerhaeuser and other large companies such as Canadian Forest Products and Federated Co-operatives Co-op, which is a company that probably has in excess of $1 billion cash flow annually.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

So I'm saying that there are these small companies that can't really compete with the might of these larger companies, and the larger companies, for example, in the case of Weyerhaeuser, have more timber allocation than they have capacity to use right now, because a few years ago they lost a sawmill to a fire and they have not rebuilt. So yes, I am providing a certain amount of bidding protection for these small Canadian-owned private enterprises, and I will make no apologies for doing that. They have earned a position. When there is an amount of wood that is not committed, I'll make every effort to see that it gets into those hands so that they can maintain the employment and the jobs for the people who work for them.

I don't think that Weyerhaeuser, Crown Zellerbach, Canadian Forest Products, Federated Co-operatives or any of these very large companies are nearly in that position: they have much more available wood relative to their manufacturing capacity than these smaller, aggressive companies. Where I can do it, we are doing it without fear or favour, and we are not doing it with any type of political favouritism in mind. As I said, though, I'd be very surprised if any of these people are socialists.

MR. KING: Well. Mr. Chairman. I would prefer it if the minister would administer his responsibilities as Minister of Forests without any speculation about what their politics are. That just adds further concern to the proposition I'm making. By his intervention, his ministerial discretion and his speculation as to what their politics might be, it seems to validate the case I have made that politics is entering into the dispensation of forest tenure in the province of British Columbia, It should have no place there — none whatsoever. The minister has just confirmed everything I've said, Mr. Chairman. He's speculating on how they're going to vote. I don't care how they vote. I know how the people of British Columbia are going to vote next time, and I hope that your alleged leader, Mr. Chairman, will have the temerity to test that out very shortly. I think it's a shame that we have a minister of the Crown dealing on the basis of how companies are going to vote in terms of how they're treated by his ministry. That's scandalous! He can't hide behind the altruistic proposition that he's protecting the small entrepreneurs from those major corporate giants of foreign extraction. That doesn't quite work, particularly with respect to the merit licences.

It's not just the two firms receiving the new licence that are going to benefit; I think that Weyerhaeuser is particularly going to benefit from the manipulation of the boundaries in the Adams Lake area; I think they're going to benefit handsomely. If the minister wants to assist those indigenous small British Columbia firms that need assistance, he has a small business program to do it. In that respect he has failed to allocate adequate wood supplies to the small business program in most areas of the province. Certainly I have yet to see one case where the minister has taken any timber supply away from the major international conglomerates to dedicate to the small business program. Can he tell us of one instance where he has turned back on Crown Zellerbach, MacMillan Bloedel, Rayonier or any of the others? Name one example, Mr. Minister. where you have trimmed back on the timber supply to the corporate giants in this province and dedicated that wood supply to the small business program in B.C. Don't try to hide behind that veil: that's a sham too, and you know it.

Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of other questions for the minister. I want to ask him briefly about the program for the tussock moth control at Chase and Pritchard. Why did he and his ministry leave the responsibility to the regional district board to combat that very serious infestation of tussock moths, which is destroying literally hundreds of acres of forest land in that area, both private and Crown land? It seems more appropriate to me that the Ministry of Forests and their

[ Page 8212 ]

pest control branch should have assumed the direct responsibility with some participation from private agencies in terms of funding, if necessary. Why give that responsibility over to the regional district for the ground-spraying program to combat tussock moth? It seems to me that this is going to be very costly and somewhat questionable in its effectiveness in combating the pest.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The member asked me to give examples of where major multinational companies have lost allowable cut as a result of the allocation. I will give him a few examples. I have my files here on the allocation plan. Just for example, Crestbrook Forest Industries — a multinational company — lost 32,648 cubic metres of allowable cut in the Cranbrook timber supply area. Crows Nest Forest Products — another multinational company — lost 40,969 cubic metres of allowable cut. Evans Products, in Golden timber supply area, lost 50,571 cubic metres of allowable cut. Crows Nest, again, in the Invermere timber supply area, lost 36,000. The list goes on and on. There were no reductions on the coast, because on the coast we could provide a substantial small business program, in the order of about 14 to 15 percent, without any reductions to anyone.

On the question of the tussock moth, the member knows that most of the lands upon which we have this problem are privately owned lands. Although we accept some responsibility for the protection of the forest, we do not have the jurisdiction to enter upon private lands to do pesticide control. We have worked with both the Thompson-Nicola and Boundary-Similkameen Regional Districts because we have a similar problem in the Hedley-Princeton area. We have provided a substantial amount of the funding, but the work has been carried out and directed by the regional districts. We are also constrained by the types of applications that can be done by the ministry on Crown lands. It is therefore much more convenient and could be done in a much more direct way by working with the regional districts. I would advise that from reports I have from the first spraying, which was done in the Hedley-Princeton areas, the kill is very good. I understand the work in the Pritchart area is currently underway, and we are getting similar reports from there. I would also say, though, that there are one or two property-owners who do not wish insecticides to be used on their properties. Of course we are recognizing their wishes, and the regional district is not carrying out protection programs there. We are doing the work through the regional district on those periphery areas of Crown land adjacent to these private lands.

MR. KING: I think the minister's response on taking some timber supply away from these multinationals is humorous. I am surprised the minister didn't smile when he said that. The company he listed first, Crestbrook, that major multinational that he seems to refer to.... I guess I can understand them having a bit taken away. They've just swallowed up B.C. Timber. They've just merged with Kootenay Forest Products — bought it out and obtained a major new forest supply.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I will ask the hon member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) to come to order, please

MR. KING: There is a further increase in corporate concentration by that purchase by Crestbrook of Kootenay Forest Products. I think it is humorous that the minister would say: "We took some away from them." There is a further concentration up there. I am not suggesting that in that case it is a bad thing. I don't know. But it is a pretty poor example. He has been unable to show, in any of the areas of the province where the major multinationals operate, that there has been any trimming of their supply despite reports coining into the ministry in many cases from professional consultants that some of them have a large oversupply of timber and indeed have it in the bank while other operators are short of supply. I refer to the Thompson report which was commissioned in 1980, if I remember correctly.

As for Crows Nest, the minister knows pretty well that their future has been subject to a great deal of negotiation and speculation for the last two years as well. I don't think they are very appropriate examples.

However, in the tussock moth thing the minister is quite right: it started on private land. But it is far beyond private land now. I would suggest that there is as much Crown land infected now as private land. It was restricted to private land when I first raised the question with the minister last year, but there was a difficulty in getting a program together. I understand some of the reasons for that, but it has spread far beyond the private land. It's on the native Indian reserve land, and it has certainly entered a very large area of Crown forest land as well. I'm just concerned that an adequate and very strong program to combat it proceed, — because this is the crucial year. If the forest is denuded again this year.... It's my understanding there will be a major kill of the timber in that area. So it's urgent that a very aggressive, effective program of control be undertaken this year.

I have one or two other questions for the minister that I want to explore with him again for confirmation. When I questioned him this morning about the forecast for revenue from the forest industry, he indicated his belief that if there were a major turnaround now in the demand for our forest products, we could in fact realize the budgetary forecast of revenue from the industry. Did I understand the minister correctly when he made that statement this morning?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Yes, there is still time this fiscal year, if there were beginnings of a turnaround in the near future, to not only see the estimate reached but see it exceeded. I think everyone will agree that the distribution system — the so-called pipeline — is relatively empty, and a turnaround in housing starts in the United States would feed back into British Columbia relatively shortly.

The member was not satisfied with the several examples I gave him of reduction of major licensees. I would be pleased to give him some more. In the Mackenzie timber supply area of British Columbia Forest Products.... Finlay Forest Industries, for example, lost 83,000 cubic metres of allowance cut; Balco Industries in the Kamloops timber supply area lost 31,000 cubic metres; Weyerhaeuser Canada in the Kamloops timber supply area lost 22,000 cubic metres; Crown Zellerbach in Kamloops, where they are a minor licensee, lost 1,750 cubic metres; Weyerhaeuser Canada in the Merritt timber supply area lost 2,000 cubic metres; Crown Zellerbach Canada in the Merritt timber supply area lost 62,000 cubic metres; Balco Industries in the Merritt timber supply area lost 31,000 cubic metres; Weyerhaeuser Canada in Okanagan lost 22,000 cubic metres; and Crown

[ Page 8213 ]

Zellerbach in Okanagan timber supply area lost 31,000 cubic metres. So there were reductions based not upon the fact that any company was multinational or otherwise but because they were included in a percentagewise reduction where reductions were required.

The tussock moth problem does not include a great deal of Crown land at this time. We hope that our containment program this year will catch it, prevent it from spreading and, in fact, eliminate the problem. There is some Crown land infected, as is some Indian reserve land. I believe I sent the member a letter a week or so ago advising how we were to deal with the Indian land problem. I do think that we can get I t under control and our forestry people in protection feel that we can contain it.

MR. KEMPF: I wasn't going to get up in this minister's debate, but I would like to say on behalf of my constituents that I am very happy with the new apportionment program. It has certainly ironed out many of the problems that my constituents were facing — constituents in the small operator program. Although it has a few kinks, I am quite confident that, soon, this new small operator program will benefit greatly those small mill and logging operators in my constituency. I say here today that I am happy with the course that is being followed by the minister and the ministry in regard to this small business program.

The main reason I want to get up this afternoon is to educate the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, the Forests critic on the opposition benches in this House. That member should be ashamed to be the critic, because not only did he not know anything about the rules of the House when moving an amendment to Bill 39 on Friday last.... I know I can't talk about Bill 39 and the ridiculous amendment of the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, order, please. I'll also advise you about personal allusions. Personal allusions cannot be made. We are on the estimates of the Minister of Forests.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I just want to educate that member, that forestry critic in this House, of some of the ways of the forest industry in this province. That member doesn't know anything about the forest industry, and I've listened for several days. I'll tell you why he doesn't, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we relate the remarks to the Ministry of Forests.

MR. KEMPF: Incidentally. Mr. Chairman, I personally have spent in excess of 15 years of my life in the forest industry of this province, so I have a little bit of experience in that, our first industry.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke said this morning, I listened to him very intently, and his words were echoed by the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) — that it was too late for worthwhile planting or worthwhile silviculture in this province, that it could not take place at this time. Mr. Chairman, the member clearly does not know that up until a very few days ago one could not plant trees of any sort in the northern two-thirds of this province, because there was still snow on the ground. There was snow on the area to be reforested. Was that member suggesting that we should plant the new trees in the snow, or was he suggesting that we should plant them with their roots in the frozen ground? Is that what the forestry critic from the opposition benches was suggesting to this House" I must ask that question again. Was that forestry critic suggesting to this House and to the Minister of Forests that we should have been planting those seedlings — those tender little seedlings — in snow or in frozen ground? Were we to chip holes in the ground and place those tender roots in those holes and surround them with frozen earth?

Mr. Chairman, clearly that member doesn't know anything about the forest industry. I think he's unfit to be the forestry critic. He simply doesn't know what goes on in the forest industry of this province. He stands by the hour and drones on and on about what the forest industry should be doing, in this minister's estimates. Mr. Chairman, clearly he doesn't know. When we speak of Scotch that member becomes an instant expert, but clearly he doesn't know anything about the forest industry.

Mr. Chairman. I heard that member say in this debate, and in another debate that I can't mention at this point in time, that the trees could not be planted at this time because the government did not have the foresight to allow for site preparation. Again the member is wrong. Those who know anything about reforestation clearly know that in most cases in the interior of this province no preparation is required. All you have to do is let the snow go away and the frost come out of the ground, then plant the trees in the clearcut areas. No site preparation is necessary. The only thing necessary is to send people into the field to plant those trees, but you have to wait for the winter to go away in order to do that. There's no preparation required in many clearcut areas with the type of logging — total utilization — that is carried on today, particularly in the interior. That member comes from the interior, and he should know these things. In many cases the only preparation that's required is mere scarification. It can be done in conjunction with planning operations. You can be doing it right ahead of the tree planters. You don't have to do it a month, six months, a year or two years ahead of time. It can be done in conjunction with those planting operations. I'm surprised that the forestry critic on the socialist benches doesn't know that much about the forest industry of this province. It's shocking,

The member must have, one day while winging his way to Victoria, looked down from his lofty roost and seen preparation being made for planting by use of fire. I am sure it was then that he thought to himself: "Aha! That's how they do it. I always wondered, but now I know. Now I can go to the Legislature and in the Minister of Forests estimates I'll be an expert in reforestation in the province of British Columbia." That must be how it happened. If it had not happened that way I am sure that the hon. member would not have made the remarks that he has in the last couple of days in this minister's estimates.

The employment bridging program, although not fully established at this time, will certainly be in time for reforestation programs in two-thirds of this province. It will certainly be in time for the planting of young trees, particularly in my constituency. It will certainly be in time to do the work that the opposition critic is asking to be done. Although that program isn’t in operation right this minute, that is not to say that it won't do an awful lot of good when the time comes that those trees can be planted. In many areas of this province you can get into the woods and you have to wait until a breakup period, which I'm sure the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke

[ Page 8214 ]

doesn't know about as well. There will be ample opportunities in the months ahead to enter into that kind of reforestation program in this province. The planting of new trees and the preparation of sites for that planting do not take place in many areas of this province until July or August or in some cases even September. What the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke is saying is not correct.

MR. LEA: Is that before the snow goes?

MR. KEMPF: Sometimes you have to wait till August for the snow to go. The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) would certainly know about that. I am sure that is what he is going to get up and talk about. I see he raised his microphone, and I am sure that is what the member for Prince Rupert is going to get up and talk about. He is going to get up and talk about the fact that much thinning and other kinds of reforestation can still be done and will be done under the employment bridging program in the months ahead, the months that are considered in the northern two-thirds of this province as the summer months.

I am happy to have been able to enter into this debate, to clear the air and to tell this House and also the people of the province of British Columbia what it is that the opposition critic on forestry knows about the forest industry. I really do hope that the member has learned something and can now get up and speak positively about a very positive program that will provide jobs for many people — not only people who have worked in the forest industry but others as well. It is a program that will not only provide jobs for today but will provide many jobs for tomorrow.

MR. KING: I want to thank the member for Omineca for educating me and the House about his thoughts and perception of silvicultural treatment. I guess he should be known as the man who came down from the north, because his perception of when planting is appropriate and that of those in the southern interior are widely different. One of the reasons that it is appropriate and necessary to plant seedlings as soon after the snow goes as possible — in some cases, at some parts of the lower elevations, this is April and May — is that there is still the necessary degree of moisture in the ground. It is very important when those seedlings are planted that there be a supply of moisture. All the land stretching from Princeton right to the west of Kamloops — the vast Okanagan area — is drybelt. The snow goes much earlier there than in Terrace and Prince George. The Columbia Valley has been ready for planting for pretty near a month now. It is just getting underway now, as a matter of fact, which is a bit late.

The main point is that it is true that you don't need much site preparation if the planting takes place a year or even two years after harvesting; very little site preparation is necessary. The big problem in British Columbia is that we are not replanting as we harvest. There is a continuing backlog of unsatisfactorily stocked land. If we were even planting as much as we harvest, we would be in great shape. What happens when it goes over two years without being replanted is that you get growth on that site — willows, alders and all kinds of weed species — that has to be brushed down before you have....

MR. KEMPF: I heard you on the radio at noon, and you were wrong. You are wrong here, and you were wrong there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I will ask the member for Omineca to come to order.

MR. KING: If I am wrong, then the professional foresters I have relied on for my advice, plus my own experience in the area.... I have travelled and looked at a lot of land all over the province, as the guest of many forest companies. The member knows something that no one else knows anything about, apparently. Be that as it may, the question is that it is very late in the year in some parts of the province to get planting programs underway right now, because moisture and site preparation are important factors.

However, that is a small point. I appreciated the member's contribution and his kind thoughts in attempting to assist with my education. I certainly accept all the information that anyone wishes to direct my way; I can always use it. I know that the member meant well when he gratuitously and very affectionately offered to educate me. I guess what I can do is compare the advice he gave me to that coming from the ministry, and try to sift the wheat from the chaff and accept the advice of the member from the frozen north, who apparently knows something about it — albeit very little.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I think that you shouldn't chastise the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) and be facetious with him. He's giving us the benefit of those 15 years' experience: you can't plant trees if there is snow on the ground. Right?

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he say that?

MR. LEA: That's right. You have to wait until the snow goes and plant before the snow comes. I don't think it's been a wasted 15 years when you can come away with that kind of knowledge about the forest industry. I think he should be congratulated. I'm sure it would take longer than 15 years for him to learn more complex things, but nevertheless I think we should thank him for sharing that experience with us.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to read for the minister a letter — not all of the letter, although I will make the letter available — that was sent to the regional manager of the B.C. Forest Service in Smithers, a Mr. Biickert. There are some serious charges in the letter, and I should say that these are not charges that are confined to the writer of this letter; there are persistent rumours in my riding on the Queen Charlotte Islands about timber that was handed out or new cuts that were handed out. I think I'll get to the letter, because that explains it a lot better than I.

"Dear Mr. Biickert,

"The most serious comment that can be made regarding the Timber Supply Area Report" — that was the one recently done for the Queen Charlotte Islands — "is that it is now obvious that allowable cut was released in 1977 without due regard for long-range sustainable harvest and with callous indifference to the wishes of either the local logging operators or the local population.

"I was a member of the Queen Charlotte Public Advisory Committee to the Forest Service (PAC) at that time, and even though we were then unfamiliar with the esoterics of forest management —the committee having only recently been formed — we were aware that considerable doubt existed within the Forest Service itself regarding whether or not harvestable

[ Page 8215 ]

volumes were available to fulfill this final sale — that is, Davidson Creek — and that the same doubts had been expressed regarding the two immediately prior, namely Eden Lake and Tartu Inlet.

"The story we were told was that the local Forest Service had been asked by the district forester for an estimate of volumes available in the Queen Charlottes PSYU. When told there were none, the district office advised that volumes must be found because some were going to be let. This in turn prompted an operability study by local staff which indicated that volumes were not available. When this data was rejected by the district office, the material was considerably reworked and a memo to the district forester was forwarded advising that allowable cut was definitely not available.

"When the PAC" — that's the public advisory committee — "requested a copy of this memo commonly referred to as the 'Hart-Hernandez Report,' we were advised by ranger Ben Hanson that the document was not available, as it was classified. This is reported in the PAC minutes.

"Mr. Biickert, in 1977, 58 percent of the current timber demand, or 341,880 m³" — I'm not sure exactly what that means technically, but I'm sure the minister does understand — "out of 583,680 m³ was given out in these three TSHLs. Not being any more familiar with Timber RAM than I am with the Hanzlik Formula, I would hesitate to guesstimate projections without that 58 percent being calculated, but suspect that the graph, 'Case 1' on page 14 of your TSA Analysis, would look considerably different. In fact, I think it would probably attest to the serious charges I have made in my opening paragraph and to the honesty of the local staffers who protested.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

"In view of the foregoing, and also in view of the highly politicized rumours that have made the rounds in the forest industry and the public since the Davidson Creek sale, it would seem to me that the only way for the Forest Service and the government to retain a measure of credibility would be to forgo the rollover of these three TSHLs into the 'evergreen' forest licences and allow them to lapse.

"I realize that some might see this as a breach of contractual obligations and unfair to companies that bargained in good faith. To that end I might point out that these companies have received a considerable break on stumpage charges, in recognition of an added difficulty in shipping logs. I would remind you that local staffers have also advised that this reduction is far above what the situation seems to merit. I have been told that some believe that these companies have already recovered their initial outlay as a result of this gift from the Crown called the 'West Coast Concession.'"

Mr. Minister, there's more to the letter, but I think you've got the general idea. There are persistent rumours on the Queen Charlotte Islands in my constituency that the allowable cut was just not there to hand out, and that against the wishes and recommendations of the local staff the Forest Service went ahead and handed out these new allowable cuts.

As we see the timber supply analysis come in from the Queen Charlotte Islands, I think in retrospect we can all look back and say that the people on the ground in the local Forest Service were correct: the timber just wasn't there. If the timber wasn't there, the local staff, in their opinion, made the recommendation that it wasn't there to their superiors, and it was done anyway. I think the government and the minister have to explain exactly what went on surrounding Davidson Creek and the Eden Lake and Tartu Inlet situations.

I know that this is not the first time that the minister has heard about it. These rumours have been persistent and many since 1977, so much so — although I want the minister to explain in the House — that I believe that possibly more than that must be done. I don't think it does any of us, as politicians, any good to have persistent rumours of political patronage, at the most, and complete incompetence, at the very least, surrounding the Davidson Creek situation on the Queen Charlottes. I'm sure that everyone in the Forest Service has heard the rumours and charges that have been made and continue to be made.

I have talked with local foresters — people who work for the Forest Service — who verified to me privately that their recommendations were overridden. For some reason that nobody can fathom, these new cuts were made available. Now that the new figures are in from the timber supply analysis, we see that it's true: it just wasn't there. I would like to ask the minister to explain this fully. I would really like to go back to the Queen Charlottes and say: "Look, the rumours are absolutely incorrect. There were good technical reasons for it; there was no political patronage; it wasn't gross incompetence; and we can have faith in the people who are in senior management, the minister and his government, in regard to this."

I don't think it does any of us any good, as politicians, not to clear these things up. Until it's fully explained to the public, these rumours and charges are going to persist. When you see information that was put together, like the Hart-Hernandez report and then the public advisory committee — appointed by the minister, I may add — not given that information and told it was classified, that only leads to further rumour and speculation as to skulduggery.

Before I go any further, I'd like to have the minister, with his staff, explain to me exactly what happened around Tartu Inlet, Eden Lake and Davidson Creek.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I am not familiar with Davidson Creek and.... What river was it that you mentioned?

MR. LEA: Mr. Minister, they were Eden Lake and the Tartu Inlet. I would gladly make this letter available. It has been sent to Mr. Biickert in Smithers, so it's not something that was sent to me privately. It's a copy.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The licences that the member is speaking about, I believe, were issued in 1976 or 1977. At that time, my understanding from discussions with current staff was that there was disagreement between regional staff — or what you called district staff at that time — and Victoria staff on the operable allowable cut in the area. Those in Victoria felt that there was a greater allowable cut available than the regional people did. They sorted that out, and licences were proceeded with.

[ Page 8216 ]

We still have not set an allowable cut on the Queen Charlottes for a number of reasons, one of which is the continuing study of the Windy Bay wilderness proposal and the South Moresby Island proposal. Whatever happens there will have some significant effect on the final allowable cut that can be established. Since that time in 1977 when the last licences were issued, we have had, as the member well knows, some problems with slope stability; as a result some areas considered operable at the time have been put into environmental protection areas until we can develop techniques for logging on less stable slopes. This work will be going on, and depending upon what happens to the operability of these areas, the allowable cut, once established, could change either upwards or downwards, depending upon our success in working those areas.

The member used the term "political patronage" several times. If he is serious about the veiled charge of political patronage, I hope he would make such statements outside of the house, because that certainly is not the case. No political decision or ministerial decision was made to issue any licences anywhere in the province. I go by the advice given me by my professional staff. At times there is disagreement between various levels of staff as to the allowable cut. It is not a simple thing to determine. As well, it is something that is constantly changing because of many factors: land areas available, operability, economics of the time, silvicultural practices anticipated. All of these things tend to change the allowable cut.

I would have to get into more detailed discussion with my staff regarding the specific drainages the member was talking about, but the allowable cut has not yet been set. I don't know what it will be. It appears that we are going to be very tight, if not over committed, at this time, and the final resolution will depend on what happens in the wilderness proposals that are currently before us. I believe we do have the final report on the Windy Bay area, and I'm waiting for the final report on the South Moresby wilderness before any decisions are made.

That is what transpired, Mr. Chairman. As for the level of commitment versus allowable cut, we'll have to wait until the allowable cut is finally established. Our chief forester is working very hard at this right now. I really can't advise when the figures will come; as I say, it depends upon the wilderness proposals.

MR. LEA: I attended the public meetings put on by your ministry to explain the timber supply analysis to the people of the Queen Charlottes, and I'd like to say that I thought it was very well done. They also, at the time they were doing it, gave two projections: one with the section that has been applied for the South Moresby wilderness area, and one without it. There is very little significance. The timber supply analysis really doesn't include much that's in the South Moresby wilderness area, according to the presentation that I saw. I think, though, Mr. Minister, the Hart-Hernandez report, which I mentioned earlier, has to be made public in order to clear the air. To my knowledge, this report has never been made public, not even to the public advisory committee, but is still termed "classified." I can't see why a report done by the Forest Service would be termed classified. What would be so secretive that the people couldn't see the report'?

I'd like to ask the minister whether he would undertake two things. First, before the end of this session in the House, I'd like to ask the minister if he'd do a review within his ministry on the Davidson Creek situation, not only to satisfy me and the public, but to satisfy himself that the correct thing was done at the time, leading up to this 1977 allocation. Secondly, would he make that Hart-Hernandez report available to the Legislature so that we can all see it?

I would just like to say that it isn't my opinion that there was political patronage. I said that the rumours on the Queen Charlotte Islands are that there was some sort of political patronage. I have no evidence of that, although there is some evidence, I think, of incompetence at senior levels in the ministry because of the timber supply analysis that comes out now and backs up the local people on the job in the Forest Service. Now I don't know what the senior people could have been thinking of to override whatever was in that Hart-Hernandez report, because the timber supply analysis shows that they were absolutely accurate. The timber just wasn't there. I'd like to know on what data the Forest Service made their decision to override the local people in the Forest Service. It must have been based on something. I would like to get two commitments from the minister, because I think the air should be cleared. One is a review and a report in the Legislature on the situation and all of the surrounding data, and all of the considerations that went into the decision to let the allocation for Davidson Creek go. I'd also like a commitment to have the Hart-Hernandez report made public. Mr. Minister, I think it is called after the names of the people who did the report: Jim Hart and Hernandez. It's in the minutes of the public advisory committee that ranger Ben Hansen said that the document was not available, as it was classified. I'd like to have that declassified and brought into the House, plus all of the considerations that were taken into account by senior staff in overriding the recommendations of local staff on the Davidson Creek situation. I wonder whether the minister would give me an undertaking that that would happen.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the member will realize that since that period in 1977, when I believe the last sales were made, we have had a number of changes at the senior staff level in the ministry. Mr. Apsey, my current deputy minister, I believe was appointed in June 1978. There have been some major changes at the assistant minister deputy level, and also several changes at the regional level. At the current time the chief forester, Mr. Bill Young, is doing an in-depth study of the timber supply situation in the Queen Charlottes: how we got to where we are, what decisions were made in the past, and how they fit with the facts of today. Once that study is completed, I see no reason whatsoever why the information should not be shared, as is most information in the ministry which does not pertain to specific companies. Once we have concluded that study I would be happy to share it with the member. I am not familiar with the Hart-Hernandez report, but I will give you my commitment that when we have completed our study we will do a comparison between the information there and what was in the Hart-Hernandez report and find out how they differ, and why different recommendations seem to be coming forward.

MR. LEA: The minister is saying that Mr. Young, the chief forester, is doing a study and that that study will be made public. Is he also giving me a commitment that the Hart-Hernandez report will be made public?

[ Page 8217 ]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I have no reason to feel that it should be otherwise. It's public information, and I think that in fairness to the current chief forester we should allow him to complete his study before this other one is released. I really don't know what that other study says, as I haven't seen it myself.

MR. LEA: I take it that I have a commitment that the Hart-Hernandez report will be released. Is that true? The minister shakes his head "yes." Okay, it will be made public when Mr. Young's work is made public. Also, would the minister undertake to bring back all of the considerations that were taken into account when the Davidson Creek allocation of timber was made available?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: As much as is possible, Mr. Chairman. As I said, the senior staff has changed since that time, and I don't know what private thoughts senior people had at that time in coming to that conclusion. Anything that is recorded by all means will be made available.

MR. LEA: I'd like to thank the minister very much. Just before I close, would you tell me when Mr. Young's report is going to be finished and available?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: My deputy advises me that he expects that report by early fall or the end of the summer — somewhere in that general area.

MR. LEA: And there will be no appropriation in the timber supply analysis for the Queen Charlottes until that report has been finalized.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, until we establish the annual allowable cut we cannot do any licence rollovers, but we have certain constraints in the rollover provisions of the legislation, as the member well knows.

MR. LEA: I'd just like to get this clear. Is the minister saying that before the report is made available there will be licence rollovers under the evergreen clause?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: We cannot do any licence rollovers until the allowable cut is established. That is a requirement of the legislation.

MR. LEA: Mr. Young's report has to be in before that allocation can be set. Will that report be made public before the turnover'?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the chief forester is the one who sets the allowable cut. The study he is conducting now will lead to him establishing the allowable cut.

MR. LEA: I understand that. But will we have a chance to see the working paper used by Mr. Young before it's set? Obviously he doesn't do it himself. He makes a recommendation. There would have to be an order-in-council, wouldn't there, to set it into place? From the time that Mr. Young makes his report to the government, there is a legal requirement that an order-in-council has to take place, I believe. No? What I am concerned about is that these new, annual allowable cuts will be into law and in place before we have a chance to look over Mr. Young's work. Is that what the minister is telling me — that it will be a fait accompli by the time we see it?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I think the member should perhaps review the legislation, because it is very clear that the allowable cut is set by the chief forester, not by order-in-council, by politics or anything else. It is a technical summary, in the best judgment of those professional foresters, of what the allowable cut is. This is usually set by him — in this case as in others — after consultation on operability, liaison and that type of thing. The member has already advised that such meetings have been held. The chief forester is the one responsible for establishing the allowable cut, It can't be done until his report is finished, because that is what his report is leading to.

MR. LEA: Those public meetings on the Queen Charlotte Islands were our last kick at the can for public input, eh? The next thing is that it will be set. We have had our say and it will be set.

I have the commitment from the minister on the other areas, and I look forward to the minister meeting those commitments.

MR. HOWARD: There are a few items relating to Skeena I would like to raise under this particular vote. I want to break it up in some geographic segments because it lends itself to that, for different reasons.

In the Terrace-HazeIton area B.C. Timber has a virtual monopoly in the forest industry since it acquired a mill owned by another company in Terrace called the Skeena Mill and subsequently acquired a sawmill in Hazelton, independently owned and called Rim Forest Products. With those acquisitions and its timber holdings, B.C. Timber is in a very dominant position in that whole area so far as timber is concerned. B.C. Timber produces chips for its pulp operation on Watson Island, just outside of Prince Rupert, and over the years it has — I think regretfully — placed itself in the hands of the United States home-building market insofar as saw lumber is concerned. As a consequence, when the lumber market declines or virtually disappears, then B.C. Timber is vulnerable and the people working in the logging and sawmilling industry in that area of Hazelton through Kitwanga to Terrace are likewise very vulnerable.

In Smithers we have a different set of circumstances. The sawmill operations there look at the domestic market, generally speaking, and have an association with the domestic market. They have there been able to escape — to an extent in any event — the difficulties visited upon us because of placing all our saw-lumber eggs in one basket, namely the U.S. market.

In the Kitimat area there is a pulp operation, and it has some difficulties with respect to saw lumber because an acquisition of the Eurocan mill by another company is resulting in what the company and the Forest Service euphemistically identify as rationalization of the industry. As a consequence, sawmill operations in Kitimat haven't fared too well.

In the Terrace-Kitimat area a decision was made by the cabinet — I think very regretfully; I am quite sure it was made over the objections of the minister — with respect to a provincial forest. The proposal was made that a provincial forest be established in that area, an area that had been

[ Page 8218 ]

virtually clearcut along the breadth of that valley between Kitimat up to Lakelse Lake. Because it was an old forest and there was 40 percent to 50 percent rot in some areas, clearcutting and getting rid of it was probably the most sensible way to proceed. In any event, that's the way they did proceed.

The chief forester held some public hearings in Kitimat with respect to the provincial forest. He received a number — I've forgotten how many; 13 or 14 or something in that nature — of briefs and formal representations about the establishment of that area as a provincial forest. One of the arguments put forward by those who did not want to see a provincial forest established in the total area that was under consideration — they were a very minor group of people, incidentally — was that they should carve out from the proposed provincial forest area an area set aside for industrial development purposes. I argue — and I argued last year during the estimates when I put forward my view about it — that that should not have been the case. It should have been established entirely as a provincial forest, and then later on, if it was felt necessary that land within that provincial forest was more suitable for industrial development purposes, then it could have been extracted from the provincial forest and used for industrial purposes. But once the area would have been left out in the first place, the possibility of getting it back into a provincial forest, if that was deemed to be the necessity, would be difficult.

In any event, Mr. Young, the chief forester, did recommend that an area be set aside as a provincial forest and be so established. Subsequent to that, the Cabinet Committee on Economic Development — or a portion of it; I don't know if all the members of the cabinet committee were there — visited Kitimat and Terrace and, lo and behold, decided to set aside the proposal for a provincial forest and not to proceed with the establishment of it. As a consequence, there is no provincial forest established. As a consequence, there is now in progress, funded by the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development, a study to determine the potential of that whole Kitimat-Terrace corridor for industrial purposes.

The terms of reference for that particular study do not seem to take the question of forestry into account. In other words, that is given short shrift and secondary consideration. I think that was an offensive thing for the Cabinet Committee on Economic Development to have done. As I said, I'm quite sure that the minister fought as hard as he could against it, but the heavyweights in that cabinet committee — like the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) — who have no concern whatsoever about forestry, had their say and forestry suffered. I regret that the minister didn't have a little more clout in dealing with that particular question.

In Terrace over this past winter we have had in the neighbourhood of 3,000 or 4,000 people out of work out of a population in the neighbourhood of 15,000, 16,000 or 17,000 people. Both sawmills were shut down. One of the cedar pole operations in town has gone into receivership and is not operating. It's a very bad scene with bad possibilities for the future.

[Mr. Richmond in the chair.]

In Kitwanga, where B.C. Timber owns one of the mills, there is a small mill owned by the Hovenshield Bros. that has been functioning. There's a reason why it is able to function and B.C. Timber has not been able to function. Part of the reason is that B.C. Timber has established its market over the years as being the United States housing market and not anything else.

In the Hazelton area, we have had in the neighbourhood of 80 percent to 90 percent of the workforce unemployed because the Rim mill, bought by B.C. Timber, has been closed down.

There's a fair amount of wasted effort, inefficiency and waste product in the lumber industry, a fair amount of handling of the same material a number of times. In log yards, for example, logs are dumped and stacked and then moved to another part of the yard, where they're sorted and moved back again and finally moved to the sawmill operation.

At a meeting in Hazelton and Kitwanga on, I believe it was, February 3 of this year, which incidentally was arranged at my invitation, we were told by the president of B.C. Timber that there was a difference of about $60 a thousand between what it cost the company to get the logs into and out of the mill, their cost of production, and what they could sell them for on the market. I think the lumber market at that time was somewhere in the neighbourhood of $130 a thousand. Part of that difference is the result of wasteful activity and inefficient functioning of the workforce and the management, and inappropriate procedures.

I've suggested to B.C. Timber, to the organized forestry unions in that area, and to the Northwest Loggers Association the concept of approaching the question of waste and inefficiency by way of the establishment of — for lack of another term, which may result from some discussions — something called "productivity committees." They would function in somewhat the same fashion as accident-prevention committees in the forest industry and elsewhere: there would be equal numbers of people from the workforce and from management; there would be an expressed willingness to work within the committee structure, and an expressed willingness on the part of management seriously to consider the proposals put forward for increasing productivity; if management felt unable to put any proposals into effect, there would be an expressed willingness on their part to identify and explain the reasons therefore to a productivity committee; and there would be an expressed willingness on the part of the unions and the other people on the job to take part in such an operation.

I received an affirmative response from each of the two unions involved as collective bargaining agents for the workforce, from the Northwest Loggers Association, which is an independent group, and from B.C. Timber. They all said: "Yes. We'd love to try something like that. Let's try to put it into effect." That's a breakthrough, I submit, in terms of labour-management relations. It's recognized that the institution of something of this nature will not come easily, because of the background relationship of confrontation rather than cooperation between the workforce and management. Nonetheless, it has commenced, and I hope it can be instituted and will come into effect. It would undoubtedly have the effect of reducing production costs per unit, however it's measured. If we can curtail inefficiency and reduce waste of materials to provide a higher quality end-product, we will be in a better competitive position, whatever the marketplace might be. It won't guarantee the market, but it will at least guarantee that the company is producing the product at the lowest possible cost. It would also provide the opportunity for the whole of

[ Page 8219 ]

the lumber industry and other industries to gain some experience in taking the workforce into the confidence of the company, in working cooperatively within the concept of industrial democracy, in being able to level with the workforce about cost factors, and in being able to sit down with management and work together for a common purpose, rather than approaching everything on a confrontation basis.

My own experience working in industry some years back, whether in logging, mining or construction, was always that the last person to find out anything about what management was doing or planned to do was the guy on the job. Everybody else knew about it before. Suddenly — whether it was a new set of machinery or a new set of procedures or an alteration in some manner in which the work or whatever was to be done — it was visited upon the worker without any warning, and often resulted in disruption, loss of jobs and a number of things that were not helpful.

We raised this question at a dinner meeting that our caucus had the pleasure to attend with the Council of Forest Industries this year. I am sure government members have attended similar functions with COFI. One of the gentlemen there related an instance where in his particular sawmill they had instituted some new machinery, equipment and procedures. He said that before they did that they went to the guys working in that particular part of the plant, and they went through the union as well, and talked with them about what they needed to do, about the new equipment and about the fact that the work activity of individuals was going to be altered and that there was going to be some disruption in that part of the mill. They worked it out with them, in the installation of the machinery, the development of it, the learning of how it runs and so on. The person who told us about that at that COFI meeting basically said it was one of the best things they had ever done. That was one isolated instance in one isolated sawmill.

I maintain that this has been known throughout the workforce and in the trade union movement for many years. So far, management hasn't taken too many steps to deal with it. I submit that it is the one thing we can do in trying to develop a better relationship between people on the job and management and also in developing a lower-cost product at the other end. It is the one thing we can do and the one thing, I submit, that the ministry can provide some assistance in by — if nothing else — endorsing the principle and assisting in promoting seminars about it, working out with industry, with the workforce and the unions involved a better understanding of what stumpage means and how those cost factors are built into the thing, but to be cooperative and helpful about it and not sit back, as has been the case in the past, and be aloof from the whole process.

The salvation for us, I think, in the critical times we are in now, is to use our imaginations and seek different ways of dealing with an age-old problem. This is one of the ways we can deal with it, by attempting to approach the production structure within our industry on the basis of cooperation rather than confrontation. I would urge the minister to do everything he and his ministry can to become involved in that process and work along with it. Do something positive for a change in that direction. That would be more helpful than standing back aloof and just raking in the money and hoping that the industry gets back on its feet again.

MR. KING: I would have thought the minister would have wanted to respond to my colleague on what is a very positive suggestion. I think it is increasingly going to become a factor in industrial relations in our province and certainly in the forest industry, which from time to time has been hit with major interruptions because of industrial disputes. The Minister of Forests should not divorce himself from an interest in that aspect. Lost production — whether it flows from an economic depression such as we have now or from an industrial dispute — is very harmful to the total economy of the province and certainly of the industry.

I would have thought the minister would be a bit interested in commenting on the proposals my colleague put forward. I think they are sound and sensible. Increasingly I think management and labour are going to recognize a need to acknowledge that they have a joint economic destiny. That economic destiny is tied not only to the terms and conditions on the job but the security of the future of that industry in the particular plant they happen to work in. That is basically what we are talking about: collaboration to strengthen our position as they secure a source of employment in the province and greater efficiency in terms of meeting the challenges of the international marketplace where our product is sold.

I think I've just about exhausted all of the comments I had to make under the minister's vote in this respect, but I do note that there is a small increase in the minister's estimates for office expenditures. I think the minister should probably be congratulated that he has held down his travel expenses. Indeed, he has cut them a little bit, which is a startling comparison with most of his colleagues in the cabinet over there. He's even held his furniture costs down. There is a small additional increase in office expenditures. It's very small — it's only $713. I think it is incumbent upon a government which is advocating restraint — indeed a government which is imposing restraint — to lead by example as well as to admonish and exhort those other people in the community to tighten the belt and practise restraint. Accordingly. I move that the minister's vote be reduced only by the amount of the increase in the office furniture, as a symbol of the restraint that the minister and the government should be showing.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I would just remark, on the increase to my office, that it is entirely to reflect an increase in staff salaries. The increase in salaries was partially offset by a reduction in supplies and services. I hope that the member is not really serious about asking my secretary and stenographer to take a reduction in salary this year.

MR. KING: The minister's estimates show the increase in office expense, which is not salaries, and unless he has gone through an accounting procedure which hides all of those things that were previously identified, such as salaries and so on, then the Legislature has no way of recognizing them. They are shown as office expenditures. I presume that means office administration. As I say, it's not a large amount, but it is a symbolic amount in a time of restraint. I move that it be reduced by the amount of the increase, $713.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is that vote 42 be reduced by $713.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

[ Page 8220 ]

YEAS — 22

NAYS — 29

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

Vote 42 approved.

On vote 43: forest and range resource management, $126,536,777.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, on this particular vote I have a couple of questions to ask the minister. I notice that in the group account classification under vote 43 there is an increase in the management program from $9 million up to $11 million and an increase in finance and administration from $51 million up to $56 million. But in the forest areas there is a reduction in the harvesting program of $10 million, the silviculture program is down from $24 million to $2 million, and the forest protection program shows a reduction from $15 million to $7 million. I don't quite understand how that comes about when viewed in conjunction with the total estimates for the ministry, and I'd appreciate the minister's comments on those particular figures.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, some of these changes are reflected in our turning over to BCBC much of our accommodation, and then being charged back for it. Reductions in the harvesting vote will reflect an expected reduction in the amount of wood actually harvested this year.

I'm afraid there was so much chatter during your questions, Mr. Member, that, if I haven't covered what you asked, you'll have to repeat the question.

MR. KING: If I understood the minister correctly.... I asked him why there was an increase in the management program and the finance and administration program but reductions in the programs relating to the forests — harvesting, silviculture and forest protection — major reductions in all those areas that affect the resource. When it comes to the bureaucracy of the administration, I see increases; when it comes to the real programs that affect the state of the industry and the health of the resource, we see major cutbacks. Why? Did the minister say that the harvesting program reflects the economic downturn in the industry at this time? Was that his answer?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, starting with our management program, we have salary increases of about 11 percent due to reorganization to districts; a lot of this was previously held in headquarters. There is an increase in supplies and services of about $100,000 for our private forestry program. This is primarily personnel. As the member knows, we're attempting to get an extension program going to encourage private forestry on private lands. Capital expenditures have decreased by 51 percent, and these have been offset by some of the increases noted before.

Finance and administration. Supplies and services have increased by about $6 million of BCBC costs for district accommodation. Much of these costs were formerly in.... We've turned our portfolios over to BCBC. In addition, with our reorganization we are establishing ourselves in different communities and at times having to expand smaller-community accommodation because we now have more people in the smaller-community areas.

There has been a slight decrease in salaries in the harvesting program, about 2 percent; a supplies and services increase of about 35 percent due to $500,000 in computer costs for harvest date and the small business program; costs of about $1.6 million capital increase due to construction of the Tachie River bridge, which is the bridge leading to the Tanizul tree farm licence; minor rights-of-way purchases of roads and minor increases in other expenditures; silviculture increase is 4 percent due to our nursery field staff and district field staff; supplies and service decrease about 5 percent due to operating cost reductions; and capital increase of 50 percent due to our capital program in our nurseries. I hope that that has covered the areas of concern to the member.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I want the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and my colleague the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) to take account of what the minister has said: that the ministry is forecasting a reduction in the harvesting program for the province, and yet in the budget which this government introduced, a 23 percent increase in revenue from the forest industry was projected. Now obviously both figures can't be right. It just goes to show, Mr. Chairman, how totally disconnected, insulated from reality this government is in terms of forecasting the revenue for the province for the coming year. The ministry is forecasting a disaster in the forest industry, and it's reflected in the budget of the minister before the House now for debate, whereas in the budget presented by the Finance minister a different picture altogether was forecast. You can't rationalize those two figures. I suspect that the Minister of Forests is correct. I suspect that those people in the industry who are saying that there's not going to be an economic turnaround this year are correct. I suspect that the Minister of Finance is going to have a major problem on his hands to deal with the budget for the next fiscal year, because the predictions he made for this one are obviously so far out of kilter at this point in time that one can give very little credibility to any of the other figures in the budget either.

[ Page 8221 ]

Mr. Chairman, once again we see the starvation of worthwhile programs in the Forests ministry, and we see a dedication of vast increases to bureaucratic functions of the ministry. I cannot understand why these reductions in the crucial areas are taking place while the minister explains to the House that BCBC, having taken over control of the accommodations for the ministry, have now jacked their price up to an astounding fee and result in an increase, I believe, of over $10 million in the current fiscal year. This is the ministry, Mr. Chairman, that was going to bring a new era of efficiency to the administration of the forest industry. It was called reorganization, and what they did as a result was to phase out forestry offices and facilities from literally dozens of small towns throughout the length and breadth of the province, places like Enderby and Chase and New Denver, damaging the economy of all those small villages, removing forestry staff from their close proximity to the resource where they should be, where they could get a handle on the management of the resource, where they were in a better position to respond more quickly to fire outbreaks. All of that has been abandoned, and instead of any saving we see a massive increase in building occupancy for the ministry. Some efficiency! Absolute nonsense!

Mr. Chairman, again we see waste, we see examples of fat, we see examples of profligacy in this government. They can't control their own expenditures. They can't afford their own habits of excessive travel, and indeed absolutely amazing appetites for both food and the best of wines, and yet this is the government that asks the people of the province of British Columbia to show restraint and tighten their belts. Mr. Chairman, if this government is to have any credibility whatsoever, they have to lead by some example. They have to start showing some restraint themselves.

If they are not prepared to cut the fat out of the excessive padding of budgets by the various ministries, we are prepared to do the job for them. Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I move that vote 43 be reduced by the amount of $10,324,310, which represents waste again, and an increase over last year, not even a cutback.

On the amendment.

MR. NICOLSON: This particular amendment for reduction is probably one of the largest amounts we will be proposing through the departmental estimates, and it is probably the most easily justified. Two years ago the building occupancy charges for the ministry were $3.5 million. Last year they went up to $10.5 million, an increase of 229.3 percent in one year. This year the increase is to $19 million, almost $20 million, an almost 100 percent increase just for building occupancy charges as a result of the so-called reorganization, I don't think there can be any question: any member of this House who takes a responsible attitude toward the spending of taxpayers' dollars wants to see funds directed towards productive activity, not towards increasing the amount of fancy office space, which has gone up in two years from S3.5 million to $20 million.

At the same time, this government fails to give commitments to private entrepreneurs who want to start growing seedlings for his department. They actually stopped Crows Nest Forest Products (Industries) from building a nursery plant in that member's riding. They also told Crestbrook Forest Industries, who showed interest in building a nursery for seedlings: "Don't call us; we'll call you." I have seen correspondence from the ministry that was so convincing in terms of a commitment to Georama Flowers. who are committed to building a nursery for one million seedlings, that Inland Natural Gas undertook a very expensive extension of their gas line from Nelson out to this area to serve Georama. Then this was stopped by the ministry in Victoria. Until this government changes its priorities from building fancy houses to building glass greenhouses, I will certainly support this amendment.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 22

NAYS — 2 9

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

MR. HOWARD: I just want to raise a very brief question under this, Mr. Chairman. It is interesting to note that on an earlier occasion when a proposal was put forward to do something positive and helpful in the forest industry by way of productivity, the minister sat silent and didn't even respond. But the very next second a proposal was made to cut a few dollars out of his budget and he leaped to his feet in defence, showing he is far more interested in squandering the public money than he is in doing anything positive to help the industry.

I want to raise with the minister something that is not very helpful to local areas. In what few tree-planting contracts have been let — the experience has been related to me in our area — the contractor brings in his workforce from outside the area, from wherever he may come. He brings his own workers with him to engage in the tree-planting, the site preparation and whatever silvicultural work is going on with respect to that contract let by the government. The local people who arc quite competent and quite able to do the work themselves stand on the outside and look in. I think that's a very inappropriate way for the government to run the affairs of this ministry — namely. to deny the local people the opportunity to become employed when public funds are used in silvicultural practices. I wish he'd correct that situation.

[ Page 8222 ]

Vote 43 approved.

Vote 44: fire suppression, $17,956,320 — approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES

On vote 49: minister's office, $262,008.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased that I am speaking today on a total increase of 17 percent over last year's estimates for the Ministry of Human Resources. I hope you will approve a total of $986 million in these estimates. May I just remark that, when it is a difficult time in our economy and there is an economic downturn in our economy, the size of this vote for social services shows the total commitment — a proven commitment — to providing social services to the people of British Columbia. I might just say that it's always a lot easier to have that kind of commitment in good times in the province. It shows the strength of our commitment that this government has a commitment to social services under less prosperous economic conditions than what we have been used to. To be able to improve the calibre of social services during periods of fiscal restraint is truly indicative of this government's priorities.

I want to refer back one year, the Year of the Disabled in the province of British Columbia. The year 1981 was the International Year of Disabled Persons. Our government contributed more money to that than any other province or the federal government. We contributed $3 million in total for public education, community involvement and for different projects which received grants, all of which have made a significant contribution to the international year. My colleague the hon. Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) is to be commended as the minister responsible for that year. In commending him, I would like to pay tribute to Douglas Mowatt, who was named British Columbia director of International Year of Disabled Persons, and all the committee who did such a find job in that year. Our ministry's commitment is to continue the levels of services through existing programs and also to develop more community-based services for mentally handicapped citizens.

Let me just refer to four programs which this ministry is very pleased to have developed — some in conjunction with other ministries — which pay tribute not just to the year of the handicapped but to the ongoing years when this province will serve the handicapped citizens in a better way.

In conjunction with the Minister of Education, about two and a half years ago we developed the CHANCE program. It will spend $360,377 this year. That program enables those young people who are handicapped to have help within the classroom. It brings a human resource worker into the classroom with the educators of the province. No longer will those young people have to be educated in their own homes or by a program that is a hit-and-miss program at best. They are able to get into this classroom and have that kind of normal experience that all youngsters in our province should have within the classroom.

The development of our life skills training program has been an important program for our ministry. It assists the handicapped to develop life skills and brings to the handicapped in our province a more normalized kind of existence within the community. Over $325,000 is set aside for that program this year.

The development of special needs day care is extremely important in our province and has been developed with the special needs child care workers and child educators in the province. Over $200,000 is going into special needs day care. That integrated day care, which is being used in several centres, has been such a boon to those youngsters who have special needs. That is an important program.

The development of residential programs. This year we will spend over $900,000, and some of the young people in our community who are mentally handicapped or handicapped in one way or another will be able to have a very nice home life and an attractive setting within the community and within a residential setting so that they will have a more normal lifestyle. This has been a wonderful step in the right direction.

Our commitment in this province should be to have the spirit of the International Year of the Disabled carried on in the years to come. Our government is committed to that. I have just named only four programs of several that we have within our ministry.

I would like to speak about the commitment to seniors in our province. Our attention has been focused on the needs of senior citizens. I would say that if one were to take the record of our achievement in the area of commitment to the citizens over 65 years of age, we can take a great deal of pride in the kinds of commitment and the attention that has been given to the needs of the senior citizens. In July of this year the United Nations World Assembly on Aging will meet in Vienna. I would think that at that world assembly there won't be any other community or country that will present programs which will be any more admired and even envied than that which comes from the province of British Columbia — the service which we have for our senior citizens in our province. Only in the last month when the senior citizens met in an Okanagan community, they decided that the services were so good that they didn't have anything to complain about at all. They felt very good about the services that the government of British Columbia provides.

Through our GAIN for seniors supplement, British Columbia pensioners are provided with a guaranteed minimum income that increases four times a year through the federal government program. Currently, a single senior gets a combined income of $505.74 a month as of April 1982, and couples receive $926.24 monthly, effective April 1982. I am pleased to report that just in these last few hours we have issued a press release which pays tribute to the increase in SAFER benefits for seniors. We have announced a significant increase in maximum allowable rents for senior citizens qualifying for shelter aid. As you know, our government has been committed for several years to an annual review of financial aid to elderly renters, in order to help them meet the rising cost of shelter. Effective July 1, 1982, the new maximum rent level for singles will be $330, which has been increased from the $265 level, and for couples $365, which has increased from the $295 level. The last increase came in July 1981, which shows that we are moving apace with the marketplace, and trying to shelter — which is the whole idea of Shelter Aid For Elderly Renters — the senior citizens against those increased rent levels.

I can give you an example of a senior citizen who qualifies for a GAIN supplement to her federal pension. She pays a rent of $330 a month out of her pension income of $505.74. Now that she qualifies for SAFER assistance, before July 1 she gets $84.96 in SAFER and as of July 1 the

[ Page 8223 ]

benefit will increase to $133.71 a month. That's a significant assistance on a month-to-month basis for this senior citizen — almost $50 more a month by this change which was announced in these last few hours. SAFER benefits equal up to 75 percent of the amount by which rent exceeds 30 percent of the applicant's total income. The applicant has to be 65 or older, receive Canada old-age security benefits and meet a residency requirement. So we're very pleased and proud of that SAFER program. It has been copied throughout the nation, and it has been looked at by jurisdictions throughout North America.

I can't talk about senior citizens without paying tribute to the senior citizens' counsellors in our province. May I also pay tribute to the person who really initiated that program right in this House, and that was the late Isabel Dawson, who represented Mackenzie in this Legislature for some six years. It was Isabel Dawson's dream to have a senior citizens' counsellor, who would be able to talk with another senior citizen with any need that they had, any concern that they would have. Even if it were something that had to do with the federal government pension, they would have the information. If it had to do with the provincial government, or anything to do with some concern, perhaps even in the filing of income tax, that was to be the requirement of a good senior citizens' counsellor. Today we have 215 seniors working with other seniors throughout this province. I really would like to pay tribute to Isabel and the work that she started, and to the senior citizens' counsellors of this province who do that work in such a dedicated way.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I would also like to pay tribute to another program which plays such an important part in the life of a senior citizen, and that is the Pharmacare program. All the costs of eligible prescription drugs for seniors are made available. On that note, I would also like to mention that we have a program within our ministry which takes the total Pharmacare program, and in working with the professionals in the medical field and the representatives of the pharmacy profession, they are working together to be able to monitor the use and overuse of drugs. I think that all of you will perhaps recall that early in the spring we announced the drug use review program. This is going to be a very valuable program, particularly as it relates to the senior citizens.

So I do hope that that particular program will be given a great deal of attention by the public at large, because if we're going to have a Pharmacare program or any health program that's of use to the people of British Columbia, we must be sure that it is not an abused program. It is very important indeed to the senior citizens in the province that the Pharmacare program retain its integrity, which has been such a security for them.

I'm very pleased, too, that the seniors' information line. which was announced in the throne speech earlier in this session, is now in the planning stages. This line — if you like, an extension of the senior citizens' counsellors — will be a line which provides senior citizens of our province with toll-free access to information on government programs for seniors. I think that this will be one of the most useful programs that seniors could have, because many times in some areas where the 215 seniors that we have cannot reach other seniors, the telephone is the best and most reliable communication. And then sometimes, too, with the time it takes for a senior citizen to travel to other areas of the community. the answer cannot be quick enough. Although we are certainly going to strengthen our senior citizens' personal contacts through our senior citizens' counsellors, we are going to strengthen the day-to-day contact with that toll-free line, which will be in place shortly in the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, in 23 communities we also have initiated and continued the bus pass for seniors. As you know, the bus pass was available in those areas where buses were available. Now, for $16 a year, seniors can travel on local buses without payment of fare. It's probably the best bargain in transportation in North America. and it is not just in the city of Victoria and the city of Vancouver. Because of the work of our Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and because of this government, we have it now in 23 communities. We can hold our heads high, and when the Vienna conference on senior citizens takes place at the World Assembly on Aging, the services that we have now, and the services that we are planning, will be admired and will be proudly talked about by those who represent the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I'd now like to address my remarks to a commitment to employment in the province. As you know, I am pleased to chair the employment development committee, and my colleagues on that committee and I are very pleased to be actively involved in that program. But let me say that the Ministry of Human Resources has been actively working on job-finding since 1980, when the Individual Opportunity Plan was introduced. Of course, other plans by achievements throughout the years which predated the Individual Opportunity Plan have been addressing that very difficult problem of bringing independence to those who are on income assistance.

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you today that the Individual Opportunity Plan is working better than we had ever dreamed it could. Its attached program, the job action program, which does training, gives work experience, gives vocational upgrading and gives clients of our ministry the opportunity which they have not been able to have in the past, is a rehabilitation program, and should be considered the best rehabilitation program for those people on income assistance in this nation. I want to tell you that when I have the opportunity to be at social services ministers' conferences — we were pleased to host them in our province this past year, and we attended one provincial-federal conference earlier this year in eastern Canada — that program is admired and referred to time and time again. I has become an exceptionally well-respected program in Canada, and I'm extremely proud of it.

Let me just talk to you a bit about the job action program which we initiated because it was part of one of the options that we could have for those who are unemployed and on income assistance. Mr. Chairman, this job action program, as I probably said when I was able to explain this program last year, really was picked up from a program that was initiated in the United States. I think that we've improved on the program through our ministry, and our ministry has done an excellent job. We are having success now in the job action program, where people are put in a three-week course and taught job techniques and interview techniques, and are given the kind of counselling that identifies what they should be looking for. With the kind of initiative and motivation that is

[ Page 8224 ]

prevalent in that course, they dial the phone, get job interviews and actually get their own jobs in three weeks' time. It is exciting because in this time of downturn you would think that those jobs wouldn't be available. You would think that the cliché would hold true that the people who are on income assistance are the first to be laid off and the last to be hired, and that is why they are on income assistance. I am pleased to tell you, Mr. Chairman, and members of this House, that that isn't so. This has not happened in this downturn. The job action program itself is an exceptionally good program which has really put the lie to that kind of psychology. There are jobs for these people. They are creating and getting jobs.

I want to tell you that we have job action programs that vary throughout the province depending on where they are and also depending on the kind of leadership in the job action program. Of course, that always varies. We are getting as high as 100 percent success in the city of Vancouver and as low as around 70 or 71 percent success in some areas of the province. All of them are above the 70 percent rate, and that, to me, is a real success in a time of downturn and considering that the people we have in those programs are people who have real difficulties, have had real difficulties and are only in that program because of the difficulties they have experienced. They are the kind of people who have not been in the workplace for a very long time, and they have had real difficulty in getting settled. This gives them the kind of confidence that they've lost, the kind of confidence that average people, in their average workaday world, do not understand...hits a person when they are out of work for any length of time. Some of these people have been out of work for two, three, four or five years. They are now getting their act very much together.

The job action program is working. It is exciting. I would like to invite members of the Legislature, as I have done before.... Right here in the city of Victoria, where there are job action programs taking place, I would very much like to have them take a look at the programs as they are actually underway. I have issued that invitation to all members of the House. Some members have been to visit that job action program and can see the difference between when a person comes in on the first day and hen he is leaving three weeks — and even less than three weeks — later, with perhaps more than one job offer. All of them in the Victoria area have been exceptionally successful.

I also want to refer again to the Individual Opportunity Plan, because this is truly rehabilitative. Before, we used to say: "Come to the Ministry of Human Resources. We have income assistance. We have a program for people in time of need. When you are out of work come to the Ministry of Human Resources, and we will be there." Over the many years that income assistance or welfare has been put into place in the province of British Columbia and through this nation, there has been an acceptance of income assistance. A psychology has grown over the years that once you are on income assistance you will be forever on income assistance. That is just not so. When people are viewing clients on income assistance or talking to people on welfare, please know that 50 percent of the people who come on income assistance today will, on their own — without any help from an Individual Opportunity Plan, the Ministry of Human Resources, the Ministry of Education or anyone else — find themselves a job and be off income assistance in the first three months. That statistically proves true throughout the months and years that we look back on income assistance. That is consistent.

The Individual Opportunity Plan was to bring the income assistance recipients into the Ministry of Human Resources. Instead of getting a cheque each and every month when they went beyond three or four months, they would be brought into the Ministry of Human Resources and given the kind of counselling and individual help that we want for each and every citizen who is down on his luck and down with that problem for which they have come to the government for help.

The Individual Opportunity Plan offers a tremendous variety of help to them. It could be help for education. I think of young people who are dropouts from school and then don't get a job. They haven't got any job training; they're over the age of 19; and they're on income assistance for a little while. Some, sadly enough, have been left on income assistance for quite a long while. They are called back into our ministry, and we sit them down with the Individual Opportunity Plan and say: "What are you going to do with your life?" We find out that they can't do some of the things that they should have learned in school, because they've been a dropout. So they need re-educating. We find out that perhaps they haven't any work skills at all, so they're going to need some kind of work program, training, apprenticeship, or whatever it will take to put that person into employment.

So that's what we're trying to do. It may be single parents who come in and need help because they can't find day care, so we assist them with day care, or they may need to be upgraded. Perhaps they were very good at a job before they were married. Then they were raising a family and were perhaps out of the workplace for a long time. Maybe that job they had, perhaps in some kind of technical work, needs to be upgraded. We can do that through the Individual Opportunity Plan.

Perhaps it is an older person out of the workplace because somebody is saying: "Well, you're not the right age for a job. You're getting a little too old for this kind of work." We bring them in and counsel them. It may well be that that person needs to be in the job action program; that may be the kind of persuasion we have to take that person to. Whatever that person needs, we have a program for their life which will set them on the right course. In all of our training, educational upgrading and motivation programs we have, since July of last year, increased the number of clients participating from 2,611 to over 5,000. At any given time, 5,000 people are going through the program. Now they can look forward to the end of their course, the end of their training and the Individual Opportunity Plan. They can have a commitment that says at the end of this program they will be able to get a job, and they can look forward to that. They don't have to look forward to endless years and months on income assistance. After all, that is what we want for our fellow British Columbians: independence, not dependence.

I can give you examples of Individual Opportunity Plan successes that are so exciting. I am sure that by now you have met people who are going through the program. Just in the last couple of, days, over this past weekend, I met somebody from a small interior town who told me about someone who is teaching in a college in the interior with our Individual Opportunity Plan program and who is excited at some of the success stories. I would like to share some of them with you. Maybe I will have that chance during the questioning.

[ Page 8225 ]

Commitment to families is very clear in the Ministry of Human Resources. Our income assistance rates increased by 12 percent in May, which shows that even in a period of restraint we provide people in need with sufficient funds to meet the basic living costs. This goes with assisting clients towards independence. We have family supports through expansion of our day-care programs. In fact, our subsidies to day care have increased 27 percent this year. The increase in allowable income levels was changed and the capability of having the day-care program available to more in an allowable income level has been very clear,

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your time under standing orders has expired.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased that I've been able to say something about my ministry. I wish I could say a few more things. I remember that in some years when I have wanted to say more on this subject, I have been criticized by the member who will now take her place in the debate, the critic for the New Democratic Party, for not saying enough. Now I haven't finished, and I'm sure that that member will give me an opportunity in the future to finish what I had to say.

As I conclude my remarks, may I pay tribute to those members in my ministry who assist me so well. As we go through my estimates in the days to come, my deputy minister, John Noble, will be present, and I will be pleased to also introduce those who will be with him at that point in time. I have had wonderful cooperation from my ministry, and I'm really pleased to represent them today in the estimates for the Ministry of Human Resources.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to assure the Minister of Human Resources that she is going to be doing a lot of talking over the next couple of days, because I have a lot of questions, and I anticipate that with the assistance of her deputy, she is going to be able to answer some of these questions. Although she has used up her 40 minutes, she really hasn't said anything. So I'm certainly looking toward to her completing her time, and I intend to see to it that she gets as much time as she can possibly use, so that we can get some answers.

Mr. Chairman, the minister lives in a fantasy land, because there is really no similarity between the ministry as she describes it to us and the ministry as it is experienced by the people who are recipients of its services or the people who work trying to deliver those services, and certainly the people who observe the ministry at work trying to do its job. Over the next couple of days it is my intention to give a brief overview of the perception of the ministry on behalf of these three groups: the people who are dependent on the ministry for its services, the people who work for the ministry and those of us in the opposition who observe the ministry at work.

I'm going to have a couple of suggestions, and the first one I am going to make is that we get a full-time Minister of Human Resources. I am hoping that by the time I'm through discussing the reasons why we must have a full-time Minister of Human Resources, you, Mr. Chairman, as well as your colleagues, will come to agree with us that this quarter-time casual minister has done little on behalf of the groups in society who depend on the services of her ministry. In addition she has in fact been a burden on the people who work in her ministry. Certainly you will share the observations of the members of the opposition that that is just not good enough.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That's not true.

MS. BROWN: The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development says it's not true. I want the record to show that he said that now, because by the time the estimates are over I know he's going to be agreeing with me. One of the reasons he believes that is that he really hasn't had the time to observe this quarter-time minister at work and see how incompetent, inefficient and uninterested she has been in this particular portfolio.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll ask the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development not to interrupt the member speaking.

MS. BROWN: I don't mind, as long as it's part of a learning process for that minister.

The first thing the minister said in her opening remarks was that there was a 17 percent increase in the budget. I want to correct that statement right at the beginning. The Minister of Human Resources had an overrun last year. As a result, in April of this year there were special warrants in the amount of $48.4 million to deal with that overrun. If we add that figure to last year's figure, we realize that the real increase in the budget is 11.03 percent, which is below the cost of living, the GNP and everything else.

I notice that her deputy is now with us. I want to welcome him to the floor of the House, and assure him that the minister really needs his assistance. In fact, the figure she gave us included special warrants passed to cover the cost of Pharmacare, but it did not include the special warrants that were passed in April of this year to deal with last year's overrun.

Last year's overrun is not a figment of my imagination. In April when we phoned the Ministry of Human Resources to get some explanation of this, we were told by the assistant comptroller that if standard accounting procedures had been used rather than these new accounting procedures, the result would have been that the ministry would have registered an overrun. The information I am giving you comes from the Ministry itself; it is not my information.

We also have a quote from the deputy minister. who indicated in a statement to the press in February of this year that there was going to be an overrun in the Ministry of Human Resources. He predicted that it probably would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $25 million. Again, this is a quote which came directly from the ministry itself. I cannot be accused of creating figures out of the blue. Using the statements made by the deputy minister in February and the assistant comptroller in April, I bring to the minister's attention that the true and honest increase in her budget has only been 11.3 percent and not the 17 percent that she would like us to believe.

I just want to deal very quickly with an overview of the year as it has passed. What we have witnessed is a year in which the minister has been preoccupied with her pet project, Pier B-C, a preoccupation which culminated in that Expo extravaganza of April 1. The minister was so caught up in the excitement — the TV lights, the radio mikes and the production put on by Doug Heal — that in a moment of exuberance

[ Page 8226 ]

she said to the Premier: "Mr. Premier, at this moment I do not have anything more to ask of you." This newspaper report goes on to say: "The Deputy Premier, Grace McCarthy, had been the moving spirit behind the trade and convention centre for more than five years." [Applause.] The applause supports precisely what I am saying. Here is a minister who has been so involved and tied up with the convention centre that she has not had the time to give more than 25 percent of her attention to her ministry, and who gets so carried away that at a time when the number of people on income assistance is increasing and services throughout the province are being cut, she says to the Premier: "Now that we have this, I do not have anything further to ask of you." That is the first reason why I think it is time that we had a minister in this portfolio who took it seriously enough to give it her full-time attention.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

This is the year in which the ombudsman investigated the fact that the Ministry of Human Resources was circulating a confidential memo seeking information on individuals who dared to become involved in an advocacy group concerned about the cutbacks in welfare, specifically....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: No, these are not the ones who printed the Gracie books. These were five people who were not welfare recipients, but were involved in a group of people who were concerned about the policy brought down which would throw mothers of infants over the age of six months off income assistance or, if they didn't find jobs, would certainly see their income assistance cut back. They really wanted to bring to the minister's attention that during a time of high unemployment this was unconscionable.

The next thing we knew was that there was a memo circulated to all the offices saying: "Any office with recent information on or contact with the above, please advise the Minister of Human Resources." This kind of memo is usually sent out whenever there is an indication that fraud has been committed by a recipient. As it turned out, some of these people were not now nor had ever been income assistance recipients. In a letter which the minister herself wrote to one of them — Miss Quittenton — she said: "Please be assured that the inquiry was intended only to determine whether or not you were a client of our GAIN program and for no other purpose."

It is not and has never been the habit of the Ministry of Human Resources to circulate internal, secret memos on people to find out whether they are in receipt of GAIN or not. They have a computer which gives them that kind of information. In fact, if it is true that this is how the ministry finds out who is in receipt of GAIN in this province or who is receiving services through one of the GAIN programs, then that is an indictment of the way in which this minister is running this ministry. This is absolutely ridiculous, that you circulate a memo asking for information on people, and when it is brought to your attention a two-page letter is written saying: "We just wanted to find out whether you were a client or not." What kind of sloppy, incompetent way is that of running a ministry? And you talk about people's right to privacy! The minister can pull anyone's name out of a hat and circulate a secret internal memo about them, simply to find out if they are receiving GAIN or if they are using one of the programs of the ministry. The ombudsman certainly did not approve of that method of doing business; in his public report no. 2 he reprimanded the minister for this in very strong terms.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: The member asks: "Who the hell is he?" The ombudsman was not appointed by the opposition. I don't think the member knows who the ombudsman is, Mr. Chairman. Maybe it should be brought to his attention that this is supposed to be a person appointed by all-party committee, with no affiliation to either side of the House and who, in carrying out his mandate, reprimanded the ministry — referred to this as an abuse of the powers of the ministry. He said that to have conducted such an investigation, without any basis of fraud or wrongdoing, was a clear abuse of power placed in the minister by the Legislature.

There are a number of things we have to remember about this year, and this is certainly one of the things. I would like to support the ombudsman's recommendation that the ministry give a full apology and explanation to the five individuals. The actions of the ministry once again, I believe, highlight the urgent need for privacy legislation to be introduced in this Legislature.

The third thing that happened this year was that we saw a redefinition of the word "employable" as applied to recipients of income assistance. On August 27, 1981, this minister effectively dismantled by regulation 60 years of family and child welfare policy in this province. Never before in the history of this province have people in receipt of income assistance had their income assistance reduced — and certainly never on the basis of the fact that the child which they have and which they support has reached the age of six months. It's incredible at a time when unemployment is on the increase, when the ministry's own income assistance levels are increasing, to introduce regulations that say that any person with a child over the age of six months will either find a job or have their income assistance reduced.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think it's necessary for you to bring to the attention of the government members the matter I'm dealing with, because I think their lack of attention and interest clearly indicates the way they feel about this Ministry of Human Resources. One of the reasons they do so is because that's the way the minister herself feels about this ministry. She's as uninterested in the people who need the services of this ministry as all of her colleagues over there. So I think for them to talk and not to listen to what is being said is okay with me, and I don't think you need to draw it to their attention.

At a time when we knew that there was one day-care space in this province for every 18 children needing day care, the minister introduced this new policy. At a time when there were layoffs everywhere, when more and more people were becoming unemployed, when the income security of thousands of families was being jeopardized, that's the time that the minister decided to introduce this policy. The ministry, by doing this, as the B.C. Association of Social Workers pointed out in their brief, was trying to achieve through punitive measures what it had failed to do through its employment programs. The minister bragged about her IOP and the job action program — and I'm certainly going to deal with them in more detail later.

This morning, June 15, the Province reported that StatsCan showed that Canadian families headed by a woman

[ Page 8227 ]

were the ones hardest hit by unemployment in this province, yet that is specifically the group which the minister targeted for this special attention: the single parent with one child over the age of six months. Statistics Canada tells us that 32.5 percent of the people in that group are unemployed. They cannot find work.

I was unable to get figures for British Columbia. but I am certainly going to try to get them. In the Ottawa area, however, of the 27,000 single women supporting an infant, only 7,000 were able to find either part-time or full-time employment. The statistics show that whereas unemployment rates for men in 1981 ran at 7.6 percent, the unemployment rate for the single, widowed, divorced or separated mother with small children was 18.8 percent. That is the specific group targeted by this minister in August; targeted by the changes in regulation and told they could go out, and should go out and find employment. If they were unable to find employment, their income assistance was going to be reduced, and they knew full well that the person who would suffer as a result of that reduced income assistance was not the single parent but the infant. It was the child who would suffer, not the adult.

This is also the year in which we find massive increases in unemployment. The May 1982 official figure is 148,000; the real unemployment figure would probably be 222,000. This resulted in an increase in the number of people on social assistance. In January of 1981, 122,712 people were registered with the Ministry of Human Resources as receiving income assistance. The March 1982 figure that I got from the ministry was 139,634, an increase from January 1981 to March 1982 of nearly 17,000, of which 7,161 were mostly dependent children.

This year social workers really became people working on an assembly line. When you speak with them, they tell you their caseloads rose to such an extent that, instead of doing social work and counselling, they were becoming debt counsellors. That's all they were doing. The caseloads had risen, but financial needs are so great that the workers found they couldn't do anything but deal with the material needs of their clients. This was the year when the pressure of inflation and housing costs brought material needs to the forefront and pressure on the office, because UIC benefits had run out for a number of people.

This was also the year in which we found a new breed of person coming onto social assistance. I want to talk about this in more detail. Businessmen and people who had never before applied for income assistance were suddenly finding they had to apply for it.

I just want to say one word and then I'm going to move adjournment, because I'm almost completed. It would be unfair not to admit that the ministry has done one good thing: that is, the removal of discrimination against recipients on the basis of age. That decision is a good one. I support the removal of the age 31. Of course. I would have liked it if the ministry had also removed the discriminatory policy that affects a number of other areas, but I will speak more on that tomorrow.

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.

Introduction of Bills

URBAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY
AMENDMENT ACT. 1982

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Urban Transit Authority Amendment Act, 1982.

Bill 51 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Fraser tabled the logs of the B.C. government aircraft services.

Hon. Mr. Rogers moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.

[ Page 8228 ]

Appendix

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

19       Mr. Passarell asked the Hon. the Minister of Forests the following questions:

1. Was the Kaska-Dene Council given three weeks notice that 350,000 m³ of timber in the Liard Valley near Lower Post would be tendered for sale on June 1 next?
2. If so, what was the reason?

The Hon. T. M. Waterland replied as follows:

"1. The timber sale licence was advertised in the April 1, 1982 Gazette for public auction by the District Manager, Dease Lake, B.C., at 11 a.m. on June 1, 1982. The advertisement was also in the Vancouver Province, The Terrace-Kitimat Daily Herald in Terrace and the Whitehorse Star. Posters were sent to the post offices located at Watson Lake, Dease Lake, Atlin, Cassiar, Iskut, Telegraph Creek and Smithers.

"2. The Kaska-Dene Council may be referring to the letter dated May 5, 1982, they received from the Regional Manager which was in answer to their letter of May 4, 1982."

20       Mr. Passarell asked the Hon. the Minister of Forests the following questions:

1. Did the Ministry of Forests ensure that native people resident in the Liard Valley near Lower Post had full opportunity to participate in the sale of 350,000 m³ of timber in the area'?
2. If not, what was the reason?

The Hon. T. M. Waterland replied as follows:

"1. The timber sale licence has been advertised for the required eight weeks in order to give all interested parties time to investigate the offer.

"2. The offer is in accordance with the regulations and the Forest Act."

21       Mr. Passarell asked the Hon. the Minister of Forests the following question:

What steps has the Ministry taken to ensure that logging in the Liard Valley near Lower Post will not have an adverse impact upon the hunting, fishing and trapping activities on which the Kaska-Dene depend for their economic livelihood?

The Hon. T. M. Waterland replied as follows:

"The Regional Manager has corresponded with the Fish and Wildlife Branch of the Ministry of Environment to inform them that the vehicle for delineation, referral and Forest Service decisions on deferred areas will be the harvesting plan that is required to be submitted by the licensee not later than three months after the award of A 16558. A maximum cut of 350,000 m³ may be harvested from the area which contains an estimated 671,000 m³, and this should provide for leave areas as necessary."

22       Mr. Passarell asked the Hon. the Minister of Forests the following question:

What steps has the Ministry taken to ensure that the Kaska-Dene Council will be able to participate fully in the management of the forest resource in their area?

The Hon. T. M. Waterland replied as follows:

"The Kaska-Dene Council has been invited by the Regional Manager of the Region in his letters of May 5, 1982 and May 26, 1982 to review five-year plans in the Forest Service offices at Dease Lake and Lower Post when they are prepared and to submit written information and comments on forest and ancillary resource management in the timber sale licence area."

[ Page 8229 ]

36       Mr. Stupich asked the Hon. the Minister of Human Resources the following question:

With respect to the unpaid claims reserves in the Automobile Insurance Act Fund, how much was charged against this reserve during the year ended February 28, 1982, on account of claims for each of the years 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980 and 1981?

The Hon. G. M. McCarthy replied as follows:

"This question should be directed to the Minister responsible for ICBC."