1979 Legislative Session: 1st

Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The

following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, JULY 13, 1979

Morning Sitting

[ Page 743 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Children's Rights Act (Bill M 205). Mr.

Lauk.

Introduction and first reading –– 743

Industrial Development Subsidiary

Agreement Loan Repayment Revolving Fund Act

(Bill 28). Hon. Mr. Phillips.

Introduction and first reading –– 743

Matter of Urgent Public Importance

Use of Picloram herbicide.

Mr. Skelly –– 743

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Forestry

estimates.

On vote 117.

Mr. King –– 744

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 747

Mrs. Wallace –– 749

Mr. King –– 751

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 753

Mr. Nicolson –– 753

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 755

Mr. King –– 755

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 757

Forest Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 22).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 758

Mr. King –– 758

Mr. Barrett –– 759

Tabling Documents

British Columbia Housing Management

Commission annual report for 1978.

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 760

Matter of Urgent Public Importance

Use of Picloram herbicide.

Mr. Speaker rules –– 760

FRIDAY, JULY 13, 1979

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MRS. JORDAN: In the gallery today is

a very charming and talented lady, Miss Irene Dunlop, from Vernon. She

is with her parents, Betty and Jack Dunlop, who are visiting with us

from Ontario. I am pleased to advise you that we also have Mr. and Mrs.

Jack Simpson, from Vernon, in the gallery, and I ask the House to give

them a very warm welcome.

Introduction of Bills

CHILDREN'S RIGHTS ACT

a motion by Mr. Lauk, Bill M 205, Children's Rights Act, introduced,

read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT SUBSIDIARY

AGREEMENT LOAN REPAYMENT

REVOLVING FUND ACT

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled the Industrial Development

Subsidiary Agreement Loan Repayment Revolving Fund Act.

Bill

28 introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. SKELLY: I ask leave under Standing

Order 35 for an adjournment of this House to debate a matter of urgent

public importance.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you please state the

matter?

MR. SKELLY:

The matter involves action by the government yesterday which removes

virtually all restrictions under the Pesticide Control Act on the

application of the pesticide Picloram on private property. An

order-in-council passed by the government will be registered today

momentarily, and it will be possible for unrestricted spraying to

proceed within hours. Because of its dangers to human beings, and to

the environment, the use of this chemical is carefully controlled on

public lands, as shown in pesticide control permit No. 102-80 to 87-79,

which I will make available to Mr. Speaker. Yet changes in the

pesticide control regulations will allow almost unrestricted use of the

chemical on private lands, which include most of the populous areas of

the province.

A recent incident involving unregulated use of Picloram on a

Penticton Indian Reserve resulted in a drift of the herbicide to

neighbouring properties in the West Bench area, and people have now

been warned against eating fruits or vegetables grown in the area

because of potential danger to health. The new government regulation to

take effect momentarily will increase the frequency of these incidents

and the danger to the health and safety of people throughout the

province.

Pesticide Control Board hearing, Mr. Speaker, is to be held in Smithers

on July 19, at which time it will be determined whether or not a

pesticide control permit for projects 102-80 to 102-87 on public lands

will be allowed. A pathologist from the National Cancer Institute in

Frederick, Maryland, Dr. Melvin Reuben, will be testifying at that

hearing against the use of Picloram because of the fact that it causes

cancer.

Surely the regulations should not be changed to

allow unrestricted use of a suspected carcinogen on private lands in

the same area and at the same time that the safety of this chemical on

public lands is being debated before the Pesticide Control Appeal

Board. The government's action in changing the regulation makes a

mockery of the appeal, and shows its contempt for the appeal board and

the rights of the appellant. Because of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that the

regulations will take effect momentarily, and because of the

probability that spraying could begin within hours....

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. member. I would warn that we should perhaps follow

the long-standing pattern in this House that statements made be rather

brief. I trust the member's nearly concluded.

MR. SKELLY: This one is about to be

terminated, Mr. Speaker.

Also,

because of the fact that the regulation was held back until after the

minister's estimates and could not be debated at that time, I would

urge that Mr. Speaker consider the urgency of this matter immediately

so that the Legislature may act as soon as possible.

MR. SPEAKER:

I would make two observations, hon. members. First of all, I'd like to

thank the member for advance notice of this particular matter. It does

give the Chair an opportunity to look at the urgency of the matter and

see whether or not it does qualify.

The second is that

whenever we ask leave to present a matter which would warrant the

setting aside of the regular business of the House for the discussion

of the matter purported, it is not in order to debate the matter in the

statement of the matter. I would encourage all members to make their

statements as brief as possible so as not to establish new precedents

in the House.

Concerning the matter, there are one or two

areas that would immediately and perhaps out of hand disqualify the

matter under standing order 35. I would suggest that, in the first

instance, it does import an argument. But in order to be certain of

that, I would like to review the precedents that have been established.

I will reserve my decision and bring the decision to the House without

prejudice to the member's position in this debate, and perhaps even

before the House adjourns today.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. member, in explaining whether it is argumentative we may well get

into the argument itself. I would warn against it. Perhaps if the hon.

member could sit together with the Speaker, we could give proper

consideration to all of those matters.

[ Page 744 ]

Orders of the Day

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

HON. MR. GARDOM:

We'd all like to officially welcome back from his trip the leader of

the official opposition — black patch, Hathaway shirt. Did you have a

good time in the Golan Heights?

MR. BARRETT: Shalom.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

(continued)

On vote 117: minister's office, $115,544 — continued.

MR. KING:

Yesterday I called for an investigation into the monopoly over the

forest resource by the eight major integrated firms in British

Columbia. I outlined that there is information available which, in my

view, demonstrates beyond any question whatsoever that we have a

scandalous misuse of the resource, that the minister is aware of this,

and has thus far failed to act on it.

That information, Mr.

Chairman, reveals that in 1977 a saw log appraisal project done by

Forest Service scalers and graders showed that for pulp mills as a

group, over 30 percent of all logs used were premium-grade saw logs.

One operator, Rayonier, was consuming well over 50 percent sawlogs in

its supply of pulp mills. At the same time that was going on, pulp logs

were being left in the slash, and, of course, mountains of chips were

going to waste by independent sawmillers who could not find a market

for their chips. That is a tremendous waste and a tremendous loss of

revenue to the Crown. It's a tremendous loss of production in the

industry itself and, of course, it's a frustrating and extremely

aggravating situation to face for independent operators in British

Columbia.

At the same time that a major integrated company

is allowed to abuse the resource in this way, small independent mills

all over the province are being denied access to an adequate supply to

maintain their production. There is little wonder that they are

complaining to the opposition and to anyone who will listen to them

about the discrimination they are receiving at the hands of this

government.

I revealed that in 1978 another professional analysis

extracted data from the files of the minister. It showed that the eight

major companies controlled all tree-farm licences on the coast, and

they undercut the allowable cut allocated to them by an average of

947,267 units per year — and this was in the six years ending in 1977.

They undercut their allocation by 947,267 units. Mr. Chairman, that is

a major scandal; that is a major abuse and waste of resource and

production in British Columbia. The failure to harvest a resource of

those proportions indicates a loss of timber that would have supplied 9

medium-sized sawmills and about 15 logging operations. It reveals a

loss of up to 12,000 jobs in the forest industry based on the actual

sawmilling and logging and so on, as well as related services. It

indicates a loss of revenue in the area of up to $38 million a year —

both in terms of direct revenue and the loss of stumpage to the Crown.

I want to know why the minister is allowing this to go on. Now this is

a limited amount of data; there is undoubtedly more data which

demonstrates that this kind of scandalous abuse is taking place on a

pretty wide scale in the province of British Columbia.

Now

while that was happening, Mr. Chairman, a new Forest Act was brought

in, and the minister, rather than testing the practices and the logging

plans and the performance of these eight major integrated firms,

provided in the new Act that they have almost automatic renewal of

their tenure. They have extended tenure, entrenched monopolization and

greater control. They did not have to come before the minister and

justify proper utilization; they did not have to justify their

operation on the basis that adequate jobs were flowing from the

exploitation of the resource. They apparently did not have to justify

high efficiency that would produce maximum return to the Crown. My

question to the minister is: why not? That is the standard and those

are the criteria demanded by the minister for the small business sector.

indicated yesterday — and I want to remind the minister again — that

under division 2 of the Act, relating to forest licences, there are

criteria laid out to be considered when bids are received from

independents for public timber. Those criteria provide in

section 11:

"The chief forester shall evaluate each application, including its

potential for (

a) creating or maintaining employment opportunities and

other social benefits in the province, (

b) providing for the management

and utilization of Crown timber, (

c) furthering the development

objectives of the Crown, (

d) meeting objectives of the Crown in respect

of environmental quality and the management of water, fisheries and

wildlife resources, and (

e) contributing to Crown revenues. "

Now

how can the minister justify imposing this test on independents who bid

to use Crown timber while completely ignoring any such test and

standard with respect to the eight large, integrated firms whose tenure

on excessive supply he has extended to what I believe is a perpetual

basis. That is an abuse and that is a scandal and that is

discriminatory against small industry in British Columbia. It's

discriminatory against British Columbian businesses who would like to

get a piece of the action and those who are already in the industry and

would like to stay in operation. It completely repudiates any

conceivable or any suggested dedication to the principle of

competition. It repudiates any competition in the industry.

have outlined how the big integrated firms have such an excess supply

that they are able to bank that supply for the future. They are not

utilizing it. They're holding it in reserve. They are manipulating the

records of their actual cut in each year. These are serious allegations

and they are borne out, Mr. Chairman, by the minister's own records. He

sits by and glibly says: "Well, we're going to do something for the

small business people too. We're going to develop a set-aside program

and provide some timber for the small independents. " My question to

the minister, Mr. Chairman, is: when? There are eight small mills in

the East Kootenay area that have been waiting for a whole year for a

firm timber supply, and they're teetering on the verge of collapse now.

Here's

another conflict or inconsistency in the minister's approach to

administration. When it comes to the eight large, integrated firms in

British Columbia, he says: "Well, they have to have a firm supply of

timber in order to justify their capital investment. If they don't have

a long-term tenure, they're not going to invest; they're going to pack

[ Page 745 ]

and leave the province." I'm not

opposed to some

tenure; I'm not opposed to reasonable tenure for the large, integrated

firms. Yes, they have heavy capital investment. But I want to suggest,

Mr. Chairman, that they do not need monopoly control. They should have

to compete in the open bidding system for at least a portion of their

supply. They don't need 100 percent of their needs guaranteed to them.

Above all, as demonstrated by the minister's own records, they don't

need in excess of their maximum supply — which they are enjoying now.

That is pandering to the large, integrated foreign-controlled firms in

British Columbia.

The minister's a captive. He appears to be

a eunuch in terms of any realistic commitment or ability to come to

grips with this abuse. He makes statements that they're going to have

to manage it — use it or lose it. What a sham! At the very time he is

uttering those statements, he is further entrenching their control and

their tenure. When they come to him for renewal of a tree-farm licence,

they don't even have to justify that licence renewal in an open public

hearing.

The minister denies the need for an open public

debate as to whether or not they've been efficient, as to whether or

not they have an oversupply, as to whether or not they have followed

adequate utilization programs. None of those things can be debated in

an open public forum.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I draw your

attention to the quorum.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The Chair's attention is drawn to a quorum. Hon. members, under

standing orders, when the attention of the Chairman is drawn to the

fact that the House may lack a quorum, the Chairman is duty-bound to

make a list of those members that are in the House at the time. I shall

do so now.

In order to ensure that we have a quorum I shall ring the

division bells.

There would now appear to be a quorum, hon. members. I invite

you to proceed.

MR. KING: I was pointing out that there are

two standards used by the minister and this government when it comes to

treatment of the forest industry in British Columbia. The large

integrated firms which demonstrably have been abusing the resource

allocated to them are provided with automatic rollovers of the

tree-farm licence without public hearings, without the opportunity for

interested people in the industry, the public, environmental groups,

and so on, to question the adequacy of that particular licensee's

performance. The minister passively allows this licence granting

increased tenure to be renewed in the secrecy of his office without the

benefit of public discussion as to whether or not that licence should

be renewed, or whether or not there should be any change in the volume

of the allocation. This is inadequate. This is the kind of procedure

which lends itself to charges of impropriety in the handling and the

allocation of the forest resource. It's dangerous; it's unhealthy; and,

Mr. Chairman, it is an indication that this government has no intention

of allowing the light of day to shine in on the administrative

decisions which govern the control and the awarding of our number one

resource in the province of British Columbia.

That's

bad in itself; it's a poor procedure in itself. It's a dangerous

procedure, but beyond that, when it's contrasted against the procedures

and the methods for dealing with the small, independent logging

concerns and sawmilling concerns in British Columbia, it's totally

discriminatory. They are charged, as I've indicated, with proving

efficiency, proving high utilization, proving that they're going to

create adequate employment, and proving, of course, that they are going

to provide an adequate return to the Crown. Those standards are not

apparent in any consideration of tree-farm licence rollovers. They are

carried out in the secrecy of the minister's department. I say that is

completely unacceptable.

The big firms say: "We need

long-term guaranteed security in order to stay in business in British

Columbia." I buy that. Give them 70 percent of their annual allowable

cut requirements: let them compete on the open market for 30 percent of

their fibre needs. What's wrong with that? You people portray

yourselves as free enterprisers. Do you not believe in some competition

in the industry? It would establish some proper value for our timber

resources through the market system rather than by an artificial

formula set by the ministry. What's wrong with that? And if it's

necessary to give that kind of questionable tenure to the big

integrated firms so that they can justify their capital investment,

what about the small guys? By the same argument, do not the small

enterprisers in the forest industry need some security too? What of

their capital investment? What of their future? That's totally ignored.

in the East Kootenay area, the minister has been promising that the

mills would receive some timber through the small-business program.

They have yet to see any progress in the development of that

small-business program. I believe I've got some information here on the

situation up in the East Kootenay as I understand it. I'm certainly not

a professional forester, nor have I had a great deal of experience in

the forest industry; but I am trying to relate to this Legislature the

concerns of people in the independent sector who have provided me with

the information and asked me to put it forward in this House. In the

Creston forest area there is a total annual allowable cut, as I

understand it. of about 103,000 cunits — that is in the PSYU — and I

believe that the licence-holders hold about 49,660 cunits of that

amount. There is an excess of 52,340 cunits. Under the old Act, of

course, only the licence-holders were allowed to bid in this area.

suggest to the minister that, if he looks at the standards that are

required of the small business people in terms of providing employment

and of efficiency, he has an obligation to make a comparison between

the benefits which flow from their operations and those which flow from

the larger licence-holders. What is the experience in terms of job

creation? Who needs the most timber to create a job? Well, the claim is

that the small independents produce one man-day job for every 2.5

cunits of wood which they receive, and that the large licence-holders

require 8 to 12 cunits of wood to produce one man-day job. That

indicates that the small, independent firms are much more efficient and

much more beneficial in terms of meeting the standards which the

minister says he is dedicated to.

If you are obtaining that

kind of utilization out of the product it follows that the revenue to

the Crown is maximized. It follows that the general profit from the

resource is optimized in terms of the economy of British

[ Page 746 ]

Columbia.

But while the small firms are being asked to wait until sales may be

put up for them — and I understand that in 1979 in that area there have

been only two sales of available timber for eight or ten small mills to

try to compete for and find their supply from....

The

minister and his staff have promised that there will be further

material provided, but they haven't got the small-business program in

place yet. At the local level they say: "We haven't got the budget to

prepare this sale. And if we take money from our budget to prepare this

sale we may have to remove it from our fire-prevention program, or

something else — perhaps our replanting program." The minister didn't

hesitate to provide a budget for the automatic rollover of tree-farm

licences for the majors. Where is his budget and commitment for

providing an adequate allocation to the independents? It would appear

they are the poor cousins of the forest industry.

There is a

suggestion that some timber is going to be freed up and some sales put

up after the ministry has done the necessary technical work to set

aside some timber in the Creston management area. All the indications

that my friends in small business have are that the technical work and

preparation by the ministry are going to hold up any sale until

November of this year. Once November rolls around, of course, you are

into winter in the East Kootenays. particularly as those sales are

going to occur at a very high elevation. They can't log. So that means

that the first real opportunity that these small independents are going

to have to actually harvest any of this timber, which may be made

available to them, will be next year after the breakup in June. They

have already been a whole year without supply, operating on a

shoestring, having to salvage off right-of-way clearing, and having the

ludicrous situation of a sale of about a hundred trees.

Contrast

that treatment of the independents with the minister's cap-in-hand

subservience to the eight big, integrated firms, to whom he has

delivered monopoly control of the major resource in B.C. The small

independents have to scratch, borrow and beg to try and stay operative,

and the minister hands over excessive supplies to the majors, which

they demonstrably cannot use and are not using — according to the

Ministry of Forests figures. That's the story, Mr. Premier. That is the

story that comes to this Legislature. It's not manufactured by me, but

it's provided to me from people in the industry who are concerned and

tired to death of the discriminatory practices of this Forest Service.

The member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) should be extremely concerned.

It's his riding I'm talking about.

There are mills at Yahk,

British Columbia, that are hanging in the balance. They're not large

firms; in total they employ about 55 people. But 55 people means a

great deal to the economy of a very small and depressed area. The

member for Kootenay seems to think that's humorous. If he feels that my

figures are wrong or if he feels that it's not important to the economy

of that area, then certainly he should get up and speak on it; it's his

riding. Does the member for Kootenay think this is fair treatment'?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I must remind

the member it's the estimates of the Minister of Forests that we are

involved with today.

MR. KING: Yes, I know, Mr. Chairman, but I

think we need a new one. For the present time, I guess, we have to live

with the minister we have.

What

about stumpage rates for the independents as compared to the licence

holders? I am told that the licence holders, like MacMillan Bloedel,

pay stumpage of $2.20 on cedar.

In Idaho the stumpage on

cedar is between $180 and $250 a cunit. MacMillan Bloedel, I am told,

pays $2.20 stumpage. The small independents up in the East Kootenays

don't receive the same stumpage rate as MacMillan Bloedel. I'm told

they pay about $100. If these figures are not correct, I hope the

minister will get up and challenge those figures and correct them. This

is my information.

Why is there discrimination? On the one

hand, the large integrated boys are receiving excessive supplies. They

don't have to come back and justify proper utilization, proper

efficiency; they get automatic licence rollovers, in secret. They

receive preferred stumpage rates from the ministry. Why the preference?

From

the stumpage rates in British Columbia, the licence holders are allowed

to deduct the cost of road building. They are allowed to deduct

machinery costs related to road construction. In terms of accounting,

they are even allowed to — and do, in fact — deduct from stumpage the

cost of office supplies and secretarial help. The premise is that once

the logging operation is complete, those roads will revert to the Crown

and be of some benefit in terms of access by the public, access for

fire prevention and replanting and so on.

The fact of the

matter is that there is inadequate policing of road construction. Many

of these roads are charged to the public and deducted from stumpage.

When they are turned over to the Crown, they are inaccessible. They had

not been engineered adequately; they have not had adequate culverting

and are of little or no benefit in terms of access. That is an abuse,

because it is not adequately administered and policed by the ministry.

The small independents don't have any of those loopholes and escapes —

none at all. This is a major scandal. This is a major sham. This is a

denial of any free competitive enterprise in the forest industry. It is

highly preferential treatment to the licence holders in British

Columbia. I don't know why. If I were cynical I would say it may be

related to campaign donations. But not being a cynical person, I think

it's more that the minister lacks the commitment and the understanding

to identify the problems and to take decisive action to remedy those

problems; I prefer to think that's what it is. But no matter what the

reason, the consequences are the same. We're stifling and denying

potential production in the forest industry of British Columbia.

Through handing over monopoly control in a subservient fashion, we are

failing to enjoy and appreciate the job creation that's potentially

available, to say nothing of a major increase in revenues to the Crown.

The minister hasn't really done or said anything that adequately

responds to these very, very serious allegations.

conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me read a little notice that was put in

the paper up in the Kootenays. I'm not sure of the date; it was some

time last year. It says: "Publication No. I by the Kootenay Secondary

Mills Association, Box 516, Creston, B.C." It's a little notice....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, excuse me.

Perhaps we could have an intervening speaker. The time under our

standing orders....

[ Page 747 ]

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, I was going to ask

the Minister of

Forests some questions, but I think I will wait until after my

colleague has finished.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I

want to demonstrate to the minister that I'm not out on some political

kick to crucify him, I'm trying to genuinely reflect the information

I've been receiving. These people who are providing this, information

to me are certainly not political. I indicated yesterday some of them

are Social Credit; some of them are very prominent Social Credit

people. They're not on a political kick either. They're genuinely

troubled, and this is what they tell me is going wrong. But in this

case, here is the notice that was put in the public press. It says:

"Timber Tax Loss.''

"Tax

lost to Creston-Kootenay region was approximately $3.5 million per year

during the past years. It is toward this direction that the small

businessmen's association has been formed to let the Canadian people

know of the unjust business practices that have been committed in the

past and are still being committed today. It is the tax loss that all

Canadians must know about, as described in the following table."

shows the years 1975, 1976 and 1977 — stumpage paid for Crown timber,

people-owned. The large-quota mills paid $2.21 in 1975; in 1976 they

paid $2.28; and in 1977 they paid $1.83. They harvested 78,986 cunits

in 1975; in 1976, 99,471 cunits; and in 1977, 99,087 cunits.

"True

market value for harvested timber stumpage is approximately $30 to $80

per cunit, with a suggested average value of approximately $40 per

cunit. Accordingly, quota mills paid in 1975, $174, 511; in 1976,

$226,500; and in 1977, $183,684. "

The allegation is that

they should have paid far in excess of that amount, and I'm not going

to read the figures. I'm going to table this

article in the House, Mr.

Chairman, so it will be available to all members, and I'll summarize it

rather than going into complete detail on it.

The

article continues:

"Recently

on radio, sawmill representatives announced approximately 500 jobs were

made by them. Through simple arithmetic Canadians can see that if you

paid a man $1 per day, the unpaid taxes per year would pay for

approximately 30,000 man-days.

"Small

businessmen today have paid stumpage rates for Crown timber of $40 per

cunit and more to the Forest Service. Small business is willing to

continue to pay a true market stumpage value for Crown timber. However,

small business has been denied access to this Crown timber at any

price. Instead the Forest Service gave the timber sales directly to the

Creston quota mills for approximately $2 a cunit. This is an unjust

giveaway program of Canadian people's resources. Do yourself a service

and find out the truth. "

Mr. Chairman, that completely confirms and supports the things

that I've been saying in this House since the minister's estimates came

to the floor. I have not had a satisfactory or adequate response from

the minister. We're talking about abuses that involve millions of

dollars, a great number of jobs and, above all, some fairness and some

competition in the industry.

want the minister to respond in a meaningful way. I want him to tell

this House what he's prepared to do, rather than saying: "Oh, well,

somewhere down the road, if they don't perform, we're going to take it

away. " Mr. Minister, the evidence is clear. There has not been

performance. Why haven't you taken it away? Why haven't you treated the

large integrated firms in the same fashion that the small people are

treated? These are the questions that I want the minister to address

himself to.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the

member for Shuswap- Revelstoke has again gone over many of the things

he talked about last night. I did respond to most of it last night. He

has brought up a few new areas, though, and I'll make comment on those.

mentioned the abuse of sawlogs by running good-grade sawlogs through

chippers at pulp mills. About two years ago when I became aware of

this, as the member knows.... He referred in part to a

summary, I

believe, of the results of that initial investigation we made. At that

time I established what we called a flying squad of scalers which could

drop in unannounced at all and any sites which were under suspicion of

abusing sawlogs, and indeed we did find in some cases, and in one

particular case, that a large percentage of material going into the

wood rooms was capable of being used for other purposes. In some cases

we identified reasons for it, and in most cases, excuses. We've taken

steps to see that this doesn't happen. A great deal of reshuffling or

moving of logs around to get the right log to the right jackladder has

taken place since then. This abuse has dropped substantially.

any event, we are continuing that type of investigation. The abuse as

it was has been reduced substantially. There are still sawlogs, on

occasion, going to wood rooms, but then a sawlog is not the same for

one company as perhaps for another. We can't afford to have good-grade

logs being ground up for pulp chips and it's not being permitted. We

are keeping a constant monitor of the situation and it is improving

substantially. There is room for additional improvement and we're

continuing to force that to happen.

The member, I think, is

somewhat confused on just what forest licences are. He's referred

forest licences. The forest licence tenure form under new legislation

will probably amount to something in the order of 50 percent to 60

percent of the total timber allocation in the province. A forest

licence is a fairly long-term licence. It has a maximum tenure, I

believe, of 21 years; most of them would be for 15 years. They are

available to all sizes and types of companies. In the Interior it will

be our major form of tenure. The licences for the small-business

program we will call "timber sale licences," but it will be a different

type of timber sale licence than the old timber sale licence.

The

member mentioned — and it was rather a serious charge — that he has

evidence of licensees manipulating their cut-control records. Now that

is a very serious matter. If the member can bring to me any documented

evidence or even great suspicion that this is in fact happening, I

would certainly like to hear about it, because that is a very serious

matter. If he has evidence I'd certainly like him to bring it to me so

that I can check it out and, if necessary, take very

[ Page 748 ]

severe

action. We have no indication that cut-control records are being

manipulated. I think perhaps he is referring more to changes in

allowable cuts in tree-farm licences at periods of time, and that's a

different matter. Of course, we have a great deal more authority now

under the new legislation to be sure that the allowable cuts calculated

for tree-farm licences are, in fact, realistic. We are devoting a great

deal of staff time to just that at the present time.

The

member mentions that there are different standards of management

required for small versus large companies, and that there are different

rates of stumpage for small versus large companies. The high level of

forest management we require is the same for all companies, regardless

of what size. The enforcement is the same, as far as I'm concerned, for

all companies. Again, if the member can bring me evidence of

discriminatory practice by members of the Forest Service staff, I'd be

very happy to receive details rather than generalities. Specifics can

be attacked; generalities are difficult to deal with.

mentioned the labour input of the small operator versus the large

operator and, yes, it's probably true that the smaller mills are more

labour-intensive. But labour input is also a reflection of the

cost-efficiency of an operation. Our forest industry, of course, is

competing in a pretty vicious international marketplace. We have to

have companies that can compete in that marketplace.

The

small company, who usually is a specialty operator, does have more

input and he is into a different market — a rather limited market — and

there is certainly a place for him. We are going to ensure that

continues. But I don't think we can say that because a company has a

low labour input they're bad. They're probably an efficient company in

terms of productivity, and we need that to keep a competitive forest

industry in British Columbia.

He said somebody in the Forest

Service staff had said there was no budget for the small-business

program. Well, we do have a very adequate budget for the small-business

program. Probably what was being referred to was the cost of developing

areas for the small-business program. This year the sales we'I be

putting up will be adjacent to existing access so that they can be put

up immediately after we have the program in place when our amendment is

passed. As soon as that amendment is passed we have to advertise these

sales for 30 days, and we will begin to advertise immediately. These

sales will be underway this year, but they will be adjacent to already

developed timber. In future years, we will have to, as a Forests

ministry, develop roads to provide access to the sale areas for the

small-business program, and at that time we'll have to have moneys

allotted in our budget for it.

The member went through

comparisons in stumpage in Idaho and British Columbia re the

circumstances and the conditions. What stumpage means in the two areas

is so different that it's like comparing apples and oranges. The

comparison is really meaningless. He also said that MB is not paying

the same stumpage as operators in the Kootenays. Well, that's quite

right; they're not. MB doesn't operate in the Interior. They operate

under different conditions with different types of wood — in different

circumstances completely — than the Interior does.

But for the member's information, in the year 1978 the average

stumpage paid by a tree-farm licence holder — this is just a lumped

average for all the tree-farm licences in the province — was $12.70 a

cunit. In the same year the average stumpage for a timber sale licence

and timber sale harvesting licences was $13.06 — about 36 cents

difference.

You can take examples of places where there appears to be a

lot higher stumpage, and in the latter part of 1978 stumpages went up

rather remarkably. The reason that some of the smaller sales appear to

have a higher stumpage is because of the bonus-bidding procedure that

has been used in the past. It's across-the-table bidding, and I think

that in the future we should be leaning more toward sealed-tender

bidding to get away from the passion of this confrontation across the

table which bids, in some cases, the bonus up to determine who gets the

sale. It bids it up to a point where nobody can afford it. I think a

sealed-tender bidding system is much more reliable. The one bidding is

usually the small guy bidding against the small guy.

have requested, and in most cases larger corporations have agreed that

they not get involved in these small sales. They recognize we want them

to be for the small guy. When we get our small-business program, as per

the new Act in place, the large companies will not be able to bid

against the small companies; we can separate the different classes of

small company, besides.

The same stumpage formula basically

that was in place, which was brought in by the former government, is in

place now. There's no discrimination within that as to size or type of

company. The stumpage formulas are rather straightforward. They're

quite complicated when it gets down to specifics, but road allowances

and other cost allowances are factors that go into determining

stumpage. It isn't deducted from stumpage, but it's one of the criteria

which we, of course, have to use to determine what residual value is

there that we can call stumpage.

There really are no

differences. The small companies obviously approached that member. I'm

sure they approach every member in the Legislature. They approach me

constantly. We are moving very rapidly, and we have accommodated them

in every possible way we have been able to. I have a great deal of

sympathy for them. As I mentioned yesterday, now we have tools whereby

we can really provide the with the protection they need. We do need the

small operators; we do need the large operators. We must have a proper

mix, and the objective of my ministry is to achieve that proper mix of

company size and degree of diversity.

That, I think, very well covers the points brought up by the

member, Mr. Chairman.

MR. KING:

On a few brief points, Mr. Chairman, I was not charging discrimination

by the forestry staff. I am charging discrimination in terms of the

policy direction which the minister is responsible for. I think it is

discriminatory when you have that kind of variation in stumpage rate.

To say there are reasons for that kind of wide disparity in stumpage

rates between the coast and the Interior is, in my view, unacceptable.

anything, Mr. Chairman, the Interior poses more difficult and more

expensive problems in terms of reaching the timber, distances involved,

and the terrain, than are experienced on the coast.

The

other handicap that people in the Interior have, of course, is that

they're not dealing with timber of the same size. It is generally much

smaller timber than grows on the coast, and, of course, usually at a

very much higher

[ Page 749 ]

elevation. So, in my view, the cost of

harvesting

it is infinitely higher. To suggest the kind of disparity which we see

between $2.20 for the big integrates and about $40 for the small

independents in the Interior is, in my view, discriminatory. That has

nothing to do with the minister's staff going out; it has to do with

the minister's own policy — his control over and political direction to

his ministry. Similarly, to say that there is no relationship between

stumpage in Idaho and British Columbia, that we are comparing apples

and oranges, is a copout. Sure, there are major differences, and I am

aware of those; but I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that those differences do

not justify a disparity of $2.20 stumpage for cedar products in British

Columbia and $180 in Idaho. The minister's response there is

unacceptable and, in my view, just plain ridiculous.

I want

to reiterate that what is needed is a major independent investigation

of the allegations that have been made by the independents — not just

in one area of British Columbia, but through the length and breadth of

this province. I hope that the minister will reflect upon it, and I

hope that some of his own members will start to exert some pressure on

behalf of their own constituents and on behalf of the health of the

forest industry in British Columbia.

Sure, we need a proper

balance and mix. What I'm saying to the minister today, Mr. Chairman,

is that mix is totally out of balance and totally distorted, and the

minister will not address himself to that underlying problem. He simply

seeks to apologize for it rather than to offer any meaningful remedies,

or any commitment to even recognize it and do something about it.

terms of coming to him with the evidence, that's the old political

double shuffle. Serious charges have been made with respect to

manipulation of inventory and annual allowable cut. The Thomson report

should be released to the public. If the minister says he lacks

evidence of this kind of improper manipulation, he should release the

Thomson report. He should release the data which was compiled by that

consulting firm on the basis of a scrutiny of his own departmental

records, and, above all, allow some open scrutiny of the data that he

has on file. Perhaps also, Mr. Chairman, he would consider allowing

open public hearings when it comes to the rollover of major, long-term

timber licences in this province. That's what is needed.

rather despair of any real change under this minister, because I

haven't found that he is prepared to be really consistent and devote

himself to creating some competition. The best way of getting the

proper mix and balance, Mr. Minister, is to open up competition.

When

he talked about some of the small ones he said that, sure, they may

create more jobs through timber utilization, but they may not be as

cost-efficient. Well, Mr. Chairman, I thought this minister believed in

free enterprise. If they're not cost-efficient, they're going to go

down the tube. But they should have the chance to compete. What does

the minister care, so long as there is an adequate return to the Crown

and the industry is job-intensive. If they're not cost-efficient

they're not going to make it. That's what free enterprise is supposed

to be all about; that's what competition is supposed to be all about;

and that's what this government says it is dedicated to.

You've got one standard for the small guys and quite another

for the big ones. Do you ask Rayonier if they're cost-efficient when

they're shovelling premium-grade sawlogs through their pulp mill? Is

that cost-efficient from your point of view, Mr. Minister? I know we

are talking about two different things, but the principle is the same.

You set one criterion for the big guys and say: "Oh, we've got a flying

squad going around and things are getting better." We don't need a

flying squad, we need a minister with some gumption who is prepared to

say: "Look, I'm taking it away from you." What have you taken away from

them, Mr. Minister? When was the last time that any penalty was imposed

on one of these big, major private licence holders? Have you taken away

any of the resource that they have failed to utilize? I defy you to

stand up and give one instance of doing that.

That's

not the story when it comes to the small ones. There is vigorous

enforcement of forestry standards when it comes to the small ones. That

is discrimination, and it's not discrimination at the whim of the

staff. That is discrimination which flows from the policy direction of

this minister. He is the guy who is responsible. Mr. Chairman. He

refuses to address himself to the problems, and I guess he's going to

be here awhile until he's prepared to do so.

MRS. WALLACE: I thought perhaps the

minister would like to respond to the member for Shuswap Revelstoke.

I've

been listening to this debate with great interest, and waiting for the

minister to give some meaningful responses to the arguments that have

been put forward by the opposition. But it seems that we have a

minister who somehow thinks that he's doing a wonderful job for the

forest industry. He's talking about the increase in his budget, and so

on. He's talking about his reforestation program, and yet his budget

increases have amounted to a much smaller increase than even the

infringement rate. So in actual dollar value, he's putting less money

into the forest industry than has been put into it in previous years. I

think that to tell us he's doing such a great job in investing so much

money in the forest industry is certainly far from accurate.

The

reforestation program is something that is getting some increases, but

if you look at it dollar for dollar, and certainly if you look at it

compared to the need, it's far short of where it should be. Really,

that is what this debate is all about today. We just don't have enough

wood in British Columbia. Because of this minister in his wisdom and

this new Forest Act by its proclamation. there has been a decision by

this government that because we're short of wood, the major companies

in this province will get what is there and the little independents

will be put out of business. That's exactly what is happening, Mr.

Chairman. That's exactly what the opposition forecast would happen

under this Act, and now we have ample evidence that this is the case.

The

stumpage rate is an area that's been canvassed very well and very

thoroughly by my colleague, but there have been no adequate answers to

that. A small independent simply cannot compete with a major

corporation with that kind of disparity between the rates that they are

required to pay, the kind of credits that they are allowed to get and

the kind of rates and credits that go to the major corporations. Not

only that, but nobody knows what the major corporations are paying or

what the special arrangements are, because it's all done behind closed

doors now as a result of this new Forest Act. There are no public

hearings, no public disclosures: it's all behind closed doors. That is

certainly

[ Page 750 ]

not

in the interests of an open government; it certainly isn't in the

interest of this province, and it isn't in the interest of this

province's number one industry.

I was very interested in the

comments that have been brought forward on this floor that Rayonier is

using something like 50 percent of sawlogs to produce pulp. The

minister knows full well that Rayonier has a plant in my constituency

that they're going to close down. I've discussed this with the

minister. They're going to close it down because they don't have enough

logs to operate, and 320 people will be put out of work. Yet that same

company is putting sawlogs at the rate of 50 percent or better through

a pulping process. That's not forest management, that's forest

mismanagement and forest destruction. That's exactly what is going to

happen to our forest industry and to our small operators. They will be

destroyed by this Minister of Forests.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE:

I know the plant that I'm speaking about on Vancouver Island is an

outdated plant, but it's a plant that could be brought up to standard

if there were logs available. That minister has refused to make Crown

land available to that plant. He's refused to take any action that

would encourage an exchange of logs or a provision of logs for that

mill. I tell you that when a plant that employs some 320 people closes

its doors in an area like Lake Cowichan, it has a pretty rough effect

on the village and on the community. That represents something like 50

percent of its labour force. Certainly it's not going to bode very well

for the future of that community.

I am interested in the

Forest Act, which, in

Part III, division 2,

section 11(4) on forest

licences, says that "the chief forester shall evaluate each

application...." And it sets out some of the potentials that should be

considered at that time. The chief forester, of course, is this

minister's representative and he's doing only those things that this

minister instructs him to do — because he's the top-ranking official;

he's really the chief forester in this province.

One of the

criteria is that those forest licences should create and maintain

employment. When you allow a company to close its doors because you

can't provide wood for that company, then that is certainly not

creating employment — particularly as I learned that same company is

making pulpwood out of good sawlogs. That disclosure was quite a

surprise to me, Mr. Chairman, and something that I think this minister

should put his mind to.

You don't maintain employment

opportunities by putting independent loggers or small mills out of

business either. It has been pointed out that they are much more

labour-intensive than are the large mills, that they provide many more

man-days of work per cunit of wood than do the large operations. Those

are the job-creators, and yet they're going out of business because

there is no wood being provided for them.

Somehow it seems to be very easy to ensure that the large

majors have the wood and it seems very easy to tie up those contracts

behind closed doors. But it seems very difficult to provide any timber

whatsoever for small, independent operators. Certainly the social

benefits to the province would be much more far-reaching if, in fact,

the timber resources were used in such a way that they provided our

small businesses here in British Columbia with an opportunity to

survive. Not only does it create more employment but it also ensures

that those financial returns to those companies stay here in British

Columbia rather than being exported out in the form of profits to

shareholders all around the world. Those small independents are British

Columbians working for British Columbia, and the profits that they make

stay in British Columbia to stimulate the economy. So from a social

point of view it's much more important that those independents stay in

operation.

talked about furthering the objectives of the Crown, Mr. Chairman. If

you can obtain a net of $40 from an independent for stumpage as

compared to $2 or $3 — or even $12, if we use the minister's average

figure — from a major, because of the kind of concessions that the

major gets, I'm surprised that minister can stand up and tell us that

they all get the same kind of treatment. I certainly don't understand

that at all. My understanding is that the majors do get concessions for

road-building, for use of their equipment and for almost every expense

they have,

whereas the small operator does not get that kind of

concession. If I'm wrong, I'd like the minister to file evidence with

this House that is incorrect. Certainly that's the way the small

operators see it, and that's certainly my understanding of how the

thing operates. I've never heard of a small independent getting an

allowance off his stumpage bid in order to build a road. The dollar

return to the Crown is something that has to be considered. I'm

surprised that this bottom-line government and this bottom-line

minister don't consider that, because he's bringing more dollars into

the treasury if he lets that timber go to the small operator.

When

he says that you have to maintain jobs with the large majors because

you've got to keep that business operating, it proves to me that's

where that minister's interest really lies. He said that we have to

have a proportion of small operators and large operators. Well, if he

really believes that, then he'd better do something to keep those

independent operators in business, because if he doesn't they're going

to be out of business. I think that minister is quite aware that there

just isn't enough wood to provide all that the majors would take and

still keep those independent operators in business. There isn't enough

wood for the next 20 or 30 years here in British Columbia to ensure

that happens. If this minister doesn't take steps to ensure that

happens, to make absolutely, positively certain that those independent

operators get the kind of timber that will enable them to keep in

business, they're going to be gone and that balance that minister talks

about is going to go down the tube.

I think, Mr. Chairman,

that our major industry here in British Columbia has been saved by the

fact that we've had the dollar difference, which has allowed the major

operators to become very healthy, financially, over the last few years.

Because of the hunger for timber and because of the dollar difference —

and now it's going to be greater because of the change in the GATT

agreement where tariffs have been lifted — those exports are going to

be flowing. Utilization by the large operators leaves a great deal to

be desired.

I've heard horror stories, and I've seen some of

the evidence. I've seen good sawlogs deliberately broken, pushed over

banks and buried because it was just too much of a hassle to get that

particular log out. They are not effecting close utilization; they are

not getting the number of board feel that a small operator would get

out of those logs. There's much too much waste. It's very difficult to

[ Page 751 ]

allow anyone to get in there to

utilize that waste

lumber after the major goes over it; they don't want anyone in there.

It's very difficult to get in there and take it out. It's left in such

a state that it's almost impossible to get it out. It's piled, covered

with dirt, burned immediately or pushed over banks. There's a terrific

waste going on. Lumber is a very valuable and rich part of our

heritage. It's a shame to see it destroyed as it is in many instances

by these major corporations — much more so than by the small operator

who has to scratch for every stick in order to make it pay. He's much

more efficient in using that forest resource. Yet this minister is

following a policy that is going to put those independents out of

business. He's following a policy that is going to completely give our

resource to the large majors; that's the direction we are going. This

minister is taking no steps to prevent that from happening.

started with the introduction of this forest bill. He tried to tell us

it was going to do the opposite. I think we have been proven right in

what's happening. The forest bill is simply adding to the number of

acres and units which the large corporations are getting control over.

The independent operator is in a tougher position than he's ever been

in the last year or two since this bill was introduced, and since that

minister has been in charge of forestry.

I can see a rather

bleak future for us as British Columbians with closed-door deals made

with the majors, with nobody knowing what they are paying or what they

are doing, and that minister in charge of our major resource. It's a

bit of a shocker, and it leaves me very discouraged about the economic

future of this province. I don't want to see any greater control than

we already have by the major corporations over our industry; that's

happening every day that minister remains in office.

MR. KING:

A bit earlier I was talking about the problems experienced by the small

independent mills in the East Kootenay. To outline the problem more

precisely than I have been able to do in my presentation thus far, I

would like to read into the record of this particular debate a

communication directed to the minister's office, dated April 2, 1979,

under the letterhead of Sultana Corporation, a cedar products mill at

Yahk, B.C. I wish the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) were here,

because the principal of this corporation is in the gallery this

morning. I think the member for Kootenay should be talking to his

constituent to try to understand the problems more effectively and,

hopefully, to lend his support because of the problems this firm and

many others are experiencing.

To get back to the communication, I'm going to read it:

Ministry of Forests

Mr. T.M. Waterland

Victoria, B.C.

RE: Small-business program available

timber.

Reference herein is made to various

letters, recommendations and the Forest Act with regard to Crown timber

as it applies to small business enterprises.

Review of the above clearly shows that

the policy set forth by the minister's office is not the same as the

regional and local offices advised our association.

Available timber from the Creston PYSU

annual allowable cut is the major area of disagreement. Note that the

small-business program states on page 3, paragraph 1: "The minister may

specify a portion of the annual allowable cut for small business."

Further, on page 3, paragraph 1: "Not less than 15 percent of annual

allowable cut will be available for small business enterprises." Please

note that this does not provide the regional office with the

discretionary power to reduce any portion thereof from the

small-business program.

On February 7, 1979, Mr. T.M. Apsey

advised our association delegates that the small-business program will

be implemented. On February 17, 1979, Mr. Tom Waterland, Minister of

Forests, advised our delegates that:

a) there is a small-business program;

b) that no less than 15 percent from the

annual allowable cut will be provided:

c) that, if needed, timber will be taken

away from big-business mills and given to the small-business program;

and

d) that small-business program

legislation can be passed within one week.

On approximately March 19, 1979, the

deputy minister

advised that instructions were given to the Nelson regional office to

initiate timber sales from the AAC as related to the small-business

program. On March 27, 1979, the regional office advised us that timber

sales were being started and that forest sales of approximately 100

trees each for house logs and one salvage sale, previously logged off

by Crestbrook, for ten small mill processors.

On March 28, 1979, the deputy minister

advised that the salvage sale was not his instruction from the regional

office. The TSLs were to be as defined within the parameters of the

small-business program from the annual allowable cut.

On March 30, 1979, in another phone call,

the deputy minister again cut. advised us that his instructions to the

regional office were to initiate TSL under the proposed small-business

program and not salvage sales.

On March 30, 1979, in a phonecall to the

regional office, again we were advised that there were no changes in

regional posture. The area is fully committed to the licensees and only

salvage is available.

On April 6, 1979. a meeting with the

regional zone manager, local ranger, deputy ranger and the association

produced no timber within the small-business program. All was totally

committed to big business.

For the records we ask: Why is the

regional office not

following the deputy minister's instructions? Why does the regional

office continually state that the area is totally committed to major

mills? What is the meaning of total commitment when the major mills'

quota is only 49,000 cunits out of approximately 103,000 cunits? Why is

there such a regional-office manager indifference to instructions

provided by the deputy minister's office? Why has the regional manager

informed area offices that there will probably be much less than 5

percent of annual allowable cut for the small-business program, when

the program and the minister make statements that not less than 15

percent will be available? Why has the regional manager refused to

recognize small-business enterprise as defined on page 7 of the

program, which states: "The regional manager will take into

consideration size, term and quality, so as to satisfy the needs of

small-business operators."? Why has the minister's office refused to

produce one shred of evidence in the form of positive legislation or

contracts as defined within the parameters of the program, after

indicating that legislation would take only one week — reference Mr.

Tom Waterland's statement of February 17, 1979?

In review of all of this, in

chronological order, it is becoming increasingly clear that no action

or legislation by the minister's office is forthcoming, but rather has

become a matter of political expedience. The minister is saying one

thing to the small-business operators, while all along is doing

something else for big business. Why have small-business operators not

seen one concrete piece of evidence to support the 15 percent of the

annual allowable cut for the small-business program? Why has the

minister allowed big business to continue operation small businessmen

have been provided with nothing and are being starved to death while

waiting for action by the ministry

The minister's office has placed the

small operators in a position where the taking of Crown timber under

the Forest Act.

Part X111, trespass and recovery will be the only way

the small enterprisers will be able to operate, What kind of ministers

and laws do we have that force the small-business operator to break the

law to physically survive?

Yours sincerely

Eugene Schmidt.

Vice-president.

Kootenay Secondary

Mills Association

Mr.

Chairman, that letter has never been answered. I am advised by the

minister he has not deigned to answer that letter which was directed to

him on April 2. It is a letter

[ Page 752 ]

which

contains evidence of the frustrating experiences and the frustrating

treatment that these mills have received at the hands of the Forests

ministry. It is a letter which, in my view, clearly demonstrates the

kind of discrimination that I've been talking about for the last few

hours, and the minister doesn't even answer it.

Mr. Schmidt

did receive an answer, not from the minister, but from the local

regional manager, Mr. M.G. Eisner of Nelson. He received a reply on

April 23 from Mr. Eisner, and it said:

"Dear Sir:

"We have received a copy of your letter

of April 2, 1979, to the Hon. T.M. Waterland, concerning timber

availability.

"You will no doubt be receiving a full

reply from the minister's office in due course."

What a hope, Mr. Chairman.

"In

the meantime, I must comment on the final paragraph of your letter

wherein you imply that small business operators will be considering

trespass in Crown timber. This is an extremely serious matter and I

must make it absolutely clear that trespasses will not be condoned. The

Forest Act contains provisions governing prohibited timber cutting and

these provisions will be enforced in any case of trespass.

Yours truly,

M. G. Eisner,

Regional Manager.

There

was total silence. They totally ignored the implications of what Mr.

Schmidt and his conferees in the association had outlined in the letter

which indicated discrimination in terms of any available timber supply

for them. It indicated conflict between the minister's stated

objectives and the position taken by the regional manager with whom

they must deal for a timber supply. It indicated that rather than any

sales being put up to sustain them, all that was offered to them were

some salvage sales and some log sales for house logs. This is a sorry

record. This is a discouraging record in terms of encouraging and

developing small industry in the province of British Columbia.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I think my colleague from Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson)

outlined yesterday the circumstances surrounding the total annual

allowable cut in the Creston forest district. I understand that the

total annual allowable cut of 103,000 cunits was established based on

inventories that were conducted in 1973, rather than any up-to-date

appraisal or inventory. I understand that in 1977 the small business

operators asked for third-band timber and the B.C. Forest Service

rejected that request. But in 1977 the quota holders were issued a

timber sale licence, and I think the number, if the minister would like

to check this out, of that timber sale licence was A09060. It was

third-band material, which was a substantial amount to the quota

holders that was never put up for public bid. There's even been the

suggestion by some of the small operators that the minister actually

broke the law in so doing. He is so quick to have his staff threaten

any of the small entrepreneurs who, out of desperation to keep in

operation, may indulge in trespass. The full weight of the law will

come down on them. There's the allegation that the minister may himself

have violated the law in providing this timber sale licence to the

existing licence holders without putting it up for public tender and

thus excluding the small independents. Why was that timber sale issued

in '77 not advertised? I understand it was issued direct without public

competition, depriving the small operators of any opportunity to

compete and bid for that timber.

These

are the questions that the minister should answer. It's a pretty sorry

record in terms of any commitment to or any hope for small businessmen

in the forest sector that there is going to be some role for them. I

don't know whether there is any point to continuing to belabour this

thing or not. The minister and his staff should be highly concerned;

unfortunately, I haven't really received that kind of response from the

minister. Rather than coming to grips with the specifics of these very

serious allegations, he simply gets up and generalizes and says: "Look,

we're going to come down on them. We're going to provide timber for

small enterprise. We're going to minimize the abuse and the waste by

the major licence-holders." However, they're presumably going to be

allowed to retain their monopoly. I think we deserve something better

than that, Mr. Chairman.

As I indicated, Mr. Eugene Schmidt,

who is the president, I believe, of the small businessmen's group in

the Creston forest area, is in the gallery today. He is not politically

motivated. He is motivated in terms of trying to produce something out

of our forest resource, trying to create some jobs, trying to determine

whether or not there's going to be a role for the small entrepreneur in

the forest industry. He's received the classic double shuffle from the

minister and his staff. The minister says: "Yes, we'll make timber

available to you." The regional office says: "There's none available;

it's all allocated." That makes the minister look good, because he

says: "Look, I'm trying to do something for you. " He kept promising

until the election was over. Now the minister doesn't even bother to

answer letters, and now I suspect the truth is going to come out that

the minister has, in fact, no commitment, and no real intent to make

timber available to small enterprise in British Columbia.

It's

not good enough to wait until next year. Many of these small firms are

going to go down the tube unless they receive, not promises but some

material commitment. As one operator in the north part of the province

has said: "You simply can't go to the bank on promises and expressions

of sympathy from the Minister of Forests." Surely it is apparent to

everyone that if the large integrated firms need long-term tenure to

insure their role in British Columbia, the small independents need some

commitment and some tenure as well, rather than empty promises.

Mr.

Chairman, I want to repeat for the benefit of the member for Kootenay

(Mr. Segarty) that Mr. Schmidt, your constituent, who has provided this

material and who has met with the minister on numerous occasions, is in

the gallery today, and I hope the member for Kootenay will get in touch

with him, and meet him and discuss these problems. And if he finds that

I have in any way been misrepresenting the story that was presented by

this group of eight sawmills, then he has an obligation to stand up in

the House and say so. But if he finds that this is, indeed, valid

material and that this is a true and accurate assessment of the

frustration those small independent businessmen have experienced, then

he has an equal obligation to get up in this Legislature, as I have

done, and demand action and

[ Page 753 ]

accountability from the Minister of

Forests, notwithstanding the fact that he may happen to be a member of

the same party.

there is to be any credibility whatsoever in that government's claim

that they do represent true, competitive enterprise, then this kind of

discriminatory conduct, this kind of double standard when it comes to

the treatment of the large integrated monopolies as opposed to the

small business people, must come to an end. I want to say, Mr.

Chairman, that it's not going to come to an end until members on all

sides of the House are prepared to speak out and demand a better

calibre of performance from this minister. It's not going to happen

until the public is made aware of the magnitude of the abuse that's

taking place under the auspices of a minister who says he is dedicated

to the very things that he has failed to produce.

Mr.

Chairman, I strongly suggest to the member for Kootenay that he get in

touch with the principals involved in this correspondence, meet with

them, consult with them and at least represent them in this

Legislature. That's what people are sent down here for — to discuss and

to outline the problems that have developed in their own regions.

Certainly the member for Kootenay has an obligation to do so. I am

going to leave it at that again and hope the minister responds in some

meaningful way. Later on I will be dealing with the inadequate

commitment of funds through the minister's department for intensive

forest management, for adequate silviculture, for adequate programs of

reforestation.

I will be dealing with a variety of other

matters and calling the minister to account for his administration.

But, in my view, the emergent problem — the one that transcends all

considerations because we're being deprived of jobs in revenue — is the

increasing entrenchment of the monopoly that this minister is presiding

over. I think he has an obligation to give some commitment to the House

today that he is going to deal with that matter in an effective way, at

the earliest opportunity.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr.

Chairman, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke has once again repeated

many of the things he said in his last two speeches on my estimates. He

brought up, however, a letter from Eugene Schmidt. No, I didn't write

an answer to Mr. Schmidt's letter — I forget the date of it. However,

Mr. Schmidt and I and others of my staff met for about an hour in my

office to discuss in detail the many points he raised. Mr. Schmidt has

a habit of either taking things which I say out of context, or else

misinterpreting.

I never did tell Mr. Schmidt, when we met

him in the Kootenays in February, that we would immediately put up

sales in the small-business program. At that time, if I had, Mr.

Schmidt probably would have not have been able to compete for them,

because we didn't have the distinction between the class of small

business he is and others.

We did try to put up salvage sales to tide him over. At no

time did I say we were immediately going to put up sales under the

small-business program; that was not possible at the time. I believe

that I personally, my Deputy Minister, Mr. Apsey, and others of the

staff have spent a great deal of time with Mr. Schmidt trying to

explain to him what our small-business program is, when it will be in

place and what it will mean to them. He understands, I hope, what we're

doing, what we're trying to do; and I will just say again to that

member that we will have a substantial small-business program. He's

asked for a commitment; I've given him that commitment no less than six

times since my estimates began, so I will say it again: we will have a

small business program and it will be underway just as soon as we pass

amendments to the Forest Act.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, last night when

I spoke was.... I guess one couldn't say one was happy to have

information confirmed about serious mismanagement along a right-of-way,

but I was glad the minister and I were on the same track in terms of

information.

The

minister said just now, in responding to the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke — and I suppose it's quite accurate that six times

he has given the commitment that there will be a small-business program

in effect.... What we're talking about is the fact that, as I outlined

last night, there are existing small-business enterprises, and they

are, some of them — I know one in particular where the person is still

working — right on the verge of bankruptcy. He needs timber today. He

really needed it about six months ago.

I understand there

are about seven sales proposed for that area in the Kootenays, but by

the time the silvicultural assessment is done, and the cruising of the

timber is done, and the advertising of the sale takes place, some of

these people will be so completely under — and their bank credit so

overextended — they will be going through foreclosure proceedings.

Because of the nature of the specific sites, only two of them could

probably be logged next winter, and the other seven will not be

available until next summer. That is just too far away.

What

the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) is suggesting is that some

extraordinary measures have to be taken, and some blame has to be given

to the Forest Service, who have known about this for quite some time.

It is true that under the old legislation that quota was increased for

Jack Wiggins, who is not a big operator by any means, but certainly

bigger than the scale we are talking about here.

[Interruption.]

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're making the baby cry.

MR. NICOLSON: The child can't see me from

up there, but it can see down in those benches, Mr. Member.

HON. MR. CHABOT: He or she can hear you,

though.

MR. NICOLSON:

Mr. Chairman, what we are talking about are small-business people who

are more suited to being self-employed than they are to going to work

for some other person. They are people whose greatest asset is perhaps

also a liability in life. If these people are to make a contribution to

society, they can make it as persons who are self-employed.

know the personal background of some of these people, and I must say

that one could probably write a few novels about some of them. They're

very interesting people with fierce intensity and drive, people who

would keep on going when many others would long since have quit, and

who I fear are, quite frankly, not suited to working for wages, but are

suited to working, for Lord knows what reason, in that much more trying

form of employment — being self-employed and running a small business;

taking

[ Page 754 ]

risks

and working long and sometimes unrewarding hours; fighting for that

kind of an ideal which has characterized the drive and the backbone

which has been part of the building of British Columbia. These people

are like the old Gordon Gibson Sr., people who make a living in the

bush and don't just look for all of the security and tenure that others

of us, such as myself.... I've worked in a factory, I've sought the

security of a union, and then as a teacher.... I spent about as much

time in one area as in the other.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What else is he going to

do'?

MR. NICOLSON:

Oh, I've been fairly successful in getting myself re-elected, Mr.

Member. The Minister of Economic Development, who interrupts, is the

member who didn't even want to come down to this House in 1972, when he

was elected, but he only ended up in a paltry little opposition of ten

members. He was so discouraged. He didn't want to represent the people

of Peace River. He wanted a big fancy cabinet job. That's all he wanted

and that was his only motivation. So he likes to interrupt, Mr.

Chairman....

AN HON. MEMBER: He helped turf you out,

though.

MR. NICOLSON: Oh, he's helped me out on

many occasions — helped me get re-elected, Mr. Member, by some of his

actions.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Casa Loma!

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. All members should be advised that we are debating vote

117; that message is to all members. Please carry on, Mr. Member.

MR. NICOLSON:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It does make members of the government a

little bit twitchy when somebody from this side articulates the

philosophy of small independent business and free enterprise better

than any of those people are prepared to do. I have never seen such a

bunch of cowards in that back bench that won't get up and speak for

free enterprise in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. NICOLSON: What are they trying to cover

up, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair will

ask you to withdraw the word "coward," please. It is unparliamentary.

MR. NICOLSON: Just a minute please, Mr.

Chairman, I want to check with Beauchesne.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Withdraw.

MR. NICOLSON: No one has taken objection.

No one has asked for a withdrawal, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair did.

MR. NICOLSON:

Mr. Chairman, under standing orders, when the Chair makes a ruling, it

is to cite standing orders or parliamentary authorities. "The

interpretation of both the written rules and tradition in the hands of

the Speaker and his deputies with their rulings forming a fundamental

part of procedure...."

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's not up to

the member to lecture the Chair. I have asked you simply to withdraw

the word "coward," which, in the Chair's estimation, is

unparliamentary. Would you please withdraw?

MR. NICOLSON:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I will draw to your attention the

duties of the Chair. I'll withdraw the word "coward," but on a point of

order, I'm hoping to continue. I draw your attention to the standing

order 9. "Mr. Speaker shall preserve order and decorum and shall decide

questions of order, subject to an appeal to the House without debate.

In explaining a point of order or practice, he shall state the standing

order or authority applicable to the case."

I would like Mr. Chairman, since he has taken it upon

himself to rule against the term "coward," to cite the authority which

designates the word "coward" unparliamentary when I did not attribute

it to any single member.

MRS. JORDAN: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for North Okanagan

on a point of order.

MR. NICOLSON:

There is a point of order on the floor, Mr. Chairman, on which I have

asked you to rule. Many times it is stated by the Chair that you cannot

have two points of order being under consideration at the same time.

Are you going to deal with that member?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. We will deal with the first point of order. The member

has withdrawn the remark, which is acceptable to the Chair. It is not

up to the Chair to cite standing orders for unparliamentary words. The

member has withdrawn, and that is the end of it.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, if the member

has withdrawn, my point of order has been made.

MR. NICOLSON:

Mr. Chairman, the people that we're talking about in this specific case

— and I know I've also met similar people in areas such as Vernon and

Kelowna — are self-starters. As has been said, they have a capital

investment. I know that one of them, through frustration or whatever,

embarked upon a trespass of some magnitude. It doesn't justify their

action but it isn't fair that people are being put so much to the wall

that they have been driven into doing this type of thing out of

frustration.

I would just hope that the minister would give

an undertaking to put on a special crafts program to get the

silvicultural work done that might have to be done before the

assessment of soils or whatever. Oh, the minister looks and frowns. I

don't pretend to be a graduate in forestry, but I understand that

certain work has to be done before these seven sales can be made. I

want to know when they can be advertised and when they will be

announced.

[ Page 755 ]

If the minister frowns and if such work doesn't have to be

done, has

the cruising been done? Why could that not have been going on in the

last two, three or four months, or the last year, when the minister was

planning to create some kind of a special small-business program? He

knew full well that if he was going to deliver something under this

program at the earliest possible date, certain kinds of preparatory

field work would have to be done. You have to survey the area, you have

to flag the area, you have to timber-cruise the area. What is the

minister prepared to do in terms of bringing that on as immediately as

possible, and what is the earliest possible date by which those sales

could be advertised and the tenders, the sealed bids or whatever,

received and announced?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: In reply

to the member's question, Mr. Chairman, the work has been done. The

sales are ready to go, and I believe I mentioned this when the member

was out of the chambers. It requires 30 days' advertising for the

sales. Registration of small businessmen under the program is required

in order to determine who are small businessmen, and that is underway

now.

The forms are out in the hands of the regional officers

and registration is underway. The sales are ready to go, and the law

requires 30 days' advertising before the actual sale can take place.

But we have been doing the homework, the preparatory work, and we're

ready to run with them right now — as soon as our amendment to the bill

is passed, whereby we can have the different classes of businesses.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MR. NICOLSON:

Another thing that I would hope could be said here is that no one in

politics has a thin skin. I hope the minister doesn't have one. I don't

think that he has one.

Mr. Eugene Schmidt and many other

people in the area have, I think, been doing a service for the people

of British Columbia. If they're critical of the minister out of some

frustration, I'd like the minister to know that they're critical of me

too. I hope there are no hard feelings. I'm afraid there are some in

the bureaucracy, but I hope that at the top, at least, there are no

hard feelings about these things, because, in speaking out on these

matters very strongly, these people are doing the people of British

Columbia a great deal of good. Not only that, they always have done so,

in terms of being the kind of people who provide employment.

am still concerned about what date, within a week or two, the minister

expects that the people who are successful bidders — assuming that this

legislation goes through, and the House leaders are in control of the

calling of legislation — could be into the bush and actually starting

to harvest such material.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I, of

course, don't have detailed familiarity with all the sales we are

planning; but the sales and the small-business program which will be

getting underway immediately are in already developed areas. They

require no road development or that type of thing. They will be

adjacent to existing access roads. So as soon as the sales are awarded,

loggers should be able to go to work immediately.

MR. KING:

I want to, at some point during the minister's estimates, go through

the new draft licence forms that the ministry has prepared for the

various licence holders in the province. I have a great number of

questions regarding the particular form, and the particular language

used.

I want to refer back to the general criticism that

I've put forward of the ministry in terms of their stewardship of the

forest resource. I've tried to outline as effectively as I know how the

plight of small business in the coastal area and in some parts of the

Interior. I've outlined the attitude of the small business people in

their dealings with the ministry, and I find that the same complaints

are being made from many parts of the province. I could enumerate

similar problems that have been drawn to the minister's attention by

Jackson Bros. Logging up in the Sechelt area, and I know the minister

has had correspondence there too. I don't know how many cases of

control, how many cases of demonstrable discrimination, how many cases

of demonstrable neglect one has to present to this House in order to

convince the minister that there is something wrong in terms of the

independents' access to timber resources in British Columbia. It's

significant, Mr. Chairman, that I've received not one complaint from

any of the large licence-holders. They seem more than content in terms

of their access to an adequate timber supply. In every case the files

that have come to my possession relate to the frustration experienced

by small independents in all parts of the province in terms of trying

to maintain their operation, in terms of finding an adequate timber

supply, and by the minister and his ministry's apparent indifference to

the plight of these people who are fighting for survival: vague

promises for the future; something is going to happen: something is

going to change. That's pretty weak stuff on which to set your business

operation.

The other significant factor about it that should

convince the minister that we are dealing with an emergency here is the

fact that while the big integrated forest companies of the province are

important to our economy, they are generally centralized in the lower

mainland area. There are some large ones up in the Interior too. But a

lot of these small independent mills are in areas and in communities

where there is virtually no other industrial base. Therefore their

importance to the community, to the lifestyle and to the local regions

is of tremendous importance. If they cut back in terms of their

production and their employment, it's a major blow to local payrolls.

It has a ripple effect throughout the whole economy of the local area.

It means that, with a reduced payroll, less is purchased from the other

business enterprises of the community. Local restaurants suffer; the

local service industry suffers; there's a complete ripple effect

throughout the economy generated from cutbacks in the small-business

sector.

It's not on the scale of the MacMillan Bloedels and

the Weyerhaeusers and the Crown Zellerbachs. But in relationship it is

just as important and just as profound to the regional economy of

British Columbia. It's of little use for the minister to give rather

pathetic assurances that he intends to deal with these problems at some

future date down the road when, in fact, they are dealing with today.

They must have an assured supply in order to know that they're going to

have a role in the industry tomorrow. These are the things the minister

has failed to address himself to.

[ Page 756 ]

Mr.

Chairman, I don't know what more I can say about the neglect of the

small-business sector of the forest industry. I don't know what more I

can say, except to try to direct public attention to the problems on

every occasion that I have to try to make the media aware so that they

will be a bit more critical in their scrutiny of the Forest Service

administration.

I think one of the reasons the minister is

able to get away with this kind of negligent administration is simply

because it is a specialized area and the public is not, generally,

highly aware of what is required for good, sound forest management

policies in the province. The public views the forest industry as

something that takes place out there in a highly specialized way, with

jargon and slogans and professionals that defy the understanding of lay

people. They therefore hesitate to venture into any discussion or

debate of the proper husbandry of our forest resource. That has allowed

the minister to sit back, in a rather insulated way — free from a great

deal of public scrutiny — and allow the status quo to prevail without

any imperative pressure to bring about fundamental changes in the very

sorry state of the industry in British Columbia in terms of a fair

allocation of the resource.

Be that as it may, I can't force

the minister to change. I can only appeal to all members of the House.

I can only appeal to the public and to the media to test the validity

of the allegations that have been put forward in this debate and on

other occasions. Certainly the Truck Loggers Association at their last

convention expressed much of the same concern and many of the fears

that we in the opposition expressed when the Forest Act was introduced.

In light of subsequent experience, many of our concerns and many of

their concerns have come to fruition.

They've happened, and

I sincerely hope that people in the industry such as the truck loggers,

such as small associations similar to the ones up in the East

Kootenays, are going to have the courage to speak out publicly, because

there always has been a bit of fear which has pervaded the forest

industry. Because of the monopoly, because of the control of markets,

because of the reliance of the small operators upon the major ones,

there has been an ability to intimidate, an ability to exert pressure

and control. That's another side effect and a very serious implication

of the monopoly circumstances which the minister is presiding over.

That completely flies in the face of any competition in the industry.

It completely flies in the face of open public dealing in the forest

industry, and it's a very, very dangerous kind of structure which is

allowed to exist.

Mr. Chairman, I want to move away from

this general thing. The last hope that I wish to express is that the

minister and the government will consider very carefully the concerns

that have been raised in this debate and reassess their position with a

view to doing something in a very demonstrable way to assist and to

ensure the survival of small business enterprise in the forest sector

of our economy.

Let's move to the forms which the ministry has put out for the

renewal of tree-farm licences and cutting permits. I want to pose a

number of questions to the minister regarding the form and the language

involved in these draft revisions which I have in my hand. I want to

extend my appreciation to the ministry for its courtesy in providing me

with these renewal forms and the data that I requested from them at the

earliest opportunity. I don't know whether the minister has this

material at hand, but I would draw to his attention that on page 2 of

the.... What I have are only draft forms for tree-farm renewals.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: This is for tree-farm

licences?

MR. KING:

Yes, the renewals of tree-farm licences.

Section 104 says: "The term of

this licence is for 25 years beginning..." and the space is left blank.

I want to ask the minister if, in that renewal form, that date is

negotiable, or if it is an automatic provision that the date of the

renewal will be the date of the passage of the new Forest Act. Or is it

the date on which the current licence expires? I wonder why in

extending a licence renewal for 25 years the beginning of the licence

renewal is left open. I wonder if the minister could comment on what

the reason is for that. Is it a negotiable factor or not? If it is

negotiable, what are the factors that the minister will be considering

in terms of renewing that licence?

Section 200 governs the

management of working plans, and

section 201 provides that "within

months after this licence is entered into the licensee will submit for

the chief forester's approval a proposed management and working plan

for the year period beginning January 1," — whatever year it is

effective in. I want to ask the minister what is meant by "within

months after." That is the most general wording I have ever heard in

any provision of this kind. It is in the forms for the management and

working plans of the applicant; it says "within months." Is that time a

negotiable factor dependent on the licence renewal? Or is it intended

to mean precisely what it says — "within months" — just as a general

provision? Or is it intended that blank space is to be filled in with a

specific number of months? It goes on:

"The

chief forester, in a notice to the licensee, may require that a

management and working plan be amended or replaced where (

a) timber in

the licence area is damaged by fire, wind, insects, disease, or other

natural forces, or (

b) serious damage is caused to a timber processing

plant of the licensee or there is a labour conflict, war, civil

insurrection, adverse weather conditions, depressed markets, or other

circumstances beyond the licensee's control where the chief forester

considers that the occurrence has rendered the management and working

plan inadequate. "

Some of the considerations there and some

of the language are unusual. I would like the minister to comment in

terms of what the philosophy is behind reference to labour conflicts.

Is it intended that if there is a labour dispute, and perhaps a work

stoppage flows from that dispute, the licence may be altered? If that's

the consideration, I find it an unusual intrusion into the domain of

industrial relations. If it simply relates to the licensee's ability to

harvest the resource, perhaps that is understandable. I find it a bit

remarkable also that a labour conflict is put into the same context as

a war or a civil insurrection. Quite frankly, I have to question the

minister regarding the philosophy behind all of those provisions.

have a great many other questions, but rather than proceeding too far

I'll give the minister an opportunity to answer those particular

queries.

[ Page 757 ]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I don't have with me

the specific document referred to by the member, but I think I can

answer in a general way.

referred to a blank in the renewal date. The legislation provides for a

renewal date, which is based partially on the length of time the

current working plan is good for. We've tried to spread the renewals

over a period of time so we can handle them administratively and

recognize the current working plan. If the current working plan is in

effect now and there's a short period before its expiry date, that date

will be filled in. But there will be a specific date filled in, as is

the case under

section 20, where a specific date is provided. That is

intended to be a blank and each licence will have a specific number of

months filled in.

Section 204 is sort of a force majeure

thing; it refers to the working plan. If it is impossible to comply

with the approved working plan — through any of the matters mentioned

by the member, including a prolonged work stoppage — it may be

impossible during a particular year to carry out the part of the plan

that was supposed to be carried out that year, in which case it may be

necessary to modify the five-year working plan to accommodate that. Of

course a major fire, insect infestation or war, I guess, could all make

it impossible to comply strictly with an approved working plan, so we

must have enough flexibility to modify it if such circumstances do

develop.

MR. KING: I appreciate the minister's

advice. I did feel that the context of all those provisions was a

little bit unusual.

section 206, paragraph (a), there's another provision.

Perhaps I should read the whole section:

"The

proposed management and working plan shall be prepared, signed and

sealed by a registered professional forester and shall contain (

a) information respecting the inventory of the forest resources and, where

available to the licensee, respecting the soils, fisheries and wildlife

resources and recreational capability of the licensed area...."

light of the tremendous conflict that was generated from a logging

proposal in the Queen Charlottes last year, a conflict between the

federal Fisheries department and the provincial Forest Service, which

culminated in people actually going to jail for violating a federal

Fisheries order.... I am not getting into whose fault it was at this

point, but just illustrating the kind of conflict that can develop over

the proper use of land and respect for the competing values of land use.

I find this provision in

section 206(

a) pretty weak in terms

of giving any consideration to those other uses of land. The suggestion

that where information is available to the licensee.... Well, that's

not a very specific admonition. What happens if it's not available? Is

the licence processed only on the basis of consideration of the forest

use? In those circumstances is there no reference at all to the

provincial fish and wildlife branch, to the provincial water rights

branch or, indeed, to the federal Fisheries department? This is a

wide-open kind of mandate, it seems to me, and I wonder what the

minister has in mind in saying it shall contain "information respecting

the inventory of the forest resources and, where available to the

licensee, respecting the soils, fisheries and wildlife resources...."

think anyone who is applying for 25-year tenure on a major portion of

Crown resource should have a very specific obligation imposed upon him

to deliberately canvass those other areas. It should be part of the

requirement that he either employ a biologist or refer his application

to the biologists in the provincial fish and wildlife branch in the

Environment ministry, to determine whether or not there is any

conflict, and, if there is conflict, whether or not it can be

accommodated through amendment to the working plan. That is the only

way, Mr. Chairman, to avoid the kind of conflict which the minister

found himself in last year when there was competition between the

Forest Service and the federal Fisheries department on the Queen

Charlotte Islands. As I say, people went to jail. So this particular

section is extremely weak. Where available, the licensee will provide

it. Well, that should be required of every application for licence

renewal, and I want to ask the minister whether or not there is some

other provision that I am not aware of, or whether this is the single

requirement for those firms seeking a renewal of their tree-farm

licences.

Would the minister care to respond?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Chairman, a good point is raised by the member. Once you have

determined what you want, what you actually get when it comes back in

legal terms is sometimes confusing to we legal lay people. But what

we're saying there is that in the development of the working plan

itself, as the plan is developed, whatever information is available at

that time will be used in the development of the working plan.

Following

development of the working plan is the approval of individual cutting

permits within that plan. What the working plan will then do is

identify those areas in which information is lacking: that must be

provided before the cutting plan itself will be issued.

This

is very specifically referred to in the Ministry of Forests Act. It

identifies the fact that we must have consultation, cooperation with

these other resource managers. But the working plan itself identifies

areas where there is a lack of information which will be provided

before individual cutting permits are issued.

MR. KING:

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the minister's response, but I point out to

him that the Forest Act is one thing in terms of its general direction,

but the real legal authority for the actual harvesting, as I understand

it, flows from the management working plan, and its endorsation. That's

the real legal right to enter, log and cut the resource. So unless

there's a specific provision contained in here, it seems to me, to

actually provide the data relating to other competing uses, then it's

going by the board.

The fact that the Forest Act says this

will be done is not illegal — it does not impose a legal requirement,

it seems to me, on the licensee to do it. This is the legal authority:

the management working plan. Mr. Minister, I would suggest that by

simply obtaining a forest licence you are not authorized to go out and

start logging it. You have to come before the ministry with a

management working plan, indicating how you propose to do it, which

area you intend to harvest first, and so on. Once that plan is

approved, then you actually have the legal right to start harvesting.

Well, the conditions of your management plan are the ones that impose

any legal obligations upon you in terms of how you log and where you

log. If they're in conflict with the Act in

[ Page 758 ]

terms

of determining the legality of it, it seems to me it would be the

management plan which would be the guiding factor. So I would certainly

like to see those forms strengthened a great deal in terms of making it

incumbent upon licensees to make sure they consult with the Ministry of

Environment and their staff, the water rights branch and the fish and

wildlife branch to ensure that before they have the licence to start

harvesting, any potential conflicts are identified and accommodations

made. Otherwise we're going to be back in the bag again where a

conflict breaks out. There are going to be competing orders issued by

federal fisheries representatives in conflict with the cutting permit

by the ministry's staff. And of course the last thing in the world we

need is that kind of foolish conflict over what we all have a genuine

interest in achieving, and that is the proper use — in harmony with all

interests — of the resources of the province. So I wish the minister

would have a very close look at that particular provision and

strengthen the language in the requirements in it.

The other

thing is, Mr. Chairman, that what I have here is marked "draft." It's a

draft copy I received from the ministry, and it may be that there have

been some amendments to this particular draft that was mailed to me, I

think, on April 18. If that is the case, perhaps the minister would let

me know. But in the meantime I'd like the minister's response to my

understanding of the sequence of events in this matter.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Chairman, I would be very happy to provide the member with the

final document which is in place now; but the specific authority to cut

wood is the licence to cut wood — the cutting permit — and a cutting

permit will be very specific as to what considerations have to be given

on that cutting area. That's where all the detailed information on soil

types, effect on stream banks and so on takes place. The ultimate

authority, of course, where there are requirements of what has to be

done, is within the Forest Act and the Ministry of Forests Act. These

other documents, the working plans, the tree-farm licence document and

the licence to cut must reflect the requirements of the legislation.

But the final specific authority to go in and begin to cut down trees

is itself within the licence to cut, the cutting permit.

MR. KING:

I can appreciate that the cutting permit is the final document, but the

cutting permit is hardly as broad and as exhaustive as the cutting plan

or the management plan. And it seems to me that's where the information

has to come from, which would adequately recognize these other

concerns. Once these have been met, then I can see the cutting permit

being issued.

This is the draft copy of the provisions that

the licensee must meet before he receives his cutting permit, and it

seems to me they are deficient in terms of the scope of the protection

that the licensee should be required to obtain. Following on, I wanted

to ask the minister a question with regard to

section 207(

a) on page 4.

It says: "An allowable cut...."

Did you want to move on to something else, Mr. Chairman?

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave

to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to

sit again.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave

to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 22,

Mr. Speaker.

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Speaker, Bill 22 is a series of rather unrelated amendments to the

Forest Act, which we found necessary as we drafted regulations to put

the Act into force. I think it's very difficult to determine a general

principle of the bill, which is what should be debated in second

reading. So may I suggest that we examine each

section in detail in

committee and we can probably have better debate on the bill in that

way.

So, Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second

time.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for

Revelstoke-Shuswap.

MR. KING: Actually, Mr. Speaker, it's

Shuswap-Revelstoke.

MRS. JORDAN: But not for long!

MR. KING: I wouldn't hold my breath, my

friend.

Mr.

Speaker, I do not intend to debate the bill, but I would like to serve

notice on the minister that there are a number of concerns that I have

regarding this bill, and just in a general way ask him to be prepared

to deal with these matters, probably in committee.

The first

is the real effect of the small business set-aside provisions. The

former statements by the minister that the only delay in giving effect

to and initiating the small-business program was the lack of

regulations, and that once the regulations were in order, he would be

prepared to go ahead with the small-business program.... He later

changed his tune a little bit and indicated that amendment to the

Forest Act was required before the small-business program could be

initiated. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I fail to see where there's

anything introduced in the amendments that could be of major

significance or could adversely affect the minister's ability to

small-business program above all other things, or prepare him to go in

the same hasty fashion in which he was able to find and allocate timber

to the major licence holders in the province of British Columbia —

expeditiously, without delay.

The other concern I would ask

the minister to direct his attention to and to be prepared to deal with

in committee is the reference to the change in the status of the

scalers.

My interest here is whether this has some

industrial relations implications, whether this in any way affects the

jurisdiction of scalers who are members of the IWA by making it

mandatory that they now become government employees and hence reside

under another union jurisdic-

[ Page 759 ]

tion. It's just a thought and a curiosity I

have, and I would like the minister's explanation in that regard,

certainly when we get to committee stage in the bill. I just wanted to

serve notice what my main areas of interest are.

MR. BARRETT: Upon returning to the

province, I turned on the radio broadcast this morning to hear the

minister's tones on CBC speaking about this bill.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You wouldn't

recognize him; you've been away too long.

MR. BARRETT: I recognized him; he's the

only one that's different than you. He doesn't pop up all the time. He

just does it once in a while.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm being interrupted. I heard the minister say that these

regulations, these amendments in the bill were necessary to provide

access to forest resources for the small loggers. You promised that

when you brought in the first bill saying it would come through

regulation. I was shocked, Mr. Speaker, to discover the minister trying

to explain away his complete failure in providing competition in the

forest industry for a year by saying now he's going to do it by

legislation. Mr. Speaker, that is known as a definition of

incompetence. A year and a half has gone by and small operators have

made major capital investments and have tried to get access to forest

resources. I even have gone to the Deputy Minister of Forests' office

with a group of Interior operators who were looking for timber, and we

were assured at that time that the minister's word about regulations

would be kept, and now we have this legislation.

Who is

kidding who? As far as I'm concerned, I heard the minister this morning

give another stall to the small operators. I would like the minister to

stand up in this House at the close of second reading, when he thinks

it's a nice soft ride and a gentle interruption, and say: "We just got

a few amendments here. They're unrelated."

I want a promise,

a commitment and a date when the small operators in this province are

going to have a chance against the giant monopolies that control the

forests.

You claim to be free enterprisers. There has been

an increasing stranglehold on the forest resources of this province by

large international companies. The one chance we had for maintaining

some semblance of public control and public access was through Can-Cel,

the purchase made by the previous administration.

Mr.

Minister, I don't think you give a tinker's darn about the small

operator. I don't think your ministry has lifted one finger. I don't

think you have the clout in cabinet. I don't think you have the

philosophical commitment other than to toady to the big corporations

who have had everything their own way since Social Credit got elected.

When this outfit was in opposition, Mr. Speaker. they

complained bitterly about small operators. the opportunity for

initiative and the opportunity for investment. We had the Pearse royal

commission report offer a series of recommendations that would have

guaranteed the small operator a break at a forest resource. This

government has deliberately avoided dealing with the Pearse

recommendation. It wrote a bill that had absolutely no relationship

with the Pearse recommendation, and it is handing over the forests of

British Columbia holus-bolus to the large corporations while playing a

little bit of a game of jiggery-pokery on the side, saying: "We are

looking after the small operators." By the time you get around to it

they'll all be on welfare.

There

is an incredible catalogue of history of the concentration of power in

this province on access to forest industry. My friend down the way

reminded me of the whole tour we had originally made in the early

seventies on the Houston route, and the small operators who were burnt

out because they'd sold out. Yes, my friend remembers those speeches of

those days. But the fact is, Mr. Speaker, there's been a catalogue of

concentration of power as a deliberate policy by Social Credit. They

have no philosophy of commitment to the small logging operator, not

even to what he would consider to be exotic experiments of returning to

hand-logging. They have no commitment to competitive bidding for forest

resources, nor to the competition of letting the small entrepreneur

prove he can do a better job.

I remember the speeches the

minister has made over the last year and a half, saying: "If you don't

use it, you lose it.'' No one has lost a darned thing when it comes to

the big companies, Mr. Speaker. The only people who have lost in

British Columbia are those remnants of the pioneering families, that

small operator who wants a chance at forest resources. That minister,

Mr. Speaker, has sold out to the large forest corporations. has

centralized their control in the resources, has stalled any approach

for a small operator to get any timber. There isn't an MLA who

represents a rural area that hasn't had the small operator come to him

and say: "Look. we're in a terrible bind." In Columbia River I ran

across it, and the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot) knows

what the problem is in his riding. Certainly he does. The small

operators have not had a chance at timber in that riding. Laugh as you

may, Mr. Attorney General. You represent Vancouver–Point Grey, and that

very dilettante area that benefits....

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT:

You know, Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that at a few minutes to

one o'clock on Friday they would quietly bring in this amendment after

that minister has gone on radio saying: "This is another clean-up

attempt" — and a promise and a promise and a promise.

Interjections.

SOME HON MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT: What

is he doing butting in on my speech? It is the right-wing Liberals who

are dominating this group and now cramming down the throat of that

minister orders that cut out the small operator. The right-wing

Liberals who have always been toadying to those international

corporations that dominate our forests....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Vintage Lewis!

MR. BARRETT: Vintage Lewis! Vintage jerk!

I find it really an interesting series of....

Interjections.

[ Page 760 ]

MR. BARRETT: Will you please shut up? Mr.

Speaker, I would ask the member to please stop interfering. He's

hurting my feelings.

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

Let's have one member speak at a time. Please proceed.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, what prompted these remarks was the minister's bland

statement of admission this morning that there still is a problem with

the small operator, but now he's going to bring in legislation to clean

it up. You promised that the regulations would clean it up. Your

ministry has done absolutely nothing to protect the small operator in

this province. I think it would be worthwhile if over the weekend the

minister could come back to us with a statement and a commitment on the

part of the government that the small operator in British Columbia is

going to have some access to timber, and that against the big companies

who are not performing, as outlined by my colleague from

Shuswap-Revelstoke, some action will take place. I want the minister to

think about it over the weekend. I want him to reread his old

statements in Hansard , and I want some assurance

for those small operators that some action is going to take place.

was shocked this morning, Mr. Speaker, to hear the minister using that

line again: "I'm going to do something. I'm going to do something." Mr.

Speaker, as far as I'm concerned, that minister has done nothing for

the small operators here in the province of British Columbia, and has

no intention of doing anything for the small operators.

find it most disappointing, Mr. Speaker, that on top of that, at the

end of a week in this House, all we get from that minister is a

statement that they are little unconnected, unrelated things. I draw

your attention to the clock.

Hon. Mr. Chabot filed the annual report for 1978, for the

British Columbia Housing Management Commission.

MR. BARNES: I'd like to introduce a couple

of friends in the gallery.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, my attention has

been drawn to the clock.

MR. BARNES: Well, with leave, perhaps it

would be okay.

Leave granted.

MR. BARNES:

In the gallery with us this afternoon are three brothers: Paul, Art and

Arnold Wynne. Paul Wynne works with the Secretary of State Department.

I would like to have the House welcome them this afternoon.

MR. SKELLY: On a point of order, earlier in

this sitting I referred to you a matter which I addressed to the House

as being a matter of urgent public concern, and I wish to have your

decision on that matter.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, unfortunately my

attention has been drawn to the clock, and it would be inappropriate at

this time.

MR. BARRETT:

On a point of order, as the appropriate action on attention being drawn

to the clock is the immediate removal of the Speaker from the Chair,

you broke that precedent by calling for the normal motions. As a

consequence we're in the normal motions — drawing attention to the

clock was not followed correctly.

MR. SPEAKER: Order,

please, hon. member. On the point of order raised by the Leader of the

Opposition, the procedure, on the Speaker's attention being drawn to

the clock in this House, provides opportunity for the normal motions of

adjournment, because without those motions of adjournment the debate on

whatever happens to be before the House collapses. I would remind the

hon. Leader of the Opposition of that, which is traditional in this

House.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and once we

move into that traditional practice, then the member's point of order

is in order, in my opinion. There was a delay on an emergency motion;

we went into normal practice without leave of the House; and we're now

expecting to have an answer to the member's question — and that's

normal practice in the House, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

I appreciate the member's opinion. However, the fact is that the

tradition of the House simply provides for an opportunity of normal

adjournment. No other business is appropriate at a time subsequent to

the pointing to the clock.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On the same point of

order, Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the Journals

of the House for March 22, 1973, at page 171, which set forth the

practice which is always followed, and certainly not the one that the

Leader of the Opposition is attempting to thrust down our throats today.

MR. SKELLY:

On the same point of order. Mr. Speaker, would it be possible to ask

leave of the House — and I do ask leave — to have this matter brought

up before the House at this time and to have your decision rendered to

the House at this time?

MR. SPEAKER: This is a departure that's

going to introduce into the House a procedure which we may well regret.

Shall leave be granted?

Leave not granted.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:05 p.m.

[ R