1986 Legislative Session: 4th

Session, 33rd 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)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 1986

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 8295 ]

CONTENTS

Presentation of Reports

Select Standing Committee on Standing

Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services — 8295

Motion Picture Act (Bill 30). Hon. Mr.

Smith

Introduction and first reading — 8295

Oral Questions

Louisiana-Pacific. Mr. Williams — 8295

Mount Currie Indian band. Mr. Reynolds — 8296

Alfalfa crop loss. Mr. Michael — 8297

Hotel evictions. Mr. Barnes — 8297

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Forests

estimates. (Hon. Mr. Heinrich)

On vote 33: minister's office — 8297

Mr. Howard

Mr. D'Arcy

Mr. MacWilliam

Mr. Gabelmann

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Williams

WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 1986

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

introduce to the House

a class from Shawnigan Lake School, seated in your gallery with their

instructor Mr. Smith. I'm very pleased to have them here today.

Presentation of Reports

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour

to present a report

from the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills

and Members' Services. I move that the report be read and received.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

"May 21, 1986.

"Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing

Committee on

Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services begs leave to

report as follows:

"That the

preamble of Bill PR402,

intituled Columbia

Bible College Act, has been approved and the bill ordered to be

reported as amended in the Select Standing Committee on Standing

Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services.

"All of which is respectfully submitted."

Signed by the Chairman.

Motion approved.

MR. MOWAT: Mr, Speaker, I move that the

rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Motion approved.

Introduction of Bills

MOTION PICTURE ACT

Hon. Mr. Smith presented a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Motion Picture Act.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, it's with

great pleasure that I

introduce long-awaited amendments to the Motion Picture Act which would

provide a regulatory scheme for video material in this province.

Following a provincial tour and a great deal of consultation with a

number of excellent individuals who have studied the subject of video

pornography, the government decided to present a bill which regulates

the distribution of video materials at the distributor level as they

enter the province, and will classify these as adult or non-adult. The

adult materials will henceforth be in the video stores out of the

display and reach of children, but available for adults.

It will be a licensing scheme as well, so instead of having

charges laid under the Criminal Code for certain material, it will be

possible to deal with certain material by way of licence, but other

materials would be completely prohibited for video distribution, and

that would be materials involving sex with children, sex with animals,

extreme brutality and violence involving humans or animals, and

bestiality, necrophilia and other categories of that kind. Those would

be prohibited outright. It is not a bureaucratic scheme; it is a good

regulatory scheme at the distributor level. It has the support of the

retail and distribution industry and of a number of excellent people

who presented briefs to me and to the Fraser commission.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to move first reading.

Bill 30 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Oral Questions

LOUISIANA-PACIFIC

MR. WILLIAMS: I have a question for the

Minister of Industry.

Could the minister advise the House, with respect to the letter of

application dated October 14 for the loan to Louisiana-Pacific, if in

fact that letter scratched out $(Can.)25 million in their request and

changed it to American dollars, and scratched out their ten-year

cutting right requirement and changed that to 20 — by pen on the

original document?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, I don't know about

any scratches, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WILLIAMS: Would the minister be

prepared to file that letter of application for a $25 million loan at

zero percent with the Legislature?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I

probably would, except

that it probably isn't in my ministry. I think it would be in the

Ministry of International Trade, Science and Investment.

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of

International Trade, would the minister be prepared to file that letter

with the Legislature?

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WILLIAMS: Further on the matter, Mr.

Speaker, I

understand that a letter has been delivered to cabinet with respect to

the concern of plywood manufacturers and with respect to their industry

because of the excessive lending to Louisiana-Pacific. Could the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development advise whether

cabinet or his department has dealt with that submission?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I don't

think I'm at liberty to discuss cabinet business before the Legislature.

MR. WILLIAMS: Would the minister confirm

that they have been

advised that 3,800 workers within our existing plywood industry will be

negatively impacted by this incredible decision to aid

Louisiana-Pacific?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, no, I

haven't been advised

of that, and I'd be very surprised if there were any documents that

could support that. If that member has such a document, I'd like to

study it and find out where he got it from.

[ Page 8296 ]

MR. MACDONALD: You won't even file the

letter.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I haven't got a letter

to file, Mr. Member, but the other minister has offered to file that

letter.

Mr. Speaker, one of the misunderstandings.... I can understand

why

there is such a misunderstanding, particularly by the member for

Vancouver East, who uses Marjorie Nichols' column as his sole source of

research. He's got himself into trouble over that in previous times.

One of the reasons that we felt that we could support.... In fact, we

actively invited Louisiana-Pacific, an American company which is now

investing in British Columbia, building British Columbia jobs in our

province. One of the reasons was that in our determination of its

effect on the domestic plywood market, we were encouraged that

Louisiana-Pacific will not be marketing its product domestically, but

will be marketing 100 percent of its product to the United States. That

was one of the reasons that we accepted the proposal by

Louisiana-Pacific.

[2:15]

On the matter of the so-called letter, which I've never seen,

Mr.

Speaker, but which the member raises, he talks about a required capital

cost loan of $25 million American. There was never any consideration by

this government of a $25 million American loan, and we would never have

considered it. The amount of the loan was in Canadian funds, and the

difference between the Canadian funds and American funds is about $8

million or a little bit less. So there was never any consideration of a

loan in American funds.

In terms of the other questions that the member has been

raising

with regard to the Marjorie Nichols column, which is a bit mischievous

incidentally, they said we would anticipate no stumpage on Crown land.

Louisiana-Pacific was told very firmly that established policy,

established law and established regulation must apply.

They said they would require the land for the site at no cost.

The

site was negotiated with a piece of land owned by British Columbia

Railway. Standard procedures following regular lease arrangements were

done with the British Columbia Railway, as we would do in any business

proposition. They said they would need a rail spur to be built, at a

cost to the railroad, according to this letter. The BCR site which was

finally chosen already has a rail spur.

They said that they wanted negotiations concerning

transportation

tariff rates. We told them we don't get involved in that, that it is

not our business. That's a business deal between them and the British

Columbia Railway, Mr. Speaker. That's what they told them and that was

the deal.

They said the employment rate wasn't to exceed $8.50 U.S. per

hour.

We told them we don't get into that kind of a deal either. Any labour

agreements between a company and its unions or its employees, whether

they are union or not, is not the government's business, and we are in

no position to provide, nor will we ever provide, any kinds of

guarantee on employment rates.

They said that they wanted to buy power at 50 percent of the

published industrial rate. They were told again very firmly that they

must purchase power at standard published B.C. Hydro rates. The project

does not....

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members,

the intent of

question period is well laid out. It is equally incumbent upon members

when replying to questions to reply to the questions that are asked and

not to address further questions. Obviously in this case, hon.

minister, I must say that the response that the minister is making goes

well beyond the scope of the question asked by the member.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I apologize for

answering the questions, Mr. Speaker.

MOUNT CURRIE INDIAN BAND

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I have a

question for the

Attorney-General. Is the Attorney-General aware that the Mount Currie

Indian band has claimed ownership of the Lillooet Lake road and has an

information toll booth in that area and is trying to collect funds from

logging trucks travelling through that area.

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, I'm aware, not of

everything implied in

the question, but aware that on occasion there has been some attempt to

blockade traffic on that road, particularly a part of that road that is

on Indian reserve land. I'm aware that it does present a problem, that

the police have been watching that situation carefully and that

negotiations are taking place to establish the right to free access for

everyone on that road. It is a highway, but parts of it go through

reserve land. There have been some actions taken by the band on their

reserve.

The situation is one that requires delicate handling. I'm told

that

the police have been very much on top of that and that there have been

no serious incidents, but to say that it's a worry would be an

understatement.

MR. REYNOLDS: A supplementary to the

Attorney-General. Is he

aware that the Mount Currie Indian band is forcing logging companies to

sign documents and charging them 25 cents per thousand before they can

travel across a road that is operated by the government of British

Columbia? If he is aware of that, can he tell me when his ministry will

treat those native people just as he would treat non-native people if

they were doing the same thing?

HON. MR. SMITH: I think the objective of

the police policy

will be to treat all citizens the same. I'll take under advisement the

further remarks that the member has made and try to get a report back

to him as quickly as possible.

MR. WILLIAMS: My question is to the

Provincial Secretary.

Could she advise whether her staff approved voucher document control

No. 001070 and a range of other document control numbers for a Speakers

conference dinner on March 30, 1985 that cost $2,082.70, of which the

liquor bill was some $771.40 at the height of restraint in British

Columbia?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, a

question of that

nature obviously, if placed at all, must be placed on the order paper.

It is simply unreasonable to expect the minister responsible to know

that.

[ Page 8297 ]

ALFALFA CROP LOSS

MR. MICHAEL: I have a question for the

Minister of

Agriculture. In many areas of my constituency and, indeed, in areas of

Cache Creek, Kamloops, Pritchard, Salmon Arm and north Okanagan there

are varying degrees of loss of the alfalfa crop by the farmers in those

areas. I notice it is particularly severe in the Cache Creek area, the

north Okanagan, Tappen and Skimikin. I'd like to ask the Minister of

Agriculture if he is aware of this problem, whether his staff is

investigating the matter and whether he has any recommendations or

plans of action to look at compensation for the farmers in those

particular areas.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am aware of the

problem, and indeed there were some 100,000 acres of alfalfa damaged by

frost last winter. My staff have been trying to assess the program. I

am not at this time considering financial assistance, other than that

which is normally available to the agricultural community. They do have

access to crop insurance, which some of them had and some of them did

not, and we do have loan guarantee programs for those who may be in

financial difficulty and require some financial assistance to

re-establish their crops. We are continuing to assess the program, and

if there are cases of individual extreme hardship, then it may be

necessary for some assistance, but I don't anticipate any general

relief programs for this particular incident now other than those which

are normally provided under the ministry's programs.

HOTEL EVICTIONS

MR. BARNES: A question to the Minister of

Housing. I wonder

if the minister can confirm to the House if he has taken confidential

information concerning Expo evictees from the B.C. Housing Management

Commission and made it public.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Not to my knowledge.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the

minister would confirm whether or not the names that were published,

particularly in the Vancouver

Sun ,

several days ago were as a result of information coming from his

ministry — perhaps from someone else, if not from himself directly?

HON. MR. KEMPF: No, I can't confirm that.

MR. BARNES: During the debate of the

minister's spending

estimates in Housing, I requested — it was in committee — the minister

to table a list of names and addresses that had to do with people who

had been evicted as a result of Expo. The minister gave the undertaking

that he would table those documents. I'm wondering if the minister has

done so. It's been about a week now. Have you tabled those documents as

yet?

HON. MR. KEMPF: I table those documents.

MR. SPEAKER: At the conclusion of question

period, hon. member.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, just one final

question to the minister. He is suggesting that the names that were

published in the Vancouver

Sun

were a misrepresentation or were, in fact, false in some way, because

there was a reference to your ministry as having made those documents

available. Are you suggesting that you have no knowledge whatsoever of

where that list came from?

HON. MR. KEMPF: I'm not suggesting

anything, Mr. Speaker. I just couldn't confirm the question he asked.

HON. MR. SMITH: I ask leave to make an

introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SMITH: In your gallery, and

present for the

introduction of the bill, are a number of people who have been very

active in the field of video materials. I would like the House to

welcome the following people: Mr. Millard Roth of Toronto, who is the

executive director of Home Video Board; Mr. Ian Rigg, the

vice-president of Video One Canada; Kit Stevenson, the chairperson of

the national task force on pornography of the Anglican Church of

Canada; Mrs. Janet Baird, alderwoman of the city of Victoria; Ms.

Brishkai Lund of the University of Victoria; Mary-Ann McWaters of the

University Women's Club of Vancouver; Donna Stewart of the Vancouver

Coalition on Pornography; Karen Phillips of the Port Coquitlam Area

Women's Centre and the Vancouver Coalition on Pornography. I would ask

the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I would ask

leave to table the document of which the member spoke.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

(continued)

On vote 33: minister's office, $186,345.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask

the minister if he

would make available to the committee — maybe I should wait till his

deputy gets here — the results of the study commissioned by the

ministry with respect to the silvicultural and logging practices of

B.C. Timber and/or Westar, the successor company, on TFL No.1.

[2:30]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: As the member for Skeena

is aware.... Are you talking about a report which was done on TFL No. I

up in the northwest?

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I know that's where it

is, but there

happen to be others. So you're talking about a report which was done on

TFL No.1. Well, I'm not going to give an answer to that question right

now, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to read that particular report on TFL No.1.

[ Page 8298 ]

MR. HOWARD: The minister is saying that he

hasn't read it, but he confirms that it exists. So that would be well

worth....

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I

understand that a

particular report on TFL No. I exists. I'm aware of another report on

an issue involving Westar, but I can't remember....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Correct — No.

I'm aware of that particular report, and I've spent some time

that, but I'm not in a position to answer the question as to whether or

not it should be made public immediately. I'd like to know a bit more

about it.

MR. HOWARD: We'll leave that one. There's

not much point in pursuing it any further.

The minister mentioned another tree-farm licence: TFL No. 23

in the

Kootenay area, held by Westar. A tree-farm licence, as the minister

knows, gives its holder control over an area of land and the timber

within it on a non-competitive basis. So there is a bonus to the holder

of a TFL, the bonus being that he has control to the exclusion of

everybody else, and access to the timber in the area. In those

situations — which I understand to be the case with TFL No. 23 — where

the holder of the licence consistently undercuts the allowable cut,

then the principle of logging it or losing it should prevail.

I don't think Westar or any other company that holds a

tree-farm

licence, which is basically a gift from the people of the province of

British Columbia through the Ministry of Forests, should have the right

to violate the implied conditions of the agreement, which are basically

to use the timber in the area for logging and processing purposes. If

they're just holding on to it for the sake of having that control and

keeping other people from having access to it, then it should be

removed from them, or a portion of it should be removed from them.

That occurred with respect to TFL No. 1, although it was

largely at

the request of Westar and not the initiating action of the Minister of

Forests that did it, even though people in the area had been

complaining about lack of access to that timber for some period of

time. It eventually turned out that Westar was delighted to get rid of

it, and they did.

I maintain that the same thing should prevail with respect to

TFL

No. 23, that a part of that licensed area should be taken away from

Westar, particularly in the northern reaches of their TFL holdings in

the Revelstoke area, so that that timber could be made available to

people or companies that are now able to get access to timber in the

Revelstoke area or in the surrounding area.

What better purpose could be served than to remove from

somebody the

authority to do something which they're not doing and give somebody

else a shot at it? I'm urging the minister to take that course of

action with respect to TFL No. 23 in the Revelstoke area. Perhaps then

we'll get something moving in that area which doesn't appear now to be

addressed adequately by those who have an interest in the area and seek

to represent that area here.

I want to put forward the proposition to the minister as well

and to

lay emphasis on the northern portions of the province with respect to

our community colleges with which the minister is familiar because of

his immediately preceding role in the cabinet. In Terrace we have a

community college, and in Prince George there's a community college.

The northern reaches of the province, particularly in the

northeast,

have the highest level and amount of not satisfactorily restocked land

of anywhere in the province. It's more pronounced in the Prince George

forest region than anywhere else. Something like half of the NSR land

in the province is in the Prince George forest region, far in excess of

that which should be the case. But it's there nonetheless. Part of that

came about because it wasn't included in earlier surveys, but it does

exist.

It seems to me that the effort of our schools of education

beyond

the secondary grade, insofar as forestry is concerned, should not be

confined to the lower mainland. We've got an ideal opportunity for our

colleges both in the Prince George area and in Terrace to move to have

them establish a curriculum which involves forestry and research. This

may not be possible immediately. I don't know from the technical point

of view how a curriculum is developed or how universities or colleges

approach the institution of a particular curriculum, but at the very

least it should be headed towards the direction of providing those

colleges with degree-granting capacity in forestry and degree-granting

capacity in other disciplines as well. However, I particularly want to

lay the emphasis on forestry because of the importance that forestry

has to our areas and our regions of the province.

I think if the minister would agree with that kind of

contention and

sit down with his colleague the Minister of Post-Secondary Education

(Hon. R. Fraser) and see if we could bring that sort of thing into

being, we would be paying a bit more attention to the needs of people

in the north and providing students in that area with the opportunity,

those who want to go into forestry for argument's sake, or into

research work associated with forestry, to be able to do it in the

locale within which they live.

It would also tend again to pay some attention to the fact

that the

whole world doesn't revolve around Vancouver and around the University

of British Columbia or Simon Fraser or UVic. There are other parts of

this province where we need to bend over backwards in order to ensure

that they get some of the opportunities as well. We've always

maintained that it's absolutely ridiculous for kids in, say, the area

from which I come who want to pursue some profession or some higher

educational activities always to find that they have to leave home,

always to find that their parents — if they want to stay in the north

and live there — have to face extraordinary costs to send their kids to

school here in the lower mainland.

One of the concepts of the establishment of the community

college in

the first instances was that it would head in that direction of being

degree-granting. That seems to have stopped. But I want to emphasize

that from my point of view, if the minister would give some endorsement

to that idea of curriculum with respect to forestry or research in

forestry, we'd be far better off in the northern reaches than we are at

the moment.

On another subject with respect to the northern part of the

province, on the Queen Charlotte Islands there are a couple of

sawmills. One of them cuts for the export market, I understand, and is

interested in pursuing that. It's a small sawmill. They've got two

problems: one is access to timber, availability of timber, to keep the

mill in operation, and the other is the question of what B.C. Hydro

charges and demands for people in that area if they want to move into

letting Hydro supply them with the power for the operation of the mill.

[ Page 8299 ]

I have a letter here from the village of Port Clements,

addressed to

the B.C. Utilities Commission earlier this year, talking in an initial

way about the sawmill part and mentioning that the two mills are

already in operation. They wanted to relocate and expand one of its

operations, and so they went to B.C. Hydro and said: "We need this.

Give us some estimates for supplying 500 kilowatts of power." This is a

diesel generating operation there; it's not hydro per se, but

electrical energy generated by diesel. They were told that there would

be a requirement locally to contribute $150 per kilowatt towards the

cost of generating capacity to serve that portion of the contract over

100 kilowatts of uninterrupted power. They found that that's an extra

charge, and they wanted that surcharge to be waived so that they're on

an equal footing with others in this province in wanting to saw some

lumber and provide a few jobs in the sawmilling area as distinct from

raw log exports — that's another alternative — not exclusively for that

area but for others as well.

They're also talking about alternative methods of producing

electrical energy. Last fall I had the opportunity to visit a number of

communities in the Kootenays, one of which was Golden, and toured the

Evans Products mill there. I had not known this before but was pleased

to discover that it had a wood-waste burner producing electricity for

the mill and, in addition to that, sold surplus electrical energy to

B.C. Hydro when it wasn't required. This is what they told us at the

mill, in any event: when they had surplus, B.C. Hydro bought it, but it

was utilizing hog fuel to produce heat, and a steam generator to

produce electricity. Now what's wrong with looking at that for some

area like the Queen Charlottes, for argument's sake, so that the wood

waste that comes out of the sawmills that they're trying to establish

and expand there could result in their producing their own electricity?

While I'm on that subject, I would suggest that there are

quite a

number of sawmills in this province that should be encouraged to do the

same thing. Right in my own town of Terrace, Westar's Pohle mill for

one — and I live three blocks from the place — has got a burner

operating virtually all day long. When they're operating 24 hours a day

it just pumps energy up into the atmosphere along with sparks and ash

and everything else, but it's a wasted activity as far as energy is

concerned.

[2:45]

I think we would be far better off if we could use that waste

wood,

that hog fuel, for steam plants to produce electrical energy and

provide the mill with its own produced energy, and allow B.C. Hydro

then to have additional Hydro produced energy or, if they buy it from

Alcan, as is the case where I live, to have that available for other

purposes. But it seems to me that it is a waste for that to continue.

It's a waste of waste material, and it could be employed to some

advantage. It would certainly be helpful to the sawmill potential on

Graham Island in the Queen Charlottes and in the Port Clements–Tlell

area, where is one that the village of Port Clements is talking about

specifically.

While that letter was addressed to the Utilities Commission, I

think

it is something that the Ministry of Forests could certainly be

involved in in a promotional way or in an approving way, if nothing

else.

I have run out of time.

MS. BROWN: I rise to ask leave to make an

introduction.

Leave granted.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the

House would join my

colleagues from Burnaby North and from Burnaby-Willingdon and I in

paying special tribute to Sharon Wood, the woman from Burnaby who on

Tuesday was the first North American woman to reach the summit of the

world's highest mountain. I am sure all British Columbians are proud of

her.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. In response the

Chair recognizes the

Minister of Forests. And one comment from the Chair with respect to

post-secondary education: the member for Skeena was allowed some

latitude to discuss curriculum development for post-secondary

institutions. The minister will be allowed the same latitude. but the

matter must then cease, as this vote cannot grant funds for

post-secondary education.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I understand. Thank you,

Mr. Chairman. We

will dispose of that very quickly. The member for Skeena's point with

respect to training of people in the interior and in the northern part

of British Columbia is a valid one. There isn't any question that we

should do whatever we can to encourage opportunity for those in the

north. I am not at liberty to expand on certain things which I was able

to encourage and have done before assuming this portfolio. The thing

that did give me some concern, I might say, is that my understanding is

that the forestry program at the College of New Caledonia in Prince

George had suffered a decline in enrolment for the forestry diploma. I

think that is a sign of the times. It certainly had absolutely nothing

to do with interest in the community, interest in forestry or tuition.

It is just that there were other areas of interest, it would appear.

But I am sure that like everything else it is cyclical.

The last item that I would like to make reference to is the

utilization of wood waste. I think probably one of the best examples

that I have come across in my short time in the portfolio is a

development in Prince George at the Lakeland sawmill, which utilized

the very product that the member for Skeena was referring to — wood

waste. They in fact installed a burner from which there is absolutely

no discharge. All you see through the exit are heat waves. But why did

they put it in? They recognized that the cost of natural gas was

significant, so they looked at what the costs would be over a period of

four years, I believe. They took what their costs were for the purchase

of gas and said: " I think we can do better than that." So the capital

cost for this new addition was amortized, I understand, over something

less, a touch less, than four years.

The most significant thing about it is this. The heat

generated from

that wood waste is being used for two applications. One is to heat the

mill during the winter — and it's cold, as the member for Skeena

recognizes, in the north — and for an extended period of time. It does

a magnificent job. The other was equally important. The utilization of

the heat generated in this new installation was directed by pipeline

over to the dry kiln. The effect was that they got a far better product

and — something I don't understand or know enough about yet — it

stopped some form of crystallization or hardening on the surface of the

wood in the kiln which they would normally get by utilization of

another type of fuel. It just so happened that as a result of the

nature of the heat coming from the wood waste going back into the kiln,

they are getting a better product and it is being done more rapidly.

[ Page 8300 ]

So there is lots of value in the utilization of wood waste,

and I

think what it boils down to.... When I ask other mill operators why

they aren't doing the same thing, first of all there is always the

pinch as a result of the recessionary period that we've come through.

"We can't look at an amortization of something up to four years. We

have other priorities, and we are looking at something that we can have

the cost returned for in one year or two years." There is only so much

capital available, and there is only so much that they can borrow. But

there are some real benefits in it. I understand that there is another

major mill in my riding, Prince George North, which is going to be

installing the same system.

With reference to the matter in the Queen Charlottes, I don't

know —

it just so happened that I have some information on that, and it is

here for a totally different reason — but there are two mills. I wanted

to know what processing facilities there were on the mid and north

coasts and the Queen Charlottes. Well, we know that there are none,

with the exception of two small mills on the Queen Charlottes. One is

Abfam Enterprises Ltd., which has an estimated mill capacity of 40,000

cubic metres per year, and the other is Lavoie, and that is a family

operation which has a capacity of about — and this is estimated, as is

the previous one — 30,000 cubic metres annually. Both have roughly 15

employees and both operate under one shift. Their wood source in both

cases is a small business enterprise program and opportunity wood.

I don't know whether or not there would be enough wood waste

coming

from or generated by each of those small independent mills to justify

the expenditure of what would be required to put in a facility to

generate heat and power. Also, when you look at their present capacity,

I would doubt....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: It's worth inquiring of,

though I can

assure the member of that. But I don't think there would be enough

revenue coming from 40,000 cubic metres. When you multiply that by —

what is it? — roughly 212 to get the number of board feet in thousands,

I don't think there would be adequate revenue. But I don't discount the

possibility and the value of it.

With respect to determining what other operations.... There is

only

one other that I know of, and that's under construction: Wedeene River

in Prince Rupert, which has a mill now under construction.

The cost of getting hydro over to the Charlottes.... When I

made

that inquiry previously, I was told that it's very significant. But

we'll have a look at it.

The other matter which the member raised involved TFL 23. Yes,

it is

true that I have a report. A report was commissioned on TFL 23 many

months ago. That report was filed. The purpose of that inquiry was to

determine whether or not the operator was maintaining its annual

allowable cut, even using the discretionary latitudes which are found:

that is, any year, 50 to 150 percent, with an average over five years

of plus or minus 10 percent. Yes, it is true that Westar had undercut

in the area. It is also true that we were looking at both the north end

of TFL 23 and the southern end of TFL 23, with a view to encouraging

others so that they could have access to some timber. And by the way,

those negotiations are in process now.

With respect to TFL 1, I want you to know that the information

which

I passed on to you is that which has been given to me. First of all,

reduction of the size of TFL I was the result of an initiative taken by

the Ministry of Forests. TFL I was reduced in half the first time, and

it was reduced considerably the second time. In both cases the wood

which was then made available has gone to other operators. I can't at

this time give you any further information.

So your point with respect to the undercut is well taken. I

want the

House to know that the matter is being examined. With respect to the

college, you won't get any objections from me with respect to

assistance for the interior and northern people, but I have.... I was

somewhat surprised to find the enrolment drop in the forestry faculty

at the College of New Caledonia. I suspect the same may have happened

at Northwest too, in Terrace.

With respect to the use of hog fuel and that waste for energy,

agree with the member. I will inquire as to the possibility for those

two operators on the Queen Charlottes. But I suspect that it may be

fraught with some problems.

Mr. Chairman, I gave some information to the House yesterday,

and I

advised my critic that I think I may have been incorrect in part on it.

I want the opportunity to clarify what I said. It involved the funding

for the Canadian Forest Industries Council. I said yesterday that I

thought it was funded by both levels of government — that is,

provincial and federal — as well as by industry. What I am now advised

is no, it is funded by industry across Canada. However, the province of

British Columbia does contribute — and did in the previous countervail

petition — an awful lot of time for the preparation of the material.

There was a warrant last time around; the province came up with

approximately $260,000. The government of British Columbia retained a

lawyer in Washington and there were a number of travel expenses,

miscellaneous costs and consultants in the U.S. and Canada. I just

wanted the opportunity to clarify that particular item.

I want to answer one other question which came out of this

morning.

The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) was concerned about

fire-suppression activity in the areas of Invermere, Cranbrook and

Arrow Lakes. In Invermere, there was one lookout in 1985; for 1986 we

have one plus three, and additional staffing as required. Obviously, if

it heats up there will be personnel available. Cranbrook: in 1985 there

were two; in 1986 there will be two plus an additional four as

required. The Arrow area: in 1985 there were two; this year there will

be two plus three as required. Those are lookout stations. As far as

fire wardens are concerned, there will be 16 in Invermere in 1985 and

1986. In Cranbrook there are up to 50 as needed, and that will apply

for 1986 as well. Arrow Lakes: 33 fire wardens in 1985, 36 in 1986, an

increase of three. As far as personnel that have been trained, it's

estimated that 300 people in industry and the finance and district

people employed in the ministry attended a one-day course in multi-fire

management.

I'd like to say one thing as far as the initial attack is

concerned.

In Invermere it's gone from six to nine; Cranbrook remains at 11, Arrow

at 12. In addition to this, an 18-person helitack crew will be

positioned at Cranbrook for the summer, which is new for 1986. A

13-person rapattack crew will be positioned at Revelstoke, with a Bell

211 on contract.

As far as air tankers are concerned, three Firecats and one

Bird Dog

aircraft will be positioned at Castlegar for 1986, the same as for

1985, plus access to the balance of the provincial fleet, which is 14.

[ Page 8301 ]

Equipment levels: Invermere, minor adjustments in upgrading;

Cranbrook, exactly the same, but with a new warehouse and office. In

Arrow Lakes there have been some adjustments as well.

[3:00]

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, I have to rise

and defend TFL 23. I

have some concern about the remarks of the member for Skeena, and even

more concern when I hear the minister say he's considering a report to

reduce the cut in TFL 23, which I think I heard him say. In most parts

of the West Kootenay, especially in TFL 23, we have a critical shortage

of sawlogs, especially certain species of sawlogs. I fully appreciate

that there's a severe undercut in TFL 23 in terms of total wood volume,

but I think the minister will determine very quickly, if he consults

with his able advisers there, that the undercut is in roundwood pulp,

not in sawlogs. The reason there is — and has been for 20 years — such

a severe undercut in roundwood pulp in that TFL is because in the

mid-sixties the Crown changed the rules — for the better, I might say —

to require pulp mills on the coast and in the interior to take

residuals from other sawmills in their region., and also to buy

pulpwood when supplied by other pulpwood suppliers.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

This has resulted in the Westar mill in Castlegar, through a

succession of ownerships.... Even though it is producing far above its

originally intended capacity, and hence using far more pulp chips and

pulpwood in general than it was originally designed to do, it is still

severely undercutting the volume requirements of TFL 23. This does not

mean that they're being irresponsible about it when it comes to

sawlogs, and I repeat that that is the critical type of wood in that

tree-farm licence. They are not undercutting at all, particularly when

it comes to certain species.

So I would ask that the minister not make reductions in area

or in

volume unless required by re-evaluation of sustained yield in that

area, because I have a very large sawmill in Castlegar which depends on

that TFL for a supply of sawlogs — hopefully in perpetuity. Any

reduction in sawlog supply will threaten employment in that mill, not

just in the long term but in the very short term. As has been observed

earlier in this discussion this afternoon, we have come through — and

are still going through to some degree — a very critical period in

terms of many aspects of our forest industry. Having this possible

reduction of wood supply hanging over the head of my constituents is

something that we're very tired of living with. We would hope that the

minister would move fairly quickly with a management plan, or with

whatever he does under his ministry, to assure my constituents that

their sawmill industry is going to be sustained in the immediate future

and in the long term.

MR. PARKS: I ask leave to make an

introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. PARKS: In your gallery this afternoon,

Mr. Chairman — actually in most of the galleries here — we have a group

of students

from Quebec as well as my constituency. One of the benefits of the

immersion program has been the development of an exchange program, and

this past April a group from Como Lake Junior Secondary School in

Coquitlam travelled to Quebec to learn a little bit about Quebec and

their culture. We have a group of students from Francois Bourrin School

in Beauport, Quebec, and I'd ask the House to join me in making very

welcome those students as well as the teachers who have joined them:

Kathy Paradis and Robert Paradis from Quebec; and the parents and

teachers from Coquitlam — Diane Aussant, Michele Paquin and Chuck

Provost. Bienvenue a Victoria.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'd particularly like to

repeat the

welcome which was given to the students from Quebec, and I'll tell you

why. My daughter just returned from one year at Laval University in

Quebec City, and after her year there and half a year in France, I tell

you the French language is spoken at home all the time. I don't

understand it, mind you — she gets away with everything. But it was a

wonderful year she had in Quebec City, I can assure you of that.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, what do you know:

somebody would come out and spoil a good thing.

I would like to just make a couple of comments very quickly

for the

member for Rossland-Trail. The information which I've been able to

obtain over a very short period of time would indicate to me that

Westar has been undercutting in that area for a long time. Some of it

was very significant and at other times it was not. One of the issues

was: why were pulp logs left? One of the reasons they were left is that

they didn't fulfil the commitment, and the commitment was to increase

the pulp mill in your riding from 500 tonnes, I think, up to around 750

tonnes per day. It never came to pass. So that is something we have to

look at.

I've also got the problem that they had from years ago with

respect

to the white pine which developed what is referred to as blister rust,

or something like that. When I see stands like this, where the

longevity of those stands is going to be determined by various types of

disease which they're susceptible to, lost....

Now I appreciate the caution advanced. It is not that I am not

mindful of it, either, but sometimes we have to make certain structural

changes. I'm not saying they're going to come to pass, but I want you

to know that they're being seriously looked at. All of this time was

not spent just to have a report done and filed. It would not have been

commissioned in the first instance unless there was a bit of a problem.

So we'll look at it, keeping in mind as well that there are a sawmill

and a pulp mill which have to be fed. But Westar has never even come up

to its annual allowable cut. So I suspect that the general public's

nervousness in the area within which the mills are located is probably

a very real one. I do not have any intention whatsoever of

short-circuiting the supply for two existing operations. From the

information that I've got, there would appear to be an adequate supply.

We'll just have to see what happens as the next few weeks unfold on

that one.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, I'll try to be

brief as well. There

are several points I'd like to make to the minister. First of all, that

mill is producing somewhere in the neighbourhood of 600 metric tonnes

rather than the original 500 short tons that it was designed for. I'm

sure the minister is aware that there has been no expansion of pulp

capacity anywhere in the

[ Page 8302 ]

province — or no significant expansion

in recent

years — for the very good reason that there was an oversupply on the

world market, and no company was increasing.

I'd like to point out to the minister that, unlike the mills

in his

constituency or anywhere else away from tidewater in the province, this

is the only mill which is required to operate a wood room and to cut

roundwood pulp from its own TFL. Crestbrook isn't, Weyerhaeuser

Kamloops isn't, Cariboo isn't, Mackenzie isn't, and none of the Prince

George mills are. Only this particular mill is required to cut

roundwood pulp in its own wood room — the only instance away from

tidewater, Mr. Chairman, and that is a fundamental difference.

I'd also like to point out to the minister that I don't know —

maybe

the minister does, but I don't — of any instance in the province of

British Columbia where the ministry is saying to a company that owns

both pulp mills and sawmills: "You aren't making enough pulp; therefore

we're going to cut down your sawlog supply, whether the sawmill is at

site or somewhere else in the province." I say that's an absurd

situation, Mr. Chairman. If the ministry wants to make some adjustments

in terms of pulp supply, then I think they should think about that.

But what we're concerned about in Rossland-Trail, and what the

working people and the business people in Castlegar are concerned

about, is a reduction in the sawlog supply or a diversion of sawlogs.

That is the concern. I hope the minister will understand that and I

hope the minister will take that into account when he makes his

decision and reviews reports from his advisers.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I'd like to address a

number of individual

problems up in the North Okanagan and the Arrow Lakes area, which of

course is part of Okanagan North constituency. I'd like to talk a

little bit about NSR lands in that area, as well as the lack of access

to wood, and go on to some specific problems regarding a couple of

local operations up in the Shuswap area, and then talk about some

personal observations I had in the height of the forest-fire season

last year over in the eastern part of my area along the Arrow Lakes.

First of all, in regard to forestry in the Okanagan in

general, I

want to go over a few statistics that have been brought to my attention

by companies that belong to the Shuswap-Okanagan Forestry Association,

or SOFA, as it is commonly called, just to highlight the importance of

forestry in my particular region of British Columbia. Forest companies

in the Shuswap-Okanagan forest area had a payroll in previous years of

about $82 million; $36 million was spent on supplies, energy and fuel

requirements; apparently $83 million was paid out in terms of forest

contracts to forest contractors; capital expenditures of about $12

million; and about $56 million on Canadian carriers for shipping

contracts. If you add that all up, Mr. Chairman, there's a total of

$269 million in direct expenditures in the local and larger economics

in the area. That's not even considering the multiplier effect of that

direct expenditure.

Now those companies generated direct and indirect employment

forestry and related employment, spin-off employment, of.... It's

estimated at about 13,000 person years. They paid out about $67 million

in taxes to the provincial and federal governments, and only $5

million, or 7 percent of that, was in the form of stumpage payments to

the B.C. government.

[3:15]

The Okanagan TSA contains about 1.7 million hectares of

productive

forest land. I understand about 70 percent of that is considered to be

good- or medium-site land. About 16,000 people — or almost 20 percent

of the total labour force in the Okanagan-Shuswap region — were

directly or indirectly employed dependent upon the forest industry.

That figure is taken from 1983. In fact, I think probably most of these

figures are 1983 statistics. The annual sale of forest products in 1983

was about $291 million, and 72 percent of that can be estimated to be

new wealth to the province.

The forest industry in the TSA generated almost $50 million in

provincial tax revenue in 1983. I don't want to go on ad nauseam with

particular statistics, but why I did go over that is to highlight the

importance of the forest industry as the major economic component in

the north Okanagan area, and into the Arrow Lakes. It's a major

employer. It is the major industry in that area. Yet we have some very

significant problems that the industry is facing as the result of the

NSR not sufficiently restocked — land throughout that area. In 1983 the

NSR land, according to information available, was about 95, 419

hectares. That's a little over 8 percent of the total good- and

medium-site land.

Interjection.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Yes, I can. I guess maybe I

need glasses,

looking way down here. Anyway, about 95,419 hectares, according to my

figures, plus or minus one or two. That's the figure.

I want to read to the minister an internal report from his own

ministry that is discussing this backlog of NSR land. I'm sorry I don't

have the year of this report, but I think it was probably around the

same time — about 1983. It says:

"The backlog is being added to each year,

since

regeneration on current logging areas (basic forestry) is not being

accomplished at required levels due to the lack of funding. The

Okanagan TSA in particular is predicted to have a timber-supply

shortage beginning within 5 to 15 years" — that was a couple of years

back — "of eventually 50 percent, even if basic forestry were

practised. Since reforestation performance continues to be less than

even this basic level, the magnitude of the shortage is expected to be

even worse. The TSA will undergo..."

I'll wait for the minister's attention on this one, because I

think it is a major statement.

"...extensive destabilization through the

loss of at least one-half of the forest sector employment, government

tax revenues, etc. Unforeseen losses of mature timber due to pests may

further exacerbate the problem. The situation can only be ameliorated

through a greatly expanded silviculture program."

That, Mr. Chairman, to the minister, is a quote lifted

directly from documents from his own ministry.

Now to avoid the shortage and to maintain the industry, it's

been

estimated by members of the Shuswap-Okanagan Forestry Association that

an annual expenditure of about $16.5 million on silviculture is needed,

and needed now. If you look at that figure and compare it to the

figures of money presently being spent, we see that it's about three

times the amount spent in 1984, according to the same report. The

report is dated October 1984, for the minister's information, if he

wishes to review that.

[ Page 8303 ]

Now under the ERDA program in 1985 and 1986, only about $1.2

million

was spent — it's my understanding — in the entire Kamloops forest

region. I think this has been upgraded for 1986-87. The figure we

researched for the Kamloops forest region — and you may wish to comment

on this and verify it — is about $3.5 million. I'm going to stop at

this point and ask the minister if he can confirm whether the present

expenditures under the provincial-federal ERD agreement are $3.5

million for the Kamloops forest region. The minister is confirming this.

I wonder if the minister can confirm how much of that is being

spent specifically in the Okanagan timber supply area.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I will have to bring

that answer back; I don't have it available when you are talking about

a timber supply area breakdown.

The NSR figure that you used — and you were referring, I

presume, to

the Kamloops region — was 95,419 hectares of NSR. That is within the

Kamloops region? I just want to make sure, because what I am concerned

about is this. I gather that you made reference to a report dated

October, 1984, and the concern which we have obviously is the sites

which are being attended to for reforestation purposes. I think we

should be directing our efforts at the good and medium sites.

When I see the agreement in front of me and the breakdown

under the

federal-provincial agreement on page 21, table 2 makes reference to the

Kamloops region, Crown forest land, hectares of NSR, not satisfactorily

restocked, and this was in June of 1982. The amount which they said was

for the good and medium totalled 39,590. So I am wondering if the

member for Okanagan North could give us a breakdown of the 95,400 or so.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Well, I don't have those

figures available,

but I think the minister has to recognize that the point I am trying to

make is that there is a very significant amount of NSR land outstanding

within the region that is not being sufficiently restocked. To proceed

a little further with that, he did confirm that the total amount

expended under the ERDA program for the Kamloops forest region, and the

minister earlier confirmed this, is $3.5 million.

I want to point out the discrepancy. The need as determined by

the

Shuswap-Okanagan Forestry Association indicates that there is a need

for about $16.5 million, and we're talking about actual expenditure of

$3.5 million. So we're looking at quite a significant difference in

what the needs are and what is actually being expended in the area. In

pressing the point, I think the minister will confirm that the $3.5

million falls far short of the $16.5 million that is in fact needed for

adequate reforestation programs in the area.

That is the point that I wanted to make. That is in fact the

point

that the Shuswap-Okanagan Forestry Association has been attempting to

make for some time now with this government and with the previous

minister.

I want to read into the record a letter addressed directly to

the Premier from the district municipality of Coldstream in the north

Okanagan. I won't read the whole letter but just the specific focus of

the letter. It says: "The Shuswap-Okanagan Forestry Association has

proposed that the level of reforestation and stand-thinning be

increased by 40 percent to 50 percent to rectify the forest management

practices in the past and to keep up with the timber-harvesting

activity being carried out at the present time. The council of the

district of Coldstream support the position of the Shuswap-Okanagan

Forestry Association and would respectfully request your immediate

attention to this serious situation." That is signed by Mr. Harry

Ellens, who is the clerk-administrator, on behalf of the district of

Coldstream.

I would at this time ask the minister if he has immediate

plans to

significantly increase the budget allocation for reforestation in the

Okanagan TSA as part of the Kamloops forest region.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, one of the

major concerns I

think we all have is the level of reforestation, not only in the

Kamloops region but in all regions of the province.

I think it has to be recognized that funding is not always

easily

obtainable, but an examination of the budget for the Ministry of

Forests this year shows a lift of 23 percent. The lift in the

silviculture branch is something in the order of 47 percent. The

concern that we must have, and that we will continue to have, is to

press for additional funding. That's acknowledged. When you look over

the history of the province and what has happened in recent times,

generally speaking there has been a significant increase in

reforestation. I suppose the simplest method of calculation is by the

number of seedlings planted, but that also poses a problem. As we all

know, seedlings may not succeed on the first planting. There was some

debate to that effect in the House last week.

I think the federal-provincial agreement — $300 million

divided

equally — is a significant start. Yes, we're going into the third year

of that agreement. This year it's boosted to $44 million; the previous

year I think it was $22 million in total. When we examine the NSR, I

think we've got to look, as our predecessors did, at good and medium

sites. That's why I asked the question involving the total number of

hectares classified as NSR — what portion of that. I would venture to

say that something in the order of two-thirds of the hectares that were

given are probably lands which should be addressed. My biggest concern

is that we don't increase our backlog. As on of your members pointed

out not too long ago, is the present rate of reforestation such that

there will not be any increase in the backlog when the five-year

federal-provincial agreement concludes? That's a concern we must have.

Also, it's found in the agreement. I'd like to read the last

paragraph on page 17: "Coincident with this agreement is the commitment

of the government of British Columbia to maintain a basic silviculture

program at levels sufficient over the life of this agreement so that

there is no net increase in backlog of not-satisfactorily restocked

forest lands." I think it's right and that we must make every effort to

uphold our part of the bargain.

You may feel that the increase this year under the Ministry of

Forests is not adequate. However, I'd like to point out that for the

Kamloops region, the total expenditure under the silviculture program

to cover.... There are a number of votes in here: 33, 34 and 35. Vote

36 is the FRDA program, the one I just referred to. Under

section 88

there's another sum of money; under the small business enterprise

program there's another amount.

[3:30]

The figures I have before me would indicate that in the

Kamloops

region, the total amount to be spent in 1986-87 will be $18,238,878.

I'm not going to stand here and pretend

[ Page 8304 ]

that the injection of that type of

money into the

silviculture budget, and as directed into the Kamloops region, is going

to satisfy the requirements of SOFA. I met with them, and they

presented their video to me, which I'm sure the member has seen. It's

excellent. It was the first video, I might say, that I have seen to

bring the point right home of the importance of the forest land base on

reforestation, because it goes right into the community and shows the

reliance by everybody in that community on the importance of the

forests,

So whether the member for Okanagan North will seek any comfort

that total figure I gave, which is in excess of $18 million, I am not

sure. But I want him to know that I think our objective has to be to

address the good and medium sites as aggressively as we can within the

parameters of our budget, and that we must maintain our commitment

under the federal-provincial agreement so that the NSR, the backlog

which that was to address.... It would take probably ten years to do

it, but the recently harvested lands would be attended to as soon after

harvesting as possible.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Now I know there is some variation between all the foresters

as to

when they ought to replant. I was on a site within the last month where

there is significant regeneration, and the biggest problem is thinning

and weeding. I was on a site recently where tree-planters were very

active, and the harvesting had just been completed. The nature of the

site permitted the planters to get on right away. Other sites that I've

visited show that they would require broadcast burning. That's

something new to me, and that term is new to me as well.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Broadcast burning. I

thought that was kind of interesting.

Even the foresters say: "No, you should not touch that land

for two

to three years after harvesting." I'm relying upon those who have the

technical expertise to give counsel.

Our commitment, which I repeat, is to ensure that the backlog

does

not increase. I would hope that the total amount of money from the

various sources under the silviculture program and as directed to the

Kamloops region would satisfy the requirements this year of the

organization whose cause you are advancing.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I heard it once described

that the total

amount of NSR land in British Columbia can be equated to a 50-mile

swath 200 miles long. That would be a swath 50 miles wide stretching

from here to Penticton, approximately. I don't know if that's accurate,

but in visualizing it, if it is anywhere near accurate, we have a

significant problem here, and a problem that needs to be addressed, I

think, a little more aggressively than the present minister appears to

be doing.

The minister has said....

Interjection.

MR. MacWILLIAM: The reason I say that is

because you're

standing on the other side of this House today telling me that the

information available to you indicates that the backlog will not

increase. Well, for gosh sakes, by implication you seem to be saying

that it's a form of standing still, of treading water. And what we're

saying on this side of the House is that we have to address the backlog

already there and to reduce it within a reasonable period of time.

I have no argument with the minister's statement that we have

prioritize, I don't think anybody on this side of the House has. We

have to address the good and medium sites first, but we have to address

them in a manner that will show very clearly within the next few years

that we are not only addressing the backlog that is presently

accumulating, but that we are in fact significantly reducing the

historical backlog in this province.

To go on to another issue with the minister, many independent

operators have been experiencing a problem in getting access to wood. I

speak specifically of local small-mill operators in Salmon Arm and in

the Shuswap-Revelstoke area who have been virtually starved for wood.

Some of these operators apparently have been paying in stumpage up to

five to seven times what the quota-holders have been paying. These high

prices on the small-enterprise market indicate just how competitive

that market for available wood is. It seems reasonable that because of

the high cost many of them can't afford the wood or it may be of poorer

quality or in some cases too far away for them to go and get at that

higher cost.

A lot of the smaller independents are going without wood as a

result

of the lack of access. It is my understanding that Westar Timber,

meanwhile, has been consistently undercutting on its TFL for a number

of years, and the minister, I think, would agree that this has been

ongoing. In fact it shows up in ministry reports. Ministry officials

have themselves said that Westar has been undercutting an average of

about 140,000 cubic metres over the past five years. I have got a copy

of a ministry document that goes from 1980 to 1984. If you look at the

years 1981-1983 inclusive and you average out the estimated undercut,

it averages out at 38 percent. One year it was minus 28.2 percent and

another year it was almost minus 60 percent, another year 22 percent.

Just on an averaging, I think my arithmetic in my head indicates that

it would be around 38 percent. I think the evidence of this undercut

and also the evidence of the independent operators going without access

to that wood indicates that we have got a significant problem.

Apparently the last operating sawmill in Revelstoke is going

to have

to close within the next three months. It has 23 workers presently

there, and the information that we have available is that it will be

closing as a result of, lo and behold, a lack of wood, at the same time

that we've got an average 38 percent undercut with the Westar TFL.

I have a couple of questions. It seems that the Minister of

Forests

hasn't been on top of this issue. I know we've discussed it with the

former Minister of Forests. I can recall very clearly last year going

over many of these details. Nothing has been done. I would like to ask

why the government hasn't been enforcing the "use it or lose it" policy

that is presently in the Forest Act. I would like to ask why the

ministry has not been listening to the needs of the local people,

individuals, independent operators up in the Shuswap-Revelstoke area

who have been complaining for years about the operations of Westar and

also complaining about the lack of access to wood.

Apparently the ministry, according to a recent news

article in

the Sun ,

is looking at a recommendation to cut about 10 percent of TFL 23 from

Westar — yes, 12 percent. Although

[ Page 8305 ]

that is a start, it makes us wonder

why the

ministry has been dragging its feet so long in this issue. I think what

is needed in this area is a review by the Ministry of Forests in terms

of timber allocation; there is also a need to look at the major

licences of those mills which have been operating for years without any

quota and compare the operations as to their performance. I think it

needs to be done so that the small operators can get access to the wood

either through increased allocation to the small business enterprise

program or by some means of having a quota allocated to them. Perhaps

the minister would like to comment on this before I go any further.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, on the

first part with

respect to the backlog, the increase in funding I mentioned a moment

ago works out to be under the silviculture program something in the

order of a 45 percent increase for the Kamloops region for 1986-87. Now

that is a very significant increase.

MR. MacWILLIAM: How much is actually going

into reforestation?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Under the silviculture

program for the Kamloops region, I read to you the figures. They'll

obviously be available to you in Hansard .

Out of the votes that they come from, that is the money that is going

into reforestation one way or another. The increase went from $12.5

million to $18.2 million, rounded. That's an increase of 45 percent.

Also with respect to the NSR, I think it's important that you

refer

to page 21 of the federal-provincial agreement, where reference is made

to the good and medium sites — this was calculated in 1982, and there

will be an increase, I suspect, of lands which have been harvested

between then and now — and these came to roughly 1.1 million hectares.

The paragraph which follows is kind of interesting. I'm

looking at

the province, and I might mention that the area of NSR in the Kamloops

region is very low. It's running almost neck and neck with the Prince

Rupert region with a backlog. The Prince Rupert region, according to

this, is 32,800 hectares; the Vancouver region is 21,400 hectares.

The total amount represents about 2 percent of British

Columbia's

forest lands, but a higher proportion of the most productive forest

lands of the province. Conservatively, the rehabilitation of all good

and medium growing sites would add roughly 1.75 million cubic metres

annually to the long run sustainable yield of timber. Additional

increases can be expected if genetically improved stock is planted in

some areas or follow-up silviculture treatments are undertaken.

Reference was made to access to wood, and you made reference

Salmon Arm and Revelstoke and the stumpage which was paid. It hasn't

taken me long to figure out exactly what was happening in this small

business enterprise program. I don't know if it's right, but it seems

to me that it is resulting in an incremental wood supply for the major

independents. Consequently, those under the program. and my exposure

recently....

Well, what has happened is that while they will go out and bid

for

10,000 or 20,000 or 30,000 cubic metres, and the amount of money that

they put out for it, before they bid, I have reason to believe that

many of those small entrepreneurs have made an agreement with a major

or a large independent or a medium-sized independent with respect to

the supply of wood. They will probably determine in advance what their

purchaser will pay for that wood when it is harvested.

[3:45]

Once that is determined, they are then in a position to bid

the

prices which they do under the enterprise program, keeping in mind that

those who have security of tenure maybe are not totally

self-sufficient, but they certainly are when it comes to a percentage

of the annual allowable cut which they need to operate their mills,

which could go anywhere from 50 percent to 75 percent. What happens is

that they can take the wood which they have already got and have bid

on, and now have, and at the stumpage rate which they have agreed to

pay and do pay the Crown. and they can then use that as leverage so

that they can afford to pay a certain amount more for the wood which

they get under the small business enterprise program.

When they look at the average, whosoever that mill is, when

they

acquire that wood they can take the cost of that 10,000, 20,000 or

30,000 cubic metres, add that to their annual allowable cut, average it

out, and so the cost to the millowner is then softened. That leverage

is available. Those bids, which are submitted under the small business

enterprise program, I suspect would not be quite as high as they are if

they didn't have a market to direct that wood to.

In the area of the undercut, it seems to me that we have a

little

problem here because the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) says:

"No, don't you touch it." Yet there are now two members from the

opposition who have said: "Yes, we want you to." I think you're both

right. There isn't any question that we must maintain....

AN HON. MEMBER: We're always both right.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: You're always both

right, okay. But the

truth is that I think you are both right, because on one side we've got

to make sure that there is security of supply of pulp logs for a major

pulp mill. And there was nothing wrong with having the wood room. The

whole plant was designed for that, and the TFL was set up in such a way

that it would funnel wood into the wood room. I think that begs the

question. It is true that there has been an undercut, and the

percentages which you gave are in fact correct. Hence the report which

was requested, and yes, the analysis that came out after that did say

140,002. So we have to have a look at it.

Yes, I'm concerned about the operators in Revelstoke, and yes,

I'm

concerned that clause 8.8 on the Downie Street mill specifically states

that the wood — which has really been taken out of TFL 23; it's within

their block area — is to go to that mill for the purpose of sustaining

employment in Revelstoke at that particular mill. Hence my telegram to

them saying that they were not to remove the logs. Hence the subsequent

telegram to them which said: "You will place your licence in jeopardy,

Downie Street Sawmills, if you do not comply with the terms and

conditions under which your licence was granted." I haven't heard of

any complaints. As a matter of fact, just after I o'clock today I was

talking to somebody in the area and was told that there hadn't been any

movement. Obviously Downie Street Sawmills has taken the second

telegram a touch more seriously than the first.

Yes, I'm aware of Mr. Kozek's operation in Revelstoke, as well

some others. I also recognize that only 8 percent of the cut in the

Revelstoke area is being processed in the Revelstoke area. The MLA for

Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) has made that abundantly clear, and he

has been advocating a

[ Page 8306 ]

solution to this problem for some

period of time.

So I think that we will address these issues. But you can't do them

overnight. I think the ingenuity is found, from what I can pick up so

far, among the independent small operators, who will certainly adjust

their ways in order to capture certain markets that may not otherwise

be captured by those who operate within the province and have

significant-sized operations.

I'll sit down now. I thank the member for bringing these

points to

my attention. I'm aware of them, and I would like to find a resolution.

MR. HOWARD: The minister is playing games

with figures here

when it comes to talk about NSR land. The statistics and the documents

from which he reads them are accurate, yes. He referred to the

federal-provincial agreement and a certain page on.... He's got a

printed copy there; I've got the typescript, so it may not be the right

page number. In any event, the minister read from table No. 2, and he

said that the total good- and medium-site NSR land in the Kamloops

forest region was 39,590 hectares. At least, that's what my copy says

here. He said that's really all we're talking about. The heading of

that particular table says June 1982. Those figures are 1979 figures

with minor adjustments for 1982. If you look at your own "Forest and

Range Resource Analysis 1984," on page C1O you will see that the total

of NSR land — all sites for the whole of the province, after

factoring.... Remember this: the Forest Service supplied a set of

criteria with the raw data, the result of which was to reduce the

numbers. In 1979 it was 1,095,200 hectares. That figure is reproduced

virtually intact in the federal-provincial agreement. The

federal-provincial agreement says the total of good, medium, poor and

low sites was 1,095,220. Now those figures are virtually the same. The

1979 figures and the figures that are referred to for June 1982....

They are basic figures from 1979 that we are talking about.

The "Forest and Range Resource Analysis 1984" on page C10

points out

that good- and medium-site NSR land in the Kamloops forest region was

141,000 hectares. That is before factoring. I want to discuss the

factoring question a bit later. But give factoring the benefit of the

doubt here: 141,000, by my calculations, is about a 60 percent figure.

I use that for round purposes, that the factoring results in a 60

percent reduction. If we take 60 percent of 141,000, we come up with

good- and medium-site NSR lands in 1984 in the Kamloops forest region

of some 84,000 hectares — not the 39,590 referred to in the

federal-provincial agreement; more than double. So I submit that, this

being 1986, that's what we should be talking about as the situation

today, not the situation as it was in 1979, which is the foundation of

these figures in the federal-provincial agreement.

That's one question, and I think that should be on the record.

Every

forest region in the province is in a similar position, in that the

figures in the federal-provincial agreement, the stats for the good-

and medium-site NSR land, are all 1979 figures. The situation in 1984

is virtually double what those figures are or what those figures were,

and that is something that we should seriously consider.

It is for that reason, if nothing else, that the amount of

money

that the minister talked about available for reforestation,

silviculture and so on is so grossly inadequate to serve the

requirements and the needs that we are faced with today. I am sure the

minister recognizes that the money is inadequate, but I thought it

would be worthwhile to put those figures.... And my 60 percent is a

rough calculation of what that relationship is. In fact, a rough

calculation on the upside; I use 60 for easy, quick calculation with my

pen and pencil here, and a piece of paper, to come up with a figure.

But basically, no matter how you refine the calculations,

there is

at least twice the amount of NSR good- and medium-site land in the

Kamloops forest region than is identified in that federal-provincial

agreement.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I am just asking

leave if I might make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MS. SANFORD: Up in the gallery this

afternoon is a group of

students from Vanier Senior Secondary School who are with the special

class at Vanier and who have with them a delegation of exchange

students from the province of Ontario. I am hoping that the members of

the House will make them welcome this afternoon.

MR. MacWILLIAM: With respect to the

comments my colleague

just made, the minister shakes his head. Other than a simple head

shake, I wonder if the minister would agree to the comments that were

just made with respect to NSR land.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I am not

in a position to

either agree or disagree, but the member has advanced some logic to

forward his case. It may very well be that he could be right. He may

very well be. The figures that I referred to in here.... I made comment

on this document; I made comment on 1982. There isn't any question

about that. I think he would concede that point.

But later on, with reference to the analysis, it could very

well be.

Where I think there is a possibility the backlog has increased on good

and medium sites, compared to what is published using the 1982 figures,

is.... The figure which you gave earlier when you mentioned something

about.... I think it was 95,419. I asked the question whether or not

that was good and medium, or good, medium and poor.

I think we determined that was probably the total, so if we

take 60

percent of that, it would jibe with the figures which are advanced by

the member for Skeena, because when you look back to 1982, round it out

at 39,500 and multiply that by 100 divided by 60, you will come up with

exactly the figure that I think would dovetail with the remarks of the

member for Skeena on a provincewide basis. I think that's right.

[4:00]

MR. MacWILLIAM: We certainly can get tied

up in the numbers

game. But I think the minister recognizes that this government's

commitment to reforestation is not adequate. Figures have been thrown

around quite a bit. Just to throw a few more around, experts within the

field of forestry have indicated figures in the area from $300 million

to $600 million per year being needed for adequate reforestation

programs. The present reforestation program, under the

federal-provincial ERD agreement, is $300 million over five years. I

think the minister can recognize that there is certainly a discrepancy

between what is perceived to be needed and what is actually allocated.

I'm not suggesting that the ministry or this government has a

bottomless pit of funding, but the minister has to recognize the very

critical need that still exists out there for an increased commitment

to reforestation throughout this province, a commitment that has not,

at this

[ Page 8307 ]

point, been adequately demonstrated by

either this minister or this government.

I mentioned earlier the need for access to timber supplies for

number of firms up in the Shuswap-Revelstoke area. I just wanted to

add, for the minister's information, that that need also exists in

other areas of TFL 23. In fact, over in the Arrow Lakes area, the

Nakusp-Fauqier-Edgewood area, a number of operators have commented to

me on the need to get access to that timber that is not being harvested

through the annual allowable cut of Westar. I think the minister has to

recognize the critical need, in view of the high level of unemployment

in the Arrow Lakes area — an unofficial unemployment level that I've

been told is in excess of 50 percent. Those areas rely very heavily on

the forest industry. We need to get timber to those independent and

small operators so that they can hire men: men that have been laid off,

men that aren't working, men that are drawing UIC or have gone far

beyond the UIC, and have had to subsist on welfare. Forestry in that

area, getting access to wood, is the lifeblood of the Arrow Lakes

region. The minister simply has to recognize that access to timber has

to be granted.

Moving on to an issue which the minister touched on earlier —

and

I'm glad he did — Downie Street Sawmills. As the minister well knows,

Downie Street was closed in December 1985. It is owned and operated by

Federated Co-op in Salmon Arm. Apparently the supposed labour dispute

that was taking place was when the company wanted to force a 25 percent

rollback in salary for the employees. After the employees refused, the

company went into receivership and laid off 165 workers. These workers

went without UIC benefits for two months. The layoff has had a major

impact on Revelstoke area businesses.

Valuable wood — 800 to 1,500 truckloads, it is estimated — was

left

in the yard. This wood could have been used to create jobs locally, but

the ministry did not take any action to allocate that timber.

Apparently the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael), who is not

here now, had said that this was a top priority for him; yet only a

couple of weeks back, when reporters asked him about this issue, with

regard to the Federated Co-op's attempt to move wood out of the area,

he knew nothing about it.

The minister had touched on the attempts of Federated Co-op to

truck

the wood out of the area, apparently to Adams Lake. He has said that he

has written Downie Street with regard to this. But I think we need more

than that from this minister. I think we need a commitment from the

minister that he will set a time limit, by which time Federated Co-op

must either start up the mill again, or sell the mill, or lose its wood

supply. We've got 1,500 truckloads of usable timber there, timber that

is going to waste because the small operators can't get access to it;

timber which they were trying to ship out of the area. This government

is doing nothing about that. I wonder if the minister would commit

himself to establishing a time limit, where the company must, as I say,

start up the mill, sell the mill or forfeit the wood supply.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, we're

between the rock and the hard place. You see, the forest licence,

really, right now is in good standing. It has about three years and a

bit to run. The licence expires in 1990. The way they are moving at the

present time, you can see that they will have some difficulty in having

any renewal of that licence, and I think they're very much aware of

that right now. If they intend to preserve their interest, it seems to

me they're going to have to demonstrate some performance very rapidly

or their financial interest in the plant, the investment in the lands,

is going to be in peril. I can't give you a time on this. If I could

say "tomorrow" I would, but I can't; but I want this matter resolved

fairly soon.

MR. MacWILLIAM: For the minister's

information, the

Revelstoke area has a 21 percent unemployment rate. I submit to the

minister that these people can't wait any longer. They need access to

that timber; they need jobs, and they need jobs now. I think the

minister should commit himself to act immediately upon this problem and

not exacerbate the situation by refusing to move on an issue that

should be resolved.

To move on to another issue, again it's an establishment up in

the

Shuswap area; that's Drew Sawmills, which after its receivership has

gone into part of the Beaumont mill operation. When Drew Sawmills went

into receivership, its forest licence was estimated by Touche Ross to

be worth $6 million. The licence was eventually transferred to Beau-J

Holdings for one dollar, despite the fact that the small mill operators

in the area had pleaded — and I had pleaded on their behalf last year,

as had many of my colleagues — for the minister to release some of that

timber allocation from the licence.

Beaumont Timber already had two tree-farm licences with no

operating

facilities. In response to pressure from the small mill operators, in

response to questions from the House, in response to a letter from the

MP for that area, Mr. Nelson Riis, in response to a letter from the

Canadian organization of small business charging that the former

Forests minister had a conflict of interest, the former minister

assured all that the transfer of the forest licence would only be

approved....

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely amazed to look across the floor

and see

the lack of commitment by members of this government on an issue of

this importance. When we're discussing forestry estimates, not one

member of government is in this House, despite the minister's presence.

That shows you the commitment — or lack of commitment — of this

government to discuss what is a major industry and a major economic

concern in the province of B.C. Not one single, solitary member in the

House. That's absolutely appalling.

Mr. Chairman, let me reiterate. After the appeals from a

number of

individuals — federal, provincial, the business community, the

community at large — the former minister assured everyone involved that

the transfer of the forest licence of Drew Sawmills to Beaumont

Holdings would only be approved if three conditions were met. One, that

the purchaser maintain and operate the mills at Malakwa.

I see one solitary member wandering in. Is that the extent of

your

commitment to forestry? You should go and get your colleagues and bring

them back here. Tell them important things are happening.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Could we ask

the member to address the Chair on these matters.

MR. MacWILLIAM: By all means, Mr. Chairman.

Two, that the logs generated from the forest licence shall be

transported to and milled at the Malakwa facility. Three, that the new

owner must continue to supply logs to Drew

[ Page 8308 ]

Sawmills traditional customers in the

area,

operators who had relied on Drew for their log supply because little

alternate supply had been made available to those operators in the

Shuswap area. Three conditions established, apparently, by the minister

before that licence was transferred.

It's my understanding that the owner, Mr. Mel Beaumont, agreed

these conditions before the transfer of licence. One year later, what

do we have? Every condition has been broken.

Let's look at the performance. Number one, only one of the two

mills

was ever reopened, and it closed down from October 1985 to February

1986; and since it's been reopened, only the planer portion of the mill

is operating — the planer mill. Number two, Beaumont insisted that as a

condition of the transfer of ownership all employees be first fired.

Some of them were rehired, but they were first fired so that the

employees would lose their seniority and pensions. Number three, logs

are not being supplied to Drew's traditional customers. What's

happening? They're being sold to the Crown Forest operation in

Armstrong, they're being sold to operations in Kelowna, and they're

being sold through middlemen to operations on the coast.

The fourth point: because of a deal made by Beaumont and the

Canadian Commercial Bank, Beau-J Mills does not need to pay back

interest or capital if it shows an annual operating deficit. What this

means is that there's a marked disincentive for this mill to operate

profitably. To this end machinery is leased from Beaumont Timber and

maintained at Beau-J.

What's ironic is that another adjacent mill, CITC, a mill that

this

operation was supposed to supply, has had to buy logs at seven times

the price through the small business enterprise program. This was one

of those firms that they were supposed to guarantee supply to. CITC

employs more people and operates more efficiently than the Beaumont

mill, we're told. So we can see that the performance of this operation

has not honoured the commitment that was made by the former Minister of

Forests in transferring that licence. The commitment has not been

honoured. I wonder if the minister has any comments on that.

[4:15]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I regret to advise that

I cannot make any

comment on this, because it's the first time that I have heard about

it. But I can tell the member that I will be making the appropriate

inquiries and have made a note to that effect.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I can only say that I think

the business

community, the small independent operators up in the Shuswap-Revelstoke

area, really feel that they've been short-changed as a result of the

transfer of holdings of Drew to Beaumont. They certainly felt that they

were short-changed last year when the minister simply refused to

acknowledge the need for availability of timber supply; and certainly

with what has happened with the performance of that mill subsequent to

the transfer, they're more concerned than ever. I would urge the

minister to investigate the matter at his earliest opportunity.

Moving on to another area, it is an area that has been touched

previously but I want to make some comments with regard to the Arrow

Lakes forest area. Last year, in July-August I guess it was, at the

height of the forest fire season, I had taken the opportunity to travel

over into the Arrow Lakes and into the communities of Fauquier,

Edgewood, Burton, Needles. I took my scuba gear and travelled around

the area. Actually, I was there on other business, on constituency

business. But I was absolutely shocked when I got there; in going

across on the little ferry from what used to be the town of Needles

over to the Fauquier side, the entire valley was in a pall of smoke. It

was just in a total blanket of smoke. I've never seen it over there

before. It didn't take me long in discussing concerns with the

residents of that area to discover that the most critical concern at

that point was the forest fires.

The forest fires in the Arrow Lakes area and the Nakusp area

didn't

receive a lot of attention in the news media because none of them were

major fires. Not like the large fire we had over in the Nelson area. It

took all the heat, so to speak. However, for the minister's

information, local forestry officials informed me that there were 114

fires burning at that time; at that very time, 114 fires in the Arrow

Lakes area.

I had the opportunity to take a flight with the fire boss in

that

area over many of the fires that were along the edge of the Arrow Lake,

and we flew over a number of actively burning fires as well as some

that had been put out, and to the credit and the dedication of the men

who were fighting those fires, they were certainly working to the

limits of their capacity and their ability and they were doing a fine

job. But I think what worried me most was the concerns that residents

and people — these were people skilled in fighting fires, who were

knowledgeable of the forests — were bringing to my attention. What they

were saying was that many of the fires that had erupted would never

have grown to be the problem they became if in fact they had had

initial attack crews on the job and had been able to respond to those

spot fires immediately.

One fire which got out of control was called the Stoney Creek

fire.

Stoney Creek is a tributary into the Arrow Lake just outside of the

community of Burton. This fire was right down onto the road; in fact,

they had to stop traffic at one point. The fire was only a few

kilometres away from the community itself. It was out of control, it

was in difficult terrain and there was a considerable danger to the

community and to the traffic along that road. The people I talked to

maintain that it was the lack of equipment and of manpower in the area

that was the precipitating factor in those fires getting out of control.

The forest lookout station that was operative in Fauquier was

closed

down during the height of the restraint program. The men were either

laid off or moved to other areas, I'm not sure which, but the forest

lookout station there is no longer operative. The equipment was moved

away. I understand it was moved down into the Nelson area. The reality

of the situation was that when they had fires erupting left, right and

centre and everywhere they looked, they didn't have the ability to

respond the way they could have responded if that lookout had been

manned and the equipment available at the time. So as a result many

fires that could have been dealt with fairly easily became major

problems.

I just want to bring this to the minister's attention, because

know there is ongoing concern that we may face the same type of problem

this year. Of course, that all depends upon the weather, but certainly

we can no longer compromise the safety of our forests and the safety of

those communities in the forested areas in order to accommodate the

budgetary restraint measures that have been part and parcel of this

government's mode of operating in the past few years. I want to

emphasize to the minister the importance of expanding the

[ Page 8309 ]

ability of this government to get

initial attack

crews onto the job so that these spot fires that could be put out in

the future don't grow to be major concerns that pose immediate danger

to the forest and to the communities.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted

to make a few

brief comments. I have said most of what I wanted to say about

silviculture during the debate on the bill the other day, so I'm not

going to repeat all of that, except to make one point that I think

needs to be emphasized — I suppose coastal MLAs are more inclined to

make this point than interior MLAs — and that is that it's easy to

conceptualize the NSR land, and it's easy to understand what not

planting vast areas of this province implies, and I don't mean to

minimize that problem, but I think there is perhaps better value for

dollar spent in putting extra silvicultural money into high-site lands

on the southern coast of this province where fibre can be produced much

more quickly, particularly if proper basic and intensive forestry

practices are implemented.

That's not to say that it's an either/or situation. I don't

mean to

diminish the importance of dealing with the NSR problem, most of which

is in the interior and not on the coast. But there is a very real need

to devote more attention and more money to the high-site lands on the

coast in general, and on the southern coast in particular, and much of

that land is on Vancouver Island. It's more difficult to demonstrate.

You can't talk about a 50-mile wide swath stretching from here to

Penticton when you talk about the need to do pruning and spacing,

thinning and then pruning up to 18-foot lengths, if you can, to reduce

the number of knots you're going to have in your wood, to do the

commercial thinning that can take place, the fertilizing that should

take place. I mentioned all of this the other day, so I won't repeat

it, other than to make the point that it's not as dramatic because it's

not as visible. People don't understand it, because we spent most of

our time in the last few years attempting to educate the public about

the need to replant; that, in terms of public opinion and public

education, is being won, and is on the verge of being won. There is an

understanding now on the part of the public, and on the part of

politicians, that didn't exist when I first ran in North Island seven

years ago. That change has happened in this space of time.

We won the battle on planting, in terms of the public

impression

that it has to happen; that's a major battle. It's amazing that it took

so long to win that war. But it's essentially won. Although we're not

doing all the planting we should, the fact that it needs to be done is

now generally accepted. The same level of acceptance does not exist for

what foresters describe as "intensive" forestry: the tending of the

crop, assuring that quality fibre is produced, and that it's produced

quickly. I think, when we talk about reforestation, we need to make

sure that it's understood to be more than just reforesting by planting;

there's a lot more involved in it. I think the Forests ministry can

play a bigger role in educating, in working with the professional

foresters and people who are interested in the subject, in doing an

educational job on that particular subject. There are consequences, of

course: that's increased cost, in terms of commitments to silviculture.

But I think most of us in this House would agree that those increased

expenditures allocated to silviculture would be wise investments

indeed, and we should all be pushing for them.

A lot more could be said about silviculture on the coast, and

doubt on future occasions we'll have further discussions about it. I

just wanted to make that one point at this time.

I wanted to talk for a minute or two about the way in which

the

timber resource on the coast doesn't really support communities in the

way that it could. We've grown up with a pattern, for the most part, of

logging on the coast, which is: as you cut the stuff down, you send

people out to live in camps and you cut the wood, and you haul it to

Vancouver for processing. There are minor exceptions to that: here and

there you get an anomaly like a pulp mill at Ocean Falls, an anomaly

like a pulp mill at Port Alice, but there has been, for the most part,

this cut and run, cut-and-haul-to-Vancouver mentality.

It may have served a purpose. It may have been the appropriate

kind

of structure to establish in the forest industry in days gone by. There

are now a number of communities on the coast that exist for various

reasons, partly from fishing, from mining, and certainly from forestry,

that are really subject to ups and downs, depending on the economic

climate of the day. Mining goes down, then the towns go down. Forestry

can be the kind of industry.... Despite its own ups and downs,

generally it's a more stable and more consistent employer over a longer

period of time than is mining. Certainly fishing has just been on a

steady downgrade over the years, in terms of employment. So forestry

has the ability to help some of these communities exist.

To pick an example, in the northern end of Vancouver Island,

the

town of Port Hardy, and the three or four towns that surround that

area, are dependent primarily on fishing, forestry and mining. Port

Hardy itself has its dominant employment provided for by the mine, Utah

Mines; mainly copper, but other minerals as well. When they run out of

ore in eight years, as they're expected to, there's 800 jobs — most of

the jobs in the community — out the window, down the tube. So the

community says: "What can we do to replace that? How can we survive as

a community?" And they look around.

Well, there's tourism, and there's a variety of small things

that

can be done, and we all work towards trying to accomplish that. But

when you get down to it, forestry is the issue, or is the area, where

the real jobs could be provided. Yet there's no serious effort on the

part of government that I can determine, that says to itself: "Look,

pal, we've got forest resources all around that area on the coast, on

some of the islands, and on the northern part of Vancouver Island." Why

not look there for specialty paper mills, for example, and locate them

in these areas? Why not small-scale pulp or paper operations in those

areas — not the kind of large-scale mills that we've been used to,

necessarily, but smaller scale? Maybe some of the products that we can

produce well; maybe fine paper, as an example, and maybe that can be

developed in an area like that, using local wood and helping to

stabilize the employment pattern. I'm not saying it can be done

overnight; I'm not saying it can be done by waving any magic wands,

either. It's a long, slow process. But that long, slow process begins

with a commitment to the idea that all of the manufacturing doesn't

just take place in Vancouver on the Fraser River.

[4:30]

That's the thing we've got to get into our heads: that we

should

start to do in a bigger way some of the processing out there where the

wood is harvested. It costs a lot of money to

[ Page 8310 ]

haul wood from northern Vancouver

Island down to

the Fraser River. Increasingly our markets are pan-Pacific, so we spend

quite a few dollars per cubic metre hauling the wood to Vancouver for

processing, which means an extra day's sail on the way back to the

Orient. The north of Vancouver Island is a day's sail closer to those

markets, so there could be some considerable savings in raw economic

terms by thinking about how we develop our forest resources from that

point of view. I think that serious thought should be given to

establishing a commitment, where it's possible, economical and

practical, to try to do more of the processing where the wood is

harvested.

Now some companies do that better than others. The former

Tahsis

Co., now CIP, has a sawmill in Tahsis in the middle of their TFL; they

have a pulp mill in Gold River in the middle of their TFL. That's

appropriate, I think. That's the kind of model that should exist.

Canfor, Western Forest Products, Mac-Blo and Crown have TFLs on

northern Vancouver Island. Crown has at least a pulp mill and a small

sawmill in Campbell River, so it's not too far removed from the major

source of their supply. Western has the old pulp sulphite mill at Port

Alice, but no sawmilling capacity in that area. Canfor has neither

sawmilling nor pulping capacity in that area, so the jobs, except for

the raw-resource-harvesting jobs, are exported. I think we need to

start thinking about how we can keep some of those jobs in the local

areas, try to make these communities more stable. The communities

exist, but the stability of those communities is really an important

consideration, I think.

It should be a part of forestry planning when we are talking

about

what our objectives are. What are the conditions attached to being

given a TFL? One of them has always been some commitment to jobs and to

community, but it's never really been done seriously. It's always more

of an afterthought, and I think that more attention should be paid to

that issue.

Also talking about communities, we can do a little bit more

than we

do now in terms of tree-farm licences being provided for community

groups or municipalities. The Mission TFL is an example. It's privately

owned in Cowichan, but it's another example of the kind of local

control over managing the forest in an area, and it works well. Anybody

who sees those forests, in either of those two examples, knows it works

well.

Yet when you go around on northern Vancouver Island and on the

mainland in that area, you find thousands of hectares of land

supposedly managed by the Forest Service that are not managed anywhere

near to the level that the land in Cowichan or the land in Mission is

managed. A perfect kind of small example I can cite is Malcolm Island,

where the community of Sointula exists, just off Port McNeill. It's the

right size for a community tree-farm licence where local people could

manage the island on which they live, with the principles of proper

forest management involved. Now no one has made an application; there

isn't a climate for that kind of application, because we haven't talked

about that kind of local management of the forest resource.

I'm not talking about all of it by any means; I'm talking

about

little bits and pieces here and there. I think it's been demonstrated

that we can do good work and enhance forestry and enhance the value

attached to the whole concept of proper forest management by having

people in their own communities involved in the management. I think the

whole concept of community tree-farm licences should be looked at with

more vigour than it has been to date.

The final point I wanted to make is the question of woodlot

licences. The ministry has had a woodlot licence policy for some time

now, but it is the most difficult thing to go from the conception to

the licence. I wrote the minister a letter not long ago about a

particular application in my riding that gets bogged down in the

processes and bogged down in the bureaucracy, I think needlessly. Give

up a little bit of the Crown land that's adjacent to an individual's

private land so that there can be an appropriate unit for management

sizes of the woodlot and allow that kind of thing to happen.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

There is lots of opposition to woodlot licences. It's not

spoken

loudly, but we all know that there is opposition to it, and I think for

some good reasons. That's not the way you manage all of the forest

lands in this province, but it is an element of an overall strategy. I

think that the minister could do us all a favour by finding a way to

break the logjam in this whole program of woodlot licences.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I always enjoy listening

to the member for

North Island's points. On the last item you raised with respect to

woodlot licences, I am advised that perhaps by the end of the year

something like I percent of the available timber supply will be

available. But you know something? They're going to have to make me a

believer too, because, you see, we encounter the same problems in the

interior. You should know, Mr. Deputy, that all of us in here have some

difficulties from time to time with the Ministry of Forests breaking

them loose. I say that in jest, and I know that you understand that.

But we do. We will see what happens. There is one that I am interested

in seeing move in the northern part of the province, where somebody has

set up a business and there is a huge demand for the product. So we've

got to do something about it.

You will receive absolutely no argument from me on the matter

industrial and commercial development in the communities where the

resources are located. I guess this is exactly what has happened for

the most

part in the interior and in the north — that's how the

communities were really developed. It just so happens that we seem to

have a different set of issues before us on the coast. I think one of

the reasons there is a different set of issues is travel by water. That

seems to solve somebody's problem, but it inevitably causes some grief

for others.

The biggest concern which I have here is that once communities

are

established and built up, and depend upon a particular operation which

has been in business for countless years and which has had the

advantage of a particular community and all the interrelationships

which developed there over the years.... If at all possible, I don't

want to see them placed in any type of peril as a result of changing

conditions. Most of those conditions arise for some economic reasons.

I think the member from North Island makes a valid point on

that

issue. We all agree, and I recognize.... I think you are fortunate on

the coast. You have an area where good and medium sites for

reforestation seem plentiful and where fibre grows with much more ease,

I can assure you, than it does in the interior and northern parts of

British Columbia. I think that is evident when we look at the amount of

the backlog.

[ Page 8311 ]

Although for a number of years it has

been

difficult to get everybody behind the concept of reforestation, they

are there now. I think all members in the House recognize that it has

been much easier to conduct reforestation on the coast and in the lower

half, particularly on Vancouver Island, than it has in other parts of

British Columbia.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I have a series

of unrelated

items. I think they better just be dealt with as questions and answers

because none of them are really related to each other.

Starting out in a lighter vein, I have an

article in my hand

here from Houston Today .

It's dated almost exactly a year ago. It quotes the member for Omineca

(Hon. Mr. Kempf) — the one who's now a minister — speaking to the

chamber of commerce there: "Kempf wasn't entirely supportive of the

provincial government policies. He criticized the government's

reforestation program for wasting half of B.C.'s forest resource." Then

the local mayor, Bill Mikaelsson, raised the question of the

redistribution of timber rights to new mills. Apparently the member for

Omineca had discussed the possible opening of a Granisle mill, but the

mayor was concerned that this was going to hurt the existing mills,

such as Northwood and Houston Forest Products. "Kempf agreed with

Mikaelsson, saying the government's forestry program was for the birds,

and he is working towards bringing the allowable cut up to better the

return from the timber." I wonder, now that that member is your cabinet

colleague, whether or not he has made any approaches to you on behalf

of his constituents in Omineca relative to the forest policy being for

the birds and relative to the wastage that's going on there.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I think

the member for

Omineca, now my colleague in cabinet, is delighted with the increase in

our budget, and he's particularly happy with the 47 percent increase

for silviculture.

MRS. WALLACE: Did he tell you to say that?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, he didn't tell me to

say that, but I'm putting words in his mouth.

I didn't want to extend this debate forever. However, I

believe that

the member for Omineca, my colleague, is delighted with the

federal-provincial program. It's a start. It will take ten years to

look after that backlog. We know it. But he's delighted with the

increase in the budget, and he was delighted with respect to the

increase in the silviculture funding. I'll tell you, like all MLAs

we're here primarily to represent our constituents, and if there are

some concerns with policies, I think everybody should have the freedom

to make a statement. I certainly know it doesn't seem to inhibit the

members opposite from making statements. Why should we on this side of

the House be...?

MR. BLENCOE: You haven't done anything for

ten years.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The member for Victoria,

part of that Terrible Two from the Mafia....

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'll withdraw. That

terrible duo from

Victoria. Here he is with all the industry that he's got in his

community, a new convention centre, tourists coming in increasing

numbers.... The people in the community can't tell me enough about how

good the government has been to them, and they're absolutely ecstatic

with Expo. Talk to the merchants in your constituency; they're

delighted with it all. Now that's got nothing to do with the Ministry

of Forests, Mr. Chairman, but....

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: It's time to have a

little fun.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I hope that I've answered the member and

rid

her of any concerns which she may have had with that particular article.

MRS. WALLACE: I understand the minister's

answer. The perspective changes, depending on whether you're inside

cabinet or outside cabinet.

Next question: another colleague of his, the Minister of

Environment

(Hon. Mr. Pelton), made an announcement yesterday saying that he was

adopting the Wilderness Advisory Committee report. Does the minister

intend to issue logging permits for Lyell Island immediately, or does

he intend to wait until the native land claims are settled?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, this is a

serious question,

and I will mention to you that I am now looking at the possibility of

issuing cutting permits on Lyell Island. They have not been done. I

want you to know that there is considerable pressure from the IWA to do

so. I think that's known to everybody here. There is also a request

from those where the timber is going to be delivered. The position

which we have taken all along is that we would wait to see the results

set forth in the wilderness report. It has come down, and government

has adopted that report in principle. There are certain areas which

require some refinement, I understand, but as far as the forestry issue

is concerned, it's something that we must look at very, very seriously.

As of yet no decision has been made.

[4:45]

MRS. WALLACE: Okay, next question. I

understand that the

ministry is.... Well, we all know — let's begin there — that there has

been a decided increase in the export of raw logs over the last few

years. I understand that the ministry is now looking at an expansion of

that export of raw logs, particularly from the central coast area —

that they're looking at a major expansion of export of raw logs. Is

that correct? If so, could the minister comment on the reasons?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: There certainly is some

consideration in

that area. There have been a number of overtures made by the logging

industry, their employees. We've seen that in spades. The issue being

brought to me by all of those involved is to look into particular

areas. As you know, under the standing green concept the timber export

advisory committee would make a decision. They would look At the

species, took at how difficult the logging terrain was and what the

costs were, and there would be an allocation. If, for example, a

particular cutting permit would allow 50,000 cubic metres to be logged,

the timber export advisory committee may say: "We will permit, for

export purposes, something in the order of 5,000, 10,000, 15,000 of

that portion."

[ Page 8312 ]

In addition, there may be certain

limits with respect to species as far as export is concerned.

The concern advanced to me by all of those involved on the

coast of

British Columbia is that certain areas of the province are very

expensive to log. There are also areas with absolutely no facilities.

As a matter of fact, do you know how many sawmills are operating on the

mid-coast, north coast and Queen Charlotte Islands? There are two

mills, both on the Charlottes. One has a capacity of 40,000 cubic

metres, with one shift employing 15 people; the other has a capacity of

30,000 cubic metres annually and employs 15 people. One mill is

presently under construction in Prince Rupert. There are no facilities,

so it's something we have to look at.

Whereas you may have a

magnificent forest on the coast, there are also a few problems with it.

One happens to be that some of the timber is overmature and some is

decadent. It's being lost and must be harvested. The whole purpose of

those standing greens was to permit the export of certain species and

confine that species.

With respect to log export, that is not where the problem is —

there is a problem. The problem is with the trading within the

Vancouver log market. It is fraught with problems. I don't think we

need recite them here, but there are some problems. All the market

loggers on Vancouver Island and up the coast have made it pretty clear

to me, and I've told them there is no instant fix to resolve this

problem. It's going to take some time and they've got to sort of bear

with us until we seek a resolution. They have all been consistent with

one request: "If you as government can resolve this problem, we want it

resolved permanently, and we're prepared to bide our time until you

can."

MRS. WALLACE: Certainly I agree that the

lack of processing

facilities is the problem there. It's much in line with what my

colleague from North Island was saying and to which the minister

agreed: that we need processing facilities in those areas. Tree-farm

licences here on the Island have as a condition of their operation and

their continuing to cut that they do some processing. I don't know

about the tenures in those areas, but the minister should have a good

look at that and see if we can't come up with some processing because

that makes jobs. If you get a few mills in there, it's going to make a

lot more than 15 jobs.

Just while we're on this subject of land tenure, I did want to

make

a few remarks. We've seen legislation in this House which allows pretty

free access to changing the boundaries of tree-farm licences; areas can

be taken out and added. I'm wondering if that is progressing. We've

also seen a lot of applications to take Crown land and put it into

tree-farm licences. If all the applications that were before the former

minister were approved, it would have put something like 50 percent of

forest land under the control of tree-farm licences. I'm wondering what

the status of that is, because I have a lot of concern about getting

this....

Tree-farm licences were originally intended as a management

tool

when they were first issued back in the early 1900s. They've now become

nothing more nor less than a licence to cut; they're no longer used as

a management tool. I know we've had some changes in legislation. There

are some teeth in that legislation. They weren't used by the former

minister. Is this minister prepared to use those teeth to ensure that

we do have some real management on our tree-farm licences? I'd also

like to know whether or not he is prepared to tell us whether he's

approving all these applications that are there for tree-farm licences

or if he's going to retain more of that land under the control of the

Crown.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, on that

issue, I'm not into

it all that heavily yet, but I can tell you this: the exposure that

I've had to date involves three operators where we have offered to them

to move from a forest licence position to a tree-farm licence position

where we attach greater onus for the management of the forest base. As

a matter of fact, we've been negotiating with Canfor, West Fraser and a

small operator called Dunkley Lumber, which is located at Hixon,

between Prince George and Quesnel. It comes down to negotiations

between the ministry and the operators as to the extent of those

obligations. In exchange for long-term security, they have to give up

something, and they also have to increase their management activities

for the base. It comes down to some negotiations, as you would expect.

Those are the only three that I am aware of that I have had some

dealings with.

If this is what you're referring to by utilization of the

legislation as a management tool, you're correct. I think that it's a

good concept. There was quite a bit of resistance to it, as I recall, a

couple of years ago, because a number of the small independents and the

loggers felt that this would be cutting into their opportunities. But I

think that we have to look at the long term, and look at the land base

to make sure that it's properly managed. This is one of the vehicles

which has been set up to allow us to do that. As I mentioned to you,

there are three that we are handling now, and there may be others, for

all I know. I don't know. I just haven't been around long enough yet.

MRS. WALLACE: I wonder whether the minister

would tell us

whether or not there is provision for further processing in all of

those agreements and also whether public hearings were held.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I can confirm that there

were public hearings held.

MRS. WALLACE: In all three?