[ Page 2235 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Mineral Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 51). Hon. Mr. Davis

Introduction and first reading –– 2235

Forest Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 40). Hon. Mr. Parker

Introduction and first reading –– 2235

Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 34). Hon. Mr. Dueck

Introduction and first reading –– 2236

Oral Questions

Forest fire fighters. Ms. Edwards –– 2236

Proposed South Moresby park. Mr. Kempf –– 2236

JobTrac program. Mr. Guno –– 2236

Government hiring freeze. Mr. Lovick –– 2236

Mr. G. Hanson

Emergency health services. Mr. Miller –– 2237

Golf course in Richmond. Mr. Rose –– 2238

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1987 (Bill 42). Second reading

Hon. B.R. Smith –– 2238

Mr. Lovick –– 2238

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 2238

Mr. Sihota –– 2239

Mr. Clark –– 2240

Mr. Rose –– 2240

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Forests and Lands estimates. (Hon. Mr. Parker)

On vote 34: minister's office –– 2240

Mr. Williams

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Clark

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Rabbitt

Mr. Rose

Mr. R. Fraser

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Peterson

Ms. Edwards

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

MR. PELTON: On your behalf, Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the House welcome today Dr. Ken Coghill, Member of Parliament. Dr. Coghill is the parliamentary secretary of the cabinet in Australia. I would like the House to extend him a very, very warm welcome.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, visiting us in the House today is a friend of mine, Tim Bethell of Victoria, here with his daughter Bridey, from Regina. I ask the House to join me in making them welcome.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'm so pleased to see on the floor of the House today the former Premier of the province of British Columbia, Dave Barrett. We sat in this House together for some time, and a few of us in this House had the pleasure of being in the House together — I'm not going to say seated opposite; I'm going to say that we were together. He has been a great citizen of our province, and I would like to ask the House to welcome him today to our Legislative Assembly.

MR. ROSE: I thank the Minister of Economic Development for the welcome to the former Premier, an outstanding British Columbian and an outstanding Canadian. I'm sure they must have had some great wars in the past, when they pelted one another with marshmallows.

Dave Barrett and I go back a long way; as a matter of fact, I'd like the House to know that I was actually the second person to suggest that Dave run for leadership of the New Democratic Party. Dave was the first. He's an outstanding leader undergoing a bit of hiatus at the moment, and I'm sure we'll hear from him again, politically.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is the vice-president of the British Columbia Social Credit Party, Mr. Ed Kisling, and I ask the House to bid him welcome.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join me in welcoming Mr. Ron Milton, who is with the Oregon Federation of Teachers, of the AFL-CIO. I met him over the lunch break. He was driving through Victoria with a bumper sticker that said: "Honour Labour." I wanted to speak to this gentleman, and I invited him to this House today. Will you join me in welcoming him.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I too would like to offer best wishes and a Victoria welcome to Dave Barrett. For those of you who have wondered over the years about my encyclopedic knowledge of the rules, I learned from one of the best: Dave Barrett. I'm not kidding. That's a compliment, sir.

We have a birthday, and I have a horoscope here. If July 7 is your birthday, you may not be religious in an orthodox sense, but you are spiritual. You are also somewhat of a perfectionist and can be your own worst and most severe critic. That is why you tend to brood. You can be lonely in a crowd. You can pick a fight in an empty room. Will you please join with me in wishing many happy returns to the hon. Attorney-General.

HON. B.R. SMITH: It's fitting that I have introduced my mother, who is in the gallery; she's responsible for it all. But I also want to add my welcome to Dave Barrett, who opened the marvelous recreation centre in my community shortly before his ill-fated plunge to the polls. On that facility alone, he should have had more success at the polls. I have always appreciated him for that, and also his comradeship in this chamber.

MR. CRANDALL: In the members' gallery today is the administrator from the town of Golden, Phil Taylor, and his wife Jill. I would appreciate it if the House would make them welcome.

MR. GABELMANN: Would the House welcome a visitor from the United States: Prof. Martin Morand of the Pennsylvania Centre for the Study of Labour Relations.

Introduction of Bills

MINERAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

Hon. Mr. Davis presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Mineral Amendment Act, 1987,

HON. MR. DAVIS: This bill is essentially a streamlining of the Mineral Act of 1979 and eases the administration of this legislation.

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

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

Hon. Mr. Parker presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Forest Amendment Act, 1987.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

It's a pleasure for me to introduce to the House today new legislation which, among a number of other items, addresses an issue important not only to the ministry but to all British Columbians — the designation and management of wilderness areas in our province.

Furthermore, the government has also been considering for some time changes to our stumpage pricing procedures. Our current stumpage prices are lower than historic levels. Also, they have not risen relative to increases in silvicultural expenditures over the past few years. Many residents in our province have called for major changes in stumpage pricing, and necessary updating of some factors used in stumpage pricing was delayed by the United States trade actions. There were concerns that any change would provide support for the erroneous claims in the United States regarding subsidization.

The government will establish a level of timber prices that is appropriate for British Columbia. The Forest Amendment Act also allows the government to take action on rentals on various forest tenures, royalties charged on timber licences, preventing increased U.S. export costs to industry when

[ Page 2236 ]

upward stumpage revisions are made — providing the current level of the federal export tax remains in place — and obtaining information on product prices and costs to establish timber prices.

Mr. Speaker, the amendments are in a comprehensive package which, if approved by the Legislature, allow the government to be a more effective and efficient manager of our forest resource.

Bill 40 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HEALTH STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

Hon. Mr. Dueck presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1987.

[2:15]

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, this bill includes a broad variety of miscellaneous amendments to various statutes administered by the Ministry of Health. These acts involve the regulation of certain health profession issues related to the public health review of payments to practitioners by the Medical Services Commission and filing of changes of name. They include such acts as Community Care Facility Act, Health Act, Health Emergency Act, Hospital District Act, Medical Practitioners Act, Medical Service Act, Name Act, Physiotherapists Act and Psychologists Act.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the Bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 34 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

FOREST FIRE FIGHTERS

MS. EDWARDS: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Can the minister confirm that persons working as temporary forest fire fighters are not being assessed unemployment insurance contributions?

HON. L. HANSON: No, I can't confirm that, but I'll take the question as notice and report to the House.

MS. EDWARDS: The federal government has made a change in federal regulations allowing the province to take action on these. Has the cabinet specified through an order-in-council that forest fire fighters are going to be designated as provincial employees, so that they will be covered by the Employment Standards Act?

HON. L. HANSON: If that were the case, the order-in-council would be made public.

PROPOSED SOUTH MORESBY PARK

MR. KEMPF: A question to the Minister of Environment and Parks. It would appear, according to the most recent words of the Premier, that we have a deal with respect to a national park on South Moresby. Can the minister now, after two months of playing a shell game with the people of the Queen Charlotte Islands, share the particulars of that agreement with this House?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No.

MR. KEMPF: The Premier, as reports have it, has broken every promise that he has ever made to the people of the Queen Charlotte Islands. He sold out the people of the Queen Charlotte Islands. He sold out the people of British Columbia. He sold them down the street with respect to South Moresby. He's capitulated to the eastern interests with respect to South Moresby. Can no one over there stand up to tell this House what the deal on South Moresby is, before the ink is put to paper?

HON. B.R. SMITH: Because I had a hand in the negotiation of this, I will tell the member that it is a very good deal for the province and for Canada; that the Premier had a great deal of courage in going ahead and pressing for this park; that the full agreement will be made public when signed by the Premier and the Prime Minister this weekend in Victoria.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, the sooner we find out what we've been taken for, the better.

Supplementary to the Minister of Environment and Parks. Before totally finalizing the deal on South Moresby, couldn't we throw in the Stein as well, for good measure?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Was there a question there, Mr. Speaker?

JOBTRAC PROGRAM

MR. GUNO: My question is to the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training regarding JobTrac. What special measures have been taken to ensure that jobs under this program will be created in remote areas of the province, like my riding — areas where your ministry has no offices?

HON. S. HAGEN: We have attempted to address that by making a toll-free number available throughout the province, where people from any part of the province can phone and ask questions on where information is available. If there is no office, then the information requested will be mailed to the people requesting the information.

MR. GUNO: A supplementary to the same minister. Can the minister tell the House what proportion of JobTrac jobs have been created in remote and rural areas of the province. Or has any attention been paid to seeing that these jobs are fairly distributed around the province?

HON. S. HAGEN: I don't have the percentage of jobs created that have gone into the individual areas, but I can assure you that every attempt has been made to distribute the jobs throughout the province, particularly in the areas where they're needed the most.

GOVERNMENT HIRING FREEZE

MR. LOVICK: My question is to the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. Yesterday in the House in response

[ Page 2237 ]

to a question about a hiring freeze, the minister made reference to layoffs of "clerical staff." Can he confirm for us that the so-called freeze applies only to clerical staff?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, Mr. Speaker, it does not just apply to clerical staff. It applies to the broad range of people within government ministries.

MR. LOVICK: Would the minister share with us, please, what is meant by "broad range" or give us some illustration, at least, of precisely what that means?

Interjections.

HON. MR. ROGERS: The answer to the question is that people in all different job categories within government are in consideration in terms of the look at hiring; so it's not just the people in clerical functions. I used clerical yesterday as an example, but there are other examples in other areas of government where we're looking at it.

MR. LOVICK: A supplementary, if I might, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the answer and the clarification. We understand on this side of the House that there is presently constituted a committee, consisting of a Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, the head of the government personnel office and the Premier's principal secretary, which is reviewing all hiring decisions. My question is: what criteria are this committee presently using to decide whether positions are subject to the freeze or not, and to whom does that committee report?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I don't believe you've got the structure of the committee quite correct, so I'll take that part as notice and find out for you. The committee would report to cabinet.

MR. LOVICK: A supplementary again, Mr. Speaker. Regarding the minister's answer telling us that we are freezing the system rather than only clerical positions or some such thing, is any consideration presently being given to the services performed? Clearly, if we are now deciding that there will be no more hiring for something that apparently is being referred to as "privatization initiatives," according to the Premier's principal secretary, then obviously certain services are not being performed. My question is this: what assurances can the minister give us, then, that this hiring freeze is not directly interfering with the performance of services that are normally considered to be absolutely necessary and essential in this province?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, we might get into quite a long debate about what are necessary and essential services, but depending on the ministry and depending on the function that the particular person would do within that ministry, each one of these has been considered by the committee. There are some which take very little time for consideration; others take some substantial time for consideration.

MR. G. HANSON: Supplementary to the Provincial Secretary. The Provincial Secretary is the minister responsible for the public service in British Columbia. I wonder if he would please, as a member of cabinet, advise this House what policy has been decided in terms of not filling vacant positions and the layoff of auxiliary employees in the province.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The hon. member is not correct. The responsibility for the public service of British Columbia lies with the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations.

EMERGENCY HEALTH SERVICES

MR. MILLER: My question is to the Minister of Health. As the minister is aware, the people of Prince Rupert and the north coast have locally raised some $160,000 to have a twin-engine Messerschmitt helicopter located in Prince Rupert for emergency medical evacuations. This whole operation really depends on the Emergency Health Services dispatching that helicopter in response to Medivac, and yet to date that has only been done four times. Would the minister assure the House that he will instruct Emergency Health Services to dispatch that helicopter in response to Medivac situations on the north coast?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I'm well aware of the situation in Prince Rupert in regard to Medivac. It's been this minister's responsibility for some time now to try to solve the problem they have in Prince Rupert. The committee there, together with the municipality, I believe, got together and raised some funds to lease a Messerschmitt helicopter for a six-month period. It was done against our recommendation, against our better judgment.

We will dispatch the type of delivery for Medivac that is the most reasonable as far as dollars are concerned, and we're also looking at other ways of resolving this problem. I've been in touch with the Hon. Jake Epp. He assures me he'll get back to us very shortly in regard to using some of the Transport helicopters that are stationed in the near vicinity.

So the problem exists; the hon. member is quite right. It exists in Prince Rupert and in other areas too. But if we went along with this system of a community going ahead and leasing a chopper for six months, and then expecting us to pick up the bill regardless of the cost, it would be very irresponsible on my part, and we can't condone that.

MR. MILLER: Well, we can talk about responsibility and the number of lives that are in jeopardy because this government has failed to act to provide that kind of service, but the minister is well aware that the helicopter depends on dispatch by the Emergency Health Services. If they don't dispatch, if they refuse to use that helicopter, then it will disappear from the community, despite the best efforts of those people. For example, one woman in particular lost her husband at sea because that service wasn't available.

Is the minister prepared to see those lives put in jeopardy, rather than fund or instruct the Emergency Health Services to simply use a helicopter that is there and is equipped? There is no other helicopter equipped like this one. Does the minister think that there's a higher priority? Why doesn't he consider the lives that could he put at risk on the north coast a priority, and get on with the job and let them use that helicopter?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is putting words in my mouth, saying that I don't care about the lives of the people in Prince Rupert or any other area, and that is just not so. We're delivering probably the best emergency service anywhere in Canada. Our ambulance service is the

[ Page 2238 ]

best. That does not say that we can't improve. That does not say that we couldn't spend more money and provide a helicopter for every village.

I would say also that, as far as Prince Rupert is concerned, we have given them excellent service. It was not our fault we got into this situation. As you well know, we were able to use single-engine helicopters until the federal government sent out an edict that this was no longer allowed. That's how we got into this situation.

Sometimes these things cannot be resolved overnight. We're doing everything we can. I would say I've spent more time trying to resolve this issue in Prince Rupert than any other issue I've got, and it will be resolved.

GOLF COURSE IN RICHMOND

MR. ROSE: The Minister of Agriculture looks rather relaxed; I'd like to ask him a question.

On June 4, the minister and the Premier signed an order allowing the construction of an 18-hole golf course in the middle of Richmond — 150 acres of prime farmland, according to the land commission, resulting in the permanent loss of this land. What special factors induced the minister and the Premier to overrule the order of the ALRC and endorse the application that had been rejected four times before by that body?

[2:30]

HON. MR. SAVAGE: That decision was made by the Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet. It is retained within the agricultural land reserve, as are a very large percentage of the golf courses in this province.

MR. ROSE: Judging from the applause, the minister must need some help on this. The question is, there was no assessment of recreational land in Richmond; it's part of the Richmond council agricultural plan. What special factors were there in terms of recreation, or in any other way, to induce the minister to go over the heads of the ALRC? Were there special recreational factors, agricultural factors — or were they political factors?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: No, I don't believe there were any recreational discussions, other than what would be used by the recreational people who wish to have the 18-hole course. There was no decision relative to whether it was required politically; it's whether it was required for recreational demand within the corporation of Richmond.

MR. ROSE: According to my information, there was no recreational need for it in Richmond, certainly not as part of the plan. A golf course is not just a temporary thing. What this amounts to is 150 acres of land going commercial, and spot-zoning for a clubhouse and a parking lot. Does the minister intend to protect agricultural land, because he is the steward and the trustee of agricultural land in this province?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Yes.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call second reading of Bill 42.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1987

HON. B.R. SMITH: It is an honour to speak on second reading of a bill that has so many principles embedded in it, Mr. Speaker, so I will just be very brief and synoptic.

This bill has a provision that will increase the jurisdiction of the small claims court from $2,000 to $3,000. We would like to go higher than that, but of course the constraints of the constitutional limitations that we have on creating a section 96 court don't allow us to do that. It's a good court and we're expanding its jurisdiction.

We're amending the Police Act to give a little more manpower to deal with the appeals and complaints that are outstanding, and that will be there before the new Police Act is in force.

There are a number of significant amendments to the Small Business Venture Capital Act to enhance the operation of venture capital corporations and expand this source of equity capital.

We're also bringing in legislation that will get tough with careless drivers and excessive speeders, establishing minimum $100 fines for these serious motor vehicle offences, and bringing careless drivers into the courtroom, not to be dealt with any more by the aseptic route of traffic violation notices.

The government's administration of the aquaculture industry will be enhanced through amendments which will assert provincial management jurisdiction and provide equal treatment for freshwater and saltwater aquaculturalists, fish buyers and processors.

A special revolving fund will be created to provide startup equipment and raw materials for prison inmate work programs. These programs will self-finance and enhance work opportunities for incarcerated offenders, unless ill or engaged in an educational program. This will also generate sufficient income to enable offenders to earn wages and to make financial restitution to victims of crime for the first time, to pay outstanding fines and to contribute towards the maintenance of their families and the cost of their containment. It's a good, new direction contained in that provision.

There are a number of housekeeping measures in this bill. The public accounts are to be streamlined through closing the energy development special account, which hasn't been used in three years. Fine-tuning is intended in the Assessment Act and the new forest land assessment legislation which was introduced in 1986.

Mr. Speaker, this provides only the briefest of comments, and I'm sure that the comments will be far more detailed when we move to committee. I move second reading.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, I'm wondering if we might begin by asking for clarification and a ruling from the Chair. You'll recall, Mr. Speaker, that when we discussed Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), Bill 31 as I recall, we had some discussion to determine whether we could discuss a bill without principle, technically speaking, by focusing on a number of specific sections. I'm wondering if we might assume that the same procedure would obtain for discussion of this bill.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: To the second member for Nanaimo, that is clearly the case in a Miscellaneous Statutes

[ Page 2239 ]

Amendment Act. As a matter of fact, I think that was evidenced by the committee debate on Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), which was extensive — well beyond its capacity, actually, to be extensive. But full latitude, Mr. Member, on the principle and on the intent of every section 1s allowed in committee stage on a Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, I thank the House Leader for that clarification. I would remind the House Leader, however, that we also had a fairly extensive debate under second reading of Bill 31. I believe we did. I think we raised a number of different points at that time. I see some disagreement. It seems to me we did spend some time on Bill 31 on second reading stage as well as in committee. I'm quite sure that's the case, Mr. Speaker. I hasten to point out I'm not suggesting that we propose to spend hours and hours in second reading; it's just that I do want to get the clarification now, rather than later.

MR. SPEAKER: I think, hon. member, that traditionally there is more latitude given in committee. If there is debate on second reading, of course the committee Chairman would then tighten up the debate in committee.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, we shall accept that caution. Obviously much of what we want to say here will be done under committee stage, there is no question of that. A number of my colleagues and I, however, would like to point to particular items in this bill that we have some concerns about, I guess — if I may use the terminology — just to flag those for future reference.

I would like to begin by just offering an observation, if I might, Mr. Speaker. As a very new member of this House, I have some concerns about what appears to have become a typical procedure here: namely, that the miscellaneous statutes bills seem to be getting bigger and longer. I'm a little concerned about that, because it seems to me that miscellaneous statutes — ideally, at least — ought not to be a place for what have proven in the past debates to be some very significant initiatives, a long way from anybody's definition of housekeeping.

I would dearly hope, then, that we could have some assurances from government that I am perhaps misreading or misunderstanding things, and that miscellaneous statutes are not going to be used as a means of introducing really substantive, significant, new initiatives in some cases. Rather, they will adhere to what I believe is their original purpose — namely, housekeeping measures.

I am wondering if the government House Leader or the Attorney would care to respond to that observation, Mr. Speaker. I'd appreciate some clarification.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't know how I can respond, since I have already spoken once in second reading, but maybe we can call this a point of order, and then I'll respond.

Miscellaneous statutes are by no means meant to be minor housekeeping amendments. Some of them are quite serious, as was evidenced yesterday with the Point Roberts water, four sections over which you had a legitimate concern — although I didn't agree with your concern.

Normally, a miscellaneous statutes act is put into place because of the length — or I should say shortness — of the material in place. That's why it becomes a catch-all thing. But by no means is it meant to diminish what may happen in a bill or what a bill or a section 1s saying. It has more to do with the length of it.

For example, the Point Roberts water — using the other miscellaneous statutes — would have looked awfully silly in a bill all by itself. It was only four sections. So it was one rolled into it. By no means do we say that a miscellaneous statute is housekeeping or minor. Some of these sections are quite important; they're just not of great length.

MR. SPEAKER: The second member for Nanaimo. But the member has spoken.

MR. LOVICK: Yes, and that's why I'm standing, Mr. Speaker, because it's precisely that kind of clarification I was seeking.

I understand by the rules of the House that what I could do, technically, is talk about every section of this bill as the speaker for it. That is correct. However, one is allowed to speak only once on each of those issues. Is that correct?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. LOVICK: I will defer now to my colleague from Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.

MR. SIHOTA: I don't intend to get into any lengthy debate, I thought it might be appropriate that I go over some of the sections that we intend to canvass in some depth so that everybody's prepared for it, particularly on the other side of the House, so that they know where we are coming from. It is clear that some of these sections could go through fairly quickly, and yet others are of some significance.

It is clear from the legislation that the Small Business Venture Capital Act takes up quite a few of the sections of the act, and I can certainly put the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) on notice if she's here — and if she's not, the Attorney-General — that there will be quite a discussion from this side of the House on the provisions of that act.

The reason I say that is because, if you go back and look at the original speeches when the legislation was brought in, and you look at the changes now being put forward, there seems to be a shift in the original intent and purpose of the Small Business Venture Capital Act. I appreciate — and we will get into this in more detail — that the intent is to provide a little more flexibility in that act. That may well be fine, but it is a considerable departure, particularly in two or three sections, from what I would perceive to be the original intent of the legislation. So that's certainly one we want to put the government on notice about.

The Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act is another one. No doubt as some of you know, I have done a fair bit of work involving that piece of legislation, and I have some concerns on which I guess I'll be dealing with the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services (Hon. L. Hanson). But I have quite a few questions on that legislation. There are four or five sections that have been amended, which I think need to be dealt with.

The Fisheries Act is another one, and the Assessment Act is another one; particularly the first amendment, which talks about the inclusion of parcel size as a factor to be determined in valuation of tree-farm land.

[ Page 2240 ]

Since I am on my feet, I'm going to deal very quickly with some of the Attorney-General-related issues that flow from this legislation. I must say that, as much as the second member for Langley (Mr. Peterson) and I had supported changes in the limits for the small claims court, I am a little disappointed that it's been raised nominally. I understand the argument in terms of the constitutional downside of that — if you go as high as $5,000 you may get yourself into some problem — but I'd like to see somebody have the gumption to argue.

In any event, I am certainly a little disappointed with the change there, because I think we could have gone a lot further and helped out more people who are affected by small claims matters. So that's another one there will be some debate on. Those are the ones of particular concern to me, and I don't know if any other members of the House on this side want to highlight acts that are of concern to them.

MR. CLARK: I'll have much more to say about this legislation when it gets to committee stage, but I have some concerns particularly about increasing.... We have a situation where the budget says there will be no new money lent under the Farm Product Industry Act. Then we find the miscellaneous statutes bill with $10 million more allocated to the Farm Product Industry Act in order to finance, presumably, the ethanol plant in Dawson Creek. That may well not be the case, and we will canvass that with the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Savage) during the committee stage of debate. Clearly there is a contradiction between what the government states in their budget — in terms of subsidies to business and all these other programs they are not going to continue — and what we see happening consistently.

The last Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act included $60 million more in subsidies to business under the Ministry of Economic Development. This Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act includes $10 million under the Farm Product Industry Act, which is a very small operation that lends mostly small-dollar figures to a variety of farm product components. Here we have a massive increase in the budget for something the government said they were going to phase out. We have a massive increase in order to accomplish a subsidy to a plant that we don't have any details on; and we don't have the kind of detailed analysis or homework before us to vote on it. So when it comes up before the committee stage, we'll be spending a great deal of time exploring this specific section to make sure the homework is done.

We've seen with Point Roberts water and a whole series of things with this government that the homework hasn't been done, and we're expected to vote in favour of significant increases of public money for programs that the homework hasn't been done on in terms of lending it out. So we will be spending more time with that when we get to committee stage.

[2:45]

MR. ROSE: I was just going to say, Mr. Speaker, that we don't intend to debate it in second reading any further, and that we look forward to seeing it in committee stage tomorrow. As far as this, side is concerned, we will close the debate for now. We will go into the various sections that we've tagged in more detailed debate the next time it appears before us.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I close debate on second reading. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 42, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1987, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS AND LANDS
(continued)

On vote 34: minister's office, $210,165.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm intrigued by what the minister said this morning about not responding in terms of a proper fee for chips going into pulp mills. He said that the $10.50 figure was not going to change, and $10.50 is the price per bone-dry unit with respect to the raw material for pulp mills. That number was established in 1974; it was based on pulp prices in 1974 and the circumstances of 1974. I might note, since I was involved in the process of determining that at the time, that it was based on the least efficient pulp mill in the province, in terms of what they could readily afford to pay and still be profitable, as determined by the B.C. Research Council and people at the University of British Columbia in the forest faculty; they determined that this was a very modest increase in pricing with respect to chips.

The problem here is that this is part of our great natural resource in British Columbia. It tends to be kind of an obscure area for the average person to look at, Mr. Chairman. The pulp section of our provincial economy is very significant and currently very successful and very profitable. We are getting higher prices for pulp now than we ever have in the history of the province. I'd have to check the prices of pulp back in '74, but I would think they were in the $300 to $400 range, or something like that. So that's how we established that. As I recall, it would take two bone-dry units for a tonne of pulp — something like that. The current prices in pulp, if my memory serves me right, are in the range of $600 U.S. The Canadian dollar is 30 percent, or something like that, so that gets us up to about $780 Canadian, which is probably a doubling of pulp prices since 1974 when that $10.50 price was established. It's extremely profitable for the pulp companies. It's not much of a return for the province of British Columbia, the owner of the trees.

Can the minister advise the House why he has come to the conclusion that that number should not be changed, in view of the fact that recurrently through the years your staff have recommended that it be changed?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, with the introduction of the Forest Amendment Act, I can now speak to the fact that we're looking at substantive changes in the stumpage appraisal system — not just the method but the system.

[ Page 2241 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: I'd like to say that I regard it as nothing short of almost subterfuge to have pulled off that kind of caper, Mr. Minister. There is no question in terms of the focus of the debate that was underway this morning about the inadequate charging for public timber in British Columbia. You're now hiding behind that shield, saying there's new legislation being brought in. We were advised by the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) of this province, over the last week or two, that there would be no significant new legislation coming in before this chamber. So much for that advice. But at the very least, that bill should come in at the end of the departmental estimates. At the very least, you could certainly advise the House that you're prepared to move in that area. But if you're trying to curb debate by that device, it's simply not acceptable.

This morning you said that the $10.50 isn't going to change. I'm trying to find out why.

HON. MR. PARKER: The introduction of the Forest Amendment Act isn't meant to curb debate on estimates at all.

As for what we discussed this morning on the chip market allowances in the stumpage appraisal system for the interior of the province, I presumed — and I think I'm correct — that I shouldn't be speaking about legislation before it's introduced in the House, so that's the approach I took. When we were speaking at that particular instant, I gave the proper answer, as I do now. We are about to embark on a review of the stumpage appraisal system in the next few months, to have these changes in place by fall, and they are substantive changes. Everybody in British Columbia will have an opportunity to have a kick at the cat and provide their advice to the ministry. Further details will be forthcoming.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, we seem to have a different story from the minister between this morning and this afternoon. This morning he said — if my ears weren't playing tricks with me — that there would be no change in that $10.50. Is the minister saying that this morning he didn't know that, and that he wasn't aware of what was coming in the new Forest Amendment Act? Or is he telling the House that he didn't really tell the truth this morning?

HON. MR. PARKER: For the third time, Mr. Chairman — perhaps members opposite could take notes — this morning we were talking about the stumpage appraisal system, which I referred to earlier as a modified Rothery system. The question from the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) was whether or not there would be a change to the chip market price used in the determination of the market rate for stumpage appraisal for the interior. I told him no, because no change is contemplated under that system. The introduction of the Forest Amendment Act explained the approach that this ministry would be taking, and it shouldn't come totally as a shock to the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf). The whole intent of our approach under the terms of this act is to gain a greater return on the forest resource for the people of the province.

MR. WILLIAMS: I think the minister has clarified the point. He's simply saying that insofar as the $10.50 is concerned, it's going to stay.

Interjections.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, you don't know whether you're saying that. Then why did you say that this morning? I'm having trouble with that.

HON. MR. PARKER: There will be no change.

MR. WILLIAMS:: Okay, I just wanted to get that clear. You're saying there will be no change insofar as that input is concerned.

HON. MR. PARKER: Insofar as the appraisal system is concerned.

MR. WILLIAMS: In the interior, that is.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you. Hansard would have trouble accommodating that reply, so I think that will deal with it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read the Blues.

MR. WILLIAMS: Okay, I'll read the Blues; thank you very much. In between the mumbles, we just might find out....

Interjections.

MR. WILLIAMS: I think we should all have the benefit of what you tell me or the House. I wouldn't want it to be wasted on just the poor civil servants who have to hear it. I think you should really share your wisdom with us all, as long as that might take.

This whole question of our pulp economy is a serious one. Could the minister advise the House whether he has read the report prepared by Sten Nilsson for the FEPA Group at UBC? Sten Nilsson is from the Royal Institute in Stockholm, and was invited to British Columbia by Dr. Pearse and others to review our industry.

HON. MR. PARKER: I recall reading an abstract of some work done by Dr. Nilsson, but I couldn't say when, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WILLIAMS: I raise that because it's important. Prof. Nilsson came from Stockholm and worked with Dr. Pearse and others at UBC looking at our industry. He may be a kind of dour Swede from that northern clime, but he came here and reviewed our industry and our forest practices, and was clearly a very depressed man after doing so. British Columbia has a far better situation in terms of latitude, in terms of forests and potential, than that part of the world, I think. He saw that we were missing all kinds of opportunities: that we were mismanaging the resource terribly; that the private sector was not that capable or efficient, was not that good in terms of managing and dealing with labour questions. He looked at this pulp sector question fairly clearly, and in his economic modeling it was the critical factor throughout the piece, in terms of his academic work on this question. He said that we were.... I hope that the minister, even in the limited parts of it that he may have scanned, grasps this point: nowhere else in the western world do they have a different pricing system for feed going into pulp mills

[ Page 2242 ]

than the roundwood supply would be. It creates all kinds of economic diseconomies and twisting within what should be a free market system.

[3:00]

So we have a distorted price system in terms of our pulp economy. We have chip prices that are not based on real market. And these chip prices do not reflect roundwood costs. That being the case, no pulp mill wants to use roundwood or pulpwood if they can avoid it, so we'll tend to get all kinds of pulpwood out there in the forests not being harvested, not being cut, because they would prefer chips to the roundwood, because the price would be double. So we don't get that matter resolved. That starts creating all kinds of problems in terms of harvesting, diseconomies, decadent forests and the like — very serious questions. In his economic modelling he found that until you wrestled with that question, you really couldn't give some sense of direction to the forest economy of this province in a rational way, because that number was twisting the exercise all the time.

I think that was the main burden of Dr. Nilsson's work. He's basically saying, until you rationalize your pulp raw material pricing system and relate it to a market basis, you are going to twist and disorient the rest of your forest economy in the province. That's pretty major. What you put into your stumpage appraisal formula in terms of that $10.50 figure is just a part of that twisted chunk of this exercise. Just think of it: $10.50 per bone-dry unit; it takes two bone-dry units to provide a tonne of pulp in the province; the pulp is selling for $600 U.S., which is $700-plus in Canadian dollars — $750 say — so for $21 you get your raw material. That's extraordinary — $21. That's been in place since 1974. As I told you just a few minutes ago, it was established on the basis of the most inefficient pulp mill in the province in the day — of still being able to make substantial profits.

Think how that has changed, Mr. Minister. We're not talking about new investment in pulp mills, by and large; we're talking about old invested capital, much of which has long since been paid off, or close to it if not, because of other expenditures by the company.

So there are these incredible diseconomies created by this situation that you sit on. Can you explain your rationale for accepting the $10.50 figure, remaining way back there, when it's creating all kinds of diseconomies throughout the system, when the roundwood question is still there, and we're not getting the roundwood used or harvested or cut when we could, if we had something comparable between roundwood and chip prices?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, just to talk about Dr. Nilsson's analysis a little bit, trying to draw a parallel between Sweden and British Columbia is comparing apples and oranges, simplistically, in that the forestry practices in Sweden have been going on for several centuries, and we're in our first century in British Columbia. Certainly we're trying to learn from others as much as we can, and we continue to have good scientific dialogue with the Scandinavian countries, as we do with other countries throughout the world, including those behind the Iron Curtain.

The pulp that gets left behind in British Columbia is left behind because under our economic framework it's uneconomic to deal with. It's that simple. The policy in British Columbia is basically 50 percent firmwood policy. In most cases that which is considered to be pulpwood is often less than 50 percent firmwood. With the types of stands that exist in Sweden, where they're cut at culmination rather than at maximum rotational age, they probably have maybe 3 percent to 4 percent cull factor, whereas in British Columbia it can be in excess of 50 percent. So it costs about twice as much to handle a decadent log as it does to handle a sound log.

We can go on and on with these pedantic lessons, but we won't deal with that. The reason that we're not changing the $10.50 per BTU rate is that, as I've said three times now, we're looking beyond that one little item. We're looking at the whole picture, rather than one item. We're looking at the total system.

I'd like at this time to address a matter raised this morning by the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), where he was asking questions about Tay-M Logging Ltd. I'd like to read this into the record, and I'd be pleased to provide a copy.

"1. The licensee is under instructions to complete three metre falling and removal of minor volumes of wood from four cutting permits and one road permit for a total of 12 settings.

"2. The licensee is scheduled to plant 220,000 trees this summer, beginning within a week or so.

"3. The licensee is also expected to carry out prescribed burning on approximately 16 cut blocks this fall."

MR. WILLIAMS: We'll go back to that stuff about pulp in a little while. Clearly, there's a terribly distorted situation here, and until it starts getting rationalized, we've got a very serious problem until we start getting a market orientation.

I happened to talk to a senior person in one of the largest integrated companies in the province just a while back, and I said: "What do you guys do in terms of chip pricing?" This is an integrated company, and they have to start using numbers themselves within the corporation. He said: "We use market figures for chip pricing internally within the company, and it's critical. The biggest fight in our economic corporate planning, as in most corporations, is the transfer pricing costs for these chips."

And how do they do it? They end up doing it on the basis of market. They look at Puget Sound and the rest of it, in terms of understanding markets. They come as close as they can to market, in order to determine efficiencies within the corporation. That's reasonable; that's sensible. Isn't that the reasonable, sensible thing for the ministry to do, too? They don't want distortions within the corporation. They want every section of the corporation to be as efficient and economic as possible in order to maximize returns. That applies throughout the public sector in managing this industry as well. Doesn't the logic follow?

You know, it's your ideology. You're supposed to be the private sector boys who understand what business is all about. If you are, then you should use some of their methodology. That methodology requires market pricing for rational decisions to be made. We don't have market pricing in British Columbia. You still say you're not going to base it on that $10.50. That isn't going to change. You're going to look at the whole thing.

Look, you could have a thousand bureaucrats look at the whole thing, and in the end, they'd all come up with different answers. They might hold a committee meeting and come to some general conclusion, but in no way can they simulate a market. That's the Soviet Union — trying to simulate markets, or so-called planning. You have an opportunity to have

[ Page 2243 ]

real market information as the engine. I think that's reasonable. This is the public's resource. To manage it properly you need the market engine as a pricing vehicle. You're turning your back on it, and you're getting a group of bureaucrats to do some number-crunching. That's going to take us absolutely nowhere. It will continue to get us in trouble with the Americans. Mark my words. There's no doubt about that.

I was interested when I heard people complaining about how slow it is to get research projects underway in your ministry. Everything goes through the Premier's office. Oh, I don't want to exaggerate — all consulting over $500 goes through the Premier's office. Can you imagine? Members on the other side, in this day and age — part of the Premier's bureaucracy reviews all of your contracts over $500. If I was really impressed by the talent in the Premier's office, I'd say that was a waste of talent. But I'm not going to say that.

You have projects underway under what is called the FRDA agreement, and that's under the ERDA, I guess — FRDA is son or daughter of ERDA. You have a whole bunch of private studies and contract work underway. I made a request yesterday of your staff, wanting to know how many contracts there are, what the value was, how many were approved and how many are awaiting approval. I also wanted to know how many were sitting in the Premier's office and how many had been sent back from the Premier's office. I didn't get that information. I have a pretty good idea of what the numbers are, nevertheless.

I made that request yesterday of a junior person in the department. I made that request today of Dr. Baker, who is head of research. Is it Dr. Baker? I think so; I don't know the chap. I made the request today, and I was advised that he would have to check with his assistant deputy minister — who happens to be on your left — prior to giving out that information.

I want to know what kind of shop you're running over there. What kind of police state do you have operating in the Ministry of Forests in terms of reasonable public information? I think it's nothing short of scandalous that some PhD cannot give an MLA of this province simple data on research underway under your ministry. I think it's shocking and scandalous. It's a stonewalling game, and it's a kind of police state view of public information. I want to know how you justify that, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. PARKER: I wasn't aware that the member was seeking some additional information. I'll track that for him.

As far as inquiries from other elected members of legislative bodies go — be they the Legislative Assembly here, town council, regional districts, school boards, whatever elected official makes a request of this ministry — I have directed that my staff put the reply through this elected official, as I have responsibility for the ministry.

MR. CLARK: Public information.

HON. MR. PARKER: That's right, and you'll get it. But you'll get it from me.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

MR. WILLIAMS: I tell you, Mr. Minister: that's a police-state mentality. I requested that information reasonably; I should have got it. I should have got it forthwith and directly from the staff person involved. I don't need your filter. I don't need your glasses reviewing these matters. This is genuine, simple public information, and it should be forthwith and readily available.

That is absolute nonsense. Just a couple of minutes ago I get hand-delivered a letter from your office signed by you. What kind of crock is that? What kind of shop are you running, where you put the fear into these civil servants at the most senior level, where they're not free to give the most reasonable information in the world? What kind of minister are you, that you think that's the way it should be done, that you think that's how you should occupy your time?

The request this morning of Dr. Baker was probably at, what, 10 o'clock? I forget; I think it was just before 10. I now get a letter at 3 o'clock from you. That meant you went through this whole exercise; you signed a letter. What a narrow, incredible, bureaucratic view of the world and freedom of information. I think that's a scandalous waste of everybody's time. You put the fear of God into these senior civil servants so they don't do their job properly, so they're not giving out reasonable information.

[3:15]

Certainly information to members of this House should be forthcoming and forthwith. What is this Legislature all about, after all? It's about the spending of the public's money. And we can't be advised about the spending of the public's money unless you write us a letter. I think the royal jelly has gone to your head — a member of the Crown. The royal jelly has really fogged you up, Mr. Minister of the Crown: to think that is your prerogative and that's the way your shop should be run.

We've read all kinds of stuff about the Forests ministry being decentralized. That's being decentralized: you sending me a letter about a couple of research projects when I asked it of somebody of your staff yesterday and today, both of whom were scared to give me an answer?

It's scandalous, this kind of centralizing authority. I can almost understand the Premier not having faith in your competence and requiring everything over 500 bucks to go through him. But how can you run British Columbia that way? How can you do that? And how would any self-respecting minister of the Crown accept it in the end?

What kind of process do you have to go through to get these research projects underway? There are three technical advisory committees that review these research projects. One is for the coast, one is for the interior, one is for the north. There are professional participants who analyze all these studies and research projects. Professional people from the public sector, federally and provincially, and professional people from the private sector as well, review all these projects. Then after they're reviewed and approved relative to the budget, they go over to the Premier's office for approval. A lot of the ones that have gone to the Premier's office for approval have ended up just spinning around there or being tossed back to your bureaucrats, saying: "Is this really necessary now?" Or something to that effect. So they keep spinning around. The jobs that could be created out there would be underway if this nonsense wasn't carrying on the way it is. That's really shocking.

What are these studies? Well, they're studies that look at plantations and at failure rates and try to figure out why. But there are people in the Premier's office who don't understand why you would want to know that information, or why you'd want to know it now. Isn't that extraordinary? You might have

[ Page 2244 ]

failure rates in planting young seedlings of 50 percent. There is high capital cost in planting those trees. It is backbreaking work, but the beginning of new capital in British Columbia, in a sense, through our natural resources. And if the failure rate is high, then we should readily understand why. We need experts to help us determine that. But it ends up going to the Premier's office, because everything over $500 has to be approved by the Premier's office. That is the small shopkeeper mentality that will hold this province down forever and a day.

When we get that mentality operating out of the Premier's office and we get your mentality operating out of your office, it is a prescription for unmitigated disaster. "Anybody who wants any information from my department has to come through me." That's what we get from this new minister of the Crown. That is simply disgusting. That's not an understanding of what democracy is about, what this whole process of free people in a democratic assembly is about. Who do you think you are that you should be that narrow a controller of information, information that is reasonably public information? Who do you think you are?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd remind members to address their comments to the Chair as opposed to each other.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, the personal contract review was done by a crew in the Premier's office with the concurrence of cabinet as part of the fiscal management approach by cabinet. There are no further contracts so far rejected by that review staff.

As far as information is concerned, the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) made a request today and got a reply today. The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) made a request today and got a reply today. As long as requests are from other elected officials in the province, regardless of the level of government they will be replied to under my signature as an elected member of this Legislature and the man responsible for this ministry.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the minister has just said, even though the previous member who spoke had difficulty — the difficulty of half a day — getting information out of the ministry. However, we talked this morning about local autonomy, about the need in the Ministry of Forests to have local autonomy, about the need for local people out in the field, the people dealing with the industry out there, to have a decision-making process. How on earth, Mr. Chairman, can they, maybe 500 or 600 or 700 or 800 miles from Victoria, have that kind of local autonomy, that kind of decision-making process, if you can't even get answers from the B.C. Forest Service officials in Victoria? If we, as MLAs, have to go through the minister, how can we possibly have local autonomy? How can autonomy be given to those people out in the field if that is the situation right here in Victoria? How can those people have any autonomy if every contract over $500 that they seek to enter into with a contractor has to go through the Premier's office? What kind of local autonomy do we have in a situation like that?

But I wasn't going to get off the deep end on that; that's just aside. I don't want to let the minister off as easily as you do, Mr. Member, in regard to the price of chips in this province. I talked this morning about a fair share to the people of British Columbia from that resource. As the first member for Vancouver East has very clearly pointed out, there's a gross inequity in what is paid for fibre in British Columbia compared to what is paid in almost any other jurisdiction in the world. I want the people of British Columbia to understand that. I don't care whether the Americans understand it or not. I really care whether the man on the street understands that for 50 percent of the fibre taken from our forest lands in this province, we're paid $21 for every $780 worth of product out the other end of the manufacturing plant. Is that a fair return? I really don't think so.

Let's do this again. For 50 percent of the fibre, we get $21 for what the multinational corporation gets $780 for out the other end of the plant. Is that a fair return to the people of British Columbia for their resource? I don't think so. I didn't think so when I was minister, and I don't think so now. There has got to be a change. We see punitive taxes heaped on the heads of British Columbians, but we fail to go to the right well. We fail to go to the right source for our revenue in this province, and that source is the forest industry. I think it has been proven right here. We don't have to go any further than that.

How many billions of dollars are we talking about right here, without talking about the stumpage paid on dimension lumber? I want the people of British Columbia to understand that. I'm going to go all around this province and say it over and over, because they have to understand. That is the only way in which this forest industry is going to be turned around in British Columbia. It can't be turned around here. We found that out. I found that out very quickly. But it's got to be turned around — $21 for $780 worth of product. Is that a fair share to the people of British Columbia?

HON. MR. PARKER: It's interesting that the member didn't mention the other costs besides the cost of timber. It comes out of that $780 you mentioned.

He told us this morning that the forest industry in British Columbia generates over $8 billion worth of economic activity annually, and didn't mention the fact that well over $2 billion is received in taxes through all levels of services, goods and labour contracts. If a person were to go around the province telling the story, histrionics would help; facts are better.

MR. CLARK: It's interesting that the minister talks about facts, because I want to go to this year's prices. There is certainly the appearance that the Minister of Forests has deliberately misled the House, and I want to give the minister a chance.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: There is the appearance. I'll read it. In answer to my question this morning as to whether or not chip prices would be raised from $10.50, the minister said: "I can't speak for the next umpteen years...but at this point we are not considering changing the chip price allowance in the stumpage appraisal." And then he brings in legislation this afternoon that in effect, he says, is going to increase the price of chips. It's going to increase the return to the province of British Columbia. That's the purpose of the legislation, as you stated it. So you mentioned this morning that you have no intention of raising the chip price. When I asked about the future, you said you had no intention at this point in time. Then he comes in this afternoon and says that we're changing the whole system, and we are going to raise the price of chips.

[ Page 2245 ]

HON. MR. PARKER: For about the fifth time now, we were discussing this morning whether or not there would be an increase in the chip price number for the interior stumpage appraisal system. At that point, I said that we were not contemplating a change at that time, but I couldn't speak for the future. I told you before, Mr. Chairman, and the rest of this House, that I didn't think it was appropriate to speak about pending legislation until it had been presented to the House. So I followed procedure, and I told the facts.

[3:30]

MR. CLARK: So is the Minister of Forests saying to the House that he wasn't aware that he was going to bring in legislation an hour or two later that was going to affect the whole way in which we do stumpage?

MR. RABBITT: That's not what he said.

MR. CLARK: That's what the minister is saying. He's saying,"at this point in time"; he meant frozen in time. But an hour later, we're going to bring in complex legislation to completely change the way we assess stumpage in this province, and it's going to raise the price.

MR. WILLIAMS: The minister owes the House some explanation. We've already gone through this narrow police-state mentality, in terms of information. And that's what I think of your approach to this problem, let me assure you. It is a narrow, mean police-state mind we've got here. Make no bones about it; that's who we're dealing with. This is a guy who runs around in the north giving his anti-communist speeches, and he is like any apparatchik, I assure you, in that system east of the Baltic. He has the narrow police-state mind of an apparatchik in the Soviet Union. I tell you that, and I want you to think about that, because you go around giving all those screwball speeches up there in the north and, you know, you carry that kind of baggage with you, my friend, wherever you go.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, address your remarks to the Chair, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: I've done so, Mr. Chairman. How many times do I have to say "Mr. Chairman" before I go after that guy?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The remarks should all be addressed to the Chair.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'll use "Mr. Chairman" as frequently as I deem advisable. I am not going to use it in every other sentence, and that's as simple as that.

This minister over there, Mr. Chairman, stood up in this House and said,"No, no change," this morning. The most minimal courtesy he might have shown is to advise us that he was bringing forth legislation this afternoon. Does that minister understand what minimal courtesy is?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 34 pass? The first member for Vancouver East.

MR. WILLIAMS: He shakes his head. Is he saying that he does not understand what minimal courtesy is? Do you have an answer? Do you understand what minimal courtesy is?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, I believe I understand. As do my colleagues on this side of the House, I see that when questions are asked, they are answered. The member opposite, Mr. Chairman, may not be appreciative of the way it's done, but it's done and it's done promptly. I think that if we go back in history, we will find that he failed to extend that courtesy, in most cases, to the opposition when he was minister.

MR. CLARK: Did the minister know this morning, when he answered the question, that he was bringing in legislation this afternoon?

MR. SIHOTA: I have a question to the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman. Did the minister know this morning that he intended to introduce this legislation this afternoon? Yes or no?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a brief point of order. Maybe no; I'll just enter into the debate. But it appears to be irrelevant to some degree, because we're speaking of courtesy, and one of the courtesies that all Legislatures and Members of the Legislative Assembly must follow is not to speak of a message from His Honour until the message has been introduced to the House. That would be discourteous, and I'm sure the members would bring it to our attention if a minister flagged a bill before it was introduced by message. That's a protocol I'm sure you understand.

MR. WILLIAMS: Don't give us that hokum, Mr. House Leader. All kinds of ministers in all kinds of administrations advise with respect to expected legislation.

This guy simply didn't observe the most minimal of courtesies before this chamber. In fact, he was misleading. He used the term "misleading" this morning again and again. But I tell you, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman: that was a sleazy kind of misleading activity by you today. It was sleazy, misleading stuff to say that and then bring in the legislation. No other decent minister would have attempted that kind of game.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, Mr. Member. Mr. Member, please take your seat.

MR. WILLIAMS: It is just mind-boggling to deal with this kind of contempt from this kind of junior minister. He has been in office for a few months, and look at the way he's operating around here. He doesn't have to tell us what he's going to do an hour later; he can mislead us.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, "sleazy, misleading comments" is unparliamentary, and I would ask you to withdraw it.

MR. WILLIAMS: Which is the problem,"sleazy" or "misleading," Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Both, in my opinion.

[ Page 2246 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry, I can't accept that. That minister used the term "misleading" three times this morning and was never intercepted by the Chair. I'll withdraw "sleazy."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMS: This guy is just too much to take. A new member goes around preaching his kind of morality in the north and then comes down here and acts like the high and mighty once he gets in cabinet, in terms of delivering reasonable information, in terms of misleading the other members of this chamber. It's simply a shocker. And I think you're in the revolving door, Charlie. You're in that revolving door, and you're going to spin out of it faster than the five other Forests ministers who have spun out that door in the last 14 months or whatever it is. It's a spinning door, and for good reason. I tell you, Mr. Minister: of all of the last six, I've never seen such arrogance displayed at this stage of the career of the other ministers. I've never seen such arrogance. Just keep it up. It's good news for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. It's good news for those who want a change in government in British Columbia. You just carry on in that style. You just keep sticking out that glass jaw of yours, and we'll deal with that glass jaw, you bet.

MR. RABBITT: To the minister: I know there have been experiments and studies going on with the serious spruce budworm problem in my riding. I want to know if within the budget there is allocation of funding for spraying, harvesting and silviculture for that particular problem.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. PARKER: I understand that in the spruce budworm outbreak areas in the province there are a number of research projects going on using BT — Bacillus thuringiensis. It's a specific biological control of budworm. The research also includes yield analysis to see what the impact of budworm is on infested juvenile stands and older stands.

There are some instances, I understand too, of budworm outbreak in plantations. Plantations can be destroyed by budworm and seriously set back to the point where another disease or insect will take over and complete the annihilation of that plantation. In the Yale-Lillooet area there are substantial outbreak areas, and these projects are in place; they're taking place now. Hopefully, we'll find that BT is the control agent that works for us. If it does, we'll see much larger operations, probably in the next budget year.

MR. CLARK: I want to get back to the price of chips. It concerns me that the minister this morning spent hours of our time defending the stumpage appraisal system and defending the chip prices, saying that it was $10.50, saying that it reflected labour costs and that it was because we wanted a healthy industry. He went on and on, and in answer to the question, he said, "at this point we're not going to raise it," and then he brings in legislation this afternoon that dramatically changes the whole way in which we conduct stumpage appraisal in this province. Did he think he was clever by not telling us that he was thinking of reviewing the whole system? Did he think he was being smart by defending the existing system and then changing it in the afternoon, an hour later?

Did he think he was being cute by saying that $10.50 was a good idea, that it meant more money for the pulp industry, and that it was good for British Columbia? And then he says this afternoon that we want more revenue for the province. Is that why he's changing the whole system?

Can the minister justify making this morning's remarks that defend the existing system and then coming in this afternoon and changing it completely?

HON. MR. PARKER: The statement I made this morning was that at that point in time there would be no change to the chip price used in the interior stumpage appraisal system. That's all. The reason we dealt with that was that the question was directed to it. Now, as far as the Forest Amendment Act introduction was concerned, I understood that it was not to be discussed until it had been introduced in this House. It wasn't to be intimated or to be discussed. And that's the way I conducted myself.

MR. CLARK: I want to refresh the minister's memory, because that's not all he said. That's what he said in answer to my question. In answer to a question by the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), he said: "The prices paid in the Pacific Northwest are reflective of incremental cost allowances...." He went on to say: "When you average over your total fibre supply cost, the increase is pennies." He also said: "The Canadian and provincial tax laws will provide for revenues for the province from current improvements in the pulp industry, the newsprint industry and the paper industry." So he said that we're going to benefit in British Columbia by a rotten stumpage system because they're going to make lots of money, and we're going to tax them. He went on repeatedly to defend the existing system. He went on to defend a 1974 price for chips, and then this afternoon he brought in legislation which completely alters it. He wasted the House's time this morning, and he misled this House consistently by not giving us any indication that he was contemplating any change in the direction that this side has indicated all morning.

HON. MR. PARKER: This morning we were discussing the status quo, and we continue to discuss status quo. Questions were in accord; answers were in accord. The answers were direct, to the best of my knowledge, and forthright.

I continue to defend the point that the discussion of pending legislation is not to take place until it has been introduced in the House. That's basic courtesy, as I understand it, and that's the way we conducted ourselves.

MR. CLARK: Could the minister inform the House why he is changing a system that a couple of hours ago he defended?

HON. MR. PARKER: The record shows that I was explaining it, not defending it. I was answering questions. If the member thinks it was a defence of the system, who can change his opinion for him? That's his prerogative.

Mr. Chairman, I confirm to you again that I conducted myself according to the courtesies of this House.

MR. CLARK: Would the minister then agree with this side of the House that we have a rotten stumpage system currently in the status quo, that we're undervaluing the timber resource that the public owns in this province, that we haven't

[ Page 2247 ]

been collecting adequate royalties, and that that's why you're moving to bring in legislation, as you brought it in this afternoon?

HON. MR. PARKER: The appraisal system used in the province is ripe for review. It's a system that was in place and in some cases concocted during 1972-75, and it is time for a review.

[3:45]

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the minister. The minister obviously knew this morning that he intended to introduce this legislation. If he listened to the question that was being posed to him by the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark), he knew full well at that time, I would suggest, that he could not answer that question truthfully, because he knew the truth was other than what he said at the time. Would the minister not agree, Mr. Chairman, that what he told the House this morning was half a lie?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member who just spoke wasn't accusing the minister, I don't think, was he?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There's no accusation there? The minister may respond.

HON. MR. PARKER: For the ninth time, Mr. Chairman, the question at that point in time was put and the answer at that point in time was put. The status quo was addressed in both instances.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm just looking at a clipping from the Prince George Citizen dated June 4. The minister was talking to a reporter in Prince George and he said: "The provincial government will change the way it charges for timber, raising its revenue by up to $115 million by September 1." That was never picked up by the downtown media in Vancouver. Somehow you were willing to give the courtesy of advising of the change that you were contemplating to a reporter in Prince George on June 4, but today in July — this morning, this very day — you were unwilling to give the same courtesy to elected members of this chamber. How on earth do you explain that, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, in regard to the discussion with the reporter from Prince George prior to the story being published, there was a move afoot with our ministry to take a look at the changing of some cost allowances and some market information within the stumpage appraisal system in place. Since that date the philosophy and the approach to the whole matter has changed, as I've outlined.

MR. WILLIAMS: You were defending this rotten system this morning, not advising us that changes were coming in, and on June 4 you were telling a reporter in Prince George you were going to deal with the rotten system. How does that add up?

MR. SIHOTA: Contempt.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, it's nothing short of contempt for this House. You don't have a clue as to what the democratic process is about. You have contempt for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. That's clear. All the asides to the civil servants there and the stuff we get in the House that does come through the mike show that contempt regularly. You've shown that contempt in the hallways around here, and it continues.

You talk to a reporter in June and give him the information. You talk to Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition today and you give us misinformation. How do you justify that?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, as I've said before, at the time of the discussion with the reporter in Prince George changes to the existing stumpage system were being contemplated with a view to targeting some revenue figures. Since then we've decided that there will be a different approach, and that's what we're talking about now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Opposition House Leader.

MR. WILLIAMS: We are talking about a modest difference....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry. First member for Vancouver East.

MR. WILLIAMS: Sorry, Mr. House Leader. I just want to finish this as best we can, given the approach by this minister.

What are we talking about then? You said to that reporter there was $115 million of new money. What's your new number? Is that the big change? Is it less? Is it more?

HON. MR. PARKER: It would be conjecture at this time, but I would say that most likely it will be in excess of that.

MR. WILLIAMS: Then maybe the minister can explain to us why it would be in excess of that.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, probably in excess, as the system we hope will be more sensitive to all market forces.

MR. ROSE: The subject has wandered a little bit since I first had an idea about getting up. But unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, this is the second example we've had of contempt for the House and abuse of its time and its procedures. This is the second time in a week. A week ago Tuesday we had the Point Roberts waterworks extravaganza, and we squirted around here for about two hours trying to get some information and never did. Then this morning we had a similar experience where a minister was being obtuse. Whether he was obtuse because he received bad advice as a new minister, or whether he has some old grudges or scores he is trying to settle — regardless of what the motivation is, the results are the same. We talk about government efficiency and saving the people's money, but in both instances at least two to three hours of members' time and the House's time were squandered.

All the minister needed to say in answers to questions this morning was simply this: "I intend to bring in legislation to address some of these problems." There was no need for all this anger, this acrimony or anything else. In answer to very

[ Page 2248 ]

legitimate questions, to very serious concerns about the inadequacies of the present system for collecting revenues or annual rent from the people's resource, he simply had to say: "Yes, I'm looking into that. In the near future I will have that information." Instead of doing that, the minister comes across as somebody who treats the House with contempt and who thinks it's funny to mislead and delay the legitimate information.

For those of you who haven't been through estimates before, this goes right back to the first parliaments. It's the opposition's control on the spending of the King. When we examine estimates and have Committee of Sup

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, address your remarks to the Chair, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: I've done so, Mr. Chairman. How many times do I have to say "Mr. Chairman" before I go after that guy?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The remarks should all be addressed to the Chair.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'll use "Mr. Chairman" as frequently as I deem advisable. I am not going to use it in every other sentence, and that's as simple as that.

ply, we supply the government with the money they need to carry out the things they said they were going to do in the Speech from the Throne.

Perhaps it would be patronizing for me to give a lengthy lecture on democracy or the power of the parliament over the King or the state. Nevertheless I can hardly keep from doing that, because it seemed to be ignored here recently, blatantly, in two instances. It could have been much simpler. We pleaded last Tuesday for two hours to get the government House Leader to stand a clause so we could get adequate information. We didn't ask for the thing to be defeated; we asked only for the clause to be stood. This morning we did the same thing for two hours, and the minister treats the House with what I think could be adequately called contempt. Whether he received bad advice I don't know. In cases like this where there is legislation coming down, my friend here tells me you don't need to give the details. But, my God, it would have saved everybody a lot of trouble and a lot of abuse and a lot of acrimony. We've had an improved House here and it has been because a lot of us have worked at it, and we had new players. This could degenerate into the same old squirrel-cage it has been for 15 years if we let it do that.

Just be up front with us; that's all we're asking. If there is something coming up that's going to be a change, let's not have us hammering away at the same old arguments and being stonewalled by a minister who knew very well this morning that this bill was coming down this afternoon.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before I recognize the hon. minister, I would like to state that the Chair holds the comments of the hon. opposition House Leader in a great deal of respect. I would hope that, he having said that — and I suppose in some respects the House was being lectured a little bit — we could get back to the same tenor in the House that we have enjoyed since we arrived here in March, and that the debate can go forward on vote 34 in that spirit of cooperation and good will.

HON. MR. PARKER: I assure the hon. opposition House Leader that no contempt was intended, and I appreciate his comments.

MR. KEMPF: On vote 34, Mr. Chairman, a little change of pace. Recently a report was done by a Mr. Ewing on the Prince George TSA which showed quite conclusively that that timber sale area is being very seriously over cut. I'd just like to know at this time what the Minister of Forests intends to do about that.

HON. MR. PARKER: The Prince George timber supply area consists of several supply blocks, and there has been over cutting in some of the southeastern supply blocks during the last few years in an attempt by the ministry to concentrate cutting in those areas where severe bark beetle — both spruce and pine bark beetle — outbreaks have taken place, so that that timber may be salvaged before it has deteriorated to the point where it can't be used by the industry in the area. The supply blocks to the north and west are certainly not over cut, and over the next couple of years we'll see a transition, with the activity moving out into the other supply blocks as the bark beetle emergency is dealt with.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, is the minister suggesting by that that wood from the Vanderhoof area would be taken into Prince George for processing?

HON. MR. PARKER: Timber from each supply block would go to the appropriate licensee, and if the Vanderhoof supply block is tied up by Vanderhoof and Fraser Lake licensees, then that wood will be moving to those two locations, Mr. Chairman.

MR. KEMPF: The northern block of which the minister speaks, of course, is the Takla-Sustut area. To get timber out of there, it is my understanding it would necessitate the expenditure of $43 million to upgrade the rail from Fort St. James to Chipmunk or thereabouts. Can the minister tell me at this time, keeping in mind that something must be done to alleviate the over cutting problem in the Prince George area, where he would expect that $43 million would come from for the upgrading of the BCR?

[4:00]

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, just so I don't mislead the House, no, I don't.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, that's progress. The minister is admitting he doesn't know.

The member for Omineca referred to the overcut problem in Prince George. It is the home of the biggest clearcut in North America. Just think about that: the biggest clearcut in North America is in that Prince George region. Prince George shows up on the satellites of the world, and that's what shows up right there — the biggest cut-and-get-out brigade in North America.

Given these circumstances, Mr. Minister, given the fact that there are horrendous problems in the Prince George region, and given the fact that there is over cutting, one would think that one would not entertain new proposals for cutting rights in that region. Can the minister advise what he's currently entertaining in terms of new cutting rights in that region?

HON. MR. PARKER: The large clearcuts to the south and east of Prince George are a result of salvage operations concentrated in the area by the Ministry of Forests at their request, so as to recover salvageable losses due to bark beetle outbreaks in that area. The area is being properly regenerated. It is not a cut-and-run situation, as the member is trying to lead the House....

The current forest licence being offered in the Prince George timber supply area deals with stagnated lodgepole pine stands, which are referred to as stocking class 4 — very small diameter stands, younger-mature to over mature stands. These areas have been kept out of the allowable annual cut calculations, and they are being used or offered now because,

[ Page 2249 ]

as I said earlier in our debates, Mr. Chairman, when an opportunity arises, when interest is expressed in a particular species or type of timber which up till now has not been utilized, we listen to the opportunities and we're proactive with the entrepreneurs. We make this available under a forest licence bid proposal so as to have the opportunity of recovering for the people of British Columbia not only royalties, stumpage, area rentals and protection tax, but also jobs and new technology.

MR. WILLIAMS: If I could pursue that, Mr. Chairman, here you've got an overcut. You've got a report telling you that your inventory is over 20 years old; they don't really know what they've got there. That's what the report says. Then you come up and say: "Oh, well, let's entertain new cutting rights" — in an area that is grossly overcut, with very serious problems and inadequate responses in terms of regeneration, despite what the minister says. Why don't you fess up, Mr. Minister? Now that you're maybe in the mood to fess up a little bit, why don't you admit to the kind of scam this really is? This is a scam that has been going on for some time. Some new cutting rights come along, and you say this is for stagnant, over mature lodge pole pine. Those are cutting rights within the TSA; there are other examples around.

What happens is that what was originally area-precise, wood-precise, stand-precise, quality-precise, gets rolled into cutting rights within the whole timber area. That has happened again and again under your recent predecessors. It's a scam for getting your boys on board in terms of the gravy. It's the secret entry into getting cutting rights in British Columbia. In effect, you designate the guy you want to give new timber cutting rights to. You say, "It's this timber, this location, this process," and in the end you eliminate everybody except one, in terms of qualified people. I've looked at memos today that confirm that kind of game in the recent past in this province. I say to you that it's a scam.

This report documents your problems in Prince George. They're going to be repeated around this province again and again. You go through this phony exercise of creating big timber supply areas that don't make any sense. Your number-crunching foresters say: "Let's call the Prince George region everything from way up north in the Sustut, down to McBride, way past to the south towards the Chilco. One nice balloon area. Then we can do our number-crunching; our mismanagement in the central areas won't show up because we can bury the numbers within this huge timber supply area." And you can dissipate everything in transportation from the outermost reaches of those areas, in terms of economic rent for the province from the resource. The whole thing, in terms of the so-called forest management exercise, starts looking like a scam.

What happened in Prince George is that those birds that were up in the Sustut in the far north were invited down into Fat City around Prince George. They did that scalping routine that you can see on the satellites — the biggest clearcut — and they found out what Fat City is. I talked to one of those operators in the Prince George area just recently, and do you know how much money he says they made? He's in the business and he knows the numbers. He said that through their period of being transferred from the Sustut down to around Prince George, they made $40 million. That would have paid for the railway that the member for Omineca is talking about. They walked away with $40 million in their jeans because your predecessors allowed them to come down into Fat City. And because you don't charge what the timber is worth. and there they are, close to the processing mills and all the rest, we didn't get any stumpage; they put it in their pockets. It's as simple as that.

That's what the Prince George story is all about. Let's hear from the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Michael). His old buddies are pulling together another scam up in the Revelstoke-Salmon Arm area, and we'll deal with that one down the road too — all these friends of government and inside traders and all the rest. But Prince George is all documented here. Those guys from the Sustut made forty million bucks, according to the people in the region who are in the business. But you're still going to let somebody in the door. You're calling it some stagnant forest somewhere over there toward Vanderhoof, justifying it on that basis, but they're going to be players within the system. They're going to have some cutting rights within the timber supply area.

We've already found out that you've got too many players there already. I can just see the scam going on. They'll be like the boys from the Sustut in time. They were supposed to be way up there in the far northern regions scratching a living — difficult frontier and all that. But once they smelled the big greenbacks down around Prince George, they didn't ever want to go home. That's what this report is about: the fact that those guys didn't want to go home.

Now you're saying we're going to let this other guy in through this back door. He's going to get in, and he's going to want to move into Prince George too, you can be sure. That's the game that's been going on for some time. It's a closed door for most everybody in terms of getting into this industry, but for some there is a back-door entry. This is one of the back-door entries, Mr. Minister, and it's your back door. It's a scam that the last players have played, and it simply shouldn't be happening.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, the Prince George timber supply area is a large area, and the cut concentration in the southeast, as I explained earlier, was done for good forest management reasons and recommended by the ministry staff, who are capable managers of the resource. The approach was to pull all active operations down into the bug-infested area to salvage the timber while the opportunity to salvage was still there.

The stagnated pine stands that we're also addressing are part of the resource that didn't serve to make up the annual allowable cut calculation for the Prince George timber supply area. It's over and above that. If, through the utilization of this forest licence that's being offered at the moment, we find that we can develop a technology and a means to economically deal with that type of stand, then the volume that those types of stands in that area can contribute to the AAC will be included in the AAC calculation. But for the time being, it is still considered to be uneconomical or marginally economical and is not included in the AAC calculation. This is part of the proactive, responsible management approach that the staff of the Ministry of Forests demonstrates to the people of British Columbia day in and day out.

MR. WILLIAMS: The point is that your outside independent consultants that looked at this mess around Prince George said: "We don't have an inventory that's any good. We don't have an inventory that's current." But you've found a back door for entry, and you've said it's this scrub lodge pole

[ Page 2250 ]

pine. How can your so-called experts say these things and say it's not in the calculations with respect to the AAC?

The outside independent experts that pulled this document together said that your inventory isn't good enough to operate on; it's simply not good enough to make decisions on. It's very clear in this report. So the inventory is no good, there is an over cut, you've got serious problems, but all of a sudden there is room in there for a new operator to get in the back door. It doesn't hang together. The story does not hang together.

HON. MR. PARKER: The inventory of the mature timber in the timber supply areas of British Columbia is a reasonably good inventory. However, the inventory in the younger stands is a lot less than we'd like it to be. The Ewing report helped flag that in the Prince George area. But we understood that for the rest of the province, and it's been a matter of discussion within the ministry, and it's an item that we're targeting for our next budget year, which will actually be my first budget year.

To be able to generate an allowable annual cut calculation, you really need a sound forest land inventory and an inventory of the younger stands and their performances as well as the mature stands. We have been coming through — and we will continue for a while yet to be in — a wild land forestry situation. We won't have a total managed forest until the natural crop is removed and a managed crop is in place. So the inventory information of necessity is concentrated on the mature and over mature stands, and we are now undertaking to make sure that the information we have on the younger stands is sufficiently accurate that we can generate good numbers for future AAC calculations.

MR. KEMPF: The truth of the matter is that we don't have an inventory at all. We don't have an inventory that we can hang our hat on so far as timber is concerned. I know that from my seven months in the ministry. We don't have an inventory at all. We're running by the seat of our pants.

We don't know whether what we're doing is going to place small rural communities — well, even big rural communities, such as Prince George — in dire jeopardy down the road 25 or 30 years, or maybe sooner than that, as the people from UBC tell us. We don't have an inventory of our timber that we can rely on. We simply don't. I know that. It's serious for rural communities which could become ghost towns in as little as 15 years, and that's why I was so concerned, as a minister, as to what it is we're doing, how it was that we were spending our silviculture and reforestation dollars, because it takes in some areas of the province a hundred years to grow a tree when you plant a seedling. It may take only 40 years, if you go into a stand that needs thinning and spacing and fertilization, to have another forest in that community.

We don't have an inventory. We simply don't. It's a very serious situation for the people, particularly in rural British Columbia, the breadbasket of this province, where the money comes from to make this place tick.

[4:15]

Mr. Chairman, I want to comment on the minister saying that he didn't know where the $43 million might come from to upgrade the BCR. That might be so. I accept that. But can the minister assure this House that the money will not come from section 88 credits? Can I hear the minister at this time assure this House and the people of British Columbia that those moneys will not come out of section 88 credits? I hear it loud and clear that nothing is going to be done with that scam called section 88 of the Forest Act, that corporate welfare that goes on in this province — $105.73 million in this fiscal year alone. Can the minister assure the people of British Columbia through this House that section 88 credits will not be used to upgrade the BCR so that the timber can be extracted?

You know, Mr. Chairman, in all this we talk about annual allowable cuts. We talk about new forest licences to be offered in the Vanderhoof area. But we've forgotten someone. We've forgotten the small guy. We've forgotten the small business enterprise program. Does the minister realize that a paltry 4.5 percent of the annual allowable cut in block D is in the small enterprise program? I heard the minister in this House during question period suggest that he was going to work toward the 25 percent promised — by consecutive ministers and administrations in this very House — to the small operators of this province. We're talking about 4.5 percent in the Vanderhoof area, and we're offering another timber licence for sale, another 250,000 cubic metres a year for the next ten years. What consideration was given to the small business enterprise program with this timber licence?

I know what you're going to say. You're going to say that this is small timber; it's not in the AAC. That's got nothing to do with it. Let's spread the wealth around for a change. Let's give the small guy in the forest industry in this province a gasp of fresh air. Let's give him an opportunity. Let's give the real British Columbian a chance in his own resource industry. This resource does belong to the people of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman.

We've not considered him, the small entrepreneur, in this whole game. You know perfectly well, Mr. Minister, that you can't chase the small operator up the Takla-Sustut. You can't ever possibly make a go of it, so the only area left is block D. The Prince George area of the Prince George TSA is over cut miserably. The Ewing report says so, and we don't even know whether it's only cut 30 percent, because we don't have an inventory. Maybe it's over cut more than that. I suspect that to be the case. I suspected it all along.

That's why I asked for this report to be done. I was going to ask for report after report in every region of this province, so that I'd find out whether our children and our children's children would have any timber to cut in the province of British Columbia, because we don't know now. We don't know what the inventory is; we don't know whether we are spending silviculture and reforestation dollars properly. Really, Mr. Chairman, what do we know?

We know one thing: the good timber of this province is disappearing before our eyes. What's going to happen to the multinational monopolies when the good timber is gone? When the good timber is gone, so will they be, leaving the mess behind for the people of this province to clean up. That's an absolute disaster. It's unacceptable. I said it before, and I'll say it again today and in the days and weeks to come: it's got to change.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, the member for Omineca is incorrect. We have a substantive forest inventory, as I said before, primarily in the mature and overmature stands in the province. When we compare notes with the other forested provinces of Canada, it's generally acknowledged that we have the best forest inventory information of any place in Canada.

The problem lies with inadequate information on the younger stands, That impacted in the Prince George problem

[ Page 2251 ]

with the spruce and pine bark beetle. That's the portion of the inventory information that is lacking which Mr. Ewing was alluding to.

On the matter of the stagnated pine stands, 250,000 metres for a ten-year period is what is being offered for sale. If any individual is interested in 10,000 metres or 20,000 metres or 100,000 metres, that can be in his bid proposal if he chooses, if it's a small operator or a large operator. But the total amount to be offered is 250,000 metres.

If out of that exercise we find that we have a viable industry, then those stands will be added to all the timber supply areas where those kinds of stands exist and where they can be operated. For example, that is a source of wood for the Canwood plant in Penticton that's manufacturing Ikea furniture. It's stocking a class 4 type of lodgepole pine, So the opportunity continues to be available for any size of operation to get a leg up in the industry in the province.

MR. KEMPF: That's just what I suspected. What is wrong, I ask you, Mr. Chairman, with taking that additional 250,000 cubic metres a year, rolling it into the total annual allowable cut for block D, and spreading the wealth around? Increasing the small business enterprise program volumes, not just in that small pine, but throughout the average volume of that entire block — what's wrong with that? What's wrong with saying that everybody has to take a share of the poor stuff? Because I can assure you, British Columbians will have the poor stuff when the good stuff is gone. What is wrong, I ask you, with rolling that in and offering 10 percent, 15 percent or 20 percent of the total annual allowable cut of block D to the small enterprise program?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, as the opportunities arise, and as the analyses are completed through successive years of management in a supply block and in a timber supply area, it will be our intent to increase the small business program as much as possible.

Upper limit? I couldn't say here at this time; I wouldn't care to mislead the House. Needless to say, those of us familiar with the forest industry in the province have heard that number, 25 percent, time and time again. It has almost become doctrinaire. It's probably not an unreasonable objective. But the stagnated pine stands will not constitute part of the AAC calculation until we are certain that they can be used effectively in that area and that they continue to be an economic operation; then they will be part of the AAC. Until then it's opportunity wood, and all people in British Columbia are urged to take a look at the opportunities there and seize them as they see fit.

MR. KEMPF: And what will happen to the small entrepreneur in the meantime? While we're doing all of these great things to find out whether people can cut small pine, what's going to happen to the fellow in the small business enterprise program who's on his last legs? The multinational corporations not only want 93 percent of the annual allowable cut in the province of British Columbia; they want the other 7 percent as well. The question arises: what's going to happen with surrogate bidding? What, Mr. Minister, are you going to do — through you, Mr. Chairman — in regard to the surrogate bidding that goes on in the Vanderhoof and Prince George areas and in other areas of the province on a daily basis? Those multinational corporations are not only taking 93 percent of the annual allowable cut of this province; they want the other as well. They're taking it every day, through backing their contractors and bidding the little guy right out of the business. But that's just an aside.

What's going to happen, Mr. Chairman, to the little guy? He's afraid to speak out. I've learned that in the last three months, because I've met with them. They're afraid to speak out, because they're afraid of losing the 7 percent they've got. They're afraid of not having jobs, because the big multinational doesn't need that wood. In fact they pay them what they damn well please for it — starvation wages — because they don't really need the wood.

[4:30]

Then you talk about the 25 percent. Well, that's not enough. At least 50 percent of the timber of this province should be in the hands of entrepreneurs. Let those people with the big plants.... Sure, I recognize that they have large investments and we need them in our province, but let them go to the guy that's got the wood for at least 50 percent of their needs. Then we'll find out. Then, and only then, will we find out what wood is worth in British Columbia. We will never find out otherwise. That's why the system is the way it is: we can never find out what that wood is worth. It's worth what somebody will pay for it, but if you only have to pay nothing, that's what you'll get it for.

That's the problem with the whole system, the miserable, rotten, dirty system in the British Columbia forest industry. We don't know what that timber is worth, and we're never going to find out, because it doesn't go to auction. If that paltry 6 percent or 7 percent is worth what the surrogate bidders pay for it, then why isn't that same corporation that's backing that contractor paying that for his own wood? The only way you're going to change that is to put at least 50 percent of the annual allowable cut in the province on the auction block.

That's something the people of British Columbia don't understand: there is no competition. Mr. Chairman, there is no competition in the forest industry of British Columbia. Not for one minute is there any competition. They throw a few scraps to the small guys, the entrepreneurs, the real British Columbians, to try and keep them happy, and they're afraid to speak out. They're afraid to try and educate the people of this province as to what is going on in that industry, for fear of their very livelihood. It's got to stop, Mr. Minister.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I want to get into this debate because I now know that my colleague the Minister of Forests understands the meaning of trial by fire. I've been sitting in my office for all these hours listening to the abuse that's been heaped upon this man doing this job on behalf of all British Columbians.

I want to hear some good news from the minister about the millions of seedlings that have been planted every year, and how with new technology in the province we're increasingly getting a better hold on the inventory of the forest products of this great province. I have no fear for the entrepreneurs. I know they're going to live. They always do. We always will. We're always going to make it. No matter what happens, we're going to be all right. And that member over there, the man who would bring the forest industry to its knees, according to my colleague from Omineca, finally smiles.

Ali yes, I've heard the arguments, the doom and the gloom. Always doom and gloom, never hope, never aspiration; always desperation, always the end of the world. It's not

[ Page 2252 ]

the way the world is made. The world is made to be better, and that's what's happening. That's what the new minister is going to do for however long he's in office. Even if it's only one more minute, he will have made a contribution, but may it be longer than one minute, Mr. Chairman. May he serve this province valiantly and with courage. I know that he's going to know a lot about the forests in a few months, because those two members there will help him.

AN HON. MEMBER: Give him a "Smile" button from Grace.

MR. R. FRASER: Actually, you know, I should send you a couple of "Smile" buttons, because you never think of it on your own. You must get up in the morning and pull the blinds down in case you might see the sun. You never do it. You never heard anybody cry about lost anything, except the fact that you're not sitting over there. That's the problem. The reason you're not here is that everybody knows what you'd do, because you did it when you were here.

Interjections.

MR. R. FRASER: That's why we're going to be here. You'll get your chance to heckle when you're on your feet, my friend. If you were that good, you would have won in '86 and '83 and '79, and all those great numbers you remember.

I want to ask this minister about the good news. How many seedlings are we planting? How fast is the forest growing? The money is coming.

MR. WILLIAMS: How high is up?

MR. R. FRASER: "How high is up" is right. You never look up. You always look at the ground. Come on, minister, give us the good stuff.

HON. MR. PARKER: Thank you for that refreshing break.

AN HON. MEMBER: The pause that refreshes.

HON. MR. PARKER: Yes.

Mr. Chairman, as was mentioned in the introductory speech to the estimates, the planting level we've reached this year is 200 million seedlings. It's a substantial increase from only a couple of years ago. Last year I believe we were around 155 million. We've gained some 45 million this year, and that's in spite of some frost kill and losses that happen in the nursery business. It's like any other crop.

We have one of the most effective inventory divisions of any provincial forest service in Canada. Our staff have devised inventory programs and methodology that have offshore individuals interested in purchasing the software.

Rather than berating the staff of this ministry as members opposite like to do, I think we should take a minute to reflect just how fortunate we are to have the level of expertise and dedication that we have in the Ministry of Forests and Lands. I am certainly appreciative of it. I've worked with them for some 25 years. At times we've been colleagues, and at times we've been across the table. I've always respected them, and I've enjoyed working with them.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

Just to touch back on the matter of whether our small business volumes should be 50 percent, or whether they should be 25 percent, or whether they should be 100 percent, that's anybody's guess. Certainly the member for Omineca is entitled to his opinion. He is familiar with the logging operations throughout the province, he has firsthand knowledge of logging operations in the central interior, and he understands the frustrations of the individual who is trying to get a start in the small business program as far as this ministry is concerned. Whether or not 50 percent, 25 percent or 10 percent is the answer, I'm not sure.

I have met with a number of small business enterprise operators in the past. I have been registered as a small business enterprise operator, as a category 1. I have assisted small business operators without fee, as a consultant, as members opposite have done with others. Everybody needs a break now and again, and I think we've all tried to help. I am certainly not opposed to small business operators. I understand probably better than anybody in this House what they are up against, what they have to contend with on a day-today basis.

I've had good successes and I have had failures in my forestry career, and I can certainly sympathize and empathize with the small business operator. They have a real part to play in this province, and they will continue to. As a matter of fact, their part in this province will continue to grow, but it will grow in a reasonable manner, not in a shot-in-the-dark manner.

MR. KEMPF: The minister speaks glowingly of the people in the small business enterprise program, and I appreciate that. But I've got to remind the minister that all the timber in British Columbia has been allocated, and the only way you are going to make timber available to the little guy is to take it from somebody else.

We have in this situation, in block D of the Prince George TSA, an opportunity to do that, an opportunity where the percentage of allocation in that area is probably one of the lowest in the province — 4.5 percent. The question is: if we don't do it through this kind of mechanism, with all the timber allocated, we're in fact in an over cut position in the Prince George TSA. How are we ever going to do anything more than just talk glowingly in this House about doing something for the small entrepreneur in the forest industry of British Columbia? It can't happen; it simply can't happen.

You've got to bite the bullet and tell the Council of Forest Industries that things are going to change with respect to that resource industry in British Columbia. That's what has to be done, and that's what I want to see you do, Mr. Minister. I'd be interested to see how long you'd last if you did it. But I'd like to see you bite the bullet and do it, because that's the only way. That is simply the only way that the real British Columbian will once again have a place in his own primary resource industry. There's no other way. You know it, and I know it. You've got enough years in the industry to know you can't give a tree away if you haven't got it.

All the timber in British Columbia is allocated. In fact, we are taking some away from that allocation in allowing a national park in South Moresby. What will we do in the Stein and the Khutzemateen? Will we further erode the annual allowable cut of the province of British Columbia? Will we put success as an entrepreneur even further from the grasp of the small guy in the forest industry?

[ Page 2253 ]

You can't do it unless you bite the bullet. That's why I said this morning that I had great hopes, Mr. Minister — and I wish you well — that this government would bite that bullet, would turn an industry around that's been out of control for 40 years, that has raped and reaped the profits of this province that should rightly have gone to the people of British Columbia. It's got to change; that's all there is to it. And the only way we're going to change it, Madam Chairman, is to educate the average British Columbian out there as to what's really going on in this industry.

You know, you can talk glowingly in this House about 25 percent for the small business enterprise program. That's 20.5 percent to go with respect to block D of the Prince George TSA. How are you going to do it? How are you going to do it if you don't take these kinds of opportunities?

What's even scarier about a situation like this is that that wood may leave the Vanderhoof area. And what will eventually happen to that small rural community, which is dependent upon that wood to survive? We threw that opportunity out the window when we did away with the PSYUs — a gross mistake in the forest industry of British Columbia. The TSA situation should never have happened in this province, and I just wish.... I know what you're going to say: "Well, why didn't you do something?" I just wish I'd been there long enough to do it. Unfortunately I was not. We placed in jeopardy the very existence of many rural communities in this province when we brought in TSAs, and we'll live to regret it. We'll absolutely live to regret it.

[4:45]

We talked about the over cutting in the Prince George TSA, and the reason we had to cut great, huge clearcuts, and I understand that. I understand the bug infestation that took place east of Prince George, and the reason that great areas there had to be cut. But I've got to tell you, this is history. You need only go ask anybody in the industry in Prince George whether this is true or not; don't take my word for it. When the timber in those valleys, killed by bugs, checked to a state where the large multinationals such as Northwood found it uneconomic to run that wood through their wood-butchers, where were they? They turned tail and ran, and we allowed them to do that. We allowed them to move out of those areas, and we left it to the small guy to clean up the mess. When that same thing happened in Houston with the wood left standing by the Swiss Fire, 50 percent of the wood burned by the Swiss Fire stands there today, three years later, because that company was not a good corporate citizen. I know that firsthand, because I had every stick of that burnt wood sold to the People's Republic of China, and it was only because of that corporation — that multinational corporation — wanting more and more than they ever deserved, that the deal fell through. Fifty percent of it still stands up there today, no longer worth anything to anybody except for firewood. I'll tell you, you'd have to put in an awful lot of air tights to ever bum it up. That's the kind of situation that I speak of when I talk of waste and of responsibility in the forest industry.

Who cleaned up the other 50 percent? Who was chased into there and cleaned up the other 50 percent? It sure wasn't the multinational monopolies. It was the little guy who worked his butt off but could only harvest 50 percent of it. The other 50 percent went to waste. That's the kind of forest industry we've got in British Columbia.

HON. MR. PARKER: Just to touch on the surrogate bidding matter that was raised by the member for Omineca, it has been a problem since the inception of the small business enterprise program. I certainly encountered it as a bidder at the table; I certainly couldn't compete. It has been a frustration over the years. Successive ministers and administrators have tried to deal with it. There needs to be some radical change in the administration of the small business enterprise program, and that is one of my goals. Should the member for Omineca have any suggestions that he would maybe like to see put into practice, I would be pleased to receive them.

Is it appropriate, Madam Chairman, to carry on with the business and get on with the vote here, or am I out of order to do that?

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The member for Surrey Guildford-Whalley.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I have a few questions to the minister on another area of responsibility under his ministry. After listening to most of the debate both this morning and this afternoon between two gentlemen who have been involved in the wood industry — two ex-loggers — I can't resist making the comment that women do hold up 51 percent of the sky here too, and more than just you fellows have interests in the wood industry.

The questions I want to ask the minister have to do with my areas of responsibility in environment, my critic area. I'd like to ask about a specific study that was forwarded to me. The study was done prior to this particular minister's taking over the ministry; however, I find that it's relevant to the discussion for two reasons.

First of all, I'd like the minister to tell us a little bit about vegetation management strategies for the province. In particular, I would like to refer to the McPherson Mackey and Co. report, dated August 13, 1986, on the opposition to herbicide use in the Nelson forest region. This report is extremely relevant, given the scope of the debate today about the police state mentality of the ministry. The report tells me that not only does this ministry have a police state mentality, but as we've heard, that the minister has some continued paranoia about shared information.

There are specifics in this report that I would be really pleased to have the minister comment on. At this point I'd like the minister to tell us a little bit about his vegetation management strategies for the province. And if you're familiar with this particular report, perhaps you can tell us its status and whether or not you're prepared to adopt any of its recommendations. I'll continue from there.

HON. MR. PARKER: The most cost-effective and environmentally acceptable means of controlling the brushing in of plantations is with the judicious use of certified herbicides. I say that as a person who, as a summer student, applied herbicides for several years running, and I encountered no ill effects from the use of Tordon, Agent Orange, or 2,4,5-T.

I'm not familiar with the report that the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley is alluding to. I'll make myself familiar with it and be pleased to discuss it with her at length either in the House or elsewhere.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to make some comments about the report, and I would be happy to talk with you at length about the report at any time.

[ Page 2254 ]

I think this report is, quite frankly, the most outrageous document that I have ever seen. This consulting company undertakes the surveillance of citizens in this province under the direction of the ministry. It went into conferences that were conducted by citizens' groups in the Kootenay area, and reported back to the ministry. Then, with that information, it developed a strategy of declaring war. I would like the minister to look at this report, and I will be expecting him to make comment about the report in the days to come.

Let me talk about some of the specifics. This strategy to declare war on the people of this province went about identifying the objections that the citizens' groups had to the herbicide spraying. Nowhere in this document does the ministry even try to justify its position. Repeatedly, through interviews with ministry staff.... There is comment made that 25 percent to 35 percent of ministry staff may indeed be sympathetic to some of the community groups. And then the report goes on to develop a strategy on how to deal with that kind of dissent in the ministry. Nowhere does this report talk about justification or give information to support the ministry's stand. The minister himself says that this is the most cost-effective way of dealing with vegetation management in this province. Can the minister tell this House how much money has been spent on alternative methods for vegetation management? Can the minister tell us about studies that have been conducted in this province to look at alternatives? There have been studies, and I believe the minister is aware of those.

It would be interesting for him to give us information about the history and what has transpired since those studies were initiated. Perhaps the minister can also give us information about what kinds of alternatives are used in other jurisdictions.

HON. MR. PARKER: Of course I can't come up with specific cost information at this point. Without a great deal of homework, we are not able to generate those numbers to the preciseness that the member is requesting. The effectiveness of herbicidal treatment verses manual treatment of brushed areas in plantation is a matter of record. Herbicidal treatment is much more effective, and the use of herbicides in British Columbia for forestry purposes, if we were to use the herbicidal treatment of those areas that require brushing, would probably be about I percent of the level that's used in the agricultural industry — at any rate, not in excess of 3 percent. Essentially, we're using chemicals that are used in the agricultural industry. You know, about 20 percent of the costs of raising a grain crop is attributable to herbicides and pesticides, and most people around here eat bread and cereal, and they don't seem any the worse for it. So the use of herbicides is quite common in Canada.

What we are proposing in forest management is a judicious use in wild land locations for the specific purpose of retarding the growth of specific brush species. It retards them for several years, and they come back. We do it with mechanical methods. Brush recovery is almost immediate. It's not as long-lasting as we need for the cost that's incurred. The cost of manual systems versus herbicides is considerably more, and I would be pleased to give those figures to the member, should she wish them.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The minister did not answer my question. I asked how much money had been spent on researching alternative systems, and what sorts of programs are either underway or have been underway in looking at alternate programs.

HON. MR. PARKER: As I've said earlier, I'm not able to provide the precise dollar figures. There are a number of FRDA programs underway, and there have been prior research programs in different parts of the province on different soil types, different timber types, different brush problems, different temperature regimes, that determine the effectiveness of particular herbicidal applications and formulations.

Forest management isn't a black-and-white issue. It's a judgmental issue. That research on the effectiveness of the different herbicides must continue, and does continue, and at this time most activity is done under the FRDA programs.

[5:00]

MS. SMALLWOOD: One of the examples that I am aware of is an example that was undertaken by the Ministry of Forests — and I believe there was some cooperation with the Ministry of Environment last year. It's an example of an alternative where they used grazing animals for vegetation management, a program that was very successful and did not cost a great deal of money, and has since ended without any commitment to furthering the possibility of looking for alternatives.

I want to make that point as we go through this study. Throughout this study it is very clear that in no way is the ministry trying to validate its position, but instead is putting all its resources into furthering its particular entrenched position of heavy use of herbicides in our forests.

The minister made some comment about the amount of herbicides that are used in the agricultural industry. You can be assured, Mr. Minister, that when the agriculture estimates are up, we will talk about the use of chemicals in the agricultural industry, but at this point we're talking about forests, and I would thank the minister to restrict his comments to his ministry.

The point about this particular report was that as it went through the recommendations on how to deal with the opposition and the citizens that are blocking the spraying of areas that are sensitive to their watersheds, areas that have the potential of contaminating their wells and affecting the health and the safety of their communities, and, indeed, of their children, this whole study goes on to explain to the ministry how it can deal with these people — not with the herbicides, not with looking for alternatives, but how to deal with the citizens of our province. These are citizens who have valid concerns.

It goes on to set out options and recommendations. It makes reference to the kinds of personnel needed to implement the recommendations and then explains the cost. On some of the recommendations, it gives specific names of either lawyers or management companies that could carry out the task. I'd like to refer the minister to one of the specific issues which talks about legal counsel. It says:

"The ministry have its legal counsel review all aspects of this case to ascertain whether appropriate actions are being taken to protect the ministry's inter ests in the face of escalating court actions by advocacy groups. Minimally, this review should include the following topics: provision of due process, access to and provision of information, options for handling

[ Page 2255 ]

blockades, damage to ministry or contractor equipment...."

It lays out the name of the personnel: "...ministry counsel or Davis and Co., who represent Beban Logging."

I thought a couple of things when I read this: why is the ministry engaging in a process to identify where it is sensitive on issues of access and provisions of providing information? Why is the ministry talking about providing counsel to look into situations of damage to contractors' equipment? I can understand that the ministry would be interested in its situation in a legal wrangle with a citizens' group if they are vulnerable in providing information or have in some way broken the laws themselves. We'll get to that point. But I was confused about why the ministry would be involved in a situation of giving legal counsel as to damage of a contractor's equipment. Indeed, why would this report be referring to Beban Logging and its solicitor?

Further on in this report it became very clear, because as part of the strategy, what this company was suggesting was that the ministry take into consideration an option of contracting out the spraying and the use of herbicides in this province. The reason they suggest that the ministry contract out the spraying of herbicide — even though contracting out, as they point out here, will cost more to the province — is because it puts it at arm's length from the government. Interestingly enough, it makes the point that the example that could be used was the use of Beban contracting and the issue of native land claims in the Queen Charlottes. That is here in this report.

When this ministry is waging war on the people of B.C. and is employing management consultants to develop a strategy — a war plan — on using individual contractors to deal with political issues.... The point made time and time again in this report was that above all the ministry staff must ensure that these issues don't get political, I suggest to you that when your ministry is employing a management consultant who is coming forward with a report like this, which names names and outlines how this government uses contractors to further their own political aims, this government is engaging in the most outrageous form of political manipulation and propaganda. This is exactly what this report is talking about: a program of propaganda....

Interjections.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I will suggest to some of the members who are outraged by the comments that I will file a copy of this report with the House, and all members in the House can feel free to read it. I suggest to you, fellow members, that you too will be outraged.

This report goes on and talks about some of the options open. It says: "One suggestion was that the ministry might have been tougher sooner when handling protesters." You have to remember that this report is talking about a specific area, a specific issue where community groups, through frustration by having to deal with the appeals process with the Ministry of Environment over herbicide spraying, got to the point that they became so informed themselves that they no longer could tolerate the kinds of activities that the ministry was undertaking.

When the option of the ministry being tougher was dealt with in this report, a ministry front-line person said: "The more I have learned, the more difficult it has been for me to explain my case to our opponent's satisfaction." This is an erosion of the ministry's position, because the ministry itself can't explain why it's committed, because it hasn't done it's homework; it hasn't done the work that many other jurisdictions, both in Canada and the United States, have undertaken. The work that other jurisdictions have undertaken has limited the use of these herbicides, and in some places has placed bans or moratoriums on the use of these herbicides.

The report goes on to identify some of the options that can be used. It talks about persistent attempts to pursue the program, and it talks about these actual advocacy groups and the work that they've been doing. As part of the options, what it talks about is the ability of the ministry to restrict information. What we heard here earlier today was a restriction placed on any inquiries by elected people in this province, where elected people had to go through the minister himself to get information. But here we have, in a written report to your ministry, a recommendation that says that people who are affected by permits in their communities — permits that affect their very livelihood, their very health — would be restricted from having information on those permits. That is offered as an option to the ministry. No wonder the management consultant in this report talks about seeking legal counsel. If your ministry is jeopardizing the people's health in this province, then I suggest that you should seek legal counsel.

To sum up this particular report, again I make the point that while the war strategy is being laid out, nowhere in this report is the management consultant or any of the staff that are mentioned able to justify the ministry's position.

At the end of the report the company adds a report done by a doctor, Dr. Ruth Shearer, who is a consultant in genetic toxicology. This person has spent several years doing an international study of all published documents on the health effects of these herbicides. It is the most condemning document that I have seen since I started looking into the effects of 2,4-D and some of the devastating herbicides being used in this province. This study is added to this report without comment and, quite frankly, I cannot understand any ministry giving public money to a management consultant that lays out a strategy of waging war on the public and outlines such devastating health effects without comment.

I will table this report in the House, and if the minister is unable to comment at this time, I expect the minister to have the decency to report and comment to this House at a later date.

HON. MR. PARKER: Madam Chairman, with regard to this report, I am advised that it was commissioned to a consultant. The report was received, it was never endorsed or condoned by the ministry, and it was shelved.

However, it was leaked, as these things are, and made public by an environmental group in Kelowna last fall. That may be the manner in which the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley came to possess a copy of it. So speaking to the report, I am advised that it is neither used nor endorsed by the ministry. You take these chances, I guess, when you commission studies from time to time.

Just to go back to an earlier comment on using animals for brush control, in some cases you can do that. Some trials have been done with sheep in the Cariboo region of the province and in the Kamloops forest region. It's not inexpensive. It works on some sites. We have talked with some of the farmers who tried the program, and they met with various levels of success. Some of them experienced losses rather than gains to their livestock, so it wasn't a good exercise for

[ Page 2256 ]

them. It works well on sites encroached with fireweed, but you have to be careful.

There are a couple of things. You have to keep the sheep moving so that they don't damage the seedlings, because as the browse drops and they start poking around, they wind up clipping the tops off of the seedlings. Another big problem in moving the sheep around is predator control. Wolves, coyotes and bears all cause a certain amount of problem there. Each region has an opportunity to try different methods, and they are encouraged to do that.

[5:15]

MS. SMALLWOOD: The minister said that each region is encouraged to make alternative use of vegetation for vegetation management. Perhaps the minister could be more specific and provide those examples to me or to the House. I'd like to ask the minister whether or not his ministry is still using McPherson Mackey and Co. I would like to further ask the minister.... Perhaps the minister would like to comment.

HON. MR. PARKER: No, that firm of consultants isn't being used by the ministry.

As far as the earlier question asking for absolute specifics goes, we'll see if we can track them down and pass them on to the member in due course.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I think we're talking about a fundamental to the management of vegetation in this province. It isn't an issue of tracking it down. The minister should have access to information about such a fundamental principle of management, in particular when we're talking about complete valleys in this province. I think the minister has minimized how extensive the impact is of such vegetation management.

We have in this province whole mountain valleys which, when you fly over them, are brown because they have been totally and completely covered by herbicides.

Interjection.

MS. SMALLWOOD: That is true, and I can give you specifics. In addition to that, Mr. Minister, I would like to ask you a further question about the work that was done....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Name one valley.

MS. SMALLWOOD: You will get the name of the valley.

Mr. Minister, further to this report, there is another quote I would like you to respond to. The minister is unable to give us information about alternatives and a commitment as to whether or not he's actually supporting that as an option. I'd like to ask the minister about another quote in the report. It says that limited use of herbicides occurs in forest application in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Alberta, Ontario and Sweden, substantiating the view that these are an unnecessary danger — that the use of herbicides, the way they are used in this province, is an unnecessary danger. These other jurisdictions, because of the studies and the work they've done on the health risks and the ability to use alternatives, have actually reduced the use.

The report goes on to say that this last piece of information has not been used as yet to discredit the ministry's use, and if it were quoted, it would be a problem for the ministry, as we are not aware of the reason for processes that led to the restriction in these jurisdictions. Why is the ministry so blind in its application of chemicals and its support of the chemical companies? Why has the minister not got the information about alternatives? Why doesn't the ministry have information that has already been found out in other jurisdictions? Perhaps the minister can tell us why.

HON. MR. PARKER: Madam Chairman, I don't know why the onslaught on chemical companies. The certification of a herbicide takes many years and much research. The herbicides used by the Ministry of Forests and the forest industry in the province are properly certified through federal and provincial regulation, and they are nowhere near the type of chemical that we saw some 20 and 30 years ago, such as 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. Often there is more damage done to the environment by driving to the site — the emissions from the vehicle as you motor there — than there is with the herbicide. As a matter of fact, there's probably more damage done to the environment by the ladies of the world using hair spray than by the Ministry of Forests using herbicides.

The ministry received the report that was commissioned; it has not endorsed it or put it into practice. So the constant reference to a report that is neither in use nor condoned by the ministry is a waste of the time of this House.

MR. PETERSON: Madam Chairman, I would just like to make a few comments, through you, to the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood). She indicated that there have been no advances in vegetation management over the last few years. I really must disagree with that statement. I'll give you a few examples of what has happened and what is being used currently. But also, before I get into that, I'd like to say that perhaps if the member was a little more factual and didn't sensationalize her statements, they'd be a little more credible. I'll just leave that with you for your own thought.

Let's talk about vegetation management. Let me tell you about a gentleman by the name of Brian Dillistone. He lives in Maple Ridge, as a matter of fact. He's just a private individual who happened to come up with what I consider an excellent development. It's an injection method of a jellified form of glyphosate. He took on this project on his own, he developed it, and he developed the delivery system. He went to the Ministry of Forests and said: "Look, I think I have something here that works, that is completely selective, that delivers a very small amount of a herbicide called glyphosate in a jellified form to the recipient tree, and that has no way of leaking into the environment even if there would be any damage."

The Forests ministry took him up on it and set aside some experimental plots. That system proved to be so successful, so environmentally safe, that in fact he can't keep up with the demand now. I also know that B.C. Hydro is currently using that system for vegetation management in some of their rights-of-way.

So I would really suggest to the member opposite that she should perhaps research her statements. Let's not talk about these totally browned-out valleys and things like that, because that's simply not true. Get out of the city, get off the streets of Surrey, and get out into the country and have a look. Find out for yourself, because some of the information that you're supplying or giving here is completely erroneous. I

[ Page 2257 ]

don't think you're doing that intentionally; I think you're just speaking from a position of ignorance.

MS. SMALLWOOD: First of all, I'm sorry that the report is so sensational. It's the government's report at taxpayers' expense, and I am sorry it is so outrageous. I am sorry I am so offended, but when the ministry puts our taxpayers' money into a report — whether or not the minister is saying that at this time they completely dissociate themselves from it — I think the minister has some accounting to do of how his ministry spends its taxpayers' money.

When the member for Langley talks about this terrific example of a herbicide that is used.... That's called hack and squirt, Mr. Member.

MR. PETERSON: No, it's not.

MS. SMALLWOOD: That method of using herbicides is called hack and squirt, and it is being used extensively around the province. It is the same method that in the Queen Charlottes just a while ago found a person demonstrating to an appeal board, swearing that " this stuff does not leak," that "this particular container is absolutely leak-proof and does not allow 2,4-D into the environment," and it proceeded to leak all over the floor — another reason why it is important to have a public appeals process.

The Ministry of Environment is eroding that process, so the point that the member for Langley (Mr. Peterson) is making about the different type of herbicide.... The application you're describing has been used in the forest industry for some time, and it does cause serious problems. Again, it is not a minuscule sort of situation, where you're affecting one or two trees. The application in the Queen Charlottes — and the minister can verify this — was dealing with several tonnes. I believe the tonnage was something like eight tonnes of 2,4-D in that tiny little hack-and-squirt project they had on the go, where there was a manual application of this chemical, which the minister says is so compatible with the environment.

It reminds me of some of the blatant propaganda that the chemical companies have produced in the past, where they talk about you could drink the stuff.... I think that we all heard some funny stories about that in the last few years. Even the chemical companies have become more sophisticated than that; they are at least acknowledging that you can't drink it.

The reason I have referred to this report is that there are examples given in the report, and if the minister would like to see the brief that was presented by the ex-member of the Ministry of Environment, the biologist that prepared the brief on the hazards of 2,4-D, giving extensive documentation on all of the studies that have been done in recent history about the health effects of those chemicals.... I'm sure the Minister of Environment would be happy to share. If he's not sharing these days, I have a copy that I would be pleased to share with him.

So you're not doing anybody any favours. I can understand why the ministry would want to separate itself from this report, but I do think that you owe the House an explanation of the money that was spent on this particular report, because if it hadn't been shared by that citizens' group, then this House wouldn't be debating it at this moment and would not understand the sort of work that your ministry has engaged management consultants in to develop strategies to deal with the citizenry of this province.

MR. PETERSON: Just to set the record straight, through you, Madam Chairman, to the member for Surrey-Guildford Whalley, hack and squirt is a method of application. There is also the selective method of cutting the tree and swabbing the stump. But there also is a method, developed by Brian Dillistone, known as the injection method. There's a trade name out now called the dilly-stick, and it is not what you were speaking about. It is not hack and squirt; it is not stump treatment; it is injection. So please, please research your facts. Don't display your ignorance of the situation here.

[5:30]

HON. MR. PARKER: Madam Chairman, just to address the matter of herbicides in general, there is probably more herbicide applied to the lawns of Surrey-Guildford-Whalley by people using Weed N Feed than we use in the entire forest of British Columbia, and that doesn't include the Killer Kanes for shooting dandelions, etc. Use of herbicides, as long as it is carefully and judiciously done and the environmental concerns are addressed, is a sensible way of dealing with brush problems in forest management in British Columbia, and I can defend it. It's a sensible way to approach the whole issue.

People tend to get a little carried away. A lot of citizen groups with the best of intentions obstruct all kinds of activities throughout the province, including herbicidal treatment of forest sites. It's probably done with the best of intentions, but not always with the best of information, nor with the full understanding of what the exercise is all about.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I will make a final comment. I suggest that the minister read this report. Whether he's distancing himself or not, there is some excellent information in there. Part of the information provided to the ministry was that the citizens' groups were far better informed than the ministry themselves; that the ministries and their advisers could not answer the questions; that they could not provide the information that would counter the points that the citizens' groups were making. That is the point that I think the minister misses: there are people out there who have learned a great deal while the minister has been protecting the chemical industries, or has had a way of managing his ministry that has become so centralized — that talks about investigating legal counsel to be able to protect themselves, because they realize they're vulnerable, because they haven't provided information. The point is that there are people out there who know, and this ministry could learn and could work with those people, and we'd all be better off in this province.

HON. MR. PARKER: I understand that this report dealt with a specific public meeting, so it was a sort of snapshot. Possibly the ministry personnel attending that meeting weren't as informed as those who had a particular interest in the issue; that could very well be. But I submit to you, Madam Chairman, and to this House that we are blessed in the ministry with a great deal of expertise. Everything that is done in the province as far as herbicidal applications is done according to the law.

MS. SMALLWOOD: While the minister is now talking about knowing something about the content of this report, he

[ Page 2258 ]

is misinformed or is unable to listen; I'm not sure which. The point is, it was an extensive study. It was not just one meeting. These particular groups conducted two conferences. In addition, the management consultants toured the province, because while this was site-specific, it recognized that this was not an isolated incident; that it was an issue around the province. These management consultants actually went on the road and talked to the people in the ministry, and that was their conclusion: that the citizens' group had done its homework, and that the ministry couldn't answer it. They weren't prepared. They didn't have their homework done.

HON. MR. PARKER: I understood earlier that the report alluded to a meeting in the Nelson area, I thought you said. So obviously there were more. Since the member has seen the report and I haven't, I thank her for the information.

MS. EDWARDS: I want to question the minister, because today I talked in question period to the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services (Hon. L. Hanson) about the employees that are hired on a temporary basis in the forest fire season. It's turning into quite a forest fire season again — at least, it's going to be substantial — and I want to know whether or not these temporary employees are going to be allowed, because the provincial government has done the correct book work, to apply for unemployment insurance benefits, to pay their premiums, and have that deducted for the work they do fighting forest fires.

HON. MR. PARKER: Collecting unemployment insurance for fighting fires.... I hope all the firefighters in British Columbia are forever unemployed. I would be much happier if we didn't have any of these forest fires to deal with.

On the matter of UIC for temporary workers, no, we're not paying UIC to emergency forest fire fighters. UIC is a federal benefit, and I think the best way to deal with this would be to have a policy across Canada on dealing with emergency firefighters. It's an item that should be discussed at the Council of Canadian Forest Ministers, and probably should be discussed in the very near future. We'll probably ask to have this placed on the agenda of the meeting in September.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Minister, in 1985 this was a hot issue, if you'll pardon the pun. The Minister of Employment, federally, finally agreed in late fall — I believe it was October 1985 — that the Unemployment Insurance Act would apply to forest fire fighters, and that in fact they did not have to be designated differently than they had originally been. They changed the rules and allowed the fighters — temporary employees — to apply for unemployment insurance, to pay their premiums, and to be covered under the act. The provincial government, however, which hires forest fire fighters under section 124 of the Forest Act, had to publish an order-in-council which got around the technicality that these people are not hired by the Public Service Commission. That order-in-council has to be signed, in order for them to be able to have their payments deducted. I hear in what you say that you think that it should be addressed; therefore can I ask you if you are willing to address and solve the problem, and to allow the temporary forest fire fighters in this province to be able to have their employment applied toward unemployment insurance?

HON. MR. PARKER: Unemployment insurance is to compensate a wage-earner for loss of a job. Forest fires are an emergency. As I said before, we're not looking to create jobs through fires, but there are a number of people in the province of British Columbia who, through incendiarism, do just that. We had a recent case with the substantial number of fires in the Anahim Lake area. I imagine that if we had unemployment insurance available to emergency firefighters we'd see increased incendiarism, and that concern is shared by the other forest ministers in Canada.

The purpose of the exercise is to recruit some help to get a fire out and be done with it, not to create an industry. So I'm not in favour of unemployment insurance for emergency firefighters. If an emergency firefighter is injured on the job, he's looked after by Workers' Compensation. But we're not looking to create a fire industry.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Minister, I think that what you're doing is degrading and insulting to the people in this province who have to respond under section 124 of the act and fight a fire if they're recruited. In many cases they find that if they do not go out and apply for a job fighting forest fires, they will be cut off their unemployment insurance benefits that they are currently getting. In other words, they have to go and fight forest fires or they will be cut off UIC, but they cannot use that employment for further weeks to make them qualify for further insurance and for further benefits.

I think probably what you're talking about is some speculative idea about people who are not responsible citizens in this province. I think that that's an unfair thing to talk about, when in fact I'm asking you about people who are caught in a catch-22 as far as UIC is concerned and who are absolutely unable to resist working for the Forests ministry if they are recruited for forest fires. Is there some answer for these people who really have no choice?

HON. MR. PARKER: There are a number of irresponsible people in the province who cause incendiary fires, and it's unfortunate, because they are few and everybody else is blessed with the stigma, I guess. When a person recruited for a fire is on unemployment insurance, what you say is probably correct. Their benefits continue once they go off the fire, as I understand it, so they haven't lost anything. You're saying: should they gain more? Well, we're talking about an emergency where by law, regardless of who you are, you can be engaged as a firefighter.

The UI recipient does not lose his benefits, but he doesn't gain additional benefits. Neither does the individual, the wage-earner or whoever, who is recruited for a fire. When you have an emergency situation you do what you have to do as a representative of the Forest Service, and you get your firefighters on the job and you get the fire out. You're not trying to create an industry.

MS. EDWARDS: Madam Chairman, incendiarism is a lovely word, and I think the minister likes to talk about it a lot. What I'm talking about are people who are on UIC — and yes, they do lose benefits, Mr. Minister. In fact, they have their earnings deducted, and they do not get UIC benefits while they are fighting forest fires. Nor are they able to use those weeks to qualify for further insurance. Yes, they lose.

Not only do they lose in that way. I've sat on an unemployment insurance appeal board long enough to hear the horror stories about not being able to send their cards in on

[ Page 2259 ]

time because they're somewhere miles from anywhere, having been taken in by helicopter to fight a forest fire. They don't get their cards in on time, so their claim is ended, and then they can't backdate and they also have problems of overpayment.

I know this is all bureaucratic networking and horror stories, but it is absolutely true. These people are doing all of this. They have no choice but to fight forest fires, and for some reason or other in this province they cannot be given unemployment insurance. Why is that? What would be so difficult? You're not creating an incendiary industry; you would simply be treating employees of the government in a fair manner.

HON. MR. PARKER: If there is a problem with people keeping their card information at the local UI office, I would suggest there be a means of rectifying that directly with UI, with the time certificate and a cheque stub from the Forest Service for services performed on the fire line. Clearly that's a bureaucratic problem that needs dealing with, and I am surprised it hasn't been dealt with after the 1985 problems.

[5:45]

The UI benefits, as I understand them, if a person is a UI recipient, are suspended for the period of time that they're on the fire line and reinstated after the fire. If there is confusion in the UI office about where the recipient has been, as I say, the time certificate and cheque stub should be sufficient proof to the UIC that the person was doing his civic duty.

MS. EDWARDS: Well, Mr. Minister, I believe what you are talking about is one of those perfect bureaucracies where A you have to do is present your proof and everything goes fine. Have you any idea how many weeks it takes to appeal that when it happens in a bureaucracy?

These are simply the consequences of the province of British Columbia not taking its responsibility after the federal government took its responsibility and said that this particular employment could be applied to unemployment insurance. All it takes is for the province of British Columbia, for the cabinet, to issue an order-in-council allowing those people.... It was cited in a letter from the federal minister at the time that all that was required for the provinces to do under their act, under the Unemployment Insurance Act, was to pass an order-in-council, and the people fighting forest fires could then contribute to unemployment insurance.

I don't understand why in the world you would not accept that as a reasonable thing to offer the people who are doing this dangerous and absolutely essential work. It is going to be another long, hot fire season. So I would ask you again: would it not be possible to arrange for an order-in-council to be passed? Records are kept of all the hours these forest fire fighters work anyway. Why is it they cannot have those records kept and have the payments made to the Unemployment Insurance Commission? The ministry is very generous in many of the other things that it preempts for its use during forest fires. I am not sure why it shouldn't be so generous to its workers.

HON. MR. PARKER: Madam Chairman, I have acknowledged that the emergency firefighter is subjected to dangerous situations, and they are covered by workers' compensation. Should any injury happen to them, they are looked after according to the Workers' Compensation Board.

The matter with unemployment insurance: the benefits are not lost. If there is a bureaucratic boondoggle, we should be able to head it off. We should have been able to head it off two years ago. I would think that some of the appeal commis sions would have been able to make those recommendations, and most likely those are documented. I don't see why we can't have them in place to protect the UI recipient, But when it comes to emergency firefighting, every citizen has a re sponsibility to this province. That's the way the law sits, and it's just about time we started talking about responsibility and a little less on rights.

MS. EDWARDS: I think I was talking about responsibility, Mr. Minister — yours, and the province of British Columbia's responsibility to the people who are working for this province and who are in fact protecting the communities from forest fires. I might also go ahead, since you've said that they at least get workers' compensation.... That is encouraging, Mr. Minister, because I'm not sure that they come under the Employment Standards Act. Would you please clarify for me whether those people are designated under the Employment Standards Act?

HON. MR. PARKER: I'll find out for you and bring the answer back.

MR. WILLIAMS: Madam Chair, did I hear him correctly just a minute ago? He said: "I want people to start living up to their responsibilities, and not to be concerned about their rights."

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, it's pretty close. He's dismissing the rights of individuals. It's that same police state mind at work again. The whole question of rights of citizens.... No wonder he doesn't think we should have access to any information in that ministry. He doesn't perceive these things as rights; he simply doesn't. He doesn't perceive them as rights at all. It's that Sergeant Squarejaw line again, that glass chin sticking out again. Three times today you've stuck it out to get it knocked off. It is absolutely incredible the way this guy.... You give him a banana peel, and he'll step on it every time.

I listened to the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood), and I watched this minister, a professional forester, and his two assistants there. This whole question of herbicides, and putting poison into the atmosphere and into our waterways and trees.... You know, I watched the eyes of those three gentlemen over there glaze over, every last one of them — you, Mr. Minister, and your two senior assistants. The eyes simply glaze over on this issue, and then you come and say: "Well, these are experts. They, in effect, have all the answers." You said the same thing this morning. Your experts say it's reasonable to trash stands of mature birch trees in this province. Then so be it: those trees should be trashed, because experts have said they should be trashed. The same experts' eyes glaze over when it comes to putting these poisons around.

Now I happen to think that a lot of the poisons dealing with agriculture are serious and applied more frequently, and I grant you that. But I'll tell you, there is reasonable concern, both by the member from Whalley and by the general public,

[ Page 2260 ]

about this whole issue. You can go into these valleys of British Columbia where indeed no birds sing.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, you can. That may be tied to other applications of these poisons. But there is a smugness there that I find disturbing, among you so-called professionals, Mr. Minister — and I guess you still have a ticket. I find it disturbing. It is a smugness in an area that I suggest most of the world doesn't know enough about.

AN HON. MEMBER: You do.

MR. WILLIAMS: No, I don't, and that's why I'm worried, and that's why I think we should be cautious. I think that's why the member from Whalley is worried and thinks we should be cautious. You put this veneer of expertise over these issues, in terms of what they do, in terms of food chains and a whole range of things in the environment. I have trouble with that smugness. I have some trouble with some of the environmentalists, too, but I'll tell you, there's a smugness there that is disturbing.

There's a range of issues. We only have a few minutes. I'd like to open it up. I just wonder if the minister has learned anything out of that South Moresby experience, where you've come up with some grand numbers in terms of what that public timber is worth. I wonder if the minister knows what was paid for that public timber when it was originally granted. Could he advise the House?

HON. MR. PARKER: Madam Chairman, no, I wasn't present at the time the TFL was awarded.

MR. WILLIAMS: Can the minister advise us...? I understand he actually thought that there were payments for these grants when the timber licences were granted. Is that not the case?

HON. MR. PARKER: Madam Chairman, some licences require deposits; some require a deposit and a bonus bid; some require a basic deposit, and if there's a bonus amount to be added to the stumpage, then a deposit on that bonus amount. Most require some forest protection tax and ground rental to be provided for, according to the circumstances at the time. I believe that that TFL was awarded some 30 years ago, so I couldn't say what took place.

MR. WILLIAMS: I raised this question because I know the minister actually thought they paid for them. This minister, this forest graduate, was wandering around thinking they actually paid money for those tree-farm licences. It's a fairly recent education, I think. But now the people of Canada are going to have to pay a handsome amount of money to buy back parts of those TFLs. Isn't there a lesson there, Mr. Minister? Maybe you could just reflect on that. The timber was granted for nothing — a free grant.

This nation is being held to ransom, and you're going to bring in experts to give you numbers for what that timber is worth today. They've been extracting the timber for 30 years off that licence, as you say, and paying inadequate stumpage, which you're finally admitting today. It would seem to me that after 30 years of not paying adequate stumpage, they should owe us, the people of British Columbia. They're going to owe a king's ransom for it to become a park. Isn't there a lesson there? They get the timber for free; they extract for 30 years; they end up extracting the real costs and getting welfare in section 88; and on and on. After 30 years of taking the public's timber, shouldn't they owe us? But it's not going to be that way.

The feds said maybe it's something like $30 million. You people said it's more. You ended up saying that $40 million a year is what it's really worth. I think there are some profound lessons there; I suspect that as usual they're being missed. But I'd like to discuss that further, Madam Chairman.

HON. MR. PARKER: On the matter on South Moresby, what we're seeing is the cost, I guess, of breaking a contract. The contract for that tree-farm licence was in place when the first member for Vancouver East was minister, and he didn't deal with it any differently. I'm surprised he is so critical now. The contract is in place. As British Columbia's government, when we strike a contract on behalf of the people of British Columbia it is incumbent upon us to see that the contract is honoured.

If the people of Canada see fit to bring pressure to bear upon us to break that contract, then they are the ones that should be paying the bill.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

MS. SMALLWOOD: I have a document that I referred to in the debate that I'd like to table with the House.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.