1988 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 34th 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)

THURSDAY, JULY 13, 1989

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

8499 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Forest Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 86). Hon. Mr. Parker

Introduction and first reading –– 8499

Freedom of Information Act (Bill M223). Mr. Jones

Introduction and first reading –– 8499

Oral Questions

David Poole's pension. Mr. Harcourt –– 8500

Exclusion of Spetifore lands from agricultural land reserve. Mr. Harcourt –– 8500

Child development centre funding. Mrs. Boone –– 8501

Children's car seats. Mr. Barnes –– 8501

Okanagan grape growers. Mr. Barlee –– 8501

Ministerial Statement

Conference on North Pacific drift-net fishing. Hon. Mr. Savage ––

Mr. G. Hanson

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

On vote 27: minister's office –– 8502

Hon. Mr. Parker

Mr. Miller

Mr. Kempf

Municipal Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 19). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mrs. Johnston) –– 8525

Mr. Blencoe

Third reading

Islands Trust Act (Bill 78). Second reading

Hon. Mrs. Johnston –– 8528

Mr. Blencoe –– 8528

Hon. Mrs. Johnston –– 8529

Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 39). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Dueck) –– 8530

Mr. Jones

Ms. Marzari

Third reading

Hospital Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 69). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Dueck) –– 8534

Third reading

Labour and Consumer Services Statutes Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 46).

Committee stage. (Hon. L. Hanson) –– 8534

Third reading

Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 47). Committee stage.

(Hon. L. Hanson) –– 8534

Mr. Barnes

Third reading

Indian Land Tax Cooperation Act (Bill 77). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Weisgerber) –– 8538

Mr. G. Hanson

Mr. Guno

Mr. Blencoe

Third reading

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Statutes Amendment Act, 1989

(Bill 59). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Davis) –– 8541

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Williams

Third reading

Mineral Tax Act (Bill 73). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Davis) –– 8546

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Clark

Third reading

Natural Gas Price Act (Bill 54). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 8551

Ms. Edwards –– 8551

Mr. Clark –– 8552

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 8553

Parole Act (Bill 53). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Ree –– 8554

Mr. Guno –– 8554

Mr. B.R. Smith –– 8555

Hon. Mr. Ree –– 8555

Appendix –– 8556

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: First of all, I'm happy to say that

yesterday Lillian and I again became grandparents. My daughter Juanita

and her husband, Scotty Moffat, had a ten-pound, four-ounce baby girl.

That's great.

I'm also very happy to have with us today some good friends, whom I

hope to meet with shortly after the sitting begins. I would like the

House to welcome Steve and Carol Polywkan, Jack and Sue Quinn, and Don

and Marge Potvin.

HON. MR. DUECK: In the Legislature today is a longtime friend

and successful businessman. If you've ever seen a successful

businessman who does not work, this is one. He represented my community

for a number of years as an MLA and was also Minister of Municipal

Affairs. Of course, I'm speaking of Mr. Bill Ritchie. I have to thank

him or blame him for getting me into this business, and some days I'm

sure it's the latter. He's wearing a beard and looks about ten years

older; not being in this business, you'd think he'd look younger.

Visiting with him are his guests Jamie and Martha Gonzalez Luna from

Guadalajara, Mexico. Mr. Luna's uncle was co-founder of the National

Action Party of Mexico, which was the opposition party. I would like

this House to give Mr. Bill Ritchie and his guests a hearty welcome.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I'd like the House to give a warm welcome

today to constituents of mine: Carol Lundy and John Bassingthwaite from

the Share Our Resources group in Port Alberni, Knut Leine from the

Share the Forests in Duncan, and Scott Keery from Boston Bar and the

Share the Stein Committee. I wish the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: In the House today is a good personal

friend of mine, who is also the president of the Saanich Peninsula

Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Hank Vissers. On behalf of the first member

for Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) and myself, would the

House give him a warm welcome.

MR. BARLEE: In the precincts today is a colleague of mine,

Jack Whittaker, who is the MP from the Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt

riding. Would the House accord him a warm welcome, please.

MR. LOENEN: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery accompanying my wife

Jayne is not only a constituent, but also a very close personal friend

who has made a great contribution to education. She is a teacher, and

she has inspired youngsters throughout this province. I would ask the

House to please make welcome Lainie Bomhof.

MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce in your gallery

today my adopted niece and nephew, Steven and Cindy Dang. Along with their mother

Helen Dang, they are accompanied by their aunt Martha Lin.

I would like to share with the House the fact that Steven is a

recipient of the Premier's excellence award, the co-winner for the

Vancouver collegiate district. He will be going on from his studies

here to be a Page in the House of Commons in Ottawa. He is a winner of

the Governor-General's bronze medal for the top graduate student in

scholar for Templeton Secondary School. He has been awarded this year

the Dr. Gordon Shrum scholarship to Simon Fraser and the K.A. Waits

award for good citizenship. He will be going on to the University of

Ottawa on a scholarship for the first year of his studies. He was

chosen as the young ambassador for the Vancouver School District to

Washington, D.C., and Atlanta, Georgia. He represents British Columbia

to adjudicate the Canadian youth excellence prize to select the best

educator in Canada for 1989, as well as winning the Rotary Club

scholarship for service.

Would the House please give Steven Dang and his fan-Lily a warm welcome.

Introduction of Bills

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Hon. Mr. Parker presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill

intituled Forest Amendment Act, 1989.

Bill 86 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

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

after today.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

Mr. Jones presented a bill intituled Freedom of Information Act.

MR. JONES: The purpose of this bill is to ensure that B.C.

residents have open access to public records and other information held

by government bodies, but at the same time also includes protection for

individual privacy.

During the debate of the estimates of the Ministry of

Attorney-General, the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith) assured me

that he shares our concerns both for open access to information and

protection of privacy — because the Attorney-General knows that the

public has a right to know. The public has a right to know details of

government loans, of reports of such bodies as the medical ethics

committee. They have a right to know what ministries CSIS — the federal

government's spy agency — has access to. The public also has a right to

know what industries are in non-compliance with pollution permits. As

well, the public has a right to know whether or not they are getting a

good deal on the sale of public assets; whether these public assets be

public lands, public laboratories or public equipment.

[ Page 8500 ]

In his report to this Legislature, the ombudsman had some words of

wisdom for this government when he said: "Perhaps nothing is more

disarming of public controversy than openness." Mr. Speaker, freedom of

information is the hallmark of open government. It did not take one

year, as the Attorney-General indicated to me his ministry has been

looking at this kind of legislation, for the six other provinces in

Canada to adopt such legislation. All it takes is political will, and

British Columbia deserves freedom-of-information legislation.

Bill M223 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

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

after today.

Oral Questions

DAVID POOLE'S PENSION

MR. HARCOURT: I have a question for the Minister of

Government Management Services. The auditor-general's report on the

David Poole golden handshake stated that it was unfortunate that the

amounts of the government's contribution for Mr. Poole's pension were

not specified, and this was particularly so since the amounts were

specified for other pensions made under

section 34(4) of the Pension

Act.

In light of this conclusion, is the government now prepared to tell

British Columbians how much we contributed to Mr. Poole's pension?

[2:15]

HON. MR. MICHAEL: As the Leader of the Opposition is well

aware, the issue has been well canvassed. It was well canvassed during

the estimates. Former Chief justice Nemetz was able to do an in depth

study, looking at government policy regarding severance arrangements,

and he wrote an extensive report which was circulated to this House.

Besides, the auditor-general looked specifically at the severance paid

to Mr. Poole, and I am satisfied that the matter has been very well

canvassed. The auditor general clearly pointed out to the House in his

report that Mr. Poole was indeed entitled to a severance settlement. He

further pointed out that he found no interference had occurred by

elected officials in the conclusion of Mr. Poole's severance. Further

to that, depending on whether or not the time that Mr. Poole spent with

other governments was a part of his overall length of service with this

government, he was paid slightly less or slightly more, depending on

which formula you wish to use.

As the minister, I'm certainly pleased with the reports that have

been done on the settlement. I believe it was clearly pointed out in

the auditor-general's report that the proper staff evaluated and made

the necessary recommendations.

MR. HARCOURT: He also pointed out that the proper members — government

staff people, superintendent of pensions, commissioner of pensions, the member

from the Attorney-General's department — did not sign that order-in-council,

and that the amount was not specified.

A supplementary: can the minister assure this House that no part of the Poole severance was paid out in 1989?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I can't give that assurance. I can only

make an assumption. The settlement was made in 1988, and I have to

assume it was paid out in 1988. If the member would like me to

specifically reference that and make note of it as a question, I would

have to take it as notice.

MR. HARCOURT: So the minister is saying he will take notice, check it out and get that information back to the House.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Yes. As I said, the settlement was made in

1988. If the Leader of the Opposition has reason to suggest, or reason

to believe, that for some reason or another part or all of that

settlement was given in 1989, 1 would have to check with my staff and

with the comptroller's division to find out specifically when the

amount was paid. If that suits the Leader of the Opposition, I would

indeed take that as notice and report back to the House at the earliest

possible time.

EXCLUSION OF SPETIFORE LANDS FROM

AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE

MR. HARCOURT: I have a question for the Premier. This week a

GVRD regional transportation committee report documented very clearly

the serious traffic congestion and air pollution problems affecting the

lower mainland — congestion and air pollution caused by developments

like those contemplated on the Spetifore farmlands. Is the Premier now

prepared to reconsider his support for the Spetifore exclusion, in

light of the growing realization that we can't pave over our farmland?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm a resident in the wonderful

municipality of Richmond, so I guess I don't have much of a vote in

Delta. I said yesterday, and I'll repeat, that this government has

always recognized and appreciated the position and responsibilities of

local government, and however much the NDP would like us to overrun

local government, I refuse to.

MR. HARCOURT: A supplementary to the Premier. Yesterday 93

percent of the residents in Delta turned out to say no to the Spetifore

proposal. That's a greater turnout than in the last municipal election.

Ninety-three percent voted no, against the Spetifore development. Will

the Premier now admit that the 1981 cabinet decision removing the

Spetifore farmlands from the ALR was wrong and must be reversed?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Wrong numbers.

[ Page 8501 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I hear from the sidelines that it's

wrong numbers. I'm not too concerned about that. We're becoming

accustomed to wrong numbers from the NDP.

If I can clarify it for the Leader of the Opposition, the vote was

taken in Tsawwassen. Tsawwassen is a very beautiful community in the

southern part of Delta; it's not the whole of Delta. Furthermore, it

wasn't 93 percent of Delta; it was 93 percent, perhaps, of those who

voted in the referendum.

I certainly respect the people that took the initiative. Obviously

they feel very strongly about this. And their mayor, as I understand

it, has taken this to heart and has already said that he would be

considering all of the information that came to him.

Mr. Speaker, I can only say again that we in this House have our own

views on matters that are dealt with at the local level in

municipalities throughout this province. But if, because of our views,

each and every time something occurred that we disagreed with we

decided to overrun that municipality and make the decisions on behalf

of local government, if that's the NDP attitude, then there's no need

for local government; you can eliminate local government.

CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTRE FUNDING

MRS. BOONE: A question to the Minister of Health. On July 31

the only program in Prince George for children who are victims of

sexual abuse will close due to lack of funding. How can you reconcile

your commitment to the family, given your ministry's reluctance to fund

this program, even though it receives referrals from mental health,

from Attorney-General, from Social Services, from physicians in our

area?

HON. MR. DUECK: If the hon. member is referring to the child

development centres in Prince George, we have met with them and an

arrangement has been reached. Some moneys have been forwarded, and a

grant increase has been given. A review is being done of all child

development centres in the province to see whether the funding is

inadequate.

If we're talking about counsellors in general for sexual abuse, I

have to tell the member that if she is aware of any specific incident

where someone is looking for counselling that is urgent, I will look at

that particular case. I am not aware of any area where we do not look

after people in need immediately, at least if they are very urgent or

in need of immediate attention, and those that perhaps can wait will go

on a waiting-list, like many other areas in the health care system.

However, we do look after those people in need. That is my commitment.

And the health care system in British Columbia in that area is to be

commended for what they do for people that have problems.

MRS. BOONE: This is not the child development centre; this is

the Prince George Sexual Assault Centre. It deals with children ages

four to 14. It is the only centre in that entire area that provides

counselling. I have written to the minister; I have written to three

ministries trying to get funding for that program. For $35,000, Mr.

Minister, you can provide a program in our area that will be of great

service to the children in our area. That's what we want from you: a

commitment for $35,000. Will you make that commitment today?

HON. MR. DUECK: If I received a letter, I hope I have answered it. How old is the letter?

I don't ask a question in this House in that area. However, I have

to say that if there is a specific need and a specific request, we will

look at it. Whether we will fund every request there is, I cannot say

at this time.

So often people will say — or societies will say — that they got a

cutback. Let's say we fund them $500,000; the next year we fund them

$600,000, but they requested a million. That doesn't mean they have a

$400,000 cutback. This is what so often is done again and again by that

side. I want to tell you that we will offer all the services possible

in every area of health care, and we provide terrific health care.

CHILDREN'S CAR SEATS

MR. BARNES: I have a question to the Minister of Consumer

Services. A recent car seat inspection clinic conducted by ICBC, St.

John Ambulance, the B.C. Automobile Association, the Vancouver health

department and the Vancouver police department found that 94 percent of

children's car seats were incorrectly installed.

I would like to ask the minister if he could tell us, in light of

these disturbing findings, what steps the ministry is taking to ensure

that parents are warned of the dangers of improper installation when

they purchase seatbelts?

HON. L. HANSON: I haven't been given the privilege of seeing

that study yet, but once I have had that opportunity to look at the

study and digest its information, I will take the question on notice

and bring an answer back.

OKANAGAN GRAPE GROWERS

MR. BARLEE: To the Minister of Agriculture. I canvassed this

slightly yesterday, but I would like the minister to answer this

question: can the minister tell the House exactly what research his

ministry did to determine what grapes the surviving Okanagan producers

— the one-third that are left — should grow for future production?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The questions asked yesterday did not deal

specifically with the particular varieties but talked more about the

industry itself. I can tell you that the vinifera-type grape is the

grape presently planted in a vast majority of the acreage that has been

contracted with the wineries and those

[ Page 8502 ]

that are being supplied to the small estate wineries that are operating.

In helping the industry, it is important to develop or to bring in,

in conjunction with research that has been done, varieties that are

acceptable and will command a premium price in the marketplace. It is

also important to recognize that the industry will play a major role,

as I said yesterday, in tourism. Relative to the potential in the

economy of the province, it will give those growers the opportunity to

contribute very largely and, in my opinion, to see the industry grow. I

think it's extremely important. Whether it's a vinifera-type grape or

any other particular type, I think the industry will do that research

and we will get the proper answers.

[2:30]

Ministerial Statement

CONFERENCE ON NORTH PACIFIC

DRIFT-NET FISHING

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I'm very pleased to announce today to hon.

members of this assembly that next week in Victoria the province of

British Columbia will be co-hosting an international conference on

drift-net fishing in the North Pacific.

The conference will bring together senior government officials from

Pacific Northwest states, the province of British Columbia and the U.S.

and Canadian federal governments. Delegates include representatives

from the Canadian federal Departments of Fisheries and Oceans and

External Affairs, the U.S. federal Department of Commerce, the states

of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho and California, and the province

of British Columbia. Representation is expected from the Forum

Fisheries Agency from the South Pacific, where similar drift-net

operations are conducted.

As you know, large fleets of up to nearly 1,500 Asian vessels are

engaging in a potentially destructive drift-net fishery in the North

Pacific. These fleets are ostensibly pursuing the red squid fishery,

but increasing evidence is being brought forward to show that drift

nets are taking large catches of juvenile salmon on the high seas,

including some that may well be enhanced salmon stocks from our rivers

These fleets are engaging in the so-called drift-net fishery. Every

vessel, as you know, puts out 10 to 30 linear miles of light,

transparent net. Unfortunately the nets may well catch mammals or any

birds that are diving for food, which could become entangled and die.

This international forum will afford a timely scrutiny of this

insidious fishery which has such an obvious impact on our environment

and marine resources. It is the first step in the development of an

international strategy to curb this growing fishery that threatens our

salmon resources and also our ocean ecosystems.

I recently announced that the province contributed $35,000 towards a

federal program which has placed five observers on Japanese fishing

vessels to gather data regarding the squid drift-net fishery this

summer. I would like to take this opportunity to wish them every

success on this very important mission. The report from the observers

will be processed in accordance with an agreement signed by Canada and

Japan and presented to the International North Pacific Fisheries

Commission.

The province of British Columbia recently participated as an

observer at the first meeting on the South Pacific albacore drift-net

fishery, held in the South Pacific. Drift-net fishing of tuna is a

critical issue. Major concerns have arisen because of a dramatic

increase in the size of the drift-net fleets of Korea, Japan and Taiwan

and their estimated catch.

Marshall McLuhan coined the phrase "global village." What affects

the South Pacific also affects us in the north. This demonstrates our

commitment to all resources in British Columbia, to our environment and

to the future of our economy. We will not stand idly by and watch the

destruction of a fishery that belongs to the people of British

Columbia, or tolerate the unnecessary pillaging of the marine mammal

and bird populations of the North Pacific.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, anything that can be done to stop

the high seas drift-net fishery in the North Pacific must be done. I

personally think, and my party thinks, that we must take a much harder

line with South Korea, Taiwan and the signatories of the North Pacific

agreement, including Japan and the United States, to stop this fishery.

This fishery is ecologically incompatible. It is a time bomb that is

destroying the ecosystem of the ocean.

When I was recently in New Zealand, New Zealand is extremely

concerned about the high-seas drift-net fishery, even that far south.

They know quite clearly that the strip-mining fleets from Asia are

moving into that part of the ocean. In this forum, we applaud any kind

of baseline information being gathered. However, the position of

British Columbia and of Canada should be to stop this and to exert any

pressure we can to have that brought about.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

On vote 27: minister's office, $327,244.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, may I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. PARKER: In the precincts today is a family from Terrace, friends of ours. Would the House make the Ted Wolfe family welcome.

[ Page 8503 ]

I'm pleased to present the estimates of the Ministry of Forests for

the '89-90 fiscal year. My ministry is well along in the implementation

of the new forest management policies authorized by the House in

legislation in 1987 and 1988. The primary thrust of these policies is

to ensure that government receives a fair return for its timber

resources harvested, that jobs are created by providing new business

opportunities, particularly those utilizing our wood to a much greater

degree, and that forests are renewed at a faster rate than they are

being harvested.

My priorities, clearly, are on forest renewal, jobs resulting from

new business and from record-level silviculture work, addressing the

major forestry issues and integrated forest management.

To further implement these policies and accomplish these priorities,

government has committed more than $557 million to our forest resources

this year. Despite government's commitment of these resources, there

are many forestry issues of critical interest to the public. Officials

of my ministry provide me with a great deal of information and advice

on these issues; however, it's important that I also receive direct

advice from leaders in local government, academia, business, recreation

and conservation, labour and private professional forestry.

I have therefore recently announced creation of a permanent Forest

Resources Commission to independently review and make recommendations

to me on major forestry issues. Eleven very capable British Columbians

under the chairmanship of Mr. Don Munroe provide a well-balanced,

respected commission.

The commission's first three priorities are to advise on the

effectiveness of tree-farm licences as a form of tenure, recommend ways

to improve public participation in forest planning and management, and

review and recommend ways to improve forest harvest practices, focusing

on clearcutting. I view the commission's first priority as of such

importance that I am consulting with the chairman about designation of

the Inquiry Act to review the effectiveness of the tree farm licence

tenure.

I held a series of eight public information sessions throughout the

province in February and March of this year on this proposed policy. I

heard many concerns about forest management, and I am encouraged by and

pleased with the increased level of forestry awareness among British

Columbians. We had more than 300 presentations at the sessions attended

by more 3,000 people. Eighty written submissions also were received.

The Forest Resources Commission will in its deliberations review,

among other things, our

summary of these presentations and submissions

and provide me with its recommendations. Until I have reviewed the

recommendations of the commission, the proposed policy to replace

forest licences with tree-farm licences is held in abeyance.

Over the next few months I will be making a number of announcements

on other important issues such as integrated resource management,

wilderness management and a strategy for old-growth forest

preservation. There are, though, some additional very specific and

immediate actions that I have already initiated. For example, thorough

on-site monitoring and technical audits will identify any shortcomings

in a licensee's contractual performance, which will be promptly and

decisively acted upon. This will result in penalties such as suspending

operations and even cancelling the licence. Timber not properly marked

or transported can and will be seized and sold by government. I have

obtained in my budget 24 additional positions to staff. These special

enforcement units will carry out random, unannounced inspections to

ensure timber being harvested is properly marked prior to being moved

and subsequently correctly scaled.

Earlier this month I introduced a zero-waste-tolerance wood-use

policy for coastal timber harvesting. Monetary penalties will be

assessed for usable logs which are left on the ground if it is

physically possible to remove them. In addition, such volumes will be

recorded against the licensee's allowable annual cut. By my ministry

charging a minimum for low-quality logs, pulp mills should find it more

cost-effective to avoid using sawlogs for pulp.

Some would charge that we are not renewing our forests, and in

driving to Tofino it is understandable that anyone would be offended by

what they see in certain old clearcut areas. These are examples of

previous forest practices which are no longer tolerated. All these

unsightly areas have been or will be fully restored. A drive along the

Island Highway, for example, from Campbell River northward is truly

indicative of the level of forest renewal practices now required.

Forestry practices should now be judged on current and future

harvesting and renewal practices, not on old harvest areas which have

not as yet reached an acceptable level of stocking.

There are those who would say industry is overcutting in British

Columbia. The facts are that in only one year in recent years has the

harvest exceeded the allowable annual cut, and that was within allowed

limits. While the AAC has increased from 66 million cubic metres in

1982 to its current level of 72 million cubic metres, a record level of

government and industry forest renewal effort ensures that we are

providing for a sustainable level of harvest and a quality environment.

The allowable annual cut is adjusted periodically to reflect

changing forest management objectives and improved knowledge of how

best to manage the resource. Some of the increases in the annual

allowable cut result from salvage of timber affected by the record

forest fire season in 1985 and extensive beetle-killed areas in the

interior of the province. Legislation now ensures that areas currently

harvested are renewed, and our programs are renewing the old backlog

areas, resulting in a fully sustained forest.

The forest industry remains the principal economic generator in

British Columbia. It contributes $13 billion to our provincial economy.

Maintaining in our province as well the standard of living enjoyed by

British Columbians depends upon a high level of forest production.

British Columbia produces 60 per-

[ Page 8504 ]

cent of Canada's lumber, and is responsible for 39

percent of all of the world's exports of softwood lumber. We produce in

this province 30 percent of Canada's output of pulp and 18 percent of

its output of paper. This provides almost 90,000 direct jobs and twice

that number in related jobs.

Our estimates anticipate in direct revenue some $646 million a year,

and without this revenue we could not support the high level of health

care, education and social services which British Columbians have come

to expect. To ensure that this level of forest production can be

maintained, we are investing to ensure that all forests are renewed. We

are planting seedlings at a rate which will see a billion young trees

planted by government and industry between now and late 1992. This is

particularly notable when you consider that it took more than 50 years

to plant the first billion trees in the province. The second billion

took just seven more years.

I am pleased to have initiated the $5 million community forestry

program this year. Working with local government and industry to

sponsor incremental silviculture projects and create further short-term

training and employment for British Columbians, 25 projects have been

approved, creating 750 jobs throughout the province this year and

improving the value and growth of immature forests on Crown or

municipal lands.

The five-year $300 million federal-provincial forest resource

development agreement is addressing the renewal of the backlog of not

satisfactorily restocked areas cleared by fire, insects, disease or

harvesting prior to 1982. The agreement expires in 1990. 1 have

requested of Ottawa a replacement of this agreement to work further

towards eliminating this backlog and to conduct incremental

silviculture on young stands to increase their growth and value. We

will also fund further research on forest management issues. This

investment in our forest resource will benefit British Columbians long

after the expiry of the agreement.

To ensure forest renewal of areas harvested between 1982 and 1987,

my ministry has committed the funds necessary to complete the job over

the next five to six years. For areas harvested after late 1987,

industry must renew the forest fully at their own expense. These

government initiatives will ensure that all areas now being harvested

and those harvested in the future will be renewed to provide a

sustainable level of harvest.

[2:45]

Government and industry's commitment to intensively manage our

forests is bringing dramatic increases in forestry growth. Before

industry is allowed to cut a single tree, a specific prescription for

the subsequent work necessary to quickly regenerate a healthy, vibrant

new forest must be prepared and approved. Each prescription is subject

to public review. Industry is required to renew, to a free-growing

state, all areas harvested. They must meet targets which have been

approved by the British Columbia Forest Service before harvesting takes

place to ensure that a healthy, free-growing stand of an appropriate

species is established within a predetermined time frame.

Exports are critical to our industry and our provincial economy;

however, I am concerned whether we export jobs. I recently announced

measures to curb saw log exports from British Columbia, specifically an

increase in the fee in lieu of manufacture for exporting surplus

sawlogs. This removes any profit advantage in exporting logs over

providing them to local mills at a reasonable price. I expect this will

result in a substantial reduction in log exports. However, some exports

are needed to maintain jobs in B.C. I'm referring to communities in the

north and mid-coast, where jobs would be lost were it not for log

exports. We have provided the means to support these communities by

permitting a limited amount of log export in these areas.

To enhance capturing data on forest depletions from harvesting,

fire, insects and disease and yield from managed and natural growth,

our inventory program funding was increased last year to more than $13

million, and we are maintaining this level of funding this year. This

will help us to establish even more precisely appropriate levels of

sustainable harvest and to continue to ensure that the rate of allowed

harvest and actual harvest does not exceed the rate of forest renewal.

Our forest inventory information is already the envy of other forest

jurisdictions and forms the foundation of good forest stewardship. Once

again, more money will be invested in forest renewal. More than $250

million will be spent on silviculture this year, up more than 13

percent from last year. In fact, this year we have a record number of

tree seed sowing requests for the seedlings needed to reforest areas

harvested in future years. Almost 300 million trees are on order, an

increase of 23 percent over the previous year.

The level of funding for the integrated resource management program,

which includes range management, recreation management and resource

planning, has been increased to approximately $14.7 million. That's up

25 percent over last year's level. This tangibly reflects our

commitment to enhance delivery of these activities. Rangeland is a very

important component of our forest resource for livestock, wildlife and

recreation. Additional funding will be directed to range improvements,

plus inventory and monitoring of range conditions. In addition, a major

range program review has made recommendations to improve range

stewardship, and I will have further announcements once I've had the

opportunity to consider these recommendations. Our recreation program

remains an important element of our integrated management mandate. It

includes managing both forest recreation resources and facilities.

Increased funding will be directed to enhancing maintenance of existing

facilities as well as to public information. Additional funding for

resource planning is to support range, recreation and timber management.

I have already emphasized my concern for jobs in British Columbia.

While the industry must become increasingly more efficient in order to

compete in today's highly competitive global economy, we must

[ Page 8505 ]

continue to find ways to create more jobs. Our

emphasis on expanding our new small business forest enterprise program,

on expanding basic forest and forest product technology research and on

identifying potential new products and markets will produce new jobs

for British Columbians. The small business forest enterprise program

has dramatically increased the amount of wood sold on a competitive

basis to small labour-intensive operators. Expenditures under the

program will increase by almost 20 percent this year to $63 million to

provide road access to timber for small operators and to cover the cost

of forest renewal of areas harvested. Resulting revenues to government

from the program will be two and a half times these costs.

I have already started to see the results of our efforts to provide

secondary manufacturing opportunities. The first timber sale under this

aspect of the small business program was awarded to a well-established

company in Prince George which manufactures furniture, doors and

window-frames. A second sale was awarded to a furniture manufacturer in

Penticton and a third to a furniture manufacturer in Chemainus for

timber which will provide logging and sawmill jobs in Merritt.

Another timber sale to a new company in Princeton will result in the

manufacture of various products for the European market, creating 25

jobs here. A $17 million wood processing operation in Port Alberni will

provide 155 new jobs in specialty sawmill and remanufacturing aimed at

the Japanese market.

So from chopsticks to construction beams, secondary manufacturing

opportunities presented under our restructured small business force

enterprise program is generating a great deal of interest. I expect

many more applications proposing new secondary manufacturing business

initiatives with the potential to create many more jobs.

Integral to my ministry's goal of encouraging small business is the

woodlot program. This program is designed to encourage the citizens of

the province to become actively involved in small-scale forestry and to

place privately held forest land under sustained yield management. My

recent announcement that doubles the timber volume allocated to the

woodlot program will allow the ministry to award an additional 450

woodlots to interested parties throughout the province.

Last year I announced $13.5 million in provincial government capital

assistance for the new Forintek-FERIC forest product research facility

at the University of British Columbia. Several months ago, I was

pleased to have announced funding of $7.8 million for a new forest

research facility for my ministry at the University of Victoria, to be

completed in 1990. These new research facilities will improve

management and stewardship of the forests for generations to come.

National Forest Week was held this year during the week of May 7 to

13 and was officially opened in Lillooet, British Columbia's 1989

forest capital. British Columbia is one of the most active provinces in

celebrating this special week. British Columbians in more than 100

communities of all sizes throughout the province again responded in

heartening numbers by sponsoring and conducting field and mill tours,

classroom presentations, open houses, mall displays and special

parades. All these events commemorated the importance of forestry to

their province and allowed them to voice their support of proper forest

management.

Twenty-nine non-profit organizations throughout British Columbia,

aided by our Green Gold grants program, are sponsoring projects aimed

at increasing public awareness of the importance of forestry to the

province.

The government is committed to continuing to renew the forests

faster than they are being harvested and is committed to the creation

of jobs in the forestry sector. We are committed to resolving the major

forestry issues of concern to our residents. The government's new

legislation and policies ensure that industry plays its

part in forest

renewal and pays a reasonable return for harvesting our trees.

Government is doing its part by providing sufficient funding and

protection to ensure that the forest resource is renewed and to ensure

it will provide continued recreational and economic opportunities for

future generations of British Columbians.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On a point of order. I didn't wish to

interrupt the minister when he was making his very important

introductory remarks, but the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) made some

very unparliamentary comments and I think he could be asked to withdraw

them.

MR. KEMPF: If the government House Leader considers those

unfortunate comments and it offends the House, certainly I will

withdraw. But the truth of the matter is: it will happen.

MR. MILLER: The minister's statement was hardly inspiring, in

addition to being very hard to hear, which I suggest might be one of

the problems we're facing in British Columbia today in terms of the

operation of that particular ministry.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: The minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet), who

on a comparative basis does a heck of a lot better job, is in here to

defend his colleague in forestry. I can understand why he feels the

minister needs defending.

Nonetheless, I could hardly call that statement by the minister

inspiring. In some sense I suppose it's symptomatic of the failure of

this minister to communicate to the public. That's unfortunate, because

I don't think that everything that's being done in forestry today is

wrong; there are some good things being done in forestry. There has

been a failure to communicate this information to the public or to have

any level of public confidence in some of those activities. That is

extremely unfortunate. It has nothing

[ Page 8506 ]

to do with partisan politics, because it reflects on everyone.

I would characterize the tenure of this minister — in terms of the

substantive policy issues in forestry in the last year — as being a

failure. I note the spate of announcements that have been made in

recent days and I said the other day that in some measure they may be

being made to head off controversy and to head off debate on some of

these issues, but that won't be the case.

We see, for example, the announcement of an advisory commission,

which in reality is an announcement of the failure of the minister to

pursue his tree-farm licence policy which he so vigorously defended

last year in this House. The announcement of that commission is a means

for the minister to slide out and walk away from that TFL policy, which

has proven to be so unpopular in this province — even among the

minister's colleagues. It allows the minister to walk away from the

demand that was expressed in this province for a royal commission by a

wide range of groups and individuals. It was expressed not only at the

tree-farm-licence public information sessions, but in letters to the

minister and the Premier and, I'm sure, to other MLAs as well.

I recall the words of the minister, both during debate on Bill 28

and subsequently, when we saw the kind of jumbled administrative

attempts of the ministry to deal with the TFL policy. First we have a

public hearing scheduled for the latter part of last year in Mackenzie,

and people were scrambling to put presentations together to appear up

in Mackenzie; then that being cancelled. In one week the minister

said,"We have to postpone it for a week," and before the week was up he

said: "We have to cancel it, because we haven't done our work." That's

surely a reflection of the administrative abilities of that minister.

Finally in February we bounce to another scheduled public hearing;

again cancelled. Finally the minister puts out a press release and

says: "People don't understand the value of tree-farm licences. I'm

going to go out there and have public information sessions, and I'm

going to destroy the myths and fallacies." That was the minister's

press release on the public information sessions. Well, I don't think

the myths and fallacies were destroyed; I think the minister's policy

was destroyed — and a good thing too.

There are a series of failures in terms of this vital ministry in

this province. The minister has correctly pointed out the economic

importance of forestry to British Columbia and to the citizens of

British Columbia. It is a failure in terms of integrated resource

management; so much so that the ombudsman has to voluntarily offer

advice on a system that should be put in place — the failure to deal

with fundamental issues. The minister can talk all he wants about

making announcements over the coming months. There's a failure to deal

with the question of old growth, and a strategy for that tremendously

important resource for this province. There's the failure to deal with

the issue of overcutting, despite the lukewarm words from the minister:

"Don't worry." We have people in this province whose judgment we value,

people like Professor Pearse at UBC, Professor Reed and people in

industry, whose judgment we value when it comes to forestry issues, who

are saying unequivocally that we are overcutting, and the minister

fails to deal with that issue.

[3:00]

Wilderness policies. Surely the uproar in this province should have

convinced this government long before now to start to deal with those

fundamental issues, in terms of old growth, wilderness policies and

preservation. Yet they've been dragged, kicking and screaming, so that

in the last month we see the minister making announcements: "I'm going

to start to deal with all these issues. Just trust us; everything is in

hand."

There's a failure in administration. I deal with people right around

this province, in terms of forestry issues. The message I get from

those people in terms of trying to deal with the Ministry of Forests is

the lack of administrative capability and the feeling out there in

those field offices and district offices. There is the almost bunker

mentality that exists in the Forest Service of this province, which

should be the proudest public service in this province, and it's not

anymore. It has been devastated by the policies of this administration.

There is the failure to deal with the issues of corporate

concentration. We see the increasing levels of concentration in our

forest industry. We see the drift away from a market economy, which

surprises me, because I constantly hear from the other side the need to

strive for competitiveness and to pay allegiance to the principles of a

free market economy. We've sold our forests out and allowed them to be

locked up by a very few companies, some of them not even headquartered

in this province, which doesn't remotely resemble free enterprise or a

competitive market economy, and that surprises me.

There's a failure to deal with the whole question, which is linked

to overcutting, of silviculture, of intensive silviculture. There are

lots of examples of other countries that have come to recognize the

need to deal with that and have increased tremendously the amount of

timber that is available off the wonderful lands in British Columbia

that could produce so much more, which could produce far more timber

and field a far bigger industry. There's a failure to deal with that.

Research and development — it's a failure, again, looking at the

"Adjusting to Win" report. Research and development expenditures in

Canada are eighth of 11 OECD countries. "Even though" — and this is a

quote from the report relative to corporate concentration — "R and D

expenditures vary by sector, the overall level is low. Among the

factors which may contribute to the low level of R and D in Canada are

multinational control of Canadian companies and defence expenditures."

The Minister of Advanced Education (Hon. S. Hagen) alluded to the

defence expenditures in some countries when I spoke on that issue the

other day.

[ Page 8507 ]

There's a failure to deal, except in the last week or two, with the

issue of waste, so that this bountiful resource that we have, this

natural endowment that supplies so much to British Columbia, has been

harvested so foolishly in many instances, allowing fibre to remain on

the forest floor and wood that is capable of being used for creating

very fine finished products to go into pulp mills to create chips for

pulp mills.

A failure, and I don't use the term lightly. There is a failure, and

this is the pre-eminent public issue in British Columbia today. How we

administer, how we manage those public resources for the benefit of

citizens today and on into the future....

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Tell us about Carmanah.

MR. MILLER: We'll talk about Carmanah, Mr. Minister of

Environment. You might want to discuss Carmanah too, seeing as you're

the Minister of Environment. Hopefully, you will get an opportunity

during these estimates.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I want to hear your position. Let's hear it.

MR. MILLER: You can hear my position.

If we look at the substantive issues in terms of forest policy, in

terms of forest administration, it's my view that the minister has not

dealt adequately with those issues. I don't think that the current

spate of announcements, as I said, which I think are designed in large

measure with public relations as their guiding principle, will really

satisfy that public demand that we have of renewed assessment of how we

manage our natural resources.

I am prepared to leave it at that. If the minister wants to respond, that's fine, otherwise I'll move into substantive issues.

HON. MR. PARKER: I was interested in watching what's

developing across the way — the change in haircuts and suit styles and

colours and the anti-glare devices on the foreheads, and so on. It

would be interesting for us just to take a look at the strategy, how

they try to take the offensive so that we have to be on the defensive,

but there is nothing to be defensive about.

This ministry functions well. We have some 3,400 employees who have

dedicated their lives — they are working environmentalists — to the

management of the forests of British Columbia. The policies of this

government are ones that have encouraged investment of historic

proportions in the last two years The jobs it has created and is

creating are of great benefit.

If we take a look at StatsCan and just go back to the beginning of last year,

if our population had remained static at that time, we would have zero unemployment.

The enthusiasm, the opportunities that are created in this province by this

government are such that the in-migration is between 5,000 and 7,000 people

a month, and we are able to accommodate these folks because of our leadership

and our policies.

Some of the leadership that we are demonstrating is that of asking

advice of learned and caring and capable British Columbians through the

Forest Resources Commission, which is an advisory commission created

under the Ministry of Forests Act. If the members opposite care to take

the time to read it, they will find that that provision has been in

place for a number of years. It's nothing new. It's not reactionary. It

just makes good sense.

I am the only minister who.... When the opposition tried to be

government, their minister didn't go around the province and listen to

the people, but this minister did. I noted what I heard, I noted the

concern, for which I am greatly appreciative, because over the years

when I was an industrial forester trying to get people interested in

the B.C. Forestry Association, the Canadian Institute of Forestry and

other forestry organizations, very seldom could we get anybody to turn

out. In the last few years, the awareness of the forest resource has

increased substantially; for that, I'm grateful.

Out of that input from the information sessions we had around the

province grew several strategies. One was to create the Forest

Resources Commission so that we have an advisory body giving us a

continuous review of what's taking place, instead of just a snapshot.

That has received a great deal of support throughout the province from

all walks of life.

The member opposite talks about old growth. I'd like to see a

definition for old growth, because we have an interministry group that

is trying to define what old growth is at this time. Is it first

growth? Is it old growth? If it's old growth, how old is old? Is 300

old? Is 500 old? Is 900 old? What's old? Then we go from there and

decide how best to deal with it.

Over the years in the province, as the Europeans settled, the

harvested timber has been integral to the development of the province.

It will continue to be in the province.

I've passed this information around to members of the Legislative

Assembly — an information sheet on forest management in British

Columbia. It tells us that British Columbia's land mass is some 94.8

million hectares. Of that, the forest service manages 73.8 million

under Crown provincial forests and 6.9 million in tree-farm licences.

The productive Crown provincial forest land is some 43 million

hectares. The productive Crown provincial forest land available and

suitable under today's circumstances for timber harvesting is 22.6

million hectares out of 94.8 million hectares.

It's important to preserve selected representations of the various

forest types, site types and biogeoclimatic types in the province.

That's done by this government and previous governments through

ecological reserves and park reserves. It is important that we protect

the silvicultural land reserve, like the agricultural land reserve.

There's some reference to overcutting. British Columbia is not

overcutting. In recent years, we've cut in excess of the provincial

allowable cut of 72 million

[ Page 8508 ]

cubic metres by some 6 million cubic metres — well

within the 10 percent limits set by legislation. In actual fact, if

anybody cares to take a look, you will see that the level of harvest is

actually picking up undercuts.

We have gone to great lengths to redistribute part of the provincial

annual allowable cut through our small business forest enterprise

program. As I outlined in my opening remarks, it's a substantial

success, and there's more to be brought forward here in the next few

months as the sales are advertised and the good proposals received.

This government has supported research and development like no other

government in the past — basic research and some very significant

research in biotechnology. We were able to save a biotechnological

research group from being scooped by an eastern United States

enterprise. We have it instituted in B.C. Research. We did that with

the help of the federal government. It's not hard to work with the

federal government. The opportunity arose; time was of the essence, and

we made it possible to happen on the basis of a handshake. The federal

government came through in short order together with the province to

institute the biotechnology group at the research centre on the

University Endowment Lands. We've also provided the funding — and this

is full provincial funding — for a forest sciences building at the

University of Victoria to house our research division.

[Mr. Mowat in the chair.]

What's important, of course, is technology transfer. We have taken a

world leadership role in technology transfer, particularly in remote

sensing and applying that to resource management. As a matter of fact,

this week at the University of British Columbia there is a symposium

taking place. More than 800 people from around the world are attending

a remote-sensing symposium. One of the leaders of the group is our

director of inventory, Mr. Hegyi. Mr. Hegyi has been invited to a

number of different worldwide locations and, as a matter of fact, is

chairman of one of the significant international scientific groups. He

will be bringing to Victoria next year some 1,000 people from around

the world to deal with remote-sensing applications in resource

management.

[3:15]

So you find that this government has been a leader in research and

development in the forest industries. We support the Forintek-FERIC

group on the campus of UBC. Forintek is an organization funded by the

federal government, the industry and the provincial government. It

concentrates on solid wood products, preserved wood products, veneer

products, lumber products and by-products from these items. There is a

new building going up on that campus, going up because of the

leadership that we provided.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to point out to everybody in

the House and the people of British Columbia that the B.C. Forest

Service is a forerunner in the world when it comes to forest

management, research and development and technology transfer.

MR. KEMPF: I agree with the last words of the minister. The

B.C. Forest Service could be a forerunner, if only the politicians at

the top would allow it to do the job for which it exists in British

Columbia. That job is not allowed to be done in the field. The minister

can speak as glowingly as he likes about what has happened to the

forest industry in British Columbia in the last five decades.

Management? Is that what the minister wants to call it? You need only

go out there — and the minister has said that he's been out and around

the province — and look and listen to know that forest management in

British Columbia has for a number of decades been an absolute disaster,

to the detriment of every citizen in this province. Mr. Chairman, I

speak from a position of knowledge, having spent 20 years directly in

the industry myself and, as short as it might have been, some time as

the minister responsible for forests. The minister talks about good

forest management. Well, we're going to talk for an awfully long time

in this chamber in these estimates about forest management in British

Columbia.

The minister talked about jobs. Let's look at the statistics to see

where we are with the great forest management in this province with

respect to jobs. From 1978 to 1985 alone, for which I have the figures,

the number of jobs in the forest industry in British Columbia went down

by 48 percent in logging; in sawmills, by 44 percent; and in pulp and

paper, by 46 percent. On a yearly basis, between 1985 and the present,

it has been even worse.

The industry has flourished all right, but the people who have

flourished in it have not been those who have been working in it; they

have been the large offshore, multinational, in most cases integrated,

companies that have taken from this province and left nothing for its

citizens in return for its primary resource. It's a shame, Mr.

Chairman. It's not only a shame; it's a crime. The whole shame of it is

that, no matter what we say in this chamber at this time or any time in

the future while that administration sits as government, we will not

have any meaningful change. That's the sad thing about it all.

If the minister were really listening, he'd go out there and listen,

because the people of British Columbia know what the problem is and how

to rectify it. His own staff knows what the problems are. While I was

minister that very short seven months, I initiated a management review

in which at the end those employees began to speak of the problems that

existed. They know how to rectify them. They only have to get the

politicians to open their ears. But a billion dollar-a-year lobby is a

big and powerful lobby in British Columbia, and that too is sad. As

I've said in this House many times, it's costing the taxpayers of this

province a billion dollars a year, and that won't change, either, under

this administration.

The minister talks glowingly about a permanent forest resource

commission being established. Yes, there are some very good people on

that commission, but they're not going to make anything happen, either,

with respect to the abominable state of forest management in this

province, because they have to

[ Page 8509 ]

go cap in hand to the minister in order to do

anything. You need only read the press release to find that out.

Independent commission indeed!

If the minister really wanted to do something with respect to the

dismal management of our forest resources in British Columbia, why

didn't he just go next door to the state of Washington and see what is

being done — and has been done for the last two years — with their

timber, fish and wildlife agreement? Why isn't the minister bringing in

legislation that would allow this kind of committee in British

Columbia, not a forest resource commission that has to go to the

minister every time they want to go to the washroom?

You can learn a lot from others' mistakes, and they made a lot of

mistakes south of the border with respect to the forest industry. But

they're rectifying some of those mistakes. They have a group of people

making decisions on behalf of the residents of that state which will

improve an already good management system. There's some cooperation.

There's no political interference, as there has been in British

Columbia for five decades, with decisions being made from behind a

minister's or a deputy minister's desk. That's the problem in B.C.

That's why multinational corporations are ripping off the taxpayers of

this province. That's why it costs us money to maintain the forest

resource. That's why that billion dollars a year isn't flowing from

that resource into the coffers of the province.

You can say you're listening, Mr. Minister, but one of these days

someone in your position is going to have to listen. Perhaps it will be

too late. It will certainly be too late for a number of the communities

that I serve, which, 20 years down the road, will not have an industry

— certainly not as they know it today. They may have some pulp mills,

because fibre is all that will remain.

The minister says there's no overcutting. Did the minister read

this report that was commissioned in 1986 by Mr. Ewing with respect to

the Prince George TSA? Did you read that report before you wrote me on

May 24 of this year? I quote from the letter: "The Prince George timber

supply area is not being overcut. Harvesting levels are within the

allowable annual cut, as authorized by the chief forester." Is it not

overcut because the cut authorized by the chief forester is in effect

correct? This report is quite explicit and clearly points out that in

December of 1986 the Prince George TSA was overcut to the tune of at

least 35 percent. Has anything changed, as far as the annual allowable

cut of the Prince George TSA is concerned, since December 1986? If so,

let the minister show this House.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Oh, the Minister of Education is an expert on

forestry. If he is, I would suggest he get up in this debate and tell

us what he knows about forestry, not just make snide remarks from the

corner seat. Tell us what he knows about this industry and about the

resource.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Probably no more than you do. I know we've got a good Forests minister now.

MR. KEMPF: You won't have him long, because he's an

embarrassment not only to you but to that government and to all British

Columbians. The sooner you get him out of there, the better he'll be.

Not that that's going to change anything. Its not going to change a

thing. It certainly won't change his standing out there in the eyes of

even the multinational corporations. It's the little guy that's really

hurting out there, and he is the guy that's really down on the Minister

of Forests. Even the multinationals that he stands for have no use for

him.

The minister talks about overcutting. The minister talks about

listening — the so-called information meetings that were held around

the province. I attended every last one of them.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: How much information did you contribute?

MR. KEMPF: Not very much, when I listened to the B.C. Forest

Service giving their spiel there three times a day. Not very much,

considering that had nothing to do with the reality out there in the

forest industry of British Columbia. Nothing, as a matter of fact, Mr.

Minister of Education.

Neither did the minister, because after coming back from that tour

of eight meetings throughout this province, he had the audacity to

suggest that 60 percent of the people who appeared before those

meetings didn't know what they were talking about. If that minister

really wants to listen to the people of British Columbia, he doesn't do

it in that manner.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You were 40 percent of the 60.

MR. KEMPF: The Minister of Education knows everything about

everything. I really wish, Mr. Minister of Education, that the minister

meant what he said in his opening remarks, and really believed in them,

because it's quite clear, given the state of the industry out there

today, that that's not the case at all. You know, you can't fool the

people any longer, because you no longer have to go over the second

hill to see where they are logging. They're logging on their back steps.

[3:30]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: That's not fair.

MR. KEMPF: The people of British Columbia are educated, Mr.

Minister of Education, with respect to what is going on in the forest

industry today. This administration or any other administration is not

going to get away with it much longer. My only fear is that it will be

too late.

My time is up, and I will let the critic talk for a while.

[ Page 8510 ]

MR. MILLER: The minister likes to make offhand comments about

people, even his own colleagues. I noted he referred to the member for

Little Mountain as a jaded individual not too long ago, so I guess we

come to expect those kinds of things.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which member?

MR. MILLER: Oh, sorry. Not you, Mr. Chairman. I am sure that no one would ever accuse you of being jaded. The other member.

I have just one response in terms of what the minister previously

commented on, that he was the only minister to go around the province.

I would only note that the royal commission was set up during the

tenure of the New Democratic Party's administration, and I think that's

the kind of commitment that people in this province have been looking

for from this minister.

I would restate my view that that process was far from satisfactory

in terms of dealing with the issue. The complete information that was

required by people was not made available by the minister. The map, for

example, that was put together by the ministry, setting out and

approximating the location of the licenses if the volume-based licences

were converted to area-based, was not made available to the people of

this province in those hearings.

That in itself does no credit to that kind of public process. I

don't think that the hearing process was a good one. I don't think the

minister felt comfortable at the....

HON. MR. PARKER: It wasn't a hearing, and you weren't listening.

MR. MILLER: The minister reminds me, and I stand corrected:

it was not a hearing; it was a public information session. I suppose

that only reinforces the point I made at the outset: if you're going to

have a public information session, it would seem to me the least you

could do is provide all of the information to the public.

Nonetheless, I think the process itself was not appropriate, where

the minister sat without comment for... I'll give him credit for having

the patience to sit endlessly throughout the length of these hearings;

some of them did go for a long time. But the comments I heard from

people who participated in the hearings reflected complete

dissatisfaction with the process. Having gone through the exercise on

an issue of extreme public importance, it's now disappeared. I

understand there's a transcript that I hope will become available to

the public. The minister promised, I believe, that it would be

available in June; I hope so. Now we see it set aside.

To the minister's credit, the advisory commission that's been set up

does contain people — and I don't know them all personally — who hold

strong views in opposition to the tree-farm licence policy. I repeat my

contention that it was simply a means for the minister to abandon an

extremely unpopular policy.

1 want to deal with some specifics. I don't want to just continue to

generalize in these debates. I want first of all to talk about some log

export issues. Again, the issue of log exports and the Vancouver log

market has been referred to an all-party standing committee of this

House. I'm optimistic that the committee will do a good job and will

work well together. It certainly was the experience in the last forests

standing committee, which has resulted in the legislation the minister

has tabled in the House today. But some incidents have taken place in

the past that bear examination.

I want to start with the ministerial order that allowed Tsolum

Timber to export 5,500 cubic metres of fir which was valued as export,

I believe, at about $275,000. When I raised this issue, or when the

issue was initially raised and brought to my attention by the IWA, at

some point in the public proceedings and the news statements the

minister said that I had only raised it because it was important to the

IWA; it was a union versus non-union issue. I believe that's the term

the minister used to characterize the issue. I suppose the minister is

free to say that. I don't know what it was when he held his meeting

with Jack Munro following the Fletcher Challenge layoff announcement

and emerged from that meeting to announce that he had agreed to fairly

substantially change the log export policies. Was it a union issue, Mr.

Minister, that caused you to change your mind on that subject? You

certainly held different views before the meeting.

Getting back to Tsolum Timber, when I review the events and look at

the legislation governing the export of logs in the Forest Act, I would

note, first of all, that there are criteria. Whether it's an

order-in-council or a ministerial order, there are criteria that should

be used to determine whether logs are exportable.

Very briefly, for members of the House who are not familiar, the exemptions listed under

section 136 are that:

"(

a) the timber or wood residue will be surplus to requirements

of timber processing facilities... ;

"(

b) the timber or wood residue cannot be processed economically

in the vicinity of the land from which it is cut ... and cannot be transported

economically to a processing facility ... ; or

"(

c) the exemption would prevent the waste of or improve

the utilization of timber cut from Crown land."

I don't think that

any one of those criteria was applied in the case of the Tsolum Timber export

permit.

I find it curious that this convoluted process was followed in this

particular case. The minister stated that he had to allow the exports

because the company was in financial difficulty, and he had to move to

protect, I believe it was, 20 jobs. The company was in financial

difficulty: that was the criterion used by the minister. It doesn't

appear in the Forest Act; there's no wording to the effect that if a

company is in financial difficulty, we'll allow them to export our

resources. Nowhere — it's quite specific. We have very specific rules

brought about by debate in this

[ Page 8511 ]

House. Nowhere does it say we can allow exports on

the basis that a company is in financial difficulty, yet that's the

reason cited by the minister.

Further, in arriving at his decision the minister said that he

contacted the area MLA so that the area MLA could give him more

background information. In the Vancouver Sun he said: "We contacted

Stan Hagen to verify additional information. I wanted to know who

Tsolum was and I wanted some background information from someone other

than the company." I don't know where that figures into our policy,

because although there certainly is ministerial discretion in arriving

at decisions and certainly information is important, nowhere in the

process, in terms of the minister arriving at a decision to allow log

exports, is there anything that says you go to the area MLA so you can

get some background on the company. In fact, the area MLA is not

included. The minister outlined last year in estimates the process in

terms of the district manager, the regional manager and TEAC. Despite

that, according to the minister that consultation took place. Yet Mr.

Hagen, when asked about the statement, denied it. He said his input was

simply passing on a letter from the company.

I have some difficulty here. We have two statements from two cabinet

ministers, and they contradict each other. Not unusual in terms of

policy, but in terms of a question of fact very disturbing. The

Minister of Advanced Education (Hon. S. Hagen) said on January 18 in

the Vancouver Sun: "I don't know what Mr. Parker said, but I don't have

any background information on Tsolum."

I have other questions, but perhaps the minister could at the outset

clear up for the House the contradiction and also respond to the

questions I've raised in terms of the process and the Forest Act.

HON. MR. PARKER: I didn't have any such conversation with the MLA for Comox, and, for the record, what we've heard today is hearsay.

The logs we have in our office are complete. We've made sure our

logs are complete in view of what transpired prior to my appointment.

We've made sure that our records are good, and that consultation did

take place. Whether or not my colleague can remember just what took

place or not we'll have to determine in the presence of my colleague. I

don't purport to speak for him. I can only speak for our office, and we

did go through that consultation process.

I make no apologies for protecting jobs in British Columbia. We

protected the jobs at Tsolum Timber, and the people who work there and

the people they patronize in the shops around the Comox area appreciate

it. As I said, I make no apology for protecting jobs in British

Columbia and for making a political decision that from time to time has

to be done in very short order. You can only do that if you're prepared

to demonstrate some leadership.

I'd like to touch on a few things raised by the member for Omineca

(Mr. Kempf). He's squawking about jobs being down, down, down, and I'm

just wondering if he figures that all the plants that are being

constructed and the new productive capacity in the province that's in

place — if everybody working there are phantoms. It makes you wonder

just what he's been doing with his time, because he seems to have lots

of it. If you take a look at the record of '87 versus '88, there's been

a growth in direct jobs in the forest industry in British Columbia.

It's now at about 87,000 direct jobs, and we know we get a minimum of

two jobs indirectly from every job created by the forests.

He prattles on about what's taking place in Washington next door and

the wildlife, fish and forestry working committee. We've had that

working committee in place for some time, and we already have fish and

forestry guidelines that are being used in management applications in

coastal British Columbia. The Ministry of Forests, the Ministry of

Environment, the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the

industry all worked together over the years to prepare those

guidelines, and they're looked upon as leadership guidelines by other

jurisdictions.

[3:45]

Just to touch on the Prince George timber supply area and the member

for Omineca's suggestion that it is overcut, a timber supply area is

constituted as several supply blocks, and you would think that somebody

with his past 20 years in industry and his past experience as a Forests

minister would know better, would understand that. And he will recall,

then, that the supply blocks in the Willow River and Bowron watersheds

were severely infested not only by mountain pine beetle but also by

spruce bark beetle, and there were substantial losses, which were

curtailed by concentrating the operators in the Prince George area in

those supply blocks to make sure that those timber values were salvaged

before they'd gone beyond all redemption. He also should be aware that

the forest renewal activity in there has been monumental, and that when

it comes to determining annual allowable cut, you consider all of the

growing stock, and you also consider your management goals and

objectives and your strategies.

I can tell this House that the Prince George timber supply area is

not being overcut. It is being managed in a responsible manner by some

very capable people in the British Columbia Forest Service.

The member for Omineca happens to have a relative who works for the

Forest Service — and one out of 3,407 does not constitute a majority.

The young man is probably very capable but still cannot be looked upon

as being representative of all the employees of the Forest Service.

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, if that

minister is accusing me of having gotten the information I have with

respect to the Forest Service from my son who works with the Forest

Service, I ask him to withdraw that on the floor of this House. Right

now!

[ Page 8512 ]

HON. MR. PARKER: I wouldn't want to get the member for Omineca upset. I'd be happy to withdraw if it offends him.

He also points out that the multinationals and the little guys in

the forest industry are all mad at me. Apparently I've got everybody

upset. It means I must be kind of treading the middle ground and doing

not too badly.

The tree-farm licence information session that he sneers about was a

very useful exercise. It's the first time since Confederation that a

Minister of Forests in this province took the time to go out and share

some policy initiatives with the people of British Columbia.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PARKER: That's right, we shared. We listened, and we

made sure that we got the record straight. We had recording secretaries

there, we have a complete transcript, and those are available for the

cost of copying from Forest Service offices.

The member for Omineca sneers about what we are doing, and sneers about whether or not we are sharing information and listening.

I want to share with you, Mr. Chairman, a little episode that

happened in Parksville. Somebody in the audience got up and wanted to

know why TFL 23 was transferred without the pulp mill that it was

appended to. I said,"I don't know, but you should ask the guy that was

the minister at the time," and he ducked out the back door.

The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) claims that a royal

commission is more appropriate than the advisory group that we have

established, the Forest Resources Commission. The Forest Resources

Commission from time to time will have powers of inquiry that can be

set up for specific purposes. The value of having the Forest Resources

Commission to advise us constantly on a very dynamic resource is

invaluable. If anybody takes the time to read

part 2 of the Inquiry

Act, they'll see that a royal commission is so finite that all you get

is a snapshot; and what we'll get with the Forest Resources Commission

is, if you'll pardon the analogy, a moving picture, so that we can hear

what the concerns of the people are. In a democracy the concerns of the

people, if the democracy is working right, can eventually become policy

— and that's the catalyst that this government provides.

I believe that the Forest Resources Commission will serve this

province very well. They're establishing through the summer, and will

be ready to work in September.

I think I'll leave it at that, Mr. Chairman, and invite comment from across the floor.

MR. KEMPF: I didn't believe the debate could fall any lower

in this House than it has been in the last four and a half months, but

I learned today.... For the Minister of Forests to use one of his

employees as fodder for his cannon, Mr. Chairman, is absolutely

inexcusable! If he ever says that again.... I dare him to say it

outside of this House — not in here where he's exempt, but outside of

this House, Mr. Chairman. I'm not threatening the minister at all; I'm

just giving the minister the facts.

The minister talked about jobs being increased in the forest

industry, what with the expansion that's being done and the investment

that's coming to British Columbia. In every expansion in every pulp

mill and sawmill that I have ever seen — and I've been around the

industry for a long time — employees have lost jobs. Employees have

lost, not gained. The only people who have gained are the corporations

which stuff even more in their pockets and take it from British

Columbia. For decades governments have given in to big industry in the

harvesting of forest resources of this province under the guise of

providing more jobs. We have to give in so that more jobs can be

provided. The facts speak for themselves. Just the opposite has taken

place. The opposite is taking place today. It took place very recently,

very near this chamber, when, through the mismanagement of our forest

resources, a sawmill was shut down and employees lost their jobs.

The minister talks about protecting jobs, increasing jobs. Every

time a manufacturing plant in B.C.'s forest industry spends money to

upgrade, British Columbians lose jobs. It's a fact of life. If the

minister has gone around the province and talked to the right people,

as he said he's done.... Don't talk to the people in those board rooms

in Vancouver. I've talked to them as well. I know the story they give,

but that's not the true story of what's happening in B.C.'s forest

industry. Don't take all of your information from the Council of Forest

Industries, which has a vested interest in retaining the status quo in

our primary resource.

The minister mentioned the great new policies that were brought in

in the fall of 1987 and the legislation that's now flowing from those

policies. You know what has happened because of those policies? I'm

sure the critic for the New Democratic Party will want to talk about

FRDA. What happened is that the taxpayers of British Columbia.... You

have to realize that it makes no difference whether it's FRDA money or

whether it comes out of the coffers of the province; it's all

taxpayers' money. It doesn't matter what pot you take it out of, it all

comes out of the taxpayer's pocket. What that minister did in October

of 1987 was to forgive the forest industry of this province for all its

reforestation and silvicultural past mistakes. He saddled the taxpayers

of B.C. and perhaps Canada with those mistakes — mistakes that happened

over five decades.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Listen, Mr. Minister. You may learn something.

I can take you out to blocks that I logged when I worked for a forest company way back

when — that's 25 years ago — which still haven't been reforested. In October of

1987 that minister assumed all of those debts, debts which should rightly have been paid by

the people who created the problem in the first place

[ Page 8513 ]

— reforestation that should be paid for by those

who harvested the timber. That minister assumed that responsibility on

behalf of the people of British Columbia and, if FRDA is replaced by

another fifty-fifty agreement, the people of Canada. You can talk all

you like about the great things the new policy brought and that the

wondrous legislation is going to bring about, but that's what happened

with respect to reforestation in British Columbia.

I want to ask the minister what he is doing for the small loggers

and the small sawmillers that are dropping by the wayside literally by

the dozen in British Columbia, because the timber they relied on has

either been priced from their grasp or is being taken by the large

forest companies through surrogate bidding. When is the minister going

to bring in legislation against surrogate bidding in the province of

British Columbia?

Because of those two situations, Mr. Chairman, the minister is

virtually eliminating a way of life — not just jobs, not just small

loggers and small sawmillers, but a way of life in parts of this

province. I get letter after letter after letter about sad, sad

situations in which the small operators can't get the timber supply

that they require, while at the same time he has been told by the

people of British Columbia, very clearly, in eight different

communities around this province that the TFL proposal was not a good

one for British Columbia and British Columbians. The minister still

directs his so-called independent commission to follow that route, to

continue to pursue the idea of creating more tree-farm licences in

British Columbia. That's totally unacceptable.

[4:00]

What's the minister doing for the little guy? This government was

elected — and I know, I ran for them — because they said to the people

of British Columbia: "We're here for the little guy. We're here for the

small logger. We're here for the small sawmiller. We're here for the

small business person." It was a plank in their platform. But like many

other things, Mr. Chairman, on being elected they immediately forgot

that promise.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Well, call it what you like. It's not the only promise they forgot.

They have forgotten the little guy, particularly, in the forest

industry of British Columbia under the guise of making more wood

available to the small business enterprise program. They gave it all to

their friends in big industry.

It's sad — virtually wiping out a way of life. Not to speak of the

jobs, because every small sawmiller and every small logger out there

had at least three or four or five, or more, employees. They had a

skidder or a cat or a feller-buncher, which now sits and rusts or has

gone through the auction process. He's virtually eliminated a way of

life in British Columbia — not assisted the small business person in

the forest industry, but wiped him out.

1 just want to hear from the minister in these estimates what he

thinks he has done for small business in the forest industry — what he

thinks he has attained by supposedly making available an additional 10

percent in the small business enterprise program. I know what it's

done, Mr. Chairman, but I just want to hear that from the minister.

HON. MR. PARKER: The member for Omineca says that we've given

in to big industry. There is a commitment by this government to small

business in this province.

In the past we heard talk by previous administrations about getting

25 percent of the provincial annual cut into the hands of the small

business operators, but we didn't see any progress made until 1987,

when we introduced legislation to take back 5 percent of the provincial

annual allowable cut assigned to those licensees who held replaceable

licences — those are major timber sales, forest licences and tree-farm

licences — for redistribution to the small business operators in a

value-added initiative that you, Mr. Chairman, more than most in this

House, realize the value of.

Now we've created a small business value-added opportunity in this

province that hasn't been here before. That can only be done through

leadership and having the political will and intestinal fortitude to

make it happen. We have done that.

The member for Omineca talks about the application of FRDA funds on

areas that were denuded primarily by industry in the past, prior to

1987. That isn't the case. FRDA is applied to NSR areas on good and

medium sites in the province denuded prior to 1982. The greater

percentage of those areas were actually denuded, oddly enough, by

wildfire. That's a matter of record, and anybody who cares to take a

look at the fieldwork records can find that out for themselves.

The obligations prior to October 1987.... If the member for Omineca

cares to consult the legislation and regulations of the day, he would

know — as most people do in this province, and I am surprised he

doesn't — that the reforestation obligations in the TSAs and the

licences in those TSAs and on the Crown lands and tree-farm licences

lay with the Crown provincial. We have recognized our obligation, and

we have committed the funds. It's even more significant; we have

committed the funds necessary to provide for forest renewal on those

areas logged and otherwise denuded in the period of 1982-87.

From October 1987, industry is responsible for forest renewal to a

free-to-grow state. We constantly hear in this House from the member

for Omineca, who has been sitting across the way for some two years,

about surrogate bidding and what we are going to do about

anti-surrogate bidding. That has been raised from several quarters.

Indeed it has been a concern of most people from time to time when a

particular issue is brought....

But wholesale surrogate bidding — I don't know whether that really exists, and neither does the

[ Page 8514 ]

member for Omineca, I am sure. That is a concern

that he has brought forward a number of times, and I believe that if he

was genuinely concerned, he would probably — I would expect probably —

bring a suggested solution to the assembly here and suggest what might

be done. It's easy to carp and criticize.

This government listens to everybody, and we listen to the member

for Omineca in the hopes that something of value may be gleaned. He has

that opportunity; the doors are always open. I am happy to hear any

suggestion. I've never seen a positive suggestion from the gentleman.

Perhaps some day, perhaps even in this mandate, we might see something

useful.

MR. MILLER: We might have to work something out here in terms

of process, but I want to return to the issue I was dealing with, which

was the Tsolum Timber export question. I had outlined the discrepancy

between two ministers in terms of this. It appears to me, on the

surface, that there was a decision made here without due process.

The Minister of Forests has said in response to what I outlined that

he can't be responsible if the Minister of Advanced Education (Hon. S.

Hagen) can't remember what happened. The Minister of Advanced

Education, on at least two occasions cited in the press, said — and the

quotes are very clear — that he did not do what the Minister of Forests

claimed he did. The Minister of Forests said he asked for input on

background of the company from someone other than the company, and the

Minister of Advanced Education said all he did was forward a letter. He

didn't do what the minister said he did. Mr. Minister, it's not a

question of another minister having a bad memory. Would you outline

specifically the role of Mr. Hagen in transmitting information to you

on Tsolum's request to export?

HON. MR. PARKER: As I said earlier, my office was in contact

with my colleague, and the logs in my office are complete. How my

colleague is quoted in the press is one thing; how the question was put

to my colleague is another. One thing I have learned in my short life

as a member of this assembly is not to put too much faith in what I

hear, see or watch in the media. The issue has been dealt with in a

manner which protected jobs for British Columbians, and that is nothing

to apologize for.

MR. MILLER: The minister didn't respond to my specific

question. I wonder if he would advise the House specifically what

information was provided by Mr. Hagen.

HON. MR. PARKER: I don't have my logs with me. We can consult them and report later.

MR. MILLER: I apologize, Mr. Chairman, for using the minister's name; I mean the Minister of Advanced Education.

The minister doesn't have the specific information provided by the minister.

Could the minister generally advise the House — it's not that long ago;

surely the minister's memory is good enough to retain some information —

what information was provided by Mr. Hagen to the Minister of Forests to allow

him to make this decision?

HON. MR. PARKER: The matter was dealt with last fall. I said I'd consult our logs and report later.

MR. MILLER: Could the minister advise on the earlier

questions I asked about the Forest Act and the factor of a company's

financial health being considered in terms of log export? Is that a

policy? I had outlined that it does not appear in the Forest Act. It

does not appear in the narrative description used by the minister last

year in estimates to describe the process. Could the minister advise

the House more fully on this whole area of a company's financial health

being a consideration when it comes to a company applying for log

exports?

HON. MR. PARKER: It was clearly an economic situation, and that's covered.

MR. MILLER: The minister was mumbling; I didn't quite hear what he said. And it was very brief; it surely wasn't an answer to my question.

[4:15]

HON. MR. PARKER: It was an economic consideration, and that's appropriate.

MR. MILLER: Is the minister reluctant to discuss this

question? He has publicly stated that he allowed the resources owned by

the people of this province to be exported because of a company's

financial health. Surely the minister would want to explain and

elucidate on how that policy is administered, because it clearly is not

outlined in the Forest Act. I think the minister has an obligation both

in this instance to explain how he arrived at his decision and, more

generally, to explain to the people of British Columbia how that policy

is administered. If it's part of the policy, then the minister should

be prepared to explain it. I don't understand his reluctance.

HON. MR. PARKER: I refer the member to Hansard then. Perhaps he would like to check the Blues later today. The matter has been dealt with.

MR. MILLER: The matter has not been dealt with. The minister

is strangely reluctant to discuss areas of policy under his ministry. I

am deeply disturbed by the minister's reluctance — refusal — to discuss

this particular issue and the policy generally. It only lends credence

to my belief that this was a political decision reached in the back

room. The minister is either prepared to advise the House on the

circumstances in this particular case and to outline the policy and how

it's administered, or my conclusion obviously is the correct one.

[ Page 8515 ]

HON. MR. PARKER: When the issue came up I was in New Zealand,

and the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training wasn't anywhere

near New Zealand. It's tough to backroom anything when you're worlds

apart. Where my colleague was when he was contacted by my office, I've

no idea. But I do not apologize for protecting jobs in British Columbia.

MR. MILLER: I've never asked the minister to apologize for

protecting jobs in British Columbia. Far be it from me. We've certainly

lost lots. In fact he should apologize for the ones we have lost.

The minister was in New Zealand. Is the minister saying he was not involved in this particular instance?

HON. MR. PARKER: Perhaps the member opposite has never learned of the telephone.

MR. MILLER: Well, I suppose it's typical that it sometimes takes time to drag the facts and issues out on the floor of this House.

So the minister, who was in New Zealand, was in contact by telephone

on this issue. I presume the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries

(Hon. Mr. Savage) must have been the acting minister, because that's

who signed the order, not the Minister of Forests. In fact there was a

suggestion that the Minister of Forests really wasn't involved. Did

they phone you in New Zealand to tell you what they were doing or to

ask your advice? just what was the extent of your involvement in this

affair?

I go back again to the fundamental question, and I hope the minister

is prepared to bring the specific information forward in terms of

advice given to him by the Minister of Advanced Education. Generally,

what kind of criteria... ? Is it sufficient in these kinds of instances

for a company to simply advise the ministry that they're in a bit of

economic difficulty? Do they have to hand their books over for some

kind of analysis? Just what is the process if we allow economic

criteria — the financial well-being of a company — to be used as part

of the decision as to whether or not we're going to allow raw log

exports?

HON. MR. PARKER: When I travel I make it a prime concern of

mine to stay in touch with my office so that they can share day-to-day

matters with me, and if my action is required on an item, then they

have a means of communicating with me. I think that's a responsible

approach.

In one of those telephone conversations the issue came up, and I

asked for some background information. In the following conversation

the information was provided that time was of the essence, it was

extremely critical, Tsolum jobs were at stake, and I considered the

jobs and the economics that follows with those jobs. My advice was to

ask my colleague who was acting Minister of Forests at the time to

process a ministerial order. It's quite simple and straightforward.

It's just what I've said in the past, and it's one of those situations

that arises from time to time. You have to make a decision, and you

only make decisions if you're responsible and accountable, and that's

what we are in this government. We are government, we are responsible,

we are accountable and we have to act. We can't pontificate or

otherwise procrastinate, as we see opposite. Once again, I'll tell you

that I do not apologize for protecting British Columbia jobs.

MR. MILLER: I just want to remind the minister that this is an accountability process here in this House.

Perhaps the minister could advise whether Tsolum or any of the

companies operated by the principals of Tsolum at the time owed back

stumpage to the Crown?

Did the minister hear my question, Mr. Chairman? Do you want me to repeat it?

HON. MR. PARKER: Sure.

MR. MILLER: Could the minister advise whether or not Tsolum

or any of the companies operated by the principals who owned Tsolum —

one other comes to mind; I think it's called Shushartie — owed the

Crown back stumpage at the time this decision was made?

HON. MR. PARKER: I have no idea.

MR. MILLER: I would ask that the minister add that to the

information he is going to bring back to this House; that is, the

specific information the minister promised to bring to this House in

our earlier conversation.

MR. WILLIAMS: Wouldn't you ask, when you're on the telephone, if they'd paid their bills?

MR. MILLER: Yes, I would think that would have been part of the analysis, surely, Mr. Minister.

But I want to keep on this topic in terms of policy. The minister

said that we allow companies to apply for export permits, and

notwithstanding the sections in the Forest Act that allow companies to

apply for export permits, they can make the argument that they are in

economic difficulty. I would like the minister to advise the House what

the process is for his ministry to arrive at the truth or untruth of

that. Do they just have to come in and say: "Look, we're in trouble"?

What is the analytical process that you use, or your ministry uses, to

determine if that argument is legitimate?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, we ask for full information

from the applicant, which we covenant to keep confidential, as is

appropriate in most business dealings.

MR. MILLER: So you simply ask the applicant to give you some

information. Is there any attempt on the part of the ministry to

examine the books of the company, to determine whether or not they

really are in the condition they say they are in?

[ Page 8516 ]

HON. MR. PARKER: That's done from time to time, yes.

MR. MILLER: Is there any analysis of the particular bid in

question, to see whether or not the amount of money bid by that company

for the cutting licence was realistic or was a contributing factor to

the request to export?

HON. MR. PARKER: There was sufficient information to make a judgment call, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I asked a very specific question.

Is the minister not prepared to answer whether or not that is a

consideration — that the ministry looks at that? Surely one could

foresee, in terms of policy, a great deal of difficulty, if we found

forest companies with a history of overbidding to acquire cutting

rights, and then we found those same companies making arguments that

they had to have permits to export timber. One would conclude that

there were some policy shortcomings. In fact, you would think that

under those circumstances the ministry might want to make it perfectly

clear that companies that put themselves in that situation would not

get a permit to export. I don't understand the minister's reluctance to

discuss this.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, there's sufficient information

to make a judgment call. It seems an exception rather than the rule. As

I said before, it was my judgment that the employees at Tsolum were

best served with the ministerial order, and I so advised my office. I

don't apologize for protecting jobs in British Columbia — not ever. The

conjecture on the part of the member for Prince Rupert that Tsolum's

predicament was caused by bidding their timber supply too high is not a

consideration. It's conjecture on his part. The situation was one that

warranted quick and decisive action. If it was the rule rather than the

exception, I imagine we would be going through a litany of situations.

It was a one-time situation that was important to the people who work

and live in that part of British Columbia, and I don't ever apologize

for serving the people of British Columbia.

MR. MILLER: Well, it's those little exceptions to the rules

that bear scrutiny. We sometimes wonder, curiously enough, how they

took place and what led to the decision-making. I suppose the

reluctance of the minister makes us wonder even more.

The bids on that particular sale were fairly wideranging. Are you

saying you're satisfied that the amount bid was reasonable for the

timber involved, if that timber were to be sold on the domestic market?

[4:30]

HON. MR. PARKER: The 5,500 cubic metres, plus or minus, that

they applied for an export permit on fall far short of the total volume

of the sale that the member opposite refers to.

MR. MILLER: Well, I realize it falls short. I never suggested that it was the entire sale at all.

When I look at the bids received for that sale, which had an upset

price of $18.36 a cubic metre, I see Tsolum with a bid of $32.11. The

next highest was $26.70, and right after that was $24.70. These are

people, presumably ... Primex, the company that tried to block the

sale, presumably was an experienced operator operating a sawmill in the

region.

Again, I go back to my question in terms of that bid. Surely that's

a concern that's been raised. I think the minister has even raised it,

and he admitted that there could be potential for companies to abuse

the export process. There is a delicate balance. We want the best for

our timber; we want to sell it for the highest price we can receive.

But surely we want to avoid the scenario of companies bidding timber up

to the point where they require an export permit to make it pay.

I have been trying to get some assurance from the minister that

there was that kind of analysis done. So far he really refuses to

engage in any kind of open conversation or dialogue about that. But I

want to keep pressing in terms of that question. Was it the minister's

view that the bid offered by Tsolum on that particular licence was

sufficient, in view of the market conditions, to allow the company to

log that area profitably and sell those logs on the domestic market?

HON. MR. PARKER: We have hundreds of such sales in the

province, and I don't analyze them. Whether or not their bid was

appropriate is the bidder's responsibility. The rate of stumpage is not

considered when an application for export is made to the district

manager, which is the procedure that takes place. It goes through a

number of levels for consideration, but in every consideration, the

level of stumpage has nothing to do with the determination of whether

or not there should be an export permit awarded.

MR. MILLER: Again, I don't expect the minister to examine

every one, but he is talking about an exception to a rule. The rules

are laid out. Is the minister suggesting that under those circumstances

all factors should not be analyzed by his ministry?

HON. MR. PARKER: Stumpage is not a consideration for economic duress.

MR. MILLER: I'll move on. I may return once the minister

brings the information back to the House, and I would hope that it

would be reasonably soon. I should say, before we leave this, that I'm

not satisfied with the answers at all. Any time we make a decision that

is an exception as outlined by the minister, any time we have a

contradiction in statements by members of the cabinet, and every time

we have the refusal of a minister to be forthcoming with information,

it bears even more scrutiny. The question of overbidding has been

raised by people in the industry. It's a problem in some areas. It may

be a

[ Page 8517 ]

contributing factor to companies seeking relief on

the export market, and it is an important policy consideration. I'm

disappointed that the minister does not want to discuss it.

Another export issue which I have raised previously in the

Legislature is the Wedeene River timber facility in Prince Rupert. It

appears to all intents and purposes that a company which received a

licence to harvest timber was allowed to sell the bulk of that timber

on the export market to finance construction of their processing plant.

That's in the initial phase. More recently the company — which had

promised to build a mill capable of harvesting the profile of timber in

the area — received permission to further export logs in excess of 28

inches in diameter, because their mill is not capable of processing

that size of log.

It reinforces the notion that from a policy point of view the

ministry has allowed that to take place. We've taken the Crown

resources and we've said to a private company: "Look, you can sell

these into the lucrative export market in order to raise the capital

necessary to construct a processing facility." Again, that's not

generally perceived as being a public policy of the ministry. I'd ask

the minister to respond to that particular situation.

I have a question asked at the standing committee meeting last week

by my colleague from North Island. I'll read the question asked by Mr.

Gabelmann at the June 22 committee meeting:

"Is it policy or does it happen that certain Crown

timber is allowed for export in order to allow for the construction of

a manufacturing facility? I'm talking about mid- and north coast at the

present time. In other words, if, for example, a logger wanted to get

into processing — which I would think of as being higher utilization of

the wood — does the ministry allow for export of a certain volume in

order to develop some capital to get into that processing?"

The response from Mr. Ruhl was: "No." Yet it appears that's exactly

what did happen in this instance. So I would ask the minister to

respond to that.

HON. MR. PARKER: All applications by the Wedeene River

sawmill have gone through process to the district manager, the regional

manager and the Timber Export Advisory Committee. The process has

recommended that export permits be issued in every case. It's a

process, which is what the member opposite has been carping on for the

last hour or so The process was properly observed and, once again, jobs

are created in British Columbia. I don't know how he has difficulty

with that.

MR. MILLER: When the original licence was granted in this

case, there was a requirement to build a mill. I have reviewed my

files, and the commitment made at that time was for a mill to harvest

the profile of the timber. That was not done. We could argue very

convincingly that the company did not carry out what they said they

intended to originally. It's clear — whether it went through the

process of TEAC or not — that in this instance that's exactly what

happened. The rules have been bent, and we have allowed a private

company... I should say, as I've said before in the House, that I bear

no brief, grudge or anything else with this company. This Is a forum

for discussing public policy. I talked to the company following the

last time I raised questions in this House with the minister, and I'll

continue to talk to the company.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: Yes, the principals. We may have our differences

sometimes. The fact that they supported my opponent in the last

election has nothing to do with this. It's not politics, it's public

policy. Maybe, as the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) has said, there's

been a little too much politics in forestry in this province. Maybe

that's why we're in some of these dilemmas.

I want to get back to the issue, because I think It's important in

terms of public policy. We are allowing the resources of the province

to be used by a private company to finance their own infrastructure. I

can't think of a parallel anywhere else, in terms of resources, where

we allow that kind of activity. There are mechanisms available to

government, and they've been used by both the current government and

others to assist industry. We feel it's important. We can offer all

kinds of subsidies and we can fight about them, as we've fought about

the generous subsidy offered to Louisiana-Pacific, where the taxpayers

of this province are offering a $25 million interest-free loan to a

major forest company to construct a mill. We know from our debates the

other night what that cost the taxpayers of this province $7 million.

We took It out of the pockets of every taxpayer and gave it to a

private company, presumably because the government of the day — there's

lots of discussion on that score, and I'll try to stay off it — or

somebody of the day decided they wanted that built up there, that It

was important. So we shelled out of the public purse.

I can't think of a parallel where we say to any private company:

"Look, help yourself to our resources. Sell them. Sell them offshore —

you don't have to process them — so that you can acquire the capital to

build a plant, presumably to enrich yourself.- I don't have an argument

with government saying it's important to have processing In regions

where there's none or with government offering incentives to industry

to locate. Clearly, the area where the sawmill is built in Prince

Rupert was a creation of the previous New Democratic Party

administration. That industrial estate has benefited the area

significantly since it was put in place during our term of office.

Nonetheless, it's a form of subsidy. It's using tax dollars to create

the conditions where industry can locate, but nowhere do we use this

process to allow private companies access to our resources.

Again, why was this allowed to happen in this particular instance?

Why did the minister compound the issue by allowing the further export

of in excess of 60,000 cubic metres of our resources?

[4:45]

[ Page 8518 ]

HON. MR. PARKER: The sawmill that the member for Prince

Rupert is talking about is in an industrial park in Prince Rupert on a

site that the operator had to create. He dealt with B.C. Development

Corporation. The means to be able to deal with B.C. Development

Corporation weren't created by the opposition when they were government

— not at all. The site was created by the sawmill. They literally had

to blast rock, fill muskeg and prepare a site. Not only that, but part

of the deal was that he had to prepare additional sites for other

businesses which B.C. Development Corporation dealt with. That saw

miller created a substantial part of the usable sites in that

Industrial park as part of his contractual obligation with B.C.

Development Corporation to get a site to erect a sawmill. It's

something that a lot of people in this House don't realize, and I am

really surprised that the member for Prince Rupert, who has lived in

the area for years and years, doesn't understand just how expensive it

is to create a piece of flat ground on Kains Island. Kains Island is

where Prince Rupert is located, Mr. Chairman, and that's where the

member lives. He just doesn't seem to capish.

That small business operator — which is what that family is —

created the site and made it possible to erect a sawmill on the site

and create jobs. They did it by selling logs; some were exported, some

were sold down south and some, I guess, were sold locally. But they

sold them out and around, and some of them did go offshore. They used

that cash flow along with their credit at the bank to get the funds

necessary to create a sawmill and meet their obligations. That's not

bad for small business. It's good to be able to create that kind of

climate for small business.

Now the situation arises that in most wood-using Industries you have

a component — it might be a species or a particular size of log — that

you can't handle, and maybe you can sell it, trade it or exchange it

with other operators. That has been possible up until lately.

Apparently the domestic prices are below cost for those items that the

mill cannot process right now, and those are oversized butts. They use

the rest of the tree, but the oversized butts are a problem.

Following process, the licensee made application to the district

manager and on through the regional manager and ultimately through TEAC

for an export permit. That was recommended by all those people

concerned: district manager staff, regional manager staff and the TEAC

members. They have a short-term export permit. While that takes place,

they carry on to modify their mill in such a manner that they can

handle a greater percentage of the profile.

It is very difficult to have enough people and equipment to handle every eventuality

that comes across the log deck. That flexibility, created by policies this government

has put in place, makes it possible for small business operators like the Williams

family to be meaningful employers — yes, even in Prince Rupert — regardless

of the negative attitude of the member for Prince Rupert. He should always bear

in mind that there's nothing like private initiative, and the private initiative

demonstrated in Prince Rupert by that family is very meaningful for the north

coast. It means that we have a local market for logs, and it becomes increasingly

difficult for anybody to create a situation where there is a surplus or non-surplus

in their application for log export.

We have a developing local market and burgeoning jobs — very

Important for the northwest portion of the province where I live. That

kind of diversification is invaluable.

MR. MILLER: I wonder if the minister could advise why there

wasn't more assistance offered to this small struggling company to deal

with the question of infrastructure in their physical plant. Why wasn't

more assistance offered, in view of the fact that the government was

quite generous with a major forest company from the United States? Why

didn't you offer more assistance to this struggling company?

HON. MR. PARKER: I am not the MLA for the area. I don't know

whether they made any requests for other assistance, but what they did

request through this ministry was followed by policy, legislation and

regulation. It was all dealt with in due process, and they have the

export permit. Whether or not they asked for any other sort of support,

I have no idea. Most operators would do that through their MLA, if they

felt it could be accomplished.

MR. MILLER: What did they request from your ministry?

HON. MR. PARKER: They made application to the district manager for an export permit.

MR. MILLER: They made application for an export permit to the ministry. On what grounds, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, the member opposite must

figure I pack all of these issues around in my wallet. If he'd like to

know the specific details of the export permit application, we'll be

happy to share them with him. We'll find it, and we'll share it with

him.

MR. MILLER: I'm continually dismayed at the minister's

inability to recall these details. But I'm sure he will get better with

time, Mr. Chairman — if he has the opportunity.

I would like to briefly canvass the export issue from the free trade

or GATT perspective. There certainly are a lot of concerns. There was a

tremendous debate in this country in the last federal election over the

free trade issue and, further, in British Columbia over the GATT and

free trade issue in terms of the export of unprocessed fish. Just

piecing together the various statements that have been made — the

minister's statements and others — it would appear that despite the

reassurances most British Columbians were operating under that our

ability to control the flow of log exports was unrestricted, it

[ Page 8519 ]

now appears that is not the case. I would like the minister to advise us of any advice he has received on that issue.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, you and other Members of the

Legislative Assembly are aware that that is part of the issue that was

placed before the Select Standing Committee on Forests and Lands. It

seems to me that time and the people would be better served if we let

that standing committee do Its task and got on with the business at

hand.

MR. MILLER: Well, we will do our job, I hope. I don't see why

that would inhibit the minister from answering. He talked about advice

he received. I don't know what his reluctance is to share that. Are we

operating under a constraint, now that we have the free trade agreement

in place, that would prevent us from — let's say in theory — putting a

total ban on log exports from the province? It's a simple question.

HON. MR. PARKER: I'm sure the member opposite, as well as

other Members of the Legislative Assembly, understands that

international trade is a federal issue and has to be dealt with in that

arena It's not within the jurisdiction of this House.

MR. MILLER: I take it from that answer that the minister doesn't know.

I just repeat: the silence was deafening on that one. Again, I can

only assume that the minister does not know. That is indeed

unfortunate. You would think that the Minister of Forests of British

Columbia would be prepared to take the time to enlighten himself on all

policies that affect the timber resources of this province. Indeed,

it's a real shame, Mr. Chairman, that the minister has not done that.

Again dealing with a particular region, the Kalum TSA, and the

blanket export that exists there, I wonder if the minister could advise

whether or not — we're exporting something in the order of in excess of

half a million cubic metres annually — there has been any progress in

terms of trying to change that situation so that we process more of

that timber in the region.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, the licences the member refers

to in the North Kalum timber supply area were awar