1981 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MARCH 23, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4691 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Attendance of deputy minister at Social Credit Party conference. Mrs. Dailly –– 4691

Mr. Lea –– 4691

Mr. Barrett –– 4692

Mr. King –– 4692

Mr. Howard –– 4692

Mr. Macdonald –– 4692

Mr. Levi –– 4693

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

On vote 98.

Mr. King –– 4693

Mr. Lockstead –– 4698

Mr. Macdonald –– 4703

Mr. Nicolson –– 4707

Mrs. Wallace –– 4711

Tabling Documents

Vital statistics report for the province of B.C.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 4715

B.C. Steamship Company Ltd. annual report for the year ending December 31, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 4715

MONDAY, MARCH 23, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. LEGGATT: I'd like to welcome to

our gallery today the grade 10 class of the Mary Hill Junior Secondary

School and their teachers, Mr. Fuller and Mr. Meronuk. Would you join

me in welcoming them.

HON. MR. BENNETT: In this

gallery today is a former member of this assembly who also served in

the cabinet, the former member for Burnaby-Willingdon, Elwood Veitch. I

ask the House to bid him welcome. In the gallery with him is a very

important British Columbian, Mr. Henry Justesen, principal of Pacific

Vocational Institute, which is trying to help us provide the skills to

enable young British Columbians to take their place in the great

economic boom that's taking place in this province.

MR. LEA: Talk about having your work cut out for you!

wonder if the members of the Legislature would join me in greeting a

friend and colleague from the Queen Charlotte Islands, Frank Caulesen,

the band manager in Masset, and colleagues of his, who are down here

today to talk about getting some money for recreational facilities.

MR. LAUK:

In the precincts today from the great city of Vancouver, visiting

ministers and officials, is his worship the mayor of the city of

Vancouver, Michael Harcourt. I ask the House to join me in welcoming

him to Victoria.

MRS. WALLACE: In the gallery today I

have a guest from south of the border, from Spokane. She is a friend

named Mrs. Penny Southwell, along with another friend, Mrs. Lillian

Thomey from Ladysmith. I ask the House to welcome them.

Oral Questions

ATTENDANCE OF DEPUTY MINISTER

AT SOCIAL CREDIT PARTY CONFERENCE

MRS. DAILLY: Could

the Provincial Secretary confirm to the House today that his public

relations deputy minister, Mr. Douglas Heal, was present at a Social

Credit Party meeting at Harrison Hot Springs this past weekend? Did he

participate in party strategy meetings?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I appreciate that question, because there seems to be some

misunderstanding about the activities of Mr. Heal. He did arrive at

this conference at Harrison to answer questions having to do with his

new function in terms of information programs. In answer to your second

question, he did not participate in policy discussions. He simply

answered questions to describe his activities. I think that's quite

appropriate. He departed, having done so. He did not participate in the

conference as such, but appeared there to provide information to people

who were interested in the job we try to do in putting out government

information to this province.

MRS. DAILLY: No matter how we cut it, it was a Social Credit Party meeting

at which, it has now been confirmed, one of the senior civil servants attended

to take

part in a party meeting — not a general meeting that the public was

invited to. My question to the Provincial Secretary is this: did Mr. Heal give

a presentation to that meeting and would you tell us what the content of his

presentation was?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Heal did not make a presentation to the conference. He

was there to answer questions, because on the agenda of the conference

was government information programs and communications. It was to

provide a better service to those interested in his capacity. He's

quite prepared to answer questions to the press or anyone else having

to do with the job he intends to do in that activity. I think it's just

a matter of providing useful information to anyone who wants to know.

MRS. DAILLY:

I have a question for the Provincial Secretary. At any time during that

presentation to the party members was the image of the Premier of this

province discussed?

HON. MR. WOLFE: The member continues to refer to it as a presentation. It was not a presentation. I hope that I made that clear, Mr. Speaker,

MR. LEA:

I have a question for the same minister. I take it that the deputy

minister was ordered to go there by the minister. Could you let the

House know exactly how much money it's going to cost the taxpayers of

the province to send the deputy minister to this Social Credit

gathering?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman

did not attend in a room in a hotel. As far as I know it cost the

taxpayers of this province nothing.

MR. LEA: Is it a

normal practice for deputy ministers to travel without putting in for

expenses? Is the deputy minister, Mr. Heal, going to put in for

expenses to the meeting?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. A further question?

MR. LEA:

I imagine the minister would like to answer. Is the deputy minister

going to put in an expense claim? How did he get there? Did he come by

snorkel? Surely he arrived there by some fashion. Was it by car? It had

to be some way. Are the taxpayers going to pick up the expenses for the

transportation of this deputy minister to this Social Credit gathering?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker. I don't have the answer to that question. As far as I'm

concerned the gentleman in question will not be submitting an account

for any expenses attributed to that visit.

MR. LEA: I

would like to go back. The question I ask is: was he instructed by a

minister to go to the meeting? That's number one. Was he instructed by

a minister to go to the meeting?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Sometimes I wonder whether the member has concluded his question or

not. He pauses in the middle of a sentence, then carries on a little

later on. The

[ Page 4692 ]

question was: was he instructed to attend? I asked him if he would mind attending the conference — or something like that.

take it from this line of questioning that the members opposite would

like to keep secret everything that the member is concerned about and

actually not make available to the people of this province the

information and activities that Mr. Heal intends to plan to have. I

think that's an appropriate performance.

MR. LEA: My question is to the same minister. If he had minded, would he have had to have gone anyway?

MR. SPEAKER: That question is out of order.

MR. LEA:

Had the minister made a decision when he asked Mr. Heal to go? If Mr.

Heal had refused, had the minister made up his mind that the deputy

would have to go anyway?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is out of order in the fact that it is hypothetical.

MR. BARRETT:

My question is to the minister. The minister has admitted that Mr. Heal

was asked to attend at the meeting. Could the minister inform the House

whether or not an expense sheet will be honoured by the government if

Mr. Heal submits one after meeting the request of the minister to

attend the meeting?

MR. SPEAKER: Again, the question is hypothetical.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, is there a decision now to pay the deputy minister's expenses for attending this meeting?

MR. SPEAKER: If the question is, "Has a decision been made?" the question is in order.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

The question was really based on conjecture: "If the gentleman were to

submit an expense account…?" As far as I am concerned, he doesn't

intend to; but I'll take the question as notice, just to make sure.

MR. BARRETT:

If a deputy minister is asked to attend a meeting, is it normal to

assume that once his attendance is requested an expense-allowance sheet

will be honoured for his attendance at such a meeting?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition knew that there was a

meeting to be held at which an item on the agenda was "communications,"

would he not want to have the best person available first-hand to

attend and respond to those questions? That's the answer to this

question.

MR. BARRETT: I ask the minister directly:

is it the intention of the minister who asked the deputy minister to

appear at this meeting to have his expenses paid?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I took that as notice.

MR. BARRETT:

Would the minister inform the House whether or not other deputy

ministers will be requested to attend secret, closed Social Credit

meetings?

MR. SPEAKER: That's a futuristic question.

MR. BARRETT:

Has the minister decided that other deputy ministers will be required

to attend closed policy meetings of the Social Credit Party?

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary, can the minister tell the House

whether any other deputy ministers were called to account before the

Social Credit party membership at the meeting in Harrison last weekend?

Were there other deputies there besides Mr. Heal?

HON. MR. WOLFE: To answer the member's question, Mr. Speaker, not that I'm aware of.

MR. HOWARD:

The minister has said that this item was on the agenda prepared by the

Social Credit Party. The minister made reference to the fact that they

did not want to do things in secret and that they'd like to draw the

whole general public into their conversations. Would the minister be

prepared to table in this House the tape or transcript of any of the

information which a deputy minister working on behalf of all the people

in B.C. gave to that Social Credit closed meeting?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I'd be quite prepared to table with this House the explanation which

Mr. Heal gave to members of this party having to do with his planned

activities to do with communications. That might be a good idea.

MR. HOWARD: That will be all of the discussion taped or transcribed, will it? Am I taking that correctly?

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: I take it then that what the minister is offering is an edited version, which is not acceptable.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I take it, therefore, that the member doesn't want to have me submit the information I am referring to.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney-General on the same subject matter, in

view of the fact that this was clearly a meeting of a political party,

the Social Credit Party, called at Harrison for the purpose of

developing political strategy, would it be the opinion of the

Attorney-General that the use of public money — that is, the use of

somebody who was on an annual salary, in this case of $65,000 a year —

to attend a partisan gathering of that kind at the request of a

minister is a proper use of public money?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the Attorney-General wish to answer?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Speaker. As the member well knows, he is seeking legal opinion, and that is not a proper question.

MR. MACDONALD:

Does the Attorney-General not think that in matters of this kind he

ought to be the guardian of public morality in this province?

[ Page 4693 ]

MR. LEVI:

To the Provincial Secretary, did he receive a request from the

organizers of the conference that the deputy minister for

communications attend?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker,

as I recall, there was indication from people responsible for the

conference that it would be helpful if Mr. Heal attended in order to

respond to questions.

MR. LEVI: Did somebody who was organizing the conference speak to you about that — that Mr. Heal should attend?

have a further question. After it was decided that Mr. Heal would go —

that is, the minister decided it would be a good idea — did the

minister have a discussion with Mr. Heal about the desirability of

going, the nature of the conference, and whether in fact Mr. Heal

himself was comfortable in going to that meeting? All of us over here

know the difficulty of deputy ministers attending these kinds of

meetings. Did you discuss with him, or did he discuss with you, the

desirability of staying away from that kind of thing because of the

secretiveness and the political nature of it?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

(continued)

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

MR. KING:

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the Minister of Forests if the Premier

instructed him to have his deputy minister attend at Harrison Hot

Springs last weekend.

It's probably instructive that the

government had a very close look at the executive council and decided

that the only image that was necessary to be salvaged out of that sorry

government remnant was the office of the Premier, and therefore they

invited his deputy but not the Deputy Minister of Forests. Mr.

Chairman, I seriously want to ask the Minister of Forests whether or

not he has ever instructed either his deputy minister or any other

staff person from within the ministry whose wages are paid by the

taxpayers of B.C. to attend a Social Credit Party function and to

answer and be accountable to party membership who are not elected

members of this Legislature. Has that ever occurred?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No.

MR. KING:

Perhaps the minister would advise me whether or not he has any

intention, even if a request is made to him, of having any of his staff

whose wages are paid by the taxpayers of British Columbia attend

political party functions and answer for their ministry to a closed

meeting of the Social Credit Party. Will that ever occur? Does the

minister agree with that kind of use of public servants?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

If any members of my ministry wish to attend political functions they

are perfectly at liberty to do so, and they are perfectly free to make

that decision on their own, just as I made a decision when I worked for

the provincial government to become involved in political parties and

to actively seek nomination and election on behalf of a political

party. I was employed by the provincial government at the time. Of

course, those things are the types of things that the former Premier

encouraged all the government service to do; he said they should have

very right to be involved in political parties and to actually seek

election. That is a decision that each civil servant must make on his

own.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the minister is not

responding to my question. I'm very familiar with the fact that for the

first time the New Democratic Party government freed public servants to

participate in politics at their discretion. It's quite another matter

for a minister to instruct his deputy to attend a party function. Let's

make no mistake about it; when a deputy minister or any other senior

public servant receives a suggestion or invitation from his minister,

that is tantamount to an instruction. I think it would be a very brave

public servant indeed who would fail to respond to the invitation of

his minister to attend some function. I'm asking the minister if he

agrees that he, as a minister, should. at any time, invite or instruct

his senior staff to attend Social Credit Party functions?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

When I was working for the provincial government, if the government of

the day, which was the NDP government, had told me to go to a party

function, I would very quickly have told them where to go. That is a

decision that every civil servant has the right to make on his own.

MR. COCKE: You weren't a senior civil servant.

MR. KING:

I can't for the life of me imagine why the New Democratic Party would

invite some obscure mining inspector to attend one of their functions

when they were in government. But that is not the point. The minister

is evading the point. We have here a senior staff person at the deputy

minister level who was invited to attend a function by his own

minister. My question to the minister is whether he agrees with that

policy. Can I anticipate Mr. Apsey showing up at a secret Social Credit

meeting in Harrison Hot Springs to satisfy the questioning of Social

Credit Party members regarding matters of forest policy? Might that

occur in the future, or would the minister object to that kind of

instruction, that kind of policy? That's the simple question. Will the

minister please answer yes or no.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: If my deputy minister were invited to attend a Social Credit Party function...

MR. KING: By you?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: …by me or anyone else, his response would have to be his own response. He is a person who can do what he wishes when he wishes.

MR. KING:

The minister continues to evade the question. I am not putting the

question to Mr. Apsey. I would hope that he would have the good taste

not to attend a Social Credit Party function. What I am asking you, Mr.

Minister, is: is it your policy to encourage and invite your senior

staff mem-

[ Page 4694 ]

bers

to private party functions or not? I'm asking you what your decision is

and what your policy is. Your estimates are now before the House, and

we in this Legislature and the public have a right to know what your

policy is in this respect. I ask you to answer what your policy is, not

what Mr. Apsey's response might be. Surely that's not too much to

expect if the minister intends to be candid with the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 98 pass?

MR. KING:

No, it shall not, Mr. Chairman. I asked the minister a question

regarding policy. I want to know whether Mr. Apsey might be invited by

his minister to appear at a private Social Credit Party function — a

secret one at that, at which members of the media were kept at arm's

length by some kind of security force, I understand. I want to know

whether or not the Deputy Minister of Forests might anticipate such an

invitation from his minister. Does the minister agree or disagree with

that kind of policy? I think it's a legitimate question and that people

have a right to know.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I've

responded to the member's question. I don't anticipate inviting my

deputy minister, as a deputy minister, to a party function. I see no

need for that. There's nothing of any particular political significance

that he would attend a Social Credit Party function for — other than if

he desired to go. I can't answer what his desires might be.

MR. KING:

It's pretty obvious that this minister too has left the door open to

abusing the role of senior civil servants. He said that he would not

invite him as a deputy, indicating, I suppose, that he might well

invite him as a citizen. He knows full well, as the House does, that

there's no way that a deputy minister can divorce himself from his

relationship with his minister when it comes to a partisan role in

politics. That's utter nonsense. The minister is just dodging the

question and refusing to answer. I guess we have to assume that from

this time forward the Social Credit government of B.C. and every member

of the executive council intends to abuse and interfere with that

traditional separation that has existed between the public service and

partisan politics in the province of British Columbia. That's a sorry

day for this province. This sets a complete precedent.

puts me, as the Forests critic, in a strange position, because in the

past I have dealt with senior staff of the Ministry of Forests as

though they were impartial public servants hired by the government,

with their wages and expenses paid for by the people of the province,

and answerable to the total Legislature. I now have to come to the

inevitable conclusion that that is not the relationship anymore — that

this government intends to involve their senior staff in partisan

political activities. That being the case, I don't know how I as an

opposition member of this Legislature can approach senior staff in the

Ministry of Forests, secure in the knowledge that they will treat each

and every part of the province of British Columbia — regardless of who

the elected member happens to be — in a fair and impartial manner.

This

is a very serious matter, Mr. Chairman. To my knowledge it has never

occurred in the history of this parliament before, and in my view it

completely prostitutes the original concept of a free and independent

public service in this province. It's a very sorry day indeed.

Mr.

Chairman, we have found this Minister of Forests less than forthcoming

in answering in a concise fashion what his policy would be in this

regard; we have found him less than forthcoming in answering other

questions. I think we should give him a rest. I move that the Chairman

do now leave the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is it agreed to now proceed with the division?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I hear a no.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, it is very difficult to entertain any points of order during division.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

It is not a point of order. You suggested earlier that it would require

unanimity until the bells were working, and I would like to have

assurance that the bells are working.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Again, hon. member, it's very difficult to entertain any questions or

points to the Chair during a division. Points can be taken at the

conclusion of the division.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 26

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 27

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

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

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that we do from time to

time apparently have some difficulty with the functioning of the

division bells throughout this building. I just want to make it clear

that your ruling, as I understand it, is that when it is drawn to the

attention of the Chair that the division bells are not function-

[ Page 4695 ]

ing

in some part of the building, the time for the taking of the division

will be extended until all persons are in the chamber. Is that your

understanding?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is the

interpretation of the Chair at this time.

MR. BARRETT:

We certainly understand that there is difficulty. Mr. Chairman, could

you instruct the House as to when the bells will be checked and when a

definitive report will be given to this House? We would suggest,

perhaps, no later than the end of this week so that all the bells are

checked and the rules of this House can be carried forward.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

That's a fair comment by the Leader of Opposition. I can assure the

members of the House that steps are being taken at this moment to have

the matter reviewed, as was done last week and as was done last year.

There is, however, a problem that we seem to be having some difficulty

in resolving, and I can undertake, on behalf of the House, that that

will be looked into at the earliest possible opportunity so that all

members will be able to be called to the chamber when a division has

been called. That was the reason that when the question was put that a

division be taken we asked if unanimous consent would be given. I feel

that unless members have any objection to that, it is a fair system

under the circumstances as they exist at present.

MR. KING:

I want to get back on the minister's estimates and to some questions I

asked on Friday last regarding a new and really unreported policy that

the government has developed with respect to the size that any

corporations operating in the forest industry will be allowed to

attain. The Minister of Forests confirmed that such a policy has indeed

been adopted, and I would like to know a bit more about it. Firstly, I

would like to know if there are any existing corporations in the forest

sector in the province now which exceed what the minister's criteria

would be for an optimum size of a corporation operating in the forest

sector in the province. That's one question. It's brief and concise.

Are there any corporations that the minister is concerned are now close

to or beyond the optimum size that he thinks is appropriate for the

province?

Secondly, could the minister tell us whether or

not a kind of registry exists so that the government is alerted when

any of the corporations that exceed the optimum size bid for ownership

or control of any existing forest company in the province of British

Columbia? Does the minister have that kind of registry? Does he have a

list of names of certain companies that would not be welcome in the

province?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

We know

that so far two of them are not. We know that Canadian Pacific

Investments is not welcome in the forest industry of the province of

British Columbia, and we know apparently that Noranda is not welcome in

the forest industry to any further degree than they already are. I

would like to know from the minister how this decision is set. Does he

have a list, or is it simply by an ad hoc assessment when these bids

come in? I would also appreciate it if the minister would tell the

House who makes the decision. Is it the Minister of Forests by his own

whim, or does he take it to the cabinet and discuss it with his

colleagues and then they go through the holdings of that company and

decide that this one's permissible or that one's too large? What are

the criteria? I would very much appreciate having the minister explain

a little more fully than he has done to the House so far just how the

policy implementation works. I'll take mv seat and hope that the

minister will answer those brief questions.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Chairman, I went through this question in considerable detail last

week. However, if the member wishes. I'll tell him again.

is a policy of the government of British Columbia that there is a

maximum size to which we think a company should get in terms of its

control of allowable cut. There is no size limitation on what value

they add. We'd like to encourage all companies to add more value in

British Columbia. But we don't feel that a concentration of a large

percentage of the cutting rights in the hands of a single corporation

is a good thing. We have said that the size limitation right now is

that of the largest corporation, MacMillan Bloedel. We wouldn't like to

see companies get larger than MacMillan Bloedel, with the exception of

British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation, which is so widely

held within British Columbia. There is no registry — I don't know where

that term came from — as to the size of companies. Of course, within

the ministry we have statistics as to the current level of cut which is

controlled by the various companies.

The member was not

right when he said that Canadian Pacific and Noranda are not welcome in

British Columbia to any further extent than they are right now. That

has never been stated. We said that our policy is that we don't like to

see a company control more cut than M&B does right now. By buying

control of M&B, Canadian Pacific would exceed that government

policy. Canadian Pacific Investments is more than welcome to be

involved in other forestry operations in British Columbia, as long as

their size does not exceed that which we feel is the maximum size. The

same applies to Noranda. We have not said that Noranda is not welcome

in British Columbia — as long as they live within the stated government

policies.

The decisions. Any time an acquisition is

contemplated which gives a company the control of an additional

allowable cut, it is assessed statistically within the ministry. Then

this information is taken through our cabinet committee process to

cabinet, where a final recommendation is generally made by myself as

the Minister of Forests. As I mentioned to the member last week, Mr.

Chairman, the criterion is twofold: (1) the total amount of cut that is

controlled; and (2) the degree of regional concentration that would

result from a company making an acquisition.

MR. KING:

I thank the minister for his response. In terms of setting up this

policy, apparently MacMillan Bloedel is going to be used as the model.

No larger than MacMillan Bloedel — how was that arrived at? Was it

simply because it exists at that size now? Has the minister looked

beyond the policy implementation to decide whether or not MacMillan

Bloedel itself exceeds that optimum size in terms of controlling the

annual allowable cut? It is strange that MacMillan Bloedel's size

happens to be the optimum size. He's not going to allow any higher

control of annual allowable cut. If he's concerned about this kind of

concentration, what kind of a study has been made to see whether or not

MacMillan Bloedel might also exceed the bounds of public interest in

terms of controlling, the annual allowable cut? Was it just a

[ Page 4696 ]

convenient

benchmark to use MacMillan Bloedel as the model? How did he arrive at

that particular size? Is it simply because they're there, because it's

a desirable size, or because he simply didn't want to get involved in

cutting back the supply that MacMillan Bloedel enjoys now? It seems

strange that this kind of policy existed without any awareness of it

out there in the industry. I'd appreciate it if he'd respond to that

one.

I want to turn now to the vote that we're on, vote

98 of the minister's estimates. I want to point out a couple of things

in this first vote under the minister's estimates and ask for some

explanations from the minister. The allocation for the minister's

office has gone up very substantially, from $123,000 to $160,000. That

is quite a significant increase in the cost for the minister's office.

The provincial Forest and Range Resource Fund has gone up marginally,

from $38 million to $4 million. Regional and range management has also

increased about $2 million. But we find a reduction in district forest

and range resource management from $61 million in the last fiscal year

to only $58 million in the current estimate. This is a crucial area if,

as the minister suggests, we are going to get into intensive forest

management. It's not consistent with the minister's suggestion that we

are increasing our capability to restock the forest land and to manage

it more intensively.

What is really shocking is that while

we see a cut of $2 million in that important district forest and range

resource management area, we see the fantastic increases in building

occupancy charges — up from $3 million to $10 million. I know I

commented on this previously. I know the minister said there has been a

reorganization of his ministry, but my goodness, that's an increase of

$7 million in building occupancy, while we see a cut of $2 million in

the regional forest and range resource management program. What is the

priority of that ministry? Is it to try to perpetuate our forests in a

healthy state, or is it to build accommodation for bureaucrats? I

certainly believe that the accommodation that has been available

throughout the years has been satisfactory.

I find it

passing strange that many of the field offices the Forest Service has

maintained for years in many of the little communities are being phased

out and closed. How is it that we are abandoning buildings and

accommodations in places like New Denver, Fauquier, Chase and many of

these little areas, where an on-site staff existed to stay in close

touch with the resource and manage it wisely? They are being phased out

and lost to any use, and yet we see here a $7 million increase in

building occupancy charges.

I think the Legislature deserves

a better and a more detailed explanation of this inordinate amount of

funds allocated to building occupancy, rather than funds allocated to

what is the main and prime responsibility of the minister — ensuring

that we have healthy and perpetual forest growth in the province of

British Columbia. It just jumps right out of the estimates and strikes

one. The minister hasn't given any detailed explanation. I would

appreciate having one.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Once again

we are going over old ground. As the member can see by the blue book,

the budget for my office has no provision for temporary office help,

which is primarily replacement during vacations and additional

assistance during overload work times. This was not included last year

but is included now. There is also an increase in travel expense, which

more closely reflects the actual expense of the last few years.

far as the other items the member mentions go, I will have to say again

that, although he is trying to create the impression that there is a

reduction in forest and range management funds, the blue book does not

present the whole picture. Once again, there are funds allocated under

section 88 to offset our stumpage credit, and there are funds provided

through the Forest and Range Resource Fund. The actual expenditures in

these areas will be larger than last year, although the method of

reporting them is somewhat different as a result of reorganization of

accounts.

I will say again what I said last week about the

building occupancy charges. We are in the process of turning over to

B.C. Buildings Corporation those facilities we owned in the past and

did not have to provide a rental amount for. In addition to that a

reorganization is required for the placement of personnel in different

areas. In these areas, of course, we don't own buildings and the B.C.

Buildings Corporation will be providing the funds for the facilities,

and we will be paying them out of our budgetary allocations.

MR. KING:

The most affluent and the fastest growing branch of government in the

province of British Columbia is the B.C. Buildings Corporation. The

greatest allocations I see consistently all the way through the

estimates are for that very avaricious monster created by this

government, which seems to be dominating to a great extent much of the

moneys that should be available for more important purposes within the

ministries.

Mr. Chairman, the minister has confirmed that

what is happening here is that money is being taken out of the Forest

and Range Resource Fund that was set up last year and held out as a

separate fund to provide capital to accelerate the improvement of our

forests — the replanting, the thinning and the intensive silviculture

treatment. That fund, instead of going towards that purpose, is now

being used to subsidize a diminishing budget within the minister's own

department. Mr. Minister, you held out the proposition that that was

all fresh cash allocated for intensive management. If your own budget

keeps diminishing, as is the case here — and as he has just admitted,

Mr. Chairman — then that is not a real gain in capital funds through

the Forest Range Resource Fund. You can't spend it twice.

That

money has been set up in a special fund, but now we see that we're

getting cutbacks in the normal budgetary allocation that has been

obtained in the minister's estimates for years. That looks to me like

traditional Social Credit flimflam. It looks to me like just another

indication of the practices that have built up over the years with that

government, where they hide the real costs of hydro projects by tucking

them away in the Highways ministry's estimates and various other

places. Mr. Minister, because you've cut back on the normal allocation

that should have been provided in your own budgets, you're chiseling

away from that special reserve fund that was set up and held out by

your ministry to be a separate allocation simply for intensive forest

management in the province of British Columbia. I think that's

deplorable and I suspect that we're going to see more of it as we go

along.

I still haven't received a satisfactory answer from

the minister as to where all these buildings are that he's taken over

and been charged for by the B.C. Buildings Corporation. Are they all in

Victoria or are they in Vancouver? What new facilities has the ministry

occupied in the last year that were not occupied previously? That's a

fantastic amount of

[ Page 4697 ]

money

— $7 million. Surely the minister can tell us where they are and how

many people are being housed in these costly new facilities. Where were

they before and where did they move from that caused this kind of

unusual acceleration in building occupancy costs? We're entitled to a

more detailed answer than the minister has provided so far.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

I think the member has had explained to him in the past the philosophy

of the ministry's reorganization. As he knows, in the past we had about

100 ranger districts and six decision-making centres, which were called

forest district offices. We now have 47 decision-making centres called

forest districts plus six regional offices, which are also

decision-making centres, plus, of course, Victoria. A lot of the new

facilities we occupy are the new district headquarters — some of which

are in the same physical location as previous ranger stations, many of

which are not and which are in effect new district headquarters.

MR. KING:

I really don't understand what the minister is saying. He gets up and

mumbles away. I appreciate that the structure was changed somewhat, but

unless there was an absolute explosion in staff, which I don't believe

there has been, I cannot for the life of me understand why it would be

necessary to provide an increase of $7 million to house and accommodate

a staff that's simply been reshuffled. I don't care whether you have

developed six regions or 12 regions; as I understand it the ministry

still has the equivalent staff that they've had for the past number of

years. If anything, I think there have been an inordinate number of

resignations from the Ministry of Forests staff, out of some

disillusionment with the reorganization that the minister talks about.

But when the public is asked to come up with an additional $7 million

for building occupancy charges, I would expect more specific

information from the minister than to get up and mumble: "Well, I've

reorganized my ministry; we now have a number of regions, and so on."

Are all these buildings occupied? Are they fully utilized? It's a

fantastic amount of money to come up with as an increase in building

occupancy charges, particularly when we see other more important, more

crucial functions of the ministry's service being cut back. But I guess

we have to despair of getting any precise answers out of the minister,

Mr. Chairman, a sad as it is.

I want to go back to another

point that I raised earlier and just run it by the minister once again.

I referred previously to his planned cutback of 25 percent for AAC in

the TSAs, so that timber may be released and available to allocate to

the small business program. I'm not at all critical of that initiative;

I'd like to know a bit more about it. Is this a general program that

the minister is going to apply right across the length and breadth of

the province, or is it going to be selectively applied in just some

regions?

Finally, I wonder if the minister plans to expand

this initiative, this policy direction, to the tree-farm licences in

the province too, so that everyone will have to compete for timber, not

just the small operators but the large integrated firms as well. I

would appreciate the minister's commenting on that policy a bit more

fully, if he would.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman,

while I have discussed with the member, and I've explained in the House

to a certain extent what our plan is for the small business program, I

would point out that it is the intention to make sure that we have a

substantial small business program in every timber supply area. The

objective is to have 25 percent of the cut in every timber supply area

available to the small business program and thereby create a

log-marketing system in these areas, so that the manufacturing sector

of the industry can draw part of its wood supply from the log market.

Right

at this moment there is no plan to reduce the available cut in

tree-farm licences, although I would point out that within the

tree-farm licences there are considerable opportunities for the small

business program at the present time. It is now a requirement of every

TFL that at least 50 percent of the harvesting be done under contract.

In addition to that we've also made provision whereby a contractor can,

if he so wishes, demand a minimum five-year contract if he is a

stump-to-dump contractor, or a shorter term if he is a phase

contractor. So there are opportunities within TFLs for the small

business sector. These have been expanded considerably over the last

few years. We also have the right to issue timber sale licences within

TFLs, if cut is available to do that.

MR. KING: Mr.

Chairman, I appreciate the program as far as it goes, but it's kind of

inconsistent with what the minister said previously. Here he is

concerned about corporate concentration, as it were, and therefore he's

prepared to limit the size of a corporation that can operate in the

forest industry and which can hold and monopolize annual allowable cut.

But when it comes to freeing 25 percent of the cutting rights in the

province for competition, he applies it just to the small entrepreneur,

the small licence holder. And then he says we're going to leave alone

the large corporations that exist and function primarily in the

tree-farm licences. because there is a contractor clause; they have to

contract out some of their cutting. The minister knows full well that

the contractors are a long way from being fully independent when it

comes to cutting rights within a TFL. It is a fact that the licensee

has to contract out, but the squeeze can be put on independent

contractors. They have virtually no right of tenure. They can be

squeezed out and frequently have been. The B.C. Loggers' Association

has told the minister about the kind of problems that they face in this

regard.

If there is an area of corporate concentration in

B.C., surely it is and has been for years with the virtual control that

the eight large corporations in the province have now over annual

allowable cut in the province. Yet it's a hands-off policy with them.

They have virtual perpetual tenure, as the Pearse royal commission

pointed out, in many cases for a supply of timber beyond their own

fibre needs. But here's the minister with no policy whatever to free up

any of the timber that they hold in absolute licence and to subject it

to a competitive log market. No, that just applies to the small

operator. I think that's a pretty clear indication of the fact that

this minister and this government are not prepared to rock the boat one

iota when it comes to real concentration and real corporate power in

B.C.

I think that the policy we talked about before of

suggesting that MacMillan Bloedel is the optimum size for any company

to hold cutting rights in the province of B.C. is nonsense. If the

minister really wants to have some impact on corporate concentration

and control in the forest industry, he should make sure that each and

every one of them has to compete for some of its timber requirements.

That 's the way to ensure competition. That's the way to ensure that

the public interest and return on our fundamental and most important

natural resource is fair and stands the test of the market. I suggest

to the minister that the size of the corpora-

[ Page 4698 ]

tion

has nothing to do with it. If he and his government had the will and

the policy objective of setting up some good old-fashioned

free-enterprise competition in the forest industry, he'd be serving the

interests of the people of the province much better.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

It's interesting to note that the minister didn't see fit to answer the

last question posed by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King).

Perhaps we can elicit some answers from the minister during my

questions under his estimates.

First of all I have a few

brief remarks. The minister is very much aware, of course, that the

forest industry is so vital to my riding. I represent an area where

timber is extracted and generally processed elsewhere, with the

exception of the paper mill of MacMillan Bloedel in Powell River and

the paper mill in Port Mellon. We used to have three paper mills in the

riding. The third one was called Ocean Falls. I intend to be discussing

that. In fact I should discuss it while the Minister of Industry and

Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is in the House because

I know he's very interested in Ocean Falls.

I just have a

few general remarks on forestry. I did read the Blues very carefully

and saw the minister's response to questioning on his first and second

five-year plans. It's interesting to note that the B.C. professional

foresters, a very highly trained professional group in this province —

and I know that the minister is very familiar with these people — have

seen fit to make some comments on the minister's first five-year plan

and have suggested that while it's a step in the right direction, the

fact is that the minister and his ministry have not gone nearly far

enough. In fact, the $17 million cutback in that program.... As it says

here, quoting the professional foresters: "Do you know what a forester

could do with $17 million?" He could do any of the following: "We could

plant 57 million seedlings on 150,000 acres; we could juvenile space

85,000 acres of overstocked young stands; we could fertilize some

280,000 acres of slow-growing forest." A lot of urgently needed work

could be done to secure their position. In fact a forester could hire

170,000 extra man-days of labour with that much money.

don't want to cover a whole lot of ground that was covered by the

previous speaker, but the fact is that the reforestation program in

this province is not moving nearly fast enough, and the professional

foresters.... I want to make it very clear that I don't blame the

people within the Forest Service. Generally speaking, throughout the

province, particularly in my riding and from senior officials in the

Forest Service, I get a quick response to questions I pose about

information required, and I appreciate that. Generally speaking, the

people within the service, in my view, are very qualified. They do have

problems. You often find that private industry — I don't know if the

correct term is "rob" or "steal" — acquire people who have been coming

up through the Forest Service. Because of the frustrations within the

Forest Service personnel, those people who are qualified, when they

can, will go off into private industry at the first opportunity, and as

a result of that the province is the loser. Nonetheless, I happen to

have a very high regard for the people in the service.

terms of reforestation in 1980, a total of only 75 million seedlings

were planted on Crown land, according to the professional foresters.

They have suggested that 210 million seedlings are required. What I'm

saying is that it would appear that the Forest Service is some eight

years behind in its planting program, and this is of great concern to

all of us. I know the minister will answer that question again briefly,

as he did to the previous speaker.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

want to get on to a couple of other matters. The minister, I am sure,

has heard from many small independent or would-be loggers on the coast

regarding his small business program and woodlot programs. That program

has been singularly unsuccessful. One of the reasons for the lack of

success of that program is that there is no timber. This government has

already alienated most of the timber on the coast. I had a request just

the other day from a person who has been trying for two years to take

part in this program. I've read your figures and the report, and I know

how many people you say have entered into the program since it was

initiated. But the fact is that I've also talked with no end of people

particularly in my riding, because it is a forested riding that are

unable to get any kind of program underway even where they find areas

of timber where they could operate as small independent businessmen,

which this government claims to be the champion of. I think that theory

has gone out the window, but nonetheless, the present government takes

pride in it and likes to boast about their free enterprise programs.

don't see any problem with people like Whonnock getting timber. They

have no problems. While we're discussing that particular program, I

have correspondence from a professional forester, endorsed by nine

independent logging companies in my riding based on theSunshine Coast —

for your information that's the area generally discussed from Port

Mellon, Gibsons to Pender Harbour — in terms of discussing Whonnock

Forest Products Ltd. I'm not blaming Whonnock for what I'm about to

reveal here. After all, they are a company that's out to get the best

deal they can, make money and all those things. This relates

specifically to helicopter logging, which is supposed to be — and was

originally brought in as — a program of experimentation. As a result of

that type of program, these people were able to obtain timbers in

certain parts of the coast of British Columbia — specifically in my

riding — at 91 cents per thousand cubic feet. That's what they were

paying on that program. And yet here I have correspondence — quite a

bit of correspondence, actually — on this subject.

I want to

quote a few phrases, if I can. As a matter of fact this correspondence

I'm quoting from was addressed to the minister, so I know he has a copy

himself. This forester, Mr. Timchuck, not only does forestry consulting

for a large number of small independents, but he does consulting as

well for some of the bigger firms in the area. That's how he makes his

living. He was at one time employed by the Forest Service.

is important that I get your attention on this one, Mr. Minister,

unless you're already familiar with the topic and the complaint that

you're about to hear. It is an important topic and apparently it's

going to get worse. It deals with helicopter logging on the coast of

British Columbia. I'm quoting parts of Mr. Timchuck's lengthy detailed

letter on this subject. He says: "Helicopter logging is no longer an

experiment. We suggest that you regard the helicopter as a conventional

logging machine. We also suggest that your district's management and

appraisal of helicopter logging be with the same intent as other

logging methods."

[ Page 4699 ]

Mr.

Chairman, I agree with that method of logging to some extent for

certain areas. But the reason I'm bringing this subject here this

afternoon is that particularly in an area where there's very little

Crown timber left for the small independents to operate on.... Most of

it's been alienated, as you know, to various companies which I won't

name here; everybody knows who they are. On certain helicopter logging

sites where prime timber was removed at the very low rate of 91 cents

per thousand cubic feet, which is practically nothing, we have

independent operators now applying to log that same area by

conventional methods. Now the Forest Service is in a bit of a bind.

There are roads through these areas. Why was a helicopter licence given

to these people in the first place to log the prime timber off and

leave the residue on the ground? If you could see the area, you'd know

as well as I do that it is almost impossible to replant that type of

area after helicopter logging because they don't have proper cleanup

and proper logging methods. I'd like to know from the minister how they

determine what a helicopter logging site is and what it isn't.

This

should be interesting to you: in this one particular site in Sechelt

Inlet — all the details are in this correspondence, which you have —

another independent logger went into the area. There are roads there

for utilizing conventional logging methods. The Forest Service said

that they couldn't log in there because it had already been logged by

helicopter. The fact is that this independent would love to relog the

whole thing. He would probably pay the conventional stumpage fees and

make a buck or two.

How do you and your ministry determine

who gets this timber? The allegations and rumours going around on how

this timber was let are horrendous. Hopefully they're not true. On one

site a large company was logging the timber before they had the actual

clearance from the Ministry of Forests, and they got away with it. They

were never charged. How did they get away with that?

You

hear rumours about contributions and campaigns. I don't know if they're

true or not. No wonder rumours like that are going to start, when

people can get away with certain methods of logging and practically

no-cost timber. The independents — nine of them who have actually

signed this lengthy correspondence to the minister — are understandably

upset. They have to go through the process and wait sometimes months

and years for a show. Most of them have no quota. They have to depend

on contractors.

Mr. Chairman, I mentioned Ocean Falls. While

we're on the topic, I'm not going to get into a lot of detail. I can

hardly wait for the estimates of the Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) to get into the nitty gritty

of that one. You recall, Mr. Minister, that throughout the last session

I asked repeatedly for you to table in this House the mid-coast timber

supply area report. You said you had it, but it's not very interesting

and of no consequence to anybody. I did finally manage to obtain a copy

of that report. The fact is that it is extremely interesting to me and

to the people living in the central coast and particularly to people

living in Ocean Falls. Your colleague on that side of the House has

told me on numerous occasions that one of the reasons you had to shut

down Ocean Falls is because they have no guaranteed timber supply.

Let

me tell you what has happened since the Social Credit government came

to office. The central coast area is one of the few areas in British

Columbia where we have large areas of uncommitted Crown timber. Guess

who got licences to log that area — the timber rights — over recent

years? Doman Industries. Is Mr. Doman a contributor to the Social

Credit Party? I think so. I'm not saying that's why he got the logging

licence in the central coast area of this province, but he did. Ocean

Falls couldn't get it. You wouldn't give Ocean Falls any timber to keep

that community alive and to keep 450 people employed. You couldn't do

that. but Mr. Doman got a large tract. Do you want the licence number?

I've got it here.

MacMillan Bloedel got a large tract of

timber in that area. How did they get that? When Ocean Falls was

shutting down you told us there was no timber available for Ocean

Falls. There seems to be timber available for MacMillan Bloedel.

Pacific Forest Products got a big tract of timber in that area. It's all here. I think the letter came from you. No, it didn't.

B.C.

Forest Products. How did they obtain a tree-farm licence or a cutting

licence in that area? It's all here: your map, your numbers. There are

none for Ocean Falls.

Mayo Forest Products. Of course. they

were logging in the area — fair enough — as was Crown over the years.

They obtained timber in that area, but there was none for Ocean Falls.

Why shut down Ocean Falls? Why? Because it was an NDP operation that

made money under an NDP government and through mismanagement by your

government lost funds.

Weldwood of Canada are doing all

right up there. They've got a nice little operation going in — two

sides operating this spring. But none for Ocean Falls — no involvement

of the local community. There's high unemployment at Bella Bella, They

could have had an operation. They've applied to you for some timber

rights in that area. What were they told? You know what they were told,

of course.

MR. KEMPF: What year was that'?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Every year since 1976. The member for Omineca, who knows the area well....

MR. KEMPF: How much timber did they get from the NDP?

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

They got a heck of a lot more from our good government than they have

from whatever kind of government it is you have. They got nothing from

you guys. In fact, you guys don't even have the guts to go in and talk

to those people. You won't even meet with them.

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

It was only under an NDP government that the Indian people of this

province started to get a fair break from anybody in this province.

They've never once met with you guys. You close doors.

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We know what you think of Indian people. The minister is testy because he shut down Ocean Falls.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. If the hon. members to my right will let the member

continue. and if the member will address the Chair, we'll proceed.

[ Page 4700 ]

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I'm glad to see you're protecting me from that very vocal Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development. I can understand why he is

testy. They know they made a mistake in terms of shutting down that

community. I'm not going to get into all of that now; it's not the

right place. What I'm talking about is timber supply, which is directly

under the control of the Minister of Forests. Timber was available and

there is still lots of timber up there. Who's getting it? That's the

question. They could have kept Ocean Falls going. Their own report

indicates this.

One of the questions I would pose to the

minister at this time.... I understand through writing and telephone

conversations with Mr. Williston that he is discussing with the

Minister of Forests — here is what we're going to get for Ocean Falls —

the possibility of some low-grade cheap cedar, not the good stuff, for

a particle-board plant. I want to hear from the minister whether that

transaction is completed and those timbers have been committed for that

particular project. That's an easy enough question. He should be able

to answer it.

I have a couple of other items. I just want to

mention in passing — because this is not the appropriate ministry — the

question of an archaeological site on Hardinge Island, which is

currently being logged. Because it is being logged a certain amount of

responsibility must fall on this minister we are questioning today.

About a 400-acre site on this privately owned island is being logged by

Peavy Logging, which is really Mr. Mahood and Mr. Porter. They have

told the government, myself and anybody else who is interested that if

the government will not come up with the funds to save this

archaeological site, which contains a whole lot of Indian artifacts —

burials, rock paintings, the whole thing....

Besides which,

it happens to be a beautiful harbour. They are private enterprise but

they have offered to government some kind of land swap. I'm not usually

in favour of land swaps, by the way, and I'm going to discuss that in a

few minutes as well. But they have suggested that on a fair evaluation

— even by a third party — they would be willing to turn over this

particularly important archaeological site to the government as a park

site or for whatever reason.

The fact is the government has

replied, "No way," and the ministry has, in fact, said.... I have it

right here in writing: "There is no other Crown land available that we

could possibly trade with PV Services" who are presently engaged in

logging that site. The timber will be felled within the next month,

"because all the property on Vancouver Island has been fully

committed." Those are the exact words used by the minister. That is

nonsense, of course, because they have found.... I just want to state

before I finish this Hardy Island thing — because as I said, it's not

the appropriate ministry, but it does involve logging — that I'm not in

favour of land swaps of the huge type.

This government has a

history of swapping land with various private people and coming out

with the short end of the stick every time; in other words, the people

are the losers. But on this kind of little transaction, where the

property — I don't know what it's worth, but let's say it's worth

$750,000.... That's really not too much money, because once that site

has been logged and then subdivided for whatever — recreation, lots or

whatever PV Services intends to do with it — it's lost forever. A real,

true heritage site in British Columbia is lost. I'm extremely upset

about that whole thing. Everybody, including people within the Ministry

of the Provincial Secretary who handle this, have made repeated

requests to the minister to save at least this one heritage site. I

have the support of the regional districts of my area, both major

Indian bands, everybody who knows the site and every archaeologist I've

met. They're going to just let it go down the tube, and it's

irreplaceable.

While we're on the topic of land swaps, most

people aren't aware that not long ago a major land swap took place in

this province. This government gave away to the CPR — through Pacific

Logging and Marathon and all those people — some 5,000 acres of land,

fully treed, much of it waterfront, on Sechelt Inlet. Sechelt Inlet, by

the way, is located near the Pender Harbour and Egmont areas; in fact,

it happens to be right across…. Egmont itself is located in the Sechelt

Inlet. I have all the evidence right here. The timber values on that

property alone have been estimated by an independent forester at some

$60 million. You understand that the CPR has about a 125-year history

of getting Crown land from people right across Canada. You can hardly

blame the CPR, Marathon or Pacific Logging; they're in business. It's

my view, though, that government members — all of us in this House, but

particularly ministers, who have the power to make decisions — are

elected to look after the best interests of the people. In this case

the best interests of the CPR were looked after, and not the best

interests of the people.

They had some excuses. They said:

"Well, look what we're getting in return. We're getting about double

the number of hectares — acreage on Vancouver Island." But what do we

get in return on Vancouver Island? The map is here; the assessments are

all here. What we got in return are some nine chunks of swamp,

mountaintop, lands that had already been logged by Pacific Logging; it

was a bad deal. There are two of the properties up where it's changed

on Vancouver Island, which I agree should be preserved for park

properties. Maybe there are three. You can go as far as you want on

that. But there are other ways of doing things. You don't have to give

away fee-simple ownership of waterfront property by the mile —

thousands and thousands of acres — to obtain the same result.

You're

so proud of your budget and your investments; have a third party come

in, negotiate a fair deal, buy up property for park purposes or

whatever. The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot)

tells me he has no money. Look at his budget. There's less money this

year than last year, and he didn't have any last year. There are other

ways of doing things. You don't have to just give away. More than that,

Mr. Chairman.... Listen to this. By giving away that 5,000 acres of

land on the Sechelt Inlet to the CPR through Pacific Logging, you have

probably put six or eight independent small loggers out of business. It

would have provided some five to eight years' logging for them —

accessible waterfront timber with winter shoals. Who's got it? The CPR

has it now.

Last but not least, there is something terribly

suspicious about this deal. This transaction went through after

negotiations started with this government and Marathon Realty over B.C.

Place in Vancouver. The government has previously denied that there was

any connection. Who knows what happens when Marathon Realty is dealing

in the back room with government negotiators? Those transactions aren't

taking place in public. Can you tell me that even this minister would

be negligent enough in his duties to allow the CPR to take over that

5,000 acres without some other factor being involved? I don't know that

and can't prove it? But the fact is I'm very suspicious that this

government gave the CPR that

[ Page 4701 ]

5,000 acres on the Sechelt Inlet as part of an unwritten, unspoken, unpublished part of the B.C. Place transaction.

What

else can I say? The minister knows this. I've written to him and

received replies. The only minister who didn't reply was the Premier.

The Premier never replies to anybody. Of course, he's hardly ever here.

I always get a nice letter from the Premier's secretary. She says this

will be brought to the Premier's attention on his return from wherever

he's going or wherever he's been. But when he does return I never hear

anything further.

Mr. Chairman, the minister can take these

questions, so that he can perhaps answer the whole bunch at once.

Concerning the Forest Service property at Lund — your deputy will know

about this; it's an abandoned Forest Service station; you have new

facilities and there's nothing wrong with that — I'm wondering what

you're planning to do with that property, how you plan to dispose of it

and who is going to get it. The facilities are unbelievably beautiful

and, in my view, they should be preserved. They should not be alienated

or sold out, and if nothing else, they should be preserved for a

parksite, an experimental station of some sort for the aquaculture

industry, or whatever. I wonder if the minister could tell me what he

is doing with that.

Last but not least, concerning the

log-salvage regulations, which the minister has promised to bring in

for some time — without further consultation. mind you.... As a result

of not bringing in these regulations, you have literally hundreds of

people in the log-salvage industry on the coast of British Columbia who

are prepared to upgrade their boats and equipment — I know one fellow

down in Gibsons who must have spent $30,000 on his boat because he's in

the business — but who can't do anything until they know what the

regulations are. We have no idea. I've contacted people within your

ministry and have received the same old answer that hopefully the

minister will make a decision within a month. A month goes by and I

check again, and they say: "Well, we still haven't heard." I ask why

those regulations haven't been brought in, and nobody in your ministry

will tell me. In fact, they say that I have to ask the minister. That's

fair enough. I can understand that. Maybe the minister could answer

today and tell us when those regulations are going to be brought in,

because the fate of literally hundreds of log salvagers out there

depends on those regulations.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Going back to the beginning of the member for Mackenzie's discussion,

he started off by stating that there are quite a few people in the

small business sector who have not received timber sales under the

small business program. That is quite right, and I guess there will

always be people who do not get sales. There's not enough wood for

everybody who wants it. However, we're making sales available for

competition within the small business sector as quickly as we can. As I

have said, that program will be expanding, and as it does more and more

small business entrepreneurs will be successful in acquiring sales.

However, they are put up to competition among those registered in the

small business sector.

The member talked about helicopter

logging. Helicopter logging is a relatively new harvesting method. We

have issued sales for helicopter logging. They've been largely through

competition. Some cutting permits have been issued under existing

licences, which are designated as helicopter logging sales for various

reasons. The reasons can vary. One factor would be environmental

sensitivity: helicopter logging is very sensitive to the environment.

You can lift logs out from areas where you should perhaps not build

roads because road building disrupts the environment. In some areas it

extends the forests that we can harvest.

The process is that

before the cutting permit is approved for helicopter logging our field

people have to look at it. They usually do so in consultation with the

licensee. Then it's designated as a helicopter logging show. I think

there have been a few instances where it was questionable whether it

should in fact have been a helicopter show, and we're trying to tighten

up the criteria, Improvements are coming. I think there have been a

couple of cases, only very few, where some timber was harvested which

perhaps should not have been harvested by helicopter.

As the

member knows. there's a special stumpage rate. By sometime this year or

perhaps early next year. we should have in place a special helicopter

logging appraisal allowance system so that we won't have to have an

artificially pegged stumpage. We'll have enough cost data by that time

to make realistic helicopter cost allowances. They'll really be on the

same type of appraisal system as others in the industry, except

allowances will reflect those higher costs incurred by helicopter

logging. It is expensive, and the cost factors are considerably

different,

Yes, there have been a few complaints of areas

logged by helicopter that perhaps could have been reached by other

means. That will always he a judgment factor. We are attempting to

tighten that and be much more specific with the criteria we use to

judge helicopter logging shows.

I was rather disappointed in

the member for what he said about campaign donations somehow being

linked to the acquisition of timber licences and the right to harvest

timber. I can expect that from certain other members opposite, but it's

a little out of character for that member. I'll just let it rest at

that. This is a completely false accusation.

MR. LEA: Unheard of.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: lm sure the member for Prince Rupert will have every opportunity to take

part in this debate, if he wishes.

MR. LEA: Yes. you're right, I will.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I hope so.

The

member also discussed Ocean Falls and the fact that other people

acquired timber. They didn't. All the timber put up is through

competitive bidding, either through straight bidding or a bid proposal

system. Ocean Falls, I believe, did bid on a couple of sales, but

unsuccessfully. We show no favouritism to any company, whether they be

government owned or otherwise. Ocean Falls Corporation did bid, and in

one case I think they bid jointly with another party, and when they

have bid have been unsuccessful.

There is the question, of

course, of whether we should be providing high-grade wood that can best

be used in other areas and allow it to be around into pulp, because

that was a refiner-grounder operation which required fairly

high-quality wood to make into pulp. We feel the best way to go is to

use by-products where possible and for kraft pulp mills to use chips.

Ocean

Falls Corporation has received an experimental timber licence. As you

know, the thrust that is taking place there now is to find ways of

harvesting and then ways of using

[ Page 4702 ]

some

of that low-grade wood on the coast, of which a high percent is cedar.

Some experimentation has taken place with products that can be

produced. Oriented-strand plywood is one such possibility. Ocean Falls

Corporation has received an experimental timber licence, which we can

issue without competition for experimental purposes. I believe it's

about 850,000 cubic metres to be harvested over a five-year period. We

have identified those sites in which they will be harvesting. Those

licences were issued some months ago, I believe.

The member

mentioned the archaeological site.... I don't recall the name of the

island. I'll have to take that question as notice and try to get the

information back to the member. I can't recall discussion on it with

the staff, but perhaps before my estimates are completed I'll be able

to get back to the member with the information on that particular item.

The

Pacific Logging trade. As the member knows, the new Forest Act makes

very specific provision for land trades where it's going to be to the

advantage of both the government and the industry for the purpose of

consolidating scattered areas into areas that can be more conveniently

and economically harvested. Such a trade has been arranged with Pacific

Logging. We'll be trading approximately 5,000 acres of Crown land for

10,000 acres of land which they own, and the assessment of the value of

these lands and the timber on them is taking place now.

don't know what the member was referring to when he had his assessment

in hand, but Horth consultants are doing the work for the government

and, I believe, Reid Collins are working for Pacific Logging. If the

values placed on these lands by these two consultants are within 10

percent of each other, I believe our agreement says that we will

average the difference. If, however, the value has more than a 10

percent spread then we'd have to have those two assessments referred to

some third party for a rationalization of the difference. Also, if

there is a difference in favour of the government — if our land is

worth more than theirs — there will be no payment made to Pacific

Logging. The land will be swapped two for one on an acreage basis.

However, if the land that Pacific Logging is acquiring is of more value

than the land we're receiving, then Pacific Logging will pay us the

difference.

So it's a no-lose situation for the government.

We will receive money if the land they are getting is of higher value,

and we will pay nothing if their land is of higher value. There are a

number of these land swaps and consolidations taking place now. In fact

we have a person in the strategic studies division of our ministry

whose job is to assess the possibility of land swaps for the

rationalization of cutting areas.

I can't recall anything

specific about the forest properties at Lund, but the normal procedure

would be that we would turn that land over to Lands, Parks and Housing.

If it has special uses to which they can put it, I would assume that

would be done. However, the land would be theirs to deal with, not ours.

The

log-salvage regulations are right now with the Attorney-General's

department for assessment as to the legal wording, and it shouldn't be

very long before those regulations are issued. I can't give you a

specific time, but it should be a matter of weeks. As the member knows,

we had a White Paper issued for discussion purposes on the log-salvage

regulations. We had a great deal of input, some of it rather

vociferous, from the log salvers. However, we have made a lot of

changes to the original White Paper as a result of that input, and I

feel that when the regulations come out, they will be in the best

interests of both the salvers and the government and everyone should

benefit from them. I believe that covers the points raised by the

member up to this time.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Just to go

over a couple of points relating to the minister's answers very

briefly, first of all, I did not accuse the minister, because I don't

know, about campaign funds and this kind of thing. But I raised the

subject because I want the government and the minister to know that

this is what I'm hearing out there. This is what they're saying out

there, and it's my job as an MLA to relay those factors back into the

House, and I intend to darned well do so. You can bet your boots on it.

It looks kind of suspicious, you've got to admit. Anyway, I did want to

clarify that point.

When there was no timber available for

Ocean Falls, there was timber available for some of these other people,

and I think it's a crime when 450 people are thrown out of work. If the

minister would go into that community.... There's a new school, new

hospitals, a library, recreation facilities, wharves and houses that

you'd be paying $150,000 for on the lower mainland today, all boarded

up. So don't tell me about Ocean Falls and how people up there are

feeling about that subject.

In terms of the CPR land swap, I

was familiar with that reply. It's been replied to me often, I believe,

and certainly in writing from some of your staff. But the fact is that

that is not good enough. First of all there was no consultation with

the local regional district, the small independent loggers in the area

or the big loggers. There was no consultation with any of these people

and, as a matter of fact, I understand the letters of intent of

agreement were signed before anybody living there became aware of it.

Furthermore, you say no damage was done. Let me tell you the damage

that was done. What you've done is successfully remove from the small

gypo six to eight years of potential timber. That's what you done, and

you've given it to the CPR. You haven't taken into account the value of

the miles of waterfront that they received along with this transaction

and the subdivisions that Marathon will ultimately accomplish in that

area. The land in that area is selling for about $5 per waterfront

foot, so don't tell me about that.

I'd like to know, Mr.

Minister — perhaps your deputy will recall — what

section of the act

you used to carry out this arbitrary land swap without reference to

regional districts, the people living in the area or anybody else. What

section of the act did you use? Mr. Minister, in terms of log salvers,

I obviously didn't make my point. What I'm telling you is that I'm out

there. You're in your office and you deal with what happens in your

office, but I'm out there talking to these people, particularly between

sessions. What I'm telling you in terms of the log salvers is that, in

some cases, you're breaking them; you're putting them out of business.

There was input, superficial as it may have been; you did meet with

them.

However, when you redrafted the regulations proposed

in your White Paper number 8, you did not consult. We have no idea what

you finally came up with. You're going to bring in those regulations

arbitrarily, and we have no idea what they're going to be. You say

you've listened to them. B.C. Hydro is required to hold public

meetings. They hold meetings, but they go ahead and do exactly what

they want anyway. I suspect this is the case with White Paper number 8.

We have no idea what's in that paper. The log salvers don't. We have

people out there wanting to spend money to modern-

[ Page 4703 ]

ize

their equipment, and they can't make a move until they hear from you.

So give us some kind of a time-frame. Will they be out in a week, two

weeks, two months, two years? Give us a rough idea. You can't say that

they'll be out sometime. What does that mean? You told us months ago

they'd be out soon, and we haven't heard a thing from you yet. Why

aren't you bringing the darned things out? Mr. Chairman, perhaps the

minister will answer, please.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The

member suggests that after a White Paper discussion and our meetings

with log salvers, we come back, redraft regulations and go back and

have meetings again. I guess we'd have to redraft regulations and then

go back again. At some point you've got to stop the discussion and get

on with the job. The log salvers' representations to us were fully

considered. A lot of their ideas will be incorporated. The log salvers

right now are still working under the former regulations. There is no

reason why they can't carry on with their plans just as they have done

in the past. As I said, the new regulations will be out very shortly

after extensive consultation with them.

As far as the

section of the Forest Act which provides for swapping of lands, the

swap does not take place under the Forest Act; it comes under the

Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing regulation. We cannot grant title

to fee-simple land through my ministry. That will be done through the

Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I'm shocked. Do you mean to tell me that the Minister of Forests

allowed the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) to

proceed with this land swap with the CPR, Marathon, Pacific Logging and

the whole bit? You must have been consulted. You must have had the

timber values for that area. I cannot believe it. Certainly this issue

will come up again under the appropriate ministry. Do you realize what

you've done and what you've just said? Obviously if you were

consulted.... That's the worst shame! I cannot believe it. You were

elected, like other members of this House, to protect the best

interests of the people of British Columbia. In my opinion, Mr.

Minister, you're failing in that duty. What can I say?

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Chairman, while I come from a city riding and the trees are mostly

shade trees, I'm very interested in what the minister has said about

the swap of lands. I heard him say that there were powers, and I

thought it was under the Forest Act. I'm surprised at the answer that

has now been given that another minister was involved. "Powers to

consolidate holdings," that's what the minister said. I took that to be

timber holdings in one area so that they could be conveniently logged.

The minister was clearly then referring to forestry practice under the

Forest Act. Now he takes all that back, because I would be astonished

if the Minister of Forests had the power to transact something of an

exchange on this scale, without any competitive public bidding, under

the Forest Act. Now he says: "I can't do it under the Forest Act." But

obviously this minister is fully apprised of the situation, as well he

should be.

So I ask him some simple questions. To me. Mr.

Minister. It seems very strange that you can log off an area.... Even

though you're exchanging two acres for one in the new area, the new

area is treed. It's going to be a fee-simple proposition. It has not

only prime timber but it has the potential, as the member is pointing

out, for subdivision of waterfront access, which is extremely valuable.

So I would ask the minister: is he willing to let the people of the

province into his confidence and table the…? I presume there is an

agreement; he mentioned a letter of intent, and agreement. I think

those documents could be tabled very nicely with the Chairman, who is

in a very good humour today and ready to receive anything that's placed

in a responsible way upon the table, and referred for filing through

the unmentionables in this House. We would like to see the agreement.

Has it been made public already? If it has, I take this request back.

We would like to see the agreement between this government and Pacific

Logging or CPR, whichever it happened to be. Possibly Marathon was an

undisclosed party to the transaction, because at that particular time,

as most people in the province now know, Marathon Realty had this

government over a barrel. That's why we're asking the questions.

The commitment to go ahead with B.C. Place as one of the…

How do you pronounce that word, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Monuments.

MR. MACDONALD:

…monuments of this government and to this government had already been

publicly announced. But there was no deal with the CPR to get the land

and it couldn't be expropriated. So the CPR had led this government

down into a cul-de-sac, where the government was in serious difficulty.

We say to the minister that when timberlands of this magnitude are

swapped or exchanged, we would like the agreement filed. We'd like to

know he date that the negotiations took place. These are specific

questions, Mr. Minister. I'm sure you can remember them. because you

are not taking them down. Will you file the agreement? When did the

negotiations take place? At whose behest was this so-called swap. which

you misdescribed in what you said earlier…? You clearly implied that

was under the Forest Act.

In terms of a factual question,

I'd like to ask the minister this. I would like to know of the

minister, as a city boy, what the timber cruises revealed in terms of

the cunits of timber in the 5,000-acre parcel in Sechelt that was going

to the CPR in fee-simple. I would like to know the quality of the

timber — whether it was cedar, spruce, hemlock, fir, old growth, partly

new growth, and so forth. I would like the minister to tell us more

about the appraisals that he has mentioned. I don't now the names. I

know Reid Collins; I don't know the other one — Forth. I think the

minister said.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Horth.

MR. MACDONALD:

Al I right then. When we're dealing with a matter of this magnitude,

will the minister file the appraisals with this House? Did the firms

make the appraisals for you as the minister or for the Minister of

Lands. Parks and Housing? Do you have those appraisals? If so, I would

like to know what timber they indicate to be available for logging on

the 5,000 acres near Sechelt. I would like to know how they arrived at

the value of the other lands on Vancouver Island, which I suppose were

near Comox. I would like to see the appraisals so that I can know and

be satisfied that this was a genuine exchange for market value and not

otherwise. So I ask the minister right now: are you prepared to be

forthcoming with the committee and table the contracts and the

appraisals that led you to the conclusion that this was a proper

exchange, that it was really at arm's length and really at market value?

[ Page 4704 ]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: First of all, the appraisals aren't completed yet, as far as I know.

MR. MACDONALD: Was the deal completed?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

The agreement was signed. Oh, I can't give the member the date; I can

look it up. I don't even see any reason why that agreement shouldn't be

tabled in the House. I don't happen to have it with me, but I'm sure

there's no reason why it can't be tabled here. I don't see any reasons

why the appraisals can't be tabled when they are completed. They are

being done by two different appraising firms which specialize in

appraising timber values. There's no reason at all why they shouldn't

be public information when they are completed.

The quality

of the timber. I don't know how you go about appraising the quality of

timber, a value on it. That's something people who specialize in that

business, I'm sure, know how to do, but I'm sure that the methods of

doing it will be explained when the appraisals are completed, and I'd

be more than happy to share that with the members here.

The

agreement which was signed was an agreement between myself and the

Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, as signatories to it, and Pacific

Logging. Negotiations began, I believe, early last summer. They were

concluded in the early fall or late summer — there is no secret about

that, Mr. Member. The authority granted me in the Forest Act to make

swaps of areas of harvesting, tree-farm licences or other types of

tenure areas, is, I believe, under

section 51. The actual right to

dispose of fee-simple land is not mine; that comes under the Minister

of Lands, Parks and Housing's legislation. Not being very familiar with

his legislation, I would have to take that question as notice as to

just which

section of his legislation provides for that.

MR. MACDONALD:

Perhaps the minister, because his estimates are now up, could have a

message go back to his office. He has indicated willingness to file the

agreement between himself and the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing

and Pacific Logging, and we would like that before the committee. So

it's easy enough, I suppose, to send a message to your office. I used

to be able to do it; I don't know why you can't. I'm sure you will.

The

other thing, though, that does bother me is that you said that you

signed the agreement before you had the appraisals. You know, I'm kind

of working that back; I'm regurgitating a little bit on that answer.

Why wouldn't you get the appraisals before you signed the agreement?

Perhaps you're being skinned. I don't know. Surely you would get the

appraisals to see whether this was a proper thing in the interests of

the forestry of British Columbia and the people of British Columbia

before you signed the agreement. You're beginning to remind me a little

bit of the minister of industry and lesser projects of one kind or

another, who goes ahead with a railway without the slightest idea of

what's in those mountains, whether it's shale, gravel or granite; he

has no idea of the cost. So perhaps we're in the same position as you,

Mr. Minister.

I ask you why you would sign an agreement with

the CPR before you had the appraisals at a time when the CPR had this

government over a barrel. It was last fall; we were asking the

questions. I have two points then: will you answer that question and

will you undertake to file the agreement, so that we can see that while

the committee is sitting? It can be easily obtained from your office,

I'm sure.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, the fact is

that even if the minister does produce those agreements, there is a

question of ethics or morality involved here. The CPR has a long

history — and governments of this country have a long history — of

alienating land, particularly to the CPR, as well as to a lot of other

people. But there is a question of morality involved here. You produce

those agreements, and we can study them and see what kind of a deal

we've got. But even if the deal in terms of dollars and cents turns

out.... It may or may not have been fair; I doubt that it would,

because the CPR, once again, has a long history of pulling the wool and

coming out better in dealing with governments. And why not? The CPR has

been responsible in the past for electing governments, practically

whole governments, so you know very well where your friends are — you

know that they know.

But the fact is, Mr. Minister, I don't

think that.... In fact, I don't think there are enough people in the

House right now, so I move the committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 26

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 27

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. KING:

I was very interested in listening to the minister's response regarding

the swap with Pacific Logging Co. Ltd. I understood from the minister's

response to my colleague from Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) that he

would indeed table the agreement with Pacific Logging for the exchange

of land. I would appreciate it if the minister would do that as soon as

possible because as he can appreciate that if we're to make any

intelligent judgments on the agreement and whether or not it was a fair

one, we have to have an opportunity to see it while we're still

discussing the minister's estimates. If the minister would do that as

soon as possible, I'd be very pleased.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

[ Page 4705 ]

Additionally,

he's indicated that he would be prepared to table the results of the

appraisals when they are complete. It may be that the agreement

contains some provision for additional payment if the appraisal is over

a certain amount. I don't know what the terms of the agreement are. It

seems to me rather a strange way to do business. I really don't know

what the imperatives were in this deal. What was the urgency that

required the trade of this valuable Crown land containing, I think the

minister has indicated, much mature timber? What was the urgency that

brought about the need to make this swap with this agency of CPR before

the appraisals and the inventory were complete as to the value of the

forest resource on that land'? I have noted that in most respects the

Ministry of Forests moves rather slowly. We're still awaiting an

inventory from two years ago to bring into being the small business

program and an allocation of timber to that program in many areas of

the province. How is it that negotiations just started last summer have

already produced an agreement for the trade of valuable Crown land

before an inventory is even complete? That's not even-handed treatment.

The other question I would like the minister to answer — I

think my colleague from Vancouver East put it to him but he failed to

respond to that one point — was what brought about these negotiations

for this exchange of land. Was it initiated by Pacific Logging Co. Ltd.

or was it initiated by the Ministry of Forests or the Ministry of

Lands, Parks and Housing? I would appreciate knowing who initiated

these discussions. Whose objective was it to bring about this trade? I

would appreciate the minister responding to that point.

want to go into another area of discussion, so perhaps I'll just let

the minister respond to those few brief questions before I raise a new

point.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: In the time that I have

been the Minister of Forests, there have been attempts made to

rationalize the scattered holdings of Pacific Logging, because they do

have both timber and recreational values and they are scattered in such

a way that they can't be operated in a very efficient manner. This

discussion was underway, of course, during the development of policy

and passing of the forest legislation and regulations in the House.

Early last summer or in spring we had come to the position where we

could then begin seriously discussing specifics with Pacific Logging

and other companies. It was at that time that our procedures for making

this type of trade came into place, so we began discussing with Pacific

Logging how we would go about doing this. Of course, you can't finalize

a trade until you have values placed on land, and the appraisal of the

values on the land is a very expensive proposition. Rather than going

ahead with that, with no understanding of how the final trade would be

taking place, we simply signed an agreement stating how the trade would

take place and how the values would be assessed or rationalized,

because there was going to be a difference at the end of the appraisal

system. We knew that if we went ahead with the expense of the

appraisal, we would know how we were going to make the final trade at

the cumulation of that appraisal process.

What we are in

effect doing is acquiring about 10,000 acres on Vancouver Island, where

we are short of both recreational land and lands for the many small

business operators to operate in. These scattered blocks of land are

better suited to the independent operator who can go in and cut on a

smaller scale than they are for a larger operation such as Pacific

Logging to undertake. It makes eminent sense from the forest management

point of view, and it also makes sense from the point of view of the

recreational aspects of some of those lands. The whole policy came

together after the legislation, the regulations and the policy manuals

were developed about the time that we had started talking last summer.

We couldn't really get into it before then, because our procedures

weren't in place.

MR. KING: That seems like a bit of

an odd way to do business, in my view. It sounds something like the

northeast coal deal. You sign a paper and then ultimately, at some

point down the road, hopefully we're going to agree on contract prices.

The

problem is that this committee has an obligation to scrutinize

government policy and to look at whether or not the public received

fair value for this exchange of their land, which the currently elected

government presides over at the moment. Once the agreement is made. If

the appraisals reveal that there's a vast disparity of value between

those land parcels that were traded. what happens then? Some questions

come to mind. It's my understanding that the bulk of the Pacific

Logging land had in fact been logged. Have those portions of it that

were logged been restocked? Have they been replanted? Or is the

government now going to have to undertake that additional cost of

restocking the land that has been logged? There's a cost factor there.

The

minister said that the Pacific Logging land was in some small,

fragmented parcels and has recreational value. That recreational value

is not going to go away. What was the great urgency about consummating

this deal — this swap — before all of the information was in and not

only the minister could make a fair evaluation as to whether or not the

trade was fair and represented fair value to the public. but the people

of the province would have the same opportunity? I find it a very

strange way of doing business, and it makes me wonder whether my

colleagues from Mackenzie and Vancouver East are in fact correct when

they suggest that this government was over a barrel in terms of the

position it was in with respect to the False Creek property, which this

government required for its development down there and for which it had

to go cap-in-hand to CP Rail to release that land.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was a problem of their own making.

MR. KING:

A problem of their own making indeed, and certainly they were in a

position where they had no bargaining leverage with C.P. Rail. I'm

somewhat afraid that we're seeing the consequences of that very foolish

position that this government placed itself in vis-à-vis that colossus,

CP Rail and its empire. We'll be able to judge it more effectively when

we are able to have a look at the agreements, and the minister has

given a commitment to the House to table that agreement. I hope he

would do so today; if not, certainly before we reconvene tomorrow

morning to consider his estimates once more.

I want to raise

another matter with the minister. I want to read for him a brief

statement that comes from one his colleagues, and I want to commend

this course of action to him. I'm going to give a pat on the back to

the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) and quote

a letter that he has written to Commerce magazine of B.C. — just one

small part of it. The minister has this to say: "The time is long past

of industries and government taking actions

[ Page 4706 ]

that

affect the g eneral public without justifying the need for such

actions." In other words, the Minister of Transportation and Highways

is saying: with the public, take the public into your confidence and

let them know what policies you are initiating. I want to know how that

squares with a number of other things this Minister of Forests is

doing. The trade of the land with Pacific Logging is a case in point.

The public is going to be brought into an assessment of that deal after

the fact, without any opportunity to determine whether or not it would

have been their preference to make the kind of trade that the minister

has apparently committed the province to. We've seen too much dealing

in secrecy with matters that the public has a right to be involved in,

with matters that the public has a right to make some indication of

their preference on, a right to some input on.

Another

letter comes to my mind, and it's a memorandum addressed to Mr. J.C.

Johnston, Deputy Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing: "Re proposed

study to establish the Soo provincial forest up to eight new parts and

to amend the boundaries of Garibaldi Park." I think the deputy minister

knows something about this memorandum, because it is signed by Mr. T.M.

Apsey, Deputy Minister of Forests. There's a proposal contained in it;

I'm not going to read the whole letter. It starts out:

"I would like your concurrence that a study be conducted

jointly by our ministries to establish the Soo provincial forest and to consider

the merits of establishing as many as eight new parts contingent upon amending

the boundaries of Garibaldi Park."

He outlines the objectives and the background, and then he outlines proposed

stages for a study, a brief feasibility study. He concludes the suggested feasibility

study with this paragraph:

"If

the preliminary feasibility study did not show substantial benefits,

the proposed amendment and further study of Garibaldi Park boundaries

would be dropped. The feasibility study would be entirely confidential

within our ministries. Depending on the results of stage one, a

decision as to whether or not to proceed further would be made jointly

by the two ministries. Further action would provide for stopping the

project if strong public resistance developed at any stage."

presume the Deputy Minister of Forests took this initiative with the

full knowledge and consent of his minister. If not, I would suggest he

was certainly overstepping the bounds of the public service by getting

into the realm of a major policy question. I assume he did this with

the full support of his minister. But it's the method that bothers me.

There's an aura of secrecy about it which is completely out of step

with the suggested approach that I read from the Minister of

Transportation and Highways — that the time is past when governments

should be making decisions that affect the public without fully taking

the public into their confidence. Not after the fact, but up front and

out in the open, so that full public discussion can take place. It

talks about: "Stage 2, contact the interest groups involved; stage 3,

public involvement." It says:

"Subject to the results of step 2, a joint press release

would advise the public of a proposed study to consider establishment of new

parks, amendment of Garibaldi Park and establishment of the Soo provincial forest.

The press release would announce a public meeting to explain the study and to

create an advisory committee to represent the public. One of the objectives

would be to ensure public support for eventual political decisions."

wonder why the minister didn't put out this memorandum. If that was his

policy and if we are dealing with conditioning the public mind out

there to a particular political point of view, I would have thought

that would have been a responsibility of the minister, not a public

servant.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps you can now understand the

feeling of revulsion which the opposition benches had when we learned

of a command performance by a senior public servant up at a private

Social Credit partisan political meeting just this last weekend. When I

see secret memoranda that are supposed to be kept confidential

advocating such things as involving the public with one of the

objectives "to ensure public support for eventual political decisions"

coming from a deputy minister, that bothers me a great deal. It should

not be the deputy minister who is attempting to condition and change

public political perceptions out there. That's what members of this

Legislature are elected for. It is we who are supposed to be debating

various public policy positions, different philosophical positions, and

attempting by all means to persuade the public and convince them that

whatever point of view we have is a correct and a valid one.

suggest that we are seriously overstepping the bounds, and we are going

down a new road, when we get the public servants, however senior,

involved in this kind of surreptitious document. It attempts to set up

a course of action on a very strictly confidential basis, and then set

up some public committees with the view of eventually conditioning the

public mind to a particular political decision that has, in effect,

already been made. I suggest that is a dangerous and irresponsible

course of action for the minister to allow in his ministry. I would

like to hear the minister's response to this.

The other more

serious thing that we find in this particular memo is that this whole

proposal is put forward out of a basic concern, it would seem, for a

serious shortage of timber in the timber supply area. It looks like an

attempt to tamper with the boundaries of parks to try to ameliorate the

serious shortage of timber being experienced in that particular area.

Well, there are shortages of timber in many, many parts of the province

right now. The analysis for the West Kootenays has just come out, and

shows a serious shortage there. Is the ministry's response going to be

an incursion into the parkland up in that area to accommodate the

shortage in timber supply? Does this herald an incursion into the

Valhallas? Into Kokanee park perhaps, and some of the others up in the

interior? Perhaps Stanley Park too; I don't know.

I want to

suggest that the matter of a shortage of timber is of major concern to

every member of this Legislature and to the public. I think the way to

overcome that shortage of timber is through a greater commitment to

wise management of the resource and to ensuring that an adequate budget

is put forward to meet the restocking needs on an annual basis to keep

pace with the annual allowable cut, not to start chiseling on the park

areas of the province to make up for the abuse and neglect that has

taken place in the past to produce the shortfall in timber supply.

That's what's needed. The minister has a big grin on his face; I don't

know whether it's happy or what you might describe it as. I certainly

wouldn't want to be insulting.

He may feel satisfied that

he's got a program of adequate restocking; certainly I'm not. I just

want to point out to him that many of the people involved in the

industry are not either.

[ Page 4707 ]

have a copy of the Forest Cover paper that's put out by the tree

planters. The February issue has this to say — and I quote some fairly

senior Ministry of Forests staff too:

"Reforestation

Falling Behind. The shortcomings of the five-year plan are particularly

noticeable in reforestation. 'We don't have enough trees,' says Tony

Richmond, forest consultant in Prince George. 'This region needs 54

million seedlings to be planted annually by 1984. The allocation says

there will 36 million seedlings planted annually by 1985.'"

Robert Jones, silviculture manager for the Ministry of Forests, states:

"More

seedlings are being requested; different species are being requested.

There has been a massive increase in seedling allocation and an even

greater demand. Foresters are concerned that the inadequate

silviculture budget is locked into the five-year plan. The Pacific

Reforestation Association claims that the province should be planting

twice the number of trees projected in the plan. The general consensus

among the forest industry is that the budget projected in the five-year

plan is only a start."

It concludes:

"Foresters

will have to wait for the new budget to see whether the government has

heard their message. As one of them bluntly put it: 'If we don't get

more trees, we could have a toilet paper shortage. The minister has to

get the message: the five-year plan has to be updated and the budget

increased.' "

The point I've been trying to make to the

minister ever since we started considering his estimates is that, far

from seeing his budget increased, we are seeing his budget reduced and

the five-year range resource allocation used to subsidize that

diminishing amount of dollars in his budget. The industry and the

professionals in the field are making the same point. So it looks to

me, when I see secret memoranda like the one put out by the deputy

minister, as though there's a degree of desperation in the ministry.

The dollars are not there; he's facing a crunch in terms of timber

supply; and he's reaching out with some desperation and attempting now

to find a new supply of timber in some of the parklands of the province

of British Columbia. Well, maybe that makes sense in some areas, if we

can find some way of selectively logging areas that would perhaps

improve parks. I'm willing to consider that. I don't like the

single-use concept in land management myself. But one thing I hate

worse is the secretive attitude by the Ministry of Forests.

You

know, there's a lot of competence out there in the public today. There

are a lot of professional people who are out there and who have an

interest. They don't necessarily work for the Forests ministry. They

would like to have a role to play in managing the resource. I believe

that if the ministry would be prepared to take people into its

confidence and say: "Let's examine some of this park and wilderness

area and find out whether or not we can come up with methods other than

clear-cut logging to shore up what is a very serious timber shortage,

so that employment security might be maintained...." I think the

public is responsible enough and mature enough to have a look at that.

But they want some honesty and they want some guarantee that they're

going to have control over monitoring the program. They want some

guarantee that we're not just going to see the kind of incursion by

heavy road construction — the interference with the esthetic values and

the fishery values — that has accompanied much of the clear-cut logging

in traditional areas of the province. If ways could be found that would

protect those interests, then I think it's possible and fair that there

should be a constant appraisal of some of these areas in the province

of British Columbia. But we don't need this kind of back-door

surreptitious overture into these areas, with public involvement only

in an attempt to condition people to a certain point of view, so that

it becomes politically palatable for the government to make the

announcement somewhere down the road.

I think the minister

owes the committee an explanation of what prompted this particular

epistle from his deputy minister. I await his reply with great

interest, Mr. Chairman.

MR. NICOLSON: First of all, I

would like to say that I think all members in this House — those few of

us here at the present time — are genuinely interested in the forest

resource. We're interested that the funds that are allocated through

these estimates are expended in the most prudent and productive manner

possible. I am concerned that this activity find its way to creating a

lifestyle, security and jobs for the people of this province. One thing

that I think both the present and all past forestry administrations

have not looked toward maximizing is simply the number of jobs produced

per cunit of fibre that we harvest; rather they look at what is

necessarily the most profit oriented.

Those two may or may

not be common aims and objectives. One might by default be fulfilled by

the other, but I don't think that's true in all cases. I am concerned

that the fibre be utilized in the most efficient way possible. That is

to say that peeler logs should not be sawn into sawlogs and that

sawmill logs not go through a whole log chipper and find their way into

pulping. This is something which people in the mills and the woods tell

me still happens. We haven't rationalized the timber supply.

Just

as we would like to utilize the fibre in the most effective way

possible, we should also look to utilizing the land base in the most

effective way possible. We should not seek to necessarily log an area

if it does have a higher use. I do see some place for single use. I

would think that in most places I would like to see multiple use. We

cannot afford any more. The people of this province, whether they be on

Vancouver Island, on the coast, in the Okanagan, in the Kootenays or in

the north or central plateau, will no longer sit aside and allow

watersheds to be decimated. The people are demanding and indeed getting

a higher level of sophistication in the wood management area of the

industry.

Mr. Chairman, it's very nice to listen to large

figures spouted. But I would like to know from the minister what is

going to happen in the Nelson region. the Nelson forest district and in

the new Arrow Lakes forest district — I guess it's called the Arrow

Lakes forest district: it's the one that's served out of Castlegar.

Specifically I'd like to know what is going to happen in certain areas

of reforestation. How many seedlings are going to be planted?

don't know what the figures were for 1980 but up until 1979 in the

Nelson forest region the number of seedlings planted had actually

declined every year since 1975. At least it never reached the 1975

level. However, there is also an increase in selective logging. The

proportion of clear-cut logging decreased and the amount of selective

logging increased. It is, to some extent, comparing apples to oranges,

but when one looks at the major problem of catching up on inadequately

reforested or untreated areas — that catch-up

[ Page 4708 ]

that

we have to go through — one could still just look at the number of

seedlings being planted as one indication of something that should have

been increasing, and I would specifically like to know what is going to

be the level of activity. But that is only one thing, and to simply

adopt the planting of seedlings as a panacea for what is now being

called the falldown effect in our industry would be very short-sighted

indeed.

A couple of weeks ago, or maybe about one week

before the Legislature reconvened, I spent a day touring the woodland

operations of one of the intermediate-sized non-integrated forest

companies in my area. They showed me examples of some of the poor

logging practices that their company had undertaken in the past, they

showed me some examples of logging of which they were a little more

proud, and they showed me some areas in which the skid roads were very

poorly placed and others in which they were very well contoured. Just

to remind myself — for speaker's notes — I've brought a few photographs

into the House. They also showed me some areas which had been logged by

high-lead cable, and in fact I watched some cable logging in progress.

In the area I looked at, ground disturbance from the cable logging was

quite minimal. They also showed me an area in which there's a

tremendous amount of fibre still lying on the forest floor — fibre

which could still be recovered if there was any economic use to which

it could be put. It would still be useful pulpwood. They also showed me

deckings in the area that they're presently logging, and at the one

decking we happened to look at there was a person from the ministry

there who had just scaled it. It scaled about 6 percent sawlogs, 8

percent culls, and the rest was all considered to be pulplogs. In that

part of the country, as the minister well knows since he was the

minister responsible for Kootenay Forest Products — Mr. Ray Williston

reported directly to him before KFP was put under BCRIC — the problems

are simply that we have an abundance of decadent cedar and hemlock logs

and, as I mentioned in this House a year ago, even Mr. Knudsen, the

head of MacMillan Bloedel, had said the greatest expansion opportunity

in the province lies in the Kootenays. But it's not an expansion

opportunity for sawmills and conventional plywood; it's an expansion

opportunity either for pulp or perhaps for oriented-strand board, which

Mr. Williston is now working on in Ocean Falls. He has had some very

successful tests conducted in Lewiston, Idaho, looked after by

Forintek, I understand.

Those are the few opportunities for

expansion at the moment, and I'd like the minister to know that

companies are being asked to take everything out of the woods. Things

which a few years ago would have been left in and just crumpled up and

ground down with heavy Cats and machinery are being decked there, and

that's where they're going to stay unless this government does

something which is going to be very difficult to do now. They've really

lost their opportunity, because the government no longer has direct

control of Can-Cel or Kootenay Forest Products, and I suppose nobody

has control of BCRIC.

As I said in the budget debate, what

an opportunity. There were $600-odd million of investment capital which

people put up with the full expectation that when you take these forest

companies away from your direction, Mr. Minister, and put them under

this new corporation they will be in the forest business. And what do

they do'? They go and buy a coal-mine.

So where is this wood

fibre capability, this pulpmill which probably should have been built

to either expand the Castlegar mill or, as they were talking of

building even a year ago under BCRIC, a green-field mill? You know

where it is? Mr. Kaiser went and bought himself an NFL football team,

and our pulpmill is now in Denver, Colorado.

Now this is the

problem and this is the waste which is going on. What we should be

doing in our area is cutting down one

section of forest which, after a

300-year-old forest fire, grew back so densely that there are about

5,000 stems per acre on it. It is an area in which the largest tree —

after 300 years of growth at a very low elevation, on prime land — is

only about 11 inches in diameter. Those trees range from 5 to 11

inches. What are we going to do to get those areas back into

production? We've heard so much about what's happening. Well, I really

haven't been able to see anything that exciting that's been initiated

by the ministry.

I will say this: I've played my role in

trying to help with the minister's program in our area under the

program where they're encouraging private growers to grow seedlings.

One person is trying to expand his greenhouse operation, but can no

longer operate it with the current oil prices, so he needs natural gas.

I have done everything I can, and I think that we will be successful in

getting natural gas extended two miles to that area so that that person

will be able to contract and produce seedling trees. It might be a lot

easier to help people if certain changes weren't made in the Energy Act

too, but at least we are dealing with a company whic