BRITISH COLUMBIA

Socreds propose forest privatization

The Social Credit government has
opened the door to privatization of public
forest lands in the new white paper on
forest management commissioned by
Forests and Lands Minister Jack Kempf.
The proposal is the most alarming of some
56 recommendations contained in the

" paper.

The report, first announced last year as
One of the cabinet priorities, was released
Jan. 13, together with a press release cal-
ling for public comment on its recommen-
dations. Copies are available at ministry
offices throughout the province.

The section covering sale of public
forest lands recommends that some
Crown land be sold to private interests, the
only condition being that the land will be
used for timber production. This is a sharp
departure from previous provincial gov-
ernment policy on forest lands and could
have dire consequences for the future of
the province’s forest industry.

Corporate interests in the forest indus-
try have tried for generations to have the
Provincial government adopt a policy of
Selling Crown lands to private companies.
The Sloan Royal Commission, conducted
following the Second World War, rejected
the proposition as politically untenable
because the public would not accept it. It
proposed instead a system of forest licen-
ces which would nominally maintain pub-
lic ownership of Crown lands.

The Socred government, with its obses-
sion with privatization, is now floating the

The province

Maurice Rush

idea of selling Crown lands to see what the
public’s reaction will be. If the concept is
adopted as government policy, the big
monopolies will quickly gobble up
publicly-owned forest lands. The proposal
should meet with a wave of public protest

demanding that there be no sale of Crown .

lands to private interests.

Overall, the 56 recommendations in
Kempf’s white paper fail to come to grips
with the crisis facing British Columbia’s
forest industry. They are a collection of
proposals which will only strengthen the
grip of the forest multinationals currently
holding tree farm licences.

The white paper proposes that compan-
ies holding tree farm licences be given
more management responsibilities —
meaning more control over operations. At

.the same time, the recommendations
would penalize companies which practice
high-grading, that is, taking out the best
timber and leaving less profitable timber
in the forest. This destructive practice has
become very widespread in recent years as
the big companies drive to maximize prof-
its.

The white paper fails completely to deal
with reforestation in the serious way
required in view of the rapid depletion of
the resource. Last week, a report prepared
by former forest commissioner Peter
Pearse stated that mature softwood trees
on B.C.’s coast are disappearing so
quickly that there is now only 16 years
supply left.

Instead of addressing itself to the prob-
lem of what can be done to save the
resource, the white paper limits itself to
recommending that the government pay
the companies directly for tree-planting
operations instead of allowing the com-
panies to deduct reforestation costs from
stumpage payments. Nothing in the
recommendations indicates a new and
more serious approach by the government
to a massive forest renewal program. Nor

- does it, as it should, recommend the crea-

tion of a reforestation fund, financed by a
tax on the forest companies of at least 15
per cent of the value of all timber cut, as
the Communist Party proposed in the
provincial election campaign.

One of the most disappointing recom-
mendations is the one dealing with the

stumpage tax. During the provincial elec-
tion campaign Kempf and Premier Bill
Vander Zalm caused quite a stir when they
suggested that the province wasn’t getting
enough of a return from the forest
resource. All the white paper ends up
doing is to call for a review of current
stumpage rates and to suggest that they
should be high enough to cover the cost to
the government for managing the forests.
Nowhere is there any suggestion that
revenues from the forest industry should
contribute anything to provincial revenues
apart from maintaining the forests.

Kempf and the forest ministry have
labored mightily and brought forth a
mouse. The recommendations of the
white paper fall far short of what is needed
to deal with the increasingly acute crisis in
the forest industry.

What is needed is a full, independent
Royal Commission on forestry which
would conduct public hearings into all
aspects of forest policy. Chief Justice
Gordon Sloan, who conducted the first
full inquiry into the forest industry after
the war, proposed a Royal Commission
inquiry every 10 years. It is more than 10
years since the Pearse Commission exam-

_ ined the industry and the changes that

have occurred since that time and the criti-
cal problems of forest management cer-
tainly warrant a new inquiry.

The white paper should be withdrawn
and a new, serious approach adopted by
the Legislature — beginning with the
naming of a Royal Commission.

B.C. Transit is recommending fare hikes

_ be implemented for the coming operating
_ year — but it’s not being honest about
: them, End Legislated Poverty has charged.

ELP represenatiye Jean Swanson termed
as “atrocious” advertisements in weekend
Papers notifying the public of a public meet-
Ing on transit funding proposals Wednes-
day which claim that the Crown corporation
and the regional transit commission are
woking at “0 per cent” fare hikes for 1987-

_In fact, B.C. Transit is proposing fare
Ikes exceeding 100 per cent for riders who
travel between zones beginning April 1, said
wanson, whose anti-poverty organization
Was preparing to intervene at the meeting
Set for Wednesday, Jan. 28 in the Burnaby
Municipal council chambers.
In its brief — and ina similar brief set for
Presentation to Vancouver city council on
uesday — the multi-organization member
8Toup argues that changes in the transit
funding formula and a “full, public review”
Of the financing process be initiated.
hen the seven-member Greater Van-
Couver Regional Transit Commission
pens the doors to public input Wednesday,
It will put forward a B.C. Transit proposal
that zone fares be in effect during the total
we per day the transit system is operat-

As it now stands, zone fares are only in
effect during “peak” hours Monday to Fri-
day. Riders travelling between two zones

fore 9:30 a.m. and from 3 p.m to 6:30
P-m., pay $1.65 at the fare box. For riders

CTOssing three zones, the fare for rush hours
Is $2.90,

beating the rest of the weekday, the fare
tween zones is the same as that charged
.OT single zone riding: $1.15. Fares for

Seniors and students are less, but also

Mcrease between zones at peak hours. —
Ose proposals mean substantial hikes
OF many transit riders, and even though an

increase to the basic rate is not being pro-
posed, the ads announcing the meeting are
dishonest in claiming that “0 per cent” hikes
are proposed, Swanson charged.

A B.C. Transit spokesman acknow-
ledged Swanson’s claim that ridership is
expected to decrease — ‘“‘marginally,” said
the spokesman — as a result of across-the-
board implementation of peak zone fares.

The spokesman said B.C. Transit hopes
to offset any decrease in riders by offering a
$3 a day pass after 9 a.m. daily.

But Swanson said the whole issue of tran-
sit funding — including fares, the special
hydro and gasoline property tax levies, and
the financing of SkyTrain and the Surrey
extension — should be aired at public hear-
ings.

The municipalities are being squeezed
by the province’s inequitable funding for-
mula, and if these things aren’t resolved
soon, taxpayers are going to face a crushing
burden,” she said.

The current transit formula requires that
35 per cent of B.C. Transit’s costs be raised
from fares, while the remainder is financed
jointly by the province and the municipali-
ties: 60 per cent and 40 per cent, respec-
tively. This year the portion from the fare
box is to be increased to 42 per cent of
transit funding.

Last year the portion raised from a surtax
on B.C. Hydro bills was raised to $5.30
from $1.60. But massive protest, during
which some 45,000 British Columbians
refused to pay the increase — according to
estimates from Municipal Affairs Minister
Rita Johnson. — forced the regional transit
commission to roll back the levy to it pre-
vious level.

Still unanswered is the question of cost-
sharing for the SkyTrain rapid transit sys-
tem, estimated to cost at least $1 billion,
with a further $60-million price tag for the
bridge extension across the Fraser River

into Surrey.

JO ARLAND ... seniors oppose zone
fare changes.

The commission must raise $98.5 million
from the farebox this comng fiscal year,
which begins April 1. ELP states that the
proposed fare hike is designed “to grab at
least $4 million more from transit riders.”

Swanson said ELP will be asking Van-
couver city council to “reiterate” three posi-
tions it took last August: that the province
renegotiate the financing formula for tran-
sit; “renegotiate for local authority” over
transit; and negotiate a “comprehensive
concession (reduced) fare policy.”

The second point refers to the nature of
the Greater Vancouver Regional Transit
Commission, created three years ago by

provincial legislation. It consists of six °

Lower Mainland mayors and an alderman,
appointed by the provincial government.

The commission was created to replace
the transit committee abolished by the same
provincial legislation. Its members were
chosen by local municipal governments
through the Greater Vancouver regional
district board.

The present commission has no real
powers at all, Swanson said.

“Tt has no staff of its own, and depends

JEAN SWANSON ... B:C. Transit ads
on fares misleading.

on B.C. Transit for all its policies. Its basic
job is to take policy suggestions from B.C.
Transit and choose from among four or five
evils.”

This year’s proposed fare hikes are public
only because ELP, citing a clause in the B.C.
Transit Act, won a Supreme Court ruling
last year forcing the commission to consult
with the public before implementing fare
hikes.

Swanson warned that the fare hike is not
the only issue facing Lower Mainland resi-
dents. Changes to the hydro levy, the gaso-
line and property surtaxes and other
financing measures will likely also come up
for review before April 1, she said.

Seniors’ organizations are also opposing
the fare hike, with the 120,000-member
Council of Senior Citizens Organizations of
B.C. and members group slated to appear
before Vancouver city council and the tran-
sit commission meeting.

Jo Arland, first vice-president of the B.C.
Old Age Pensioners, said her organization is
opposing the fare hikes as well as several
cuts in service to Surrey, White Rock and
Delta.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE, JANUARY 28, 1987 e 3