1988 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 1, 1988

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4771 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Vancouver Stock Exchange. Mr. Sihota –– 4771

Mr. Harcourt

Temporary government clerical staff. Mr. Clark –– 4772

Economic development regions. Mr. Blencoe –– 4772

Ministerial Statement

Emily Carr Gallery fire. Hon. Mr. Veitch –– 4773

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

On vote 40: minister's office –– 4773

Mr. Miller

Mr. Williams

Mr. Jacobsen

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Vant

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

In the members' gallery today we have a very distinguished visitor, Mr.

Jean Davaux, who is the consul-general of Belgium at Vancouver. Mr.

Davaux is leaving Vancouver to return to his motherland in Belgium, and

I know this House will wish him the very best of fortune and Godspeed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are approximately 25 grade 6

students from the R.L. Clemitson Elementary School in Kamloops, who are

down on a history tour of Vancouver, Seattle and Victoria. They have

just completed their tour and will be on their way back to that great

constituency of Kamloops. On behalf of the second member for Kamloops

(Mr. S.D. Smith) and myself, I would like the House to make them

welcome.

MR. GABELMANN : My legislative assistant,

Judy McCallum, is a former member of the Chilliwack Players' Guild.

This year the Chilliwack Players' Guild won the best play award for the

Fraser Valley zone, and they are here in Victoria representing the

group in the provincewide competition, Mainstage. Their play is Agnes

of God, and it is directed by Astrid Beugeling and Jan Farrell. In the

House are the costume designer, Rita Plowman, and properties manager.

John Plowman. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : In the legislative building today — and I had the pleasure of meeting with them — is

a large group of students from Oliver Elementary School. I would ask

the House to extend their welcome to the group visiting from this fine

school in Oliver.

MR. REE : In the gallery today we

have two gentlemen from the North Shore who are endeavouring to

establish an enterprising venture on both the rivers and the coastal

waters of British Columbia. I'd ask this House to welcome Capt. Robert

Hunt and Michael Porter of Spirit Sea Fantasies Ltd.

MR. DE JONG :

With us in the House today are 35 grade 11 students from the Abbotsford

Christian Secondary School. They are accompanied by two of their staff

members, Mr. Ralph Huizenga and Mr. Martin Gelderman. I ask the House,

on behalf of the first member for Central Fraser Valley (Hon. Mr.

Dueck) and me, to extend to all of these folks a hearty welcome.

MR. HUBERTS :

In the gallery are two great constituents from Saanich and the Islands:

Mr. Martin Olivier and Peter Sou. Would the members please welcome them.

Oral Questions

VANCOUVER STOCK EXCHANGE

MR. SIHOTA : I've been watching with interest the actions by Mr.

de Gelder, the superintendent of brokers, in the Carter-Ward situation in the

last few days. Left untouched is any action against the individual brokerage

houses that were involved: namely, Canarim, West Coast and Continental. Left

untouched are any actions against the brokers involved, and they played a significant

role in complicity. Left untouched is Mr. Richard Pomper, a former floor governor

at the VSE who was instrumental in the fraud, and Ron Beiber, a former senior

listings officer with the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

With

respect to the brokerage houses and the brokers involved. does the

minister believe that the public interest is served by allowing the

licences of the brokers to continue and by having no fines levied

against the brokerage houses?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : I

dozed off for a minute, but I think I caught it all. The rather lengthy

introduction seemed to be dealing with the Vancouver Stock Exchange and

the regulatory examinations being conducted by the B. C. Securities

Commission and the Vancouver Stock Exchange. The hon. member

conveniently puts himself in the position, of course, by virtue of

raising these issues, of being able to say: "Well, as a consequence of

my representations, the regulatory authorities obviously responded." He

has made that sort of statement in the past. He knows full well,

unfortunately, that I cannot lead in these matters in this kind of a

public forum. It is a matter of public record that the VSE board of

governors is examining the circumstances surrounding the Carter-Ward

affair. Mr. de Gelder was quoted in the press yesterday as confirming

that he and his staff have been in the midst of examining the

documentation surrounding that matter for some time. Mr. de Gelder is a

public servant and is constrained by the legislation, and therefore due

process must be followed.

[2:15]

is imperative, I think, and in the interest of the democratic process,

that if any action in terms of discipline or re-action of court

proceedings is to take place, the people so affected must have the

comfort of knowing that the investigatory processes have been followed

to the letter and in a fully legally enforceable way. Premature action

without adequate preparatory work could quite likely result in failure

of the disciplinary measure being undertaken; conversely, premature

discussion of examinations which subsequently might have been proven

legally unenforceable would also do a disservice to the system. I am

very comfortable with the public statements expressed by both the

chairman of the Vancouver Stock Exchange and the superintendent of

brokers, Mr. de Gelder, in terms of ongoing examinations. The matter is

unfolding in a thoroughly satisfactory way, as far as I am concerned.

MR. SIHOTA :

The minister says he can't lead, and it is true that this minister has

not shown one scintilla of leadership with respect to this matter. It's

true that a lot of people, including the minister, have been dozing.

The VSE was dozing for three years with respect to the Carter-Ward

situation, and they've been dozing for some time since then.

learned today of another court case out of Montreal about a stock

swindle that occurred on the Vancouver Stock Exchange. It's my

understanding that that matter, which I'm sure the minister is aware

of, was brought to the attention of the SOB's office and the VSE one

year ago without any investigation — three years of non-investigation

on Carter-Ward and at least one year investigation now. Can the

minister explain why the VSE and the SOB's office failed to

[ Page 4772 ]

ini t iate any investigations on the Levesque Beaubien situation once they were alerted to it a year ago?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : The answer is no.

MR. HARCOURT :

Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. We've had in the past three months the

Carter-Ward in the courts, we've seen the Cumo Resources decision in

the courts, and now we have the Levesque Beaubien case involving

International Majestic Holdings, another court action initiated in

Montreal involving fraud manipulation on the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

These

matters and the continuing inaction of the government are endangering

the financial reputation of this province, Mr. Minister. How much fraud

are you prepared to tolerate before agreeing to our demand for a

legislative probe into the Vancouver Stock Exchange? How much, Mr.

Minister?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Mr. Speaker, the hon.

members opposite obviously had a difficult problem arising this morning

from the late partying the night before and as a consequence had some

trouble preparing their questions for this period. This is the

consequence of too much laxity and personal enjoyment, I think, Mr.

Speaker.

The fact of the matter is that comments made in

this forum about matters which are currently under review or possibly

under review, which the alligators — if that is an appropriate word — know

full well I'm not able to confirm or deny by virtue of either damaging

the process or the reputation of innocence.... They know full well I'm

unable to deal with that in this public forum. Yet they persist in

raising these kinds of issues in this very arena, knowing that I'm

impotent to deal with them in a public way.

If the hon.

members have a genuine concern about the issues at hand, then I invite

them to join me in a full and frank discussion with my officials and

the other regulators so that we may share in confidence the progress

being made on a variety of these initiatives.

Their failure

to accept that generous offer in a spirit of sharing information, so

that concerns, if genuine, can be satisfied, only leads me to conclude

that they have one abiding interest and one interest only: to destroy

the reputation of the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

TEMPORARY GOVERNMENT CLERICAL STAFF

MR. CLARK :

A question to the Premier. As part of your privatization announcement

last year, you said: "There are too many temporary assistance

employees." As a result the privatization study group recommended and

your government implemented a policy using companies like Kelly

Services and Office Assistance to fill clerical vacancies. Can the

Premier inform the House whether costs to government have been reduced

as a result of this policy?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I will take that question on notice. I don't have that information available just now.

MR. CLARK : A new question to the Premier. I have here a confidential

memo instructing the Ministry of Health to utilize Kelly Services and another

company. The memo indicates that no money will be saved. The rate the government

pays is $11.25 per hour to Kelly Services and $11.46 per hour to Office Assistance.

The normal civil service rate is $10.87 per hour, so it may even be costing

more to use these kinds of services. Could the Premier indicate what the justification

is for contracting out services if it in fact costs the government more money

and there are no savings to the government?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

If you simply compare hourly salaries one with another, you obviously

don't get an accurate picture. There are many other considerations when

you institute a program of this nature. The intent of government — and we've proven to be very successful in that regard already — is

to save the taxpayers money and provide a greater degree of security

for our people in the sense that we're not locked into a particular

situation but have some flexibility.

MR. CLARK : A

supplementary question to the Premier. I have evidence, Mr. Premier,

that the women working for these companies are earning $7 to $7.50 per

hour. The contracting company is raking off over $4 an hour. The

company makes $160 a week for every one of these women who are working

in the government. It seems to me that this kind of rake-off by these

private companies is obscene. The government saves no money by doing

this, but the workers are suffering significant reductions in their

security and in their wages and the private company is making $160 a

week. Mr. Premier, I think this is really a moral question as to how we

treat....

MR. SPEAKER : Is the member finding a question somewhere?

MR. CLARK :

The question is: isn't it time, Mr. Premier, to reverse this policy?

What is happening is that there is no benefit to the government for

doing this, but hundreds of women workers are seeing their wages and

working conditions decline dramatically. Isn't it time to reverse the

policy when the private contractor is making these kinds of profits?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I think we're looking at the whole of government with a view to, as I

said, ensuring a greater degree of security and providing government,

on behalf of the taxpayers, with much more flexibility. I realize that

philosophically we are coming at this differently. I am also reminded,

obviously, when I listen to the member across, that when the NDP came

to power for the very short term in our history — when they in fact governed — the

first thing they did was enlarge the public service tremendously and

create a great degree of inflexibility. I'm sure that people throughout

the province will be aware of that and that costs, as we recall them

too, skyrocketed enormously. We are not about to learn from the NDP

experience.

We as a government are setting out to provide

an approach which will definitely save the taxpayers of this province a

tremendous amount of money, which will provide us with more resource to

assure good social programming in a continued way and to not risk that

resource to the province and not put the taxpayers at risk in following

the NDP example, which we are all reminded of when the member speaks.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGIONS

MR. BLENCOE :

I also have a question for the Premier, about decentralization. We are

now nine months into that undemocratic united states of British

Columbia experiment,

[ Page

4773 ]

with $14 million allocated basically for propaganda for the government. We

have had little or no action by that program, a multitude of committees and

task forces, councils and small business not sure what is happening in the province,

and now the mayor of Kelowna saying that we are creating nothing but tension

and further confrontation. When is the Premier going to end this undemocratic

experiment in confrontation in the province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I am well aware that the downtown Vancouver and downtown Victoria party

don't support decentralization. I am well aware that the member who

just spoke doesn't know a whole lot about these other regions of the

province which feel that they are equally entitled to see their

economic projects come to fruition and well entitled to be involved in

priorizing the social services, the facilities, the programs and the

equipment that ought to be provided to a particular region.

The

decentralization process is working wonderfully throughout this

province. I mention it every time I meet with a group wherever it is in

the province, and there's tremendous support for decentralization from

people everywhere in this province. We saw an example only a week ago

in Summerland. Because the minister of state was involved with people

at the local level, we were able to assist in assuring that a new

fruit-processing plant would become a reality in Summerland. This plant

will provide jobs and will provide people an opportunity to see their

product brought to market because there is a processing means available.

Decentralization

is being received well not only in Boundary-Similkameen, where the

people speak highly of it and where they're extremely supportive of it.

It's being received in South Okanagan, in North Okanagan, in the Peace,

in the Cariboo and in all of those great regions of this province which

make British Columbia such a diverse place with tremendous

opportunities for all our people. We intend to continue to recognize

all of those regions of the province.

Yes, we care about

downtown Vancouver. Yes, we care about downtown Victoria. But we're

able to see beyond downtown Victoria and downtown Vancouver. That's why

this government was elected in '54 and again in '57 and again in '61

and again in '64 and again in '67 and again in '70 and again in '79 and

again in '83 and again in '86, and that's why we will continue to be

elected.

Interjections.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Ask me again tomorrow, and I'll answer it again.

Ministerial Statement

EMILY CARR GALLERY FIRE

HON. MR. VEITCH :

Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a brief ministerial statement. Last evening

there was a fire at Bastion Square. There was some smoke and water

damage to the Rithet Building, which houses the Emily Carr Gallery. I

want to assure the House that no damage at all was done to the

paintings. They have been removed from the building and everything is

under control. I thought the House would wish to know that.

[2:30]

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

FORESTS AND LANDS

(continued)

On vote 40: minister's office, $304,458.

MR. MILLER :

I just want to go back and cover some ground with the minister with

respect to the opportunity for public input into renewal of management

and working plans. We talked briefly yesterday about that. Referring

back to the Thomson report in terms of their second recommendation and

the minister's comments following that report, it was obvious that

during the lead-up to the presentation of the final management and

working plan in this particular instance — and I am not familiar with others — there was a fair degree of delay, first of all, in

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Pardon me for interrupting. Hon members, the member for Prince Rupert

is very valiantly trying to make a point. Could we have some order,

please.

MR. MILLER : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I

needed that assistance. I think the minister was paying attention, but

I'm not sure about the other members. I don't want to repeat myself. I

think the minister heard most of what I said.

There was

obviously a fair amount of delay, first of all, in the company

finalizing the plan before it was made public; if I'm not mistaken, as

much as a year's delay. Secondly, the minister and the Forest Service

had obviously been alerted that there was a great deal of public

interest in the management working plan from various people on the

Queen Charlottes — the communities, the Council of the Haida Nation and

others. Some of those serious allegations that eventually came to the

surface and caused the minister to engage T.M. Thomson to conduct the

report had indeed been made public at the time, and yet the groups, in

attempting to deal with the information that they thought was

legitimate in view of the problems they saw with the renewal of the

management working plan, felt quite frustrated. I know they felt

frustrated in trying to get information from the licensee. I believe on

the method of measuring waste levels, for example, the licensee

indicated that that was their information; it was privileged

information for the company alone. Yet the public and these groups felt

that in order to comprehend the plan, they had to have access to that.

There was a great deal of delay in getting that information.

The

minister acceded to a request to delay the

schedule of hearings and

final implementation of the plan, but that wasn't satisfactory to the

parties. We go back and bring all that back I'm really only talking

about one renewal of a management working plan. I have no information

on other management working plans, but it seems to me that in his

recommendations Thomson recognized I'll read point two of the

conclusions and recommendations to bear out what I'm saying:

"Both M&B and the Ministry of Forests and Lands followed

established procedures in the preparation and review of management working plan

6. However, it was evident that the public was very interested in the draft

of management working plan 6, particularly as to its effect on block 6, the

Queen

[ Page 4774 ]

Charlotte Islands, and the chief forester extended the public

viewing period for the management working plan.

"It

is recommended that the public viewing period as allowed for under the

Ministry of Forests and Lands procedures be extended by three months.

Where there is community concern, such as the Queen Charlotte Islands,

it is also recommended that a public meeting be held with the Ministry

of Forests and Lands and licensee representatives in order to explain

the key strategies of the management working plan. "

Would the minister advise whether he intends to follow the recommendations outlined in Thomson's report?

HON. MR. PARKER : The recommendations over and above the waste survey recommendations are under advisement at this time in the ministry.

MR. MILLER :

They may be under advisement, but can we not have a little more

discussion from the minister about what he is considering? I'll quote

from a press release issued by the minister on April 14: "Parker said

he appreciates one of the report's conclusions, that the public review

process in the development of the management working plan for the area

could have been longer. 'Under some circumstances the time for public

input should be extended to allow for a full discussion before approval

of a management working plan,' the minister said." Is that generally

indicative of the review or under advisement that the minister talks

about?

HON. MR. PARKER : Those are the sorts of items that we have under consideration.

MR. MILLER :

When he says it's under advisement, is the minister considering any

changes to regulations that would formalize the longer viewing period

for more and better access for the public in terms of consideration of

the management working plan?

HON. MR. PARKER : The matter is under consideration at this time.

MR. MILLER : I appreciate that the minister is a considerate guy.

want to deal with a couple of other privatization issues. I wonder if

the minister could advise at this date what the status is with regard

to the forest nurseries. We know from the limited information we've

been able to glean that some employees made proposals to purchase. It

appears that they were rejected and that the government is now in

receipt of 11 proposals. The proposals are not firm bids, as we

understand it, but expressions of what might take place.

Could the minister just advise us what the current status is of that situation?

HON. MR. PARKER :

The appropriate committee is reviewing the submissions, and we're

starting to narrow them down. I would expect that we'll be able to wind

things up by the end of next month.

MR. MILLER :

Could the minister advise whether any restrictions would be placed on

the facilities as they exist in terms of their current production and

further production, and whether any restrictions would be placed on

those facilities in terms of the new owner being allowed to use part or

all of the facilities for alternative uses? Are the people who

ultimately will be the successful bidders on the nurseries obliged to

continue to operate as though they were — I'll use this term, but clearly you understand my meaning — owned

by government. They were set up as nurseries for the particular purpose

of providing seedlings. I think they've done an excellent job, and do

not support their privatization. Are those kinds of restrictions going

to be imposed on successful bidders?

HON. MR. PARKER :

The nurseries are being sold as going concerns. As business enterprises

they will do what they see fit in the future, depending on

circumstances. The demand for forest seedlings in the province is in

the vicinity of 200 million, and probably greater than that this year.

That's a tremendous market opportunity for these nurseries because they

have, to date, formed part of the basis for the supply of the 200

million seedlings we enjoyed during 1987.

MR. MILLER :

Is the minister saying that the new private owners of these facilities

are free to do what they see fit as private owners with the land and

facilities that they will be purchasing?

HON. MR. PARKER :

The nurseries are being sold as going concerns. If the new owners

decide at some future time that they want to do something differently,

as long as it's within the laws of the land and within the zoning

requirements of the municipalities or the regional districts in which

they reside, then certainly they can proceed as they see fit.

MR. MILLER :

In the case of the Surrey nursery, it has been suggested that there's a

great deal of value in the lands that form part of that operation. If I

take the minister's comments and apply them there, then the successful

bidders would be quite free in the future, or on becoming the owners,

to realize the highest value that the market would offer, whether that

be in selling the land for residential purposes or some other purposes

or carrying on any other type of business that may bring a higher value

to them than operating a nursery.

HON. MR. PARKER :

The Surrey nursery remains with the Ministry of Forests and Lands, as

does the nursery in Salmon Arm. The Green Timbers nursery is being

discussed, and Green Timbers is located in Surrey. Perhaps that's the

nursery the member meant. Both the Forest Service and the land service

are discussing with the municipality what to do with that particular

one, because it is a heritage piece of ground. It was the site of our

first nursery in the province and has been supplying seedlings to

British Columbia for almost 60 years now. We're working out with the

municipality what may be done there, so it's not liable to go to any

developers that we know of. We would prefer to work with the

municipality and see that the municipality guided the destiny of that

particular piece of property in exchange for a piece of land that may

be more suitable for economic development of some kind.

MR. MILLER :

To return to the fundamentals of the situation, as I see it, the

minister is saying that following the removal of the nurseries from

government control, the owners of these operations can do whatever they

like. Yet the

[ Page 4775 ]

public

has spent a considerable amount of money to develop these operations

for a much-needed purpose, to supply seedlings for the market. Why has

the government not decided to put the kind of restrictions on the sale

that would provide for the operations to continue to be used for the

purpose for which they were originally developed?

[2:45]

HON. MR. PARKER :

I was diverted from the member's question for a moment, but I believe

that the question is why aren't the nurseries destined to be nurseries

forever? Is that the essence of the question, Mr. Member?

Interjection.

HON. MR. PARKER :

I've explained that the nurseries are being sold as going concerns, as

business undertakings. They have contracts in place, and it's up to the

operators of the nurseries to determine if they want to be in the

business or not. Certainly the market is there, the needs are there,

the demand is there and the interest that has been presented to

government in the purchasing of these nurseries is from people who are

in the forest renewal business. I presume it will continue that way,

but there won't be any undue restrictions on the purchasers.

MR. MILLER :

I have some difficulty, Mr. Chairman. The purpose of privatization, as

I've heard it expressed on numerous occasions by representatives of the

government, is to turn it over to the private sector; the private

sector can somehow do the job better than the government can do it. We

can disagree on that, and we do, but the government seems to have gone

one step further and is saying that this isn't privatization; this is

simply selling off assets. There's a fundamental difference between

privatizing a particular operation and disposing of assets the

government might own.

HON. MR. PARKER : I think the

member is confused. The disposal process is one of selling going

concerns, not selling off assets. They are businesses that are being

offered, and it's businesses that are being tendered by interested

parties, including employees. It's not the intention of this government — it might be the intention of his party — to restrict the personal freedoms of the individuals concerned.

MR. MILLER :

He keeps straying into these personal freedom arguments. To come back

to the central point, the people of this province, through their

government, over the years have spent a considerable amount of money to

develop nursery operations to provide seedlings for reforestation. To

do that was for many years seen to be a goal that was part of

government's job. The minister is now saying they intend to dispose of

the nurseries without having any requirement that the nurseries they're

disposing off be continued for that purpose. That is not privatization;

that is liquidation or disposing of government assets. You're assuming

that the business conditions will be right and that those who buy the

operations will never want to change. If you believe in the marketplace — and you keep talking about the marketplace every time you stand up — then

that isn't necessarily the case. If there's a higher value in some

other operation, or even disposing of the land for housing or you name

it, then that's presumably the wisest business decision. The wisest

business decision is not necessarily the best decision for government.

There's a fundamental difference.

HON. MR. PARKER :

The forest nurseries are being sold for fair market value. There's a

great deal of interest, and the values expressed by the different

parties reflect the opportunities in that field of endeavour. This

isn't a fire sale; it's a sale of going concerns. What takes place down

the road is the decision of the players of the day. Whether or not it's

used for any different land use depends on local government zoning and

not on the terms of sale.

MR. MILLER : There's a heck of a difference. Let's use another example. The province has developed and is selling — or may have sold by now — a

conversion plant where they convert vans into ambulances. It was

developed for a particular reason. There was a decision by government

to set this up. It filled a need; it did the job. If we apply the same

kind of logic the minister is using, we sell that, and if the people

who buy it see an opportunity for greater profit in doing some other

kind of work totally unrelated and simply take the position that

they're not going to do the job that public money was expended for....

There was a social purpose for spending that public money. The

government is not prepared to tag those social responsibilities onto

the sale of anything they're disposing of under privatization.

HON. MR. PARKER :

Mr. Chairman, I restrict my comments to the estimates at hand, so I'll

restrict my comments to the Forests nurseries which are under my

purview. I think I've made it quite clear to the House that there will

be no restrictive covenants on the sale of the nurseries and that they

will be used forever as Forests nurseries, whether or not that makes

good economic sense and is in the best interests of the people of

British Columbia.

MR. MILLER : That's fairly clear.

With

regard to the scaling institute that was part of the proposal under the

changes to the Forest Act, could the minister advise what the current

state of that proposal is?

HON. MR. PARKER : Mr.

Chairman, the possibility of a scaling institute is still real, but it

is one of the lower priorities of the ministry at the moment.

MR. MILLER : Is the minister following the results of the study on that, regardless of the priority — the study done by, I believe, Sterling Wood Group with regard to the options available for a scaling institute?

HON. MR. PARKER :

The recommendations from the report named are being considered, and as

I mentioned earlier, the issue is one of low priority in the ministry

at this time. It's not an active discussion and is unlikely to be for a

few weeks yet.

MR. MILLER : I asked the question

whether the Sterling Wood report was the basis for consideration by

government in terms of any changes. Could the minister confirm or not

confirm that?

HON. MR. PARKER : Mr. Chairman, the

recommendations are part of the considerations but not the basis of the

considerations, if that's the question.

MR. MILLER : Would the minister advise what other work besides the Sterling Wood...? I understand the

[ Page 4776 ]

Sterling Wood report was done on a very quick basis — something

like a week in order to file a report. What other work is the minister

doing then if...? As he describes it, it's not an immediate priority;

it might happen in a couple of weeks. A couple of weeks strikes me as

being fairly immediate. What other work has the minister done to inform

his ministry on this question in terms of what the ministry may do?

HON. MR. PARKER :

The matter of the scaling institute is a matter of low priority at this

time, and it probably will not be under active consideration for a few

weeks yet.

MR. MILLER : Did the minister not hear my last question?

HON. MR. PARKER : Did the member not hear the answer?

There

are no considerations for a few weeks yet. When we get to it, then

we'll have it under consideration. After we have it under

consideration, then we'll have some determination of what may take

place.

MR. MILLER : So the minister has done no other work besides the Sterling Wood report. Is that correct?

HON. MR. PARKER : There has been some internal work done, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WILLIAMS : I wonder if the minister could advise us what the AAC is in the South Moresby National Park that's currently being negotiated.

HON. MR. PARKER : Mr. Chairman, national parks do not have AACs.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Maybe the minister could advise us what the AAC is in the area

designated for a national park that is within the licence operations of

Western Forest Products.

HON. MR. PARKER : Mr. Chairman, we can get that number and bring it back to the House.

MR. WILLIAMS : I'm sure your staff could give us the range — something around 300,000 cubic metres a year within the park?

HON. MR. PARKER : Mr. Chairman, we'll offer accurate information in due course.

MR. WILLIAMS : The total Moresby cut is 432,000, I think, not all of which would be in the park. Maybe your staff could confirm that.

see in this morning's paper that Western Forest Products is arguing

that it is a $100 million asset. Preliminary estimates working between

the two governments — federal and provincial — arrived at a figure

around $31 million, if my memory serves me correctly, so they are

talking about even three times that. This whole issue is currently hung

up, as we understand it, on the bargaining over what these timber

rights are worth. I wonder if the minister has reflected about this

question in terms of these very substantial values that are being

claimed by Western Forest Products. Is it of concern to him that they

are arguing a number that is so high?

HON. MR. PARKER :

It seems to me appropriate that a licensee would be concerned about a

reduction in his annual allowable cut and what it is worth to him, and

I would expect that the licensee would hang a price on it.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Could the minister explain what that price would represent, since this

is Crown-owned timber? What would the justification be for $100 million

for Crown-owned timber?

HON. MR. PARKER : Contractual obligation.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Contractual obligation. We have a statute coming up that deals with

that, don't we, brought in by this administration. There's no

compensation either, no access to courts either, out of this

administration. So much for the contractual obligations. But $100

million — Mr. Minister, isn't it true that this licence would have no value if we collected the full economic rent of the forest?

HON. MR. PARKER :

I guess what the member is suggesting is that full economic rent of the

forest is total destruction of the forest industry of the province.

It's shocking, isn't it?

MR. WILLIAMS : The whole

idea, as I understand it, in the private sector is for the

industrialists to make money out of the processing, not to make it out

of the public's trees. The whole idea of retaining public ownership of

the forests of British Columbia is to retain the benefit for all

British Columbians as the great land heritage of British Columbia.

a relatively minuscule area, this private company is arguing that they

are deserving of $100 million for timber that is the Crown's. Has the

minister reflected on what that company paid for everything they bought

in the first place in terms of pulp mills, other licences and so on? Is

the minister aware that there has been a tradition, at least into this

modem stage of the Social Credit administration, that it was required

at the time of transfer of any of these assets that, one, it be

approved by the minister? Two, the standard has always been, at least

until your predecessor Mr. Waterland, that the numbers be put forth to

the ministry in terms of what was being paid for.... So never, ever did

ministers approve of the transferring of Crown assets — i.e., timber — for

dollars. They would only approve transfers of actual private assets:

that is, pulp mills, sawmills, equipment and the like. That was the

tradition under Mr. Williston for 20 years and under the NDP

administration.

What is your policy, Mr. Minister, in terms of approving transfers outside of private sector property?

[3:00]

HON. MR. PARKER :

My purview comes under the Forest Act and has to do with the licences

of the licences, the health of the forest industry, the state of the

economy of the province and the returns to the people of British

Columbia, and we take those things under consideration whenever we are

asked for a transfer.

MR. WILLIAMS : Has this minister, then, approved transfers of licences where clearly substantial values were attached to public timber?

HON. MR. PARKER : The transfers of forest licences amount to a request to transfer, pure and simple, and we

[ Page 4777 ]

consider the request for transfer. It's not a real estate transaction.

MR. WILLIAMS : I didn't hear that last part. Did the minister say it is not a real estate transfer?

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS :

It's not a real estate transaction. But, Mr. Minister, when it's you,

it's not a real estate transaction; when it's the national government

bargaining with respect to a national park, and it's a private company,

then it is a real estate transaction. It's pretty good for the company,

isn't it? So you're saying that you have no trouble, that there was a

policy established for some 25 years in this province that would not

allow the attaching of value to public timber at the time of transfer,

that it had to be real private assets. You're now saying that is not a

concern and not a requirement of this administration.

HON. MR. PARKER :

The Moresby issue, Mr. Chairman. There's a withdrawal of a substantial

allowable annual cut from a licensee, and the value of that allowable

cut for the well-being of the enterprise is what's in question. Who

hangs a value on it remains to be seen. But it is not a real estate

transaction, and the member opposite knows that, because he's certainly

been in the real estate business. The transaction is not a real estate

transaction; it's forgone cutting opportunities advanced under the

terms of a timber contract. It's that simple.

MR. WILLIAMS :

But if these forgone cutting opportunities.... If we charge for the

timber what it was worth, then they simply would have no value. Do you

understand that?

HON. MR. PARKER : Mr. Chairman, I only understand the ignorance of the questioner, I guess.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

MR. WILLIAMS : We'll just let that one slide by, for what it was worth.

The important issue here is that what's happening is a continuing capitalization of the undercharging of the value of the forest — to

the point where Western Forests Products is making this incredible

claim that you're undercharging to that extent; that it's worth $100

million. That's what it is in economic terms. They're saying that

because we undercharge for the timber, holding those cutting rights for

that length of time has a value to them of $100 million. Isn't it

strange? Do you have some comment, now that you've had some help?

HON. MR. PARKER :

Well, Mr. Chairman, I guess I could ask: what's the value of the

licence for a drinking establishment or nightclub? That too operates

under a licence, yet it seems to be dealt with as an asset on the books

of most of those types of establishments and in the trading of most of

those establishments.

Anyway, the British Columbia Forest

Service charges fair market value for the timber of the province, so

that the people of the province get a good return, a fair return, and

the industry of the province remains substantially healthy and is

reinvesting in its physical plant to make sure it's in good shape for

future generations of British Columbians.

MR. WILLIAMS :

The minister might reflect on the provincewide implications of this

problem in South Moresby if we extend the tree-farm licence tenure to

the degree you're proposing in your policy statements — close to 70

percent. If we're challenged to the tune of $100 million for the part

of one TFL that we want for other uses, what are the likely financial

implications in terms of reversion and change over time, by

transferring at no charge other licences into TFLs?

HON. MR. PARKER :

I don't mind at all commenting on Moresby and the impact on the people

of British Columbia. The proposed park at South Moresby has removed a

substantial volume from the allowable annual cut of British Columbia

forever. That's an annual allowable cut, which means it's a cut that

takes place every year; and we have to forgo it because people

elsewhere in the world think it's a great idea to preserve the entire

chart area of the national park reserve instead of that which was

suggested by the Wilderness Advisory Committee, made up of British

Columbians who understand better the province of British Columbia, its

needs, its requirements and its well-being. So we had foisted on us by

external pressures a loss of ongoing economic activity and employment

for this province — and it's a shame, I guess. That's all I can say, Mr. Chairman. It's very short-sighted, and it's a loss to all following generations of British Columbians.

look forward to seeing substantial lands in British Columbia under

intensive forest management to help make up that shortfall caused by

the withdrawal of preservation undertakings such as South Moresby. We

will probably see a lot more preservation moves, such as the Stein,

three or four areas in the Cariboo, a few on the north coast, a few in

the northeast and some more over in the Kootenay, as various

single-purpose groups want to see large chunks of British Columbia

reserved for wilderness, like Dr. Suzuki told the crowd in Ottawa: "

...at least 75 percent of British Columbia into wilderness

preservation."

I don't know who is going to be working, but

that doesn't matter. I guess if you have tenure in a university, you're

okay. Fortunately, through the intensive forest management that we'll

see evolve under a greater degree of tree-farm licence management,

we'll help make up the shortfalls that the preservationists have

foisted upon the people of British Columbia.

MR. WILLIAMS :

The real Minister of Forests is speaking, so that's something. He is

clearly contradicting government policy and the Minister of Environment

(Hon. Mr. Strachan) and the Premier, and so be it. There is a

government decision to establish a national park in South Moresby.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS :

No. It's clear enough, despite the champion of literacy on the other

side. Let's leave the lurid side aside and look at the numbers. We have

an annual cut in British Columbia that is somewhere around 75 million

cubic metres. Is that not so, overall, on an average? We have something

in South Moresby of under half a million. There is no question about

that, I think. The number I have for all of the TFL in Moresby — and I don't think all of it is acquired — is 432,375 cubic metres, so let's just say....

[ Page 4778 ]

they're saying that this licence is worth $100 million to them, we have

to multiply that by the 75 million cubic metres provincewide, and you

want to make most of these into TFLs. Is my number work correct? Does

that come to $140 billion in timber rights, provincewide?

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS : It's not hard to just do the calculating.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS : Oh, you want 70 percent. Okay, then it's 70 percent of $140 billion, which...

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS :

...is 98. Thank you. The member from Nanaimo says $98 billion. It's a

lot of money. Why on earth, when the province is going through this

learning exercise currently in South Moresby where the private sector

is making these arguments that their cutting rights have an enormous

value, would the government entertain the idea of expanding those kinds

of cutting rights that put them to this kind of challenge in the future?

time goes on there will be different and conflicting demands on the

forests, on the public lands of British Columbia. In many instances

there will be a case for the transfer of those lands to other uses. Why

on earth should we entertain the idea that the province should be held

for ransom to get back its own land for other needed uses as perceived

in the public interest?

MR. S.D. SMITH : That's the whole point: it's going to another government.

MR. WILLIAMS : It's going to another government?

MR. S.D. SMITH : It's another jurisdiction.

MR. WILLIAMS : It's another jurisdiction. So?

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Hon. members, I would ask the members to direct their questions through

the Chair, and we will keep some order and decorum in the House.

MR. S.D. SMITH : Do you want to subsidize the people in Rosedale? Is that your game?

MR. WILLIAMS :

Oh, I see. The argument, just for the sake of getting it on the record,

from the second member for Kamloops is that because it's the national

government it doesn't matter, in a sense. The national taxpayer is

somebody else; it isn't us in British Columbia.

MR. S.D. SMITH : You know that's not the argument.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Oh, that's the argument as I perceive it, Mr. Chairman. The issue is

that once the principle is established that these cutting rights are

worth these enormous amounts, be it $30 million, $60 million or the

$100 million, that is a principle that should concern us all, in terms

of the freedom of future governments to rationalize programs

provincewide and to open up opportunities in this sector. For us to

idly sit by and see these numbers escalate the way they are should be,

if not a reason for action in terms of dealing with Western Forest

Products, at least a reason for inaction in terms of future TFLs.

Doesn't

the minister see that the implications in South Moresby when you write

them provincewide are that we might be looking at challenges in the

$100 billion level, strange as it is to say?

[3:15]

HON. MR. PARKER :

I guess I might come to that conclusion if my research was a newspaper

clipping and I took the thing at face value, but I imagine things go a

little more deeply that. Perhaps after more sustained research the

member opposite might have a better grasp on the matter. For now, he's

quoting from a newspaper clipping which may or may not have the numbers

right. It's a claim, not an evaluation; the market determines

evaluation. There's negotiation to take place, and both levels of

government understand that. They are discussing that issue.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Even if it's the $31 million that government acceded to as a likely

number, is that not reason enough for concern? Thirty-one million

dollars for that small area. If you parlay that in terms of the kind of

cutting rights you're talking about provincewide, it's of equal

concern. The numbers are huge no matter how you put them together.

HON. MR. PARKER :

I imagine that if you took somebody's liquor licence and passed it on

to a neighbour, the licensee would probably expect some sort of

compensation for forgone business on which he had planned his physical

plant and his employment levels and made his market obligations.

MR. WILLIAMS :

The minister can do as he likes in that territory, but the principle is

clear in terms of timber. This is real land, public land in British

Columbia. Real trees, some of the best trees in the world, and we're

supposed to get a return from them that is significant. We're supposed

to manage them for the benefit of the public. We have a private company

arguing that it's $100 million worth, and we have government saying:

"It's $31 million worth. Let's bargain."

Surely a

government that finds itself in that kind of a box would simply say:

"Let's not do that again. Let's not establish the kind of licences that

makes us vulnerable, like this one has done." Isn't that a reasonable

conclusion to come to out of this exercise?

HON. MR. PARKER :

In 1912, with the establishment of the Forest Service and the first

Forest Act, it was determined that we would sell our timber by licence;

the cutting obligations would go out by licence and the Crown would

retain title to the land. When we offer those licences, we offer an

obligation that that wood supply will be coming. Accordingly, the

licensee sets up the conversion plant and all the infrastructure to

support that from stump to market. When you pull a substantial part of

the wood supply from him with minimal notice, we can expect to have to

compensate the licensee to some extent, having seen him operate in good

faith and meet his obligations.

MR. JACOBSEN : I can't help but get involved in the discussion at this point. I think it's really very interesting.

[ Page 4779 ]

The

member for Vancouver East has obviously learned a lot about the value

of trees in a very short time. I can remember quite clearly that when

some of us were concerned about dedicating this large area to a park

not too many months ago and questioning whether it was fair to take

this resource away from the people of British Columbia in perpetuity — whether

it was fair to the people that work in the forest industry that they

should lose their jobs and a right to earn an income — it was that

member and his people who were adamant that it should be made into a

federal park. Now he's concerned about the value of those trees, and he

states that they are some of the best trees in the country, if not in

the world. It's good to see that he's come to recognize that fact, but

it's too bad he didn't recognize it earlier and support the woodworkers

and the forest industry when he should have been supporting them.

MR. WILLIAMS :

The interesting thing is that Western Forest Products has 2.5 million

cubic metres in annual cutting rights. They bought the assets of what

was the Rayonier Corp.; at any rate, other assets — pulp mills and so

on. If you put these numbers together, you come up with a huge number

for cutting rights. That means they got the pulp mills and everything

else for free when they bought out this operation just a few years ago.

Does that make any sense, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. PARKER :

I think you'll find that the employees of the Western Pulp group think

it was a great idea that Western Forest Products, B.C. Forest Products

and Doman Forest Products all pooled their resources and went on the

hook for the acquisition of that plant and kept it alive, kept it

fuelled and saw fit to steer the sawlogs and the peeler logs that were

being consumed by that pulp mill — steer them into conversion plants,

sawmills and plywood plants and redirect low-value logs to that pulp

mill. That's the sort of thing that took place. It was the market

forces and good common sense on the part of the licensees and their

management that brought that all together.

That has served

British Columbia extremely well. It has kept the job opportunities on

the northern coast and the northern part of Vancouver Island. It has

sustained substantial revenues to the Crown. It has seen better

utilization of the wood, which the members opposite yesterday seemed to

think was a very important thing; evidently today they've changed their

minds. We see better utilization of the forest because of that type of

consolidation. That's the sort of environment we want to provide the

industry of British Columbia: the opportunity to expand, consolidate,

stabilize and provide good utilization of our forests and good returns

to the Crown and the people of British Columbia.

MR. WILLIAMS : If you look at the numbers again, they've got 2.5 million cubic metres in cutting rights. If you parlay that — I think the 400, 000 figure is probably excessive in terms of Moresby because of it not all being included — and

you use their $100 million number, you're getting up to the $500

million or $600 million number for timber alone. Then you throw in the

company and the pulp mills and equipment and other assets of the

corporation and it's very clear that this is a huge, balloon number

around public timber and the cutting rights.

What we have here is a minister who's supporting all that and saying it's

all fine. Why not? Why shouldn't the company? The member for Kamloops is

saying it's okay because it's the feds. But we all get our neck in the

noose down the road when the province wants some of these lands for other purposes.

There's a goal of increasing the public parks and ecological reserves in

British Columbia, and I think many of them are reasonable goals. As time goes

on there will be increasing demands, and realistically it will impinge on some

of these licences. If not these, once you reach up to that 70 percent level

that you're talking about, then they will be impinged on. There is no question

about it.

What

you're building in for yourself is an incredible financial liability

that will tie your hands behind your back and prevent the most

reasonable public policies from evolving because you've accepted this

kind of principle. Isn't that a matter of concern?

HON. MR. PARKER :

The government of British Columbia has very reasonable policies. It has

very reasonable policies in my ministry and in the government as a

whole. We see the confidence that the world has in the province, and

it's prepared to invest and help develop the province and provide the

job opportunities and the market opportunities and all the service

opportunities that come with that. I don't have a problem with good

forest management. I don't have a problem with good economic

development management, which this government has demonstrated time and

time again.

If we keep going back to the member's example, we're talking hypothesis, we're talking fictitious numbers — we're

talking air, basically, because there are no hard numbers there. He has

indicated that the stated number from the federal and provincial

government in discussions to date is something in the neighbourhood of

$31 million compensation for licensees. That's probably a bit of an

indication of the cost of preservation. The folks of British Columbia

should probably pay attention to that and get a feeling for the trend.

MR. WILLIAMS :

The trend is satisfactory, then, for the minister. The trend is an

indication of under collection and under pricing of resources, and that

trend is acceptable, is it?

HON. MR. PARKER : The

British Columbia Forest Service charges fair value for the Crown

assets, namely standing timber, and we retain the ownership of the

land. The return to the province for the asset, the raw material, is

right and proper. The development in the industry is fight and proper.

The employment opportunities are fight and proper. All the taxes and

sales taxes that evolve from that economic activity are right and

proper because they support the many benefits offered by the government

of British Columbia, including social services, education and health

care.

MR. WILLIAMS : The minister says British

Columbia retains ownership. If we retain ownership, can the minister

explain how come the people who don't own anything are going to get $31

million or $100 million?

HON. MR. PARKER : Contractual obligation.

MR. WILLIAMS : So the minister is saying that the contractual obligation is even better than ownership. That's what you're saying, isn't it?

HON. MR. PARKER : The member should not purport to speak for me at any time. Whatever value is determined by

[ Page 4780 ]

the negotiating process will be a proper value for the contractual obligations.

MR. WILLIAMS :

This really establishes that this minister has no trouble with policies

that entrap us to this extent in huge future liabilities through the

licensing game. You can call it contractual obligations, but when you

sign the next tree-farm licence deal, just remember what kind of

birthright you're giving away.

HON. MR. PARKER : I'm sure the member opposite will, when he sells his bar, consider the value of the licence he has to sell spirits.

MR. MILLER :

The minister likes to compare liquor licences and tree-farm licences,

and that's a pretty simple comparison which, I'm sure, is designed to

impress people in the industry with his ability in that regard. As far

as I know, pubs don't grow on the street comer, but maybe the minister

has a different view of it. The trees and land were here, Mr. Minister,

and you just happened to move into this province. Unfortunately for a

lot of people, you're now in charge of administering that.

The

question of harvest was raised, and I want to get into that. I briefly

asked the minister yesterday about the level of harvest. In 1987 we hit

about 91 million cubic metres. The minister advised us that's within

the five-year cut control. Could the minister just review those numbers

in terms of what period of time he's using?

[3:30]

HON. MR. PARKER :

In 1987 the allowable annual cut from tree-farm licences, forest

licences, timber sale harvesting licences, timber sale licences, wood

lots and miscellaneous licences that fall under TSA management came to

77,941,000 cubic metres; and the volume from other tenures, such as

private lands, old temporary tenures outside the TSAs, Indian reserves

and miscellaneous others, was 12,621,000. So the total output from the

province was 90,562,000. The allowable annual cut for 1987 was 108

percent of the present level of provincial allowable annual cut.

MR. MILLER : Has the minister done the calculation, to save me...? I didn't bring my calculator. What does that produce? Were you saying

that the annual allowable cut for '87 was 108 percent of the 75 million

forecast by the province?

HON. MR. PARKER : I'm saying that the cut of 77,941,000 cubic metres is 108 percent of the provincial allowable annual cut.

MR. MILLER :

The provincial allowable annual cut is identified in the 1987-1992

five-year forest and range resource book put out by your ministry as 75

million cubic metres. Is that ...?

HON. MR. PARKER :

I don't have a calculator here either, Mr. Chairman. All I have is a

handwritten sheet from one of my staff. These aren't my numbers; these

are numbers provided by staff today, and it says 108 percent of the

1987 level.

MR. MILLER : I would recommend this book to the minister: "Five-Year

Forests and Range Resource Programme" — Province of British Columbia — "1987-1992." I quote: "A major goal is to maintain an average

provincial timber harvest of 75 million cubic metres per year."

HON. MR. PARKER :

The member's question was what percent is 77,941,000 of 75 million, and

I said I did not have my calculator here, as he doesn't.

MR. MILLER : Could the minister comment on the significance — if any — of

the "Five-Year Forest and Range Resource Program 1988-1993" where the

wording has been changed somewhat and goes as follows: "The goals of

the harvesting program are to maintain an average provincial... harvest

of 75 million cubic metres per year or more...."

HON. MR. PARKER : Would the member please repeat the first part of his question?

MR. MILLER :

Is there any significance to the change in the two reports, where the

newest report has added, after the 75 million, the qualifying words "or

more"?

HON. MR. PARKER : That statement indicates

that we want to be able to maintain at least 75 million and to increase

that by whatever means possible. That would include a change of

economic criteria for stands that aren't presently in the allowable cut

calculation. It would mean the results of intensive forest management

and the inclusion of species that haven't been used to date.

MR. MILLER : So the minister has no particular figure in mind when he adds, "or more."

HON. MR. PARKER : No, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MILLER :

Presumably the 75 million represents the best guess at this time in

terms of the capability of the forested land in British Columbia to

yield timber and continue to yield at least that same volume.

I received a copy of a letter — perhaps the minister is aware of it as well — from

Prof. Reed of UBC wherein he raises a number of questions with regard

to the annual allowable cut and the implications of various scenarios

in terms of reforestation, silviculture and intensive silviculture. I'd

like to run through the questions with the minister, because it seems

to me that, coming from a respected academic like Prof. Reed and

relative to such an important question, the answers would indeed be

important.

Just to preface, Mr. Reed states in the first

part of his letter that the long-range sustained yield in the province

is approximately 55 million cubic metres per year. Does the minister

agree with that statement?

HON. MR. PARKER : Mr.

Chairman, I would have to hear the whole letter that the member is

quoting from, so I get an appreciation of what Mr. Reed was trying to

communicate. Then if the member would like to ask specific questions

such as the one he just did on whether the long-range sustained yield

is something in the neighbourhood of 55 million cubic metres, we'll

find that information. But I'd like to hear the whole communication

from Prof. Reed.

MR. MILLER : I don't mind reading the whole letter, if that's what the minister is asking. Okay, we'll do that.

[ Page 4781 ]

AN HON. MEMBER : We've got a lot of time yet.

MR. MILLER : Well, we don't have that much time; there's lots to go through yet.

The

letter is addressed to Mr. Marr and dated February 25; I'll just get

right into it. "It's apparent that we in the forest community are still

rather primitive in our approach to strategic planning."

wasn't going to ask that question, but now that the minister has asked

me to read the whole letter, he might want to comment on all the

component parts of it. You're sure you don't have a copy over there?

You could follow along.

"With this fact in

mind, may I suggest an approach which is likely to meet with the

combined approval of government, industry and the trade unions.

"The

obvious context for this recommendation is the serious over-commitment

of the British Columbia forests, as shown in the following schedule.

Long-range sustained yield, approximately 55 million cubic metres per

year; AAC, 75 million cubic metres per year; harvest in 1987, 90.6

million cubic metres per year; industry capacity, approximately 100

cubic metres per year.

"The long-range

sustained yield indicated here at 55 million cubic metres annually

assumes that the present silviculture program of roughly $250 million

per year will continue indefinitely. Thus there is an important gap in

volume between the long-range sustained yield and the AAC, a gap which

does not even attempt to measure a disturbing decline in log quality

and an increase in delivered cost.

"Moreover,

there is another serious imbalance...the difference between the AAC and

the current harvest level. And topping it all off is an industry

capacity which is at least one-third higher than the presently

calculated AAC.

"These numbers represent a

challenge which is not being addressed, largely through a failure to

understand the dangers involved in the status quo. Given the urgency of

closing these gaps and indeed the benefits of increasing the saw timber

AAC through intensive silviculture, I have listed on a separate page

ten questions....

"Not a single one of the

half-dozen silviculture modelling exercises now being developed in B.C.

will give policy analysts the answers to even one of these questions.

It will be necessary therefore to improvise on a more practical level

rather than to wait for the ultimate modelling tool. There are skillful

people in your ministry and the private sector who could be drawn on

for a set of reasonable answers.

"The results

of the silviculture program review have demonstrated that our current

silviculture efforts are pitifully inadequate. I fear that all the work

that you have put into new policies will amount to little in the

absence of a rigorous strategic framework, and if we do not begin this

promptly, then someone else will be stepping in.

"Meanwhile,

on an emphatic positive note, I believe that intensive silviculture is

justified in British Columbia as it is in competing regions outside

Canada. This will become apparent as we develop answers to the attached

list of questions."

Does the minister want to comment on the letter thus far?

HON. MR. PARKER :

I thank the House for its patience while the member read into the

record Professor Reed's letter of February this year. The professor is

certainly entitled to an opinion.

We operate in the

ministry under the considered opinion of the chief forester and his

staff. with a substantial data base, who concluded that the allowable

annual cut level of the province is 75 million cubic metres and that

intensive silvicultural and forest renewal are an absolute must for

responsible forest management of the province. We have established that

quite clearly in our legislation within the last year, and the industry

knows best how to build its plants. If it sees fit to build the plants

a little larger than the wood supply will sustain, then they must be

looking at filling it with raw materials from other sources as well — which

is good. I would like to see us as a net importer of raw material into

this province, because it means additional conversion, employment and

economic activity.

MR. MILLER : I've heard the

phrase, "Industry knows best," and it seems to have guided the

philosophy of this government since it has been in office. Quite

frankly, one wonders why we had to get into these massive taxpayer

programs in order to do the basic reforestation and silvicultural work

that should have been done a long time ago in this province. Or is that

simply a failure on the part of previous Social Credit administrations?

HON. MR. PARKER :

Previous governments, including the socialist government of 1972-75,

operated on the same basis: that they were responsible for forest

renewal. They didn't change it when they were in, but we changed it,

and industry is responsible for forest renewal.

MR. MILLER :

The professor's letter makes a number of statements. I will ask him now

before we get into the questions posed. I wouldn't discount entirely

Mr. Reed's qualifications or knowledge of the industry in this

province. To dismiss it as lightly as the minister seems to want to

do.... Actually, the minister seems to have a habit of dismissing

almost anything anybody says who does not agree with him, whether it be

the Premier or anybody else. That's fine. The minister can handle that,

I'm sure.

Mr. Reed states in his letter that we are

primitive in our approach to strategic planning. Could the minister

advise how we are not primitive?

HON. MR. PARKER :

The question is: can I demonstrate to the member opposite how we are

not primitive? I don't see him wearing his breechcloth in the House

today, Mr. Chairman.

[3:45]

MR. MILLER :

If that was a demonstration of how we are not primitive, Mr. Chairman,

I'm afraid the minister has failed miserably. He has just demonstrated

that he is unable to answer a pretty basic question. It seems to me

that estimates are a time when the minister, with his extensive

knowledge of the forest industry of this province — a forester himself — could

stand and give at least a short explanation of the kind of work that

the province is doing that would counter this rather serious statement

by the professor.

[ Page 4782 ]

HON. MR. PARKER :

The people of British Columbia enjoy one of the highest standards of

living in the world. Half of the economic activity of this province is

due to the forest industry, and the well-being of the forest industry

depends on effective forest management. This ministry offers effective

forest management; ergo we are in fine shape. We have, as I said, one

of the highest standards of living in the world, and that should

clearly indicate to the member opposite that we are well beyond the

primitive state of forest management in this province.

MR. MILLER :

I understand the deep reasoning there, and I suppose those who might

not understand it are those who have not shared in the wealth of this

province — who in fact are suffering in terms of the plenty that we

have. It's a rather shocking situation we've also tried to deal with,

getting nowhere as well, with this government. If the minister's

analysis is that because we have one of the higher standards of living

in the world, therefore we must be doing everything right in terms of

planning in our forest, I suppose we'll just have to leave it to others

to decide whether or not that's a very good analysis.

The

letter goes on: "...there is an important gap in volume between the

long-range sustained yield and the annual allowable cut, a gap which

does not even attempt to measure a disturbing decline in log quality

and an increase in delivered cost." Would the minister care to comment

and elaborate on that situation from his point of view?

HON. MR. PARKER :

The ministry's point of view is that the proper allowable annual cut

for the province at this time is approximately 75 million cubic metres.

We'd like to make that a little bit more a5 we work on the forest

resource and things develop so that we can use species that heretofore

weren't used, and stands that were economically inaccessible or

economically inoperable before.

As for one man's guess as

to what long-range sustained yield might be, how can I comment on

somebody else's idea? My opinion is that we will see a growing level of

allowable annual cut of the province, and we will see the development

of a forest industry that up till now hasn't been really perceived by

the general public. The research people will tell you that there are

opportunities that are just about commercially possible to convert

fibre in a number of ways that will make a lot of the technology we

know today obsolete in the not too distant future.

The only

thing we can do as forest managers at this time is take this snapshot

in time, see what the parameters are and ensure that the wood supply

will meet the standards that we know today. We're doing that, and we're

satisfied that our numbers are good.

MR. MILLER : The

minister is saying that he is gambling that the growth will come in

primary processing, in more use of timber; that the timber supply has

to grow, or we'll have to take more timber to see that kind of growth

in the industry; that we won't see that growth in the industry on the

secondary end; it's going to be in the primary end; let's just use more

volume of timber. He's also gambling that technology — perhaps he's referring to pulp processes — will presumably allow more efficient use of the fibre and therefore we won't have a problem.

HON. MR. PARKER :

There will be remarkable developments in all facets of the forest

industry as we go along, everything from the soil and its management

and what we know about it, which is the foundation of the entire

business, right through to the markets. All segments are included in my

statement.

MR. MILLER : Just getting into some of the

direct questions posed by the professor in dealing with the gap, as he

describes it, between the long-range sustained yield and the AAC, could

the minister advise what kinds of silviculture treatments will be

required, what the cost would be and how long it would take to close

the gaps in the forest regions of British Columbia?

HON. MR. PARKER : I don't think the member has been listening. We haven't identified a gap; he perceives a gap.

MR. MILLER :

I'm offering Prof. Reed's considered opinion on behalf of me and the

public of British Columbia, and I am hoping to get some responses from

the minister. There's no problem with No. 1. There's going to be a

short letter back to Mr. Reed that I assume your deputy is going to

write.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Would the member please continue.

MR. MILLER :

I am being slightly distracted, Mr. Chairman, by my colleagues, who

advise me to advise the minister to keep his gap shut. That was a poor

joke. Did the minister get it?

The fifth point the

professor makes in his letter is that he asks: "What changes do we

foresee in log quality and product volumes — lumber, chips, fibre — under (

a) status quo silviculture and (

b) more intensive management as it is implemented over coming decades?"

HON. MR. PARKER :

On the basis of today's standards for log grades, as we move away over

a period of years from old-growth timber to second-growth managed

timber, if we use exactly the same grade parameters that are in place

today, they will be different.

MR. MILLER : Does the minister foresee — and this is my own question, not Prof. Reed's —

any serious fall downs in any of the forest regions with respect to

either the volume or the quality of fibre that will be available for

processing?

HON. MR. PARKER : I think we have some 36

timber supply areas in the province, and all the tree-farm licences are

separate from the timber supply areas. They too are sustained yield

areas. As you go through a rotation age — and the rotation can be as

short as 40 years or 50 years in some of the very high sites in the

lower coast, to as long as 120 years to 140 years in the far northeast

of the province — there will be times when the distribution of age

classes is such that you have slightly less volume or slightly more

volume than the long-term average. There is a range that occurs.

MR. MILLER :

Could the minister be more specific? Clearly the only example that I

will quote at present is on the Queen Charlotte Islands, where Crown

has notified both its employees and, I believe, the Forests ministry

that they anticipate a falldown as they run out of their accessible old-

[ Page 4783 ]

growth

timber and move into their second-growth. The graph goes like that, and

there is a serious falldown that will result in lower levels of

employment and lower quantities of fibre available to the processing

facilities that they cut for.

There is going to be a

falldown. It's going to have an impact on that operation. It would be

naive to suggest that that's the only one in British Columbia. What

work has your ministry done in identifying those areas where fall downs

are likely to occur, and what assessment of the potential impact has

been done by your ministry in terms of employment levels, impacts on

communities and the whole range of questions that flow from that kind

of thing happening?

HON. MR. PARKER : Now the member

is speaking specifically to a particular cut block or operating block

in a particular tree-farm licence. We're off the empirical discussion

of the Prof. Reed letter, and he'd like a specific answer to a specific

case on a specific part of the Queen Charlotte Islands. That's

extremely difficult to do when we're talking about the estimates of the

ministry.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The impact

of variability in a rotation of the allowable cut of a particular area

is some dislocation from that particular piece of geography. It might

be several square miles or it might be tens of square miles. The

tree-farm licence, I presume, has an annual allowable cut level and a

number of operating blocks along the coast, probably from somewhere on

Vancouver Island up to as far as the Queen Charlotte Islands. The cut

is probably being reduced up there until the age classes are mature,

because you don't want to be cutting immature timber. That's not

effective forest management. So we'll be withdrawing from the cutting

activities there and translocating them to another part of that same

tree-farm licence. That's probably what's happening.

MR. MILLER :

Mr. Minister, I didn't ask you for specifics on that particular

instance. I related that particular instance; I have the specifics in

my office. I've seen the presentation that the company put together. At

least they were upfront with their employees in terms of what is going

to happen down the road.

I've asked you specifically, as

the Minister of Forests, to advise the House what kind of work and

analysis you have done with respect to the question of falldown and its

potential impact on the various regions of this province. You've

expressed your strong feeling that we have no problems; that somehow

we'll muddle through, whether it's in terms of the application of new

technology to processing or the ability to get into new stands of

timber, or whatever. But clearly other people have indicated that they

foresee fall downs in the timber supply in various regions of British

Columbia. I cited a specific example to indicate that.

I'm asking you as the Minister of Forests — and the person who should be in the best position to know — what

kind of work and analysis you have done in your ministry with respect

to that question. Would you advise the House where you see that

happening, if you see it happening? What dislocations do you see taking

place? Where are they going to be? How long are they going to be for?

There are a range of questions attendant upon that issue, and it's one

that is worthy of a frank approach in answering.

If I've

encountered any single issue in British Columbia that has caused fear

and concern and uncertainty, particularly in the small communities,

it's that question. It's the feeling that people have, and they get it

from reading some fairly knowledgeable people. that there is a

falldown; that it is going to impact them. So I'm asking the minister

to deal honestly and straightforwardly with that question. If the

minister has information that will allay those fears that exist, he

should offer it to this House and, indeed, offer it to the people of

British Columbia. And if he hasn't got that kind of information, he

should advise them of that as well.

[4:00]

HON. MR. PARKER :

Mr. Chairman, if I were more sensitive, I'd probably take affront at

the fact the member opposite suggested I should deal honestly and

straightforwardly in this House. If I were more sensitive, I'd probably

get upset about something like that. We are all honest and

straightforward in this House. I'm sure the member opposite tries at

all times to be honest and straightforward. I know I certainly do and

my colleagues do on this side.

The forest policies of

British Columbia are public information, so the people know what is

taking place. The timber supply area management plans are public

information. There's opportunity for public input and there's

opportunity for analysis whenever the timber supply area analyses are

being done.

The things that are taking place to ensure the

allowable cuts of the province are things like assured forest renewal

by industry, as a result of our policies; assured forest renewal of the

small business operating areas; the competitive sale areas that are

administered by the Crown; and the dedication funding, to make sure

that that does take place. That's been done by this government; it

wasn't being done by the socialist government from 1972 to 1975. They

did not make those commitments. It did not happen under their term of

office; it is happening under our term of office.

The

forest renewal commitment is there. The opportunity for intensive

forest management is there. And that opportunity is through an

increased tree-farm licence tenure in the province. We have been

working with the federal government, picking up backlogs that

accumulated in the past, including 1972 to 1975. We are ensuring that

there is no further backlog, because we made that contractual

obligation with the federal government when we signed FRDA I. We are

working with the federal government towards establishing a second

forest resource development agreement, along what we call FRDA II. We

are encouraging additional utilization of the forest resource by making

the investment climate attractive and helping identify the

opportunities to the business world, and the matter of value added. I

think we are doing a great deal to ensure the well-being of the forests

of British Columbia and to make sure that the wood supply is there for

subsequent generations of British Columbians.

MR. MILLER :

I'm sure the minister's favourite years were 1972 to 1975. He refers to

them constantly. Something significant must have happened during those

years to cause that minister to.... It's like one of those clocks: it

just keeps coming around and goes tick, 1972 to 1975. The minister must

have nightmares about 1972 to 1975. All I can say is, if he does I hope

he has them often and I hope he thinks about 1990. What are you going

to do next time — leave the province? Please.

That's fine; I don't mind taking responsibility for what happened in 1972 to 1975. In fact, I'm quite happy to take

[ Page 4784 ]

that

responsibility. But if the minister wants to suggest in his remarks

that there has been a failure of forest policy over the last 30 or 40

years, or whatever period you want to use, and that three of them have

to be blamed on a previous New Democratic Party administration, then

we'll accept that blame. But I would have to say that if that's what

the minister is doing, we'll take our 10 percent and we'll leave you

with the 90 percent of the blame for the failure of forest policy in

this province, instituted on the basis that what's good for the

companies is good for the province. That's like what's good for General

Motors is good for the United States of America, and even the Americans

don't accept that one anymore. But Neanderthal ideas are hard to change.

MR. WILLIAMS : Especially in Neanderthals.

MR. MILLER : Especially in Neanderthals.

Is the minister saying that intensive forest management will prevent fall downs in regions of this province?

HON. MR. PARKER : Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I was in discussion with my deputy. Would the member mind repeating the first part of his question?

MR. MILLER : Is the minister saying that intensive forest management will prevent fall downs in the various regions of this province?

HON. MR. PARKER :

Intensive forest management is part of the responsible forest

management of this government and this ministry. It's a segment, and

basic silviculture is also a segment. The careful utilization and

conversion of the resource is all part of the management. Intensive

forest management will contribute towards reducing any falldown in

various parts of the province at different times in a rotation.

MR. MILLER : Has the minister...? The ministry; when I say the minister I mean the ministry —

sometimes. Has the ministry identified, then, those areas most in need

of that kind of activity to prevent the fall downs I've talked about?

Can the minister advise where those locations are — not specifically, roughly; the regions in British Columbia — where that kind of work is required to prevent that happening?

HON. MR. PARKER : We are concerned about responsible forest management

on all the forest lands of British Columbia that are under the purview of this

ministry, and we are dealing with all of those lands all the time.

to when aberrations in cut occur, I can't say. There are some 35 or 36

timber supply areas in the province. They are each under a five-year

management and working plan, and the parameters for merchantability and

operability change. There's some variation in there that is very

difficult to identify.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PARKER :

Speaking from memory. The member is certainly privy to the timber

supply area reports throughout the province, and he can determine for

himself, as can anybody else in the province, what the current

management regimes are and what the long-range management regimes are

for each one of those timber supply areas.

MR. MILLER :

I notice the minister frequently stands up and comments about whether

questions are appropriate. I had always assumed that this was an

appropriate forum both for me to ask questions and for the minister to

take the opportunity to pass on information. Information that we impart

in this House is really information we're imparting to the public.

I've

asked the minister whether intensive forest management, in terms of

incremental silviculture, will prevent fall downs in various regions of

the province, whether the minister has identified those, whether the

minister is aware that the proper programs are in place, whether or not

there are going to be fall downs which will have an impact on

employment levels — a number of very serious, non-combative,

non-confrontational, honest questions trying to elicit honest

information. Do you think this is a trap? Do you think this is a game?

That somehow the more elusive your answer, the better it is? I can

advise you that that's not the case. We realize there are sources of

information. This is a public forum. Your obligation as a minister of

the Crown is to give that information across the floor of this House to

the people of this province. Is the minister unable to give the

information, or does he simply feel reluctant to give the information?

HON. MR. PARKER : If it will help, Mr. Chairman, we will table the timber supply area analyses for each timber supply area in the province — if

that means a great deal to the member opposite. I have answered

responsibly and completely. Each of the timber supply areas of the

province — and the province is completely covered under some 35 or 36 timber supply areas — has

a working plan, a management regime and its own idiosyncrasies. There's

a substantial amount of variability. That's one of the characteristics

of British Columbia. It's very difficult to compare to other regions of

the world, their performance and what they have for a forest resource.

We have a very diverse forest resource, a very diverse complex of

soils, terrain and species composition. To the best of my ability in

the House at this time, going from memory, I can tell you that the

Ministry of Forests has that information at hand. It is public

information and is shared with the public at all times. And intensive

forest management is part of the prescription to help offset any

aberrations in allowable cut over a rotation age.

MR. MILLER :

That will make the people out there who are asking those questions

happy. I'm sure they'll be quite satisfied with that kind of answer

from the minister.

In going around the province on the

forestry standing committee, I've received a lot of information, quite

apart from our mandate, on the timber supply situation in a number of

regions. For example, at the Nelson and Kamloops hearings we heard from

people in the industry that they are facing increasing problems with

timber supply. The operators there see the question of supply as a

particular problem. Their testimony to the committee was that it is

getting tougher and tougher to maintain supply. The Prince George area

has expressed the same position, that supply is becoming a major

problem.

Again, has the minister done the kind of

analysis...? If he has, could he tell us briefly what kind of analysis

he's done? Are mills facing timber supply shortages to the point where

there are going to be closures and increased unemployment? Just what is

the situation? Are we able to head off those timber supply shortages?

I've read numerous documents that

[ Page 4785 ]

talk

about the need to practise intensive silviculture to head off those

timber shortages. Are we doing that? Is the full range of those kinds

of activities taking place in the three regions I've mentioned, so that

the people who work in those regions, who run mills in those regions,

who live there, who don't wear loincloths, who like to take

part in

this province and enjoy the fruits of the wealth we inherited, can know

and understand that there's a Minister of Forests in this province who

is aware of the problem, is working on the problem and can give them

advice to that extent? Is that the case? In the three regions I've

talked about, is enough work being done in terms of possible timber

shortages that those kinds of things will be forestalled and we won't

see the closure of mills and laying off of people because of a shortage

of fibre?

[4:15]

HON. MR. PARKER :

The issues the member for Prince Rupert is raising have been answered.

Those types of analyses take place with the timber supply area

analyses. There's a five-year management and working plan for each

timber supply area in the province. An analysis is done for each one of

those areas and incorporated in its management and working plan. Each

of the forest regions of the province is made up of timber supply

areas. The information is available and is public, and the concerns the

member raises from people he's spoken to while he's been going around

the province on my ministry's Select Standing Committee on Forests and

Lands.... That is a committee that has not been used for a number of

years but has been resurrected by me and my ministry and authorized to

travel the province to hear concerns on logging contracts. It has

afforded that member and other members of that committee the

opportunity to have dialogue with various players in the forest

industry. It's most helpful for that member and other members of that

committee to get that information and education and to get a feeling

and understanding for the complexity of the business of forest

management and the business of the forest industry of this province.

That has been a useful exercise from that standpoint, and we'll wait

and see what the determinations of the committee are; I'm sure they'll

be most useful as well.

The member keeps asking if we as a

ministry know what is taking place in the timber supply areas of the

province and what the remedies or the prescriptions are or what the

procedures should be for each one of those timber supply areas. Those

are in each of the analysis reports. I'd say that the Ministry of

Forests and Lands has an excellent appreciation for each of the timber

supply areas, each of the regions of the province and each of the

concerns and what needs to be done. We have a commitment from this

government, one that has been put in place over the last 12 months to

ensure that all possible is done to continue good forest management and

to ensure that there's a continuing supply for the forest industry and

for the people of British Columbia.

MR. WILLIAMS :

I'd like to reflect on the.... Was it last fall when the minister made

a major statement about new policy? Was it around September or

something like that when you announced some of the items that are in

the current legislation before the House? I can't recall exactly when

that was. Was it around early fall last year?

HON. MR. PARKER : Yes, Mr. Chairman. It was mid-September.

MR. WILLIAMS : One of the points made by the minister, I believe, was that there would be no more funding of

section 88 roads. Is that so?

HON. MR. PARKER : That's right. There will be no more stumpage offset for the construction of roads, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WILLIAMS :

In September the minister established the new policy. We should reflect

on what that policy was. As the minister said, it was a stumpage

offset. It was a kind of welfare system for the forest companies. The

member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), the previous minister, and others had

expressed some concern about that. This was money being deducted from

what the Crown would normally get as stumpage. Has that, then, been the

policy of the minister?

HON. MR. PARKER : Mr.

Chairman,

section 88 of the Forest Act provides for payment to

licensees for approved capital projects on behalf of the Crown to be

made by credit note to the stumpage account. It's not a welfare

situation at all, as the member really knows but doesn't care to

elaborate. It's convenient for him and the member for Omineca to babble

on about it being welfare. The purpose of the exercise was to pay for

capital projects on behalf of the Crown within the licence areas

operated by the licensee.

Out of that emanated a

substantial amount of access throughout the province. especially for

recreational users and particularly those who like to use the high

country. They really appreciate having logging roads, forest roads.

It's the main-haul roads that we look upon as capital projects, not

branch lines, spur lines and the like. Yet those same lines are all

used by recreationists, hunters, geologists, butterfly hunters, those

who like to watch birds, those who collect insects as a hobby — people

who really appreciate having that kind of access. The capital roads, of

course, have to be maintained, so there's continuing access and

continuing use. It has been a useful exercise for the province.

During

the recession in the early part of this decade, a number of projects

had to go on to access timber stands and areas for timber extraction — some

of them by the small business program, Mr. Chairman, not just by the

licensee. Those costs were carried and held on the books by the various

licensees when they were approved capital projects — carefully

scrutinized and approved by members of the ministry. They had to carry

the costs on their books until times improved and their stumpage bills

picked up and could cover the costs of that asset. We had the full,

unfettered use of those assets, and I think we owe a big thank-you to

the licensees, who saw fit to continue providing the infrastructure for

all the users of the forests of British Columbia.

MR. WILLIAMS :

It was a very interesting dissertation. Ho hum. Your statement of

September was: no more money under

section 88; no new

section 88 roads.

The question to the minister was: is that the case?

HON. MR. PARKER :

The mid-September '87 statement was: "Effective immediately, no new

commitments will be made under

section 88 of the Forest Act, which

allowed companies to obtain a standard credit to stumpage accounts in

exchange for doing" — such capital projects as building roads. We have not made any new commitments since that time.

[ Page 4786 ]

MR. WILLIAMS :

Let's listen very, very carefully to what the minister said. He said we

have made no new commitments, in terms of

section 88 roads, since the

date when the policy was announced. I draw your attention, Mr.

Minister, to a letter you wrote December 1, 1987, some months later

regarding a

section 88 road in your riding, contrary to policy,

contrary to public statement and contrary to what you just now told the

Legislature. I think that's serious.

On December 1, you wrote to Shames Mountain Ski Corp. in Terrace, B.C.:

"Dear Sirs:

"Further to our meeting in Terrace November 14, this letter confirms our discussions on the Shames Valley forest road.

"The Ministry of Forests and Lands will accept a

section

88 proposal from the forest licensee Skeena Cellulose Inc. to bring the road

to two-lane all-weather standards. The road specifications will...be determined

jointly between you, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, and the Ministry

of Forests and Lands."

You direct all further inquiries to the district manager, Mr. Dodd. You send

copies to Mr. Mart, your deputy minister, and to many others.

Mr.

Minister, that is contrary to your stated policy of September. It's

contrary to what you've just told the House. You said there was no more

welfare under

section 88, and what we now have before us is a letter

from you clearly showing that you're willing to help your friends in

your own riding in a system that had been condemned across this

province. Who are Shames Mountain and that corporation? They're active

Socreds in your riding, people like Mr. Gerry Martin — active Socreds

on the board of directors of the Shames Mountain Ski Corp. Isn't it

about time you levelled? Isn't it time to 'fess up and retract what

you've been saying?

HON. MR. PARKER : The Shames

Mountain project was in discussion long before the September

announcement on

section 88. It was worked on prior to, during and after

the press conference that we held in Vancouver establishing new forest

policy. The policy was established through legislation, regulation and

subsequent dates.

The Shames Mountain road was not a new

commitment. It was more or less work in process at that time. The

confirming letter happened to be dated December 1, but as of

mid-September it was not a new commitment. It had been intimated prior

to that time that because of the joint use requirements of the road up

the Shames River valley, it was appropriate that public funds be used

to provide public access to a public destination resort. That's for the

well-being of the northwest of the province. It's part of the economic

development of the province.

Certainly there are Social

Crediters who have invested in that project, but they're not the only

ones who have invested in it. We usually find that it is Social

Crediters who invest in the province, because they have confidence in

the province and the business acumen to make a good project come

together.

MR. WILLIAMS : This is classic weaseling

that we are hearing from this minister, Mr. Chairman. We asked very

clear questions, and we got very clear answers.

AN. HON. MEMBER : You didn't listen.

MR. WILLIAMS :

We listened. You said that was the policy in September. You said those

were the rules. Then you were asked if any more concessions were given

under

section 88, and the answer was clear: no.

Then, when

you are confronted with your own letter of December 1, all of a sudden

we get the weaseling, and you say: "Well, it was more or less in

progress." If it was more or less in progress, you would have written a

letter in August or September, not in December. The letter in December,

under your signature — not your staff — goes out to the senior manager

in that region, and that's the word from you: "You build this road

under

section 88, and we pick up the bill, and it will help my Socred

friends in this venture with respect to a ski development." That's very

clear. You try to fudge it around after you are presented with the

information about a letter that you didn't think we would have access

to. That's the reality. Don't say that we don't hear over here. We hear

all too clearly.

What you were doing was misleading the

House just a few minutes ago, and what this letter proves is that you

were not telling the House what in fact was the case. The benefits are

there.

AN HON. MEMBER : Order!

MR. WILLIAMS : Yes, order, indeed. I think an apology is overdue.

[4:30]

MR. CHAIRMAN :

The hon. member said that the minister was misleading the House, and

that certainly is not parliamentary. I would appreciate it if you would

withdraw that, hon. member.

MR. WILLIAMS : How do you

call it, Mr. Chairman? I'm willing to withdraw. What words would you

give to the fact that this member said: "Those are the rules. No more

section 88 money and no more welfare." But then we find out: "In my

riding and for my friends, it's different." That's what we find out

just a couple of minutes later. To benefit this particular development — an outfit that had gone bankrupt in his own riding, which he befriends. He has not been straightforward with this Legislature.

HON. MR. PARKER :

The policy statement in the middle of September was quite clear that

there would be no new commitments for

section 88 stumpage offset;

that's a fact. I used the term that you could call the discussions on

the Shames Valley road as more or less "work in process."

Again,

it's a twisting of the words by the member opposite, which is his wont.

It's less than direct, and it's his hallmark, as most people in the

province can attest. His concern is whether there were any new

commitments, because we said there would be no new commitments. There

were a number of items in process at the time. That was one of them.

But after the announcement in the middle of September, there were no

new commitments to Stumpage offset.

MR. WILLIAMS : I

suggest to you that if this was in the normal process.... You are using

the weasel words, not us. You use the term "work in progress." Can you

give us a list of all the works in progress that exceed this? No, in a

minute. I have the floor.

Let's get it clear. This letter went out under your hand from your office. This is not the typical thing; oh no, it is not.

[ Page 4787 ]

the normal course of events, it would be in the bureaucracy. It would

be the senior officials of the ministry dealing with it; of course it

would. In this particular instance, when it involves your riding and

your friends, it goes out under your hand, and then you send a copy to

all the bureaucrats. What you are saying is: "This is the

commander-in-chief giving the orders. While we have a policy under

section 88, it doesn't apply here where it's my friends and my riding."

That's what that letter tells us. This is not a letter through the

normal channels of the ministry — not at all. This is a political directive for political reasons in the minister's home riding. That's clear.

HON. MR. PARKER : I write letters to people all over the province — in fact, all over the world — daily.

Yes, I do represent the constituency of Skeena. I'm proud to represent

Skeena. I'm doing a much better job than my predecessor, who sat

opposite. Skeena has seen substantial economic development in the last

12-month period. It's unreal the numbers that have been invested in

that constituency, and I am pleased that we as a government are able to

work toward public access up the Shames River valley, providing access

to a public destination resort which will benefit not only Skeena but

Prince Rupert and the area to the north and to the east.

Not

only that, it will help attract the skiing public from the panhandle

and other parts of Canada and the world, because fortunately we have

good air traffic opportunities into Smithers, Terrace and Prince

Rupert, which means that it's possible for international travelers to

come in, clear customs and enjoy all the things that the riding of

Skeena has to offer for recreation: the good development at Lakelse Hot

Springs.... The Shames Mountain ski area will attract many people,

together with the hot springs; they complement each other. The fishing

opportunities down Douglas Channel and in the various watersheds in the

Skeena constituency; the photography opportunities; the home of the

Kermode bear, the white variation of the black bear....

What

we do with our policies is make all of those opportunities available to

people all over the world. They are coming in in droves. We have a

substantial international trade in the Skeena constituency; it's really

burgeoned in this last 12 months. It's fortunate now that we have

government representation in the area to help make all of those things

happen, because it certainly didn't happen in the past.

MR. WILLI AMS : Put it down to the Kermode bear.

Interjections.

MR. WILLIAMS :

That's right. I think maybe it's appropriately named: Shames Mountain.

You told one story to the House a few minutes ago, and then you changed

your story. It's now on the public record that you play that kind of

game: something special for Socred members in your riding in terms of

this corporation that will benefit, in terms of the public picking up

the tab for the road to their development. That's plain, clear and

simple. Shames Mountain is the appropriate name.

HON. MR. PARKER :

The member opposite likes to talk about the road to Shames, suggesting

that the road is a shameful event. I guess that's what he's saying. I'm

sure the Shames family doesn't appreciate the use, the implication, but

what else can you expect? It's public funds that go into providing the

infrastructure for any type of economic development in the province.

It's public funds that go into hydro lines; it's public funds that go

into railways; it's public funds that go into highways; it's public

funds that go into hospitals; it's public funds that go into schools. I

don't know what that member expects.

Of course, the only

way we have revenue flowing is if we have commerce. We only have

commerce if business and industry are taking hold 4 the development

opportunities of the province and providing that commerce. That's what

sustains the government of British Columbia and that's what sustains

governments both in British Columbia and in Canada to provide those

commerce opportunities.

MS. EDWARDS : I want to begin

my discussion of the recreation function of the ministry by going back

again to an issue that some members of this House have heard several

times. But I'm not sure they're that familiar with it. Lake Koocanusa

is in my riding. There are a number of severe problems that can occur

that are related to that recreation resource in the riding.

I'm

encouraged by your opening statement, where you said that you hope to

integrate resource management. I know there has to be integrated

management of the recreation resource in that area. The parks branch

has two parks around Lake Koocanusa. The one that has existed for a

while has 25,000 people a year using it. Nearly that same number of

people use unmanaged facilities around that lake — 18,000 a year is

the amount that the study shows. These areas, which are Crown land, are

not included in parks; they are "managed" — I put that in quotation

marks because sometimes the management is not very strong.... It is the

function of your ministry to manage that resource for recreation.

The

point I made to both the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid) and the

Minister of Environment and Parks (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is that Lake

Koocanusa is a reservoir controlled under the direction of two

entities, one for the U.S. and one for Canada. The Canadian entity is

B.C. Hydro. I would like this minister to add his voice to those of the

other two ministers, to tell me that he will assure B.C. Hydro that the

recreational use of that reservoir is important to you as the minister

and to this ministry. I would like that word to be put to B.C. Hydro,

so that in the small bit of management left over.... I think it would

be quite enough, because there are some options available to B.C. Hydro

in deciding what further generation is done downstream, above and

beyond the amount generally considered because of agreements on normal

reservoir levels. I would like the minister to respond. I would like

him to say that he will commit himself to telling B.C. Hydro that the

Ministry of Forests and Lands believes that the recreational resource

is an important one, and that it should be considered in decisions that

B.C. Hydro makes on managing the levels of those reservoirs.

In that connection, I would like this minister to agree to ask B.C. Hydro — and work within his own ministry — to

see that there is a continuing structure through which the managers,

B.C. Hydro, keep the managers of the land resource around it informed

of what is likely to happen, so that the Ministry of Forests.... In

this case it's not just a recreational resource the ministry is

concerned with, because this year the ministry has had to build a whole

bunch of range fences for range management.

I would like the minister to respond on those two things. I would like him to agree to see that there is an ongoing

[ Page 4788 ]

structure

for consultation, so that Hydro tells the management ministries ahead

of time so that they can prepare for more efficient management; and to

say that Hydro should keep in mind, when making decisions about the

levels they have — and they do have some control; don't say they don't, because they do — that recreation is one of the considered uses.

HON. MR. PARKER : Mr. Chairman, those sound like good suggestions to me, and I'll certainly pursue them.

MS. EDWARDS : Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

I said, I wanted to talk in general about the recreation function of

your ministry. I am at a loss, from the beginning, because there is no

way I have been able to determine what you feel the budget is this year

for the recreation function. As you know, the recreation function is no

longer, in the books I have, listed under "Recreation." It's listed

under "Integrated resource management"; and with that is "Range

management and improvement" — not only recreational facilities and

trails but also forest planning activities and the wilderness

management program. How much this year is going to be put to the

function of recreation, compared to the continuing figures of...? In

the last several years, recreation has taken about $3.8 million — more

or less. Estimates were up, but it wasn't spent. So it's approximately

$3.8 million, as I understand it. I don't know how that compares to

what the minister proposes to spend this year.

HON. MR. PARKER : Mr. Chairman, we're frantically looking up the numbers for the member. As soon as we have them, I'll report them to the House.

[4:45]

MS. EDWARDS : Thank you, Mr. Minister. I'll leave that for a moment, but I will want to follow up on it a bit.

want to pick up on another thing that you said in the introduction to

your estimates. You said you want new opportunities created for the

ownership of selected recreational lands, and a new strategy in concert

with private sector developers for commercial backcountry recreation.

You also mentioned a clear articulation of land rights for commercial

recreation activities. That's a whole planning process, Mr. Minister.

I'm not sure if that is connected to what you said was a policy paper

on wilderness regulations, policies and procedures, which you said in

your introduction — I believe it was yesterday; it might have been the day before — would

be done this spring. "This spring I will release a policy paper." Is

that the same thing? Perhaps a nod will do. Maybe you want to respond.

HON. MR. PARKER :

The discussion paper on wilderness recreation area management deals

with wilderness recreation areas. The matter of land tenures has to

with the Lands part of the ministry and recreational tenures. Some are

leased, and some are offered for sale from time to time. That's

forthcoming this budget year.

Does that cover the questions, Madam Member?

MS. EDWARDS : I don't think it matters which part of the ministry

it's in, because it's the recreational function, basically, and it's

going in a different way. In fact, the ministry is now setting up wilderness

areas. It is now legislated so that it can set up manage and maintain wilderness

areas. You've said that you will release a paper this spring as a first

step in developing wilderness regulations, policies and procedures. I'm

wondering if that is what you were talking about. Is this policy paper therefore

going to create these new opportunities for privatization? You say "ownership

of selected recreational lands." Is that in wilderness areas? Is there

going to be some selling of Crown land that would be or is now designated wilderness

area?

HON. MR. PARKER : Mr. Chairman, no.

If you just give me a moment, I think I can give you the numbers. No, we don't have them here. I'm sorry; I misunderstood.

MS. EDWARDS :

I assume the numbers that you thought you might have were for the

recreational function. How does one debate figures if we don't know

what the figures are, Mr. Minister? I'm really at a loss to make my

point if I don't know where I am.

HON. MR. PARKER :

Mr. Chairman, I don't have the figures here in the House. My assistant

deputy minister advises me that the information is being sought and

will be brought to the House very shortly.

MS. EDWARDS . Thank you.

Mr. Minister, you said

that this policy paper on wilderness areas is not.... If I put this all

together, I believe what you said is that you're not selling Crown land

that would be or is currently designated wilderness area. What you did

say is that you will create new opportunities for the ownership of

selected recreational lands. I'm curious to know, Mr. Minister, what

that is. You say: "a new strategy in concert with private sector

developers for commercial backcountry recreation." I have to assume

that this will include some way to regulate, I hope, such activities as

heli-hiking, skiing, etc. — these activities which currently create so much controversy.

HON. MR. PARKER :

Mr. Chairman, as Minister of Forests and Lands I'm responsible for

several statutes, the Forest Act and the Land Act. "Recreational lands"

refers to lands administered under the Land Act, and they're generally

waterfront, ski-area lease areas or, in some cases, fee-simple

ownership opportunities.

Under the wilderness recreation area policy — that

has to be established yet. We'll be using the discussion paper to help

us set policy, because we constantly go to the public for assistance in

development of policy on resource management in this ministry.

MS. EDWARDS :

Mr. Minister, I understand that the government's been in the process of

developing a protocol for wilderness areas for approximately two years.

You already have three wilderness areas designated, and it's waiting.

You say that some policy will be released this spring. How will it get

to the public following that?

HON. MR. PARKER : The

legislation establishing wilderness areas under the Forest Act came

into being last fall. Since then we've identified three such areas in

the province. Staff in various regions have been investigating other

opportunities. In the meantime, we have to develop the policy that will

establish the parameters for the management and working plans for these

recreation areas. They will be subjected to

[ Page 4789 ]

management

and working plans, which will be reviewed on a five-year basis, the

same as any other areas that we administer under the various statutes.

The public will have their opportunity to comment on the discussion

paper and indicate to us how they think they should be able to

contribute to the management and working plan of each one of the

wilderness recreation areas. So it is public process in helping us

establish policy, and then it's public process in helping us establish

the management and working plan; that's in a state of development.

MS. EDWARDS :

I'm a bit curious about the hearing process rather than what they might

advise on, because I'm sure you get advice on almost everything. Is it

going to be a series of public meetings, or is it going to be one of

these...? It seems to be the habit of ministries lately to go around

and set up a series of magnificently done diagrams, have a few handouts

and let people come in and out, but there's no process of exchange of

views within the areas. Is it going to go to public meetings throughout

the whole province? How broadly based is that process going to be, and

how much are you going to be listening to what is being said? Who's

going to be at the hearings?

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

HON. MR. PARKER : The discussion paper will be mailed to various interested parties — those

who have indicated to us already that they have an interest. It will be

available in every district office, and we have 45 of them throughout

the province; so there's no difficulty for anybody to pick up a copy of

that discussion paper. We expect to receive written responses — that's the input we're seeking — and we'll develop the policy from those responses.

MS. EDWARDS : Could you tell me which division of the ministry will ultimately make the decisions about wilderness areas?

HON. MR. PARKER :

The final recommendations will come from the integrated resource

management division. The decisions are made by the executive of the

Forest Service with the concurrence of the minister. That's the way our

system of government functions.

MS. EDWARDS : I've

had it suggested that the integrated resource management division has

really only an advisory role, much more advisory in this process than

perhaps a lot of citizens would like. In other words, they simply

advise. You say the division makes recommendations, but the

recommendations are not final ones. Certainly I'm not suggesting that

the minister shouldn't concur, but there seems to be some suggestion

that those decisions are made outside of that particular division. Is

that so?

HON. MR. PARKER : The management plan is

developed and recommended by the integrated resources management

branch. The director of that branch carries it to his assistant deputy

manager, who is part of the executive; the executive consider and make

the final decisions.

MS. EDWARDS : I guess we're not going to go much further on that.

wonder if the minister would respond more to the.... He says that under

the Lands part of his ministry he's talking about new opportunities for

selected recreational lands — I'm not sure what he means by that — and

about clearer articulation of land rights. What kinds of land rights

need better articulation? You said you were looking at strategies for

commercial backcountry recreation. That has to involve the areas that

are currently designated as backcountry recreation areas. How much

private involvement is going to go into those public lands?

HON. MR. PARKER :

The first part of the member's question dealt with the recreational

lots in the province. Some are lease lots and some are fee-simple lots;

some are waterfront and some are ski hill.

Backcountry

recreation is one where we have to work with the Ministry of Tourism,

Recreation and Culture and the Ministry of Environment and Parks as

there are more and more commercial undertakings in the less traveled

portions of the province. Some of it is upland; some of it is river

bottom and everything in between; some of it is wild lakes area; some

of it is fiord area on the coast. We need to work with the other

ministries on policy management and the types of tenures that may be

needed. It may be just a small piece of land for a dock and a tie-up;

it may be a bit of a meadow for grazing hobbled horses; or it may be a

heli-spot for heli-skiers and what have you. That's what we mean by

backcountry recreation. The basic operating philosophy of the British

Columbia Forest Service is one of integrated resource management, and

that means we work with all agencies of all levels of government. to

make sure that there is responsible use of the land base.

MS. EDWARDS :

Mr. Minister, this is the kind of thing that leads.... I coul