1981 Legislative Session: 3rd 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)

TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4735 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Presenting Petitions

Montreal Trust Co. and Montreal Trust Co. of Canada petition.

Mr. Ree –– 4735

Oral Questions

School tax levy. Mr. Lauk –– 4735

Attendance of deputy minister at Social Credit Party meeting. Mrs. Dailly –– 4736

Mr. Howard –– 4736

Mr. Lea –– 4736

B.C. Systems Corporation. Hon. Mr. Curtis replies –– 4737

PCBs in B.C. hospitals. Hon. Mr. Nielsen replies –– 4738

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

On vote 98: minister's office –– 4738

Mr. King

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Lorimer

Mr. Howard

Mr. Leggatt

Mr. Lea

On vote 99: provincial forest and range resource management –– 4747

Mr. King

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Howard

On vote 100: regional forest and range resource management –– 4749

Mr. King

Mr. Lea

On vote 103: fire suppression program –– 4752

Mr. King

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Howard

Hon. Mr. McGeer

Mr. Lea

Oral Questions

PCBs in B.C. Hospitals. Hon. Mr. Nielsen replies –– 4757

Tabling Documents

Liquor distribution branch annual report for the year ending March 31, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Hyndman –– 4758

Liquor control and licensing branch annual report for the year ending March

31, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Hyndman –– 4758

Milk Board annual report for the year ending December 31, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 4758

TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I would like the

House to join me today in welcoming to the House Mrs. Mary Kerr,

chairman of the B.C. Housing Management Commission.

MR. LEA:

I ask the House to join me today in welcoming two visitors from

Saskatchewan who are in the gallery. One is an old friend to most

members on this side of the House and I suspect to some on the other

side who have had to deal with Eiling Kramer, who was the Minister of

Highways in Saskatchewan for a number of years and served in the House

for 28 1/2 years, which proves masochism — we all know what that's all

about. With him today is his wife Dorothy.

HON. MR. SMITH:

I would ask the House to join in welcoming Miss Helene Minishka and her

executive and about 50 members of the Home and School Federation who

are visiting here today.

MR. MACDONALD: From

Vancouver East, I would like the House to pay welcome to Mrs. Betty

Greenall, who has been a community worker in that

section of the city

for many years in many projects and is well respected in the community.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are the new president of the Health

Labour Relations Association, Mr. Peter McAllister, his wife Ann-Louise

and their son Chris. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. HALL:

On behalf of the first member and myself, I'd like the House to welcome

students from Surrey who are visiting the House today as part and

parcel of the Crown Zellerbach organized visit to the assembly to see

us work. These students are accompanied by their teachers from Sur rev

and other areas, but I'd like particularly to welcome them from Surrey.

MR. REE:

In the precincts today, and they shall be visiting the chamber later,

we have 50 students from Carson Graham Secondary School in North

Vancouver. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mrs. A. Pound. I

would ask the House to welcome them today.

MR. MITCHELL:

Mr. Speaker, I would like you and the House to join with me in

welcoming Mrs. Melody Boyle, who is the president of the John Stubbs

home and school association. She is here today with her executive.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Would members join me in welcoming a good friend and a keen student of public policy, Miss Carol Gilmore, from Duncan.

MR. HOWARD:

We all in this chamber know how valuable and helpful constituency

secretaries are, and we probably don't take the opportunity to express

that appreciation to them as much as we should. So I'd like the House

to join with me today in welcoming a couple from Kitimat, Nick and Leni

Sluyter. Leni is our constituency secretary in Kitimat, and I'm sure

the House would appreciate that.

MR. COCKE: In line

with my colleague, the member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), I would also like

to extend a welcome to the students sponsored by Crown Zellerbach from

the Royal City. They're accompanied by their teachers, Maurice Knight

and Tony Hester. While I'm on my feet, there is a delegation of five

people from the home and school association in New Westminster I'd also

like the House to welcome.

MR. LEGGATT: I'd like the House to welcome a group of students from

Hastings Junior Secondary School, accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Bob

Cristofoli and Mr. Phil Wright. I'd also like to welcome a lady in the gallery

named Margaret Andrusiac, who happens to be one of the nicest ladies in the

province. I think we should all give her a special welcome.

Presenting Petitions

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker. I beg leave to present a petition.

Leave granted.

MR. REE: It's my pleasure to present the petition of the Montreal

Trust Co. and Montreal Trust Co. of Canada praying for the passing of

an act

intituled

An Act Respecting Montreal Trust Company and Montreal Trust Company

of Canada.

Mr.

Speaker. I move that the rules be suspended and the petition of

Montreal Trust Co. and Montreal Trust Co. of Canada be received.

Motion approved.

Oral Questions

SCHOOL TAX LEVY

MR. LAUK:

I have a question to the Minister of Education. Under

section 196(7) of

the School Act of this province, the minister is empowered to reduce

the basic levy for taxation on property on or before April 20 of this

year, contrary to the indications made to delegations to the minister

in recent days. Has the minister decided to lower the basic levy and

relieve the onerous tax burden oil homeowners in this province"

MR. SPEAKER: Is this a question which requires legislation?

HON. MR. SMITH:

The question is somewhat premature since the announcement on the final

basic mill rate levy is made in April. I really don't think. Mr.

Speaker, that the member who asked that question understands the

formula or understands also that many school districts in this

province, some 44 or more, are receiving more provincial basic

operating grant money this year than last year.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister will concede — if I don't understand

the basic levy — that there are hundreds of thousands of homeowners in

this province who are going to pay double and triple taxes, because

they do understand what the basic levy is. Has the minister decided to

lower the basic levy to relieve the onerous and unfair tax burden,

based on assessments this year to homeowners in the province?

[ Page 4736 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The first part of the question is in order.

HON. MR. SMITH: No final decision has been made, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: Does that mean that there is any possibility that it will be lowered?

MR. SPEAKER: That's a matter of future policy; the question is not in order. Next question, please.

ATTENDANCE OF DEPUTY MINISTER

AT SOCIAL CREDIT PARTY MEETING

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, to the Provincial Secretary, yesterday on page 586 of the Blues

the minister confirmed that Deputy Minister Heal attended the Social

Credit Party meeting at Harrison Hot Springs on government business.

This was confirmed by the deputy minister himself, who stated that he

regarded his appearance at the meeting as government business. Does the

minister confirm that his deputy minister was on legitimate government

business?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, as I recall

what I stated yesterday to the member, I ascertained that the item of

communications was on the agenda of that meeting and I felt it would be

helpful and appropriate for this person, who is knowledgeable in this

field, to attend. I invited him, if he chose to, to attend the meeting,

which I believe he did. It's as simple as that. I think Mr. Heal is

attempting to be very much up front and open in terms of our

communications policy. His information is available to any party, and

is also available to the press. The Leader of the Opposition laughs —

this supercilious smile always sitting there. We're used to this.

think I explained yesterday as well as I could that the item was on the

agenda. He appeared to answer questions and did so for a brief period.

He did not participate in the conference from the point of view of

policy, and departed forthwith. He is here to represent, in effect, all

ministries, although he works under my ministry, in developing a broad

range of communications policies for all ministries. In that capacity,

I think he has a different responsibility than other deputies in the

government.

MRS. DAILLY: The minister has not

answered the question I posed to him, which I want to just reiterate

again: was Mr. Heal on legitimate government business? As he did not

answer that, I would have to assume it was illegitimate government

business. Is that correct, I'd like to follow that with a question to

the minister....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I'd just like to point out, with respect to the member, that she's made

a reflection and what would be an inappropriate assertion for this

ministry and this minister. I'd ask her to withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER:

The breach of rule which was committed was that the hon. member asking

questions was making statements rather than asking questions. I must

ask the hon. member to ask questions during question period.

MRS. DAILLY:

I understand that the Provincial Secretary stated that Mr. Heal took

part in communications discussions. I wish to ask the minister if at

any time Mr. Heal also took

part in discussions specifically on the

image of the Premier with the public.

HON. MR. WOLFE: To my knowledge, the answer is no.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the time in question period is limited, and we have a member seeking the floor.

MR. HOWARD:

I too would like to direct a question to the Provincial Secretary — a

minister who in this subject matter seems to have an egg-shell

sensibility. Inasmuch as the minister has conceded and Mr. Heal has

also said that he was there on government business, has the minister

decided to disclose the full, unexpurgated, unedited transcript of Mr.

Heal's discussion with, and advice given to, that secret Social Credit

Party meeting?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I can only say what I

said yesterday. He attended for the purpose of answering questions to

help those interested in the subject to be better informed. I cannot

respond to the question he asked, because I don't know the answer to

it. There is no such thing.

MR. HOWARD: Perhaps I

should rephrase it. Has the minister decided, because Mr. Heal was

there on government business at the request of the minister, to provide

the general public and this assembly with an unedited, unexpurgated

transcript of what took place there? That's the question. If the

minister is unable to answer, perhaps all I can take from his

circumventing answer is that he has no intention of doing that. That's

shameful.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister has the question. It was asked in a slightly different form yesterday.

MR. LEA:

The Provincial Secretary has stated that in his opinion Deputy Minister

Heal was at Harrison Hot Springs in an official role as a deputy

minister for the province of British Columbia. Does the Premier now say today that Mr. Heal's expenses for that trip should be paid?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of saying anything. The Provincial

Secretary is quite able to speak for himself as to any invitation or

visitation that took place. I could properly suggest that you ask the

Provincial Secretary.

MR. LEA: A question

to the leaderless ship. To the Provincial Secretary: now that the

minister has confirmed that Mr. Heal indeed was at the meeting on

legitimate government business — he was not requested to go at his

pleasure, but told to go by the minister — are the expenses of Mr. Heal

going to be paid for the trip to Harrison Hot Springs?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, it seems fruitless to waste the time of the question

period going over questions that we answered yesterday. You keep

referring to it as

[ Page 4737 ]

official

government business and suggesting that the minister ordered Mr. Heal

to attend. I did no such thing. I saw the item on the agenda and

invited him. If he wished to go, he chose to go. Now you can interpret

it the way you do — which I'm sure you will — and you can call it

government business, if you will. He's anxious to make public the

information programs to all of the people of British Columbia. If you

wish to hear this matter discussed and hear a description of what he

wants to do, which has already been made public, I invite your party to

invite him to such a meeting that your party might hold.

Mr.

Speaker, I want to say one further thing. Mr. Heal has not submitted an

expense account and does not intend to submit one. There will be no

expense to the taxpayers for his visit to this meeting to answer

questions.

MR. LEA: The minister has now said that

Mr. Heal was not there in an official capacity as a deputy minister,

but was invited there as a citizen to attend the meeting and will

therefore not be putting in expenses. I'd like to know from the

Provincial Secretary how Mr. Heal could have refused to go. It's like

the general saying to the captain, "Look. would you mind going over the

wall now," and the captain says: "No, I'm afraid I don't feel like it

today."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member is debating rather than asking a question. Let's have the answer.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I don't know what kind of relationship this member had when he was a

minister of the Crown. Was he in a position where he directed, ordered

and instructed everybody in a "you do or else" manner in the typical

fashion of that party? That's not how I function with my employees.

We're functioning in a democracy where, if I invite a person to attend

if he wishes, it's his free decision to make, and I'm sure he would

make it. That's all I want to say.

MR. LEA: We have

already ascertained from the government and from the minister that the

deputy minister was there on official government business. Whether he

was told or invited to go, he was there on official government business

explaining, as the minister said, a government position paper or

policy. If he wasn't there doing that, what was he doing there? What

did Mr. Heal do at that convention that made it unofficial business as

a deputy minister?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I presume Mr.

Douglas Heal, like any other normal individual, enjoys spending some

time at a wonderful place like Harrison Hot Springs. And I invite any

of you, who have probably been there as well, to enjoy such an

experience. It's a wonderful resort. Let me tell you about it, Mr.

Speaker. I'm wondering whether that's where the former Deputy Minister

of Labour. Mr. Jim Kinnaird, attended NDP conventions, when they were

meeting perhaps at Harrison. It might be interesting to know.

MR. SPEAKER: The bell concludes question period. The next order of business.

HON. MR. CURTIS: If appropriate. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to some questions which were raised in question period several days ago.

Leave granted.

B.C. SYSTEMS CORPORATION

HON. MR. CURTIS: I refer the hon. members to page 4549 of Hansard .

This is in response to questions which were put to me at that time by

the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi). I will have to give

a little bit of the

preamble of the question in each case, but I will

keep it as brief as possible, Mr. Speaker.

To quote the

member opposite: "Last July the B.C. Systems Corporation announced they

were opting for the IBM main-frame architecture. I would like the

minister to tell the House what steps have been taken to dispose of $11

million worth of Honeywell equipment that presumably will become

surplus to the needs of the Systems Corporation."

Mr.

Speaker, the $11 million figure is in error. The NDP, when it was in

government here, contracted for some $8 million of Honeywell

architecture in 1975 — not $11 million, as was stated in the question.

Perhaps the member was mistaken, but he will have an opportunity to

explain that later. Further, that equipment has been depreciated at a

normal depreciation rate. It is now depreciated to approximately $2.6

million — that is as of 1980 — and as I've answered before, that

equipment is to be sold.

Later in question period the hon.

member said: "Can the minister confirm that the conversion to the IBM

main frame option that the Systems Corporation has opted for, which is

proposed to be completed by September of this year, will cost in excess

of $25 million more than what appears in the budget?"

Mr.

Speaker, the figure is completely incorrect. It is expected that the

Systems Corporation will face an out-of-pocket expenditure of $5.6

million, plus or minus. The member referred to a cost in excess of $25

million. I would think that in fairness I should point out that I've

emphasized the out-of-pocket figure; it could rise to another $1.5

million or $2 million within the Systems Corporation. But I emphasize

and underline for the member "out-of pocket."

The third question: "Can the minister confirm B.C. Systems Corporation staff has ballooned to nearly 600 people?"

Well,

Mr. Speaker, as of February 28 of this year there were 482 regular

employees and 39 auxiliaries, totalling 521. The authorized complement

is not far off the 600 to which the member referred. The authorized

complement, with some positions not filled, is 589.

The

other question, I think, Mr. Speaker, really referred to future policy,

and that is the inclusion of the B.C. Systems Corporation within the ambit of the Crown corporations reporting committee.

MR. HOWARD:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order relates to standing

order 16(2), which is the one that sets out the time limits with

respect to the division bells ringing. Yesterday in the Committee of

the Whole there was a considerable amount of difficulty with respect to

the bells not being heard in various parts of the building and so on,

and an undertaking was given by the Chairman in committee that he would

discuss this with you and seek to do it.

I wonder if Mr.

Speaker could advise the House now whether the bells are in order and

can be heard throughout the buildings in order that, when we get into

Committee of Supply, we will be bound by the provisions of standing

order 16(2) and be able to follow them.

[ Page 4738 ]

MR. SPEAKER:

I have two observations. First, matters of committee are not of concern

to the House, except through the report of the Chairman. The other

observation is to do with the bells, which have at various times rung

in various places. They were checked last evening through the 7 o'clock

to 8 o'clock hour — and I apologize for those of you who were having

dinner at that time — and as of this moment the bells appear to be in

order.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I didn't have

the opportunity of responding today during question period to an oral

question which I took as notice the other day, and I know the member

for Comox (Ms. Sanford) would like the answer as soon as possible.

Leave granted.

PCBs IN B.C. HOSPITALS

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

The member asked if any hospitals in the province had electrical

equipment which contained PCBs. I'm advised by ministry officials that

there are no hospitals in the province which contain transformers or

other equipment containing PCBs.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply: Mr. Davidson in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

(continued)

On vote 98: minister's office, $160,231.

MR. KING:

Mr. Chairman, I want to say how much the opposition appreciates

receiving a copy of the agreement which the minister finally and

somewhat reluctantly tabled with the House this morning. I want to go

through that agreement and seek some explanations from the minister

regarding the meaning of the agreement. As you will recall, this is the

agreement governing the trade of certain Crown lands on the coastal

area of the province with Pacific Logging lands on the Sunshine

Coast area and Vancouver Island. I couldn't help but notice that the

front of the agreement is marked with the word "confidential." I wonder

why that would be. The agreement was entered into last November, and it

involves approximately 5,000 acres of Crown land in a trade with

Pacific Logging. The minister said he saw no reason why the public

should not be brought into the confidence of the government with

respect to the wisdom of consummating this trade with Pacific Logging,

which is a subsidiary of Canadian Pacific. So I wonder why this word

"confidential" appears on the cover page of the document. Was it the

attempt of the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Lands, Parks and

Housing to hide the whole transaction from the public until the deal

had been completed? It would appear that way. The minister never

revealed the deal or the negotiations rather they were revealed by

someone at a lower level in the ministry who thought the public had a

right to know. One of my questions is: why is it marked confidential?

This is public business; this is public land. Why was there no

announcement by the minister that negotiations were taking place for

the proposed exchange of this very valuable Crown land?

page 2 of the agreement I read a definition. It says: "Pacific lands

means the land described in

schedule A. Provincial lands means the

lands identified by the parties under

article 2 and includes timber

standing on those lands." So Pacific Logging is clearly, according to

this agreement, receiving the land and the forest resource that stands

on that land. Why is there a discrepancy between the descriptions of

the provincial lands and Pacific land? The land that is being traded by

Pacific is identified just as "land described in

schedule A." It

doesn't refer to the forest resource at all.

My question to

the minister is: does Pacific Logging retain their cutting rights on

the land they are trading to the province, or does the lack of any

reference to the timber flow from the fact that the land has already

been totally logged? I pointed out very clearly to the minister this

morning that if the opposition and the public of the province are to

have any ability to make an intelligent judgment as to whether this

deal is a fair one and is good for the people of the province, then we

have to know what's involved. Certainly that discrepancy in the

definition of the two blocks of land that are being traded warrants

some clarification by the minister. Perhaps he'd like to comment on

those two points before I proceed further.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

The word "confidential," as the member states, is hand-written across

the top of the cover of this document I tabled today. I would assume

that it was written on there so that the document itself would be

confidential until such time as it was signed. Another reason could be

that this document is within ministry files, and the staff is not

authorized to release confidential documents without the authority of

the ministry. Quite often other documents are sensitive to corporate

activities or to the activities of the other party to the document, and

some are confidential. This one is obviously no longer confidential as

it has been tabled in the House.

The question as to lands.

It specifically states in the contract that Pacific Logging shall

acquire title to the timber, because in many cases land is sold and the

Crown retains the timber rights when it is sold. This is not the case

in this trade. Of course, the government will acquire the rights to the

timber on the lands being received from Pacific Logging.

MR. KING:

I don't want to belabour the point, but on the first point — the

confidentiality issue — I think the contract is dated November 1980.

It's obvious that it was the minister's intent to keep the negotiations

for this exchange of Crown land secret and confidential from the public

who own the land. The minister has failed to explain why he felt that

was necessary. Surely this was public business. It is a public

resource. I want to know why the minister felt it necessary to hide his

planned transaction with Pacific Logging.

This leads the

opposition to believe that there is more than a coincidence between the

timing of this transaction and the government's desperate need to

acquire the False Creek property in the City of Vancouver from CP Rail,

in order to accommodate their plans for B.C. Place and the Transpo '86

project. They were desperate to acquire those lands. It looks very much

to someone who is not overly cynical, I think, as if CP Rail has held

the government up to ransom through their preferred position in

bargaining terms. As a result, they've said: "Okay, we will deal on

False Creek land, but we want some well-stocked timber land on the Sunshine

Coast in return for providing the government with the ability to

proceed with a project they've already announced but lack the land to

accommodate."

[ Page 4739 ]

haven't received a satisfactory explanation from the minister as to why

he felt it was necessary to enter this negotiation and consummate this

agreement in secret from the public. I suppose we're not going to get a

satisfactory explanation from him.

The other point in the

agreement that I noticed and found interesting is: "The province shall

make personnel available to Pacific Logging to assist it to locate and

identify approximately 5,000 acres of land owned by the province in

coastal B.C., classified as forest land within the meaning of the

Forest Act." Pacific Logging, it would appear, is virtually writing its

own ticket with respect to this exchange of land, and using the

minister's staff to locate and identify well-stocked timber land that

will be acceptable to it. All the minister has offered us in the way of

justification is to say that, well, the province will in return receive

some valuable recreation land. He hasn't offered any identification of

the kind of recreation benefits that will accrue to the province. He

hasn't offered any economic cost-benefit analysis — not one whit of

evidence that the public interest is being served and furthered by

entering into this agreement. It's apparently just the political whim

of the minister and his colleagues.

I don't think the people

of the province trust the political whim of that minister or any other

minister. It's not good enough for him to come in here with his bland

statements and then stonewall with respect to giving a rationale for

entering the agreement in the first instance.

I'm intrigued too by

article 3 of the agreement,

section 3.02 states:

"If the values established by the appraisers" —

there's no appraisal until after the agreement is signed — "for the

provincial lands or the Pacific Lands, or either of them, differ by

more than 10 percent of the greater of the two values, the value shall

be determined by mutual agreement of the parties, but failing such

agreement, within ten days after obtaining the values from the

appraisers, the value shall be determined by reference to a single

arbitrator under the Arbitration Act."

question is this: why lock yourself into a deal with no analysis of the

relative values of the land that's being exchanged? Why lock the people

of the province into this kind of contract where after an independent

appraisal — which, incidentally, comes after the fact — it may be

revealed that the value of Crown lands being deeded to Pacific far

exceeds, by perhaps millions of dollars, the value of the recreational

land being acquired by the province? If it's found that there is that

kind of discrepancy, the minister hasn't got the right to say: "No, the

deal's not good enough, and I'm backing out." He's committed to it

anyway. What happens if there cannot be agreement with respect to

meeting a mutually acceptable level after the real value is known

through appraisal? Then it goes to arbitration. In other words, we're

committed to going ahead with it, regardless of how negative the deal

may be for the people of British Columbia. This is really a scandalous

business.

You know, it's ironic that this government call

themselves or used to like to — somewhat shrewd business entrepreneurs.

When we look at the mess that was made of the acquisition of False

Creek from CP Rail.... When we look at this kind of shoddy business

practice, in terms of protecting the interests of the province. I

suggest that they should go back to school. I don't believe that any

member of the executive council on that side would conduct this kind of

business when it came to his own personal assets, but they're prepared

to play fast and free with the assets of the people of the province.

It's a shameful kind of contract.

I want to ask the minister

to give a commitment today to the committee that this agreement, which

calls for final consummation on June 30 of this year, will not be

consummated until such time as the full appraisals on both parcels of

land and their timber assets are tabled for study in this Legislature,

so that the members in this House and the public of the province of

British Columbia might have an opportunity to know precisely who is

getting the best of this particular deal. I ask for that commitment

from the minister. Otherwise you're committing the people to a deal in

an absolutely blind fashion, with no ability whatsoever to assess its

merits. I ask for an undertaking that the minister will table those

appraisals when they come in, before this deal is finally consummated.

I would appreciate having the minister respond to that request.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Assuming that the Legislature will still be sitting at that time. I'm

more than happy to give my commitment to table the appraisals in the

Legislature: if not, to make them available to the public or the

members by whatever means he may suggest.

The member is

going on at great length about this secret deal. He's trying to say

that we wouldn't make such a deal if it were our own land. Well, I'll

tell you. Mr. Member, if I could make this type of deal for myself, I

would do it in a moment, because the government cannot lose. We are

obtaining twice as much land as is Pacific Logging. The value of the

properties will be determined by independent appraisals. If the member

would read

section 4.01, it states that:

"If

the value established for the provincial lands under

article 3" — which

the member quoted — "exceeds the value of the Pacific Lands established

under

article 3, Pacific shall on the completion date pay an amount

equivalent to that excess to the province. If the Pacific Lands.

however, exceed the value of the provincial lands, Pacific shall not be

entitled to any compensation for that excess."

The

government cannot lose, as long as the appraisals are fair and

equitable and are being done by independent appraisers. The member

smiles. If I had 10,000 acres of land and could make that type of deal,

I certainly would do it. The Government is getting a good deal. The

secrecy of this document.... A joint press release went out on November

14 advising of this trade arrangement. It's been public knowledge.

There's no secrecy. The document is now tabled in the Legislature. The

values are determined, the deal will be consummated. I'll give the

member my undertaking that the appraisals will be fully disclosed to

the public through whatever means he may wish.

MR. KING:

I thank the minister for his further information, but I would remind

him that we're not dealing with a dwelling: we're dealing with forest

lands which Pacific Logging has held for years and years. As was

explained to the minister this morning, if that land which the province

is acquiring has already been totally logged by Pacific Logging and

perhaps not replanted, the province is in fact inheriting a liability

in terms of restocking that forest land. I don't know that such is the

case, and apparently neither does the minister. So how on earth is an

appraiser going to make that kind of

[ Page 4740 ]

evaluation

— that kind of calculation? What are the relative rotation cycles for

the forest crops on the two parcels of land? In terms of evaluation,

these are the things that should be known to the public before we are

committed to the deal. I would think that if a person in the private

sector, whether it was a homeowner or any other type of businessman,

were interested in either selling or trading an asset or facility, an

appraisal would be sought before a deal were negotiated, so that we

would not be talking about apples and oranges in terms of a trade, but

about assets of relative value and similarity.

The problem

here is that the minister has no information to offer the Legislature

on why the deal is justified in the first place. All he has said is:

"Well, we're getting some land with recreational value." Well, I

suppose so. Any chunk of real estate in the province of British

Columbia today has value, and most of it has some recreational value.

But when it comes to the point of equating a recreational potential

against a forest timber harvest potential, it's no contest.

MR. MACDONALD: Not at the bank, anyway.

MR. KING:

"Not at the bank" — and the Minister of Forests should know that better

than anyone else. We just don't have this kind of information. I think

it's shocking that the minister himself apparently doesn't know what

he's getting into. He's waiting for an evaluation. What are the terms

of reference of the evaluation? Are they going to look at it like any

chunk of real estate, or are they people trained in forest appraisals?

What's the value of the forest inventory on the Crown land? What is the

state of the forest inventory, if any, on the Pacific Logging land that

we are acquiring? This is the kind of information that should be

available to the House. I can see we're not going to get it. It grieves

me to think that any minister of the Crown....

The

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) is used to stonewalling, and I

know that he doesn't like questions. He usually conducts a little

in-house inquiry in his own ministry when the going gets too hot for

him. But if he wants to join this debate, tell him to get up on his

feet. He's been stonewalling for years with internal investigations

inside his own ministry. Now he wants to come in here and cover for his

colleague. Shame on him! We know how it is with renegade Liberals.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

I don't know whether the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke spent too long

in a locomotive engine tooting his whistle and he's gone deaf, or he's

just plain dumb. I've been through this for him a number of times. No,

you can't compare apples and oranges, Mr. Member, but you can compare

the value of apples with the value of oranges. That's what evaluation

and appraisal of the value of land does. Do you understand that?

MR. KING: After the fact.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

No land trades have been made, Mr. Member. All we've done is agree on

the terms by which we will arrive at an agreement. That can't be too

difficult for the member to understand. The lands that Pacific Logging

and the Crown will get have value. This value consists of the real

estate value, if for another use, and it consists of the timber values

— and the age of the timber helps to determine the value of the timber

on the land. As far as I am aware right now, most if not all of the

land which has been harvested is restocked. That juvenile and immature

timber has value which will be related in the appraisal. Its value will

be much less than the current value of mature timber. Those values

related to dollars and cents — the medium by which we compare values in

this country — can and will be determined by very reputable people in

the appraisal business who have full knowledge of the values of timber

and of forest land. As that immature timber continues to grow after we

acquire the land, the value will continue to be enhanced.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

I don't know if that's a sign of recognition that he finally understood

something or if he's just going to go back and start grinding the same

old organ again and again. I'll say it this last time, Mr. Member. The

value of the land, before any trades are finally made, will be

determined in a fair and impartial way by independent appraisal people

knowledgeable in the field. Once that has taken place and the values

are determined.... I'll read

section 4.01 again:

"If

the value established for provincial lands...exceeds the value of

the Pacific Lands established under

article 3, Pacific shall on

completion date pay an amount equivalent to that excess to the

province. If, however, the Pacific Lands exceed the value of the

provincial lands, Pacific shall not be entitled to any compensation for

that excess."

I would hope that the latter is the case,

because that means that we're getting an even better deal. If the

Pacific lands are worth more, they have to pay us money in addition to

our getting twice as much acreage as they have. The value for forestry

is not just the value for standing timber; it's the productivity value

of the land to grow timber. And timber is growing and there are

recreational values, lakefronts and ski hills. There are lands which

can be put to great use by the people of Vancouver Island. I think it's

great when we can transfer some private ownership from Vancouver Island

— where there's a great demand for public use of lands — to the

mainland where the demand is much less.

Mr. Chairman, we

cannot lose. If I owned the land that the Crown owns and had an

opportunity to make such a trade, I would jump at it in a moment. I'm

sure the members opposite would as well. The appraisal is underway. No

trades will be made until the appraisals are completed, and it will be

value for value with the exception that we may get some additional

dollars in addition to the two-for-one trade in land that we're getting.

You

can get up, Mr. Member, and go through it again and again, but that is

the way it is. Anyone who wishes to read this agreement will understand

fully that it's a very good deal for the Crown and for the people of

British Columbia.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I really

didn't need the condescending lecture from the minister. He may resent

the fact that I'm going to be up grinding the same old organ again but,

yes, indeed I shall until I get the monkey off the public's back. In

this case, it'll be as long as it's necessary to grind the organ.

The

minister may well be right in terms of it being a good deal for the

province. I hope it is, but the problem is that the minister doesn't

seem to understand that he has entered a deal

[ Page 4741 ]

without

any data base whatsoever to demonstrate whether it's a good, bad or

indifferent deal. He's provided none to the Legislature and there's

none contained in the contract. Indeed, this contract does commit us to

the land exchange. Yes, it does provide for an evaluation and

additional payment by Pacific Logging if the land the Crown is trading

is found to have a larger value.

The kind of information I

want is whether or not the forest crop is being taken into

consideration in this evaluation. Mr. Chairman, he hasn't provided the

House with the terms of reference of the evaluator at all. He talked

about the value of a young forest crop. Of course we all know that that

has value. We also all know that the potential value of a young forest

crop, which may mature 30 or 40 years hence, is a far lower value than

a mature forest crop that exists on the Crown lands now that are being

deeded over to Pacific Logging. The minister comes here and asks us to

accept his agreement apparently on faith and trust. Certainly I am not

prepared to do that. I don't believe that that minister or his

colleagues are that astute in the marketplace, and I believe that the

public has a right to know when the assets that are being traded and

wheeled and dealed with on the market belong to the people.

don't imagine that we're going to get anywhere with the minister on

this matter, but he's done a very poor job of providing the House and

the public of the province with any justification for entering this

deal in the first instance. There is no data base or detail whatsoever,

just some assurance by the minister that we're going to obtain some

valuable recreational land. There's nothing to back it up with.

We're

going to have an appraisal after we're committed to the deal. If it's

not a good deal then, if we're trading away more valuable land than

we're receiving, we'll get more money from Pacific Logging. But if they

can't agree, then it goes to arbitration. In arbitration anything can

happen on this kind of exchange. There's slim protection for the public

of the province of British Columbia. Mr. Chairman, unless my colleague

wants to offer something on this, I'm going to leave this subject

because I don't imagine we're going to get anything more from the

minister. We simply agree to disagree on the matter. I'm concerned that

he wouldn't be more forthcoming with the public.

We've been

talking in pretty general terms regarding the total administrative duty

of the ministry. There are one or two other things I want to bring up

of a regional and local nature as we get into the votes. I want to say

specifically on vote 98 — the minister's office vote — that I see some

cost increases that concern me greatly. I refer to a number of votes

here that seem to have accelerated in rather spectacular fashion. I

would ask the minister if he's prepared to justify the kind of cost

increases we see here under his office vote. I draw his attention

particularly to building occupancy charges, vote 104. This has been

mentioned but not dealt with in detail previously. Last year's

appropriation for building occupancy charges was $3,156,000. It's up

in this year's estimate to $10,392,117.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Is it the intention of the member to cover all votes in one? I would

remind him that we are on vote 98 at this time. You are at this point

discussing vote 104.

MR. KING: No, vote 98. It's No. 104 within vote 98, the minister's office.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Vote 104, building occupancy charges, is separate from vote 98.

MR. KING:

I beg your pardon. Under the general vote I see an increase in computer

and consulting charges, building occupancy charges, and such things as

office furniture. On vote 98 particularly, I'd like to refer the

minister to the increase in the office furniture that we see and ask

him why this is justified: office furniture and equipment — up from

$1,000 to $2,172 office expenses — up from $5,000 to $8,688: travel

expenses — up from $19,477 to $27,150. This is quite a substantial

increase over the previous budget. Mr. Chairman. we've had very onerous

increases in taxation this year I wonder why we lee the rather high

percentage increases in these particular votes that in no way relate to

the real and necessary administrative functions of the minister's

office. I would ask him to comment on that.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Chairman. we did discuss this same matter yesterday. I mentioned at

that time that travel expenses have been increased because we actually

didn't budget enough last year to cover what the actual expenses were.

So we've increased the request to more closely relate to what we

anticipate are actual expenditures for the year. Office furniture and

equipment — from $1,000 to $2,172. I guess there's some furniture

getting worn out in my office that may require replacement, Mr. Member

— the cost of equipment, such as typewriters and so on. I haven't

talked to my secretary lately, but as the budget is drawn up we try to

anticipate what expenditures we'll be having for furniture and

equipment in the office, and perhaps she's worn out her typewriter. I

really can't be specific about it.

The item that is included

this year that wasn't last year is salaries for temporary replacement

and periods of overload work. That wasn't included last year but is

this year to more closely reflect the actual operation of my office.

MR. KING:

I can appreciate that perhaps some of the minister's furniture is

getting a little worn and well used, but I would suggest to the

minister that in a year in this province where we've seen virtually

every government service to the public increased to provide additional

revenue to the government and where we see the cost of homes in

Vancouver accelerating beyond the ability of young people to acquire a

home, perhaps he could cut a few corners too. Perhaps he could pull in

his belt, as he and his government colleagues are fond of telling the

public to do. Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I would move that vote 98 be

reduced by$12,533, restraining the particular articles I've

discussed at their last year's level and showing some restraint by this

government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the amount

indicated is somewhat of an unusual amount to that usually referred in

such a motion, but barring anything unforeseen the motion will proceed.

MR. KING:

I would just draw the attention of the Chair to a precedent that has

been established for the reduction of various votes by varying amounts,

sometimes to $1, sometimes by $1, in one instance a reduction to $3 —

and I think the significance of that was explained at the time.

The

motion stands on its own merits. This is not a large amount to reduce

the minister's office vote by, but I think it's salutary in nature. It

would speak to the public of a government recognizing that perhaps

revenue might not be what they would like this coming year and a

government being prepared to pull in their belts and suffer a little

bit along with

[ Page 4742 ]

the

overburdened taxpayers out there through the length and breadth of this

province. I suggest the minister and his colleagues support this

amendment.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 26

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 27

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Mr. King requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. MACDONALD:

I just want to add a word to what's been ably said by the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) about the Pacific Logging transaction. I

hope the minister is listening. I think it's very regrettable that you

went into the transaction so quickly and committed yourself. I think

it's a great mistake not to have made use of your Forest Service to

determine whether it's a good deal or not — a respected, trusted body

that could evaluate the two parcels of land, which are very large in

this case, so that we might know whether or not this was a giveaway to

the CPR.

I want to put the other point I want to make down

in the records of the committee. You have given vast power to two

private appraisal firms to evaluate 5,000 acres that are going to be

selected as timber land on the Sunshine Coast and, on the other

hand, a very motley collection, including mountaintops, lakes, some

timbered property and some potential recreational property. The

appraisers who try to sort that one out ought to have full appraisals

and give their reasons in detail. What is laid before the Legislature

should not be just a final-figure result, which would be totally

unacceptable, but should include reasons in detail, dealing with the

different kinds of land. Frankly, I don't understand how you can

evaluate land that is going out of logging and into recreational use

and take its value and compare that with merchantable timber. At any

rate, it should be spelled out in full in those appraisals. You've

given vast power to two private firms. You've told them to go off in a

corner, and you've kind of given them an invitation to agree by saying:

try and come within 10 percent of each other. I think it's an

abdication of public responsibility. When you've got a Forest Service

that's as well respected as yours, Mr. Minister, you ought to have used

it and have some idea what you've gotten into. Coming from a public

body of that kind, that would protect the public interest.

MR. MITCHELL:

I would like to review some of the applications and requests that I

made to the minister last year. It's not that I'm trying to stake out

my own constituency of a group to defend or policies to promote — BCRIC

is being well defended and the CPR has had many spokesmen today for

their cause.

There is one group of citizens in this province

which is becoming larger and larger every day. That is the group of

people who are using wood as a fuel. With the high cost of oil today,

there are more and more citizens turning to wood as a substitute to

help with their heating bills. Not a week goes by without one of my

three constituency offices receiving phone calls to ask about some

location where they can go out and harvest wood for firewood. Every

week, when I phone the ministry or the local ranger, I am continually

told that there is no wood available. Mr. Chairman, the minister knows

more than anyone else in this House the vast amount of merchantable

salvage wood that is burned every year in the bush prior to

reforestation.

I feel it's imperative that the minister give

some leadership not only to his own ministry and to timber harvest on

Crown lands, but also to the logging industry to make available to the

citizens of this province some of the slash and some of the

merchantable, recoverable timber that is presently lying as waste in

the woods or is being burned each year.

I know that the

minister will say that a lot of this land is private land. But a lot of

this land, Mr. Minister, is also being subsidized by the public,

because when they're collecting their stumpage, they are allowed to

deduct their roadways, their reforestation and many of the costs of

harvesting or maintaining this tree-farm licence. So I feel that the

province has a right to say that some of this wood should be made

available to the many people who are burning wood, and the many people

who are not only burning it but who want to go out and harvest it,

salvage it and sell it. There is a small group of citizens who work

hard in the woods; they are prepared to go out and salvage cedar, or

the thinnings out of the areas that are being thinned, and to recut

some of the broken logs into timber.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

ask, Mr. Minister, that you give some leadership within your ministry —

that you set up a task force to show that this timber should be

salvaged and not wasted, so that the people who are utilizing wood for

fuel have an opportunity to get into the woods. Many senior citizens

who do burn wood can't go out themselves, but they are more than ready

to buy it from someone who is prepared to go out and salvage it.

know there are all kinds of excuses being made — that we can't do it

because this is private land or this is tree-farm licence or because

there may be some vandalism in the woods. I realize all that; we've

heard those arguments for the last 50 years. Any time that we wanted to

develop a multi-use policy in our forests.... To those who wanted to do

hunting, for years and years, Forests said: "We cannot allow the

hunters in there because of vandalism." But with public education and

with the cooperation of many sports groups, we did get the utilization

of the forest lands for hunting. We're getting better access into the

same lands for hikers and

[ Page 4743 ]

campers

under different circumstances. I think we are now at the point, because

of the OPEC nations and the high cost of fuel, where we must develop a

policy within this province of getting out there and salvaging what is

being wasted and burned year after year. I say on behalf of the

constituency people who are phoning my office week after week. who are

talking and writing to me — and I imagine if they're doing it to me,

they're also doing it to many other members — that we must develop that

policy, and that policy can't be put off year after year.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

I couldn't agree more with the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. It is

difficult to allow access to as much fuel wood as the public would

like. The current system is that the Forest Service attempts to define

areas where fuel-wood cutting can take place, and this information is

usually available at our district offices. We've had difficulty meeting

all the demands. So we are trying to expand ways of doing that, and

this business of getting into logged areas, into landings where perhaps

small tops are left, into areas that have been thinned and spaced....

All of these things are possible. and the ministry is trying to develop

a more comprehensive policy for making sure that as many people as

possible can have their fuel wood needs satisfied.

The

member will recall that last year we did have a minor amendment to the

Forest Act which gave us the right to issue various licences and

permits over areas that had been harvested for the purpose of

commercial salvage, but also for fuel-wood gathering. We're still

trying to get the mechanics in place of how that can be done. The

member would also recognize the fact that we have to pay considerable

attention to the hazards that people are confronted with in their

fuelwood gathering endeavours. I would have no hesitation if I knew a

person were a competent logger and knew how to handle both equipment

and also the hazards of the actual logged areas. Therefore, I guess, we

have to have some ways of getting people who are less experienced into

places where the hazards are less, and find other ways for the more

hazardous areas, Of course during the dry time of the year there is

also the problem of fire hazard.

I know the member will

agree that it's quite justifiable to not allow any fuel-gathering

during the closures of the forests. We are trying to expand the

availability of fuel wood to the average person, under a fuel-wood

permit at no cost to him. As the year goes on, we hope to be able to

expand it and make it possible for more people to gather wood. If after

having talked to people in his constituency, the member has any

suggestions about detailed ways of improving that, I'd be very happy to

hear from him.

MR. MITCHELL: I have one short suggestion for the minister. One of the problems that happened when

some of the commercial groups were salvaging.... The ministry did bring

in a regulation. Up until a couple of years ago, in one particular firm

the owner was a qualified log scaler: he had his provincial ticket.

Then they brought in a policy that the timber had to be brought out and

scaled by a provincial scaler each day before 4:30. This was kind of a

hindrance to this particular operation, because they were 20 miles back

in the bush. By the time they loaded up to get out at 4:30...It

meant they had to shut down at 2 o'clock in the afternoon. I'm

suggesting that the ministry sit down with some of the people who are

in the business, draft some type of regulation that they can live with,

so that the people can be qualified to do their own scaling. I know

that the ministry, the sales department and everybody else can do some

spot-checking to make sure that the scale they are putting in is honest

and truthful. An honest and straightforward policy should be developed

so that the people out there can work within the new regulations.

There are some regulations that must be brought in for the larger

corporations. But for the smaller groups who are actually out there

doing the hard work, who haven't the highly technical equipment to go

with it, regulations should be drafted for that group.

think there is a large group out there who are prepared to go out and

harvest it and produce the shakes. There is an unending market in the

States for cedar shakes and for many products that are now being

burned. I think, Mr. Minister, that if you can sit down with these

groups, it would be a beginning. From there, you can go into the home

group that are harvesting timber for themselves.

MR. LORIMER:

For a few moments I would like to take the minister's memory back a few

months to the Riley Creek case in the Charlottes, where slides occurred

due to the logging practices in that area. To me, the unfortunate thing

about that particular slide was the fact that the minister really did

nothing. The only group prepared to assist in saving the fishery

resource were the federal fishery officers who took action in that

particular case. I realize there are Riley Creeks of varying severity

throughout the province, that rivers are being polluted and destroyed;

the habitats for fish are being destroyed by the construction of roads

and so on by many of the forest companies.

There are two

things I would like to know. First, are the Minister of Environment

(Hon. Mr. Rogers) and the Minister of Forests able to come to an

agreement on a number of these areas? It would seem to me that both the

forest resource and the fish resource are quite compatible. All it

needs is some reasonable management in both cases, and then fisheries

and forestry can live side by side and both do very well.

I would like to ask the minister whether there has been a change in

policy regarding your cutting standards: whether there has been any

action taken as a result of the Riley Creek episode: and whether we can

be convinced that Riley Creeks will no longer happen. Maybe the

minister can tell us.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Unfortunately, I cannot guarantee that at some point in the future there

will not be slides as a resultof forestry activity. I can't guarantee

that such slides will not have an effect on rivers, but where there's

an interface between Fisheries, Forests and other values, all the

planning is done in consultation and cooperation with other agencies,

including provincial Fish and Wildlife people and federal Fisheries

people.

The situation at Riley Creek, which we went through

at great length in the Legislature last year, was unfortunate.

Consultation had been taking place with federal Fisheries people,

provincial Fish and Wildlife people and my ministry right through the

process of approvals in that area, which began back in the early

seventies. Cutting in that area actually began under the previous

government and progressed along. The particular cutting permit in

question, CP151 — I believe that was the number of it — was where the

slide started. It started after all the planning and development work

had been done in consultation and cooperation. One individual in the

federal Fisheries branch in the area asked for a stoppage immediately

after that heavy rain and flooding in 1978. It was

[ Page 4744 ]

too

late to stop then, and special precautions were taken which were

supposed to prevent material from getting to the creek. Unfortunately

they weren't adequate and some material did get into the creek.

issue in the order of 6,000 cutting permits a year. Sometimes we make

mistakes, and I guess we will in the future, but we don't make them

intentionally. But the value of that incident was that a much better

and more formalized working arrangement has been developed between

federal Fisheries people and our people in order to resolve differences

of opinion in areas where it's a judgment value — and we do have

differences. That working relationship has improved considerably as a

result of that, and I hope it will continue to be good.

MR. HOWARD:

We oftentimes have difficulty in appreciating what the needs are in

forestry because there's a tendency to look at forestry in a rather

confined time-frame. Many people don't appreciate the length of time it

takes for a conifer or evergreen to grow and become merchantable

timber. I think in order to appreciate where we are today in forestry

it's necessary to continuously look to our history and past practices,

both in government and in the forest industry itself, and perhaps try

to identify what some of the problems are today. From reading about it

in the earlier years in B.C., in the 1920s and 1930s standard logging

practice was the so-called clear-cut approach — or cut out and get out,

in a less friendly way. A great deal of Vancouver Island and a great

deal of what is now called the Sunshine Coast was logged in

that fashion. With the activities of groups like the old Campbell River

Timber Co., who just went in and cut tree after tree of virgin growth

timber and had no thought for the future because there was an unlimited

supply of trees in front of them, the area around Campbell River was

almost like desert land at one time.

At that time some few

lone voices were decrying that practice and suggested alternatives. In

the post-war period the late Chief Justice Gordon Sloan was a royal

commissioner into forests in B.C. He conducted a very extensive royal

commission examination on forestry and came along with what I think was

the primary recommendation in that report: that the forest resource in

British Columbia needed to be managed in such a way that there was

timber available for future generations.

The government of

the day was another coalition government of Liberals and Conservatives

who read the report of Chief Justice Sloan about forest management to

mean that the management of the forests should be turned over to

private industry and that private industry could manage the forests

best because they worked with them and in them every day.

Accordingly,

the Forest Act at that time contained provision for things which were

then called "forest management licences," later transformed into

"tree-farm licences" and other similar names. The first forest

management licence in the province was extended to a company in my

hometown of Terrace — Columbia Cellulose Co. It gave Columbia Cellulose

Co. three-quarters of a million acres, I believe, of noncompetitive

timber on the understanding that they would build a pulpmill, which

they did at Prince Rupert, and also on the understanding that it would

be managed so that future generations would continue to have logs

available to them.

There is some serious doubt as to whether

that particular management program has been effective. There is also

serious doubt because, while Columbia Cellulose was the first company

to receive a forest management licence in this province, it wasn't the

last. Company after company — even those who said they would never

apply for such a licence — found themselves in the position of having

to. Gradually over the years more and more companies received licences

to large blocks of forest land which they had unto themselves on a

non-competitive basis forever.

That also contributed to the

disappearance of the small business person in the logging industry,

first on the coastal area and then later in the interior areas. They

were the ones that had to compete for timber through timber sales. The

small operator found that groups like MacMillan Bloedel, Powell River

Co., B.C. Pulp and Paper and others who held timber licences of

non-competitive timber virtually in perpetuity could enter the market

and bid against a timber sale that a small logger would be interested

in. With the resources behind corporations like Columbia Cellulose and

Powell River Co., as it was at that time — multi million-dollar

integrated companies — it was of no consequence to them financially to

bid the price of timber up to a point where it would be uneconomical to

the small logger, but inconsequential to the large company. By that

process they gradually consolidated control and drove the small guy out

of business.

The trend to bigger companies also brought with

it concepts about the need to have larger pieces of logging equipment.

Even though this trend was always there on the coast, it expanded into

the interior area. The capital required for such operations

necessitated using that equipment to the maximum in terms of getting

wood out of the bush, but not using it most efficiently insofar as

conservation of the forest resource was concerned. We really had for a

long period of time — and still do in some areas — the same "cut out

and get out" concept that existed in the twenties and thirties in this

province. This time it's sanctioned and organized and structured in a

way that is accepted by a great many people and presumably accepted by

the Forest Service

Earlier this morning we had some brief

discussion about MacMillan Bloedel, Noranda Mines and other companies

and the amount of forest resource that they are able to hold and have

control over. It seems to me that the Forest Service, the minister or

the government has accepted, without question, the idea that bigness is

the way to go. I want to submit, though, that there is plenty of

opportunity — and it should be made available — for the small operator

or the small businessman interested in the logging or log processing

business to be able to get his hands on some timber and to operate in

that small way.

well, we need to impart the idea of

farming forests rather than simply reaping the harvests that nature

develops, both into the departmental philosophy and into the concept of

the general public and the acceptance by the general public. We're

partway there with the idea of planting seedlings, but we haven't taken

the

other step of managing the growth of those seedlings as a farmer would

manage the growth of a crop which he produces annually.

give you an example of that, there are some trees planted in the

corridor between Terrace and Kitimat that was clearcut by Crown

Zellerbach, I believe, and Powell River Co. or MacMillan Bloedel might

have been one of the others. I'm not sure of the companies, in any

event. They took the approach of cleaning that valley out on a clearcut

basis. I think that was a wise move, because there was a great deal of

overmature timber, according to the assessment of it, which was

substantially correct as the logging proceeded. I had

[ Page 4745 ]

heard

references to some of the logs taken out of some patches in that area a

number of years back that were up to 50 percent rot. The Forest Service

and the companies perceived that the way to go was to get the good and

rotten timber out and clean the area so that it would be available for

transplanting or for natural regeneration. Transplanting was undertaken

in that area. As you drive by that area between Terrace and Kitimat,

you see from the highway what looks like a fairly good stock of growing

hemlock and spruce, but which I'm told could result in about a 50

percent loss of the new growth in that area.

That

loss

results from the fact that no weeding or thinning took place. Some of

those trees, in their desperate bid to grow and compete with alder and

other broadleaf trees, are spindly, top-heavy with growth and insecure

in their root systems. That will lead to losses of probably 50 percent

of what exists there now. I don't know whether that's correct or not.

I'm advised by people in the area who are in the logging business that

that will likely be the case. They think that the alternative at this

point — and this prospect doesn't attract me tremendously — might be to

spray the area with defoliants and destroy the broadleaf trees with

2,4-D or one of those chemical sprays. As I say, that prospect doesn't

attract me, knowing what we do about the effect of those kinds of

chemical defoliants, but this is argued as the thing that may be

necessary.

The point I'm trying to make with the minister....

I'm

sure the minister appreciates that I'm not saying this in a critical

sense, or whatever. I'm saying this in a way of trying to examine

publicly what we need to do. I submit that what we need to do is to

treat — perhaps not our entire forest land at one fell swoop in this

fashion — those areas and portions which are amenable and susceptible

to it as a farmer would treat a farm; that is, to care for, to

cultivate, to weed and thin it, and to make sure that when those trees

do get to maturity they get there in the shortest possible period of

time with good solid growth on them, with the result being that the

timber harvested in the future is of sound, high quality. If we treat

our forests in that fashion and move in that direction by enticing

smaller operators to get into the practice of dealing with our forests

on a farming basis rather than the "cut out and get out" concept that

exists in far too great a proportion in the forest industry, in my view,

we will be serving the interests of future generations far more than

they have been served in the past and far more than I think they are

being served now — not being served in a practical, natural sense, but

being served in a conceptual sense. I think this is something that

really needs to got through to the whole of society, and to the logging

and sawmilling and pulping industries. We need to do more than just pay

lip service to the idea that we'd like to have trees growing there

somewhere in the future. We should be doing something about it in a

real, practical sense, and I suggest that the concept of agricultural

development in use of forest lands is the way to go.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

I don't think there's much to add to what the member said. I have to

largely agree that that type of trend is going to be the way of the

future. In fact, that's exactly what the five-year planning is all

about — more intensive ongoing management of forest plantations. That

area he speaks about in the Kitimat valley is probably one of the most

productive forest sites in the province. It's extremely good

timber-growing land. I spent some time up there last fall. I flew over

a lot of that area in a helicopter, was on the ground and, of course,

drove up the highway. There are some excellent plantations. It won't be

long before some of them need thinning. I believe that to a large

extent they're above the brush; there may be some examples where some

brushing is required. Of course, these applications will be carried out

as they're needed. The best return you get is in the high-site forest

land such as that. I would ask the member, though, to perhaps talk to

the council up there as I have, regarding the status of the Kitimat

valley insofar as provincial forest classification is concerned.

These

treatments we talk about are very expensive. They're worthwhile if you

can have reasonable assurance that the land will be maintained in

timber production. There are suggestions that there be industrial parks

in the valley. Sure, these can be accommodated. If at the time they do

materialize, we have to remove some land from timber production, a cost

benefit analysis would probably justify that for an industrial park. In

the meantime we have to justify the expenditure. We can insofar as the

growing site is concerned, but I would certainly appreciate support for

provincial forest status in that valley. I believe public hearings on

the establishment of that provincial forest will be happening within

the next few months.

Yes,

I agree that we should farm our

forest. That was the concept when tree-farm licences were issued, in

fact. In spite of some variations, they have provided us with one of

the

best levels of management we have. The woodlot concept, combining

small-parcel private with provincial lands to intensively remanage

smaller areas is another thing that we're getting along with. Of

course, at the present time we're trying to work out a program of

assistance and advice to private landowners, to encourage them to put

some of their marginal agricultural land back into timber production —

which is, in any case, probably a better use for it. The concept of

farming our forests is basic and the direction in which we're moving.

MR. HOWARD:

Apropos the proposition that there be a provincial forest established

in the Kitimat-Terrace valley, the minister knows the arguments on the

other side that basically say, oh, if it becomes a provincial forest,

then the land is locked in forever, they can't find the key, and we'll

never be able to get it out again to do something else with it. I don't

buy those arguments. I'm partial to the multi-purpose use of land. In

order to get to that point, though, I think you must start from the

point of preservation and conservation and ensure that land is retained

as forest land to produce a renewable resource. If it's necessary and

found desirable, taking all the other factors of a balanced use of land

into account, to use a portion of that forest for another industrial

purpose, then you could accommodate it at that time. But if you go in

the direction of saving — no. It's not going to be a provincial forest. It's going to be an industrial corridor — like the Ruhr valley concept

all the way from Kitimat up to Terrace — then you'll never get it back

into forest land if you desire to do it. It's far better to hang onto

it in that concept.

I have no hesitation whatever in

endorsing the provincial forest concept, and I know full well that

there are others who have a different point of view. To me, that's the

starting point — the preserving point — and that's where it should

stay. Alterations to that policy should come alone later on, on an

accommodating basis and not just to satisfy the growling demand of

somebody to see a smokestack belching smoke out of some place, as

distinct from a logging, sawmilling and pulping operation.

[ Page 4746 ]

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to raise a couple of questions with the

minister. One of them affects all of those constituencies that are

along the Fraser River. For some time now it's been a major problem on

the Fraser to have some kind of decent clean-up for driftwood that lies

on the shores of the Fraser and deadheads that are constantly in the

river. I realize that's not the minister's primary responsibility,

although he has some input on the subject. There has been a dam

constructed at Crescent Island — I believe with the sponsorship of the

Council of Forest Industries — which has apprehended a good deal of the

driftwood that comes into the Fraser. It nevertheless continues to be a

very serious problem, particularly for boaters and fishermen who have

no access to a good number of the bars that are situated along the

Fraser as a result of the activities that take place in the forests

under the minister's jurisdiction.

I want to ask the

minister a couple of questions which are directly related to this.

Firstly, what has this minister done with regard to clean-up of the

waterways, particularly in the lower mainland where there are more

people trying to get access to that river than probably any other area?

What has the ministry done with regard to clean-up? It seems to me that

we have in this province probably the most important new source of

energy, which is firewood. If you look at the new subdivisions that are

being constructed, almost all of them now contain zero-clearance

fireplaces or Fisher fireplaces. The whole question of firewood is

becoming more and more important. Yet in my constituency we live right

next to a river with literally masses of wood products that are lying

useless on the banks of the Fraser River. It seems to me the minister

should take a leadership position in terms of organizing a method of

obtaining....

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order,

if my counting is correct, it appears that we do not have a quorum — at

least we did not a moment ago, Mr. Chairman. We do, I note, with the

arrival of one member.

MR. LEGGATT: It's a pleasure to see that the Minister of Finance is really on his toes today. This must be the first time this session.

AN HON. MEMBER: Cheap shot.

MR. LEGGATT: Was that a cheap shot?

Mr.

Chairman, I hope the minister will respond to this. Perhaps he wanted

to consult with his officials in terms of what kind of programs are

going to be available to assist people in obtaining firewood from the

banks of the Fraser River and other major rivers. There should be a

provincewide clean-up campaign in which we put firewood onstream at

minimal cost to everybody who needs firewood, because there is waste

firewood everywhere. Instead what we're getting is private

entrepreneurs going into the forests and, in fact, removing firewood

and paying nothing whatsoever to the Crown for the removal of that

firewood. Instead of seeing that activity encouraged, what we should be

doing is zeroing in on sources of firewood which are polluting the

waterways of British Columbia — certainly polluting the banks of the

Fraser River. I'm wondering if the minister has anything in mind or

whether his ministry is engaged in any activity along these lines.

Would the minister like to respond to that?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Chairman, I think the member is familiar with the Debris Control

Board, which is a cooperative arrangement between the federal and

provincial governments and the Council of Forest Industries. We jointly

fund the maintenance of catchments on the Fraser River in order to

attempt to prevent logs from coming down the river and, as a result,

being hazardous floating in the waters in the Vancouver area and out to

the gulf. While this is effective, some logs do get through, and

therefore we do have a fairly good log salver business. In the lower

mainland they pick up much of the material that does come down and

material which originates from other areas. This fin-boom — there's one

up at Laidlaw and there's another at Crescent Island which you

mention.... These catchments, in effect, concentrate the driftwood into

areas where they're extracted from the river, and they are sold or

disposed of by the Debris Control Board meeting.

As far as

individual logs along the riverbank go, I know of nothing that prevents

people from salvaging those logs for their own use. If they were to

attempt to sell them, then it is wood, and I believe they'd have to go

through Gulf Log Salvage in order to dispose of them. But there is an

active program which is improving the situation insofar as driftwood

and hazards are concerned, and I hope it will continue to improve. I

would like to explore some formalizing of means of making the otherwise

unusable wood, or the stuff along the banks, available as fuel wood. I

haven't done that. I don't know whether the ministry or the Debris

Control Board itself has done that, but I'll certainly explore that.

the same line, I've had some correspondence with the member for Prince

Rupert (Mr. Lea) about debris in Prince Rupert harbour. I just recently

sent him a follow-up letter in which I advised him that I'll be asking

the National Harbours Board, together with industry in the area and my

ministry, to make an assessment to see if we can't perhaps do the same

type of thing in Prince Rupert that we're doing in the Vancouver area.

I won't have those answers for some time, but we will be looking into

that in detail. Once we determine how serious the problem is, perhaps

some steps in the same direction can be taken.

MR. LEGGATT:

I'd like to thank the minister for the answer. It does seem that there

has to be some organization which coordinates.... It's not just the

minister's responsibility there's federal responsibility — the Public

Works department of the federal government. A plan could be devised to

provide firewood, and I would think it could be provided free to the

public, because the benefits of cleaning up those beaches from the

point of view of bar fisherman are tremendous. It seems to be long

overdue. Somehow we can't get the various levels of government together

to come to some kind of an agreement to remove that firewood.

The

boom at Crescent Island that the minister and I referred to is never

going to solve the ultimate problem. It seems to me that barging of

logs is the key, particularly for those of us who live around the

Fraser River. The boom system has denied recreational interests access

to that river for many years, and the use of barging, while it may not

yet be economic.... I don't know, it still seems to me that here is an

area in which the economic development ministry could perhaps, in

cooperation with the forestry ministry, go out and assist those

entrepreneurs who are now trying to sell the barging system as a

preferable means of moving logs in the province of British Columbia. If

you just examine the

[ Page 4747 ]

potential

for recreation in the Pitt Lake, Pitt River and Fraser River area,

right down to the gulf and all around those traditional areas of

log-booming, the value to the province of British Columbia in terms of

recreational potential is simply enormous — it's not calculable. At the

moment we're allowing private industry to sharpen its pencil around

this and make a decision on the booming system as being preferable to

the barging system. I'm quite willing to accept that it probably

continues to be a cost problem for the industry; but somewhere, it

seems to me, government has a role to play in resolving this particular

economic dispute to see what can be done to move forward in terms of

the barging of logs. Any person flying over those areas of tremendous

recreational potential can see that the use of a barging system —

particularly in the lower mainland where the number of tourists is so

tremendous — would be preferable. It seems to me we could see some

leadership coming from the forestry minister in terms of moving into

that system and away from a system which pollutes the beaches and the

fish habitat, and which uses pilings all over, which simply creates

hazards for all kinds of navigation other than that connected with the

logging industry.

MR. LEA: Following up on my

colleague's concern about the pollution of the beaches, I haven't yet

received the latest communication the minister has sent me, but I do

thank him for taking it seriously and taking a look at the problem,

because indeed it is a problem, not only for reasons of pollution, as

pointed out by my colleague, but in the Prince Rupert harbour for

navigation and for light planes that use the area to land. So in our

case it's not only a problem of wood waste or of an eye-sore; it's a

problem of saving lives in many instances with small planes and other

means of water transportation coming into our harbour area.

The

thing I've never been able to understand — I know that the minister was

not the minister when this came into effect, so I'm not in any way

trying to lay the blame on his doorstep — is that I just don't know how

history has allowed us to develop to the point where part of the

province is being looked after to some degree by the Debris Control

Board, with financing from the federal government, the provincial

government and industry, while other parts of the province have

nothing. It's always been a point of confusion with me. I've tried many

times to find some agency, federal or provincial, that would take some

responsibility for the clean-up of the Prince Rupert harbour. This is

the first time I've had any indication from any level of government, by

any ministry, that there was going to be a serious look at it. I'd like

to thank the minister for doing it, and I look forward to reading the

communication you're sending to me. I know you're serious about it.

Next year I'll be back to talk in all seriousness of how far we've

advanced to make some clean-up.

MR. KING: I have just

one more point I'd like to briefly question the minister on before we

get on with other business. I believe the minister has a copy of

Noranda's offer to purchase 49 percent of MacMillan Bloedel shares — I

think it's 8.9 million shares. Inherent in that offer is, I think, a

proposal by Noranda to divest themselves of other holdings they have in

the province of British Columbia, which would apparently — or so they

feel — put them in compliance with the minister's stated policy of not

allowing any corporate holding larger than that which MacMillan Bloedel

now holds. Now that the minister has had an opportunity to study that

offer, I wonder whether he can give any reaction to the offer by

Noranda.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I received a telegram

while sitting in the House this morning. I have read it, but I

certainly haven't had an opportunity to study it. There is much left

unsaid in the telegram. I'm sure I'm going to have to meet with people

from Noranda to discuss in great detail just what their offer means.

I'm afraid I can't judge at this time, because I don't have all the

information that may be necessary. I'll apprise the House of all the

information as I receive it and of the decisions as I make them, if the

House is sitting at that time.

Vote 98 approved.

On vote 99: provincial forest and range resource management. $40,167,894.

MR. KING:

I'd like to ask the minister a few general questions in this area,

with respect to encouraging greater utilization of the forest resource

in the province. It is my understanding that one of the ministry

objectives is to try to develop specialty mills for higher utilization

of the various kinds of wood which we have in the regions of the

province. I want to ask the minister if he could give me any further

advice or any full explanation of what went wrong with the specialty

mill developed at Revelstoke by Downie Street Sawmills, now owned by

Federated Co-ops. They developed a mill basically to utilize decadent

cedar products, and some hemlock, I believe. The opening of that plant

was attended by the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty), who represented

the Minister of Forests. He spoke about the policy the ministry had

encouraged and how this kind of innovation by that particular company

was going to be a pilot and a model for more and better things to come

in the forest industry in terms of higher utilization. It's my

understanding that some special concessions — reductions of minimum

stumpage — had been offered to the Federated Co-ops people to assist

them with the low margin they would realize by using this basically

decadent material in a fairly new and untried kind of processing.

Apparently, according to Federated Co-ops anyway, they certainly did

not receive the kind of encouragement — in fact, did not receive

fulfilment of the commitment — that had been given by the Ministry of

Forests for a break on stumpage.

I did have some discussions

with senior ministry staff about this during the course of the

operation of the mill. I understand one of the problems initially was

two different appraisal systems. which existed in the Nelson and

Kamloops districts, and I understand there was some disparity in terms

of the stumpage-appraisal systems there. I believe the ministry moved

to bring about the rationalization of that stumpage-appraisal system in

the two areas, which would have resulted in a better break for this

particular utility mill. It is my understanding that because the

initial commitment that was given was not followed through, Federated

Co-ops was obliged to close that utility mill. Now, instead of having

high utilization of the decadent material in that area, that test

utility mill is out of operation.

It seems to me that we've

certainly lost some incentive to get into higher utilization, because

if that is the case, then any company is going to be somewhat reluctant

to trust these commitments given to it by the ministry, before it goes

into

[ Page 4748 ]

the

fairly heavy capital investment of bringing on stream new facilities

and technology to facilitate higher utilization. It's a fairly serious

matter. That's one side of it. I don't doubt for one minute that the

ministry probably has another, but I would certainly like to hear from

the minister what the problems were and why it couldn't have been

reconciled in time to preserve the operation of that mill and the 30

jobs that went along with it. Perhaps the minister would let me know.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

The member is quite right in saying that he heard one side. There is

another side to it and, as a matter of fact, we did quite a bit to try

to help that mill with their new utilization plant. There were some

discrepancies in procedures between the mills and the forest districts,

which caused a bit of a problem. We sorted those out. The idea was, of

course, that they would use that material which was below the normal

utilization standard in this "utilization mill," as they called it. In

recognition of that, we agreed with them and actually changed our

appraisal manuals to accommodate them, saying that we'd give them

strictly a salvage rate for that material below the utilization

standard. We are obliged by law to charge something for the wood, but

the salvage rate is a very minimal amount.

To make the

administration of that more convenient — we knew approximately what

percentage the salvaged material would be of the total expanded cut —

we prorated that across all of their wood, because of difficulties we

would have in scaling. The net result was that they would get material

below the normal standards at salvage rates; however, they wanted us to

go even further and we knew we couldn't. I believe it would have

resulted somewhere in the order of three-quarters of a million dollars

in saved stumpage costs, and the benefit would go to us as well because

we would be getting the use of that material. However, even after doing

this, they saw fit to close the mill, and as a result of their closing

that mill, we had to go back to the normal stumpage system because they

were no longer utilizing this low-quality material or running the

"utilization mill."

I think the problem is largely a market

problem, if we look at the realities of it. Everyone is having

difficulty selling products right now, including Federated Co-ops and

their Downie Street sawmill. I would hope that once market conditions

come back they will be able to use that lower-quality material again.

We would certainly be willing at that time to reinstate the special

concessions we made to see that happen.

MS. SANFORD:

I wanted to ask the minister a brief question with respect to the log

dump that has been approved for Buckley Bay. This is a MacMillan

Bloedel log dump, approved there last year, and I would like to know

whether or not the minister was involved in those discussions. As the

minister knows, the dump is approved by the Ministry of Lands, Parks

and Housing. I know that the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing and

the Ministry of Environment were involved in the discussions

surrounding the granting of that licence or permission to dump. I'm

wondering what discussions the minister or his officials have had with

the company or with the other two ministries in determining whether or

not that particular log dump should be allowed.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Chairman, I wasn't personally involved in any discussions on that

particular dump proposal. As the member stated, the responsibility of

the issuance of the lease to have a dump lies with the Minister of Lands,

Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot). I'm sure that he consults with the

Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers). Advice is sought from staff

within the ministry on a technical basis as to the need of it. I have

not been personally involved, so I'm afraid I cannot be of any

assistance to the member.

MS. SANFORD: I'm wondering,

Mr. Chairman, whether people within his ministry might have been

involved in any discussions that took place. For instance, I would be

very interested to know whether or not the Ministry of Forests pursued

with the company alternate sites for dumping. One of the proposals that

was made was that the E&N rail line would be utilized to haul the

logs down to an existing dump in the Parksville area. I would like to

know whether or not the company was involved in those discussions,

whether they felt it was feasible or whether they took any interest in

the issue at all, because they are not responsible for granting the

lease.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I can only repeat that I

was not personally consulted. The consultation on a thing like that

would take place at the district operational level. I'm afraid I can't

help the member.

MR. KING: I just wanted to return

for a moment to the discussion regarding Downie Street utility mill. I

thank the minister for his answer. It seems to me that when you're

dealing with really rotten cedar products, in all probability they're

going to be burned up on the forest floor if someone doesn't devise a

particular and specialized use for them. It would be prudent for the

ministry to waive stumpage on that material when you consider the cost

of moving that material into a mill-site. Those costs are fairly high.

It's a fairly labour-intensive operation to actually put it though a

utility mill. I wonder why the ministry wouldn't have considered

waiving stumpage on it rather than seeing this plant close down.

seems to me that the province would still be obtaining a better use and

better value through that process than they would by fiddling around

and getting into an altercation with the company as to whether or not

you delivered on the commitment they thought you had given them —

prorating it over their total cut and giving them a stumpage appraisal

to compensate. I wonder whether it might not have been more prudent to

scale that particular material that was utilized and waive stumpage

altogether. In that way, it seems to me that it would be some

encouragement for people to get into this kind of utilization of the

resource — the saving of energy and the creation of jobs that are now

being lost — rather than leaving it to lie and rot on the forest floor.

I'm perplexed over that aspect of it, and I wonder if the minister

could enlighten me any more.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: It

perhaps would have been more prudent, Mr. Member, but the law requires

that something is charged. The salvage rate is something in the order

of 20 cents per cubic metre, which is a token charge. I guess the

reason for that token charge is to make sure that we do have a scale of

the material. In addition to that salvage rate, we provided additional

cost allowances because of the higher cost of running it though the

utilization mill. Even if we could have reduced it by another 20 cents

per cubic metre or about 60 or 70 cents a cunit, I suspect now that the

market conditions wouldn't have allowed them to do it. Again I say I'm

[ Page 4749 ]

hopeful

that that mill will start up again once market conditions improve. We

did everything that we were legally able to do; we changed appraisal

manuals to accommodate them. Market condition, I'm sure, was the real

reason. We fulfilled all of our obligations, even though there is some

disagreement with the company that we did.

MR. KING:

In vote 99 we see some very high cost increases for some of the areas

that I think are questionable in terms of the needs of the ministry.

Certainly I wouldn't want to see any restriction on budget allocation

for those very essential and crucial parts of the ministry's activities

dealing with the actual management of the forests, but when I see all

kinds of rentals, motor-vehicle cost increases and office expenses

increasing at a higher rate than budget allocations for some of the

other more fundamental forest services, that bothers me. Travel

expenses under this vote have gone up from $1.5 million to roughly $2.5

million. Advertising and publications are up from $212,000 to $846,000.

We've

seen no indication that this minister is really bringing the public

into the decision-making process. We find rather secretive activities

by the ministry in terms of any real decisions being made on the

renewal of tree-farm licences. The public is shut out of the process,

in terms of the kind of agreements we discussed earlier today, where

the public was not a party at all to the discussions and negotiations

for the exchange of important Crown lands. We have to assume that the

increased costs for publications and advertising relate more to the

political needs of this government than any motivation of bringing the

public into dialogue and into a position where they might, in some way,

have a role to play in decisions on the important forest industry.

Quite frankly, we think that we could slice some of the fat out of this

vote, as we suggested doing out of the minister's office vote.

Accordingly I move that vote 99 be reduced by $1,976,342.

MR. HOWARD:

I've just seen some members on the other side shake their heads

indicating that they probably weren't going to vote for the amendment.

I just wanted to advise the Legislature that this really isn't an

amendment put forward by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke. He

physically did it, but he did it on behalf of somebody else who can't

be here today. He's not able, in fact, to attend the sittings. The

member for Shuswap-Revelstoke is representing a former member of this

chamber who, if he were still here, would have moved this amendment

himself.

Looking at the account in the Vancouver Sun

of that love-in the Socreds had at Harrison Hot Springs over the

weekend, I want to quote from somebody who said that there's a

continuing need for weeding out red tape and trimming government fat.

He said: "We could cut enormous sums out of the budget and still not

reduce services to people." That person identified is former MLA and

delegate, Elwood Veitch, a former member of the cabinet. This is from

the inside. He was there when part of this fat was developing. Now that

he's freed from the constraints, he's able to put forward his views

about it. So the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke is really putting

forward and advancing, in this motion, something which a well-known.

well-respected and loved Social Crediter — loved internally within

Social Credit, that is — would put forward if he were in this House and

able to do it. On that basis and with that kind of support, I'm sure

that it will be a unanimous decision to vote yes for this reduction.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 26

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 27

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Vote 99 approved.

On vote 100: regional forest and range resource management. $45,626,030.

MR. KING:

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister a few questions on this

particular vote. Some of the inventories have now come in for the

different regions of the province. I've had an opportunity to look at

the inventory report for the West Kootenay and Kamloops districts. I

think some of the others are expected shortly. These regional

inventories confirm the falldown problem in timber supply that was

predicted in the five-year range and resource analysis.

What

concerns me is that the ministry seems to be relying on a program of

intensified silvicultural treatment to minimize, if not completely

offset, the falldown in some of these areas. They basically seem to be

saying that if in fact you start applying intensive silvicultural

treatment now, it will be possible not only to offset that potential

shortage of timber supply but to actually accelerate the annual

allowable cut in those areas to increase the harvest of the forests. I

would like the minister's view on that. I personally don't buy it.

think that it's possible that that can happen in an area where you have

sufficient old-growth timber in inventory. But that is certainly not

the case in the Kootenays or the Okanagan. It alarms me greatly to feel

that the ministry might encourage a faster pace of harvesting when

there is already a predicted and acknowledged shortfall in timber

supply. By applying silvicultural treatment, we are looking to the

benefits that return to the province perhaps 30 or 40 or 80 years down

the road, depending on the terrain. I'm very concerned that we don't

fall into the trap of speeding the forest harvest on the basis that

we're spending more dollars on thinning, spacing, fertilizing, various

treatments, site preparation and so on for some of these areas.

[ Page 4750 ]

would like the minister's views on this matter. I've discussed it with

a number of people in industry, and there are conflicting views. I would

very much like to hear the minister's attitude to this proposition that

by increasing silvicultural treatment, one can accelerate the annual

allowable cut on the basis that you'll be developing a faster growth

pace and a higher volume of timber available in the long term.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Chairman, I think the member is reasonably accurate. Each timber

supply area — we do it by timber supply area rather than forest region

— is different. In some areas we'll have to go just as fast and hard as

we can to maintain the cut; in some areas we won't be able to do that.

The Kootenays is a good example where we have some serious problems

ahead of us. The member is well aware of the very serious infestation

of a beetle in the Kootenays. We're accelerating our cut there now in

order to try to recover some value, but at some point in time there

will be a timber supply problem in that area. In the Okanagan it

appears that we're going to be able to maintain the level, and with

intensive silviculture and that type of thing and a planned program at

some point in time, there is every likelihood that we will be able to

increase the cut.

Each area is different. In some areas we

are tight; in some areas we've already had reductions of plant

capacity. In Merritt, for example, the plywood mill was shut down a

year and a half ago because the supply of peeler logs was no longer

sufficient, so adjustments have been taking place. But it's not only in

intensive silviculture that we gain allowable cut; it's in better

utilization, protection and forest management. All of these factors

coming together will, in most cases, allow us to maintain the level of

cut we have now, with some exceptions, and in some cases allow us to

increase the level of cut. These timber supply analyses will be done

about every five years. The next complete assessment of the forest and

range will be five years hence, and the timber supply analysis will be

under constant revision. As conditions change, the member would be

surprised at some of the very quick responses you get to thinning,

spacing and fertilization. If he wishes, I can give him some samples

from our office of just what happens to suppressed trees when they're

freed up because of crowding, and when they are fertilized, there are

some very dramatic increases in very short periods of time. Each area

is different, and the circumstances and conditions are different, and

each one has to be assessed and managed according to the conditions

there. Some areas will be tight, in some there will be a falldown, and

others we can increase.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I am

familiar with the accelerated growth that can take place. I had some of

the tours and looked at the results too, and I'm also familiar with the

beetle problem in the West Kootenays, but that's not what I was

referring to. What I was referring to is the proposition that where the

projected falldown in timber supply is about 20 percent in a supply

area over the next 15 years, I fail to see, under those circumstances,

that intensive forest management is going to allow the same pace of

harvest, much less create a situation where we can increase it, unless

there is an adequate inventory of old growth to provide to sustain the

annual allowable cut now over that 15-year period. I'm concerned that

that seems to be a general proposition which is used to justify

increasing the annual allowable cut in some of these regions.

I'm

also a little bit concerned.... The minister says, "Well, there has

been the odd plant closed down," but in other areas of the province,

notably the Okanagan, there is a crunch coming in terms of supply. It

seems to me what's happening now — and there is a real danger of it

happening in widening circumstances — is that existing firms are going

to be competing for a scarcity of timber. I think it's incumbent upon

the minister to start giving some long-term indications of what's in

store for some of the existing operators. He says it will be reviewed

in five years. That's true, but in many cases some of the operators are

in a position where they have to make fairly significant capital

investments now. If they're going to do that, Mr. Chairman, they have

to know that there will be a role for them for the next 10 years, not

the next five years. They're in a bind in many of these places, and all

they get from the ministry is: "Well, our inventory is not complete."

They're expected to continue along and to comply with a whole variety

of regulations that are costly, when they don't really know whether

they have a future in the forest industry in the province of British

Columbia or not. The thing that's unfair about that, Mr. Chairman, is

that this just applies to the small operators, it seems, and some of

the medium-sized ones, but when it came to MacMillan Bloedel, Crown

Zellerbach and the big integrated firms, there was no hesitation

whatsoever; there was complete continuity of their timber supply. There

was increased control delivered to them by the minister under the new

act. It's a double standard, and it's unfair, in my view.

MR. LEA:

While the minister is thinking over his answer, I'd like to ask a few

more questions. The Prince Rupert forest region. Mr. Jack Biickert was

kind enough to invite me and some other people down to a presentation

of the timber supply analysis for one of the supply areas in the Prince

Rupert region — no TFLs in that particular one. Just carrying on from

what my colleague said, it frightens me. I don't suppose there's any

good in going back over the years and talking about this side of the

House saying to that side of the House: "You know, we're going to be

running short of timber," and that side of the House yelling back at

us: "What a woolly-headed bunch of thinkers you are — a bunch of goofy

intellectuals who don't have any idea what you're talking about!" It

seems to vindicate in many ways what we've done over the years — the

stress on forest management, and the scoffing that went on on that side

of the House over the years when we talked about a short timber supply

in this province.

One of the things that really worries me —

I'd like to get this from the minister; I've received it from the

department — is that in this new allowable annual cut that's going to

be increased.... As I understand it, what your department is saying to

the industry is that you're going to expand the annual allowable cut,

or at least you will in some areas. There's some timber that's economic

— you can go and get it now. There's some that would be uneconomic on

its own. What they're saying to the industry is: we want you to be

innovative and to come up with ways of going after this uneconomic

timber now and making it economic.

I see some real problems

down the line. For instance, if you expand the annual allowable cut,

there are going to be new jobs — or maintenance of the jobs that are

there, but I think in some areas there will be new jobs — with new

facilities, such as sawmills, that are going to spring up around this

new, more grand-scale annual allowable cut. Politicians

[ Page 4751 ]

being

what they are, a review will be done five years down the road — and

this is a worry expressed to me by industry. I maintain that if there

are new jobs created and a new sawmill opened, it won't matter what

sort of a record the timber company has in that one particular area —

they're all going to be renewed. That's bad enough in resource

management. But what about the timber operator who goes in there and

actually does do a good job, mixes the uneconomic with the economic and

comes out with an average, is being innovative while his next-door

neighbour on the next piece of forest land isn't doing any of that, but

is just going in and creaming off the economic and not even taking a

look at the so-called uneconomic areas? What's going to happen five

years down the road? The pressure is going to be on all of us as

politicians, regardless of resource management practices, to not close

down a sawmill, to not lose jobs in the woods — jobs that are going to

be created because of an annual allowable cut that can't be maintained

over the years. As my colleague for Shuswap-Revelstoke has said, you

can’t go out and borrow money in the marketplace and start up a sawmill

on a five-year basis. You have to have a little bit more security of

tenure than that in order to go out and borrow money. or you just won't

get the money.

There's no use blaming each other for bad

logging practices and bad forestry management over the years. But I

think that we all have to admit that that's what's happened in B.C.

It's partly out of ignorance on our part — all of us in B.C. — partly

out of greed on our part, all over B.C., but I think it's mostly out of

government not playing a role in resource management that would look

down the years and try to have a sustained yield over the years. It

just wasn't done. Now we've got a real problem. Industry knows it, the

people who work in the woods know it, the minister knows it and

everybody in this House knows it. We are going to have a real problem

in getting enough timber and wood to keep our industry going so we can

have a live and vibrant economy in this province. We are in trouble and

we all know it.

I can't see how we're going to do away with

the problem by putting it off for five years. I see that happening.

There are companies that are going to go in there and not go after the

uneconomic timber; they're going to take the economic. They're not even

going to go after it. Five years down the road we're going to come

along and say: "You've been a bad boy. We're going to take it away from

you. The sawmill's going to close and those guys are going to be out of

work." Politicians don't operate like that. The time to do the proper

planning and the proper thing is now, so that future politicians — and

it probably won't be any of us — don't have to face that situation. But

they're going to the way we're going.

To increase the annual

allowable cut by saying, "We're now going to open up these hithertofore

uneconomic areas. They're still uneconomic, but we want innovative

industry. Show us how you can do it, " I maintain that at the end of

five years it won't matter a tinker's damn how they operated. It's

going to be renewed because of the pressure on us as politicians — or

whoever comes after us — not to lose the jobs and not to shut down the

sawmills. All we're going to do is create a time-frame for us to get by

the bad time, and we're going to leave it for somebody else down the

road to face some pretty dicey problems.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

I must make a statement for the record, because the member for Prince

Rupert (Mr. Lea) has a misunderstanding of what it is the timber supply

analyses are doing. One of the chief differences in what we're doing in

the current timber supply analyses is that we're currently removing

uneconomic timber from the inventory which establishes the allowable

cut. We're saying at this time that that wood is not economic, so

therefore it's not going into the basket of wood we have to plan with.

That factor is being addressed, and I'm sure Jack Biickert, our

regional manager for Prince Rupert, went through that with you. So that

uneconomic wood is not in. As the economics change and it can be

harvested, it will go back into the allowable cut.

MR. LEA: In the mid-coast?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

The mid-coast included. This is why the Ocean Falls experiment is so

important right now. That wood we have granted special experimental

licences to Ocean Falls Corporation on is wood that is outside the

allowable cut, and if it can be demonstrated that it can he used, then

we have a tremendous amount of that type of wood which would then

become usable to us. That is the process. We do consider the economics.

do not have real problems. I know a message the members opposite would

like to portray to the province of British Columbia is that we have

real problems. I don't know what that member thinks sustained yield

means. Does he think that means a constant even-flow supply of wood

forever? That's not what sustained yield means at all. Sustained yield

simply means that you ration out the old-growth timber at such a

level that when the natural biological falldown takes place, which says

you cannot grow as much wood on an acre in 80 or 100 years as it took

Mother Nature 1,000 years to accumulate, that natural biological

falldown effect will take place. When we reach that level, we have to

adjust our level of cut to be able to maintain that lower level. That

lower level can be increased — in most cases back up to the rate we

have chosen to harvest in the past — by applying the things that are

outlined in the forest management program.

The only area in

the province right now where our age class distribution is leading us

to problems, Mr. Member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), is in the

Fort Nelson area, and it's the age-class distribution on the spruce. If

the utilization of the aspen there can be achieved, then we have no

problems; if it can't, we will have a falldown there because we don't

have enough mature spruce to harvest.

So we don't have

problems. These things you are mentioning have all been considered, and

it's a matter of proper management for the future. There's no disaster

coming, my friend. Our forest industry will always be at least as

significant in our economy as it is right now, and as we add value in

British Columbia, it will become an even more significant factor.

MR. KING:

I just wish I had the confidence the minister has. Professional

foresters in the province, people in the industry and many voices out

there who have a great deal of expertise just do not see it that way.

When I read the minister's own inventory reports on the West Kootenay,

Okanagan and Kamloops areas, it doesn't really seem to bear out what

he's saying either. I guess I'd feel better if I were satisfied that

the five-year range and resource fund was adequate to really meet the

standard of intensive management that is required. I really haven't got

confidence that that's the case.

Again on vote 100 I'm going to move a motion for a reduction for some of the specific items that I see in the

[ Page 4752 ]

estimate

that I think are rather excessive. We find office furniture and

equipment up from $94,000 to $184,000 — doubled. In fact in this

particular estimate, which contains some very significant and important

functions of the ministry out in the field in terms of range and

resource management, we don't see anything like a doubling of the

budget for those important and inherently necessary functions of the

ministry. We see fantastic increases in office and travel expense,

advertising and publications. Against the backdrop of the very punitive

tax increases that have been imposed on the people of British Columbia

this year, we think that's fat, excessive and extravagant. Accordingly,

I move that vote 100 be reduced by the sum of $386,871.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 24

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 27

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. LEA: I'd like to ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. LEA:

I fooled you a little, Mr. Chairman. It's not an introduction,

actually, but it is an announcement that I know all members of the

House will greet well. Today is the sixty-third birthday of one of our

members.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Gary!

MR. LEA:

Barbara, come out of hiding — the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs.

Wallace). It's also her fortieth wedding anniversary. On Barb's

twenty-third birthday she gave herself one of the best birthday

presents you can get: she married her present husband. Today we

remember both Barb's birth and the day she got married, and we all wish

you both well.

MR. LAUK: All I can say, Mr. Chairman,

is that if certain people had the tough life that I had to lead, you'd

look older than your age too.

Vote 100 approved.

Vote 101: district forest and range resource management, $58,710,846 — approved.

Vote 102: reservoirs, $10 — approved.

On vote 103: fire suppression program, $8,418,971.

MR. KING:

Mr. Chairman, again on this vote I find some pretty excessive increases

in the frills that I believe are unnecessary. Office equipment and

furniture are up from $1,500 to $14,000 — 1,400 percent on the frills

of office. Travel expenses, advertising and publication were $7,000

last year; they're up to $12,000 this year. These increases have

nothing to do with the fundamental purpose of the Forests ministry or

the fundamental needs of ensuring that our forests remain productive

and provide a yield to sustain our province, both in terms employment

and in terms of revenue return to the Crown. Rather, these are things

that we believe were inserted by an affluent government that is

becoming fat and lazy in