[ Page 3043 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Bus accident. Ms. Sanford –– 3043

Church leaders' request for meeting with Premier. Hon. Mr. Bennett replies –– 3044

Mr. Blencoe

Bus accident. Mr. Passarell –– 3045

Funding for Crane Library. Mr. Reynolds –– 3045

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

On vote 41: minister's office –– 3046

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Howard

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Skelly

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Tourism estimates. (Hon. Mr. Richmond)

On vote 73: minister's office –– 3054

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Rose

Mr. Lockstead

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Health. (Hon. Mr. Nielsen)

On vote 44: minister's office –– 3065

Hon. Mr. Nielsen

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1984

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have visiting us a number of members of the Young Socreds, a wing of the Social Credit Party — a very active wing, I might say — and I'd like to introduce some of the members. I'd like to introduce the president, Dennis Sorenson; the vice-president, Darin Nielsen; the director, Ron Finnigan; Coquitlam president, Kristy Ilic; Burnaby president, Ron Woods; UBC president, Mike Bentley; and former youth coordinator, Peter Wearing. I'd ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. GABELMANN: The United Transportation Union is holding a conference in Victoria this week, and in the gallery this afternoon visiting the House are wives of delegates to this convention from all over British Columbia. I would like to read their names very quickly to introduce them to the House this afternoon: Vera Maglio from Cranbrook; Lynn Bentz from Kamloops; Carol Padze from Nelson; Vera Trower from Cranbrook; Linda Schultz from North Vancouver; Carol McGregor from Prince George; Rozalynd Tierney from Victoria; Colleen Court from Burnaby; Susan Millikan from Port Moody; and Alice Court from Burnaby.

MR. PARKS: I'd like to add my words of welcome to the president of my constituency's Young Socred Party, Miss Kristy Ilic, and in addition introduce to the House four other members from my constituency Young Socred group: Miss Pam Hope, Miss Brenda Brown, Miss Wendy Oloman and Miss Angela Prefontaine. Please welcome them.

MR. NICOLSON: Also visiting us from Meadow Creek in the riding of Nelson-Creston are Roy and Jane Lake, and I wish the House would bid them welcome.

HON. MRS. McCARIHY: I would like to join with all others in this House in welcoming the bright young people in the Young Socreds and especially welcome from the constituency of Vancouver–Little Mountain on behalf of my colleague and myself, Randy Sandhu.

MR. HOWARD: Visiting us today in the precincts, if not actually in the gallery, is a former colleague of mine, a former member of this House and a person who wants to come back again. I hope the House will join me in welcoming Bill King.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Among those in the galleries today with the members of the Young Socreds are two other people from my constituency of Richmond. I'd like the House to welcome Sandra Chamberlain and Michael Orrick.

MR. VEITCH: From that great riding of Burnaby-Willingdon, where all is sweetness and light and Social Credit, I would like you to welcome a future occupant of this House, Gabrielle Jakab, and I would ask this House to bid her welcome.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I wish to add a name to that group of Young Socreds we are welcoming to the House today. He is Marvin Friesen of Central Fraser Valley.

MR. PASSARELL: In the precincts earlier was a friend of mind, Mr. G. Hogg, from Shadowville, Yukon. I would like to have the House bid him adieu.

MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are three distinguished constituents of mine: Mayor John Agnew from the District of Mission, Director Abe Neuteld from the Dewdney-Alouette regional district and Dr. Norman Cook, the administrator of the regional district. I would ask the House to bid them all welcome.

MR. MOWAT: I have two introductions today. In our gallery we have a member from the Young Social Credit team. I'm sure the Minister of Human Resources and I welcome Mr. Ed Parker.

Also in our gallery today we have Mr. Warren Brant of Surrey and Mr. Peter Hindmarch-Watson of Point Grey; both vice-presidents of Dale and Co. I'd ask the House to welcome my three guests.

MRS. JOHNSTON: On behalf of my colleague and myself, representing the largest constituency in the province, I would like to add my welcome to several of the young people who are in the gallery with the Young Socreds representing my constituency. I ask you to welcome Darren Olma, Craig Sicotte, Doug McLean, Carmen Whitaker and David Murray. These are our future leaders, They'll be sitting in these seats before too many years. I ask you to welcome them.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On behalf of the Speaker, I'd like to introduce two young Socreds from the Delta constituency: Blake Ledingham and Jeff Baturin. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like to join my colleagues in welcoming to this House some future members of the government, and please give a big warm welcome to Donna Wilde from the great Peace River country.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery are two Young Socreds at heart, Mr. and Mrs. George Smith from Courtenay, and I'd like the House to bid them welcome.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Among the many Young Socreds who are here is Josephine Wearing, who represents the constituency of Burnaby-Edmonds. I'd like the House to make her welcome.

MR. HOWARD: I'd like the House to join me in bidding the warmest welcome possible to everybody in the gallery who isn't a Socred.

Oral Questions

BUS ACCIDENT

MS. SANFORD: I have a question for the Minister of Highways and Transportation. The preliminary mechanical check of the Conmac Stages bus which crashed on a Mount Washington highway, conducted by the coroner, shows that the seats were held by lag screws with only one-quarter-inch bite in the one-half-inch sheet of plywood. Can the minister confirm that there are no safety standards in this area with respect to the placement of seats in buses? If so, will he advise what the government is doing about it?

HON. A. FRASER: I'm not aware of the coroner's expertise in the mechanical setup of buses, but I am aware of my

[ Page 3044 ]

mechanical people, and that is correct. This bus had a wooden floor in it, as even some new buses have, and it certainly complies with all regulations that we have — if it has a wooden floor.

MS. SANFORD: Is the minister telling us that in the province of British Columbia the regulations are so inadequate that a one-quarter-inch screw or a half-inch screw into half-inch plywood is sufficient in terms of safety standards in B.C.?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, to the member, first of all, you go on the basis of the information you have. I don't go on that information, that it was a quarter inch. I'll wait until the final reports are in. It might have been three inches, for all I know. I'm not accepting the fact that it was a quarter inch at all. They are still investigating this fatal accident, and that bus has been taken from Courtenay to Burnaby; it is now under control of the coroner for his inspection.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the minister is telling us that that particular bus met the standards that are in place in British Columbia today. Is that correct?

[2:15]

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, to the member, that bus met the standards of our regulations and was inspected on July 19, 1983, by our people.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday I asked the minister if he would launch a full public inquiry into safety on buses in British Columbia. At that time he did not answer the question. In view of the fact that the entire fleet of the Conmac company has been ruled off the road, has the minister now decided to launch a full public inquiry into safety on British Columbia buses?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.

MS. SANFORD: What assurance can the minister give us that there are not other buses in this province carrying students which would be ruled off the road if in fact they received the same kind of attention that this particular line has received? What assurance can he give us that the other buses in British Columbia used for these purposes are safe? Seven of them have been ruled off the road.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I think we should go back. First of all, I want to say something that hasn't been said: the record of our school buses in this province is excellent and we have a highly responsible, whether they are leased operators or owned by school districts. I don't anticipate any difficulty there whatsoever. The onus is on any individual to see that their vehicle is in proper mechanical condition. That's the law of the province of British Columbia.

CHURCH LEADERS' REQUEST
FOR MEETING WITH PREMIER

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in question period the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) asked me a number of questions concerning requests for meetings in my office, and asked specifically why I hadn't responded to a request for a meeting with what he referred to during his questioning as "leading churchmen of the province of British Columbia." I was concerned that those who make the appointments in my office and receive requests, who usually are very efficient, might have slipped up, and therefore I went back through the correspondence. Last July I received not a letter but a telex from leading churchmen — not of British Columbia but of Canada — who were at the World Council of Churches' meeting in Vancouver. They sent a telex expressing their concern over some of the legislation that had been introduced in this House. Nowhere in the telex can I or any of my staff find a request for a meeting; they were concerned that the government reconsider some of the concerns expressed by people. I checked further with my office and found that the telex was acknowledged immediately and that the general tone of the telex was for the government to reconsider its position and allow discussion with concerned groups, as I read it.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the government's position during all of last year was that we would consult with any group or minister on any legislation. One difficulty was that those who were conducting the public discussion, Operation Solidarity, refused to come and discuss those items until we withdrew every bit of legislation that was before the House. That made it very difficult. I re-extended that offer to the leaders of Solidarity — Father Roberts, Art Kube and Renate Shearer — when they met in my office. Again, of course, they did not pick up on the request to consult. In an explanation to the people of what the government was doing and what we hoped to achieve, I reiterated in a provincial broadcast that I hoped concerned groups would come together in consultation with the ministers and the government. That offer was always open. Confrontation was not the way to go. In response to that, I had an answer from the first signator on the telex, Rev. Edward Scott, Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada.

"Dear Premier Bennett:

"You will no doubt remember that I was one of a group of churchmen who wrote you last July during the assembly of the World Council of Churches in Vancouver to express concern about certain aspects of the legislature proposed by your government.

"I have tried to follow the course of the political debate in British Columbia since that time, and I now write to express appreciation for your comment printed on the front page of today's Toronto Globe and Mail. You are quoted as 'urging special interest groups who oppose you to come forward during the adjournment of the provincial Legislature and talk with your ministers in the interest of cooperation, consultation and conciliation.'

"I am convinced that the way forward is always the way of cooperation, consultation and conciliation rather than confrontation, controversy and conflict. I am also convinced that cooperation and consultation require greater strength of character and certainly

[ Page 3045 ]

much greater wisdom than do confrontation and conflict. There need be no sacrifice of one's principles in being prepared to negotiate in good faith with those who hold very different opinions from one's own. What is important is that we be willing to have our own opinions challenged and tested by those who disagree with us. It is for that reason that I see great strength in your call for cooperation, consultation and conciliation as you and your colleagues give thought to what is best for the lovely province of British Columbia where I have spent a significant part of my life.

Yours faithfully,
Rev. Edward Scott, Primate"

MR. BLENCOE: After he gave that report, which did not indicate that he had a meeting, I have a question for the Premier. Did the churchmen ask for dialogue, and did the Premier grant that dialogue face to face?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, as I have already suggested, the telex doesn't ask for a meeting of the dialogue that the member refers to, and the notable churchmen of British Columbia — to whom you referred — who are leading world and Canadian churchmen.... It was not a request for a meeting with me, but that the government hold consultation, as I read it, with the groups. I think the Rev. Edward Scott reaffirms that in the letter he sent to me. I hope he is not embarrassed that you have become, on your own hook, apparently an advocate for something he didn't request.

BUS ACCIDENT

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. On Tuesday the minister reported that the Conmac bus which crashed on the Mount Washington road had last been tested on July 19, 1983. The lawyer for Conmac says the bus was tested by motor vehicle inspection service on November 17, 1983. The question is: has the minister been able to resolve these conflicting statements?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I didn't make the conflicting statements; apparently the lawyer of the company did. I stand on what I reported that the superintendent of motor vehicles said: "This unit was inspected on July 19, 1983, by our people."

MR. PASSARELL: A question to the same minister, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister decided to table the test records relating to this bus?

HON. A. FRASER: No, I haven't, Mr. Speaker, and I won't, in view of the fact that a coroner's inquest is ahead.

MR. PASSARELL: To the same minister, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister confirm that the motor vehicle testing station in Victoria was closed on September 9, 1983? And will he advise what facilities have existed for testing buses since that date?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, the date of the closing of the station is correct, but they never did inspect school buses.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker. It is a shame that the Minister of Transportation and Highways didn't know that this wasn't a school bus.

Another question: in view of the fact that the seven Conmac vehicles were found defective yesterday, despite having been tested using current methods, has the minister therefore decided to reopen the government testing centre for motor vehicles forthwith, to prevent further incidents?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker. to clarify my last answer, we never used the testing station for buses of any type — school buses or otherwise. The answer is that we have no intention of opening the testing station.

FUNDING FOR CRANE LIBRARY

MR. REYNOLDS: I have a question for the minister in charge of universities. It regards a decision by the ministry to cancel a contract with the UBC Crane Library to supply talking books for the 60 blind students at the University of British Columbia. I'd like to ask the minister if that decision as reported by the media was a decision of his department or a decision of the administration of the University of British Columbia, because it drastically affects the future education of those 60 students.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: To all of the members opposite who are so interested in this subject, the Ministry of Universities doesn't make special grants of this nature, because it's our opinion that the universities should be autonomous. Therefore no small grants of this kind are made, only large grants, which in the case of the University of British Columbia is about $180 million. The amount which goes to library services is something between $15 million and $16 million, so if there is not enough money in library services for the blind people on the University of British Columbia campus — and I'm not aware of that — it's because the university would put $180 million worth of other activities ahead of it and more than $15 million worth of library services.

I can advise that I supported a request from the Crane Library that lottery money be made available to buy special equipment so that people outside the university could be supplied. It's my understanding that the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) did make that award on behalf of blind students who are not students of the university. Perhaps there is some internal problem there that I don't understand. But just speaking personally, I'm very regretful that the university priorities are such that so much money would come ahead of the blind students of this province.

MR. REYNOLDS: I would like to ask the minister in charge of universities whether, if the university cannot find money for these blind students, he could advise this House at some future date whether they are still subsidizing the faculty club used by the professors at the university. And when they were taking this money away from blind people, did they consider cancelling the tennis bubble they're building at the

[ Page 3046 ]

University of British Columbia — or other areas? Would he please advise this House as soon as possible?

HON. MR. McGEER: I don't know whether this is the forum to get into the subject of subsidized meals, but I will undertake, on behalf of the member, to make some indiscreet inquiries about expenditures in the area that he mentioned.

[2:30]

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, during the question period we were treated to a very lengthy response to a question that was asked yesterday, a part of which conveyed information, but a great deal of which might have been construed more as a ministerial statement. A great deal of time was lost. Only two questions were afforded to the opposition and, of course, the ministerial answers. I would ask the Speaker to take that under review.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

(continued)

On vote 41: minister's office, $143,879.

MRS. WALLACE: I don't know how many times I've stood in the House to discuss this same issue with the Minister of Forests. I tried, without success, to discuss it with him during the interim period when the House was adjourned. Of course, the subject I have in mind, as I'm sure the minister is aware, is the situation with MacMillan Bloedel and the Chemainus mill. This is an ongoing situation, one that has been very much before us in the Cowichan Valley since, I believe, last February 10. That's a whole year since we had the original announcement that the mill was to be closed permanently. It was February 14, as I recall, that the ministry was advised by MacMillan Bloedel that they would not be reopening that plant. On February 15, when the Premier and the minister were in the constituency, they were approached by a group of the local constituents and employees of the mill asking for information. The Premier at that time indicated that he would get them the information as to whether or not the mill would be closing, even though we found later that he already knew it was going down.

The saga continued and, of course, we had an election. We had the Minister of Forests at that time coming in and promising that he would not let MacMillan Bloedel abandon Chemainus. He told us that he would tell MacMillan Bloedel that they would use it or lose it. He was referring, I would assume, to the tree-farm licence which they hold there. Later on, after the election, there was a statement issued — I think it was just after the election; I'm not sure of the timing, whether it was before or after — that he had given MacMillan Bloedel until the end of 1983 to make a decision before he would take any action.

The end of 1983 came and went, and on January 4, I wrote to the minister. I referred to the previous scenario, and I asked him to make himself available for comment. I felt that I, as the duly elected representative of those people who were so very severely affected by his decision — who were living from hand to mouth, day to day, awaiting that decision, trying to decide what the future would be for them and their families.... We at least deserved a statement from him as to whether or not he was going to stand behind his promise to ensure that there would be a new facility built in that area or whether he wasn't. I got no answer to that letter.

A week later, on January 12, I wrote again, and I asked him at this time.... I'll just read briefly from that letter:

"As minister responsible for our forest industry, I assume that you are aware that the livelihood of Cowichan Valley residents is dependent upon your response to this situation. I would ask once again that you follow through on your commitment to ensure that there will be a wood-processing facility in the vicinity.

"Can local residents shortly expect a statement on this issue from your office, or is this responsibility being shifted to the board of directors of MacMillan Bloedel for action at their forthcoming board meeting? Your continuing failure to clearly articulate the government's position on this vital matter can only lead to the conclusion that forest policy is no longer your responsibility, but under the control of major forest companies."

I got no response to that. I have no choice but to stand in this Legislature again, during this minister's estimates, and ask him what the situation is. Are we going to have him follow through? Is there going to be an assurance from that minister that he will take steps to ensure that we have a wood-processing facility in the Cowichan-Malahat area? I think that the Chemainus area is the logical area, but if that's not possible, then somewhere else within reasonable distance.

I'm not trying to make his policy for him. He made the policy. He told us that he would ensure that there was a processing facility there, and if MacMillan Bloedel wouldn't provide it, then he would take some of their cutting rights away and transfer them to someone who would provide it. That was a commitment that he made. It has been documented in pretty nearly every paper in this province. It was on the radio; it was on television. Now we are over a month down the road from his deadline, and we still can't get any answer from him.

I don't know if the minister realizes the situation this puts those families in. They are sitting there. A lot of them had UIC up until the end of December '83. A lot of them are well past middle age, so job hunting in this particular economic climate is particularly difficult. But they are not even sure whether they have to do that or if there is going to be something opening up for them in the valley. To do that means — and a lot of them are doing that.... The odd one has gotten a job, and it means that they are boarding away somewhere — that the family is home. The economic pressures are much greater when that happens. The stress on the family is much greater. But the greatest stress on that family is not knowing whether they are going to be able to continue to live in the home that they have worked for and built; whether their children are going to continue to be able to live and participate in the educational facilities of the Cowichan-Malahat constituency, in the sports and recreational activities that are there, or whether they are going to have to be uprooted and taken elsewhere to build a new life.

That's the kind of uncertainty that is facing those families, on top of all the economic stress, with much-reduced incomes. It is very unfair to leave them dangling. We want to know. We hope that you are going to honour your word and

[ Page 3047 ]

do something to ensure that the facility is there. If you're not going to do it, at least tell us so that we will know, because this uncertainty is a real problem. Is MacMillan Bloedel going to make that decision when they have their board meeting later this month as to whether they're going to rebuild? Are you waiting for them to make a decision and then you'll figure out what you're going to do about it?

Where are we on this issue? It's a real concern to us. It's a repetitive concern. We've had it with Western Forest Products, when once before the minister came in and said: "I'll do all within my power to ensure that this mill keeps operating." And he did nothing. At the same time that was happening, we had the plywood plant at B.C. Forest Products closing down and putting 50 or 60 people out of a job.

We've had so many blows in that constituency that our economy is in distress, much more so than in a lot of other areas. We want some assurance from this minister that he is prepared to take some steps. He made a promise openly and unsolicited. Is he going to keep that promise or not?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I certainly can understand the feeling of the people who live in the Chemainus area. I know that it's quite a blow to a community when a major employer shuts down a plant. I said at the time it happened that I didn't expect any company to keep open any obsolete plant that drains the resources of the company. I did say to MacMillan Bloedel that I expect them to replace as much of that employment as possible by a more modern plant in the general area. I have been continuously following up with MacMillan Bloedel. Yes, the tentative deadline which I gave to them — the end of the year — has come and gone. I feel that progress is being made towards a decision by the company, and yes, it is the company that will make a decision as to whether that company builds a manufacturing plant in Chemainus or in the general area. I cannot make that kind of a decision for them, but they know where I stand in terms of wood supply. I stand behind the statements that I made at that time. However, I believe that sufficient progress is being made toward a resolution of the problem, and I think it appropriate that they be given a bit more time. I'm afraid that I can say no more at this time.

Your letter of January 4, which I have with me, arrived during my absence from the House. I was trying to get a break. Your follow-up letter came a week later, on January 12, when I was still not in my office. I didn't respond to them; I'm sorry about that. I have had a great deal on my desk since that time, and actually the tone of the letters didn't seem to me to indicate requesting a response so much as making a political statement by the member. If she were to write to me, asking in a serious way for answers to a problem, I'll be very happy to respond to her or have her come to discuss it with my office.

Some of the questions should have been directed to MacMillan Bloedel, rather than to me. For example, she says: "Does MacMillan Bloedel believe that these comments by the Minister of Forests and the relevant provisions of the Forest Act are so much political fluff?" I don't know what MacMillan Bloedel think. So questions like that should be directed toward them.

Madam Member, in this forum I cannot give you any more details at the present time. I remain relatively optimistic that something will come to pass, but I can't confirm it at this time. I do have a great deal of sympathy for the people in the area, because I have been involved in communities and other industries which have had a major employer shut down. I know it is a very stressful time.

[2:45]

MRS. WALLACE: I thank the minister for what he has said. Just to recap in order to make sure I don't misunderstand what he is saying: once MacMillan Bloedel make a decision and that decision is to rebuild in the vicinity, well and good; if it is not to rebuild, then he is going to take some action? Is that what I understood him to say? How soon is he going to take that action? How soon are we going to know about it? Time is extremely important. How long is he going to allow MacMillan Bloedel to make their decision? How much longer do we have to wait? Is he telling me that if they say no, he is going to cut back on their cutting rights? Is he saying in no uncertain terms that if MacMillan Bloedel do not build there, he will stand behind his word and cut back on their cutting rights, and give those rights to some company that will provide a mill?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I cannot give the member a day and an hour at which time a decision will be made by MacMillan Bloedel, but I understand they will be reaching a decision in the not-too-distant future. I cannot give you a date. My statement of a year ago, when the plant was shut down, stands: that I expected MacMillan Bloedel to replace as much employment in the general area as possible through the use of that wood. I can say no more.

MRS. WALLACE: I didn't ask for a day or an hour, Mr. Chairman. I'm asking for something in terms of months. You set a deadline of December 30. How far have you extended that — to February 29, to June 30? How long are you going to give them to make up their minds? Then, having made up their minds that they are or aren't, how long is it going to be before there's a firm decision and some action as to the actual replacement of that wood-processing facility by either MacMillan Bloedel or someone else? When construction starts, there's more activity; there are probably some jobs that even some of the people who would work in the mill later could undertake. If that doesn't happen by at least June 30....

Time has run out: that's the problem. The people involved are going to be gone. It's going to upset our whole economic base — as it has in the past. We have to have some kind of timeframe. To say "fairly shortly" or "hopefully very soon" is.... Sure, all hope it will be very soon. But you did set a deadline of December 30. Are you now setting any deadline for February or the end of June, or are you giving them all of next year or all of this year? Just to say, "Well, I hope it's soon," is not the answer that is acceptable to us in Cowichan-Malahat.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I have a few brief comments, one in the way of a representation to the minister, to deal with what is loosely called the Skeena West area, the area on the west side of the Skeena River between Terrace and Cedarvale. Basically it's an area that has not been open for logging, but has been the subject of considerable study by the Forest Service. I understand the study has been completed, the results of which were to have been transmitted to the minister or the chief forester — to Victoria, in any event — sometime in January. I want to urge the minister to set that area aside for small operators — in other words, to take whatever steps are available to him to ensure that the area be

[ Page 3048 ]

available to small operators and not to large corporations. We've suffered quite a bit in that area, as have other areas as well, from having large tracts of forest land under the domain of big corporations. There is a long-overdue need, I think, to bring some balance into play there.

In my experience, small operators generally do a better job of logging, because they live in the area. They're local people. They have a continuing social relationship with the Forest Service, as distinct from large corporations which simply have a relationship at the managerial level of the service, as opposed to the owner-operator level of relationship. Generally they employ more workers in proportion to capital investment. They tend to employ and keep workers on the job, whereas a larger corporation would tend to lay people off in awkward economic times. Again, it's because they live in the area. Their families are in the area, and the employees who work for them are social friends as well as employees. They spend their money in the area, more so than a large corporation tends to do. They seek to establish a profit position, which is invariably ploughed back into the community. A large corporation tends to find its net profit position dissipated elsewhere, either to satisfy the head office demand for distribution of net profits or dividends or reinvestment in some other corporation, and so on. There is a great suspicion among small sawmill operators in the area that.... This goes back to the time when Price-Skeena, I believe it was, applied for that area to be set aside and assigned to Price-Skeena. I understand that while that application has not been reacted to by the ministry, it is still considered to be a valid interest, even though the operation of the sawmill side of Price-Skeena was subsequently sold and taken over by West Fraser. The minister knows of that quite well. The information we were given was that that application, that interest declared, is still valid. That has added to the suspicion that the area may be, within the minds of the Ministry of Forests, an area more suited to exploitation by a large corporation as distinct from a small corporation. I want to urge the minister to move in the direction of setting that aside for the small operator. We'll be much better off in that area if that happens to be the case.

That's one subject. The other is a matter that needs to be examined and probably has been examined by other members and certainly by people in the forest industry and in the Forest Service, in some instances. It is a subject that probably applies throughout the province. It's the question of functioning under section 88. I submit, from information that's been given to me, that much of the applied-for credit against stumpage and much of the work done claimed against stumpage under section 88 has been done illegally. If the minister will examine carefully the progress that goes on with respect to that, he may discover that that is the case. I want to refer specifically to 88(2)(b), which says that where under an agreement made under this act or the former act, (a) a person does certain work, (b) the work is approved in advance by the regional manager, (c) something else takes place, and (d) the work is performed to the satisfaction of the regional manager.... So there are two things involved there, and it isn't "or"; it's "and." Four things must take place. One is approval before the work is done; the second is acceptance of the work after it is done. It is the claim that if that work is not approved — in that instance under that subsection by the regional manager — in advance, it could be an illegal claim and not proper.

While I'm on that subject matter, even section 88(l) deals with the same sort of aspect of it; it talks about certain kinds of work. Under section 88(l), too, the work is approved in advance by the chief forester. I'm not talking about that aspect of it, but just simply, the information given to me is that in instances where work is performed under this section, the work has not been approved in advance by the regional manager.

The second aspect I want to talk about is the inspection afterwards to see whether the demand of paragraph (d) of (2) comes into effect, namely, the work is performed to the satisfaction of the regional manager. There are instances where roadwork has been performed — on logging access roads, for example — where the inspection thereof has been delayed because of other demands on the time of the people in the Forest Service, or lack of funds to do it, or whatever reason, but where the inspection thereof has been delayed in some instances up to three years after the work had been done — after the logging access road had been constructed, for argument's sake. In a three-year period, especially if the access road had not been used and had been subject to the difficulties that roads are subject to by weather changes over a couple of winters, it is virtually impossible to determine whether the claim that a certain amount of dollars was put into that road is justified. I submit that there is quite a potential abuse and, in fact, quite an abuse that has taken place with respect to operations under section 88. I am sure that is something the minister would want to do to ensure that the force of the law that this Legislature passed and that he upholds and supports is carried out to the full and that there are no operations or functions that take place that circumvent the demand of the statute itself.

[3:00]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I have a difficult time dealing with generalities, as with the allegation, or perhaps suggestion, from the member for Skeena that there are illegalities taking place under section 88. If the member has any specifics he can bring to me to look at, I would be very happy to do so. I would advise him, however, that we carry out regular internal audits within the ministry on how section 88 is handled in the various forest districts in the province. My assistant deputy minister in charge of finance and administration has just advised me that in the year 1982-83 we carried out an audit and actually investigated 40 percent of all the section 88 accounts that were approved that year. He advised that in every case cost claims were supported by field inspections, and there were no deviations found to that. Of course, 40 percent is only 40 percent, and I'm not denying that at some point somewhere there could have been a claim made that was not supported by inspections. But if that happened, it certainly was done in error by someone in the ministry, and it certainly was not the administrative policy of the ministry. Because we are dealing with a reduction in government revenue, all of these things are carried out in a systematic manner, and we do support credit claims with inspections. That audit also demonstrated that approvals were made in advance, and we found no deviation from that as well. We carry out these audits on a regular basis. Of course, the auditor-general is aware and concerned about section 88, as she is about other funds and accounts in the ministry. Our internal audits don't disclose any of that.

[ Page 3049 ]

If the member has anything specific, I think he is bound to bring it forward so that we can investigate it. I would appreciate it if he would do that.

We have been looking at the road on the west side of the north-south part of the Skeena River, and basically the problem is access. I am sure the member is aware of the studies that have been done regarding how access should be achieved, whether it should be from the Terrace end or whether we should have a bridge somewhere with a lateral road each way. There are conflicts with some private land and of course with the railway on that side. However, I am certainly inclined to put a major part of our small business program on the west Skeena timber block — if you wish to call it that — providing we can get sufficient funds internally to develop it.

I had a seminar with the Northwest Loggers' Association in Terrace, which I was unfortunately unable to attend, although I had planned to do so. I don't know if the member attended any of those discussions or not. We invited the loggers, other licensees and people in the Forest Service from that and surrounding districts to come in and have a good discussion on the administration and success of the small business program. As a result of that, some recommendations were made, one of which was that this west Skeena block be set aside for the small business program. Whether we need to set all or a major part aside, I don't know, but I think I can assure the member that I am certainly well disposed toward directing the small business operators into that area once we can get good access established for them. The people in the area gave us some good advice on how the small business program should work in that particular area, and I'm sure the member understands that the program has different ways of operating in different parts of the province, depending upon the type of wood, contractors and so on. Size of sales is also important. There are larger sales in that type of wood than you would have in the interior, for example. I am very supportive of the idea of having that west Skeena side for the small business program.

MR. HOWARD: I have one question, if I might, Mr. Chairman. I'm not sure what the official technical designation would have been at the time Price-Skeena made its intentions or desires known. I believe it was in 1978 or early 1979. I wonder if the minister can tell me whether there is any validity to any application. Is anything current? Does anybody have a large corporate prior claim in there, or is it unfettered in every way?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the member is referring to chart areas. Traditionally licensees in the industry will express an interest to the ministry in a certain area in which they would like to concentrate their operations. We call it a chart area application. It has no basis in legality at all; it is just an indication to us that they would like to operate in that area. We have to sort out who operates where. Quite often different licensees in the industry will themselves agree that somebody will stay in this area and someone will stay in the other area, so as to be able to concentrate their operating areas. It provides certain efficiencies in operation. I believe Price-Skeena did indicate that they would like to operate in that area and in effect applied for a chart area. But so far as I know we haven't committed it to any particular group.

MR. HOWARD: I take it, then, that whatever their expression of interest was should not now exist, because that company is no longer there. I would assume that might be some reason to say that it's not even in the cards any longer. In any event, I hope that is the case, because if it does exist and if there is pressure — you know the way these big companies operate far better than I do — if there is demand and insistence about something, there is a tendency to lean in that direction.

This is a suggestion: most of the highways in the province that are on the coast — many of them in the northwest area that I know about — were originally logging roads. In some instances they were mining-access roads. The logger went in, built a road, logged it and then extended it further and further. Subsequently the government determines th at those roads then will become a part of the public highways system, and they'll absorb them and take them over. That is in fact now taking place with respect to the road northward from Terrace up to the Nass Valley — what was originally a Columbia Cellulose logging access road or main line will become a public highway. While the minister doesn't do this directly, there exists, I understand, an arrangement, an opportunity or a policy requiring some logging roads to be built in their initial stages to highway standards in anticipation of their being absorbed into the highway system so that we do not subsequently have to widen them, straighten them or bring them up to highway or secondary road standards.

We should recognize a fact of life: that is, at some time a highway or a road will exist on the west side of Skeena. Its southern terminus now is roughly Cedarvale — between there and Terrace. That's going to happen at some point. If logging takes place in that area under the small enterprise program, there will be feeder roads, but there will also be some kind of main-line roads as well. I don't want to discuss the technical part, as to what they consider to be the cheapest road access idea — namely, the Klootch Canyon bridge or an aerial tramway to get across there — or whether it should be a road running out of Terrace or out of Cedarvale to get there. That's a technical thing and I don't really want to get into it. But what I want to advance to the minister is that if he can converse with his colleague the Minister of Transportation and Highways to accept the principle that at some time the road is going to be built, and at some time it's going to cost public money, maybe he can get some advance payments so we can engage in a prebuild. This government endorsed the prebuild of the southern portion of the Alaska gas pipeline to export gas into the United States. This is a prebuild concept. I think the minister can....

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: Well, it's a lovely idea to get somebody else to spend the money, plus the fact that this year — maybe my colleague the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) is going to follow this up in a more detailed way — the minister is going to have money left over in his budget. I have to indicate for the record of Hansard that he's shaking his head in a negative way. Do you mean you have blown it all? Even the $50 million for fire suppression costs? I'm inclined to think that if you look at that carefully, you will find that you didn't spend $50 million, and by the end of the fiscal year you are not going to spend $50 million. You are going to be underspent. But you might be able to find some money to go in partnership with the Minister of Transportation and Highways to

[ Page 3050 ]

prebuild that west Skeena road and give a little leg up to the small operator to get in there and employ more people in that area.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Briefly, Mr. Chairman, if the member will support me in trying to get some money out of the Minister of Highways and Transportation to build forest roads, boy, we're on the same team. I'll go hand-in-hand with you to his office to do that.

Fire suppression: $50 million. No, we didn't spend $50 million last year, but we cannot transfer that money into any other account of the ministry. That money, I'm afraid, belongs to the Minister of Finance. I wish it was not thus.

MR. HOWARD: Is the minister saying that the $50 million was a padded amount in the first place?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: It certainly is not. If the member can figure out a way with me to determine in advance what it is going to cost to fight fires, I'd be very happy to use his counsel in that area as well.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm going to be relatively brief this afternoon. Inasmuch as most of the money has already been spent anyway, it seems a little absurd to spend much time talking about how we're going to spend it. Hopefully we'll have a chance before April 1 to have a good discussion about how we're going to spend the money from April 1 through to March 31, 1985. I did want to say a couple of things though, and ask a couple of questions as well.

Before I say anything about reforestation, I should say, as I've said at other times in this House, that my relationship with the Forest Service offices in both Campbell River and Port McNeill is absolutely first rate. The staff, dreadfully diminished in number as they are, are extremely cooperative. The requests I've had of them have been handled quickly and fairly and, in my view, very well, even though in some cases it's meant a real strain in terms of the number of hours available to people who are already overworked, and who are working, in many cases, free hours for the people of B.C. simply because they can't get their work done in the normal course of their working day. I think they, for the most part.... I shouldn't even qualify it by saying "for the most part." Every bit of my experience with Forest Service people in North Island is that they perform an incredibly good service for the taxpayers of this province. I only wish there were a few more of them to do the work that now can't be done as quickly as it should be, and in some cases is not being done at all.

I just want to make a few comments for the record. In a sense I suppose they will seem like "motherhood," but perhaps we don't say it enough in terms of reforestation. I don't think there would be any argument from anyone in this House about the need for massive additional funds for silviculture. What appears to be lacking in this province, and in this country, is a public understanding of the fact that we're not dealing with mining but with farming when we talk about forestry. Thinking back to my days growing up on a farm in the Okanagan, if we hadn't pruned, fertilized and thinned, and hadn't done all the other basic maintenance agricultural requirements, we wouldn't have had much of a crop come summer and fall in any of the tree fruit sectors. Some farmers would let it go for a year. It would take those farmers many years to bring their orchards back to proper production, bringing first-quality fruit. It's the same in the woods, the same in the forests. It's just that it might take 70, 90 or 100 years to complete the same cycle that a farmer will complete in 12 months. For us to view the forest industry as any different from the way in which a farmer would view his farm is absurd; yet that's what we're doing.

[3:15]

I understand that now, for the first time in the history of the tree-farm licence in the Nimpkish Valley, they are not replanting at the same pace they are cutting. The first time. The funds are not sufficient for them to replant at the level that the professional foresters employed by the company feel is required. That allegation is a serious one. I can't say that's happening on other tree-farm licences in North Island, but I'm told by professional foresters that in the Nimpkish Valley, which is prime land for growing trees, they are not planting at the level that's required. They're certainly not.... I don't need to say this for the minister's benefit, but I think all of us who are concerned about forestry should be saying what we think about it in every available forum so that we can begin to make the public more aware and more supportive of the need to pour money back into the forest industry so that we do have an industry in the future.

If the minister will understand that my comments are made in that vein, then we don't need to have a quarrel about this. I suspect we agree. But obviously, clearly, sufficient money is not being put in. I think the minister needs some help in his dealings with treasury board, because that is a priority for future generations in this province, one that we should not be abandoning. In many ways we have in fact abandoned it.

I'm concerned.... Let me put it this way. The minister may have answered this during the course of these estimates already, and if he has, I apologize. But what's the status of the federal shareable money? I know there were negotiations going on. Has the provincial government taken advantage of what I understand is some $50 million of federal funds, cost-shared money, available for silviculture in general? What are the numbers being anticipated for annual seedling planting over the next four or five years? I understood that the number was about 131 million through until 1987. I'm curious to know whether those numbers have been changed. Professional foresters argue that we should probably be in the 160 million range. I don't pretend to know what the exact numbers should be, but I'd be curious to know what the ministry anticipates will be the annual production of seedlings.

I wonder if the minister can give me some information as to what future plans are for the fertilization programs that have gone on. Certainly in the publicly managed as opposed to the TFL-managed forest lands in North Island, the cancellation of fertilization programs is a severe blow. I guess we can understand it for one year, but I wonder if that is a one year cancellation or something that will not be reinstated in the foreseeable future. Does the minister know when that will come back?

I also, want to know whether the minister can tell me what, if any, plans are anticipated for the general upgrading or thinning and spacing programs in the Sayward forests particularly, inasmuch as that program, too, has been restrained in a severe way. That forest was in particular need of some major work.

[ Page 3051 ]

In the paper that was produced last year, in talking about turning over the management of our forests — I'm shorthanding, and I appreciate that in a generality one tends to overstate a position or not state it correctly — to the operators rather than the Forest Service, in effect, I'd be curious to know what the minister's timetable is on that particular report and what he plans to see happen in the next little while with that. I should tell him very quickly and very directly that I'm not in support of that particular program. I think we are a little gullible if we allow the forest companies to manage their own operations. I've already talked to professional foresters in the private sector who ask the obvious question: is their greater responsibility to their employer or to their professionalism as professional foresters? If they see something going wrong or see something being done that requires attention being drawn to it, do they draw attention or do they not? If they draw attention, do they run the risk of losing their jobs? That's the kind of question that's being asked frequently. There are a lot more questions which we'll obviously have a chance to debate at a future time, but I would be interested in the minister's comments about the processes by which that policy will be discussed and what his timetable is on that.

I have a couple of other smaller questions. I wonder if the minister would give me an update on his current position on TFL 2 and the rollover — you know the issue I'm talking about — the Crown forest requirement in the 1949 agreement that the old growth that has been logged by contractors revert back to the company. What is the current position of the minister in regard to providing alternative sites for those contractors who, in many cases, will not be or may not be taken on by the Crown to log in TFL 2?

Another question: what is the holdup with the woodlot program? I suspect this is an issue that's of far more interest in the interior, but certainly there is quite a lot of interest in North Island about the whole woodlot program. It seems as if that program has not been able to get off the ground. I wonder if that's because the minister has changed his mind about the whole idea or whether there are administrative reasons for not proceeding.

Another question: where are we with the Tahsish-Kwois? There was a public inquiry chaired by a former mayor of Campbell River into the Tahsish Valley on the west coast of the Island as to whether or not that area would be logged. I forget the precise name of the Forest Service program, but it's the same as Meares Island. There was a task force down in the Tahsish-Kwois river valleys. That report was submitted, and three options were given. I'm curious to know where we are in terms of decision making with that.

The second-to-last issue is one on which I probably need to focus more attention with the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser). There continues to be some very real concern about public use of logging roads. We have a considerable number of roads that have been constructed under section 88 by logging companies within TFLs that are in effect public roads: the road to Zeballos, the road to Winter Harbour from Holberg, etc. Some of these roads in the area are managed by the Forest Service, and I think of the Head Bay road in Gold River–Tahsis. Others are managed exclusively by the company involved, and I think of the Holberg–Winter Harbour road. All of these roads have more public use than they do logging company use. A great number of them in North Island....

We really do need to develop a rational policy between Forests and Highways for when a logging road becomes a public road. We've now got the situation on the Winter Harbour–Holberg road whereby people hauling fish out of Winter Harbour are required to pay a toll to Western Forest Products for the use of that road; yet they're paying gas tax when they purchase fuel. You'd think that maintenance should be a public responsibility, not a private one. But there is also a general problem of maintenance. I wonder if the government has considered developing an overall policy on whether or not these roads should in fact be turned over to the Ministry of Highways for maintenance.

The final point is one that would take a considerable amount of debate in this House, and that is the whole question of the massive control over people's lives that tree-farm licences have. I'm not going into the whole debate this afternoon. If the fancy strikes me, I might do that in the next set of estimates. It would be remiss on my part as the representative for the northern part of Vancouver Island if I didn't remind the minister again that there is considerable public frustration, and in some cases anger, about the control that certain companies have because of their tree-farm licences.

The one that comes to mind immediately is the Canfor licence in the Nimpkish valley, because there are so many people who would like to develop that area for tourism, and others who would like to live in parts of that area. I recognize the alienation problem, and I am a firm supporter of preserving forest land, but there needs to be a better way of making those decisions. I appreciate that there is a process that people can go through to apply for SUPs, but in effect the public access to those areas is severely limited. For the people who live in northern Vancouver Island, for the most part there is no public land, because it's all, as they see it, under the control of tree-farm licences. Without saying anything more about it, I wonder if the minister has given any consideration to amending the processes that occur now with regard to SUPs and to opening up the whole planning that should take place through regional districts in areas such as northern Vancouver Island, which in effect now are not planned and are controlled by the big companies.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: As far as I know, there's no reduction in planting in Nimpkish. Planting is part of a longer term plan. Seedlings that will be planted this year, last year or next year are ordered several years ahead of time, because it does take time to grow them. All I can say is that the general level of planting is up. There may be specific areas where for various reasons planting goes down or rises during different years depending on the level of harvesting or whether or not the particular areas of harvest happen to be replanted. But so far as I know, there's no reduction. If there is some variation in Nimpkish, I'd have to look up the reason for that.

The $50 million of federal money is, I think, largely mythical. At least we can’t get our hands on it right now, although we have been negotiating with the federal government for over two years now for a newer, more expanded agreement. The objective of that agreement, as we have expressed to them and they seem to agree, is that it will be directed largely toward the planting of backlog, unsatisfactorily restocked forest lands. I think I mentioned yesterday that we envision we would catch up on most of that within ten years. We do hope to renew the existing program we have with them. That's the program where we have been doing stand-tending work, such as spacing, thinning, fertilizing, and so on. We will be working towards extension, if we achieve it, into more backlog, and then we'll be taking on the

[ Page 3052 ]

spacing and thinning ourselves. Although in the last couple of years we have had to pull back a bit on that for financial reasons, I hope we'll be able to expand on that type of work again as our economics get better. I agree it's very important. It's a big part of overall forest management work.

[3:30]

On the timing of the management partnership with industry, we have had the discussion paper. Let me say very clearly that our initial entry into this type of partnership arrangement will be in tree-farm licences, where we already have much bigger participation by the licensee. As you know, we issued a White Paper in September, I believe. We received responses from many sources. Right now I don't know whether it has gone out, but very shortly we'll be coming out with the modified version, based upon the input that we got and the discussions we had with various sectors of the public, We hope to have the final draft out very shortly after discussion on that. I think we will probably be moving in that direction within a few months time. How is it going to be done? It's not going to be an automatic right of any licensee. It's something they will have to earn through past performance. If their past performance in management is good, we'll consider allowing them to take on more responsibility. We will pull back as direct supervisors; instead we will audit their performance. If the performance isn't good, I'm sure there will be lots of people around who will direct us to where we should be concentrating our audit work. Together with moving away from direct supervision to the audit process, there will, of course, be a system of penalties, and they will be severe enough to ensure that proper management work is done.

As far as the professionalism within the professional foresters — whether their allegiance is to their company or to their professional ethics — I guess that's a question they'll have to ask themselves. Through our audit process, we will not only be auditing the actual work but, I guess, indirectly auditing the professionalism of our professional foresters in the province.

TFL No. 2 logging. As the member knows, when that tree-farm licence was granted some 25 years ago, there was a clause which provided for independent loggers to log old growth timber up until, unfortunately, January of this year. That time has expired. We have attempted to negotiate with Crown Forest Industries to find a way of making the transition easier, and I think we have been successful. To those loggers who have performed well, we are granting direct sales within the TFL until such time as we can replace in the timber supply areas surrounding the volume which has been traditionally harvested by independents in the TFL. That transition period is going to take a number of months, but if a licensee has not had sufficient sales to replace the volume, we will issue him direct sales back-to-back, I guess, if necessary, to make sure he has an opportunity to log until such time as he can develop that opportunity in the public timber supply area.

There are one or two loggers there who are not happy with that arrangement. I'm sure the member is aware of that. But we've tried to be as helpful as we can. By and large, I think the transition will work.

The woodlot program is moving ahead as quickly as staff time will permit. In addition to new woodlot licences, we have to roll over the old farm woodlot licences into the new form of tenure. There are now about 35 of them which are now in the process. We have issued about six new woodlot licences under the new tenure form. I think there are 75 to 80 in the process right now. Altogether, I guess, there are about 300 applications, including the ones issued or in the process. This is a good form of tenure for the practice of small forestry. Providing it's handled properly, I think it can do a lot to not only increase the yield of the forest but also to make the public more aware of the value of forest practices in the province.

I can't pronounce the name Tahsish-Kwois. I understand from my deputy that the studies are proceeding well. We expect to have a report within a few months, and we'll probably be addressing that in the Environment and Land Use Committee some time this spring. I can't offer any more advice. If the member wishes more details, I'm sure that if he contacts my staff, either locally or in Victoria, they could advise him.

Public use of forest roads. There are times when it's very clear that a road is strictly a forest road, and there's not a problem there. There are times when it's very clearly a public highway and there's no problem. But we have a big in-between area when a road services primarily the forest industry, but there is substantial use, especially when it's servicing communities. A sort of transition thing that we now have with the Highways ministry is that the Ministry of Highways will, through my ministry, direct money, which is then paid to the licensees to do the road maintenance above and beyond what they would normally require for their forestry use. There are a lot of roads that I would like to turn over to the Minister of Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) if he had the money to maintain them. But this sort of transition has worked fairly well in the past. Several roads in the member's riding are operated that way. I guess there is always a time when we say that we should have done it some time ago. We haven't turned it over yet. It's just a matter of when. I think we've had pretty good cooperation from the Minister of Highways.

The member mentioned a fisherman having to pay a toll to move his product over a forest road to market. There is a provision in the Forest Act for the commercial use of a forest road. The licensee who has to maintain the road can charge other commercial users to share in the cost of that maintenance. I don't think we envisioned it would get into fishermen moving fish to market; it was more on the lines of industrial use, such as rock or gravel hauling or that type of thing. But they are certainly within their rights to do that. I don't know how much use by fishermen this particular road you mention has. We can discuss that with the licensee.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, we have a few quiet times, and it's interesting to get onto a bit of a philosophical discussion of the forest industry and how it's going to affect our way of life.

I was interested in what my colleagues the members for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) and North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) had to say. When we look at what has happened in the forest industry over the last 30 to 50 years, I think the problems haven't changed that much, except on the surface. I really do believe that the minister, and the majority of his staff, understand the need for complete silviculture in the forest industry. But my big fear is that we're going to continue being ripped off by the operators within the forest industry, who over the years have had a very easy way within British Columbia.

I think the fact that my colleague for Alberni stated, the overcapitalization of the forest industry, only came about because there was a lucrative and profitable business to take over. A lot of the governments in the past, including the government that the present minister is a part of, have not laid

[ Page 3053 ]

down the groundwork for complete forest management. We have had forest management licences and tree-farm licences going back to, I believe, 1949, when the first one was given in the Prince Rupert area, but the practice of complete forest management has never taken place.

From my consultations with both the foresters in the private industry and the foresters in the ministry, who are the middle level of bureaucrats — and it doesn't matter if it's in government or industry — I find that they have a problem, and they have the expertise of what is needed. I know it's easy to quote figures of double the cubic metres that you get out of timber if it's properly managed, and you can use all the other examples of what's taken place in other countries, and I guess New Zealand leads the list. But the need that is being developed.... I find that it's being developed only on a band-aid attitude a lot of the time — they look at real forest management as a kind of frill.

I know in my area we have some good examples of forest management, practised partially by Pacific Logging and B.C. Forest Products, but there are still thousands and thousands of acres that have never been touched. Today it is only because of the short-term provincial participation in EBAP and the Canada Works program that we are utilizing a lot of those who are unemployed, on UIC, or who have run out of their benefits under the new Canada Works program, and that they are doing a fair amount of new silviculture, new thinning, new maintenance of the roads, new fire protection, and the opening up of roads for fire service. I know it's easy to say that we're in these tough economic times, but the policies that are going to preserve the forest industry of British Columbia should have been set, as the minister said, maybe 50 years ago. We can't wait another day to start bringing in some guidelines to do what the member for North Island said, to continually look at forestry in the agricultural light instead of that we're going to continue to cream it and mine it.

It is important that we as members, both those from the urban areas and those of us who share a rural area, must look at it as a job-creation program. More jobs are going to be created if we do a proper thinning program, maintenance of the fire roads and maintenance of the drainage program in that area. We are going to create jobs, and I think this is the important part. I will agree with anyone that we're not going to create only $200-a-day jobs but employment that is going to help the small business community; it's going to help the economy in general. I think the minister has a responsibility, Mr. Chairman, to give some leadership and hope to the communities that we're not going to continue to look at a sidehill, go in, log it, clearcut it, and then walk away from it. Even if it's just a few years later that we replant it, but there is some maintenance on it in the thinning.... There is in every community within the forest area that opportunity to participate in it from a long-term belief of maintenance and management. I know that it will give the needed employment that is wanted in many parts of my riding.

I would like to ask a couple of questions of the minister. In one of the question periods last year, I spoke to the minister about the fire suppression crews: where they were going to be located, especially to service the unincorporated area of the Western Community in my particular riding where there are no volunteer fire departments. At that time I was led to believe by the minister that there had been some arrangement set up with the volunteer fire departments to house them or to coordinate them. When I checked with the fire chiefs, they told me that hasn't taken place. I would like to know if the minister could confirm it. What arrangements have been made?

[3:45]

A second question I would like to ask the minister is that I believe the timber supply of B.C. Forest Products Ltd. in the Port Renfrew area has been in operation for many years. I believe one of the criteria of a TFL is that there would be some type of sustained yield. I've been led by certain foresters in that area to believe that in one block there is only a potential 15-year supply of timber, and in the second a 25-year supply, and that there may be a falldown at that point. I would like to know if the minister and his officials have spoken with their foresters in the B.C. Forest Products tree-farm licence area in the Port Renfrew area. What is the long-term supply of timber, and will there be a slowdown or not?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I realize that the member, as he said when he started, is speaking of motherhood issues of forest management, which I guess none of us, regardless of which side of the House we are on, can disagree on. I have the responsibility of dealing with that subject so far as the funding available to me permits, and I think we've made some pretty good progress in the last few years. Hopefully we'll make even more in the future.

A couple of specifics: the fire protection thing.... I guess when my estimates come up every year or so a member asks me this question. I guess the only way to really deal with it is if you wouldn't mind contacting our protection people. I can take you there if you wish, but I guess that's the only way we'll get down to the specifics of it, Mr. Member.

Certain supply blocks within TFLs, of course, don't have a sustained yield within the supply block. The overall TFL does. Sustained yield does not mean that it's going to be a constant allowable cut year after year after year. This can change from time to time either upwards or downwards, depending on a number of factors.

Pacific Rim park did have an effect — or will have an effect — on the TFL the member is speaking of. I guess we're still trying to finalize that with the federal government after — what is it? — 13 or 14 years now. I think the park, for all practical purposes, is established, but there was supposed to be a trade-off for forest land which we're still trying to work out so that we can maintain the allowable cut in that TFL without any major falldowns in volumes.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. MITCHELL: I just have one quick question. As for the suppression crews, I have attempted to contact many parts of your ministry, and I get conflicting stories: one, there will be no suppression crew in the Western Community,that it will be run out of Duncan; two, from a question I asked you in question period, that there will be some coordination and that the location of suppression crews in the Western Community, the Langford-Colwood area.... I want to stress to you, Mr. Minister, that it's imperative that we do not leave the suppression crews located in Duncan to service anywhere from Langford out to Jordan River. There has to be some type of crew in that area during the fire season. Although many areas in my riding are partially covered by volunteer fire departments, there are a lot of forest areas not covered by any type of fire district. It's important, and I'm going to hound until I get some firm answer and commitment from your ministry.

[ Page 3054 ]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Would the member write down this phone number: 387-3900. Phone next Tuesday morning, when my Deputy Minister will have researched the subject and will have all the answers for the member.

MR. SKELLY: A few years ago I was interviewed by Paul St. Pierre, who asked me what I as a government backbencher thought of the Legislature. I said I compared it to the Zulu kingdom. In that kingdom the king was all powerful. All the young men lived in barracks and the women were treated as though their value was nothing. They couldn't even pass on the same streets as the king; in fact, they couldn't speak to the king directly. Once a year there was a reversal of that structure in Zulu society: the king was forced to strip down and run through town naked, and the women could yell obscenities and throw cow dung at him. I said that's the same purpose that the Legislature serves.

I have great respect for the parliamentary system, but I'm also aware of how it operates: even though the government has 35 out of 57 seats, they have 100 percent of the power; the opposition has 22 seats and zero percent of the power. So our duty is to come into estimates, dust off the minister a little bit and give him a chance to respond. I think we have done that in a friendly way over the past few days. The minister has come up with a few answers, and we have come up with a few questions. We both realize we'll be dealing with estimates again in a very short time, and the opposition will have a chance at that time to see the new budget and to comment more fully on the programs of the minister. The minister announced, both at the Truck Loggers' convention and elsewhere in the province, that he has some new ideas about raising money for forestry purposes. Changes are taking place within the ministry, and during the throne speech or at some time in the near future we'll be able to see what those plans are and then to comment on them in a more informed way.

Much of the money we're dealing with now in the minister's budget has already been spent, and our comments are much like those of the Zulu women and the material that they threw across the floor. We've expressed some of our concerns to the minister: concerns about changes in forest tenures that seem to be causing an increase in the concentration of ownership in industry; about changes in corporate structures which seem to be taking more out of the forest economy and leaving less for the citizens of British Columbia; about changes in utilization and technology in forestry that seem to be taking employment out of the forest industry as well. The minister is aware of some of our concerns in a general way, and that was the point we intended to get across. We are concerned about replacement of the forests, concerned that the province have a sound forestry policy. Too much regulation and responsibility for management of our resource is being transferred to private industry and outside the realm of accountability to the people of British Columbia. We'll be back again to forest estimates in a very few weeks, and be able to deal with these things in much greater detail. I look forward to making more detailed comments at that time.

Vote 41 approved.

Vote 42: forest and range management, $192,472,471 — approved.

Vote 43: fire suppression program, $50,000,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TOURISM

On vote 73: minister's office, $132,564.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, on October 7, 1983, I made some opening remarks regarding my estimates. They were not lengthy. I believe they were six or seven minutes long. I outlined the activities of the Ministry of Tourism, and I think I'll leave it at that. I shall not repeat those remarks I made last October. Should any member of the opposition have any questions on my ministry's estimates, I would welcome them, and my deputies shall be here at any moment to assist me.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I remember well the words the minister gave us last October or whenever it was. It seems like months and months ago. Not only that, he moved the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. Here we are again. We're sitting again. It's a wonder in B.C. You almost have it your own way but not quite.

First, I would like to deal with the estimates in and of themselves. I have been a bit critical of the way the estimates have been contrived and managed in order to confuse anybody, even someone with a computer mentality. I asked, some time ago, when I was criticizing another portfolio, what the message was when you couldn't take one estimate from the old system and relate it to the new. "Don't worry," I was told, "you can get printouts and the printouts will make it quite apparent to you exactly what's happening. You can make your comparisons and so on." I've checked with the geniuses in our caucus and I can't find any of them who can do any better than I can in terms of relating those numbers. I've talked to the geniuses at universities and elsewhere and they come up with exactly the same kind of reply. But you know something, Mr. Chairman? This is even greater. This is the most marvellous piece of hide-the-$5 million-or-$10 million I've ever seen in my life.

In the minister's last report he tells us that that year — now we're talking about '82, which ends at March 31, 1983; and this report is signed by hand: "The Ministry of Tourism's budget for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1983, is $13,680,900. In addition, $60,000 was allocated to the employment development fund." In the estimates this year we find the comparative figures. We see that last year the figure was $8,315,312. That was brought out of the sky and into the estimate book. Then it relates that to this new estimate of $5,942,086. So we've got an $8 million decrease here, virtually. But there's another figure, because this figure in the Tourism report isn't even faithful to last year's estimates. If I can find last year's estimates around here somewhere, and I'm sure there is a copy of them, we would find that the figure is over $14 million in the actual estimates of last year. I've heard of games where you use little capsules and you hide the pennies. Here it is here.

[4:00]

Let's just contrast all these figures. First we'll take 1982-83 according to the detailed estimates of last year, issued April 3. Here we find those estimates — $14,784,256. Then we go to his report to the folks out there, which was tabled fairly recently, and we find it's $13,680,900. Then we go to the comparable figure in this year's estimates — this

[ Page 3055 ]

year being last year but, you know, we're going into another one. God alone knows what it's going to say and what the comparison is going to be then. But we find it's $8,315,312, then going down to $5,942,686 for this fiscal year that we're still in but darn near finished.

I only do that to confuse you. Mr. Chairman, like me you're confused. Like the forever-confused government House Leader, he's confused. I need not worry about the Minister of Tourism; he was confused in taking the portfolio in the first place. Anyway, we're all confused. Everybody in the House is confused.

He has, I think, made some suggestion in his opening remarks about $5 million being moved from here to there, etc. The $5 million was being moved to Doug Heal for government propaganda, I suspect. But in any event, the figures that we get in the estimates today — and this is beyond his control — with a portfolio that's worth $5,942,000.... You don't really put a great deal of criticism in that area, except in the area of his own administration. But so far as the government is concerned, my plea to them would be to smarten up the whole system of bookkeeping so that we can all understand what is going on. It's a lot too much to expect from legislators to follow this situation — or, from that standpoint, chartered accountants, economists or anyone else who has an eye for numerical figures.

So I would ask the minister once again to let us know why we have all these contrasting numbers, because they are all his. One from his last year's estimates, one from his last year's report and one from this fiscal year's report all have a contrasting figure from last year. Even my colleague for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) — that vast riding — is confused. If he's confused, then surely everybody in this House must be confused. I note that the member from Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) is. He always looks confused, but he is far, far more confused today than he was yesterday, when he was listening to things about wolf packs, etc.

This afternoon I would like to ask a few questions again about the sale of our Beautiful British Columbia magazine. I won't get into that at the moment. I'd like to know why, for example, a Crown corporation became involved in that transaction. As a matter of fact, I think I can give you a little documentation on what happened. Any of us who are now confused can become unconfused because it's so easy to read between the lines that there's no question there won't be any confusion left at all. However, that poor, beset ministry!

In this province tourism is supposed to become one of our major industries. It is, in spite of this government, a very, very large percentage of our gross provincial product. But that poor, beset ministry suffered far worse in the hands of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) than most. Remember the minister announced that there would be a 25 percent cutback. So did the Premier on one of his short visits. He suggested that there would be a 25 percent cutback, and so did the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot). So they are all pretty sure about that. But poor old Tourism got nicked for 30 percent. As if they aren't in enough trouble already, they got hit 5 percent worse than even the suggestion. They've given away their great propaganda machine — the Beautiful British Columbia magazine — and when I say given away, I tell you that truthfully. They not only gave it away as a Christmas present, they applied rewards beyond imagination to that giveaway.

I would wonder why the minister was so badly dealt with by the Treasury Board and by his cabinet colleagues, when of all times we should be trying to increase our gross provincial product. At the time when we should be getting people to come and visit us and spend their bucks.... They can't at this moment gamble on the ferries, but at least they can buy a meal, some B.C. wine and spend money on gas, hotels and elsewhere. At that very moment in time when we need precious dollars from the great United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Japan or elsewhere, we're selling the farm locally. We've demeaned the tourism portfolio down to a point where it is being ravaged almost beyond repair. To say this treasure-trove has been ransacked, Mr. Chairman, is probably the only thing that I can say that would be descriptive enough of this situation.

Since we're giving it all away, has the minister got some idea who's going to pick up the slack? Who's going to come along and save beautiful B.C. — and I'm not talking about the magazine now — and save our tourist business? Or do we want the private entrepreneurs to do it all themselves? If that's the case, then....

MR. MICHAEL: There's a stranger in the House.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether you heard that remark or not, but it's a very serious remark, and I will sit while you deal with it, if you wish.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Since the Chair doesn't recognize a stranger in the House, perhaps you'd like to proceed, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: Oh, thank you. I thought maybe that was a factual statement. I thought the Sergeant-at-Arms would be here immediately.

Anyway, getting back to this situation. I would like to ask one more question before I sit down in this short series. Was Bob Saunders fired? Was he a scapegoat? There is every indication that this high official of the Tourism ministry, who left on January 24 and was replaced two days later by a Treasury Board employee, Evelyn Greene.... He was in charge, as I understand it, of the finance and administration division. I don't know if anybody else in the department had an opportunity to apply in that short period — two days. It strikes me that it would be moving very quickly. Has this official who has now come in — this person, Evelyn Greene...? She's just a public servant, and I'm certainly not aiming any darts at her. But has she been sent in there by the Finance minister to either clean up the image or clean up the act? It strikes me, from all I've heard, that the department is under such a cloud at the moment that this kind of firing could be expected, but not expected in the particular way it occurred.

So there you are. Would the minister reconcile his budgetary situation, if he can? Would he like to tell us about why he got hit harder than anybody else, when times are tough in this province, when we should be promoting tourism? That is, in staffing he got hit harder than anybody else in terms of percentages. Would he go on to tell us all about what happened to the director of Tourism's finance, administration and personnel department?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, I would be happy to comment on the questions that the member has asked. First, on the question of the budget figures, I don't find them as mysterious as the member seems to. I think that if he really

[ Page 3056 ]

wanted to, he could find out exactly what has happened. One way would be to refer to page 197 in the estimates, where it is outlined in detail. But I can add for him — and he has said it himself — that a considerable number of dollars in my budget now appear in the estimates of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot). Those are the dollars for advertising.

Secondly, in this past year the budget has shown full recovery figures for such things as the Royal Hudson and last year's operation of Beautiful British Columbia; whereas the year before there were only partial recovery figures for Beautiful British Columbia magazine and none at all for the operation of the Royal Hudson.

The member, I think, is incorrect when he quotes the staffing levels of the ministry, because we are referring to the estimates for the year 82-83. If he refers to the time that we are discussing, he will find that it was a 25 percent reduction.

Briefly, to talk about the year past in terms of marketing, the ministry has spent more in the last year on marketing than has ever been spent before. In fact, the emphasis in the last year was, and will be in the years to come, on the marketing of this province and attracting people here. I can give him a few figures on how we have done this last year, which wasn't the easiest year economically. We've done very, very well. The revenues derived from tourism throughout British Columbia in 1983 have been estimated.... We can only estimate the last couple of months of the year; we have data up to about the end of October. We can estimate the last two months, and it would be at approximately 10 percent increase over 1982. The final figures are not available at this time, but all our indications are that we will reach the $2.2 billion mark for 1983, which is, incidentally, the largest tourism year ever in this province. So I would think that with our emphasis on marketing and the amount of effort we have put into that arm of tourism, we have done very, very well.

We have canvassed the subject of Beautiful British Columbia magazine in this House on two or three different occasions. The member makes reference to it being a giveaway, etc. I take issue with that, but I have a hunch that we'll be canvassing it further in these estimates, so I'll let it go at that until we get to that part of the estimates.

[4:15]

The other brief remark was on the ferry situation. I think that the management of the B.C. Ferry Corporation and the ferry workers' union are to be complimented on settling a very good contract late last year — a three-year agreement that will take us through to the end of Expo 86. So I am very optimistic that we will be able to continue to provide the finest ferry service available anywhere in the world, right up to and through Expo 86. I commend both parties in that agreement for coming up with a tremendous contract.

On the issue of the finance manager in the Ministry of Tourism, Mr. Saunders, I have made the statement that that was a senior management decision about a middle management position in the ministry, and I am not about to stand here and second-guess the deputies in my ministry. They have made a decision regarding that position, I think a good decision, and I will leave it at that.

I think that that answers most of what the member has asked thus far.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, you can't ask for anything more than that. He answered more questions than I asked. He's got a guilt complex about that ferry thing, you know. He got in a bit of trouble over having made statements about ferries, and I'm sure that the minister responsible for ferries probably ate him up for breakfast one morning. But I never said a word about ferries.

MR. MOWAT: Yes, you did.

MR. COCKE: What did I say about ferries?

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Oh, gambling on the ferries! Oh, sorry! That was an aside. I said we couldn't offer them that. But anyway, that's fine. You signed a contract, or he did, or somebody did, and everything's fine.

What the minister said about the mumbo-jumbo in terms of, "all you have to do is read page 197," and this and that and the other thing.... The discrepancy is here. As for the $5 million that was turned over to the Provincial Secretary, we said at the time it was infamous. I still say it's infamous. All it is is government propaganda. Instead of being aimed at the tourist market, it's being aimed at the voters in this province. Doug Heal and his little empire are down there putting out all the gobbledegook and so on and so forth about what a marvellous bunch of people we have governing this province, and at the same time....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: It is junk. You know it. I get some of the junk mail, and I've seen some of the TV messages. You should be ashamed of yourself. You used to be an honest man.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go do your research. You'd better research Mr. Vickers, too, you know. You're supporting him. You'd better research him, too.

MR. COCKE: Listen, when I found out, Mr. Chairman, that Vickers had once defended one of your public servants, I said to myself: "Well, holy doodle, there's an honest lawyer; he'll take anybody on."

But, Mr. Chairman, the $5 million he should have fought for, the $5 million he couldn't fight for.... He tells us now — we haven't got public accounts before us — this year they spent virtually $2.2 million in marketing. They've only got a right to spend $1,998,434 except that they probably got a warrant. I didn't notice it if they did. But that's their marketing budget for this fiscal period that we're in. Last fiscal period they had the right to spend $2,394,169 for marketing. He gives us figures that we can't rationalize with public accounts, he says what a marvellous job they're doing, and he also tells us that they did a nice job in terms of signing a contract. I say it's shameful that the $5 million is over here.

But let me tell you more about personnel. We see this guy canned. He had nothing to do with it — a senior situation. Let's talk about another soul, and I would like to give you a real success story. Here's a guy by the name of Jim Pavich; he's off to Los Angeles and the good life. Who's Jim? He's down there to replace Richard Ludwig. Richard probably didn't fit quite the party demand — a good Socred, if there's such a thing as a good Socred. He's out of favour, so down goes Jim. Where does Jim come from? Ludwig came up through the public service; no OIC appointment for Mr. Ludwig. But, my gracious, our friend Jim! Order- in-council

[ Page 3057 ]

no. 2096 says that Jim Pavich is appointed to the position down there in the public service at $2,769 a month, subject to adjustment from time to time, under the Public Service Act. His position is trade development officer 2, at the top of the salary range. What had he done in his past? Had he been working in an agency where they were promoting tourism? Had he a great sales career behind him?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. COCKE: The member says yes. He was the salesman for Smithrite garbage collectors.

MR. VEITCH: You're selling garbage.

MR. COCKE: Aha! That was a marvellous remark from that witty Whip! The member down there, that great Willingdon member, the pride of all Burnaby.... I heard that from three people in three years but, in any event, he's the pride of all Burnaby. He says that I am selling garbage. I'm telling you the truth.

Let's see where Mr. Pavich really comes from, despite the Smithrite background. He became part of the Bennett crew in Kamloops. "At the present time the campaign team includes three regional organizers ready in the field: David Tkachuk, former executive director of the Saskatchewan Tories, and also loaned back to former employers to help the Grant Devine campaign against Blakeney; and Jim Pavich, former campaign manager in Burnaby North in the 1979 election...." He was working against you, Eileen — ineffectively, but I'll tell you, for his work and his faithful service, he was appointed. Did the minister appoint him?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: This is a position in the public service, not an appointment to a Crown corporation or a board, so don't try to give me that phoney relationship. This is an appointment in the public service — I read it to you; trade development officer 2 — and they put him bang at the top of the salary range, by order-in-council, a practice that is being increased by this government. Will we need a Public Service Commission in two or three years down the road? No, all we'll need is a Socred membership card and you'll get a job wherever you want it, within reason.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Sounds like a good idea.

MR. COCKE: Put that on the record. The member for Surrey says it sounds like a good idea. The member for Surrey is full of good ideas; the problem is that those good ideas are not good for the people of this province. They're not good for the trust of the people in this province. It's taking a while, but slowly and surely it's sinking in that there is a great deal of corruption in this government, and that corruption is exemplified by the kind of things that we're seeing before us at the present time.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Transportation and Highways rises on a point of order.

HON. A. FRASER: I sure do. That member for New Westminster stands there and does more speech-making by pointing than he does by mouth, and I want to know the ruling of this House. Can you make a speech by pointing your finger all over the place? Are you not supposed to use your lips, not your fingers? I'd like a ruling on that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's a very interesting question. Can I reserve comment?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, that is a good comment. Let me tell you how he was doing it. While he made that charge — and a very serious charge it was — he was going like this with both hands. He outdid me.

In any event, I would like to ask this question: why would Jim Pavich have to be appointed by order-in-council? Ob, it's a fairly significant job, and one can bask in the sun down there at 2,769 a month. I understand it's been raised; he went up $300 a year just a few weeks later. But was it because he was a good and faithful servant? And don't equate that to any person with some real qualifications. Just talk about why he didn't go through the public service and why he didn't serve his time — maybe in the cold north. Why didn't he shiver in Burnaby for a while beside the member for Willingdon (Mr. Veitch)? He spent time in the neighbouring riding. The member for Burnaby-Willingdon knows him well. He jumped to his defence immediately when I was talking about his sales experience. But I'm not sure that the sales experience of going around from place to place and asking them to "let us be your garbage dumpers" is the qualification required for a public trade development officer 2. I don't think so. Maybe the minister can tell me. You see, on the one hand we have a relatively senior man fired. I suspect that maybe he wasn't a good Socred. But we know that good old Jim is. He fought long and hard between garbage dumps, and he got his just deserts.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: He's not in the dumps any more, my colleague from Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) tells me. I don't think so. If he likes the sun — when he can see it through the smog — he's in a good climate.

In any event, I would just like to put those two in juxtaposition and find out whether being part of that Lampert-Kinsella machine had anything to do with the fact that he managed to secure this position. It's a real winner.

I'm not going to get to Beautiful British Columbia for a moment or two, because I think the minister was right when he said that I'll likely get back to that. I think I would be remiss if I didn't go into that in some more detail than has been gone into before. I'll tell the minister this: I know every word of the agreement that was signed, and I know that the minister signed the agreement. When I suggested that it was a giveaway then, when I first made those remarks.... I say it's a dead giveaway now. What a proposition for good old Jim, who played the trumpet with him on victory night up there in Kamloops.

[4:30]

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: He didn't? That's the message I got. Maybe it was some other night.

[ Page 3058 ]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Wrong night.

MR. COCKE: Wrong night — okay. In any event, I would first like to say that I'm not going to deal with McKim in any detail. I do think, however, that it was a travesty that they went on being the government agent after the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) decided that a police report should be made. I think it's doubly so now, because if it has taken them this long to get the facts and put them before the Attorney-General, it must be a great deal more serious than what we originally thought — and, we thought it was darned serious then. Double and triple dipping is a very serious matter. I would just like to suggest — I'm not going to ask the minister to answer the question — that the government was wrong, he was wrong and the whole place is put under a cloud as a result of that kind of arrogance on the part of the government. I would like to say this to the public: the government has admitted that no matter what the outcome of this report might be, they are equally culpable, because they're keeping this group under a cloud as their publicity agent with the ministry and the government. They have admitted to being culpable along with that group, so they had better be able to stand up and answer why that is.

At this point I'm not going to deal with the auditor-general's statements, either heretofore or in the future — we'll deal with them when the new estimates come up — other than to say this: she said that the further she goes in terms of digging into this organization, the worse it gets. Mr. Chairman, all I can say.... Incidentally, I certainly won't aim all this at the present minister; he wasn't there. As a matter of fact, I suggest it wasn't even the past minister. I suggest that it goes back down the line for some time, before it was even a separate ministry. In any event, it could be that the RCMP and the auditor-general are looking further back in history than what we've been talking about here in recent months. There's no question in my mind that if they're not, they should be. There should be a total investigation when you come up with the kind of auditor-general's report on a relatively small ministry that we see here. We're not looking at simple extraordinary mistakes. We're either looking at some major blunders, or at something even worse.

I wonder if the minister could tell me a little bit about the history of Mr. Pavich, and whether or not the fact that he was up there in Kamloops doing his job had anything to do with the fact that an OIC appointed him down to good old California in the sun. Now the OIC was signed by.... It could be nothing to do with the minister. He might have done it another way. He might have put him through the public service. I'm sure that he would have prevailed, with a little patience. But no, it was signed by the Provincial Secretary and the Premier — the Premier who loves to have lots and lots of good, loyal folks on staff, whether or not they know what they're doing.

Mr. Chairman, with those few questions, I'll again listen with attention to the minister's replies.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I think I will deal first with the subject that the member has brought up regarding the Los Angeles office. I'm glad he brought it up, but I'd like to point out that on both of his alleged counts he is wrong — dead wrong.

First of all, he goes back into the history of Mr. Richard Ludwig, who served us well in the Los Angeles office for five years. When Mr. Ludwig came on board and started to work for the Ministry of Tourism, he was hired from outside the public service. He was hired from the private sector directly into the marketing of tourism, because that's where his expertise lay — in marketing.

MR. COCKE: By order-in-council?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'll get to the order-in-council bit in a minute. He was hired over five years and served us well for five years.

Secondly, Mr. Member, you are wrong when you say he was canned or fired, or whatever expression you used. Mr. Ludwig resigned.

MR. COCKE: I didn't say that.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, you did. Mr. Ludwig resigned to rejoin the private sector. In fact, he is now with the Cascade group, working out of Calgary and doing much of the marketing for Panorama Resorts. So he served us well for five years. He resigned to come back to Canada and work for the private sector, and we wish him well. He is doing a fine job, I understand, for Panorama.

Then we come to the person we put down there to replace Mr. Ludwig. Yes, we chose Mr. Jim Pavich to do the job for us in Los Angeles. We chose him for a variety of reasons. If you were to interview Mr. Pavich, Mr. Member for New Westminster, you would find that he is a very capable man. He has an extensive background in salesmanship and marketing, and will represent British Columbia very well in Los Angeles, as anyone who knows Jim Pavich will know. We put him in at the same salary as had been earned by Mr. Ludwig, which hadn't been adjusted for some time. We feel that's very fair for a man of Mr. Pavich's background and expertise. We are confident that he will do the job for us down there, and, as I've said, if any one of you know him or were to interview him you would be equally as confident. He mentions that Mr. Pavich will be down there basking in the sun in Los Angeles. Knowing Jim Pavich as I do, I know that will not be the case; he will be down there working very hard on our behalf. He is put down there on an OIC for the very reason that if he isn't down there working hard for us or whomever else, they can be as easily removed by an OIC. I know that will not be the case with Mr. Pavich. I have every confidence that he will do the job for us down there. He's an excellent man.

You touched on the BBC "giveway," to use your words. I would refute that argument, but again I have a hunch you're not finished with that topic yet.

You said that you weren't going to remark on the McKim advertising agency but made just enough remarks to cast aspersions on that firm, their good name and the good work that they do. For that reason I will mention McKim and say that they are still the agency of record for the Ministry of Tourism, and we're very pleased with their work. They do excellent work for us; in fact, last year one of their ads on the west coast won an international award as the best in its field for the whole of North America. I think that speaks well for McKim Advertising agency. Besides, Mr. Member, McKim has yet to be found guilty of anything. I don't think we should start prejudging people until something has come up to make us think otherwise.

Yes, the RCMP investigation is still going on. They are investigating several aspects of what happened prior to my becoming a minister. You said there is a cloud hanging over individuals and the ministry, and I couldn't agree more with

[ Page 3059 ]

you. This is why I would urge them to finalize their report as quickly as possible. It seems to be taking an interminable amount of time; however, that's their business. I look forward, as everyone else does, to them concluding their investigation.

You also mentioned that you weren't going to bring up the auditor-general; yet you did manage to bring up the auditor-general and the report. You kindly said that it goes back to a time before I became the minister, which is true, and you alluded to a relatively small ministry, which it is. We welcome the auditor-general into our ministry, as any minister would, because it is the auditor-general's job to find out if there are any discrepancies, or if someone indeed is not doing their job. Many things in the ministry had been put on a hold situation, pending the outcome of her report. Once again, it is taking longer than anticipated, so we have decided that we must press on in the ministry with whatever it is we're going to do. The auditor-general's report will come in due course.

When you said that it goes back two, three or more ministers, you may be right, and maybe the system should have been corrected a long time ago. I don't know how far back the auditor-general is going to go with her investigation or how far forward. That is entirely up to her, and I would welcome whatever she decides to do. Perhaps it goes right back to the time of Mr. Hall when he was in the ministry — who knows? You said you thought she should go back further; maybe she should go back that length of time.

MR. COCKE: We would welcome that.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, I think you would; I would too.

MR. COCKE: You have all the information, so don't give us that kind of junk. If there was anything on Hall you would have had it out here years ago.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The auditor-general is welcome to all the information. You know that. As I've said, that is her job and whatever she decides to do is fine.

It's very easy for you to stand over there, too, Mr. Member, and talk about the money Mr. Heal is using for propaganda, but you know very well that's not true. If you were to check into the budget that was allocated for marketing the Ministry of Tourism and in turn marketing the province of British Columbia, you would know where the moneys have been spent. Certainly they have not been spent for the purposes that you suggest. The money that is allocated to marketing in British Columbia has been spent on that very purpose — I can't give you the exact number. Even more than was allocated last year was spent on the marketing in this province. Because of certain contingencies and unforeseen things that happened, we felt it was necessary to put a few more dollars into specific areas to counteract certain problems. I don't know where you got the figure of $2.2 million. I didn't mention it. I mentioned that this year the Tourism industry would generate approximately $2.2 billion in economic activity. I'm not familiar with the figure you mentioned of $2.2 million, but I can tell you that the ministry is on budget, and there are no special warrants.

For Hansard, when I answered your last questions I said "fiscal years 1982-83," and I should have said "1983-84." I would like to set the record straight.

MR. ROSE: I would hesitate to inject a lighter note into these questions about a very serious matter and a very serious minister of a very serious ministry, but for the pointy point of order of the Minister of Highways (Hon. A. Fraser). It happened just a little while ago when he spoke and did all his gestures. Because I had heard that this might be true, I wanted to ask the Minister of Tourism whether or not it was true that tomorrow three cabinet ministers are touring to the metropolis of Cache Creek for the purpose of a celebration, at public expense, of the removal of the last stop sign on the Trans-Canada Highway. Further, a correlative question to that: just how many Socred cabinet ministers are needed to remove a stop sign?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that would have to be answered during another minister's estimates, if there is an answer.

[4:45]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I think that's easy: one to dig, the second one with a ladder and the third one to pull it out, and then of course they all fall down.

How did that minister suggest that I said that he fired Ludwig? I just asked him if he met the same fate as poor old Bob. I asked the question; I didn't say he did. Yet the minister, with his marvellous memory, says that I charged that he fired Ludwig. I know you hired Jim. You didn't tell me how you hired Ludwig in the first place, because you know perfectly well he was hired in a normal propitious way. But not so with this guy. Then he said: "The reason we hired him this way is so we can fire him at will." I hope he feels kind of good there down in the sun in California, knowing that he was hired so that he could be fired just as easily. Competence is not his long suit, but anyway that's okay.

Marketing.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: What are you yipping and yapping about? If you'd pay more attention to education and quit sniping and barking, we'd have something going in this province. Poor fellow.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. COCKE: Getting back to marketing, let me tell you what I have heard. Now the minister can deny this if he likes, but I heard that their marketing in this province has been ground to a halt. He says everything is going marvellously. I hear that we're using a whole bunch of old ski ads down there in a blitz in Portland. We did it in a time when our skiing conditions were a bit horrible. We are not doing the contemporary marketing we should be doing. You haven't got the budget to do it. You should be ashamed. This government should be ashamed at the lack of attention they're giving to this portfolio in a time of need. If you say, "Well, we're doing a bit better than we did last year," tough beans. You didn't do well enough last year or the year before. Until we get some bucks into that Tourism ministry and some real decisions on attracting people here, we're just going to go on limping along, letting down the service industry in this province and letting down all the taxpayers in this province. If there was ever a time when we needed to develop that industry, it's now. We're not developing it now. The minister can talk all he likes

[ Page 3060 ]

about his marketing, but when we have a bunch of old ski ads that we shoot down to Portland to tell them to come on up here and enjoy our great skiing, and just at that time it was lousy, I don't know. I think it has to be a real concerted effort. Things are not going well with respect to that.

I would like to deal for a moment or two with a little matter of Beautiful British Columbia magazine. We've been told what the Pattison group paid for it. Seven hundred and some-odd thousand, wasn't it? That was what the minister suggested. His actual cheque came to $442,359.25. There was a subscription liability of $177,640.75, and the Fraser edition was $138,906. What did Pattison get back? The Hydro mailing, for two years free, was worth a couple of hundred thousand bucks. According to the contract, the free mailing of the subscription renewals was roughly $184,500. Add it up and take it away, and you're right back down to the $400,000 figure — marginally more. What do you get for that? You get a real moneymaker. But the worst part of it is that the moneymaker becomes a moneymaker in private hands, but then it becomes far less of an agency to attract people from outside our province. I'll go over this in some detail.

"The purchase price payable by Mainland to the province for Beautiful British Columbia magazine assets shall be the sum of $620,000. The purchase price shall be paid by Mainland to the province as follows: $177,640.75 by virtue of Mainland having agreed to assume all the obligations of the province arising in connection with the outstanding paid subscriptions as at the date hereof for the Beautiful British Columbia magazine, to a maximum not to exceed the amount of the purchase price, provided however the parties hereby agree that the paid subscription liability is deemed to equal a minimum amount of $120,000; $442,359.25 being the balance of the purchase price after deduction of an amount equal to the paid subscription liability, by certified cheque payable to the Minister of Finance...."

That is a marvellous situation. The subscription renewal notices were sent out by the government after the purchase. Yes, the taxpayers got hooked on that, Mr. Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich). The government then set up a trust account within government to accept these moneys and to pay them twice monthly to Pattison. You see, government goes out and gets their money. It doesn't turn over the subscription list but runs it off at our expense and back it comes and the moneys are paid over. The Hydro thing is the most fascinating of all. Remember, it says in the agreement that: "the province covenants and agrees to exert its best efforts to cause the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority to continue for a period of two years following closing" — that's the closing of the deal — "its present practice of inserting annually in its monthly billing...." Two years!

Let's see what Hydro had to say about that before they got the message. This is an excerpt from Hydro minutes of September 30, 1983: "Plans to mail out the Beautiful British Columbia magazine Christmas promotion with the customer bills have been cancelled as a result of the provincial government's decision to sell the magazine." In their minutes, Hydro, as of September 30, 1983, had cancelled. Hydro had decided ipso facto. Then, of course, the government signed an agreement with one of the Jim Pattison companies. They said they covenanted and agreed to exert their best efforts to cause the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority to continue, for a period of not one but two years following closing, its present practice of inserting annually in its monthly billing envelopes, at no cost to the business with respect to mailing, subscription renewal notices and other promotional material pertaining to the business.

The Premier of this province goes around talking about the pride he has in keeping at arm's length — keeping government out of those activities. We've always smiled when he said it, knowing full well that every director on those Crown corporations is there at government suffrage. They're there at the pleasure of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. When that Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council starts to frown, they go out looking for another directorship somewhere else.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Was it different when you were in power?

MR. COCKE: We didn't pull all these funny games when we were in power. We were an honest government. That's the difference, Madam Member from Surrey. And it makes a great deal of difference.

So, Mr. Chairman, they leaned on Hydro. It wouldn't be bad, you know, if the Premier didn't go around trying to indicate that they had that kind of autonomy. They don't. They told Jim: "Don't you worry, Jim. We'll get those notices mailed out. That $200,000 birthday gift is yours. You helped us fly people back and forth to Kamloops. You've worked in election campaigns. You're a good fellow, so you deserve to feel some of the altruism, to feel some of the sunlight of this great and glorious government." Well, they did. I should imagine that when they signed this, the suggestion in this contract was relatively firmly put — orally as well as in that contract. I think it's an absolute utter shame.

I don't think that I can say much more than what one of our correspondents has to say about this ownership. I'll quote briefly from his letter:

"A friend recently expressed his indignation that promotion flyers for Beautiful British Columbia magazine are being distributed by B.C. Hydro with power bills, and a day or two later the matter was dealt with critically in an article in theVancouver Province.

"I now have another complaint, in my opinion even more damning. I have been an admirer of and a subscriber to Beautiful British Columbia magazine since its inception, and in fact have carried several subscriptions for years as gifts to friends in Ontario, Quebec, California and Mexico. Recently I received a renewal notice for two subscriptions. It came from Beautiful British Columbia magazine's circulation department, Parliament Buildings, Victoria. It enclosed the usual forms and return envelope, and advice to make the cheque payable to the Minister of Finance. That, incidentally, is not the subscription office address listed in the back of the latest issue. I phoned the Ministry of Tourism's Vancouver office, Friday, October 21, and asked what the hell was going on? The girl who took my call confirmed, after a call to Victoria for information, that Beautiful British Columbia magazine was sold September 14 to Mainland Magazine, Jim Pattison Group, and is now known as Beautiful B.C. Magazine Ltd., 200 Esquimalt Road, Victoria — the same as the subscription office address under the department. Is the private owner-publisher

[ Page 3061 ]

operating out of a government-owned or -leased building, or have they sublet it?"

I can tell them right now, they've sublet it, because it's right in this contract.

[5:00]

"Dozens of questions arise. I think this situation stinks. Why, a month after the sale, should the public service be preparing and mailing renewal notices, postage 28 cents, and collecting money for the private owner? So much for 'free enterprise,' for privatization. Is this a sneaky, under-the-table subsidy? Has the new owner access to and use of government computer records and services?"

I can answer that question for him, too. Yes, according to the agreement.

"The referenced news article says the price was $760,000. What actually have they purchased? Mailing lists? Records? Any equipment? Is there a clean separation between the government agency and the new owner-publisher? Did the province get an adequate price? Or was it a giveaway?"

Yes, it was a giveaway.

"I was assured that the magazine will carry no adverts except for a Tourism B.C. advertisement, for which the department will pay. How much? Why this bloody farce? We had an obvious asset, of itself a most effective advertisement, and making a profit.... "

That's an argument. You know, if you can show me where it lost $1000 or $40,000, or if it lost $50,000, I'd say: "So what?" It made more friends for this province. That magazine was one of the best advertising promotional ideas this province ever had. It went on for years, and it went all over the world and particularly all over Canada and the United States, where we can expect our tourists to come from.

But no, this gospel of privatization is getting the better of these people, who are supposed to be representing the people of this province. Privatization has become almost a mystical thing. I can see them going to some sort of funny little church and worshipping at the shrine of privatization, as though it's the be-all and end-all. What a crock! What a lot of nonsense! Privatization for privatization's sake. No thought was given to this. No long-term planning or decision-making was part of this process. It's a damned disgrace — an utter disgrace. Now it's not the biggest disgrace, but it is a disgrace when we are looking at a government that is so wrapped up in this great and glorious thing they call privatization. This word was obviously generated somewhere down on Madison Avenue, where they come up with all these words — catchy words that folks glom onto and then take off with; grey, conservative words that don't mean anything at all, if you use them as the foundation of your direction and your policy. I just can't believe it, Mr. Chairman. Just in the name of whatever kind of mystical suggestions might come out of that Fraser Institute, we do all these dumb things. I suggest that it's about time we started taking stock in this Legislature and found out how much damage is being done by taking this kind of advice. Beautiful British Columbia magazine, profitable or marginally unprofitable, was a very valuable asset to the marketing of this province's beauty, to the marketing of this province as a place to come and enjoy yourself. Instead of that, Beautiful British Columbia magazine is now in peril. Don't forget how many times we've heard that group over there say: "We believe in good old free enterprise. You've got the right to go broke." And by God, a lot of people in this province know that now. They've had the right to go broke, and they've gone broke. But you know we're saying the same thing now. This valuable tool can very well be forever gone, or has to be reinvented. We've given away all the assets; everything is gone. It's all out there for an entrepreneur to do the best that he can with it.

Do you think for one second that he bought this to promote B.C., Mr. Member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson)? He bought this magazine, as he has bought everything that he has ever had anything to do with, to make a profit out of.

MR. MICHAEL: Oh. shame!

MR. COCKE: Oh, shame! Oh, shame! But the problem is that if he doesn't, he'll dump it.

MR. MICHAEL: Oh. shame again.

MR. COCKE: Oh. shame! Anyway, that's what I would expect from that quarter of the universe.

"The new owner takes over the name and attached goodwill. Did the price cover that? Will it be clearly stated in all future issues that the magazine is owned and published by a private business firm?"

I'm going on to quote from this letter.

"Will the first 'private' issue contain a clear and detailed statement of the privatization, details of the sale price, assets, etc.? What accumulation of unused photographs were on hand...?"

Anyway, they got the whole library — access to all the old stuff — and access in the future to the picture library. That's kind of a nice situation to have. In any event, I won't go on with this letter other than to say this: this chap is disturbed. He is not alone. It is not the biggest issue that has ever faced this government. Lord knows, I wish it was.

But I do say this: it is an example of the thoughtless, mindless direction that this government takes when they adopt a philosophy they themselves do not even understand. I'm terribly afraid that it's going to happen elsewhere in far more major undertakings in the name of this magic privatization. Give it away; dump it. But in so doing we've sure dumped a valuable asset, and isn't it interesting who suffers most? Small business of this province suffers most. The service industry of this province suffers most as a result of the fact that we are not attracting people to the province of British Columbia that we could be attracting in the way we have attracted them in the past and could improve on in the future, particularly with a greater priority being placed on tourism, the ministry and its direction.

So, Mr. Chairman, having said that, I will wonder what the minister might have to say now in reply to what I have directed at him.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I will do my very best to counter some of the half-truths and innuendo provided by that member about Beautiful British Columbia magazine. I will leave the stop sign at Cache Creek until the end of my little talk, and then I will talk about the OIC and guarantees that should or should not go with jobs.

I want to deal with Beautiful British Columbia magazine. After listening to the member for New Westminster, it's difficult to know where to start, because he is all over the lot.

[ Page 3062 ]

First of all, I think we'll start by talking about whether or not it made a profit. The actual figures on the last year of operation were in the neighbourhood of a $400,000 loss to the taxpayers of British Columbia. Now I know that the member can say that that is worth it and we should spend that kind of money marketing the province, but I think that if you look further than that and get into the real costs and a lot of the people who didn't work full-time at the magazine, the loss would have even been greater than $400,000. Yes, the magazine has made a lot of friends around the world and will continue to make a lot of friends. And I think if anyone has seen the latest edition, the first one published under the private ownership, they will agree that the magazine is as high-quality and every bit as attractive as it was. I think that when they see the issue coming up in the spring, they will be even more pleased, because the quality is excellent. It will continue to be a strong marketing tool for the people of British Columbia, but it will not have that liability of losing $400,000 or a half a million dollars a year in times in which I don't have to tell anybody it's very difficult for the taxpayers to come up with that kind of money and for us to justify why we should be in the publishing business.

When Beautiful British Columbia magazine was offered for sale, we received in the neighbourhood of 13 or 14 bona fide bids on it. I forget the exact number, but it was in the area of 13 or 14. It didn't take long to narrow the bids down to three or four serious bids and to separate those that had too many strings attached from those that were legitimate bids for the magazine. There are many things that come into the picture when you're trying to sell something like a magazine. Selling equipment is easy to put a value on, but selling a magazine is very difficult, especially one that has been losing money and one in which the subscription list was a little late getting out — which I'll touch on in a minute — so we were at a loss to know exactly where the prices should come in. However, the best bid that we looked at, without any question, was a bid from Mainland Magazine. It was a bid with no strings on it, with cash up front, and with a commitment to continue the magazine as it was, with no advertising — for I think, a period of two years — and to continue marketing the province of British Columbia.

Yes, the bid included all equipment, office equipment, furnishings, furniture, stationery, stores and supplies, etc. But more importantly, the bid from Mainland — and I think we should pay particular attention to this — included an offer to all of the employees at Beautiful British Columbia magazine to be taken on board with their contract at the salaries they were earning. All regular employees of Beautiful British Columbia were offered a position with Mainland. That was very important. It was also, under the laws of British Columbia, compulsory. And let me tell you that when some of the other bidders found out that the successor rights clause went with the magazine, and the employees and their contracts went with it, most of them, if not all other than Mainland, went scurrying for cover. But Mainland offered every one of the regular employees their same positions with the magazine, which I think they are to be complimented for. All but three of the employees accepted the offer.

The full selling price of the magazine, including the Fraser River special supplement, was $758,906. The subscriptions that the member for New Westminster talks about were ready for mailing. In fact, the mailing date had literally passed; we were overdue getting the subscriptions out. So Mainland asked us if we, the government, would mail out the subscription list — because time was of the essence — and they would pay for it. We said yes, we would. So yes, indeed, the member is correct when he says the government postal branch — I believe it would be — did the subscription mailing. We had the people, because it was too late to change the address, send the subscription.... We had to have them sent to the provincial government. So I think we made a very good gentleman's agreement with Mainland that we would send out the subscriptions, and they would come back to the Minister of Finance. We in turn would pass on the new subscriptions to them, but they would pay for the mailing. That has been done, and they have. So to say that the taxpayers paid for that subscription mailing is not correct.

[5:15]

One of the other things that the member dwelt on was the mailing out of the subscription renewals and Christmas promotion by B.C. Hydro. Several of the bidders on the magazine asked if they could continue the practice of mailing out renewals with the B.C. Hydro bills. We of course could not promise that to any bidder. So they all asked if we would use our best efforts to convince Hydro to do that, and if there was any additional cost to the taxpayers, Mainland would pick up that cost. I want to read section 13.07 from the agreement, to set the record straight:

"The province covenants and agrees to exert its best efforts to cause the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority to continue for a period of two years following closing its present practice of inserting annually in its monthly billing envelopes, and at no cost to the business with respect to mailing, subscription renewal notices and other promotional material pertaining to the business."

To that end, my deputy minister contacted B.C. Hydro and asked if they would do that. Hydro took it to their board of directors and made the decision to do that for the people of British Columbia. Yes, I suppose that at a previous meeting they had decided not to, because at that point they didn't know what the status of the magazine would be. When they were asked....

MR. COCKE: They knew what the status of the magazine was. It was the management group minutes that I read to you. Now you're telling me about your flunkies and what they decided.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: When they were asked if they would continue this process, they took it to their board of directors and decided that they would do it. I think it was a good decision, because it cost the taxpayers not one cent to do that. It cost the taxpayers nothing, and as the member opposite has said, Beautiful British Columbia is a great marketing tool for the province. So it could only have benefited the taxpayers of British Columbia. If they choose to continue the practice, that will be strictly up to Hydro. If they choose not to, that's their decision.

Now I don't know if I've answered all the member's questions and allegations about Beautiful British Columbia. Perhaps not. I'm being heckled by my own members to sit down, but have no fear, I'm not going to just at the moment. I want to cover a couple more things that the member brought up.

[ Page 3063 ]

One was the marketing of the province and whether or not we were doing a good job, and whether we were using old ads. Well, I come back to what I said earlier. We are marketing this province more aggressively than has ever been done in the past. If he will look at the marketing activity that went on last year and the dollars that were put into that effort, I'm sure that he would agree. The budget, contrary to what he says, is not down from what it was the year before. As for the quality of the ads, I think they speak for themselves. As I said, McKim's ads on the west coast have won awards. Last year they won international awards. And yes, the ski advertisements, some of them that you see, are one year old. But I don't think they're dated in any way. They are certainly not overused, and they don't go out of date that quickly.

I want to touch on one other item: the OIC appointment and the fact that there were no guarantees. I want to tell you, Mr. Member, that this government believes that when someone gets a job working for this government, he does not have that position for the rest of his life, such as was the case when your party was in power. I think we all know of the case of Mr. Cass-Beggs, who was guaranteed an income for life. We don't happen to believe in that philosophy over here, and so I make no apologies for saying, yes, a person who is appointed by an OIC can be removed by an OIC just as easily.

I don't really know what the member from Port Moody was talking about when he asked how many ministers it takes to remove a stop sign. I really am not aware of what he is talking about. He referred to Cache Creek. The only thing I would say is that he said it took three ministers to remove a stop sign, but he didn't mention anyone sharing in the experience, such as we are doing here today.

I think I have answered most of the member's criticisms.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The question raised by the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) was out of order.

MR. COCKE: We're all basking in the radiance of that great presentation. He had to reach.... This government and its predecessor, the old Socred government — which, incidentally, had a few warts but nothing like this present gang — have rewarded more people in more ways than any government in this country, with the possible exception of that jerkwater...no, that federal Liberal bunch now in Ottawa — and a lot of them are related to this group here.

HON. A. FRASER: You supported them so they could be in there.

MR. COCKE: I've never supported a Liberal, a Socred or a Conservative. I have that distinction from you.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: You said "I"; I said "you." You have been everything under the sun. You've been a Socred, a Conservative and probably a closet Liberal. You guys are all the same. You're just a bunch of opportunists.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps we could continue with the estimates of the Ministry of Tourism, and I'll commend that to the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser).

MR. COCKE: The first minister is now starting to bark again. He was the one who fed him the line about Cass-Beggs. What effrontery! There was a person who at least knew something about what he was doing.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That's right. As a matter of fact, he'd make a better Premier than you. But that wouldn't take anything. That wouldn't take any kind of a contribution. He at least knew his job. All he did was to compensate for the pension he lost. This group over here is the greatest patronage gang we have ever seen. All you have to do to get a job with them.... You don't need confidence; you need a Socred membership card. That's all that Bill Bennett understands. I know you're embarrassed about that, but you don't have to come in here as often as you do. You've been in twice today each time for five minutes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Perhaps, hon. members, we can refrain from heckling the member who has taken his place, Perhaps the member could not anticipate what is going to be said and stick to the estimates of the Ministry of Tourism.

MR. COCKE: How can I? The first minister in our province sits there practically having a nervous breakdown, and you want me to be calm and to deal with the estimates. I can't even see the Minister of Tourism. This guy gets in my way all the time. We can't even see each other. Not only that, he makes all the remarks.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I guess it's a free country, eh, Alec? Why did you desert your principles and follow Bill Bennett?

Four hundred thousand dollars the minister tells us they lost. He's never given us any kind of statement that would show that. He would have to give me a pretty precise statement of where Beautiful British Columbia magazine loses $400,000 a year, and then he can tell me that Pattison is going to buy it. He has bought a lot of losers in his life, hasn't he? And I doubt if he's going to buy this one.

The minister said one thing that offends me more than anything: that is, no ads for two years. You never said that before, or not to my knowledge. So it is just going to be another booze and cigarette promotion magazine that's going to be out there making bucks from the advertisers, and it is going to be dwindling in its ability to attract people to this province. It will be deemed as just another glossy, amusing magazine that doesn't mean a great deal.

MRS. JOHNSTON: You don't know that. You're just hoping that's what is going to happen.

MR. COCKE: I'm not hoping that at all. I know what is going to occur when two years down the line they send out their salesmen to sell ads in that magazine.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Why don't you wait and see?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, are we paid to come here and listen to that kind of nothingness, the kind of fog that that woman produces?

[ Page 3064 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I'll ask the members not to heckle or interject.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I'm frustrated. I'm going to wait.... There are too many actions going on in this ministry. The cops are in there; the auditor-general is in there. I'm going to wait until the next estimates before I go any further on this losing proposition of trying to get information from the Minister of Tourism.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: We have a little time to go yet; we're not quitting early around here. This is not a socialist party; we came here to work. Since we came back to work, let's get to work.

It's amazing how that member for New Westminster knows what is going to happen in the future. He knows it's going to be full of booze and cigarette ads. Let me tell you something: if the people who purchased Beautiful British Columbia magazine were going to turn it into just any other magazine full of all the bad things that he prophesied, they wouldn't have to have spent three-quarters of a million dollars to buy it. They bought it because it's special, and because of the subscription list and the people who like it. They intend to maintain that subscription list, and if they do as you say, the people won't buy it. You know that, and I know that. If they just wanted to fill it up with what you say, they could have started a new magazine. But they bought a fine marketing tool, and they intend to keep it that way.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

In closing, I would say that he keeps referring to the way that they employ people over there versus the way we employ them. They seem to have the opposite fixation, that only government knows how to do things. When you do build this great, huge government that you want, you give lifetime security so that no one can ever be taken off the payroll. That's one of the things we're paying for now.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I have a very short matter to raise with the minister, but it is certainly of quite grave concern to constituents in my riding, and I would guess to people living in the Gulf Islands and Bowen Island — and Vancouver Island, definitely. This deals, directly with the minister's responsibility. A lot of the people affected by this event, I might say in passing, were supporters of the Social Credit Party during the last election, but I don't know how they are going to vote in the next election. I do know this: the government increased the fares well above the announced guidelines of this government — in some areas to 26, 35, 40 percent, although I think on the Bowen Island example they backed off a little bit — and those horrendous increases in ferry fares are really going to hurt the tourist business and industry in my riding. There is no question about it. I wonder if the minister, during the discussions in cabinet on the recommendations of the board of directors of the B.C. Ferry Corporation, spoke up. Did he say to the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser), who is our representative on that board: "Look, save our tourist industry. Our tourist industry will go down the tube on the coast of British Columbia if you allow the fares to increase above 5 or 6 or 7 percent," which had been the pattern in the past. Fares have increased now to where many people will not travel up the Sunshine Coast or to the Gulf Islands, or possibly to Vancouver Island, because of these horrendous added costs.

I wonder if the minister, when he responds, could tell us. Did he speak up in cabinet? Did he approach Treasury Board? Did he say: "Look, you're going to kill the tourist industry on theSun shine Coast and in the Powell River area if you allow this fare increase to go through"? The fare increases were allowed to go through, and I want to know if that minister spoke up in cabinet and Treasury Board, or made any public statement opposing those horrendous fare increases.

[5:30]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, we were treated to another one of his magic fairyland propositions. Do you remember I told you a while ago about this religion of privatization that permeates that "mindset" over there? Then he goes on to say that he doesn't believe in lifetime security for public servants. I don't think he's even read the contract. I don't think anybody has lifetime security. That's another one of those myths they create over there. Somehow or another this security happened as a result of this province's having had an NDP government.

AN HON. MEMBER: For one term.

MR. COCKE: For one term since 1952. I guess that's about 32 years, something like that. So it would strike me that they had some responsibility for our public service in this province. The irresponsibility, however, is making those public servants — a person down at that level isn't hired in this rather unusual way by order-in-council — feel insecure and unwanted. Is it any wonder, Mr. Chairman, that the morale in the public service in this province right now is about as low as it ever could be? It's unfortunate that senior members of a caucus, ministers of the Crown, could get up and cast those kinds of aspersions on the public servants in this province. "We want them all so we can fire them on the spot. We want them so they're slaves. We want to appoint people by order-in-council so that we can fire them when they don't do whatever."

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: If I was, I wouldn't be dark.

In any event, I suggest they should repent.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: That's right, I'm becoming inclined toward a gospel of my own.

I heard that Minister of Environment, and he starts talking about gullible....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I haven't heard the word "tourism" mentioned for some five to seven minutes now.

MR. COCKE: Is there anything magic about tourism, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I thought that's what we were discussing, hon. member.

[ Page 3065 ]

MR. COCKE: Oh! I forgot, because I keep getting messages from the ministers over there. Tourism has been ruined in this province by the Minister of Environment, because he's scaring the blazes out of everybody by telling them we're swarming with wolves. The only people we're going to attract up here are Sea Shepherds and people who are going to go up north searching for wolves that may or may not exist. But, Mr. Chairman, he should have had some consultation with the Minister of Tourism about that whole question. In any event, making light of this is unfortunate.

I just suggest that this government provide some priority for the attraction of tourists to our province. We've got the finest province in this country to sell, and one of the greatest places in the world to sell. We have five separate geographical areas, all different and all beautiful in their own way. Yet we sell off the asset we have that's able to tell all the things about our region. We are not marketing hard; we're marketing soft.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the minister who likes working get to work. Get to work on your own portfolio. And come back here the next time and give us a report on some of the results of the effort that you've put in to this particular portfolio.

Vote 73 approved.

Vote 74: operations services, $3,811,088 — approved.

Vote 75: marketing services, $1,998,434 — approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

On vote 44: Ministry of Health, minister's office, $143,879.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a very few remarks before beginning our discussions on my minister's office vote. Recognizing, as I believe everyone in the province does, that the Ministry of Health reflects the largest percentage of expenditure of the provincial budget — in excess of 30 percent; in dollars, representing nearly $2.5 billion — the 1982-83 expenditures reflected approximately a 7.3 percent increase in expenditures over the previous year. This past year, for which our estimates are now being considered, has been one in which the health care services in British Columbia have been challenged by the necessary restraint on provincial expenditures.

The Ministry of Health, while it's responsible for the allocation of the greatest percentage of the provincial budget, relies to a very large degree on the expertise and cooperation of those responsible for the service of our health care industry and the services offered through our hospital systems by our medical personnel and by others associated with health. This past year, while it has been very difficult for all because of the effect of recession and restraint, in the Ministry of Health those responsible for the delivery of health care services have worked extremely hard, very diligently and with considerable efficiency, and have been able to provide the citizens of our province with a first-class health care system while still working within very rigid budgets and in a very responsible way.

There always will be exceptions and individual difficulties which are identified from time to time, because of the complexity of the health care system in the province. Virtually every person in British Columbia at some time during a year will come in contact with a health care professional. During that period of time, a number of opportunities for error, poor judgment or poor service can occur. But it is particularly satisfying to recognize the relatively few complaints which are received by the ministry over a year, when you compare the number of services offered.

One of the great problems we still have in the province — and it does reflect very much on our budget in the Ministry of Health — is what the government and the ministry have identified as an overabundance of certain levels of health care professionals, particularly in the medical services. A tremendous amount of work has taken place between the ministry, the B.C. Medical Association and others to reflect upon this matter. I think it has been agreed in principle, if not in detail, that indeed we in British Columbia do have a surplus of medical doctors, particularly in the greater Vancouver, greater Victoria and Okanagan areas of the province.

By reaching some type of an understanding on principle, the matter of working out details as to how to remedy the problem is a far greater challenge. I would like to recognize the reasonable amount of cooperation we've had in the past year with the BCMA, although we are still in disagreement over certain specifics. I would also like to recognize the work by the hospitals in the province, the administrators and the various boards in coming to grips with some extremely difficult problems with respect to funding. We have been able to expand and to add, during a time of restraint, in areas of hospitals, hospital beds, various technologies and services offered. But we have been able to stay within our expenditure guidelines — and, I might add, Mr. Chairman, with lessening confrontation in the overall area. We still expect some very difficult times. I think that those who are involved in the health care delivery system also expect difficult times, but we have received commitments from almost every segment of the health care industry to cooperating in resolving the problem,

I might add that the problems are not unique to British Columbia. Without exception every province in the country recognizes the great difficulty each government has in delivering health care in Canada and particularly in British Columbia and other provinces. Each recognizes the difficulty in maintaining the immense amount of funding that is spent in Canada for health care. As you would know, Mr. Chairman, at this time we in Canada are engaged in considerable debate with the federal government with respect to the Canada Health Act, which is not yet law in Canada. It is the opinion of the provincial Ministers of Health, possibly with one exception, that the federal government need not move in this direction, and in fact by so doing could diminish health care services in the country while increasing the costs to the citizens.

Meetings have been held by the provinces, meetings have been held with the provinces and federal representation, with respect to the Canada Health Act. The federal minister has indicated that she intends to proceed, possibly with some minor amendments, and that the time for consultation is over. It's one of those rare occasions when the time for consultation was over almost before it began. The differences of opinion between the provinces and the federal government have not yet been resolved. and more discussion is scheduled to take place possibly later this month.

[ Page 3066 ]

The difficulty we have at the provincial level — more so in other provinces than even in B.C. — is that we feel the federal government simply will not listen to the provinces and to the people who are responsible for delivering health care and, more importantly, for providing the funds.

[5:45]

I know that members will have an interest in health care because it affects everyone in the province and, as I said, reflects the greatest expenditure of our budgets. We believe we in British Columbia have maintained a high level of service. We believe that we are fortunate in the services we can offer our people by way of health care. We also recognize, however, that we must be extremely responsible in such expenditures, for fear that sometime in the future the weight of the expenditures for health care could force governments to make decisions which may not be in the interests of maintaining the level of service. So a very difficult arrangement must be achieved in maintaining the level that the citizens desire and the level which government wishes to provide while still being able to produce the necessary funding to pay for those services.

We in British Columbia have the largest number of doctors per capita. We have the highest fee schedule in the country. The growth in expenditures over the past decade has been astronomical. The expenditures in health over the past decade have been astronomical. While we're reviewing a budget of almost $2.5 billion, going back about ten years you would find that the provincial budget itself was less than that.

Mr. Chairman, I've been advised that a member has a matter of urgent business he wishes to bring before the House. To accommodate that, perhaps I could move that the committee rise and report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

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

MR. PASSARELL Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege and will state the case quickly and succinctly. This is the earliest opportunity I have had to bring this matter to Your Honour's attention.

In question period today the hon. Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) advised the House, in answer to my question about the Victoria testing station closure, that "they never did inspect school buses." Then by way of clarification the minister added: "We never used the testing station for buses of any type — school buses or otherwise." This is a clear contradiction of the statements contained in the minister's annual report, which states at page 367: "School buses in the Victoria area, greater Vancouver area and greater Nanaimo area are either inspected at the inspection station in the area or by an inspector from the station." The minister has clearly misled the House and thereby breached the privilege of all members....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Although I accept the statement from the member as a point of privilege, I will have to ask him to withdraw the statement "clearly misled."

MR. PASSARELL: All right, I will withdraw that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. PASSARELL: In the event Your Honour finds that a prima facie breach of privilege has occurred, I have the appropriate motion prepared.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair will undertake to examine the matter as quickly as possible. The Chair also thanks the member for the advance notice of this point being raised.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:49 p.m.