1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd

Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is

for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 8205

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Expenses of Health minister. Mr. Howard –– 8205

Mr. Macdonald

Northeast coal. Mr. Leggatt –– 8206

Small-business bankruptcies. Mr. Leggatt –– 8206

Marina leases. Mr. Nicolson –– 8207

Formaldehyde gas safety level. Ms. Sanford –– 8207

Home Purchase Assistance Amendment Act, 19821 (Bill

46).

Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Chabot)

Third reading –– 8207

Municipal Amendment Act (No –– 2), 1982 (Bill 49).

Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

Third reading –– 8208

Housing And Employment Development Financing Act (Bill

39).

Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

Mr. Stupich –– 8208

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 8208

Division –– 8208

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Forests estimates,

(Hon. Mr. Waterland)

On vote 42: minister's office (continued) –– 8208

Mr. King

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Lea

Mr. Howard

On the amendment to vote 42 –– 8219

Division

On vote 43: forest and range resource management –– 8220

Mr. King

On the amendment to vote 43 –– 8221

Mr. Nicolson

Division

On vote 43: forest and range resource management –– 8221

Mr. Howard

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Human Resources

estimates. (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy)

On vote 49: minister's office

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy

Ms. Brown

Urban Transit Authority Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 51).

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Introduction and first reading –– 8227

Tabling Documents

B.C. government aircraft services logs.

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 8227

Appendix –– 8228

TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to announce

that in the gallery today we have pupils and teachers from the

Chilcotin Indian School on the Anahim reserve six miles from Alexis

Creek, which is 65 miles west of Williams Lake in the famous Chilcotin.

The teachers who are here with the pupils are Joanne Brecknock, Jim

Ritchie and Uella Ritchie. The parents who are here with the

students, Dina Billyboy and Angelina and Sammy Stump, Francie Stump,

Katie Stump, McClure Jim, Norah Sam and Norah Paul. For the members'

information, many of these students have never been to the bright

lights in the lower mainland before, and they're certainly enjoying

their trip. I'd like the House to welcome them.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, in the galleries today there sits a

former Page of this Legislature, my daughter Jane. She is accompanied

by a friend, Bob Goold, and two other friends from South Africa, Tony

Sin and Stephanie Low. I would ask the House to welcome them.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, it must be students' day

today, because I too have the pleasure of advising you that in the

precincts we have 15 grade 7 students from Whitevale Elementary School,

which is in Lumby in the Okanagan North constituency. They are

accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Lawrence Hystad, as well as a

chaperon, Mrs. Kienlein. I'd ask the members of the House to make them

welcome in their first visit to the Legislature and, for many, their

first visit to our capital city.

MS. SANFORD: I'd like to introduce to the Legislature today

Bert Linder, a constituent from Comox who was formerly the supervisor

of recreation for the town of Comox. He recently retired and is now a

full-time painter, boater and musician. I'd like the House to make him

welcome.

MR. BRUMMET: I would like to make two introductions, if I

may. First, I'd like to introduce a group from Fort St. John who have

come down to give a firsthand account of conditions in that area. I'd

like the House to welcome Messrs. Short Tompkins, Ted Pickell, Al

Jones, Don Clark and Sterling Kerr. Secondly, we have with us today a

group of grade 6 and 7 students from the Upper Halfway School in my

constituency, which is approximately 100 miles north and west of Fort

St. John. They are here with their teacher, Mrs. Nora Zeman. I'd like

the House to welcome both these groups.

MR. GABELMANN: I'd like the House to welcome a director of

the RNABC who is in the gallery today. Peggy Mika is also the wife of

our candidate in Saanich and the Islands.

MRS. WALLACE: Another school visiting the precincts today is

Alexandria from Duncan. I would like the House to welcome the 20 very

lively grade 5 students who are visiting, We only regret that they

couldn't get into the gallery this afternoon.

Oral Questions

EXPENSES OF HEALTH MINISTER

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of

Health. On October 15, 1979, the minister hosted a dinner for 16 people

in Prince George. The bill was submitted by the Inn of the North in the

amount of $178.50. Included therein was S72.90 for liquor. Ministry

officials rejected the bill on the grounds that "we cannot reimburse

for alcohol; only food." Can the minister explain why a new invoice was

later prepared which removed the liquor item and inflated the food cost

so as to cover the total bill?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I would have to check back to October 15,

1979, Mr. Speaker, to determine the circumstances of that dinner or

lunch or whatever it was.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I have a further question for the

minister. Can the minister explain why the altered or doctored invoice

was passed through his office and was forwarded by his executive

assistant, Mr. Bob Orrie, to the deputy minister, Mr. Bazowski. for

payment?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that as notice as

well. I'd have to look into the details of that dinner on October 15,

1979. It would be a different ministry, and I'd have to try to get that

information.

MR. HOWARD: The minister was the minister at that particular

time. Can the minister advise whether there are any other incidences or

circumstances in which he or his staff coerced B.C. suppliers into

collaboration to obtain payment for goods and services under fraudulent

or false pretences.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members. any charges which would impute an

improper motive to a member are not in order, but the question itself

could be allowed.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'll re-examine that

question,

because it seems to me that the member is making a statement rather

than seeking information.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the

Premier. The Premier stated a short while ago that in his opinion there

was no parallel between the abrupt police investigation of the the hon.

member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) and the situation of the

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) with

respect to the Clark Davey dinner.

In the matter raised here today we have a memo of October 20, 1979,

from accounts in the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs saying

that they could not reimburse for alcohol but only food. Then the new

invoice comes in with the cost of the food miraculously raised to look

after the alcohol. I ask the Premier what the difference is between

getting $72.90 from the government coffers, which would nototherwise

have been paid to cover the cost of the liquor, and the abrupt police

investigation that took place in the case of the hon. member for North

Vancouver–Seymour.

[ Page 8206

HON. MR. BENNETT: I am unable to give the member legal

advice. The question he asked is seeking a legal opinion. I do say that

there is no parallel with the case of the member for North

Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis).

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, will the Premier come back to the

House and give us a report as to whether there is a difference between

these two cases, in his opinion? He's the one who's talking about what

is parallel and what is not. I'm asking him to come back and report the

difference, as he was the initiator in the case of the member for North

Vancouver–Seymour.

NORTHEAST COAL

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. It was expected

that on Monday of this week Denison Mines would announce that their

financing is in place in the northeast coal development. This is the

major private player in this development. In spite of that, no

announcement was made; in fact, we continue to expend tax funds on the

construction of that railroad. Would the minister advise, and can he

assure the House, that no guarantees are provided by this government to

private companies in the northeast coal development, and can he also

advise that it is the policy of this government that no such guarantees

will be provided?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the member's question, I have

stated, and I'll state again, that this government will not guarantee

the private sector in the development of northeast coal. No guarantees

exist at the present time, and none is anticipated. I'd further like to

advise the member, as I have said before, that no project has ever had

so much legal documentation and so many guarantees by the private

sector to the government, not only in British Columbia but indeed in

Canada and in North America, as does the development of northeast coal.

SMALL BUSINESS BANKRUPTCIES

MR. LEGGATT: This question is to the same minister on a

different subject. Municipal tax notices are finally out, and

bankruptcies in British Columbia increased a staggering 140.8 percent

in April alone. In my own community of Port Coquitlam, commercial

taxes, land taxes, are up 47 percent: small businesses all over this

province are crying that this is the straw that's breaking the camel's

back. Would the minister advise the House whether he has made

representations to the minister responsible, the Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), to restore revenue-sharing grants which

have been cut? That's the key reason for these disastrous commercial

tax increases and the increasing bankruptcy of small businesses in this

province.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is in order.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in an endeavour to answer the

member's question, I would like to inform him that this government is

continually analyzing the situation and looking at the economy. Over

here we work together as a team. It isn't like it was when the

socialists were in power, when every minister went off in every

direction, the Minister of Finance had no control, and the former

Minister of Economic Development had the thumb put on him by the then

Minister of Lands, Forests and.... Bob Williams, I think his name was.

work together as a team over here, and we're analyzing the situation.

There are some communities in this province that have failed to

realize we are in a period of restraint. They haven't taken the

leadership that has been provided by this government over here. Taxes

have indeed gone up. But in the long run there's a plan which will be

good for the homeowner in this province, which will relieve him of

school taxes, and which everybody in the province has been asking us to

do.

We are certainly looking at the situation, and we're working

together

on it. We talk together as a cabinet — always have and will continue to

do so. We're going through some very difficult times, and no one

realizes better than I do that the small businessman has problems. But

I also want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that during the last few years

there have been literally tens of thousands of new businesses

established here, and some of them have established during good times.

We recognize that some of them are not going to survive in tough times,

but we are certainly looking at the situation. Thank goodness the

socialists over there aren't in power, because they'd be bringing in

more punitive taxation and making it tough. They wouldn't have built up

the climate for investment that we have built up in this province to

encourage the small businessman to come here.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Minister. The scope of the

question need not be exceeded in the answer.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that

long-standing, competitive, efficient businesses in this province are

now going bankrupt, like Bow Mac, the largest car dealership, Swiftair

of Abbotsford, Neto Industries Canada Ltd., Harkley and Haywood, the

best-known sporting goods firm in the province....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEGGATT: My question is this. Surely the minister now

recognizes that an emergency exists in the small- and medium-sized

business sector in this province. Given the fact that there is now an

emergency in that industry, why hasn't the minister recommended to his

colleagues and to Treasury Board that emergency relief be provided

right now to municipalities to stop these bankruptcies in the province'?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to that member's question....

Every time he stands on his feet in this Legislature and starts talking

about economic policies, I have to ask myself.... When that member was

in Ottawa, where the government is really creating economic chaos in

this province, why did the NDP in Ottawa get together to defeat the

Conservative government that might have brought in policies that would

have saved a lot of the small businessmen and preserved the economic

climate?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The NDP were truly in bed with the

Liberals in Ottawa; they supported them during some of the most

devastating policies ever brought in in this country.

[ Page 8207

That member over there stands in this Legislature

and piously....

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Coquitlam-Moody

has a question.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. LEGGATT: My question is to the same minister. I hope the

minister realizes that it was the Socreds who abstained and caused the

Liberals....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This is not a debate: this is

question period. The question was not in order. In that there was no

question, I cannot accept an answer to a non-question.

MARINA LEASES

MR. NICOLSON: My question is to the Minister of Lands, Parks

and Housing. During the current recession the government has increased

foreshore leases of freshwater marinas by from 300 percent to 1,000

percent. In addition, these marinas have been told to pay the next five

years' rent in advance or remove their floats from the water. Many

marinas have been forced to take this action; for instance, Mike's

Marina on Christina Lake has actually pushed its floats onto the beach

and gone out of business as a result of this policy. Has the minister

decided to place a moratorium on these rate increases and to review the

disastrous impact of this war on small business?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'll take the question as notice and report

to the member.

MR. NICOLSON: While he's taking the question as notice, would

the minister inquire of his department how many marinas have been given

an increase and how many of those have actually agreed to the new lease

conditions?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Is that a new question or a continuation of

the first question?

MR. SPEAKER: No, hon. minister, the question was whether,

while you are taking the former question as notice, you would consider

a further question.

FORMALDEHYDE GAS SAFETY LEVEL

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of

Health. The federal government has set 0.1 parts per million as the

acceptable level for formaldehyde gas in public places. That level is

applied in portable classrooms in British Columbia. Dr. Benson of the

Upper Island Health Unit in Courtenay has closed portable classrooms in

district 71 with levels well below the 0.1 figure because of the

numerous adverse health effects on children. I'm wondering if the

minister has decided to reduce the gas safety level to 0.03 parts per

million, as has been recommended by the ministry officials.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker. the member said that if we're

going to reduce it to 0.03, as recommended by ministry officials....

MR. GABELMANN: That's not what she said.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: That's not what you said? I'm sorry.

MR. SPEAKER: The question will be clarified by the member for

Comox.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, the question that I was asking the

minister relates to whether or not the minister is prepared to reduce

the 0.1 parts per million, which is now in effect for portable

classrooms in this province, to 0.03 parts per million, as has been

recommended as the desirable level by officials within the Ministry of

Health.

MR. SPEAKER: No answer is forthcoming.

Mr. Clerk.

MS. SANFORD: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, the

minister was on his feet just as you called for the orders of the day.

I also wanted to raise as a point of order, Mr. Speaker, that earlier

in question period a significant amount of time went by when you were

seeking advice from one of the Clerks. At that time I think the clock

was still ticking and time was passing. I'm wondering, in view of that,

if you would accept the minister's answer at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: If you look at the clock, you'll also notice

that we've gone two minutes over time.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and

orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 46, Mr. Speaker.

HOME PURCHASE ASSISTANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

The House in committee on Bill 46: Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman. I move the committee rise and

report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed: Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 46, Home Purchase Assistance Amendment Act, 1982, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 49. Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 8208

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2), 1982

The House in committee on Bill 49; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 49, Municipal Amendment Act (No. 2), 1982, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill

HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT

DEVELOPMENT FINANCING ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The debate on Bill 39 was adjourned by the hon.

Minister of Finance, who was speaking on the amendment. The amendment

has since been ruled out of order, and so we are back on second reading.

MR. STUPICH: Very briefly, there is nothing in this bill to

tell us what the government's plans are with respect to spending the

money that it intends to raise. I would invite the minister to go into

that aspect of the legislation when he winds up in second reading.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think that one of the problems which

occurred in the debate which followed my remarks in opening second

reading was the fact that there was a tendency to focus on this as an

initiative in isolation. I appreciate that with one bill before us,

still there is very little that can be done. However, I attempted to

make it very clear that this was one of a series of thrusts being taken

by the government, and if one looks at this in isolation then it is

relatively narrow. It is simply the establishment of an authority to

development bonds. But it is not sufficient, if one is discussing the

total thrust of government in employment activities, to rely on this

bill alone. That led to other matters, and I will not reflect on those.

Very definitely this was identified in the budget as one part of a

broadly based program to encourage development within the province of

British Columbia. Much of this is permissive, but it should not be

viewed in isolation. It must be viewed in the total context. I move

second reading of Bill 39.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill 39, Housing and Employment Development Financing Act, read a

second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

(continued)

On vote 42: minister's office, $170,140.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister a number

of questions regarding the change from PSYUs, as they used to be under

the old public sustained yield units. As indicated by the name, they

provided for a unit of forestry to be managed on a sustained-yield

basis. In other words, the harvest was conducted in such a way that the

timber would not be exhausted; it would be farmed, in effect, and

managed on a sustained-yield basis. In changing to the timber supply

areas under the new act, I wonder if it was contemplated by the

minister that the sustained-yield concept would still be maintained,

even though we changed over to the different unit of management. Can

the minister tell me that, please?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it is and has been the

practice of successive governments in British Columbia to practise

sustained-yield forestry. The name has no implication whatsoever to the

philosophy of management. As a matter of fact, under the timber supply

area concept, which provides for larger management areas, it is much

more realistic to be able to practise sustained yield because generally

you have a wider distribution of age classes of timber and species of

timber, so sustained-yield management is much more readily accomplished

under the timber supply area concept.

MR. KING: Well. Mr. Chairman, perhaps the minister could

explain to me why in the Okanagan timber supply area —

Okanagan-Shuswap, as it has been changed to — there is, indeed, a

reduction in the annual allowable cut, but at the same time two new

timber licences are being offered to companies in the South Okanagan,

namely Yellow Lake and Gorman Bros. One is for 45,000 cubic metres of

wood a year and the other for 55,000 cubic metres per year. Indeed, the

forestry's plan provides for not a sustained yield but in fact

liquidation of 64 percent of the mature timber supply in that area.

That doesn't sound to me like it's a sustained-yield basis of

management; that sounds to me, Mr. Chairman, like we have a shortage in

timber supply in that area as reflected by the new apportionment

figures in the annual allowable cut. Now we're seeing two new forest

licences issued which will have the effect of reducing the mature

timber stand up to 64 percent. As I understand it, that does not

include the decadent hemlock and cedar. Is this not going to have the

effect of depleting the forest resource in that area much more rapidly

than would have been the case? Is it not going to have the effect of

abandoning altogether the concept of sustained yield?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I think the member is

somewhat confused as to what is meant by sustained yield. Sustained

yield has never meant even-flow

[ Page 8209

sustained yield. It was never intended to mean that

at all.

Sustained yield means that you sustain the optimum yield from the

forest, and this can vary from year to year, decade to decade,

depending upon the nature of the forest. In the Okanagan timber supply

area during the allocation plan development, we did reduce the total

allowable cut that could be committed, but even with that reduction we

had a larger cut than was actually committed in the forest. There was

uncommitted wood volume available that had not yet been allocated, and

these are the licences that are being put up for tender now. In the

rollover, as we make provision for the small business program, we have

found it necessary, in order to make a provision for approximately 10

percent wood in the small business program, after making provision for

these new licences of uncommitted timber, to reduce some licensees by

up to about 8 percent, I believe, in the Okanagan. I could find the

exact numbers for the member, and that is the wood that is going into

the small business program. That is the option we had in rolling over

licences. The wood that is being put up for tender to what we call

"have-not companies" — that is, companies with less than 60 percent of

the wood need in-house — is wood that was not previously committed.

After that commitment we make provision for the small business program.

Our sustained yield is based upon a 20-year forecast. That yield can be

sustained if we carry on with our basic forest management program as we

are doing right now. It can be increased if we apply more intensive

management, as is our intention in the future. We can sustain that

yield with the basic forest management plans that we have in place.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I understand the concept of sustained

yield, and I appreciate what the minister has said: that if adequate

investment is returned into intensive management, then indeed the

sustained-yield concept is adhered to. I also appreciate that in some

cases it is prudent to harvest overmature forest land and return it to

the growth of a thrifty new forest. The fact has already been well

established in this Legislature, and acknowledged by the minister

himself, that the Southern Okanagan Forestry Association has shown

where insufficient reinvestment is occurring in that particular part of

the province to provide for the new forest the minister is talking

about. We are not plowing back in to the Okanagan timber supply

adequate reinvestment to justify and support the level of harvest that

is taking place now, much less to increase it. That's well established;

the ministry has acknowledged it. So it's not good enough for the

minister to put forward the proposition that we are accelerating the

rate of harvest. But it can be sustained if we practise intelligent

silvicultural treatment. The fact of the matter is that that is not

happening. The fact of the matter is that there is a timber shortage in

the area, and the minister is now manipulating, Mr. Chairman, and

sharing

the scarcity between the companies up there, rather than biting the

bullet and confronting the shortage as a problem to be addressed. He's

sharing the scarcity in that area by manipulating boundaries and by

setting up what I consider to be a highly questionable new policy, the

policy of establishing two new forest licences for what he refers to as

have-not companies.

Mr. Chairman, over the years in this Legislature we have had very

serious charges levelled against ministers of forests for exercising

too much ministerial discretion in the issuance of forest licences,

tenure arrangements, and so on. Indeed, at one point there was a charge

made in this Legislature that money talked in the issuance of forest

management licences. I'm not suggesting such a thing now at all — make

no mistake about

that — but I do think it's significant that the minister has

established two new licences with special circumstances, to the point

where only two companies in the Okanagan can qualify — Gorman Bros. and

Yellow Lake in the Premier's riding. In order to do that, he is

pilfering some of the resource from the Shuswap area, where the

operators are already short of timber, to provide new forest licences

for which only Yellow Lake and Gorman can qualify. Mr. Chairman, I want

to submit that under these circumstances the proposition of a

competitive bid is a ruse and a farce. These two licences were

specially designed for those two companies. His own apportionment plan

shows that the minister exercised ministerial discretion in this

manner. It shows that there are already shortages and that there were

special circumstances set up for these two. In his apportionment

bulletin it states in the Okanagan TSA that applications for the two

new forest licences will be restricted to established licensees who

have a timber processing facility, including barker and chipper, in the

TSA and have a Crown timber supply of no more than 60 percent of the

Forest Service estimate of their mill capacity at 440 shifts per year.

Mr. Minister — through you. Mr. Chairman — you know perfectly well

that

only two companies are going to have the opportunity to bid here: only

two companies meet the criteria set out politically by you. I don't

think I'm being unduly cynical or suspicious when I look at the

location of those two operations in the Premier's riding and when I

look at the starvation of those firms who have equally major problems

with a shortage of timber in the Salmon Arm area or in the Adams Lake

area, the boundaries of which now have been manipulated in such a

fashion that the minister was able to come up with a major new supply —

two new big licences, all for Yellow Lake and Gorman.

It's pretty suspicious, and I don't think for one moment that any

politician, regardless of party or anything else, should have the kind

of authority in his hip pocket to give out these kinds of new licences,

established with a political criterion, that lend themselves to

patronage of the worst possible kind. It's significant that this is not

he only area it's happening in — two areas and four new forest licences

in a province with a major timber shortage. All kinds of companies in

the Merritt Area and in the Okanagan are crying out because of a

shortage of timber and wondering whether or not they are going to be

able to reinvest in and update their technology in their existing

plants because they have no secure supply of timber.

Who gets the new timber amid all this scarcity? Two firms in the

Premier's riding, and another two in the minister's home town — Ardew

and.... What's the other one? There are two at Merritt anyway. It

may or may not be significant that one of those firms at Merritt, the

minister's home town, has a close connection with the minister's

political campaign. It may or may not be significant, but I'm going to

tell you. Mr. Chairman, that any time a politician exercises this kind

of control — this kind of political dictation — on the terms and the

criteria for the issuance of major forest licences, he sets himself up

for suspicion of patronage of the worst kind.

Why is it that the terms of these competitions were so restrictive

as to exclude anyone but Yellow Lake and Gorman in the Premier's

riding, and anyone but Ardew and Aspen in the minister's riding? How

is it that amid all the scarcity of timber supply in both those areas

the minister was able to

[ Page 8210

issue these new licences? Sure they have an

existing processing

plant; I appreciate that. But many of the others do too. What of

Holding Lumber at Adams Lake? Their whole operation was shifted right

over one mountain range to intrude on an area that Federated Co-ops

previously logged in. They have less than a 20-year timber supply.

Where do they go from that point on, Mr. Minister'?

In the Merritt area — the minister knows it better than I do; it's

his constituency — there are other firms operating there that have far

less than their secured supply of timber. It has not restricted them

from investing in processing plants. I'm not knocking either Aspen or

Ardew. They're probably doing a good job and showing great innovation.

But there are many small specialty mills in the province that are

showing great innovation, developing their own markets and developing

new technology, and they have no timber supply whatsoever. What was so

special in these cases, in the Premier's and the minister's ridings,

that these special licences were set up for these four companies? I'd

like to hear the minister's response.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the critic of the

opposition is now getting into innuendo and veiled suggestions that

there has been some political favouritism expressed. In quite a number

of timber-supply areas in the province we have what we call have-nots —

people who have less than 60 percent of their timber needs — and

licensed people who have really demonstrated their ability to, in a

very efficient manner, use timber supplies that could be made available

to them. I correct the member: Yellow Lake Sawmills is not in the

Premier's riding; it happens to be in the Boundary-Similkameen riding.

I also advise the member that in the Lillooet, Merritt, Okanagan,

Golden, Kootenay Lake, Bulkley, Kispiox, Lakes, Peace, Prince George

and Boundary timber-supply areas there are just such licences being put

up. There are quite a number of them around the province. Because the

people involved in these concerns who have a need for wood happen to be

very aggressive, hard-working, innovative people who add to the

economic activity in this province, produce goods and employ people, I

would be very surprised indeed if any of them were socialists. I

suggest that most of them are probably the kind of people who would

support a free-enterprise party in this province. Therefore I guess

that no matter who gets the timber because they use it well in this

province, I could be accused of giving preferential treatment to people

who support the free-enterprise system. If that is the charge, Mr.

Chairman, I plead guilty.

Regarding the timber supply area of the Okanagan, the old PSYUs

which were incorporated into this timber supply — and parts of them,

because they did not necessarily follow the old boundaries of the

public sustained yield units....

They were originally allowed an annual cut of 2,618,000 cubic

metres in the area that is now called the Okanagan TSA. That TSA now

has an allowable cut of 2.7 million, so there was actually a 3 percent

increase in the allowable cut, not a decrease.

The member is somewhat confused as to the difference between

commitments of the government under sustained-yield forest management

and the capacity of the industry. Of course, there is more capacity

than there is allowable cut to fill that capacity, because over the

years the industry has expanded and expanded, and there's no way, if we

wish to practise sustained-yield forestry in British Columbia, that we

can possibly provide for those needs. But there are those smaller

operators, such as Yellow Lake, Gorman, Ardew, Aspen and many others in

other timber-supply areas in the province, that are very short of wood,

and we are making these sales available to them. In all cases there is

competition. There are more people needing the wood than there are

licences available for them.

If the member wishes to start talking about preferential treatment

and political means of getting wood into specific hands, I would remind

him again of the former Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

and his pet company — one which he purchased from the private sector —

Plateau Mills, for which he said: "I will get wood to this plant

because we as a government now own it." In a handwritten memo sent to

the people at that mill he said: "I don't have any legislative

authority to do it now, but I will provide myself with that authority."

If that is not abuse of political and ministerial authority, I don't

know what is.

I recognize the need of some of these plants that have demonstrated

their ability to make efficient use of the raw material. When there is

an uncommitted amount of wood available, we are doing what we can to

make sure that plants that need it to sustain their level of employment

will get it. There is no political preference even considered. As I

said before, I would be very surprised if any of these innovative

entrepreneurs are socialists.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could have leave to

make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman and members of the Legislative

Assembly, with us today from Giscome, a great little community just

east of Prince George, is Ms. Sherry Lynne Standen, a teacher, with 16

students and five adult chaperons from Giscome elementary school.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I listened very closely to the

minister's response in terms of his political analysis as to no one in

the industry being socialist. Indeed, if these people are so

innovative, if they are so inventive and able, I think they would have

great difficulty identifying with the minister. But that's a point of

view. In any event, if he wishes to test their political persuasions, I

wish he would persuade the leader of his party to call an election in

this province and let's find out what the people want. I would welcome

that, and I believe the people in the industry who are tired of

inaction by this government and this minister would welcome it as well.

In terms of the minister's trying to excuse himself by making

allegations against a minister who occupied a seat in this house back

in 1975, I have no intention of allowing him to conduct that dodge. We

are debating the minister's estimates now, debating his

responsibilities, and the sins of Bob Sommers or Ray Williston or Bob

Williams are of no consequence here. Certainly I don't put Bob Williams

in the same category as the former two. However, we are debating the

minister's estimates, and if the minister wants to be free from the

taint of any political considerations.... He charges innuendo.

Sure, there's going to be some cynicism if the minister takes unto

himself as a politician the right to dispense licences having a value

of millions of dollars. It was the minister, in this case, who decided

what the criteria would be for the competition. It was the minister, in

effect, who decided, by very tight control, which companies would

[ Page 8211

qualify. Sure, the ministry came forward with a

number of options,

but the minister set the tight controls which guaranteed that just two

companies would qualify, both in the south Okanagan and the Merritt

area. If he wants to be free from political suspicion, he should allow

the same competitive criteria to operate for all areas of the industry.

I can advise the minister that it's not only the opposition that

finds this kind of policy initiative highly questionable; there are

reverberations throughout the industry over these particular licences.

I don't know how the minister can suggest that Yellow Lake or Gorman

are any more innovative or practise any higher degree of utilization

than Federated Co-ops, for instance, at Canoe. They not only have a

sawmill at that location; they also have one in Revelstoke. They have a

plywood plant, a chipper, and they are a long-established operation.

How is it that they did not receive similar consideration to Gorman and

Yellow Lake? Sure, they have some supply, but it's a long way short of

their needs at the same time. The same with Holding Lumber Company in

the Adams Lake area, another long-established operation. I don't think

they're the most modern operation in the world, but they're certainly

long established. If they had the kind of security that the minister

seems to dispense politically, perhaps they could invest in some

upgrading of plant and technology too.

It's a poor way to conduct business, and if the minister wishes to

remain free from charges of political patronage, tainting decisions

through his ministry, then he should stand back from the issuance of

these licences and administer them in the normal fashion by which his

staff and the technical people deal with normal renewal of tenures, the

awarding of new licences and tenure arrangements through competitive

bidding. The procedure in this case is vastly different, and the

minister knows it; I don't think that's good enough.

I'm going to give the minister an opportunity to respond. I do have

a number of other questions to raise before I complete my remarks on

his estimates.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I just have a very brief response, Mr.

Chairman. There are companies that do not have sufficient wood to

sustain their operations, even at a modest level. As I have said, we

have uncommitted allowable cut that we are making available on a

restricted basis. The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke surprises me

somewhat, because he's suggesting that this should be wide-open

competition. Under normal circumstances it would be, but in the

Okanagan and the Boundary-Similkameen areas, for example, who would be

competing for this limited available supply of wood? You would have

such multinational companies as Crown Zellerbach and Weyerhaeuser and

other large companies such as Canadian Forest Products and Federated

Co-operatives Co-op, which is a company that probably has in excess of

$1 billion cash flow annually.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

So I'm saying that there are these small companies that can't really

compete with the might of these larger companies, and the larger

companies, for example, in the case of Weyerhaeuser, have more timber

allocation than they have capacity to use right now, because a few

years ago they lost a sawmill to a fire and they have not rebuilt. So

yes, I am providing a certain amount of bidding protection for these

small Canadian-owned private enterprises, and I will make no apologies

for doing that. They have earned a position. When there is an amount of

wood that is not committed, I'll make every effort to see that it gets

into those hands so that they can maintain the employment and the jobs

for the people who work for them.

I don't think that Weyerhaeuser, Crown Zellerbach, Canadian Forest

Products, Federated Co-operatives or any of these very large companies

are nearly in that position: they have much more available wood

relative to their manufacturing capacity than these smaller, aggressive

companies. Where I can do it, we are doing it without fear or favour,

and we are not doing it with any type of political favouritism in mind.

As I said, though, I'd be very surprised if any of these people are

socialists.

MR. KING: Well. Mr. Chairman. I would prefer it if the

minister would administer his responsibilities as Minister of Forests

without any speculation about what their politics are. That just adds

further concern to the proposition I'm making. By his intervention, his

ministerial discretion and his speculation as to what their politics

might be, it seems to validate the case I have made that politics is

entering into the dispensation of forest tenure in the province of

British Columbia, It should have no place there — none whatsoever. The

minister has just confirmed everything I've said, Mr. Chairman. He's

speculating on how they're going to vote. I don't care how they vote. I

know how the people of British Columbia are going to vote next time,

and I hope that your alleged leader, Mr. Chairman, will have the

temerity to test that out very shortly. I think it's a shame that we

have a minister of the Crown dealing on the basis of how companies are

going to vote in terms of how they're treated by his ministry. That's

scandalous! He can't hide behind the altruistic proposition that he's

protecting the small entrepreneurs from those major corporate giants of

foreign extraction. That doesn't quite work, particularly with respect

to the merit licences.

It's not just the two firms receiving the new licence that are going

to benefit; I think that Weyerhaeuser is particularly going to benefit

from the manipulation of the boundaries in the Adams Lake area; I think

they're going to benefit handsomely. If the minister wants to assist

those indigenous small British Columbia firms that need assistance, he

has a small business program to do it. In that respect he has failed to

allocate adequate wood supplies to the small business program in most

areas of the province. Certainly I have yet to see one case where the

minister has taken any timber supply away from the major international

conglomerates to dedicate to the small business program. Can he tell us

of one instance where he has turned back on Crown Zellerbach, MacMillan

Bloedel, Rayonier or any of the others? Name one example, Mr. Minister.

where you have trimmed back on the timber supply to the corporate

giants in this province and dedicated that wood supply to the small

business program in B.C. Don't try to hide behind that veil: that's a

sham too, and you know it.

Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of other questions for the minister. I

want to ask him briefly about the program for the tussock moth control

at Chase and Pritchard. Why did he and his ministry leave the

responsibility to the regional district board to combat that very

serious infestation of tussock moths, which is destroying literally

hundreds of acres of forest land in that area, both private and Crown

land? It seems more appropriate to me that the Ministry of Forests and

their

[ Page 8212

pest control branch should have assumed the direct

responsibility

with some participation from private agencies in terms of funding, if

necessary. Why give that responsibility over to the regional district

for the ground-spraying program to combat tussock moth? It seems to

me that this is going to be very costly and somewhat questionable in

its effectiveness in combating the pest.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The member asked me to give examples of

where major multinational companies have lost allowable cut as a result

of the allocation. I will give him a few examples. I have my files here

on the allocation plan. Just for example, Crestbrook Forest Industries

— a multinational company — lost 32,648 cubic metres of allowable cut

in the Cranbrook timber supply area. Crows Nest Forest Products —

another multinational company — lost 40,969 cubic metres of allowable

cut. Evans Products, in Golden timber supply area, lost 50,571 cubic

metres of allowable cut. Crows Nest, again, in the Invermere timber

supply area, lost 36,000. The list goes on and on. There were no

reductions on the coast, because on the coast we could provide a

substantial small business program, in the order of about 14 to 15

percent, without any reductions to anyone.

On the question of the tussock moth, the member knows that most of

the lands upon which we have this problem are privately owned lands.

Although we accept some responsibility for the protection of the

forest, we do not have the jurisdiction to enter upon private lands to

do pesticide control. We have worked with both the Thompson-Nicola and

Boundary-Similkameen Regional Districts because we have a similar

problem in the Hedley-Princeton area. We have provided a substantial

amount of the funding, but the work has been carried out and directed

the regional districts. We are also constrained by the types of

applications that can be done by the ministry on Crown lands. It is

therefore much more convenient and could be done in a much more direct

way by working with the regional districts. I would advise that from

reports I have from the first spraying, which was done in the

Hedley-Princeton areas, the kill is very good. I understand the work in

the Pritchart area is currently underway, and we are getting similar

reports from there. I would also say, though, that there are one or two

property-owners who do not wish insecticides to be used on their

properties. Of course we are recognizing their wishes, and the regional

district is not carrying out protection programs there. We are doing

the work through the regional district on those periphery areas of

Crown land adjacent to these private lands.

MR. KING: I think the minister's response on taking some

timber supply away from these multinationals is humorous. I am

surprised the minister didn't smile when he said that. The company he

listed first, Crestbrook, that major multinational that he seems to

refer to.... I guess I can understand them having a bit taken away.

They've just swallowed up B.C. Timber. They've just merged with

Kootenay Forest Products — bought it out and obtained a major new

forest supply.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I will ask the hon member for

Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) to come to order, please

MR. KING: There is a further increase in corporate

concentration by that purchase by Crestbrook of Kootenay Forest

Products. I think it is humorous that the minister would say: "We took

some away from them." There is a further concentration up there. I am

not suggesting that in that case it is a bad thing. I don't know. But

it is a pretty poor example. He has been unable to show, in any of the

areas of the province where the major multinationals operate, that

there has been any trimming of their supply despite reports coining

into the ministry in many cases from professional consultants that some

of them have a large oversupply of timber and indeed have it in the

bank while other operators are short of supply. I refer to the Thompson

report which was commissioned in 1980, if I remember correctly.

As for Crows Nest, the minister knows pretty well that their future

has been subject to a great deal of negotiation and speculation for the

last two years as well. I don't think they are very appropriate

examples.

However, in the tussock moth thing the minister is quite right: it

started on private land. But it is far beyond private land now. I would

suggest that there is as much Crown land infected now as private land.

It was restricted to private land when I first raised the question with

the minister last year, but there was a difficulty in getting a program

together. I understand some of the reasons for that, but it has spread

far beyond the private land. It's on the native Indian reserve land,

and it has certainly entered a very large area of Crown forest land as

well. I'm just concerned that an adequate and very strong program to

combat it proceed, — because this is the crucial year. If the forest

is denuded again this year.... It's my understanding there will be

a major kill of the timber in that area. So it's urgent that a very

aggressive, effective program of control be undertaken this year.

I have one or two other questions for the minister that I want to

explore with him again for confirmation. When I questioned him this

morning about the forecast for revenue from the forest industry, he

indicated his belief that if there were a major turnaround now in the

demand for our forest products, we could in fact realize the budgetary

forecast of revenue from the industry. Did I understand the minister

correctly when he made that statement this morning?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Yes, there is still time this fiscal

year, if there were beginnings of a turnaround in the near future, to

not only see the estimate reached but see it exceeded. I think everyone

will agree that the distribution system — the so-called pipeline — is

relatively empty, and a turnaround in housing starts in the United

States would feed back into British Columbia relatively shortly.

The member was not satisfied with the several examples I gave him of

reduction of major licensees. I would be pleased to give him some more.

In the Mackenzie timber supply area of British Columbia Forest

Products.... Finlay Forest Industries, for example, lost 83,000

cubic metres of allowance cut; Balco Industries in the Kamloops timber

supply area lost 31,000 cubic metres; Weyerhaeuser Canada in the

Kamloops timber supply area lost 22,000 cubic metres; Crown Zellerbach

in Kamloops, where they are a minor licensee, lost 1,750 cubic metres;

Weyerhaeuser Canada in the Merritt timber supply area lost 2,000 cubic

metres; Crown Zellerbach Canada in the Merritt timber supply area lost

62,000 cubic metres; Balco Industries in the Merritt timber supply area

lost 31,000 cubic metres; Weyerhaeuser Canada in Okanagan lost 22,000

cubic metres; and Crown

[ Page 8213

Zellerbach in Okanagan timber supply area lost

31,000 cubic metres.

So there were reductions based not upon the fact that any company was

multinational or otherwise but because they were included in a

percentagewise reduction where reductions were required.

The tussock moth problem does not include a great deal of Crown land

at this time. We hope that our containment program this year will catch

it, prevent it from spreading and, in fact, eliminate the problem.

There is some Crown land infected, as is some Indian reserve land. I

believe I sent the member a letter a week or so ago advising how we

were to deal with the Indian land problem. I do think that we can get I

t under control and our forestry people in protection feel that we can

contain it.

MR. KEMPF: I wasn't going to get up in this minister's

debate, but I would like to say on behalf of my constituents that I am

very happy with the new apportionment program. It has certainly ironed

out many of the problems that my constituents were facing —

constituents in the small operator program. Although it has a few

kinks, I am quite confident that, soon, this new small operator program

will benefit greatly those small mill and logging operators in my

constituency. I say here today that I am happy with the course that is

being followed by the minister and the ministry in regard to this small

business program.

The main reason I want to get up this afternoon is to educate the

member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, the Forests critic on the opposition

benches in this House. That member should be ashamed to be the critic,

because not only did he not know anything about the rules of the House

when moving an amendment to Bill 39 on Friday last.... I know I can't

talk about Bill 39 and the ridiculous amendment of the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, order, please. I'll also advise

you about personal allusions. Personal allusions cannot be made. We are

on the estimates of the Minister of Forests.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I just want to educate that member,

that forestry critic in this House, of some of the ways of the forest

industry in this province. That member doesn't know anything about the

forest industry, and I've listened for several days. I'll tell you why

he doesn't, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we relate the remarks to the Ministry of

Forests.

MR. KEMPF: Incidentally. Mr. Chairman, I personally have

spent in excess of 15 years of my life in the forest industry of this

province, so I have a little bit of experience in that, our first

industry.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke said this morning, I listened to

him very intently, and his words were echoed by the member for

Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) — that it was too late for worthwhile

planting or worthwhile silviculture in this province, that it could not

take place at this time. Mr. Chairman, the member clearly does not know

that up until a very few days ago one could not plant trees of any sort

in the northern two-thirds of this province, because there was still

snow on the ground. There was snow on the area to be reforested. Was

that member suggesting that we should plant the new trees in the snow,

or was he suggesting that we should plant them with their roots in the

frozen ground? Is that what the forestry critic from the opposition

benches was suggesting to this House" I must ask that question again.

Was that forestry critic suggesting to this House and to the Minister

of Forests that we should have been planting those seedlings — those

tender little seedlings — in snow or in frozen ground? Were we to chip

holes in the ground and place those tender roots in those holes and

surround them with frozen earth?

Mr. Chairman, clearly that member doesn't know anything about the

forest industry. I think he's unfit to be the forestry critic. He

simply doesn't know what goes on in the forest industry of this

province. He stands by the hour and drones on and on about what the

forest industry should be doing, in this minister's estimates. Mr.

Chairman, clearly he doesn't know. When we speak of Scotch that member

becomes an instant expert, but clearly he doesn't know anything about

the forest industry.

Mr. Chairman. I heard that member say in this debate, and in another

debate that I can't mention at this point in time, that the trees could

not be planted at this time because the government did not have the

foresight to allow for site preparation. Again the member is wrong.

Those who know anything about reforestation clearly know that in most

cases in the interior of this province no preparation is required. All

you have to do is let the snow go away and the frost come out of the

ground, then plant the trees in the clearcut areas. No site preparation

is necessary. The only thing necessary is to send people into the field

to plant those trees, but you have to wait for the winter to go away in

order to do that. There's no preparation required in many clearcut

areas with the type of logging — total utilization — that is carried on

today, particularly in the interior. That member comes from the

interior, and he should know these things. In many cases the only

preparation that's required is mere scarification. It can be

done in conjunction with planning operations. You can be doing it right

ahead of the tree planters. You don't have to do it a month, six

months, a year or two years ahead of time. It can be done in

conjunction with those planting operations. I'm surprised that the

forestry critic on the socialist benches doesn't know that much about

the forest industry of this province. It's shocking,

The member must have, one day while winging his way to Victoria,

looked down from his lofty roost and seen preparation being made for

planting by use of fire. I am sure it was then that he thought to

himself: "Aha! That's how they do it. I always wondered, but now I

know.

Now I can go to the Legislature and in the Minister of Forests

estimates I'll be an expert in reforestation in the province of British

Columbia." That must be how it happened. If it had not happened that

way I am sure that the hon. member would not have made the remarks that

he has in the last couple of days in this minister's estimates.

The employment bridging program, although not fully established at

this time, will certainly be in time for reforestation programs in

two-thirds of this province. It will certainly be in time for the

planting of young trees, particularly in my constituency. It will

certainly be in time to do the work that the opposition critic is

asking to be done. Although that program isn’t in operation right this

minute, that is not to say that it won't do an awful lot of good when

the time comes that those trees can be planted. In many areas of this

province you can get into the woods and you have to wait until a

breakup period, which I'm sure the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke

[ Page 8214

doesn't know about as well. There will be ample

opportunities in the

months ahead to enter into that kind of reforestation program in this

province. The planting of new trees and the preparation of sites for

that planting do not take place in many areas of this province until

July or August or in some cases even September. What the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke is saying is not correct.

MR. LEA: Is that before the snow goes?

MR. KEMPF: Sometimes you have to wait till August for the

snow to go. The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) would certainly know

about that. I am sure that is what he is going to get up and talk

about. I see he raised his microphone, and I am sure that is what the

member for Prince Rupert is going to get up and talk about. He is going

to get up and talk about the fact that much thinning and other kinds of

reforestation can still be done and will be done under the employment

bridging program in the months ahead, the months that are considered in

the northern two-thirds of this province as the summer months.

I am happy to have been able to enter into this debate, to clear the

air and to tell this House and also the people of the province of

British Columbia what it is that the opposition critic on forestry

knows about the forest industry. I really do hope that the member has

learned something and can now get up and speak positively about a very

positive program that will provide jobs for many people — not only

people who have worked in the forest industry but others as well. It is

a program that will not only provide jobs for today but will provide

many jobs for tomorrow.

MR. KING: I want to thank the member for Omineca for

educating me and the House about his thoughts and perception of

silvicultural treatment. I guess he should be known as the man who came

down from the north, because his perception of when planting is

appropriate and that of those in the southern interior are widely

different. One of the reasons that it is appropriate and necessary to

plant seedlings as soon after the snow goes as possible — in some

cases, at some parts of the lower elevations, this is April and May —

that there is still the necessary degree of moisture in the ground. It

is very important when those seedlings are planted that there be a

supply of moisture. All the land stretching from Princeton right to the

west of Kamloops — the vast Okanagan area — is drybelt. The snow goes

much earlier there than in Terrace and Prince George. The Columbia

Valley has been ready for planting for pretty near a month now. It is

just getting underway now, as a matter of fact, which is a bit late.

The main point is that it is true that you don't need much site

preparation if the planting takes place a year or even two years after

harvesting; very little site preparation is necessary. The big problem

in British Columbia is that we are not replanting as we harvest. There

is a continuing backlog of unsatisfactorily stocked land. If we were

even planting as much as we harvest, we would be in great shape. What

happens when it goes over two years without being replanted is that you

get growth on that site — willows, alders and all kinds of weed species

— that has to be brushed down before you have....

MR. KEMPF: I heard you on the radio at noon, and you were

wrong. You are wrong here, and you were wrong there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I will ask the member for

Omineca to come to order.

MR. KING: If I am wrong, then the professional foresters I

have relied on for my advice, plus my own experience in the

area.... I have travelled and looked at a lot of land all over the

province, as the guest of many forest companies. The member knows

something that no one else knows anything about, apparently. Be that as

it may, the question is that it is very late in the year in some parts

of the province to get planting programs underway right now, because

moisture and site preparation are important factors.

However, that is a small point. I appreciated the member's

contribution and his kind thoughts in attempting to assist with my

education. I certainly accept all the information that anyone wishes to

direct my way; I can always use it. I know that the member meant well

when he gratuitously and very affectionately offered to educate me. I

guess what I can do is compare the advice he gave me to that coming

from the ministry, and try to sift the wheat from the chaff and accept

the advice of the member from the frozen north, who apparently knows

something about it — albeit very little.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I think that you shouldn't chastise

the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) and be facetious with him. He's

giving us the benefit of those 15 years' experience: you can't plant

trees if there is snow on the ground. Right?

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he say that?

MR. LEA: That's right. You have to wait until the snow goes

and plant before the snow comes. I don't think it's been a wasted 15

years when you can come away with that kind of knowledge about the

forest industry. I think he should be congratulated. I'm sure it would

take longer than 15 years for him to learn more complex things, but

nevertheless I think we should thank him for sharing that experience

with us.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to read for the minister a letter — not

all of the letter, although I will make the letter available — that was

sent to the regional manager of the B.C. Forest Service in Smithers, a

Mr. Biickert. There are some serious charges in the letter, and I

should say that these are not charges that are confined to the writer

of this letter; there are persistent rumours in my riding on the Queen

Charlotte Islands about timber that was handed out or new cuts that

were handed out. I think I'll get to the letter, because that explains

it a lot better than I.

"Dear Mr. Biickert,

"The most serious comment that can be made regarding

the Timber Supply Area Report" — that was the one recently done for the

Queen Charlotte Islands — "is that it is now obvious that allowable cut

was released in 1977 without due regard for long-range sustainable

harvest and with callous indifference to the wishes of either the local

logging operators or the local population.

"I was a member of the Queen Charlotte Public Advisory

Committee to the Forest Service (PAC) at that time, and even though we

were then unfamiliar with the esoterics of forest management —the

committee having only recently been formed — we were aware that

considerable doubt existed within the Forest Service itself regarding

whether or not harvestable

[ Page 8215

volumes were available to fulfill this final

sale —

that is, Davidson Creek — and that the same doubts had been expressed

regarding the two immediately prior, namely Eden Lake and Tartu Inlet.

"The story we were told was that the local Forest

Service had been asked by the district forester for an estimate of

volumes available in the Queen Charlottes PSYU. When told there were

none, the district office advised that volumes must be found because

some were going to be let. This in turn prompted an operability study

by local staff which indicated that volumes were not available. When

this data was rejected by the district office, the material was

considerably reworked and a memo to the district forester was forwarded

advising that allowable cut was definitely not available.

"When the PAC" — that's the public advisory committee

— "requested a copy of this memo commonly referred to as the

'Hart-Hernandez Report,' we were advised by ranger Ben Hanson that the

document was not available, as it was classified. This is reported in

the PAC minutes.

"Mr. Biickert, in 1977, 58 percent of the current

timber demand, or 341,880 m³" — I'm not sure exactly what that means

technically, but I'm sure the minister does understand — "out of 583,680

m³ was given out in these three TSHLs. Not being any more familiar

with Timber RAM than I am with the Hanzlik Formula, I would hesitate to

guesstimate projections without that 58 percent being calculated, but

suspect that the graph, 'Case 1' on page 14 of your TSA Analysis, would

look considerably different. In fact, I think it would probably attest

to the serious charges I have made in my opening paragraph and to the

honesty of the local staffers who protested.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

"In view of the foregoing, and also in view of the

highly politicized rumours that have made the rounds in the forest

industry and the public since the Davidson Creek sale, it would seem to

me that the only way for the Forest Service and the government to

retain a measure of credibility would be to forgo the rollover of these

three TSHLs into the 'evergreen' forest licences and allow them to

lapse.

"I realize that some might see this as a breach of

contractual obligations and unfair to companies that bargained in good

faith. To that end I might point out that these companies have received

a considerable break on stumpage charges, in recognition of an added

difficulty in shipping logs. I would remind you that local staffers

have also advised that this reduction is far above what the situation

seems to merit. I have been told that some believe that these companies

have already recovered their initial outlay as a result of this gift

from the Crown called the 'West Coast Concession.'"

Mr. Minister, there's more to the letter, but I think you've got the

general idea. There are persistent rumours on the Queen Charlotte

Islands in my constituency that the allowable cut was just not there to

hand out, and that against the wishes and recommendations of the local

staff the Forest Service went ahead and handed out these new allowable

cuts.

As we see the timber supply analysis come in from the Queen

Charlotte Islands, I think in retrospect we can all look back and say

that the people on the ground in the local Forest Service were correct:

the timber just wasn't there. If the timber wasn't there, the local

staff, in their opinion, made the recommendation that it wasn't there

to their superiors, and it was done anyway. I think the government and

the minister have to explain exactly what went on surrounding Davidson

Creek and the Eden Lake and Tartu Inlet situations.

I know that this is not the first time that the minister has heard

about it. These rumours have been persistent and many since 1977, so

much so — although I want the minister to explain in the House — that I

believe that possibly more than that must be done. I don't think it

does any of us, as politicians, any good to have persistent rumours of

political patronage, at the most, and complete incompetence, at the

very least, surrounding the Davidson Creek situation on the Queen

Charlottes. I'm sure that everyone in the Forest Service has heard the

rumours and charges that have been made and continue to be made.

I have talked with local foresters — people who work for the Forest

Service — who verified to me privately that their recommendations were

overridden. For some reason that nobody can fathom, these new cuts were

made available. Now that the new figures are in from the timber supply

analysis, we see that it's true: it just wasn't there. I would like to

ask the minister to explain this fully. I would really like to go back

to the Queen Charlottes and say: "Look, the rumours are absolutely

incorrect. There were good technical reasons for it; there was no

political patronage; it wasn't gross incompetence; and we can have

faith in the people who are in senior management, the minister and his

government, in regard to this."

I don't think it does any of us any good, as politicians, not to

clear these things up. Until it's fully explained to the public, these

rumours and charges are going to persist. When you see information that

was put together, like the Hart-Hernandez report and then the public

advisory committee — appointed by the minister, I may add — not given

that information and told it was classified, that only leads to further

rumour and speculation as to skulduggery.

Before I go any further, I'd like to have the minister, with his

staff, explain to me exactly what happened around Tartu Inlet, Eden

Lake and Davidson Creek.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I am not familiar with Davidson Creek

and.... What river was it that you mentioned?

MR. LEA: Mr. Minister, they were Eden Lake and the Tartu

Inlet. I would gladly make this letter available. It has been sent to

Mr. Biickert in Smithers, so it's not something that was sent to me

privately. It's a copy.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The licences that the member is speaking

about, I believe, were issued in 1976 or 1977. At that time, my

understanding from discussions with current staff was that there was

disagreement between regional staff — or what you called district staff

at that time — and Victoria staff on the operable allowable cut in the

area. Those in Victoria felt that there was a greater allowable cut

available than the regional people did. They sorted that out, and

licences were proceeded with.

[ Page 8216

We still have not set an allowable cut on the Queen Charlottes for a

number of reasons, one of which is the continuing study of the Windy

Bay wilderness proposal and the South Moresby Island proposal. Whatever

happens there will have some significant effect on the final allowable

cut that can be established. Since that time in 1977 when the last

licences were issued, we have had, as the member well knows, some

problems with slope stability; as a result some areas considered

operable at the time have been put into environmental protection areas

until we can develop techniques for logging on less stable slopes. This

work will be going on, and depending upon what happens to the

operability of these areas, the allowable cut, once established, could

change either upwards or downwards, depending upon our success in

working those areas.

The member used the term "political patronage" several times. If he

is serious about the veiled charge of political patronage, I hope he

would make such statements outside of the house, because that certainly

is not the case. No political decision or ministerial decision was made

to issue any licences anywhere in the province. I go by the advice

given me by my professional staff. At times there is disagreement

between various levels of staff as to the allowable cut. It is not a

simple thing to determine. As well, it is something that is constantly

changing because of many factors: land areas available, operability,

economics of the time, silvicultural practices anticipated. All of

these things tend to change the allowable cut.

I would have to get into more detailed discussion with my staff

regarding the specific drainages the member was talking about, but the

allowable cut has not yet been set. I don't know what it will be. It

appears that we are going to be very tight, if not over committed, at

this time, and the final resolution will depend on what happens in the

wilderness proposals that are currently before us. I believe we do have

the final report on the Windy Bay area, and I'm waiting for the final

report on the South Moresby wilderness before any decisions are made.

That is what transpired, Mr. Chairman. As for the level of

commitment versus allowable cut, we'll have to wait until the allowable

cut is finally established. Our chief forester is working very hard at

this right now. I really can't advise when the figures will come; as I

say, it depends upon the wilderness proposals.

MR. LEA: I attended the public meetings put on by your

ministry to explain the timber supply analysis to the people of the

Queen Charlottes, and I'd like to say that I thought it was very well

done. They also, at the time they were doing it, gave two projections:

one with the

section that has been applied for the South Moresby

wilderness area, and one without it. There is very little significance.

The timber supply analysis really doesn't include much that's in the

South Moresby wilderness area, according to the presentation that I

saw. I think, though, Mr. Minister, the Hart-Hernandez report, which I

mentioned earlier, has to be made public in order to clear the air. To

my knowledge, this report has never been made public, not even to the

public advisory committee, but is still termed "classified." I can't

see why a report done by the Forest Service would be termed classified.

What would be so secretive that the people couldn't see the report'?

I'd like to ask the minister whether he would undertake two things.

First, before the end of this session in the House, I'd like to ask the

minister if he'd do a review within his ministry on the Davidson Creek

situation, not only to satisfy me and the public, but to satisfy

himself that the correct thing was done at the time, leading up to this

1977 allocation. Secondly, would he make that Hart-Hernandez report

available to the Legislature so that we can all see it?

I would just like to say that it isn't my opinion that there was

political patronage. I said that the rumours on the Queen Charlotte

Islands are that there was some sort of political patronage. I have no

evidence of that, although there is some evidence, I think, of

incompetence at senior levels in the ministry because of the timber

supply analysis that comes out now and backs up the local people on the

job in the Forest Service. Now I don't know what the senior people

could have been thinking of to override whatever was in that

Hart-Hernandez report, because the timber supply analysis shows that

they

were absolutely accurate. The timber just wasn't there. I'd like to

know on what data the Forest Service made their decision to override

the local people in the Forest Service. It must have been based on

something. I would like to get two commitments from the minister,

because I think the air should be cleared. One is a review and a report

in the Legislature on the situation and all of the surrounding data,

and all of the considerations that went into the decision to let the

allocation for Davidson Creek go. I'd also like a commitment to have

the Hart-Hernandez report made public. Mr. Minister, I think it is

called after the names of the people who did the report: Jim Hart and

Hernandez. It's in the minutes of the public advisory committee that

ranger Ben Hansen said that the document was not available, as it was

classified. I'd like to have that declassified and brought into the

House, plus all of the considerations that were taken into account by

senior staff in overriding the recommendations of local staff on the

Davidson Creek situation. I wonder whether the minister would give me

an undertaking that that would happen.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the member will realize

that since that period in 1977, when I believe the last sales were

made, we have had a number of changes at the senior staff level in the

ministry. Mr. Apsey, my current deputy minister, I believe was

appointed in June 1978. There have been some major changes at the

assistant minister deputy level, and also several changes at the

regional level. At the current time the chief forester, Mr. Bill Young,

is doing an in-depth study of the timber supply situation in the Queen

Charlottes: how we got to where we are, what decisions were made in the

past, and how they fit with the facts of today. Once that study is

completed, I see no reason whatsoever why the information should not be

shared, as is most information in the ministry which does not pertain

to specific companies. Once we have concluded that study I would be

happy to share it with the member. I am not familiar with the

Hart-Hernandez report, but I will give you my commitment that when we

have completed our study we will do a comparison between the

information there and what was in the Hart-Hernandez report and find

out how they differ, and why different recommendations seem to be

coming forward.

MR. LEA: The minister is saying that Mr. Young, the chief

forester, is doing a study and that that study will be made public. Is

he also giving me a commitment that the Hart-Hernandez report will be

made public?

[ Page 8217

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I have no reason to feel

that it should be otherwise. It's public information, and I think that

in fairness to the current chief forester we should allow him to

complete his study before this other one is released. I really don't

know what that other study says, as I haven't seen it myself.

MR. LEA: I take it that I have a commitment that the

Hart-Hernandez report will be released. Is that true? The minister

shakes his head "yes." Okay, it will be made public when Mr. Young's

work is made public. Also, would the minister undertake to bring back

all of the considerations that were taken into account when the

Davidson Creek allocation of timber was made available?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: As much as is possible, Mr. Chairman. As

I said, the senior staff has changed since that time, and I don't know

what private thoughts senior people had at that time in coming to that

conclusion. Anything that is recorded by all means will be made

available.

MR. LEA: I'd like to thank the minister very much. Just

before I close, would you tell me when Mr. Young's report is going to

be finished and available?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: My deputy advises me that he expects that

report by early fall or the end of the summer — somewhere in that

general

area.

MR. LEA: And there will be no appropriation in the timber

supply analysis for the Queen Charlottes until that report has been

finalized.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, until we establish the

annual allowable cut we cannot do any licence rollovers, but we have

certain constraints in the rollover provisions of the legislation, as

the member well knows.

MR. LEA: I'd just like to get this clear. Is the minister

saying that before the report is made available there will be licence

rollovers under the evergreen clause?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: We cannot do any licence rollovers until

the allowable cut is established. That is a requirement of the

legislation.

MR. LEA: Mr. Young's report has to be in before that

allocation can be set. Will that report be made public before the

turnover'?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the chief forester is the

one who sets the allowable cut. The study he is conducting now will

lead to him establishing the allowable cut.

MR. LEA: I understand that. But will we have a chance to see

the working paper used by Mr. Young before it's set? Obviously he

doesn't do it himself. He makes a recommendation. There would have to

be an order-in-council, wouldn't there, to set it into place? From the

time that Mr. Young makes his report to the government, there is a

legal requirement that an order-in-council has to take place, I

believe. No? What I am concerned about is that these new, annual

allowable cuts will be into law and in place before we have a chance to

look over Mr. Young's work. Is that what the minister is telling me —

that it will be a fait accompli by the time we see it?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I think the member should perhaps review

the legislation, because it is very clear that the allowable cut is set

by the chief forester, not by order-in-council, by politics or anything

else. It is a technical

summary, in the best judgment of those

professional foresters, of what the allowable cut is. This is usually

set by him — in this case as in others — after consultation on

operability, liaison and that type of thing. The member has already

advised that such meetings have been held. The chief forester is the

one responsible for establishing the allowable cut, It can't be done

until his report is finished, because that is what his report is

leading to.

MR. LEA: Those public meetings on the Queen Charlotte Islands

were our last kick at the can for public input, eh? The next thing is

that it will be set. We have had our say and it will be set.

I have the commitment from the minister on the other areas, and I

look forward to the minister meeting those commitments.

MR. HOWARD: There are a few items relating to Skeena I would

like to raise under this particular vote. I want to break it up in some

geographic segments because it lends itself to that, for different

reasons.

In the Terrace-HazeIton area B.C. Timber has a virtual monopoly in

the forest industry since it acquired a mill owned by another company

in Terrace called the Skeena Mill and subsequently acquired a sawmill

in Hazelton, independently owned and called Rim Forest Products. With

those acquisitions and its timber holdings, B.C. Timber is in a very

dominant position in that whole area so far as timber is concerned.

B.C. Timber produces chips for its pulp operation on Watson Island,

just outside of Prince Rupert, and over the years it has — I think

regretfully — placed itself in the hands of the United States

home-building market insofar as saw lumber is concerned. As a

consequence, when the lumber market declines or virtually disappears,

then B.C. Timber is vulnerable and the people working in the logging

and sawmilling industry in that area of Hazelton through Kitwanga to

Terrace are likewise very vulnerable.

In Smithers we have a different set of circumstances. The sawmill

operations there look at the domestic market, generally speaking, and

have an association with the domestic market. They have there been able

to escape — to an extent in any event — the difficulties visited upon

us because of placing all our saw-lumber eggs in one basket, namely the

U.S. market.

In the Kitimat area there is a pulp operation, and it has some

difficulties with respect to saw lumber because an acquisition of the

Eurocan mill by another company is resulting in what the company and

the Forest Service euphemistically identify as rationalization of the

industry. As a consequence, sawmill operations in Kitimat haven't fared

too well.

In the Terrace-Kitimat area a decision was made by the cabinet — I

think very regretfully; I am quite sure it was made over the objections

of the minister — with respect to a provincial forest. The proposal was

made that a provincial forest be established in that area, an area that

had been

[ Page 8218

virtually clearcut along the breadth of that valley

between Kitimat

up to Lakelse Lake. Because it was an old forest and there was 40

percent to 50 percent rot in some areas, clearcutting and getting rid

of it was probably the most sensible way to proceed. In any event,

that's the way they did proceed.

The chief forester held some public hearings in Kitimat with respect

to the provincial forest. He received a number — I've forgotten how

many; 13 or 14 or something in that nature — of briefs and formal

representations about the establishment of that area as a provincial

forest. One of the arguments put forward by those who did not want to

see a provincial forest established in the total area that was under

consideration — they were a very minor group of people, incidentally —

was that they should carve out from the proposed provincial forest area

an area set aside for industrial development purposes. I argue — and I

argued last year during the estimates when I put forward my view about

it — that that should not have been the case. It should have been

established entirely as a provincial forest, and then later on, if it

was felt necessary that land within that provincial forest was more

suitable for industrial development purposes, then it could have been

extracted from the provincial forest and used for industrial purposes.

But once the area would have been left out in the first place, the

possibility of getting it back into a provincial forest, if that was

deemed to be the necessity, would be difficult.

In any event, Mr. Young, the chief forester, did recommend that an

area be set aside as a provincial forest and be so established.

Subsequent to that, the Cabinet Committee on Economic Development — or

a portion of it; I don't know if all the members of the cabinet

committee were there — visited Kitimat and Terrace and, lo and behold,

decided to set aside the proposal for a provincial forest and not to

proceed with the establishment of it. As a consequence, there is no

provincial forest established. As a consequence, there is now in

progress, funded by the Ministry of Industry and Small Business

Development, a study to determine the potential of that whole

Kitimat-Terrace corridor for industrial purposes.

The terms of reference for that particular study do not seem to take

the question of forestry into account. In other words, that is given

short shrift and secondary consideration. I think that was an offensive

thing for the Cabinet Committee on Economic Development to have done.

As I said, I'm quite sure that the minister fought as hard as he could

against it, but the heavyweights in that cabinet committee — like the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips)

and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr.

McClelland) — who have no concern whatsoever about forestry, had their

say and forestry suffered. I regret that the minister didn't have a

little more clout in dealing with that particular question.

In Terrace over this past winter we have had in the neighbourhood of

3,000 or 4,000 people out of work out of a population in the

neighbourhood of 15,000, 16,000 or 17,000 people. Both sawmills were

shut down. One of the cedar pole operations in town has gone into

receivership and is not operating. It's a very bad scene with bad

possibilities for the future.

[Mr. Richmond in the chair.]

In Kitwanga, where B.C. Timber owns one of the mills, there is a

small mill owned by the Hovenshield Bros. that has been functioning.

There's a reason why it is able to function and B.C. Timber has not

been able to function. Part of the reason is that B.C. Timber has

established its market over the years as being the United States

housing market and not anything else.

In the Hazelton area, we have had in the neighbourhood of 80 percent

to 90 percent of the workforce unemployed because the Rim mill, bought

by B.C. Timber, has been closed down.

There's a fair amount of wasted effort, inefficiency and waste

product in the lumber industry, a fair amount of handling of the same

material a number of times. In log yards, for example, logs are dumped

and stacked and then moved to another part of the yard, where they're

sorted and moved back again and finally moved to the sawmill operation.

At a meeting in Hazelton and Kitwanga on, I believe it was, February

of this year, which incidentally was arranged at my invitation, we were

told by the president of B.C. Timber that there was a difference of

about $60 a thousand between what it cost the company to get the logs

into and out of the mill, their cost of production, and what they could

sell them for on the market. I think the lumber market at that time was

somewhere in the neighbourhood of $130 a thousand. Part of that

difference is the result of wasteful activity and inefficient

functioning of the workforce and the management, and inappropriate

procedures.

I've suggested to B.C. Timber, to the organized forestry unions in

that area, and to the Northwest Loggers Association the concept of

approaching the question of waste and inefficiency by way of the

establishment of — for lack of another term, which may result from some

discussions — something called "productivity committees." They would

function in somewhat the same fashion as accident-prevention committees

in the forest industry and elsewhere: there would be equal numbers of

people from the workforce and from management; there would be an

expressed willingness to work within the committee structure, and an

expressed willingness on the part of management seriously to consider

the proposals put forward for increasing productivity; if management

felt unable to put any proposals into effect, there would be an

expressed willingness on their part to identify and explain the reasons

therefore to a productivity committee; and there would be an expressed

willingness on the part of the unions and the other people on the job

to take

part in such an operation.

I received an affirmative response from each of the two unions

involved as collective bargaining agents for the workforce, from the

Northwest Loggers Association, which is an independent group, and from

B.C. Timber. They all said: "Yes. We'd love to try something like that.

Let's try to put it into effect." That's a breakthrough, I submit, in

terms of labour-management relations. It's recognized that the

institution of something of this nature will not come easily, because

the background relationship of confrontation rather than cooperation

between the workforce and management. Nonetheless, it has commenced,

and I hope it can be instituted and will come into effect. It would

undoubtedly have the effect of reducing production costs per unit,

however it's measured. If we can curtail inefficiency and reduce waste

of materials to provide a higher quality end-product, we will be in a

better competitive position, whatever the marketplace might be. It

won't guarantee the market, but it will at least guarantee that the

company is producing the product at the lowest possible cost. It would

also provide the opportunity for the whole of

[ Page 8219

the lumber industry and other industries to gain

some experience in

taking the workforce into the confidence of the company, in working

cooperatively within the concept of industrial democracy, in being able

to level with the workforce about cost factors, and in being able to

sit down with management and work together for a common purpose, rather

than approaching everything on a confrontation basis.

My own experience working in industry some years back, whether in

logging, mining or construction, was always that the last person to

find out anything about what management was doing or planned to do was

the guy on the job. Everybody else knew about it before. Suddenly —

whether it was a new set of machinery or a new set of procedures or an

alteration in some manner in which the work or whatever was to be done

— it was visited upon the worker without any warning, and often

resulted in disruption, loss of jobs and a number of things that were

not helpful.

We raised this question at a dinner meeting that our caucus had the

pleasure to attend with the Council of Forest Industries this year. I

am sure government members have attended similar functions with COFI.

One of the gentlemen there related an instance where in his particular

sawmill they had instituted some new machinery, equipment and

procedures. He said that before they did that they went to the guys

working in that particular part of the plant, and they went through the

union as well, and talked with them about what they needed to do, about

the new equipment and about the fact that the work activity of

individuals was going to be altered and that there was going to be some

disruption in that part of the mill. They worked it out with them, in

the installation of the machinery, the development of it, the learning

of how it runs and so on. The person who told us about that at that

COFI meeting basically said it was one of the best things they had ever

done. That was one isolated instance in one isolated sawmill.

I maintain that this has been known throughout the workforce and in

the trade union movement for many years. So far, management hasn't

taken

too many steps to deal with it. I submit that it is the one thing we

can do in trying to develop a better relationship between people on the

job and management and also in developing a lower-cost product at the

other end. It is the one thing we can do and the one thing, I submit,

that the ministry can provide some assistance in by — if nothing else —

endorsing the principle and assisting in promoting seminars about it,

working out with industry, with the workforce and the unions involved a

better understanding of what stumpage means and how those cost factors

are built into the thing, but to be cooperative and helpful about it

and not sit back, as has been the case in the past, and be aloof from

the whole process.

The salvation for us, I think, in the critical times we are in now,

is to use our imaginations and seek different ways of dealing with an

age-old problem. This is one of the ways we can deal with it, by

attempting to approach the production structure within our industry on

the basis of cooperation rather than confrontation. I would urge the

minister to do everything he and his ministry can to become involved in

that process and work along with it. Do something positive for a change

in that direction. That would be more helpful than standing back aloof

and just raking in the money and hoping that the industry gets back on

its feet again.

MR. KING: I would have thought the minister would have wanted

to respond to my colleague on what is a very positive suggestion. I

think it is increasingly going to become a factor in industrial

relations in our province and certainly in the forest industry, which

from time to time has been hit with major interruptions because of

industrial disputes. The Minister of Forests should not divorce himself

from an interest in that aspect. Lost production — whether it flows

from an economic depression such as we have now or from an industrial

dispute — is very harmful to the total economy of the province and

certainly of the industry.

I would have thought the minister would be a bit interested in

commenting on the proposals my colleague put forward. I think they are

sound and sensible. Increasingly I think management and labour are

going to recognize a need to acknowledge that they have a joint

economic destiny. That economic destiny is tied not only to the terms

and conditions on the job but the security of the future of that

industry in the particular plant they happen to work in. That is

basically what we are talking about: collaboration to strengthen our

position as they secure a source of employment in the province and

greater efficiency in terms of meeting the challenges of the

international marketplace where our product is sold.

I think I've just about exhausted all of the comments I had to make

under the minister's vote in this respect, but I do note that there is

a small increase in the minister's estimates for office expenditures. I

think the minister should probably be congratulated that he has held

down his travel expenses. Indeed, he has cut them a little bit, which

is a startling comparison with most of his colleagues in the cabinet

over there. He's even held his furniture costs down. There is a small

additional increase in office expenditures. It's very small — it's only

$713. I think it is incumbent upon a government which is advocating

restraint — indeed a government which is imposing restraint — to lead

example as well as to admonish and exhort those other people in the

community to tighten the belt and practise restraint. Accordingly. I

move that the minister's vote be reduced only by the amount of the

increase in the office furniture, as a symbol of the restraint that the

minister and the government should be showing.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I would just remark, on the increase to

my office, that it is entirely to reflect an increase in staff

salaries. The increase in salaries was partially offset by a reduction

in supplies and services. I hope that the member is not really serious

about asking my secretary and stenographer to take a reduction in

salary this year.

MR. KING: The minister's estimates show the increase in

office expense, which is not salaries, and unless he has gone through

an accounting procedure which hides all of those things that were

previously identified, such as salaries and so on, then the Legislature

has no way of recognizing them. They are shown as office expenditures.

I presume that means office administration. As I say, it's not a large

amount, but it is a symbolic amount in a time of restraint. I move that

it be reduced by the amount of the increase, $713.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is that vote 42 be reduced by $713.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

[ Page 8220

YEAS — 22

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 29

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Mussallem

Brummet

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division

in the Journals of the House.

Vote 42 approved.

On vote 43: forest and range resource management, $126,536,777.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, on this particular vote I have a

couple of questions to ask the minister. I notice that in the group

account classification under vote 43 there is an increase in the

management program from $9 million up to $11 million and an increase in

finance and administration from $51 million up to $56 million. But in

the forest areas there is a reduction in the harvesting program of $10

million, the silviculture program is down from $24 million to $2

million, and the forest protection program shows a reduction from $15

million to $7 million. I don't quite understand how that comes about

when viewed in conjunction with the total estimates for the ministry,

and I'd appreciate the minister's comments on those particular figures.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, some of these changes are

reflected in our turning over to BCBC much of our accommodation, and

then being charged back for it. Reductions in the harvesting vote will

reflect an expected reduction in the amount of wood actually harvested

this year.

I'm afraid there was so much chatter during your questions, Mr.

Member, that, if I haven't covered what you asked, you'll have to

repeat the question.

MR. KING: If I understood the minister correctly.... I asked him why there was an increase in the management program and

the finance and administration program but reductions in the programs

relating to the forests — harvesting, silviculture and forest

protection — major reductions in all those areas that affect the

resource. When it comes to the bureaucracy of the administration, I see

increases; when it comes to the real programs that affect the state of

the industry and the health of the resource, we see major cutbacks.

Why? Did the minister say that the harvesting program reflects the

economic downturn in the industry at this time? Was that his answer?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, starting with our

management program, we have salary increases of about 11 percent due to

reorganization to districts; a lot of this was previously held in

headquarters. There is an increase in supplies and services of about

$100,000 for our private forestry program. This is primarily personnel.

As the member knows, we're attempting to get an extension program going

to encourage private forestry on private lands. Capital expenditures

have decreased by 51 percent, and these have been offset by some of the

increases noted before.

Finance and administration. Supplies and services have increased by

about $6 million of BCBC costs for district accommodation. Much of

these costs were formerly in.... We've turned our portfolios over

to BCBC. In addition, with our reorganization we are establishing

ourselves in different communities and at times having to expand

smaller-community accommodation because we now have more people in the

smaller-community areas.

There has been a slight decrease in salaries in the harvesting

program, about 2 percent; a supplies and services increase of about 35

percent due to $500,000 in computer costs for harvest date and the

small business program; costs of about $1.6 million capital increase

due to construction of the Tachie River bridge, which is the bridge

leading to the Tanizul tree farm licence; minor rights-of-way purchases

of roads and minor increases in other expenditures; silviculture

increase is 4 percent due to our nursery field staff and district field

staff; supplies and service decrease about 5 percent due to operating

cost reductions; and capital increase of 50 percent due to our capital

program in our nurseries. I hope that that has covered the areas of

concern to the member.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I want the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Curtis) and my colleague the member for Nanaimo (Mr.

Stupich) to take account of what the minister has said: that the

ministry is forecasting a reduction in the harvesting program for the

province, and yet in the budget which this government introduced, a 23

percent increase in revenue from the forest industry was projected. Now

obviously both figures can't be right. It just goes to show, Mr.

Chairman, how totally disconnected, insulated from reality this

government is in terms of forecasting the revenue for the province for

the coming year. The ministry is forecasting a disaster in the forest

industry, and it's reflected in the budget of the minister before the

House now for debate,

whereas in the budget presented by the Finance

minister a different picture altogether was forecast. You can't

rationalize those two figures. I suspect that the Minister of Forests

is correct. I suspect that those people in the industry who are saying

that there's not going to be an economic turnaround this year are

correct. I suspect that the Minister of Finance is going to have a

major problem on his hands to deal with the budget for the next fiscal

year, because the predictions he made for this one are obviously so far

out of kilter at this point in time that one can give very little

credibility to any of the other figures in the budget either.

[ Page 8221

Mr. Chairman, once again we see the starvation of worthwhile

programs in the Forests ministry, and we see a dedication of vast

increases to bureaucratic functions of the ministry. I cannot

understand why these reductions in the crucial areas are taking place

while the minister explains to the House that BCBC, having taken over

control of the accommodations for the ministry, have now jacked their

price up to an astounding fee and result in an increase, I believe, of

over $10 million in the current fiscal year. This is the ministry, Mr.

Chairman, that was going to bring a new era of efficiency to the

administration of the forest industry. It was called reorganization,

and what they did as a result was to phase out forestry offices and

facilities from literally dozens of small towns throughout the length

and breadth of the province, places like Enderby and Chase and New

Denver, damaging the economy of all those small villages, removing

forestry staff from their close proximity to the resource where they

should be, where they could get a handle on the management of the

resource, where they were in a better position to respond more quickly

to fire outbreaks. All of that has been abandoned, and instead of any

saving we see a massive increase in building occupancy for the

ministry. Some efficiency! Absolute nonsense!

Mr. Chairman, again we see waste, we see examples of fat, we see

examples of profligacy in this government. They can't control their own

expenditures. They can't afford their own habits of excessive travel,

and indeed absolutely amazing appetites for both food and the best of

wines, and yet this is the government that asks the people of the

province of British Columbia to show restraint and tighten their belts.

Mr. Chairman, if this government is to have any credibility whatsoever,

they have to lead by some example. They have to start showing some

restraint themselves.

If they are not prepared to cut the fat out of the excessive padding

of budgets by the various ministries, we are prepared to do the job for

them. Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I move that vote 43 be reduced by the

amount of $10,324,310, which represents waste again, and an increase

over last year, not even a cutback.

On the amendment.

MR. NICOLSON: This particular amendment for reduction is

probably one of the largest amounts we will be proposing through the

departmental estimates, and it is probably the most easily justified.

Two years ago the building occupancy charges for the ministry were $3.5

million. Last year they went up to $10.5 million, an increase of 229.3

percent in one year. This year the increase is to $19 million, almost

$20 million, an almost 100 percent increase just for building occupancy

charges as a result of the so-called reorganization, I don't think

there can be any question: any member of this House who takes a

responsible attitude toward the spending of taxpayers' dollars wants to

see funds directed towards productive activity, not towards increasing

the amount of fancy office space, which has gone up in two years from

S3.5 million to $20 million.

At the same time, this government fails to give commitments to

private entrepreneurs who want to start growing seedlings for his

department. They actually stopped Crows Nest Forest Products

(Industries) from building a nursery plant in that member's riding.

They also told Crestbrook Forest Industries, who showed interest in

building a nursery for seedlings: "Don't call us; we'll call you." I

have seen correspondence from the ministry that was so convincing in

terms of a commitment to Georama Flowers. who are committed to building

a nursery for one million seedlings, that Inland Natural Gas undertook

a very expensive extension of their gas line from Nelson out to this

area to serve Georama. Then this was stopped by the ministry in

Victoria. Until this government changes its priorities from building

fancy houses to building glass greenhouses, I will certainly support

this amendment.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 22

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 2 9

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Mussallem

Brummet

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division

in the Journals of the House.

MR. HOWARD: I just want to raise a very brief question under

this, Mr. Chairman. It is interesting to note that on an earlier

occasion when a proposal was put forward to do something positive and

helpful in the forest industry by way of productivity, the minister sat

silent and didn't even respond. But the very next second a proposal was

made to cut a few dollars out of his budget and he leaped to his feet

in defence, showing he is far more interested in squandering the public

money than he is in doing anything positive to help the industry.

I want to raise with the minister something that is not very helpful

to local areas. In what few tree-planting contracts have been let — the

experience has been related to me in our area — the contractor brings

in his workforce from outside the area, from wherever he may come. He

brings his own workers with him to engage in the tree-planting, the

site preparation and whatever silvicultural work is going on with

respect to that contract let by the government. The local people who

arc quite competent and quite able to do the work themselves stand on

the outside and look in. I think that's a very inappropriate way for

the government to run the affairs of this ministry — namely. to deny

the local people the opportunity to become employed when public funds

are used in silvicultural practices. I wish he'd correct that situation.

[ Page 8222

Vote 43 approved.

Vote 44: fire suppression, $17,956,320 — approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES

On vote 49: minister's office, $262,008.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased that I am

speaking today on a total increase of 17 percent over last year's

estimates for the Ministry of Human Resources. I hope you will approve

a total of $986 million in these estimates. May I just remark that,

when it is a difficult time in our economy and there is an economic

downturn in our economy, the size of this vote for social services

shows the total commitment — a proven commitment — to providing social

services to the people of British Columbia. I might just say that it's

always a lot easier to have that kind of commitment in good times in

the province. It shows the strength of our commitment that this

government has a commitment to social services under less prosperous

economic conditions than what we have been used to. To be able to

improve the calibre of social services during periods of fiscal

restraint is truly indicative of this government's priorities.

I want to refer back one year, the Year of the Disabled in the

province of British Columbia. The year 1981 was the International Year

of Disabled Persons. Our government contributed more money to that than

any other province or the federal government. We contributed $3 million

in total for public education, community involvement and for different

projects which received grants, all of which have made a significant

contribution to the international year. My colleague the hon. Minister

of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) is to be commended as the minister

responsible for that year. In commending him, I would like to pay

tribute to Douglas Mowatt, who was named British Columbia director of

International Year of Disabled Persons, and all the committee who did

such a find job in that year. Our ministry's commitment is to continue

the levels of services through existing programs and also to develop

more community-based services for mentally handicapped citizens.

Let me just refer to four programs which this ministry is very

pleased to have developed — some in conjunction with other ministries —

which pay tribute not just to the year of the handicapped but to the

ongoing years when this province will serve the handicapped citizens in

a better way.

In conjunction with the Minister of Education, about two and a half

years ago we developed the CHANCE program. It will spend $360,377 this

year. That program enables those young people who are handicapped to

have help within the classroom. It brings a human resource worker into

the classroom with the educators of the province. No longer will those

young people have to be educated in their own homes or by a program

that is a hit-and-miss program at best. They are able to get into this

classroom and have that kind of normal experience that all youngsters

in our province should have within the classroom.

The development of our life skills training program has been an

important program for our ministry. It assists the handicapped to

develop life skills and brings to the handicapped in our province a

more normalized kind of existence within the community. Over $325,000

is set aside for that program this year.

The development of special needs day care is extremely important in

our province and has been developed with the special needs child care

workers and child educators in the province. Over $200,000 is going

into special needs day care. That integrated day care, which is being

used in several centres, has been such a boon to those youngsters who

have special needs. That is an important program.

The development of residential programs. This year we will spend

over $900,000, and some of the young people in our community who are

mentally handicapped or handicapped in one way or another will be able

to have a very nice home life and an attractive setting within the

community and within a residential setting so that they will have a

more normal lifestyle. This has been a wonderful step in the right

direction.

Our commitment in this province should be to have the spirit of the

International Year of the Disabled carried on in the years to come. Our

government is committed to that. I have just named only four programs

of several that we have within our ministry.

I would like to speak about the commitment to seniors in our

province. Our attention has been focused on the needs of senior

citizens. I would say that if one were to take the record of our

achievement in the area of commitment to the citizens over 65 years of

age, we can take a great deal of pride in the kinds of commitment and

the attention that has been given to the needs of the senior citizens.

In July of this year the United Nations World Assembly on Aging will

meet in Vienna. I would think that at that world assembly there won't

be any other community or country that will present programs which will

be any more admired and even envied than that which comes from the

province of British Columbia — the service which we have for our senior

citizens in our province. Only in the last month when the senior

citizens met in an Okanagan community, they decided that the services

were so good that they didn't have anything to complain about at all.

They felt very good about the services that the government of British

Columbia provides.

Through our GAIN for seniors supplement, British Columbia pensioners

are provided with a guaranteed minimum income that increases four times

a year through the federal government program. Currently, a single

senior gets a combined income of $505.74 a month as of April 1982, and

couples receive $926.24 monthly, effective April 1982. I am pleased to

report that just in these last few hours we have issued a press release

which pays tribute to the increase in SAFER benefits for seniors. We

have announced a significant increase in maximum allowable rents for

senior citizens qualifying for shelter aid. As you know, our government

has been committed for several years to an annual review of financial

aid to elderly renters, in order to help them meet the rising cost of

shelter. Effective July 1, 1982, the new maximum rent level for singles

will be $330, which has been increased from the $265 level, and for

couples $365, which has increased from the $295 level. The last

increase came in July 1981, which shows that we are moving apace with

the marketplace, and trying to shelter — which is the whole idea of

Shelter Aid For Elderly Renters — the senior citizens against those

increased rent levels.

I can give you an example of a senior citizen who qualifies for a

GAIN supplement to her federal pension. She pays a rent of $330 a month

out of her pension income of $505.74. Now that she qualifies for SAFER

assistance, before July 1 she gets $84.96 in SAFER and as of July 1 the

[ Page 8223

benefit will increase to $133.71 a month. That's a significant

assistance on a month-to-month basis for this senior citizen — almost

$50 more a month by this change which was announced in these last few

hours. SAFER benefits equal up to 75 percent of the amount by which

rent exceeds 30 percent of the applicant's total income. The applicant

has to be 65 or older, receive Canada old-age security benefits and

meet a residency requirement. So we're very pleased and proud of that

SAFER program. It has been copied throughout the nation, and it has

been looked at by jurisdictions throughout North America.

I can't talk about senior citizens without paying tribute to the

senior citizens' counsellors in our province. May I also pay tribute to

the person who really initiated that program right in this House, and

that was the late Isabel Dawson, who represented Mackenzie in this

Legislature for some six years. It was Isabel Dawson's dream to have a

senior citizens' counsellor, who would be able to talk with another

senior citizen with any need that they had, any concern that they would

have. Even if it were something that had to do with the federal

government pension, they would have the in