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