1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JUNE 2, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2731 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Emission standards at Rayonier Port Alice mill. Mr. Gabelmann –– 2731

Victoria-Seattle ferry service. Mr. Skelly 2731

Advertising by lawyers. Mr. Macdonald –– 2731

Medication for handicapped school children. Mr. Lauk –– 2732

Air-sea rescue services. Mr. Lea 2732

Telephone rates. Mr. Howard –– 2732

Tabling Documents.

Ministry of Environment annual report, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 2733

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Forests estimates.

On vote 103.

Mr. King –– 2733

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2734

Mr. Lorimer –– 2735

Mr. Levi –– 2736

Mrs. Wallace –– 2738

Mr. Nicolson –– 2741

Ms. Sanford –– 2742

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2742

Mrs. Wallace –– 2744

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2746

Mr. Lorimer –– 2746

Mr. Gabelmann –– 2746

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2748

Mr. Barrett –– 2750

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2751

MONDAY, JUNE 2, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

Oral Questions

EMISSION STANDARDS AT

RAYONIER PORT ALICE MILL

MR. GABELMANN: I have

several questions for the Minister of Environment. My first question is

this. In April 1978 the pollution control branch issued permit no.

PA3760, a 30-month permit regulating the particulate matter emissions

at Rayonier's pulpmill in Port Alice. The permit allowed a maximum of

0.25 grains per standard cubic foot, with an allowable additional

maximum two hours at 0.35 grains per standard cubic foot in each day.

The 0.25 is two and a half times the federal health standard, which is

0.1. According to an internal Rayonier report in my possession, the

average actual performance during the life of this permit has been

0.64. The range has been from 0.35 to 1.26. Has the minister decided to

take any immediate action as a result of this outrageous violation of

the pollution control branch permit?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

In view of the fact that the information has been in my possession now

for about 30 seconds or so, it would be difficult for me to tell you,

but I will take that question as notice and get further information.

Perhaps the member would make a copy of the report available to me if

he wants to refer to it.

MR. GABELMANN: In a letter

dated April 2, 1980, to the president of the Canadian Paperworkers'

Union local in Port Alice, the minister indicated that no action would

be taken prior to November of this year. In view of the company's own

evidence in an internal confidential memo that the permit has been

grossly exceeded, has the minister now decided to take immediate action?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

I could check. I believe the letter you refer to is the one which

refers to order-in-council 919, which comes into effect on December 31

this year, but I'll take the rest of the question as notice.

You say it doesn't. I'll have to check on that; I can’t remember the specific permit.

MR. GABELMANN:

On the same general subject, I have a slightly different question. Is

it the normal practice of the Ministry of Environment to give prior

notice of the time of pollution control branch inspections? In other

words, does your branch notify the company as to the month and the days

on which the inspections will be undertaken?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

I'm not sure of the specific methods with which inspections are taken,

but I would not suspect that that's the situation. Again, I can't say

for sure; I doubt it very much. I presume your next question is to tell

me that in fact they have told them they're going to do it. I don't

know; I could find out for you.

MR. GABELMANN: There can't be a question. They've told them they're coming in June, and they told them some time ago.

question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the hazardous nature of

sulphur dioxide and the fact that workers in the Port Alice mill are

subject to an average dosage six times the normal allowable limit, and

that in 1979 some 260 sulphur dioxide poisonings were reported to the

company's first aid station, 97 of which required immediate attention,

has the minister decided to ask the Workers' Compensation Board to take

immediate action?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker,

this is the first time I've heard of the matter which the hon. member

is raising in the House now. I will make the appropriate inquiry on his

behalf. I might add that I will be most surprised — in fact astounded —

if that matter was not raised with the WBC some time ago and if they

have not conducted or are not conducting investigations at this time. I

suspect that an answer would be easily available to me.

VICTORIA-SEATTLE FERRY SERVICE

MR. SKELLY:

My question is addressed to the Minister of Transportation and

Highways. The month-end figures show that between May 16 and May 31,

1980, the Victoria Princess and Flying Princess combined carried 10,598 passengers. This is 5,225 fewer passengers than carried last year by the Princess Marguerite

in the identical period. This drop has occurred despite an expensive

advertising program this year. Apart from volcanoes. what excuse can

the minister offer for the substandard performance of B.C. Steamships

service and for the loss of 5,225 revenue passengers during this period

this year?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I wonder why

the member for Alberni is asking the question, but that really doesn't

matter. We'll get into the numbers game here as well. I have different

figure than you have, Mr. Member, and I am glad to share them with the

Legislature. I just got them ten minutes ago. I said we would get

figures on this service at the month's end. I am told that we carried

10,466 passengers to Victoria in the first 16 days of operation. Last

year on the same days we carried 3,000 less passengers. Your figures

are a bit mixed up because you are saying 5,000 less while I am saying

3,000 less. Furthermore, the economic benefit to Victoria is much

greater because they stay here a lot longer.

MR. SKELLY:

Mr. Speaker, would the minister confirm that the reason they stay a lot

longer is that the ship cannot make it out of the harbour because it

cannot go out during certain tidal periods?

ADVERTISING BY LAWYERS

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney-General. In view of the

fact that the public has a vital interest in the matter of legal

advertising in terms of the levels of fees and the right to know and

shop around if necessary, has the Attorney-General intervened in the

important case that is now going through the courts called Labour v.

the Law Society, the Attorney-General of Canada having intervened? It

is before the court of appeal today.

[ Page 2732 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I'm expecting a report this afternoon from the constitutional counsel that we have with respect to that action.

MR. MACDONALD:

I take it from that answer that the Attorney-General of British

Columbia is not represented in the case, and that he's waiting for a

report on it.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I've asked the advisers whether we're in the process now, and if we are not, why we are not.

MR. MACDONALD:

Has the Attorney-General's department taken any position in terms of

representations on this very important matter, having regard to the

fact that there would appear to be a violation of natural justice if

this question is left to the lawyers alone, even though the interests

of their clients are affected?

AN HON. MEMBER: Vicious attack on the profession!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Besides that vicious attack.... The position of the government will be

taken once this matter is out of the courts. The member knows perfectly

well it would be improper for me to make any statement at this time.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, that's an amazing answer. I'm not allowed to say that, eh?

After this controversy has gone on for years, you say you're not going

to take a position until the next two years?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It's sub judice, is it not?

MR. MACDONALD:

No, it is not. There's no reason why the government of British

Columbia's chief law officer should not be taking a position on behalf

of the public interest and not leaving it simply to the courts and the

lawyers. That's an easy way out.

I ask one final question of

the Attorney-General. In view of the fact that the Law Society has

charged a lawyer, Jack James, with the misuse of the name "The Law

Shoppe" and the citation is addressed to James and marked confidential,

does the Attorney-General have any position as to whether or not that

is the proper way to handle a citation of that kind which is obviously

a matter of public importance as well as of importance to the legal

profession?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, that too

is a matter upon which I'm about to receive advice in the next few

days. The action taken by the Law Society in this regard is under

examination by officials of the ministry.

MEDICATION FOR

HANDICAPPED SCHOOL CHILDREN

MR. LAUK: To the Minister of Education, on May 21 a question was asked

of the minister with respect to teachers in many school districts who, because

of the decision to mainstream handicapped children, have had to administer medication

to some of these children. The minister took the question on notice and indicated

that he was going to be looking into the matter. The minister also indicated

at the BCTF general meeting that he was, at least initially, opposed to the

practice of teachers administering medication and drugs. Concern has been expressed

by parents with respect to non-qualified medical personnel administering medication,

and some teachers are quite concerned about their legal position. Can the minister

assure the House that the ministry and the resources of government will protect

teachers from any problems arising out of alleged negligence in the administration

of medication?

HON. MR. SMITH:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for raising this matter with me in

advance as well, and I will be giving a comprehensive answer to that

earlier question.

There are really two kinds of problems

here, hon. member. One is the emergency administration problem, which,

it seems to me, is fairly clearly covered by the provisions of the

Medical Practitioners Act. If it's a case of urgent need — a first-aid

situation — then the teacher is protected. But the ones you're

concerned with and I'm concerned with are the occasional or routine

administration of drugs which teachers from time to time are called

upon to do. I've been examining how widespread that is and the

procedures that are followed by various school districts, and I'll be

making a comprehensive statement.

My position generally on

this would be that I do not feel that teachers should be required to

perform this sort of administration of medication unless they have

adequate protection. I'm concerned, as the member is, about the

provisions of the Medical Practitioners Act, but I'll give a clear and

comprehensive answer to the whole question. I'm not yet in possession

of all the information.

AIR-SEA RESCUE SERVICES

MR. LEA:

I have a question to the Minister of Inter governmental Affairs. In the

last federal election earlier this year, each and every party said that

they were unhappy with the air-sea rescue services on the west coast of

Canada. I'd like to ask the minister if he can give me the approximate

date that his government made representations to the federal government

about improving the air-sea rescue services on the west coast.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'll seek the information, hon. member, and report back to you. I'll have to take the question as notice today.

TELEPHONE RATES

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications. The question is predicated on

the situation whereby residences of the community of Forestdale, a

small community between Burns Lake and Houston, are able to make via

B.C. Telephone Co. calls to Houston toll-free, but have to pay

long-distance charges to call Burns Lake. Most of their business is

conducted in Burns Lake. I wonder if the minister could tell me whether

he has been approached by the MLA for the constituency within which

Forestdale exists, on behalf of the residents of Forestdale, seeking

the minister's assistance to get B.C. Tel to change its policy in this

regard.

HON. MR. McGEER: As the member well knows,

the provincial government doesn't have jurisdiction over B.C. Tel, so

the member would be making an inappropriate ges-

[ Page

2733 ]

ture

in approaching me. We have stated that we believe control over B.C. Tel

regulations should reside within the province. Should the federal

government choose to give us that jurisdiction, then the question would

be an appropriate one and we might have some method of dealing with it.

As it is, it is a matter, unfortunately, which falls on the shoulders

of the federal government. The member has federal connections and

perhaps he could pursue those.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I

have the honour to present the 1979 annual report for the Ministry of

Environment, and I would like to file a question standing in my name on

the order paper.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

(continued)

On vote 103: minister's office, $123,272.

MR. KING:

Mr. Chairman, I believe it was last Friday that I raised some questions

regarding a shortage of timber supply, particularly for some of the

sawmills in the interior of the province. At that time the Premier

questioned me as to the specifics of that shortage of the resource.

Just for the edification of the Premier — wherever he may be — I want

to read into the record of the House the reaction of a group in his

riding to forest management generally in the province of British

Columbia. It's contained in a telegram that was directed to the Premier

on May 27, I believe. I would have thought that perhaps he would have

had this material in his hand prior to questioning me about the source

of any complaints in the interior. The telegram reads:

TO THE HON. W.R. BENNETT.

AS CONCERNED CITIZENS OF THE OKANAGAN. WE REGRET THE INADEQUATE

PUBLICITY AND INCOMPLETE AND MISLEADING INFORMATION GIVEN REGARDING THE OKANAGAN

TIMBER SUPPLY AREA YIELD ANALYSIS REPORT. IN VIEW OF THE EXTENSIVE REGION INVOLVED

AND THE VITAL IMPORTANCE OF THE FOREST INDUSTRY TO OUR ECONOMY THE SINGLE PUBLIC

MEETING PLANNED FOR VERNON ON MAY 28 IS TOTALLY INADEQUATE. AS THESE MEETINGS

WILL BE THE ONLY FORUM FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION AND INPUT ON FUTURE HARVESTING RATES

AND, INDEED, THE VERY SHAPE OF OUR FOREST INDUSTRY FOR MANY YEARS IN THE FUTURE,

WE URGE ADDITIONAL HEARINGS BE HELD IN ALL KEY CENTRES OF THE REGION, THAT THE

WIDEST PUBLICITY AND DISTRIBUTION TO ALL CONCERNED ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS

BE MADE OF PROPOSALS TO BE PRESENTED AT SUCH HEARINGS, THAT ADEQUATE TIME PRIOR

TO THE HEARINGS BE GIVEN TO ALLOW PREPARATION OF BRIEFS, AND THAT THE AMOUNT

OF TIME ALLOCATED TO THE HEARINGS BE FLEXIBLE TO ALLOW OPTIMUM PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

AND PARTICIPATION.

PETER C. GRIFFITHS. REPRESENTING BRITISH COLUMBIANS FOR RESPONSIBLE

FOREST POLICY.

It is accompanied by a press release which was issued in that area decrying

inadequate management of the resource, inadequate public hearings and inadequate

access to the resource by competitive elements of the industry. So I say for

the Premier's edification, Mr. Chairman, that if he would stay more closely

in touch with his constituents and what is happening in his area, he wouldn't

have to query the opposition regarding the sources of dissidence from his own

riding.

note that a copy of this telegram was directed to the member for

Boundary-Similkameen (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) and the member for Okanagan

North (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) as well. So I presume that the Minister of

Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) has a copy of it and is familiar with it.

There

are shortages of timber imminent in the Okanagan-Shuswap area of the

province, and there is some general concern regarding what appears to

be at the regional level an inclination on the part of the Forest

Service to further share that shortage. In other words....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I wonder if I just might take a moment of your time.

MR. KING: I would appreciate a reduction in the noise level.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Yes, and so would the Chair. Hon. members, the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke has the floor, and it would be appreciated by the

Chair, many hon. members and also the member who has the floor, if we

could contain the noise level to some degree so that the Chair and

those members wishing to listen to the member could hear him.

MR. KING:

The concern of some of the current licence holders in the Shuswap area

and in some of the North Okanagan areas is that they have a constant

supply of fibre perhaps for the next 15 years. Because some of the

other regional operators are now running out of timber, there appears

to be an inclination on the ministry's part to share that remaining

old-growth timber held by some operators — in other words, to share the

scarcity. This means, in my view, Mr. Chairman, that it hastens the

day, simply, that the old-growth timber is exhausted and reductions in

production have to flew from that process — that is, reductions in

employment opportunity, reductions in revenue to the Crown from

stumpage, and so on.

There's a good deal of concern —

whether it's valid or not — felt by key licence holders in the area

that rather than trying to manage the remaining timber resource and

preserve a perpetual yield, it is going to be harvested at a faster

pace to accommodate the areas that have already run out of timber. The

five-year analysis report which the ministry has released would tend to

support that proposition. It points up a fall in timber supply within

the next five to 15 years. At one and the same time we've heard the

Minister of Forests indicate that increase in annual allowable cut will

be considered if the companies engage in intensive forest management.

What

I have a little difficulty understanding is this: if we already have

this large backlog of inadequately restocked timber lands and we're

just now going to embark on extensive regeneration, but a diminishing

supply of timber is seen within the next 15 years, how does the

minister hope to increase the annual allowable cut or the pace of

cutting the trees when stock planted now is going to take in the area

of 70 to 80 years to mature — 35 years at most for the commercial

thinning stage — and a reduction is imminent within a 15-year period? I

have some difficulty with the proposition that just because we're going

to engage in massive replanting and regeneration now, we can

automatically and immediate-

[ Page 2734 ]

increase the pace of cut. I can see that had intensive management been

practised for the last 25 years, but that is not the case. Otherwise,

Mr. Chairman, we would not have 1.8 million acres of the forest land of

this great province of ours inadequately restocked.

I would

appreciate the minister's responding to this dilemma that I and

certainly some people in the industry see in terms of their supply of

material. When you couple that concern of a failure to practise

adequate regeneration in the past with the diminishing land base in the

forest sector, it seems to me to spell out some very acute problems for

the intermediate and long term in the province of B.C.

analysis of the minister's five-year range and forest analysis report

shows some very alarming withdrawals of land from forest production.

The ministry tells us: "Wood supply problems lie ahead.... Attempting

to increase harvests in the short term would mean earlier and larger

deficits." Presently committed annual allowable cuts and public

sustained yield units can be sustained through 1985, but thereafter

these will be reduced. That's what it says in your report, Mr. Minister.

tracing through the critical judgments in the technical report — many

of which are erroneous from the viewpoint of industry people — the

foregoing pronouncements are open to serious challenge. Productive

forest land which is defined as the base for allowable annual cut is

reported as 3.8 million hectares. This excludes substantial acreages of

private forest land which are also part of the base. It appears to be a

reduction of 26 percent from the statistics the ministry supplied to

the royal commission in 1975. There's a real contradiction here, Mr.

Minister, in terms of the 26 percent reduction in the forest land base

which you now identify, when only five years ago the ministry presented

entirely different figures to the Pearse royal commission. Where did

that land go? What happened to that land that's been withdrawn from

forest production? I would appreciate the minister's comments on that.

When

we see this kind of shrinkage in the land base for productive forests,

when we appreciate the enormity of our failure to regenerate, and when

the ministry at one and the same time is advocating an increased pace

of cut, that seems to me to be a formula for very extreme shortage;

shortage that would lead to the closure of plants, massive layoffs and

certainly very serious lost revenue to the province of British

Columbia. I would very much appreciate the minister's responding to

this apparent conflict in the statistics which his ministry has

provided within the last five years.

A further reduction of

16 percent is obtained by classifying 600,000 hectares as economically

inaccessible or protection forest. Similar withdrawals removed 36

percent of productive forest land in the Prince Rupert region, or 1.2

million hectares. Why, Mr. Minister, is all that land being removed

from inventory as forest production land? I would very much appreciate

the minister responding to these premises before I continue.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke is saying we are advocating increases

of cut in the face of timber supply problems. We are not advocating any

such thing. What we have said is that one possible incentive that could

be used in those areas where there is a sufficient timber supply is

that if individuals are to apply silvicultural treatments above and

beyond those prescribed in their licences, one of these incentives

could be an increase in cut, providing the timber is available and the

age-class distribution of the timber is right, so that we will not, by

doing that, lead to falldowns in timber supply in the future. There are

some areas in the province where that can happen. There are many areas

where it can't. In many areas, perhaps, the incentive will be to have a

lesser reduction in cut than might otherwise have occurred; but it is

one of the tools we have to work with, to offset the natural falldown

effect as we make the transition from old-growth forests to

second-growth management. The natural falldown effect can be offset to

a great extent, and in many cases more than offset by causing more

trees to grow faster.

The member also says we are planning

for the removal of some 25 percent of our forest land base. We are not

advocating or planning that at all. What we are saying is that that is

one of the realities we have to face because the forest land base has

been eroded. As our population expands, as the demands on the total

land base we have to work with take effect, there will be some losses.

We have gone through with other land managers, other resource managers

— together with our staff — and we have tried to determine what is a

realistic expectation. Although we are not advocating it, we cannot —

as one ministry — determine the use of all the land in British

Columbia. We recognize the fact that there will be urban expansion; we

recognize the fact that there will be wilderness set aside; we

recognize the fact that there will be a demand for more farmland; we

recognize the fact that there will be more demand for environmental

protection placed upon the forest land. The forest land base we have to

work with cannot possibly satisfy all these demands. We are being very

realistic and looking ahead, not ignoring the fact that this erosion of

the forest land base will take place.

If the member will

look at the items that we have indicated as causes for the loss of

forest land base, one such item is currently economically inaccessible

land. We show quite a substantial reduction of the forest land base

because some of that land cannot be economically harvested. You will

note that after 20 years a lot of that land comes back into operation,

as harvesting techniques are refined, as the value of the wood goes up,

because we also recognize that there will be an increasing shortage of

timber supply throughout the world and thus timber values will

increase. None of these things are static. They are changing all the

time. Environmental protection areas that we are allowing for will

change. As we develop in technology, tools and means for harvesting on

sensitive land without damaging it, perhaps some of this land can come

back in. At the same time, other environmentally sensitive areas might

be removed. This is a fairly objective overview of what might happen,

not ignoring the realities as they exist, but recognizing them and

planning for them.

The member, in his opening remarks,

talked about Peter Griffiths and his representing B.C. for responsible

forestry policy. Peter Griffiths pops up once in a while, and if I were

to properly name his group I would call it "B.C. for Peter Griffiths

policy." That gentleman has approached me and I have met with him

literally dozens of times in my tenure as Minister of Forests.

Everything that fellow does is designed to have me provide Peter

Griffiths with wood. I told him before that we have programs to make

wood available to small loggers and small operators, and he has to work

into that program the same as everyone else. He has cast himself as an

instant expert on all facets of forest management. I say that a person

with a little bit of knowledge and interpreting that knowledge to suit

his own ends can create a great many

[ Page

2735 ]

problems not only for forest management, but for the public perception of what good forest management is.

The

member talked about shortages in specific areas being offset by

available timber in other areas. The smaller the unit we attempt to

manage, the more critical the supply and demand imbalances. We now have

a timber supply area concept. A timber supply area is much larger than

the old public sustained yield units. Because it is larger there is a

greater variety of both species, but also a variety in terrain for

logging and in the costs of providing timber. There is a greater

variety in the age-class distribution of wood, so we can fill in some

of the gaps in areas without a proper age-class distribution to allow

other wood to fill in those gaps as those trees mature.

we had the province as one timber supply area, it would be completely

unrealistic and unmanageable, but that would give us the greatest

possible flexibility in making sure that we can even the timber flow.

But that is not practical. Our timber supply areas are based upon

logical timber supply and haulage patterns. They take into account the

species of trees used in the various areas and the transportation

systems in place or planned. I think they are a fairly realistic

approach to managing the flow of timber.

The Okanagan is one

of our tight timber supply areas, not insomuch as the commitments of

the Crown are concerned, but in the capacity of the manufacturing

plants. We feel no obligation to be sure that all the capacity of all

of the manufacturing plants in British Columbia is met. That cannot

happen. Many plants have been built and expanded at the owner's own

initiative, without any assurance of timber supply, and we cannot

continually cut more timber to provide it for constantly expanding

plants.

The Okanagan timber supply analysis is all but

completed now. Peter Griffiths complained that he didn't have a chance

to have his input. He had every chance. If he wishes, my staff will be

more than willing to sit down with him and once again hear some of his

theories on forest management. We have had public hearings and invited

any individual in that area who wished to discuss timber supply

analysis with us. We have had a lot of input. That we didn't happen to

set it up to Peter Griffiths' particular liking is not a problem of

ours. He has had every opportunity.... If he has additional factual

information that he wishes to provide, we will listen to him — the same

as we will listen to anyone — but we are not going to plan our timber

supply analysis for that area to suit any one individual.

MR. KING:

Mr. Chairman, I have met Peter Griffiths; I don't know him that well. I

really don't think it behooves a minister in the Legislature to attack

a citizen who happens to have strong views in this regard. I understand

that he was an operator at one time. It may be that he does want

timber: I don't know. I don't really see too much wrong with that. In

fact, I think one of the general things wrong with the forest industry

is that access for small people is virtually impossible. I find the

minister's response very interesting.

The other day when I

revealed an internal memo from MacMillan Bloedel which seemed to show

that they had hidden away a very substantial parcel of timber so that

it wouldn't be allocated to the small business program, the minister

got up and stoutly defended them. He said there is a valid reason for

MacMillan Bloedel to do this. But when it comes to an individual small

operator in the province who has some critical remarks to make

regarding the ministry, the minister writes him off as being just a

self-interested kook. I guess that tells us something about where the

minister's allegiance lies, between small operators and citizens in

British Columbia as opposed to the large corporations, which enjoy a

very secure supply of timber — absolute perpetual tenure. Be that as it

may, I suppose that is something the people of British Columbia are

going to have to look at come the next election and make their decision

about whose interests this government is serving.

The

minister didn't respond to my questions regarding the withdrawal of

land from the forest land base. He talked vaguely about the dedication

of land for other purposes. I just want to say that I certainly am not

advocating single use of land in the province of British Columbia for

forestry and forestry alone, but there is absolutely no reason, in my

view, why forest land can't be used for grazing cattle — in a limited

way at least — and for recreation, to complement fish and wildlife

habitat, without being removed from the forest land base. Many of these

interests can co-exist in harmony.

I find it very difficult

to understand the kind of reduction in the land base for forestry which

is indicated by the resource analysis. The minister hasn't come to

grips with that or explained it in any way, shape or form. I think

we're talking about a total reduction in the land base, from 1975 to

today, of 1.8 million hectares. That's 4.4 million acres of forest land

removed from production. The minister says towns are going to expand

and grow. My goodness, Mr. Chairman, I haven't seen growth in any

municipalities in British Columbia that would alienate 4.4 million

acres of land, and I question that that kind of removal can flow from

just uneconomic areas to log.

I don't know what the minister

is doing, and he hasn't provided any satisfactory response. But when we

look at that figure and we hear the minister say, "Okay, you practise

silvicultural programs, you engage in intensive forest management, and

maybe we'll increase your annual allowable cut right now," that

frightens me and I think it should frighten the people of British

Columbia as well. I don't know whether the minister has a firm grip on

what's going on in the forest industry of this province or not; I

suspect that he's being advised and doing very little to get out and

acquaint himself with what's going on in the field.

[Mr. Hyndman in the chair.]

MR. LORIMER:

Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to spend too much time talking about the

minister's responsibilities with reference to logging in Burnaby, but I

do want to ask him a few questions and discuss a few matters with him

with reference to the logging practices that are taking place in the

Brandywine Creek area near Whistler Mountain. The minister probably

knows this Brandywine Creek area has been used extensively by schools

for field trips. It's a most scenic area and there is quite widespread

use of it by tourists and by local outdoors fans. This area is rather

picturesque; Brandywine Creek and the north arm of the Brandywine wind

through the area. I'm advised that at the present time and during the

past year logging in that area has been taking place, and I'm told that

in some spots that logging has taken place right up to the riverbanks.

The

area was used by schools, mainly for biological work, studies in

triangulation and other educational purposes — the study of streams and

other matters. I am also told that the upland meadows there are being

logged at the present

[ Page 2736 ]

time.

The logging has taken place over the past year, and apparently there

has been no effort to clean up the waste in the area; Brandywine Creek

is covered with dirt being dumped or pushed into the creek; the creeks

are being destroyed with the runoff from the slag at the Brandywine

Mine; and roads are being built in that area with little concern about

the river and about the landscape generally in this very picturesque

area of the province. Actually the area is being destroyed.

I'm

not suggesting that the forest crop in that particular area should not

be harvested. What I am suggesting is that we must take a look at the

educational and recreational values of the area and that care should be

taken that all the values are looked at, not only the logging value.

Logging to the riverbank cannot be construed as good practice except in

certain areas where — in some cases I will agree — it may be beneficial

to log what is at the riverbank, or else further damage may be caused

to creeks and waterways and so on; but as a general rule I'd suggest

that there should be a sufficient area between the logging operations

and the creeks to protect the creeks.

I'm not suggesting

that the logging operations are anything different than what has been

directed by the Ministry of Forests. I'm not suggesting that the person

in charge of the logging operations in those areas has been doing

anything other than what he's been directed to do by the Ministry of

Forests. I'm just questioning the minister as to why he allows this

sort of thing to happen in an area which is a beneficial area not only

to the logging scene, but also to the other items that I have

mentioned: tourism, educational values and the outdoor recreational

potential in that particular area.

The minister had a

considerable amount of publicity directed to him with reference to last

year's logging around the creeks in the Queen Charlottes, but it seems

to me that nothing has really changed. This is still going on in other

areas of this province.

The Brandywine is not a salmon

spawning creek — we know that — but there are trout in that creek that

can be caught by able fishermen, tourists and so on. It seems to me

that these fish are now in a position of having to try to survive in a

habitat that has been basically destroyed by the operations of the

forest industry and the mining industry.

Construction of new

roads to the Brandywine mine is taking place. Now I know this isn't the

concern of the minister; it's not his responsibility. But I suggest it

indicates a complete disregard for the rivers, the fish and the natural

life that exists in a number of our parks and in sensitive areas in

this province.

The logging in Callaghan valley, Cheakamus

valley and the Brandywine.... The sludge that goes into the rivers and

creeks in those areas ends up at Daisy Lake, which I suggest may cause

long-term problems due to the dam at Daisy Lake and the silting-up of

the lake over a period of time. As you know, the dam is an overhead

spill and will have no facilities for looking after silting.

I'm

told that in one area there's a large stand of western red cedar,

Douglas fir and swamp plants. This is a special area which might well

be protected and not logged at all. Those kinds of botanical happenings

that occur in a few spots should maybe be protected so that studies can

be made over the years to come. It's my opinion that the fact that a

tree is growing does not make it necessary to cut it down. That need

may be there. The value may be in logging, but there may also be values

in other fields. In some cases the fish values, recreational values and

the educational value may be of greater importance and of greater

long-term value to the province than the sole question of the logging

values. Logging can take place and, in my opinion, be compatible with

the other desires that the people of this province have for any

particular area.

I think the question of parkland,

campsites.... There are areas for campsites in that area that could be

developed. The area could be logged and cleaned up and still be

compatible if it's done with care for the other requirements that may

be of value to a number of people of this province. At Brandywine, I

suggest, it's not too late. I suggest the logging hasn't really got

into full swing at the present time, and care can still be taken if the

minister wishes to take a look at that particular area and see what can

be done to see that that area is not destroyed for those involved in

recreation and the tourist trade and for the other people in this

province who may want to use that valley and the area bounded by the

Brandywine.

Getting onto another subject, I would like to

state that it's my understanding that the new policy has been in some

cases to have the major companies do scaling at their plants. This

might be a saving initially in the cost of scaling, but I suggest to

the minister that the likelihood of low scales will more than pay for a

number of scalers to be put in by the Forest Service. It doesn't take

too much imagination to understand that such scaling may be of a low

rather than a high nature. The pressures on the scalers are such that

if it's mentioned by the foreman at the lunch counter that the scales

seem to be a little high, it might have some effect on the person doing

the scaling. Those pressures are real. Scaling, of course, is not an

exact science; it's based on measurements and allowances off or on.

Scaling can vary by a small amount at least and can basically be a true

scale.

In my opinion, if this policy continues or is

developed in a broad manner throughout the province, the revenues from

the forest industry will be greatly reduced over the years to come. I

think that we expect to have payment for the logs used. What we

certainly desire is a true scale.

I had information from one

individual who had been a scaler for a number of years. He applied for

a job with one of the forest companies, was given his test and was told

that he scaled a little high. Maybe he did. Maybe it was an honest

scale and he was not the type of scaler that this particular company

wanted to be scaling the logs. I say that what we're doing here is

probably putting a fox to babysit the henhouse. The chances of having a

honest scale in such circumstances, I suggest, will not be as probable

as for an honest scale made by the Forest Service. I would like the

minister to tell us if he intends to carry this policy on in other

areas and whether or not the time for the scaling by the Forest Service

is coming to an end. The matter, it appears to me, is serious. I may,

be incorrect in my assumptions, but I'm sure the minister will advise

me of what he thinks about this type of scaling and whether it's going

to continue.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, last week we

were discussing at some length the question of stumpage rates, and the

minister indicated that there will be a White Paper coming down at the

end of June in which we'll have an opportunity to view a new system for

arriving at stumpages. I'd like to discuss with the minister this

afternoon and perhaps get some of his comments on a paper that was done

in February by Professor David Haley, who is out at the faculty of

forestry. He did a regional comparison of stumpage values in British

[ Page 2737 ]

Columbia

and the United States Pacific Northwest. I just want to quote from the

abstract and pick out some of the particular points that Professor

Haley makes. He says in the abstract:

"Whether

appraised stumpage in British Columbia reflects the full value of the

province's timber resources is a matter of public concern. In this

paper stumpages in British Columbia are compared with those in the

Pacific Northwest region of the United States, where public timber is

sold in highly competitive markets. In 1978 the average stumpage for

public timber in the Pacific Northwest was approximately $40 a cubic

meter, and receipts from the sale of public timber were $1,431 million.

In British Columbia the average stumpage was $4.58 a cubic meter and

the total receipts from stumpage and royalties amounted to $167

million."

We're not now dealing, I appreciate, with things

that are equal. There may be a number of variables. However, what we're

looking at here is a total difference of $1.25 billion of revenue

between British Columbia and the Pacific Northwest. He concludes that

there is little doubt that the principal reason for higher stumpages in

the Pacific Northwest is that all public agencies involved in timber

production encourage competitive bidding for standing timber,

whereas

in British Columbia competitive sales of public timber have been

virtually eliminated. Other reasons include tax considerations on the

part of firms in the Pacific Northwest with private timber holdings,

higher average quality of the timber resource in the Pacific Northwest

compared to British Columbia, and the fact that forest product

companies in the Pacific Northwest face better market opportunities,

particularly with respect to plywood, than their counterparts in

British Columbia. Professor Haley says: "Imperfections in the Vancouver

log market may partially explain why appraised timber values in western

Washington are higher than those on the British Columbia coast."

The

log market we've dealt with. We're looking to a White Paper that

presumably will offer some other opportunity for us to do the

evaluation. The minister has indicated that he wants to try to find a

simplified end-value appraisal system. That's his preference. We've yet

to see the White Paper so we can take a look at it.

Dr.

Haley does an examination of the two situations, taking the Pacific

Northwest, Oregon and Washington, and then going to the Quadra area in

British Columbia. He does make an observation. I am sure that when he

was writing the paper he was struggling with the business of trying to

make some realistic comparisons given all the different problems,

including climate and geography and the fact that there is a greater

holding of land privately in Washington and Oregon than there is in

Canada. He does say that the comparison of total revenue from the sale

of standing timber.... I have referred to this before. He looks at some

of the arguments which say that the comparisons are not valid. He says

on page 8:

"It is sometimes argued that while

returns from stumpage and royalty in British Columbia are modest, the

public captures part of the value of the timber resource in other ways,

notably through various taxes. While total tax receipts arising from

the forest industry sector cannot be attributed to the timber resource

itself, the

interpretation of such others should be approached with

caution."

[Hon. Mr. Bennett in the chair.]

I generally

find, as an aside, that this is a very cautious paper anyway. He is

aware of the questions he is posing. He goes on to say:

"It

is of some interest to examine the total contributions of British

Columbia's forest industry to public revenue. Estimates of total public

revenue attributable to the forest industry in British Columbia have

been made by Reed (1975) and Howard (1978).

"In

1975, the most recent year which complete data is available, total

public revenue, federal and provincial, attributable to the British

Columbia forest industry was $420.4 million (Howard, 1978). This

includes receipts from stumpage, royalty, rents, miscellaneous fees of

$56.7 million; income from provincial taxes of $158.4 million (from

provincial logging tax, corporate income tax, personal income tax,

corporation capital tax, social services tax, fuel tax, forest

protection tax and land taxes); and federal tax receipts of $205.3

million (corporate income, personal income and excise taxes).

"In Washington and Oregon during the same year receipts from stumpage on public timber alone amounted to $782 million."

we take the provincial and federal in British Columbia, we come up with

a figure of $625 million. In those two states below the border it's

some $782 million.

Perhaps the minister will make an observation with respect to the following. Haley says:

"Comparison

of average stumpage prices. In 1978 the average stumpage price paid by

the forest industry for public timber in Washington and Oregon was

$40.38 per cubic metre, compared to $4.58 per cubic metre in British

Columbia."

[Mr. Hyndman in the chair.]

Given all

the difficulties of equating the British Columbia situation with the

Pacific Northwest and having read the paper and discussed it with a

couple of people, even with all the allowances one makes for the

difference in style of logging and difference in the fact that there is

greater public involvement in terms of the ownership of land, the

difference of almost $36 per cubic metre of lumber is, for me, very

difficult to understand. I come to the conclusion that we are very,

very low and that the yield from the point of view of the government is

extremely low. Presumably the minister has dealt, from time to time,

with this question.

He goes on to say:

"In

the Pacific Northwest average stumpage prices range from $27.10 per

cubic metre in the United States national forest in eastern Washington

to $50.76 per cubic metre in Washington state land in western

Washington. British Columbia's average stumpage prices for 1978 ranged

from $5.14 per cubic metre in Kamloops forest region to $2.37 per cubic

meter in the interior

section of the Prince Rupert forest region."

Mr.

Chairman, the paper that Dr. Haley has done is replete with examples.

He has to go very carefully. He's not, in fact, making comparisons but

attempting to weigh the data in such a way that he gets as close as

possible to comparing

[ Page 2738 ]

the

situation. Nevertheless, there is a very serious gap, as explained by

Dr. Haley, in what exists in terms of revenues in the United States and

the Pacific Northwest versus what happens up here.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Without

trying to anticipate what the minister's White Paper will be,

presumably the kind of information Dr. Haley has come up with has to

have some consideration in terms of the discussion or even, perhaps,

the development of the new system for evaluation of stumpage that the

minister talks about. We know that there are many comparisons made

between logging operations in British Columbia and what exists in the

Pacific Northwest. One would presume that because we are so close, we

must make some examination. There must be some similarities between the

operations, and it's important that the minister give us some

understanding of whether in fact Dr. Haley's presumption that there is

an extremely wide gap.... We are talking at the extreme end of almost

$1.25 billion. One could say that because of the system that we use up

here the taxpayer, at the very maximum, is being short-changed over

$1.25 billion. However, if one has to make allowances within that $1.25

billion, how far down will we go, or in fact how far up can we go, from

what appears to be a rather paltry sum compared to the United States —

in B.C. $168 million versus something like $1.4 billion in the Pacific

Northwest area?

No doubt when we get the White Paper we'll

be able to have some very interesting debates about this. In his

closing paper Dr. Haley — and I think this is what I've been attempting

to say to the minister — posed a number of questions, and he accepts

that there are a number of things which have not been answered. I'd

just like to read the last part, because I think it puts in context

some of the things that he's attempting to say and that I'm trying to

interpret for him.

"There is good reason to

believe that if public timber in British Columbia was sold

competitively, stumpages in many cases would be bid well above their

appraised level and Crown revenues would be substantially increased,

particularly in those regions of the province where accessible high

quality stands of timber are in short supply. One would also expect the

real price of standing timber to show an upward trend over time,

reflecting its increasing relative scarcity. Stumpages in British

Columbia would not, of course, achieve the high levels experienced in

Washington and Oregon in recent years.

"In the Pacific Northwest, as in British Columbia, public

agencies appraise the value of standing timber before it's offered for sale.

The appraisal method used by the United States Forest Service is similar in

many respects to the method used by the British Columbia Forest Service. It

has been demonstrated in this paper that appraised stumpages for the British

Columbia coast are considerably lower than for western Washington. These differences

cannot be explained in terms of cost differentials between the two regions and

only partially explained by differences in timber quality. A possible explanation

is that due to imperfections in the Vancouver logging market" — as an aside,

Mr. Chairman, we've already examined that — "log prices used for stumpage

appraisal purposes in coastal British Columbia consistently fail to reflect

full timber values,

whereas the United States Forest Service uses end-product

values, lumber, veneer and chips" — this, apparently, is the system that

the minister has indicated he favours as a personal choice — "as a basis

for stumpage appraisals which are determined in highly competitive markets.

"The

evidence presented in this paper strongly suggests that appraised

stumpages in British Columbia fail to reflect the full value of the

province's timber resource and that, in the absence of competitive

markets for stumpage, public revenues from the production and sale of

timber are much lower than they should be.

"Many

questions are left unanswered which should be investigated. For

example, does the British Columbia government capture a substantial

part of the economic rent arising from the utilization of timber

resources in ways other than through direct stumpage payments? If

British Columbia fails to capture the full value of the province's

timber resource, where is the excess value being distributed? That is,

who are the beneficiaries of low-cost timber? If timber in British

Columbia is being sold at less than its full market value, what are the

implications in terms of industrial efficiency, conservation of timber

resource and incentives for reforestation and more intensive resource

management?"

I think that Dr. Haley raises a number of

questions, particularly in view of the minister's position in respect

to the reorganization of his department, the new approach within the

industry, particularly by the foresters, on how to become efficient,

more productivity, the whole business of husbanding the resource. Dr.

Haley has thrown into the hopper an interesting question — not a new

one; I appreciate that comparisons have often been made between the

Pacific Northwest and British Columbia. But he's thrown in some

figures. As I said earlier, even if we take the strongest argument

there is an incredible discrepancy of something like $1.25 billion in

terms of revenue. That is something that really needs to be explained.

However, Dr. Haley does pose the question: is the return coming to the

government in some other way? We know about the taxes — he's explained

all that — but there is still the discrepancy in the taxes. I'd

appreciate it if the minister would respond. I'm not aware if he's read

the paper, and I realize that I've not covered all of it. If he wants a

copy of it I'll certainly make it available to him.

Perhaps

we might start with the question of the very broad difference —

dramatic difference — in revenues: some $165 million versus $1.4

billion. That's approximately a billion and a quarter dollars

difference in an industry which is not that dramatically different,

although there are all sorts of natural problems in terms of geography,

that are being used.

I'd like the minister to answer, because I don't know if my colleague is going on to another area.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I've got notes on it.

MR. LEVI: You've got notes on it, have you? Okay.

MRS. WALLACE: The problem with this is that by the

[ Page 2739 ]

time

the minister gets around to answering these great series of questions

from a number of members, it's difficult to know whether or not all the

answers have been given. However, if this is the way he wants to

proceed, I've no choice but to go on.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You can sit down.

MRS. WALLACE:

Thank you, Mr. Minister of Energy. I'll sit down when I'm ready. I have

just as much right to speak in this House as any other member, and I

resent those kinds of remarks coming from that minister.

of course, have a very definite interest in this particular debate,

because our particular community of Cowichan-Malahat is basically a

one-industry community, as the minister well knows. We are geared 90

percent into the forest industry, both logging and manufacturing. So I

have some very grave concerns and some very sincere interests in the

forest industry, and in what happens in the forest industry related to

government programs and the responsibilities of this minister.

I'm

certainly not alone in this. I have in my hand here a recent release —

May 15 — from the Duncan-Cowichan Chamber of Commerce, where they are

talking about the high U.S. interest rates and lack of new housing

starts, and the weak market for Canadian lumber, which is being felt by

the lumber workers in the Cowichan Valley. They are talking about the

high domestic interest rates coupled with a feeling of uncertainty in

the lumber industry, which is reflected locally in sagging sales of

big-ticket items, in the local stress, reduced consumer loan demand and

a lower level of new mortgage registration. Realtors report that most

house sales are cash, with assumption of lower-interest, existing

mortgages, and the supply is very limited. There is very little

speculative housing, and so on. Then it goes on to say that the

provincial government has also reduced expectations for the forest

industry in 1980 with a forecast revenue decrease of $257.5 million, or

46.9 percent. I'm just reading that into the record, Mr. Chairman, to

indicate the concern of people like the chamber of commerce in a

community which is so geared to the forest industry, because we do have

some very grave concerns.

Of course, in that particular area

of Cowichan-Malahat — the forest area there — most of our logging

interests are in the control of the majors. It's generally the majors

that are involved in that area. I suppose my concerns stem from some of

the information that has been brought to this House earlier in the

debate, and in other debates, as to what really happens with this

ministry and the majors.

I've listened with a great deal of

interest to the debate on the setting of stumpage rates. I've listened

to my colleague from Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), who has read into

the record the variances that seem to occur in those stumpage rates.

The last speaker, of course, spoke of the differences between here and

the Pacific Northwest of our neighbour to the south. My concern about

this has led me to review somewhat the methods of setting those

stumpage rates. Certainly it would appear that they are basically set

by two estimates: first, an estimate which is the grade of the logs,

the amount of timber, the species and the market — based on the market

value; and from that is deducted another estimate, which is the cost to

produce those logs. The difference is something which, I believe, is

called conversion return — I'm not that familiar with the forestry

terms. Twenty percent of that difference is then calculated as the

company's share and the balance is the stumpage. That may be a good

system, but it's only as good as the estimates are accurate.

reminds me somewhat, Mr. Chairman, of the person who pays income tax —

the worker who has income tax deducted from his cheque. That income tax

is deducted on the basis of an estimate of what his earnings will be

for that year. less an estimate of what his deductions will be for that

year., but there the similarity ends, Mr. Chairman. Because while that

deduction is made based on an estimate, the final decision is made

based on an income tax return which is filed and sworn to as being the

actual fact. That's where the similarity ends, because that is not the

case with the stumpage charges with the forest industry.

There

are no checks on those estimates. They may be right; they may be wrong.

There is a provision for appeal, as certainly the minister is aware,

under

section 154. I believe it is, of the Forest Act, but that appeal

is only available if, in fact, the company decides that they're being

overcharged. At that point in time there is a three-stage appeal, and

I'm wondering whether or not any of those appeals have ever reached the

third stage, wherein the minister sets up a board to review the appeal.

I doubt that any of them have ever reached that stage. because I would

suggest, Mr. Chairman, that those appeals are covered at the local

level and never go any further.

There is never any

requirement to make any public in formation available as to how the

cost of production is arrived at — the cost of getting those logs off

the stump and into the market. There is no evidence ever produced as to

how that estimate is arrived at, unless, in fact, there is an appeal.

If, in fact, that estimate has been too high, with too big a chunk of

money coming off the market value, there is never any appeal: there is

never any second check; there is never any audit. I would suggest, Mr.

Chairman, that this particular method of handling our Stumpage return —

the taxpayers' return for our resource — certainly should be subject to

some kind of an audit. I would think that our auditor-general, who has

had a look at some of the billing practices of this ministry and has

got some results, should also be having a look at how the stumpage is

actually calculated.

Unless there is a system of checks and

balances, we are putting those appraisers in a very untenable position.

They're subject to lobbying; they're subject to pressures — the kind of

thing that my colleague for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) was

talking about with the scaling in the mills. They're subject to the

same kind of pressures, only many times greater, I would suggest, in

the forest industry when the stumpage is being calculated. Those

pressures are there, and we are putting those appraisers into an

untenable position. I think that it's their right to have an audit, to

have checks and balances. We're talking about the most important

industry in this province, Mr. Chairman, and we're talking about a lot

of taxpayers' dollars in return for our resource. Without any audit

system in place, certainly it is subject to question.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

When

I checked some of the tally sheets which are made up by those

appraisers and found that coastal cedar is being classed as grade

number 3, and when I'm told that that is not the typical situation with

coastal cedar — and yet some of

[ Page 2740 ]

those

reports are ranging from 40 to 100 percent grade 3 — I have some

concerns. Now maybe I'm wrong — I hope I'm wrong — but it isn't right

to leave those kinds of questions with no audit, no checks, nothing to

assure that not only the people who are expecting the return from that

revenue, but the people who are doing the appraisals, are protected

from any undue pressure. That has to come about, Mr. Chairman, if we

are to have an open-book policy on this business of stumpage; it

certainly isn't there at the present time.

I would like to

deal just briefly with the report that the minister has recently put

out. Again, while I think we can all agree that we're long overdue for

some kind of intensive forest management program, I think we should

have a good look at what the objectives of such a program should be.

has been stated by authorities that are far more knowledgeable about

the forest industry than I that in order to justify a program of tree

planting and manipulation of existing wild stands — that is all the

juvenile spacing, commercial thinning, fertilizing and all those things

that go on — you must be able to increase the current allowable cuts in

line with the yields from those commercial thinnings and the intensive

utilization of smaller trees as well, and you must ensure that you

retain this increased revenue in the forest system and plough it back,

as it were, into your intensive forestry programs.

Those are

the statements that I have read from various people that are

authorities in the forest industry, who indicate that those must be the

criteria that are set in establishing any forest management program.

The report that the minister brings down doesn't seem to meet those

criteria. He's talking about dwindling old growth and second growth

being only about two thirds of the present harvest. Of course, he does

talk about the intensive management programs, but the thing that

bothers me is that he's talking about curtailing the annual allowable

cut, which will cut back on the gross revenue that will be coming back

into the system. In addition to that, he's turning more and more of

that revenue, from whatever source, over to the private sector. My

understanding of many of the tenures under which the private sector

presently holds that forest land is that there is a contractual

obligation to renew the forest as it is removed, and that hasn't been

happening. Now we're going to give them more funding to do what they're

already obliged by contract to do.

So what I'm saying is

that, certainly as I read the minister's proposals, we're not going to

be in a position of expanding our forest industry, but rather we're

going to be in a position over the next few years of curtailing that

forest industry. Of course, those are the concerns that are facing the

people in my constituency — the chamber of commerce, the local trade

unions and the citizens generally — who are concerned about this

phasing down, because the program that the minister is bringing in does

not seem to meet the criteria of building up.

One of the

things that I would like to have seen in the report would be an

inclusion of a modernization of the industry to utilize the type of

product that will be available as a result of the intensified forest

management. I'm talking about the thinning, for example. I have a

letter from a constituent that talks about Gordon River area. This

would be juvenile spacing. It must be, because the timber is being left

there. This constituent tells me that they are cutting down trees up to

a foot in diameter in that particular area and simply leaving them

there. I know that the forestry officials would — or at least I would

hope that they would — be checking those kinds of things, but I know

that they are very limited for staffing and perhaps those methods, with

the best of intentions, are getting a little out of hand if we're

leaving that kind of waste timber just lying on the forest floor.

Look

at the logs that are wasted in the form of driftwood on the beaches —

and I understand that something like 10 percent of the marketable

timber that is floated in the water is lost — which could be utilized

for chipping and pulp and paper. Think about the trees that are left on

the forest floor, as in the instance of Gordon River, where trees as

much as 12 inches in diameter are simply left lying there, creating,

incidentally, a terrific fire hazard once they're dead, which is

another great loss of our resource, of course. Consider that and

realize that on the coastal area, which is the area with which I am

most familiar, there are 14 pulpmills, I think, and out of those 14

there is only one that is designed specifically to use just chips.

There are five that are designed only to use good logs, and the other

eight are for varying ranges of that kind of use, but there is only one

that can use just chips. What I'm suggesting to the minister is that

hand in hand with his intensive forestry program.... "Intensive" to me

means complete usage of our forest products. Certainly, then, we should

be looking in the direction to see that our pulping facilities are such

that we can use that waste product and not use good logs in the

production of pulp and paper.

Last year in the House I

raised this matter in connection with Rayonier. In fact, I had some

rather interesting correspondence with Rayonier as a result of those

remarks I raised on the floor.

I have been through the B.C.

Forest Products mill at Crofton, where they're feeding logs cut in

four-foot lengths into the chippers that are much better quality than

the logs I have seen in the Chemainus sawmill or the W.F.I. sawmill.

Those few places, and particularly W.F.I., seem to be bereft of good

logs, for some reason or other. Of course, I've talked to the minister

about that. We know some of the problems that are facing that industry.

But when you see those logs cut in four-foot lengths and fed up that

endless chain into the chipper, you realize that we are not making the

most intensive use of our forest resource.

When I get a

newsletter from the MacMillan Bloedel sawmills at Chemainus and Harmac,

dealing with Harmac, in fact, talking about the shutdown there....

Because of the severely depressed North American market, MacMillan

Bloedel is suspending lumber production in its No. 3 wood room at

Harmac for an indefinite period, effective the last two months but it

may be longer. It says: "The majority of the 130 wood room No. 3

employees affected will be employed in vacation relief elsewhere in the

pulpmill and the lumber complex. The main impact will be that our

summer hiring will be sharply reduced." Then it goes on: "Wood room No.

3 normally operates four shifts, three producing lumber and one

producing chips for Harmac pulpmill. Beginning May 18 it will run four

chipping shifts." That's an admirable move so far as ensuring that the

employees are kept working, but I would suggest that what's happening

there is that the logs that would normally have been used for sawlogs

are going to be put through the chipper to keep that extra shift

operating. That's not the best or most intensive use of our forest

resource.

It's estimated that the five pulpmills in the

coastal area which use nothing but logs use something like one million

cunits annually — that's hemlock and balsam. That represents

approximately 20 percent of our total coastal hemlock

[ Page 2741 ]

and

balsam harvest. What I'm saying to the minister is that that is not

only not good use of our resource, but it is also not the most economic

use nor is it the most labour-intensive use. Certainly the production

of plywood and lumber has more far-reaching economic and employment

benefits than does the production of pulp and paper. Our logs should be

going into the highest use in order to ensure that we have the resource

to keep the industry in operation. You can't have an intensive forest

program that only deals with reforestation, juvenile spacing,

commercial thinning, fertilizing and all those kinds of things without

coupling with that a use of that waste wood and a change in the

industrial sector to the point where they can make the best possible

use of our resource. We have the technology, but it hasn't been applied

and it isn't being applied; there's nothing in this report that will

lead to that happening.

There have been many questions about

the amount of money set aside for the reforestation program. Many of

those questions raised indicated that we may not be able, because of

our lack of future planning during the last few years, to actually make

the best use of even the meagre amount of money that has been set over.

We do not have the trained foresters. We haven't done the research. We

have limited our capability of expanding at the rate at which we should

be expanding by falling behind in the research that should have been

undertaken during the past several years. It is interesting to note

that of the nearly $4 million spent last year in the research branch,

less than $1 million was spent on tree improvement and only

three-quarters of a million on silviculture. There are only 38 people

employed in that particular research branch.

Supposedly

we've been having a very extensive reforestation program going on in

the last few years. The minister has been telling us how he's been

beefing it up. But in looking at the figures for the coastal area — the

summary of plantings — again they have been going down. There were

fewer trees planted in 1979 and 1978 than were planted in 1976 and

1977. In fact, the highest planting took place in the year 1973, and

we've never yet reached the number planted in that particular year.

I'm

not suggesting that the minister and his employees are not trying to do

this. What I am suggesting is that we're perhaps trying to jump in the

middle of a problem instead of starting at the beginning. When we've

been as slow as we have been in getting the research facilities in

place and providing the funding for those kinds of programs that would

have enabled us to go ahead at this point, we are perhaps throwing good

money after bad, if we can simply go out and plant trees for the sake

of planting trees or carry on certain programs just for the sake of

carrying on those programs. To do a good and adequate job in the long

haul — we are talking about 50 and 80 years in the future — we must be

sure that the trees we are planting are the right trees in the right

place and that they are treated in the right way. I am not at all

confident that sufficient research has gone into this to put us in the

position to significantly increase our reforestation program and our

intensive forest management at this point in time. I think we have to

start with that research and build up a good sound basis for this.

The

fact that of the $10 million voted for special reforestation programs

last year less than one-tenth was spent, according to my last reading

of Public Accounts , indicates

just that. We are not in a position to move as quickly as we should be

moving. In order to get around that hurdle we must get at the real root

of the problem and build up that research, the nursery stock, all the

kinds of things the Forest Service has been trying to work at and needs

more funding for. We must get more people into the forest faculties at

universities and into community training programs for foresters, so

they can do the job adequately and build up to a level where we will be

able to continue and introduce an adequate reforestation program.

want to talk just briefly about the rangeland situation, while I'm on

my feet. I'm sure the minister is aware of some of the problems that

have been occurring in the changeover from leases to permits and

licences. I know when I travel around this province and talk to

ranchers in various areas they are continually expressing concerns to

me about this. Their concerns are, granted, somewhat vague. I think

it's a natural concern that people have about change. But one of the

specific concerns they have raised is that under the permits and

licences they are simply renting the grass, as it were, and there is no

sort of assurance that the land is under their control. This is part

and parcel of the fact that we have so many ministries involved in this

particular rangeland administration. The Minister of Forests, of

course, has been made the chief administrator, but coupled with this we

have the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot), who is

involved with land; we have, of course, the Minister of Agriculture

(Hon. Mr. Hewitt); we have the Fish and Wildlife who are involved with

the wildlife; and we have forestry. I know that there will always be

conflicts, and the multiple-use concept is one that is going to take a

lot of work and effort. But I would urge the minister to do his best to

ensure that the interests of all those people are involved.

guess, perhaps, I have the kind of natural concern that seems to

usually place the agriculturalist on the bottom of the totem pole in

any of these controversies. I do have some concerns about the ranchers

and just how well their interests are being served by the foresters who

are administering this program. I think it's mostly lack of

understanding, and at some of the meetings I've been at, it seemed that

even some of the people in the ministry were not quite sure of the

direction they were going. I believe the program does need some further

attention by the minister.

I was interested in the figures on the grazing. Of course, this is where some of the....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I wonder if I could draw your attention to the red light.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm sorry, yes.

MR. NICOLSON:

I'd like to bring to the attention of the minister something that has

been mentioned by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) — the

disappointment in terms of the lack of ongoing communication with the

communities that have been affected by the Ministry of Forests'

reorganization. I know that on the employees' side it culminated in a

work stoppage in various parts of the province a few days ago.

One

of the other concerns is that it was not handled well in terms of

keeping in touch with people in the community. It seemed only after

rumours started flying around and after municipal councils got very

concerned and wrote letters that any kind of response was forthcoming.

I must say that at the local field level that response was fairly good.

When local field people were asked to come and speak with village

[ Page 2742 ]

councils

in places like Kaslo, there was a good response. But frankly I'm quite

concerned that while the minister will argue that they have

decentralized so that decisions that would formerly have been made in

Victoria are made in the local district areas, I would say that many of

the decisions which were formerly made closer to the field are also

going to be centralized a little further back in the regional offices.

would like an assurance from this minister as to whether any kind of a

follow-up to this massive reorganization is being written up in a very

candid and honest manner in order to prevent a repetition of some of

the shortcomings of this reorganization. I will look forward, for

instance, to the fact that in this reorganization positions have been

created that were missing previously — things like the lack of

hydrologists. I know as well that in the industry new positions are

being created that are more sensitive to the needs of sophisticated

forest management. But I would like to ask the minister if there is

going to be a really good, candid post-mortem of the reorganization in

order to look at how many things could have been communicated in a

better manner, both with employees and with affected communities.

MS. SANFORD:

I have a few brief questions for the minister relating to an issue

which has developed within my own constituency along the Little

Qualicum River, where logging took place. While the federal fisheries

people were involved, because the logging operation was on private

land, the provincial government had no say whatsoever in terms of the

protection of the stream or the river itself, nor does it have any say

with respect to anything else that the logging companies undertake when

it is land held in fee simple.

[Mr. Nicolson in the chair.]

I'm

somewhat concerned about this and I'm wondering if the minister has

considered at all somehow ensuring that regulations that apply

throughout the province, whether they relate to wildlife or fisheries —

and I appreciate the federal fisheries have some say in this — apply to

logging operations on privately held land.

In the states of

Washington and Oregon most of the forests are privately owned, contrary

to the situation in British Columbia. In those states, it is my

understanding that the forest companies are required to ensure that

whatever wildlife is there is protected, that the fish habitat is

protected, that the interests of those who wish to participate in

recreational activities are in fact considered, even though most of the

forests in those two states are owned outright.

Now on Vancouver Island, because of the E&N land grant, much of the forest

is held in private hands; and the Minister of Forests and the Minister of Environment

(Hon. Mr. Rogers) — people involved with fish and wildlife — in fact have no

say as to what happens in the logging operations on those privately held lands.

Mr. Chairman, we've had very recently on Vancouver Island an outcry from

people living along the E&N Railway because of the spray that the E&N

applied — the herbicide spray along their right-of-way. Because it is privately

held land, there is absolutely no necessity for the company to make application

to the pollution control branch or to the committee responsible for issuing

permits on the spray of herbicides; they can just go ahead and apply the spray.

The same thing applies to the logging companies on privately held land. It seems

to me that where companies are required to at least go through the motions of

making applications for sprays — whether it be for herbicides or pesticides

— then, obviously, they have a different set of rules under which to live than

those who are operating their logging operations on other tenure, such as tree-farm

licences. Residents along that E&N were shocked and angry that because it's

privately held land, the company was able to go ahead and apply the herbicide

without even notifying anybody.

am wondering, Mr. Chairman, whether or not the minister has thought

about implementing any regulations or in any way adopting the

procedures that are used in Washington and Oregon to ensure that the

various aspects of fish and wildlife protection and the use of sprays

are in fact under the scrutiny and control of the provincial

government, even though the logging operations are on private land.

have one other very brief question, Mr. Chairman. I understand that the

Ministry of Forests, in conjunction with the Ministry of Environment,

is currently looking at a proposal which would utilize the sludge from

various sewage facilities for application on seedlings — in other

words, to be applied in the nurseries where various companies and the

ministry itself are involved in raising seedlings for reforestation

programs. Is the minister familiar with this program, and could he give

me some information as to how far along the research is and what sort

of success they are having in utilizing this sludge?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, my list is getting a bit long; I should respond to some of the points that have been raised.

First,

as far as using sludge from sewage treatment plants for nurseries is

concerned, we are doing some work in the Vernon area. As the member is

probably aware, we are establishing a research and nursery area near

Vernon; we are working there and probably in some other areas. I

understand our nursery in Prince George is quite handy to a sewage

treatment plant as well, and we are working along these lines. I can't

give the member any detail as to just where we are; but if she wishes,

I could certainly get an update on the program for her and advise her

later.

As far as logging on private lands is concerned, the

only time when we really have input is when the land has received a

tree-farm taxation status providing a special land taxation rate, for

the return to the government of planning a forest and having their

plans approved by my ministry; at that point we do have some control as

to what happens. We consider anything to do with forest practices on

private land. I haven't thought of anything in the way of legislation,

but we are at the present time trying to develop an extension service

to private landowners to help them in better management of private

land; that's in the very early stages. I think there are a lot of areas

where we can improve the management of, and perhaps the yield from,

private land by having people better informed as to what they should

and should not do, and at the same time provide better protection for

the environment.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs.

Wallace), before she had to give up her place, was just into the range

licensing program. I have met extensively with ranchers around the

province. There is some concern in their minds, as we're going through

this change from the grazing-lease program to a grazing licence — from

a permit to a licence. I have done everything I can so far, but will

continue to try to explain to them what the objective is. And the

objective is to provide the rancher with a much more secure form of

tenure

[ Page 2743 ]

over

the areas in which he has grazing authority. However, you really have

to deal with each rancher on an individual basis because their

conditions and circumstances are so different. I think it has helped,

and will help, to have more of the grazing management and tenure for

grazing under one ministry, which will be the Ministry of Forests. The

Ministry of Agriculture, of course, will still be involved in

agricultural leases. These leases are used, to some extent, for the

raising of forage.

The objective of it is to provide a

secure licence — I believe the term is ten years — which is renewable

prior to expiry. It's an evergreen form. The criterion for renewal of

it is simply compliance with the management program and proper

management of the range. This is in the interest of most ranchers and

the government as well. We can increase the forage and the number of

cattle that can be raised in British Columbia with better range

management.

We are cooperating with the Ministry of

Agriculture in joint agreements with the federal government in range

improvement programs. None of them are without some difficulties, but I

think we're moving in the right direction.

I would say again

that the objection of the range licensing program is to provide secure

tenure for ranchers so they know where they're going, rather than the

old year-to-year permit system which really left them without something

that's bankable. They can assure their bankers that they will have

ongoing range privileges. I think it'll be in their best interests in

the long run.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat was into

several other areas as well, if I can get back to her. She started with

the concern of the chamber of commerce in the Cowichan area regarding

layoffs in the forest industry. Her concerns are somewhat at odds with

factors brought up by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi)

when he was talking extensively about stumpage rates and so on. I'll

get into his comments on stumpage later. But one of the things that

happens when you have these very high stumpage rates.... In the United

States they can adjust to it because their economy is so much more

diversified. Because the rates are so high, at the least fall in the

market the operators are forced to either discontinue manufacturing or

discontinue manufacturing and logging. Quite often what they do to

carry on their business is log for export because there are wide open

log exports permitted there and exports generally bring very high

prices. In British Columbia we have, I think, a much more stable system

of stumpage which tends to get around the massive layoffs. They have

literally tens of thousands of people out of work there, and I think a

lot of it can be traced back to the very high cost of their raw

material. Stumpage in British Columbia, I think, allows for that,

because when the prices are low the stumpage goes down. Operators can

stay in business for a much longer period of time.

I can't

do anything about the recent high interest rates in the United States

and Canada. They have come down substantially, and I hope that will

have the effect of increasing our markets in the United States and

particularly Canada. Of course, when those markets drop off most

operators then start selling into the foreign markets, which become

overcrowded, and their markets generally fall off at a later time.

are concerned about employment disruption, particularly for the small

loggers, because they have the most difficult time. They're selling

into a log market, and that is the reason that stumpage is critical for

the market logger particularly. I've made adjustments recently in the

stumpage charges to market loggers when I reduced to them to their own

system. As of the first of this month, or yesterday, I guess, we will

be putting market loggers on minimum stumpage on the coast and in the

interior. This is as far as we can go; we can't go below minimums. This

will take place as of today, I guess, being the first Monday after the

first of the month. So that will be a break for the market loggers and

will help some of them to continue logging.

The member also

talked about using firm logs for chipping. I can't advocate that, but

there is quite a gradation in logs. What they're best used for is

determined, to a certain extent, by market conditions. Some of the

higher-grade pulp logs can make lumber in good market conditions, but

it doesn't make much sense to me to force those high-grade pulp logs to

be manufactured into lumber if you can't sell the lumber. Putting them

into pulp at least keeps the pulp industry going and it does provide

employment both in pulp manufacturing and in logging. And pulp is a

high-value product. Everyone says that it's a waste in material, but

it's a high-value product. Admittedly, a lot of the value of it is in

very highly automated plants, but it's a very great revenue earner for

British Columbia and Canada on the export market. We shouldn't do

things on a short term that will discourage that industry, because,

fortunately, right now the two industries.... The pulp and paper sector

is out of phase with the plywood and lumber, and one tends to support

the other. It provides some stability.

The member again went

into the billing practices of the ministry, which I dealt with at great

length a few days ago. I'll say again that our unbilled accounts have

gone from over $88 million a year ago down to about $13 million now. I

think it's in reasonably good shape.

The member also talked

about revenue from the sale of commercial thinnings going back into our

stand-tending work. I would very much like to see that happen as well.

However, every dollar that is spent by my ministry — I should say

invested by my ministry — in the forest has to be accounted for to the

auditor-general. It goes back into general revenue and we have to

assure the government that the money will be well spent as we get it

reallocated for ongoing forest management work.

The member

talked about giving the industry more money to do those things they are

already obliged to do. The industry, under the licensing provisions we

have, does have obligations to comply with in forestry work such as

post-harvesting site preparation and planting. These things are

required by the licences. but they are offset as a cost in the stumpage

appraisal system. There's only so much value in that log, and all the

costs that lead to the extraction of the lumber value are paid for by

the value of the log. It comes as an offset against stumpage. but they

must do it to keep their licences in good standing. Any expenditures

above that must be budgeted again through

section 88 and accounted for

by us. So it's work above and beyond what is normally required by their

licence that we budget for in these other areas.

The member

for Maillardville-Coquitlam spoke extensively about David Haley's

report on comparing stumpage in the United States Pacific Northwest to

British Columbia. He had some difficulty in explaining it and he

mentioned, and I agree, that Mr. Haley had some difficulty in trying to

make the comparison, because you really can't. The terms of the

licences, value of the wood, and things that the government pays for

after receiving their stumpage are so different that

[ Page 2744 ]

any

simple comparison is really meaningless, because if you extract all of

the variances you come up with things that you can't really compare at

all.

One of the factors is the quality of the wood. In many

of our sites in British Columbia we're into old, decadent stands and

the wood quality is very low; therefore the value is not such that will

attract a very high stumpage. Some of our higher-valued stands attract

to us just as much stumpage per cubic metre or cunit of wood as is

received in the United States. The taxation structure is different.

Capital gains allowed by evaluating timber stands are based to a large

extent upon the value of a log sold. So companies will bid up Crown or

federal government timber in order to appreciate the value of their

stands. They have a wide-open log export policy there, which again

attracts higher values — things which we wouldn't like to have here.

Also, the forest industry there is subject to tremendous changes in

employment levels. The layoffs in the northwestern states now are

probably ten times, at least — perhaps 20 times — what they are here.

Communities aren't dependent upon single industries to the extent they

are in British Columbia, and as our stumpage goes down operators and

manufacturers can continue.

Last year, for example, our

direct stumpage revenue was over $550 million, because we had very

buoyant markets and our stumpage appraisal system extracts those

values. The end-valued system I also favour for the coast, even though

it would be a much more complex system. It seems that whenever my

estimates come up we have, all of a sudden, a rash of instant experts

on stumpage, where everyone is bringing up good points, most of which

have been looked at and many of which do require, perhaps, some change.

Again, that is why you'll have every opportunity to make definite

recommendations when you receive your White Paper. I'm sure then you'll

realize some of the complexities of the system.

The member

for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) was talking about the Brandywine

Falls area. That was gone into to some extent by the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) several days ago. I haven't been to

Brandywine Falls area myself for almost 35 years, but I do remember it

well as a young fellow. I used to camp there with my brother. However,

again there's some contradiction. The member suggests that there are

certain areas that should be set aside — he was mentioning some of the

yellow cedar stands. At the same time the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke

(Mr. King) was asking: "Why are you alienating forest land?" Well, this

is exactly the type of trade-off that we, as a ministry, have to make.

Every area where a cutting permit is issued is somebody's favourite

fishing hole or campsite. We have to try to practise multi-use on a

land base so that we have our forestry activity and recreational

possibilities as well. I don't know if the member has actually been to

Brandywine Creek lately, but he talks about mud, slash and so on in the

creeks. I certainly hope that isn't happening, because our people have

very definite prescriptions they must use, and there are certain areas

they must leave between harvesting sites and the creeks. At times it is

in the best interests of both the forest and the creek or river to log

right to its shores, but prescription is site-specific and I hope that

they are not allowing damage to occur which isn't necessary.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The member mentioned also — this is very interesting — I

guess the report I had commissioned on scaling of Crown timber. He says

that government employees should do the scaling. That is the case now,

and except for a few exceptions provided for in the Forest Act, all

Crown wood is scaled by government-employed scalers. The member, I am

sure, is not implying that non-government scalers cannot be trusted,

but that certain pressures will be brought upon them to perhaps be a

little less accurate, to scale low rather than high. This is the

discussion I am having right now. The Minister of Labour and I are both

involved, because it arises from a labour problem at Sarita River in

the Alberni area where the IWA felt they should be doing the scaling

because they were having some of their people displaced by the move

toward dry-land sorting.

My position right now is that I

think government scalers should scale for Crown revenue. I am in

complete disagreement with the IWA on that. I see the member nodding;

he is apparently in disagreement with the IWA on that as well. I have

commissioned a consultant, the gentleman who worked with Dr. Pearse's

royal commission hearings, to act as legal counsel for the forest

policy advisory committee — a very good background in scaling matters.

He held discussions with various sectors of the industry and

recommended that we make a move away from government people scaling the

wood. The final decision is not made on that yet, but I would say here

and now that I would be very reluctant to see that happen, because I

think the scaling should be done by government employees. I am sure

that member will help me when Jack Munro comes back screaming if we

don't do what he wants us to do.

I believe that covers most

of the points that were raised. I understand the member for

Cowichan-Malahat hadn't finished. I believe I have covered most of the

things she raised in her discussion.

MRS. WALLACE:

Thanks to the minister for his responses. He keeps good notes. The one

point he did miss, as far as I'm concerned — this may have been

discussed at some time when I wasn't in the House — is that he did

indicate that the stumpage rate had been dealt with, and he mentioned

that the outstanding billings have now been reduced from $80 million to

$13 million or something. That was not really the point that I was

basically concerned with.

What I am asking the minister to

do is to establish some system of auditing the estimates that are made

in establishing the stumpage rate, the estimate of the market return to

the logger and the estimate of the cost of production. I think that

certainly there is some public knowledge, or it is available, as to how

the estimate of the market value is obtained, but for the cost of

production there is absolutely nothing except a figure, unless there is

an appeal. The only appeals are when the company thinks it's

over-charged; there are no appeals if the company is under-charged. I

would ask the minister to establish some system of audit, because we

are talking about the major resource in this province and we're talking

about the return to the citizens of this province from that resource

when we're setting the stumpage.

I have been dealing with

rangeland. I am sorry to be so long on this, but I doubt I have very

much left. I mentioned the leases and the permits and licences. The

minister has indicated that he feels this will give a greater degree of

security of tenure. Year-wise that is good, and I congratulate the

minister for moving in that direction, to extend the term. But I do

have some concerns about where the Lands ministry

[ Page 2745 ]

fits

into this. If, for example, the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing

(Hon. Mr. Chabot) decides he wants to do something else with that Crown

land, what kind of liaison and security is there with the Minister of

Forests related to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing to ensure

that if a rancher goes out and makes improvements to those lands they

will be there for a sufficient length of time so he can get his return?

One

of the things that brought this point to my attention is some

orders-in-council that came out in March of this year: some four

orders-in-council issued by the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing

covering grazing leases, and numbered 715 to 718 inclusive. I review

orders-in-council fairly regularly, and those are the only such

orders-in-council that I have seen — a renewal of grazing lease by

order-in-council. These were in the Hazelton district, I think it was.

I don't have them here. It was the coast district anyway. It seemed a

rather unusual way of renewing grazing leases. If that's the way

they're always renewed then I stand to be corrected; but if I'm not

wrong I wonder why the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing took it

upon himself to renew those four grazing leases. If the minister can

give me any enlightenment on that, I would appreciate it.

The

other thing I was just about to mention when the red light came on was

the acreage — or the "hectareage" — of rangeland. I notice that it has

gone up something like a million acres in the last four years. The

animal units have gone up. The animal units per month per hectare seem

to be fairly constant at 10, 11, 12 animal units per month per hectare.

So that would indicate that at least the rangeland is holding its own,

although I notice that the amount of hay being grown, which is included

in this total, is going down. I wonder what the explanation is for

that. Why are we not putting up as much hay as we have previously on

those rangelands?

I think the biggest question of all that

occurs to me in looking at these figures is that while the number of

animals is going up and the number of hectares is going up, the number

of operators is going down. This indicates that rangeland is obviously

being concentrated in the hands of fewer people. I'm wondering if the

minister has any explanation of why that is happening, Those were all

the remarks I had about rangeland.

I do have one very small

and very personal criticism. I guess it bothers me every time I go over

the Malahat: the new forest fire signs. They are a terrible colour —

just awful.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE:

Yes. Perhaps that's the reason, Mr. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Curtis). Perhaps because it's such a terrible colour it will attract

attention — and it does. But it is such a long message and the writing

is so small that at 80 kilometres you can't read it.

I think we have a good record of signs with our "Fire kills!" and the things we have had.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE:

No, I said 80 kilometres, Mr. Minister of Finance. Those signs really

do bother me. Perhaps they attract attention, but they certainly don't

blend in with the landscape. The colour doesn't seem to relate to

anything to do with forest fires; it's more related to orchids in

Hawaii or something. It has no relation to forest fires or green forest

or anything else. In particular, the message is too long and not strong

enough, in my opinion. I've never quite been able to pick it all up,

but it's sort of "Please take care of our forests." It doesn't seem to

have the punch the old signs had about "Fire kills!''

I have a local case which I have discussed with your chief

forester, Mr. Minister. I had hoped that he would get back to me, but

inasmuch as I haven't had a response I feel obliged to raise it today.

Again it's part of a problem you were speaking about with the member

for Burnaby-Willingdon concerning the park areas, and with other people

who are concerned about the reduction in forest acreage. As you know,

Mr. Minister, we do have a lot of weed trees in that area which are

being clearcut at the present time, and this is being done under

contract. Some of the results of those contract cuttings are rather

disastrous. They are in the area — you may know it — of Cottonwood

Creek, which is a park reserve, I think, although it hasn't actually

been made into a park facility at this point. There are a lot of

treetops and debris in Cottonwood Creek — which is a fish-spawning

channel, incidentally — and also at Heather Park, which is on the

shores of Lake Cowichan. Treetops have been left.

When I

checked with the local people involved, they told me this was all going

to be cut up for firewood. I guess what has happened is that Boy Scout

troops and so on are going in and doing this — and that's commendable —

but the debris is still there. There are some beaches that you just

can't get to. If we're setting up those parks to attract tourists,

certainly we're going to need all the tourist industries we can attract

into that area. It's not really very conducive to that industry to have

those kinds of messy logging operations taking place in an area that is

a park resort.

Of even more particular concern to the people

who live in Youbou and Lake Cowichan is the understanding they have

that the area adjacent to the village of Youbou and along the lakeshore

is going to be denuded in this clearcutting operation. What they are

asking is that some degree of tree cover be left in the areas visible

from the highway and around Cottonwood Creek and Heather Park and so

on, so that you will have that bit of green protection that still makes

it attractive to the tourist industry. As I said, I have talked to your

chief forester about this, and he promised to look into it. That was

some time ago, and I haven't had a response as yet. So I felt that I

must raise it today.

The final thing that I want to talk

about.... Again, this relates to billing. You have indicated that the

billing has caught up with the outstanding bills. This is a bill from a

small logging company in my area, Bradshaw Logging. They have written

to the B.C. Forest Service, with a copy to you, Mr. Minister, and a

copy to me, on February 21 this year. Their complaint is that their

actual operations took place in May and they didn't receive any

statements for payment until October. "During the month of November we

began receiving scale and royalty accounts dating back as far as May.

However, there are still well over 150 loads of wood which we have

delivered to mill since last October for which we have not received any

statements of scale and royalty accounts." They go on to say that they

have to meet their payroll, and pay compensation, various taxes, fuel,

repairs and maintenance.

The seemingly unnecessary delays

are causing them some very severe problems in the operation of their

small logging industry. We do have a few small loggers in

[ Page 2746 ]

Cowichan-Malahat

and I want to keep them there. I'm concerned that this kind of delay in

getting these accounts processed is really causing a hardship,

particularly on these small operators.

Those are the points that I wanted to raise, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

I will cover those points. I'm afraid I don't know the particular

circumstances of Bradshaw Logging. It's not very often that we have

people complain because they haven't received a bill. However, I can

understand the management problems it presents to the operator. I know

my assistant deputy minister in charge of our finance department has

made a note. I'm sure this gentleman will be getting a bill very

quickly.

I don't know the circumstances of the problem at

Cottonwood Creek which you discussed with the chief forester, Madam

Member. I will remind the chief forester that he should get back to

you. He is probably trying to accumulate the necessary information to

be thorough in his answer.

On the audit of our stumpage

calculations, we do very close internal checks. People in the field do

not have a free hand, and they don't go without being checked by their

supervisors. I can't give the member the details of how we carry this

out, but it is certainly audited by their supervisors and the Victoria

staff out to the various regions. So please don't get the impression

that people out in the field work in isolation and that nobody is

watching over their shoulder.

Getting back to the range

problem, which we discussed briefly before, and the Ministry of Lands,

Parks and Housing renewing grazing leases by order-in-council, I

remember these orders being passed. I'm not sure if that is a normal

procedure or not; I believe it is. The member may wonder why we are

renewing these leases when in fact they are going to be changed over

into grazing licences. We have offered short-term — I believe five-year

— renewals of some of these leases when we are not in a position to

have a range management plan in place. We cannot issue the longer-term

grazing licence until those plans are in place. If we are not ready to

issue a licence and we don't have the plan worked out, the Minister of

Lands, Parks and Housing renews the grazing lease for a short period of

time — five years, I believe — to give us a chance to get a management

plan in place, after which a licence would be forthcoming.

The

security that a person has on a rangeland is a concern that members

have. I believe that a lot of people who had leases in the past thought

they had more security than they really did, as far as keeping other

people out of the areas. I think there is a great bluff carried in many

cases where a person would put up signs, posting them and hoping that

hunters would stay out. Most hunters probably respect these signs. I

don't think the signs, in many cases, had any legal basis; but the

ability to protect the area under use will not be any less under the

grazing licence, really, than it was under the grazing lease.

must agree with the member; I think the colours of those signs are

lousy too. I didn't like the old, very harsh, red and green ones

either; I think the colours were too harsh. I would like to see some

signs that fit better with the countryside. Perhaps I could hire the

member as a colour consultant. All my taste is in my mouth when it

comes to colour.

Range permits are down. I think there has been a consolidation of the number

of permits, and there has been some consolidation of ranch units as well. The

reason is usually a matter of economics — older people getting out of the ranching

business; perhaps the consolidation of several small ranches into a more economic

unit.

Hay

production is down for the last couple of years, probably more as a

result of the severe drought weather conditions we've had in the

interior than anything else, but I can't be certain of that.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

You mentioned that the amount of hay produced was also down. The amount

of hectares of grazing land has been up, and the reason is probably

that we put clearcut into forage during its early regeneration periods;

it can be used for both growing hay and for supporting a new forest

crop. That is part of the multi-use of the forest land base.

I believe that covers the additional points the member raised.

MR. LORIMER:

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the minister for his replies to my

questions. For his own personal knowledge I'd like to advise him that

although I haven't been up to the Brandywine area this spring, I'm told

by people who were there that the creek is in very bad shape at the

present time. There are roads being built along its banks — I think

primarily mining roads rather than forestry roads — and there are

branches and so on being pushed into the creek.

I would like

to say that the minister is familiar with the area, and obviously he

enjoys spending hours there, and it's not too late to make sure that

the area does remain for multiple purposes. As I mentioned earlier,

although logging may well continue, I think it should be done in a

manner compatible with other uses for that property.

MR. GABELMANN:

Mr. Chairman, I have a few brief comments today. I might begin by

saying very candidly that the whole area of forestry is one that I've

only very recently begun to try to learn about. In the process of

educating myself about forestry matters, as happens so often in

learning, each time I learn one factor I discover two more I have to

learn that I didn't know existed. My sense of awe about the vastness of

the job that faces any Minister of Forests in this province grows each

day,

I've had an opportunity in the past 12 months to spend

a fair amount of time with company and union officials in various

operations in the northern half of Vancouver Island in the forestry

sector and in the pulpmill industry as well. There are some things

happening, frankly, that are good — and I say that in very general

terms — compared to my impression of what has happened over the years.

The cut-and-run attitude, the buccaneer approach, appears to be waning

at least, if not ending, certainly in some of the TFLs in my area.

For

the first time since the Tsitika area has been logged I had a chance to

go into the CFP portion of the Tsitika — that's a very small portion,

obviously; Mac-Blo has most of it. The different approach to road

building in particular was of considerable interest to me. First of

all, they don't use a Cat, they use a backhoe, and that makes road

building a much better way to go environmentally. I would be interested

to know whether or not the standards being recommended for road

building in particular and for bridge construction and that kind of

activity shouldn't be monitored with a view to imposing a similar level

of high environmental protection in the woods on all logging road

construction. Perhaps it is

[ Page 2747 ]

somewhat

more expensive, but I'm not sure that it's a great deal more expensive,

particularly with the modern machinery. Certainly the backhoe makes a

much cleaner job that the Cat ever will.

In mentioning

Tsitika I just want to say that the battle waged by many

environmentalists to try to preserve an unlogged watershed on the east

coast of the Island has been lost, in a sense, and that there will be

considerable logging in that watershed. It's my understanding there are

still four or five or half a dozen unlogged watersheds on the west

coast of the Island. One in particular, I think, merits some attention

not just by the Ministry of Forests but also by the Ministry of

Environment, and I intend to spend more time during the Environment

minister's (Hon. Mr. Rogers) estimates on this issue than with the

Minister of Forests.

The Tahsish River Valley is unique from

a wildlife point of view. The Tahsish River is not far from Fair

Harbour, It s under timber licence at the moment, most of the lower

section anyway — Mac-Blo has a timber licence on the lower part of that

valley. Wildlife biologists in the Ministry of Environment tell us that

it's probably the best unlogged river valley from a wildlife point of

view. It's also — in discussing with native Indians in Kyuquot close by

— a very significant salmon-producing river. It seems to me that we

should be keeping one of these systems intact both for wildlife and for

salmon-spawning purposes, if only to serve as a comparison. We can look

at what's happened in Fair Harbour, where the estuary and the river

valley have pretty well been destroyed by intensive logging, and the

number of salmon in the river is right down. Not only for the purpose

of preserving the runs that exist in the Tahsish, but from the point of

view of trying to keep forever in this province some kind of control,

some kind of indication of what it would be like in its natural

state....

I wouldn't argue, as some do, that we should not

log the whole watershed. Already CFP is in the top part of that

watershed anyway, and there are other parts of it that it would make

sense to log. But in the Tahsish River system the valley floor is quite

wide and much of the timber is on islands created by the river. I think

there should be some serious consideration between the two ministers

with a view to providing an ability for Mac-Blo to perhaps trade for

some other timber somewhere and leave that in its natural state so that

we can have at least one unlogged river valley on the west coast — in

British Columbia for that matter. This is one of the few that we

possibly can keep. Many of them aren't particularly worth keeping,

quite frankly, but I believe this one is.

I had a chance

three or four weeks ago to spend a Sunday afternoon hiking up the

valley. There were elk everywhere, even trumpeter swans, and bear,

cougar and wolves. Evidence was there of great numbers of wildlife

species, and that's confirmed by the biologists in the Ministry of

Environment. I would urge that the minister give some consideration to

doing an evaluation, together with the other minister, of that

particular valley.

Proceeding from there, I want to

spend a minute or two on the question of streambank preservation. Let

me start by going back a step. We as a society have spent a great deal

of time on logging companies, and the ministry has spent a great deal

of time concerning itself, quite properly, about wildlife potential in

logging areas. The pattern of logging is affected by the wildlife

patterns and by needs to preserve cover for winter range and so on; I

won't go into all the details. There has been a good response. In my

judgment, from most of the companies, to the point of hiring their own

biologists and working out plans with government experts in a way that

will attempt to keep up the level of wildlife in some of these valleys.

I'm thinking particularly of the Nimpkish Valley, where there is a very

extensive deer population. But I don't believe we've given the same

kind of serious consideration to the fishery.

If you look at

it from a global perspective, not even from a recreation point of view

but from a food point of view, the fishery has far more impact on our

society than does wildlife. There's far more nutrition for the world to

be provided from a sound fishing industry in this province than there

will be from wildlife. It's not to say that we should do less in

wildlife but that we should do more in preservation of spawning

grounds. Nimpkish Lake and the river system are virtually decimated.

When you look at the counts that natives report existed in the 1800s

and prior to that and look at the counts over the last 10 or 15 years

you can see that the fishery has not been wiped out but close to it. I

don't think there's any doubt but that comes from logging practices

over the years in the Nimpkish Valley.

When I talked to

foresters and forestry company officials and others about how we

preserve stream banks, the whole idea of a 66-foot non-cutting area

along the banks struck me initially as being a good idea; but the more

I look at it, the more I think it's a crazy idea. You often end up

doing more damage to the streams by allowing that timber to stand and

then to be blown down in the first good gale. Rather than falling away

from the creek, which they'd do if they were felled, they often fall

into the creek, at least from one side if there's a prevailing wind. So

I'm not persuaded about the almost arbitrary 66-foot approach to

preservation of stream banks.

I had a particular example of

a way in which it does appear to work better, and that's on a river in

the Rayonier TFL in the Holberg area. It's a river called the San

Josef, which flows in its final two miles through Cape Scott Provincial

Park — about two miles from the park, towards Holberg — and is

privately owned by Rayonier for a variety of historical reasons. They

logged that particular

section earlier this year. I walked in with the

manager of the company. The San Jo River is a major recreational river;

it is a canoe river. I've canoed down the river myself and have hiked

that area and camped in that area. We walked the riverbank with a view

to determining whether or not there was a way to preserve the esthetics

of the river by not having the obvious [illegible] cut right up to the

river, and also to prevent the blowdown. The company — I think they

should be credited for it — has clone a very careful selective logging

program in that particular

section of the river, which meant in some

cases taking trees out right beside the river and in other cases

leaving sounder trees as much as 300 feet away from the river. That

kind of selective logging practice adjacent to major recreational

rivers and major fishery rivers is, I think, something that needs to be

encouraged a great deal more than now. When I look at the blowdown in

so many of the rivers in the northern part of Vancouver Island I think

that that policy has been a bit of a mistake.

Another issue

I want to raise — and I won't spend too much time on it, I hope — is

the whole question of chemical eradication of weed trees — alder and

whatever. There is no question that companies want to use the

chemicals, but there is also no question that the public mood is very

much against

[ Page 2748 ]

the

use of chemicals. Certainly, when we get to the Ministry of

Environment's estimates, we will talk about the processes and the

procedures by which these permits are granted. I don't want to do that

today because that is a major issue as well. Today I want just to deal

with it from the forestry point of view.

Some efforts are

being made — particularly in the Nimpkish Valley, where I've spent some

time recently — to do some comparisons between mechanical control, both

by felling and by scarification with a Cat in heavil