1988 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MAY 31, 1988

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4747 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 4747

Oral Questions

Electoral reform committee. Mr. Harcourt –– 4747

Bus transportation for handicapped preschool children. Mr. Cashore –– 4748

Funding for child care. Ms. Marzari –– 4748

Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 26).

Hon. Mrs. Johnston

Introduction and first reading –– 4749

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

On vote 40: minister's office –– 4749

Mr. Miller

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Bruce

Mr. Jacobsen

Mr. Williams

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

We have a very distinguished guest in the members' gallery today. I

would ask the House to please welcome His Excellency Mahmoud Kassem,

Ambassador of the Arab Republic of Egypt.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today is a group of constituents of mine

from Fort St. John, members of the Stage North Theatre Society. They

won an award at the Dawson Creek festival which entitled them to come

here and put on their play, The Actor's Nightmare ,

at the McPherson Playhouse as part of Mainstage '88. In the group are

Linda Scarfo, June Ainsworth, Kevin Truscott, Marian Truscott, Joanne

Kirschner, Shawn Jones, and also a member of the cast and a great

ambassador for Fort St. John, the recently selected Miss Fort St. John,

Lily Pagdilao. I would like the House to give them a North Peace

welcome.

HON. MR. DUECK : On behalf of the second

member for the Central Fraser Valley (Mr. De Jong) and myself, I would

like this House to welcome some constituents from the Central Fraser

Valley: Gabriel Shaves and her two young children, Laura and Anthony.

Would the House please make them welcome.

MRS. GRAN :

Visiting the gallery today is Doris Blair from Langley. Doris is the

widow of the late mayor of Langley, Bill Blair, whom I served under as

alderman for five years. With Doris are Cyril and Marjorie Cartwright

from Timaru, New Zealand. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. RABBITT :

Today in the gallery are two very good, close friends of my wife and

mine whom I'd like to introduce to the House: Bob and Gloria Wood.

Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. Mr. Parker tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Forests and Lands for the year 1986-87.

Oral Questions

ELECTORAL REFORM COMMITTEE

MR. HARCOURT :

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. The government has

accepted a legislative committee on the Fisher report on the basis of

the comments from the first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson). These

comments were designed to ensure that electoral reform would not favour

one party over the other; hence his proposal for equal representation

on the committee. Is the Premier prepared to accept the request in the

spirit in which it was intended and agree to equal representation on

the committee?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Well, Mr.

Speaker, yes. I hear it called across the way, do I believe in

fairness? I think that's really the process that we've outlined, and

certainly we've recognized that from time to time the NDP opposition

raises certain proposals, and we've now responded in full. I've often

worried about whether it really was sincere, whether you meant what you

were saying in some of these proposals. I'll defer to the Provincial

Secretary.

HON. MR. VEITCH : As I remember the proposal from the hon. first member

for Victoria, he talked about a unanimous decision. If there's unanimity,

I would suggest that it would matter little how many members there might be

from either side. It's long been an outstanding rule in this House that

legislative committees, under the NDP or under Social Credit, have been made

up proportionately representative of the number of members sitting in the House

at that time, and I would expect this committee would follow that particular

precedent.

MR. HARCOURT :

A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Does the Premier not agree that by

rejecting equal representation for each party, his party will be able

to readjust the proposal to suit its own electoral purposes?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, what I understand from the Provincial Secretary's

recommendation, and what we've adopted to go with. is exactly as it was

put by the first member for Victoria, that we're in fact really

pursuing exactly what the NDP proposed. How are we to know that in an

instance like this you don't really mean what you've put to us?

MR. HARCOURT :

Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. We asked for equal representation and

you're denying it. That's we have heard from both the Premier and the

Provincial Secretary. Well, Mr. Premier, I trust that you agree that

the process to date has been a fair one. I'm sure you will listen to

that point. In order to ensure the integrity of that process, will the

Premier ensure that the House order establishing the committee will

respect the underlying principles contained in the Fisher report,

namely: 75 seats; secondly, a 25 percent variance; and thirdly.

elimination of the dual-member seats?

[2:15]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : As

I recall, the first member for Victoria wanted to have this committee

and have further hearings held so that there was ample opportunity for

public input so that the decision would be a fair and good one. The

fact that the committees are constituted as they are.... The people of

the province constituted it by electing the representatives as they

did. The Leader of the Opposition is asking that we forget what the

people of British Columbia wanted and the outcome of the election and

their representation in the House. He is further asking that we make

the decisions in advance of these public hearings and that we destroy

the democratic process.

MR. HARCOURT : We ask for

equal representation. You are saying no to that. Those hearings have

been held. Mr. Justice Fisher has concluded, after hearing from the

people of British Columbia, that there should be 75 seats and no more

than a 25 percent variance, and you have asked him to eliminate

dual-member ridings. You are now saying you won't include those in the

terms of reference of the committee. If you are not saying no, I would

like a very I will ask the question again, because I did not get an

answer. Will the Premier ensure that the House order establishing the

committee will respect the conclusions so far in Mr. Justice Fisher's

interim report, namely: 75 seats, 25 percent maximum variance and

establishment of single-member ridings?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

If we do as the opposition leader is suggesting, we're doing three

things wrong. Number one, we're ignoring a recommendation put forth by

one of his own members which we believed was a good one

[ Page 4748 ]

and

a fair one. Secondly, we're saying that regardless of what the people

decided in the last election and the representation in the House, we'll

ignore the people's wish and the representation in the House and we'll

respond instead to the wish of the NDP. Thirdly, if we accept the

recommendations, as the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we do,

then why have committees and why have public hearings and why have

democracy if you're going to destroy it?

MR. HARCOURT :

Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. If the government is not prepared to accept

equal representation and is not prepared to accept these principles

from the Fisher commission, then the committee is an excuse to redraw

the map to the government's liking. Will the Premier now admit that the

reference to the legislative committee is solely to redraw the map in

favour of his party?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I must

point out that the evidence is obviously much the other way. The

recommendation that we've put forth, and which we're prepared to and

have said we would accept, is the one which was initiated by the member

from the NDP, the opposition, responsible for that area of activity. So

how the Leader of the Opposition can say those things I can't

understand. If you want to do away with representative government and

how it functions and how the people are fairly represented on

committees by the way they elect people to the House, then why do we

need political parties? We may as well go to a Russian system.

BUS TRANSPORTATION FOR

HANDICAPPED PRESCHOOL CHILDREN

MR. CASHORE :

Now that we have a quiet moment in the House, I have a question

for the Minister of Social Services and Housing. It's a very

appropriate question in view of this being National Access Awareness

Week for the disabled. The Vancouver Regional Transit Commission's plan

to provide bus transportation for handicapped preschool children has

been refused funding through B.C. Transit and the Ministry of Municipal

Affairs. This will mean that many of the children will not get a

preschool education. As his ministry is responsible for helping those

in need, will the minister now assure this House that the necessary

funds will be provided?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I'm

unaware of the decision of which the member speaks, so I'll have to

take that portion of the question as notice. But I would like to add

that we always look after those who are unable to look after

themselves. In fact, I'm very proud of the record of this government in

dealing with the disabled. As I said, I'll have to take the first part

of his question as notice.

MR. CASHORE : A

supplementary to the minister. It's in the spirit of what the minister

has said that I'm putting the question, knowing that he will want to be

able to fulfill this need for these children who, for want of a half a

million dollars, are not able to have this service. I would remind the

minister that his government is sitting on $20 million that the Premier

has earmarked for supporting the family and for providing adequate

transportation for disabled preschool children in an area where

families definitely need support. I would ask the minister if he will

agree to meet with the Premier to urge him to invest money from that

$20 million to ensure that this valuable service is provided.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Again, Mr. Speaker, that would come under future policy and how we're

going to fund a given program. Once I've had a look at the program of

which the member speaks, then we will make that decision.

I am pleased to announce to this House — although I did put out a press release, it didn't get wide circulation —

that through the ministry I have entered into a contract with Joanne

Neubauer of Victoria, who is doing a study for me on the needs and

wants and requirements of the disabled, just so that we can make

absolutely sure that we cover all the needs of those less fortunate

than ourselves.

FUNDING FOR CHILD CARE

MS. MARZARI :

I have before me another press release from the Minister of Social

Services having to do with the day care subsidy increases. We notice

that for infant care, subsidies have increased from zero to 18 months.

We also notice that these subsidies do not begin to cover the cost of

really safe, licensed care in day care centres.

The

question is about this new category of care-giving that the minister

has invented called "in own home." In other words, I am assuming that

this subsidizes, up to $270 a month, a mother for the care of her child

in her own home. I would like the minister to inform this House as to

who qualifies for that subsidy. Is it unwed mothers only? Is it teenage

mothers only? Is it mothers in two-parent families? Is it working

mothers? Is it mothers on welfare?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

We will be publishing a list of the criteria for those who are eligible

for the infant day care subsidy. I don't have it with me. Rather than

trying to go from memory, I will wait until we publish the list. We are

exploring the possibilities, as I said during my estimates, of having

the extended family — the grandmothers of children — look

after the day care for these single mothers. It will all be spelled out

in the criteria when they're published very shortly.

MS. MARZARI :

I'm judging from that response that we're basically dealing with unwed

mothers or single mothers, and that the grandmother of the child will

be coming into the house to tend to the child's needs. Has the minister

received federal approval for this program under the Canada Assistance

Plan, or is this province going to be spending our own 100-cent

dollars — not cost-shared — on a program to encourage young girls to keep their babies?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I would remind the member that while there may be four levels of government in this country — federal, provincial, municipal and regional — there

is only one level of taxpayer. I think we always have to bear that in

mind. So whether the funds come 50 percent from the federal government

or 50 percent from us, the program will be funded as needed.

MS. MARZARI :

This government constantly tells us of how proud they are of being able

to retrieve some dollars from the federal government. They go around

bashing the federal government every second day, saying that the feds

don't give us enough. I'm asking you if you are going to the federal

government to get your 50-cent dollars on this one; that's where we're

going to save some money. The minister has promised that he will bring

to this House the negotiating package that we are taking to the federal

government. I have

[ Page

4749 ]

found out from Ottawa that they are expecting us, and all provinces, to sign

an agreement on the new day care package by the end of June. When is the minister

going to bring that package to this House?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

There seem to be two or three questions there. Let me assure this House

that we extract all of the 50-cent dollars we possibly can from Ottawa.

Some we are still negotiating, such as parents looking after their

severely handicapped children in their home. We haven't managed to get

that past the federal government yet, but we're still working on it.

Yes,

the new child care act is to be introduced into the federal Parliament

shortly. I know the minister wants to pass that legislation before the

federal House recesses for the summer. When we conclude our

negotiations with the federal government, then we will make the terms

of that negotiation public.

MR. BARNES : What was that bell? I have a question for the Minister of Education,

MR. SPEAKER : Question period is over.

MR. BARNES : That's what I thought, too.

Introduction of Bills

MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING AND

VALIDATING AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

Hon. Mrs. Johnston presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act, 1988.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

Bill 26 contains measures to validate the official community plan of

the corporation of the district of Burnaby; validate borrowing by the

city of Revelstoke to pay dredging costs incurred in flood prevention;

enable the Greater Vancouver Regional District to provide an emergency

telephone system to municipalities outside its boundaries; validate

Prince George's Blackburn Airport Hill specified area bylaw; validate

letters patent for the Fort Nelson and Peace River Regional Districts;

and enable the council of the district of Esquimalt to amend the

district's 1987 tax rate.

Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill

26 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.

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

FORESTS AND LANDS

(continued)

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

MR. MILLER : Previous to the House adjourning for lunch, I had asked

the minister about the increased use of contractors in forest administration,

basically doing the work normally done by the Ministry of Forests personnel,

and the pitfalls inherent in that approach to managing. On more than one occasion

I received the response that the minister felt that there was a great deal of

expertise in the contracting or consulting community, that they were quite able

to do this kind of work, and that he had no fears about increasingly using consultants.

[2:30]

I wanted

to get the minister to respond to that, particularly in light of the

T.M. Thomson report on the situation in the Queen Charlotte Islands.

Clearly, if the confidence the minister has in the private sector is to

be borne out, he should pay attention to the recommendations contained

in the report. One of the significant recommendations, of course, was

that the Ministry of Forests did not have staffing levels or adequate

training to do their work and to carry out the kind of performance

audits and monitoring that's really required to make sure that the

people who've been given access to Crown timber fulfill the obligations

they have.

So if we could go back to that, perhaps the

minister would advise us why he doesn't see the need for more trained

staff at the district level, given the Thomson report stressing that

that was a serious deficiency.

HON. MR. PARKER : The

question was put this morning; it was answered this morning. It doesn't

change. We have confidence in the report of the consultant, T.M.

Thomson and Associates, and we are taking their advice to heart. We are

undertaking to train our staff so that they can per-form their audit

function appropriately. We have the staff to do it, because we are

transferring staff internally; also as a result of having transferred

to the licensees the responsibility for forest renewal — a free-to-grow state.

The question and the replies are in the Blues from this morning if the member cares to take a moment and read them.

MR. MILLER :

I would ask the minister then whether he agrees that it's important for

the ministry to have that ability, that expertise, within the ministry

to conduct the functions that are so essential to the successful

implementation of the changes in the Forest Act; whether, with the

responsibility for reforestation and silviculture being transferred to

the licensees, the minister feels it's important to maintain an

adequate level of trained staff to do that auditing and monitoring of

the work done by the licensees.

HON. MR. PARKER : Mr.

Chairman, I wonder if the member would repeat the first part of his

question. I couldn't hear him over the noise in the background on this

side.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Would the member repeat the question, please.

MR. MILLER : I had a bit of difficulty with some noise, too.

The

question I asked the minister was whether he feels it's critical to

maintain within the ministry the expertise and the ability to do the

auditing and monitoring that will be required. I guess he heard the

last part of the question — whether or not that's of critical importance to you as a minister.

HON. MR. PARKER : Absolutely. We are concerned about the expertise of our staff, and we hire carefully. We

[ Page 4750 ]

provide

for in-service training and we encourage continuing education. We hope

that our staff will avail themselves of those opportunities. We have no

problem at all maintaining confidence in the staff in place who are

carrying out their duties as they evolve. They have our support and our

assistance.

MR. MILLER : I wonder, then, if the

minister could advise how we got to this state, given the report and

the recommendations. The minister hasn't accepted the one for increased

staff, but he seems to have accepted a number of the others made there,

including the need to have better trained staff at the district level.

How did we get to that position? Despite the changes and all the

emphasis now being placed on the licensees having this responsibility,

clearly there were responsibilities that existed prior to the changes

brought into the Forest Act last year. They've been there. Certainly

there's a different method of payment. We've abandoned

section 88, but

nonetheless the requirements for reforestation were there. How did we

get to such a poor state in the ministry?

HON. MR. PARKER : I wonder if the member opposite could elaborate on whether he's talking about a waste assessment or a regeneration assessment.

MR. MILLER :

In this particular case, we're talking about a waste assessment. But it

seems to me that we're talking about and have been dealing this morning

with the capability of the ministry to conduct some pretty essential

functions in this province. That is primarily to make sure the

licensees are complying with whatever requirements are placed on the

licence-holder — whether it's reforestation or waste levels.

HON. MR. PARKER :

The member knows full well that the assessment of waste covered an area

and a period in time that was under an administration philosophy known

as a sympathetic administration to reflect the economic conditions of

the times. The levels of waste were identified as being in the lowest

spectrum of merchantable logs — that is, those that were

marginally economic in good times and certainly not economic in bad

times. The operators were given the go-ahead by the Ministry of Forests

and Lands to operate a little more leniently as far as the cutting

specifications were concerned. That happened all over the province, and

it kept a lot of businesses viable. It made it possible for a number of

people to stay employed.

What we've determined subsequently — and it's always easy to do things in hindsight; that's basically what the opposition does best —

was that a small volume probably should have been taken out but was

missed at a particular point in time. Under the circumstances of the

day, it was moot whether it was advisable to remove it. What was

important at that time was to keep the people of Port Clements and

environs gainfully working in a business that could meet their payroll.

That was done.

We've received a report from a recognized

industry expert, and we have taken the recommendations to heart. We are

moving in-house to provide in-service training to bring all of our

staff up to a level of expertise to be effective in the audit function

as it now falls upon them as a result of the move in forest policy.

MR. MILLER :

I guess it is easier to operate in hindsight, but the purpose of this

exercise is to go through the operations of his ministry with the

minister to see whether he's learned anything. Now I'll go back to the

questions, and they're serious questions concerning the ability of the

ministry to conduct its function on behalf of the people of this

province, so that licensees live up to the obligations that they

should — whether that's reforestation or whatever other obligation the Crown chooses to impose.

I asked

the minister why we got to this sorry state. The minister says that in

hindsight, they basically allowed sympathetic administration to

continue too long. Is it because you didn't have the staff in the field

to advise you, Mr. Minister? Is that why you allowed it go carry on too

long?

HON. MR. PARKER : Sympathetic administration was not in effect under my term in office as Minister of Forests and Lands.

MR. MILLER :

Well, that's classic. I don't know whether that's a good thing or a bad

thing. I guess we're not blessed with foresight; maybe time will tell.

I want to stick to this, because I have raised the point and you have

responded and, it seems to me, touched on an essential point that I

have been trying to get across, and that's the ability of the ministry.

You

wanted to mix sympathetic administration in with the argument. I didn't

particularly, if what you are trying to say is that it's not a problem

of the Ministry of Forests because we just let them do it: "It's

sympathetic administration and that explains everything, and yes, we

needed to maintain those jobs in Port Clements."

The report deals with sympathetic administration and with the ability of your ministry, and they are two separate things.

HON. MR. PARKER : You didn't want that.

MR. MILLER :

I wanted to maintain jobs in Port Clements. There are a lot of things I

want for Port Clements. Whether we get them out of this government or

not, we'll see. I also wanted some delays on the management of a

working plan, which I got a little of but not enough. This thing

perhaps could have been dealt with a little more fully if the minister

had acceded to the request I made at that time, but nonetheless, let's

go back to the report.

I see the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) speaking out. He got a lot of support

from those loggers on the Queen Charlotte Islands when he was running

for leader of that party. I've got the clippings from the Prince Rupert

Daily News of what he and the Premier said about the forests — how we should cut them down as quickly as possible. But we don't want to get into that just now.

The

point I'm trying to get at here in terms of this Thomson report, its

recommendations and its impact on the ministry, is that, despite

sympathetic administration, the fourth conclusion on page D-2 says:

"The Ministry of Forests and Lands has poorly defined and/or explained

the policies and procedures for utilization control. It also has

inadequate staff and trained personnel to effectively manage the forest

industry operation."

Now that has nothing to do with

sympathetic administration, unless the minister is prepared to stand up

and say the poorly explained policies and procedures are the

responsibility of the minister. If you want to claim that credit, then

you can stand up and do it, I guess; but the essential point is that

the ministry was lacking. We know about sympathetic administration,

that perhaps it shouldn't have been carried on as long as it was. Was

it required in 1985 and 1986?

[ Page 4751 ]

The

question really does lead us back into something the minister said

before lunch when we talked about utilization. If I interpret this

correctly — I will finally get the Blues and we'll see precisely

what the words were, but I think I recall the impact of the meaning of

the words uttered by the minister before lunch. We were talking about

the issue of utilization of types of timber, and the question was put

by the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) of using sawlogs for chips for a

pulp mill. The minister responded that if somebody wanted to use

high-priced timber for firewood or any other purpose, that's a private

decision, it has nothing to do with him, and seemed to suggest that the

only job that the ministry has is to charge the right price for the

timber. I'll ask the minister if he wants to maintain that position.

Maybe I'll leave it at that so we can save ourselves some trouble.

HON. MR. PARKER :

We took the recommendations of the Thomson report very seriously and we

have been moving within the service to improve the abilities of our

staff to perform in the new audit function which has evolved to their

mandate as a result of recent legislation. We take the consultant's

report seriously. He helped identify some shortcomings. We have

identified them as well and we are dealing with them. I don't know what

more the member opposite could expect when you receive a comprehensive

report by an industry expert with good solid recommendations. We take

them seriously. We are dealing with them, and I don't think he could

expect much more. I don't see how he can criticize that response, nor

do I see how he could criticize that procedure. It's very thorough,

open and appropriate.

[2:45]

MR. MILLER : The minister didn't respond to the last part of my question as to his position on the use of wood.

HON. MR. PARKER :

The member from Prince Rupert was referring to a question from the

member from Omineca in which the member from Omineca said, and it's in

the Blues: "Is the minister telling this House that he's not concerned

about prime sawlogs going through a wood room for a pulp mill in

British Columbia?" My reply was: "Mr. Chairman, no, I'm not telling

this House that I'm not concerned."

MR. MILLER : So the minister is concerned.

HON. MR. PARKER :

Yes. The minister, the ministry and this government are concerned about

what goes on in the forests and with the products of the forest

industry. But we do not climb into people's day-to-day business; that

sort of interference is done by totalitarian governments in different

parts of the world, but fortunately not here in British Columbia.

MR. MILLER : Well, Mr. Chairman, that's a pretty foolish statement, but we'll let it pass, I guess. It stands on its own.

want to go back to just previous in that same debate. It seems to me

that there's a fairly fundamental point here that the Crown not only

has a responsibility to get the best possible price it can for the

resource on behalf of the people of British Columbia, in addition to

some other considerations, but also has a responsibility to ensure that

the resource is used to the optimum degree for the maximum benefit of

the people of British Columbia. Therefore it would be patently foolish,

for example, to allow fibre, such as good sawlogs, to be used for

chipping, or alternatively, fibre that would be useful for a lesser

purpose.

It seems to be fairly fundamental that the Crown

would have an obligation to achieve the best possible use of the

timber. Surely that goes to the heart of what the minister has been

talking about when he says value-added: that we want to extract the

maximum value for the citizens of this province in terms of tax

revenue, jobs, etc.; and that we have a greater obligation than simply

to make sure that we're getting a return on the resource. We actually

haven't been doing that for a few years.

Yet the minister had this to say. I hate to quote Hansard — they're going to have to print it again —

but I think it's important, because you covered a lot of ground. You

were a little more open than the simple one-word answer we've now got

your

interpretation on. You said:

"The Crown

timber pricing sets a fair return to the people of British Columbia. If

an operator sees fit to pay a high price for timber and to put it into

what the member for Omineca thinks is a low-value end product, that's a

decision that the business manager has to make. If you're going to take

a high-cost raw material and put it into something of great economic

value, that's a business decision. Those business decisions have to be

made based on the opportunities...and on what's facing those in

management positions at that particular time. However, regardless of

whether it goes for firewood or for plywood, we charge a fair price,

and the individual has to make up his mind whether or not he's going to

take that same material and put it into a low-value end product or a

high-value end product. It's a business decision...."

Does the minister want to cast a new

interpretation on that answer?

HON. MR. PARKER :

No. I think we've heard the explanation of my answer quite adequately,

Mr. Chairman. There's no point in belabouring the issue.

MR. MILLER :

I might take the opportunity to repeat these words somewhere else. It

may be worth belabouring this, Mr. Minister, because it is fundamental.

You retracted, or seemed to retract, your one-word answer of "no" to one question.

HON. MR. PARKER : No, I never retracted it.

MR. MILLER : Oh, you didn't retract. You just said it means something different. In other words, I believe you said no means yes.

HON. MR. PARKER : It's right in front of you.

MR. MILLER : So the minister is sticking by his position, then.

HON. MR. PARKER : Try and get it straight. We told you.

MR. MILLER :

The minister is taking the position that the government has no

responsibility for directing that that timber be used for its optimum

value.

HON. MR. PARKER : Mr. Chairman, I don't think the member for Prince Rupert or the member for Omineca (Mr.

[ Page 4752 ]

Kempf)

can at any time say what is optimum without having a full knowledge of

the business at hand for which the raw material is being converted. We

don't presume to do it on the government side, but I gather that my

critics presume to do so. It's amazing that they have that kind of

wisdom now, because the NDP certainly didn't have it when they were in

government and I don't see any vestige of it in my office by my

predecessor.

MR. MILLER : I wasn't attempting to be

as comprehensive as trying to define "optimum" in every situation. That

would be rather foolish to try and attempt that from this position

right here today. However, at first glance it might strike some people

who see logs that could be made into lumber being chipped up. Somebody

might say that it doesn't seem to be a very good use of that material.

Be that as it may, the question I put to you was whether you felt you

had an obligation to ensure that timber was used to its optimum degree.

Never mind

definitions, and never mind casting aspersions or whatever.

HON. MR. PARKER :

The timber-pricing process takes into account all the potential

products which that raw material may be made into. On that basis, you

use current market information and you determine a value for the

timber. That's what we do. We've substantially increased the price of

Crown timber, and if converters see fit to use high-value, high-cost

raw material for something of less than economic value, it's clearly

their decision. What we have done as the Forest Service and as the

Ministry of Forests and Lands is ensure that the people of British

Columbia have a fair price for the raw material.

Through a

number of programs, we encourage higher utilization, greater secondary

manufacture in the province, and those programs have been in place with

this government and previous Social Credit governments. We encourage

the private sector to use the resource to the best of its ability and

as the market dictates. If you think you can sit here and determine

where wood should go and what it should be at any given point in time,

I think you're sadly mistaken as to your role. The marketplace in any

type of business is really what determines what the product should be,

the level of service should be, the quantity should be, the level of

employment should be. The members opposite should by now understand

that.

MR. KEMPF : It's been a very interesting

conversation here this afternoon, and I'd just like to continue the

discussion with respect to materials used in a pulp mill, and just

bring the minister back to a situation that happened very recently with

respect to the export of logs from this province when an

order-in-council was allowed to lapse putting 250 woodworkers out of

work in the Prince Rupert forest district alone, stopping the usage of

standing-green export permits. I think it relates to the discussion

that's at hand, in that some of those logs seen by the Select Standing

Committee on Forests and Lands which were going into the wood room of

Skeena Cellulose still had export tags on them.

Given the

fact that there is a greater return to the province of British Columbia

for wood sold to export than certainly there is for wood going into a

pulp mill, do you still think and are you still telling this House that

prime sawlogs going into a pulp mill is their best usage?

HON. MR. PARKER :

The member for Omineca mentions the fact there were tags on these logs.

Frequently, export logs are individually tagged for record keeping

purposes. But the member for Omineca did not mention the fact that

certain grades of logs are not permitted for export, and they are:

Douglas fir, D and better; spruce logs, H and better; yellow cedar; and

red cedar. All the lower-grade logs, including pulp logs, are available

for export.

In the north coast area, a substantial volume

of logs is sold for export, the pulp log component particularly. Some

of it is going to the Alaska panhandle mills and some of it goes over

to Korea, I believe, and I think some have gone to mainland China.

Those export pulp logs would have had tags on them too. Without knowing

specifically which batch, which timber mark, what source we're talking

about, it's hard to say whether or not they were pulp logs. And as I've

said before, if the utilizing plant determines that they can afford to

use that wood, they will use that wood and produce whatever products

they see fit to produce. It's the market that drives them; it's the

business that drives them; and it's a business decision. I'm glad to

hear that some of these logs that apparently had been designated for

export were actually utilized in a British Columbia plant.

[3:00]

MR. KEMPF : I really can't believe what I'm hearing coming from a minister responsible for this province's largest industry — the forest industry.

HON. MR. PARKER : I am not a log exporter.

MR. KEMPF :

I know you're not a logger. That is very evident by the policy now

enunciated from the Ministry of Forests. There's no doubt about that

whatsoever.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF : If

you're trying to tell me that I don't know what a high-quality hemlock

log is, after having in excess of 20 years in the industry.... Well, it

goes along with the rest of the rhetoric coming from that minister.

you've changed your mind from what was said this morning, if you are

concerned about the quality of wood going through pulp mills in British

Columbia, all the more reason to audit. Just take that one mill to

audit. Allow your staff a continual audit for a six- or 12-month period

to really find out what's being utilized through wood rooms in pulp

mills in this province. When are you going to authorize your staff to

audit the wood that's going through Skeena Cellulose?

HON. MR. PARKER : I guess we'll authorize it when we deem it necessary.

MR. KEMPF :

I'm not speaking just for myself. There are other members, members of

that minister's own party, who stood on that log deck and watched prime

saw log material going into the wood room and being used for chips. Is

that not reason enough to do an audit now?

HON. MR. PARKER : I suppose I could consider that.

MR. MILLER :

I want to go back to the question of utilization because I think it's

important for B.C. I sort of gather that the minister feels the market

determines, that basically, when he refers to business decisions,

businessmen will make the right decisions based on the marketplace, and

that somehow there's a correctness to that which should not

[ Page 4753 ]

be tampered with —

or if it is, albeit reluctantly. Yet if a pulp mill is chipping logs

that are suitable for production into lumber, or if fibre is being used

to a lower level than its potential, it seems to me that is wrong. We

all lose if those kinds of things happen. There could be much more

benefit to the province through higher utilization. Is it the

minister's view that that happens because the price of the raw material

is too low?

MR. MICHAEL : I'm not sure of the rules

of the House or what the numbers are for a quorum, but with an

important debate like this on forestry, is only one member of the New

Democratic Party being present an official amount to be in the House?

MR. CHAIRMAN : We have a quorum according to standing orders, hon. member.

MR. MILLER :

The questions I posed are serious questions. They go to the heart of

forest policy in this province and utilization of the resource, which

we hopefully will prosper by. These petty interferences by the member

for Shuswap-Revelstoke do nothing to add to the debate.

HON. MR. PARKER :

We pay very close attention to utilization levels. By definition, the

utilization levels are the extraction of raw material to the

specifications of the contract between us and the licensees. We pay

close attention to utilization levels.

As to the means of

conversion, that is basically determined by the economics of the time,

the business of the time. We don't presume to get involved in

day-to-day, minute-to minute business decisions by operators in the

province who have paid fair market value or greater prices for raw

materials, as to how to convert it. We do have policies from a number

of our ministries that encourage business development and employment

opportunities in the province, and they include wood conversion plants.

We are going to great lengths to encourage value-added productivity,

especially in the wood industries. When it comes to the use of logs,

regardless of quality, it is the economics and the opportunities at

that particular point in time that dictate the best end use for the

wood in question.

MR. MILLER : I was trying to get at

how this market system works. I thought you might be a little bit of an

expert on it, because you talk about it a lot. Is it because the raw

resource is priced too low that an operator will use it for a lower

use? Is that why those so-called business decisions are made?

HON. MR. PARKER :

As I've said before during our discussions today, we have a fair

pricing system for the raw materials of the province. The members

opposite should, by now, be able to figure that out. They've been

provided with the information and the means of information by which we

determine the market values of the raw material in the forest industry.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

The

market forces are really what determine what business you are in and

what products you'll make in what quantities and what costs you can

bear. They move from time to time. Opportunities come up from time to

time. Perhaps that's what occurred at the particular point in time

members opposite, as members of the Select Standing Committee on

Forests and Lands. visited a particular pulp mill. I would think that

to be able to make a more meaningful assessment of what takes place,

they'd spend a little more time there.

I'm surprised that

the member for Prince Rupert sees fit to consider that the mill at

which he was working before being elected here continues to chip up

nothing but sawlogs. I've been in that plant at the same time he's been

in that plant, and that certainly wasn't the case. It was clearly

pulp-grade material, some of it so teredo-infested that you could

hardly stand the smell in the wood room. I don't think it's a common

occurrence. Definitely the member for Prince Rupert knows all he's

doing is using up time in the House to belabour a point that's really

of very little importance at this point in the debate and discussion.

It's very much the exception rather than the rule. He knows that from

having had a career with that particular pulp mill.

MR. MILLER :

I indeed spent almost 20 years of my life in that pulp mill, and most

of it in the wood room, both as an operator and as a maintenance man. I

can tell you that having witnessed that operation over that length of

time, through three separate wood rooms, three different types of

taking the bark off and putting them through the chipper.... Not once,

except in the very early days, did they have anything else. They used

to have a band-saw, a trimmer and an edger, and they could cut some

planks which they used around the mill to build decking. That was good

quality timber. As the operator, I put blue-ribbon spruce logs through

the chipper in No. 2 wood room. You don't have any choice when you're

sitting on the machine. I've seen all kinds of good timber go through

there that should have been made into lumber, Mr. Minister, so don't be

surprised. Don't tell me what I've seen with my own eyes for 20 years.

I'm

not picking on one particular pulp mill. Does the minister have

knowledge that this is a widespread thing? I never said it was

widespread. We're talking about, in general terms. the use of fibre and

the best use of it to get the maximum return for the people of this

province.

The question still holds. If the minister were to

discover that this did take place, whether it was common practice to

the point of.... Whether you want to put a percent on it in terms of

the logs that are described as logs that lumber could be extracted from

going into chippers and into making pulp.... I'm trying to get at an

essential point here. Maybe the minister could advise if he knows it's

happening or if he doesn't know it's happening, one or the other. If

that were happening as a result of the resource being too

low-priced.... After all, if you get something for nothing, where's the

incentive to do more with it? Is that the reason those kinds of

activities take place?

HON. MR. PARKER : The British

Columbia Forest Service does not run any conversion plants. We are

responsible for administering forest management in the province; we do

that. As a government, we're concerned about employment levels,

manufacturing opportunities. The marketplace will determine what the

business will be, what the opportunities are, and what the quantities,

products, prices, amounts and levels of employment will be.

We in the Forest Service continue to be of the opinion — I've repeated this a number of times today —

that we have a fair pricing system for the raw material of the province

in the forest products field. That, in my opinion and in our ministry's

opinion, is a good number. It's determined by the

[ Page 4754 ]

marketplace.

It's the best information; it's current information. It's done by

people with substantial credibility and good credentials. If

manufacturers see fit to use high-value, high cost wood for something

other than a high-value end product, that's their decision. They have

determined that they can afford to do that at that particular point in

time.

The reason I use that term is that in processing

there are times when there is a shortfall or an influx of wood that may

not normally fit the profile of what the plant considering it may use

as a normal supply. It may be a volume of lower quality wood or

higher-quality wood, but there is generally a reason why something like

that has happened.

Having some familiarity with the Prince

Rupert harbour.... If the logs in the question raised by the member for

Omineca (Mr. Kempf) had been stored in that harbour for a period of

time — say, three months or so — there is a good chance there

was an infestation of teredos, in which case the log buyer may not have

wanted them. They may have been mis-manufactured to a shorter length,

or they may have been pulp logs destined for some other part of the

world that were an overload for a particular ship and were picked up by

that plant, or that were found to have some defects that were missed in

the earlier grading process. That happens frequently in the north coast

and the north Kallum areas. Rotten knots are missed in the log-grading

process, but both ends of the log look great.

There could

be any number of situations, and it's a little presumptuous of the

opposition to think that these things happen on an ongoing basis. I

know that the member opposite in the NDP doesn't follow that, because

in the last five years he has seen very little high-grade spruce go

through the mill. He is citing examples of the days when the sulphite

plant was running and required a certain type of wood fibre, which he

and his colleagues were most grateful to receive, because it meant

gainful employment.

Time and circumstance change, and

that's the whole point of my discussion here. You really have to know

what's happening before you criticize. As far as we're concerned in the

Ministry of Forests and Lands, we are getting good value for the assets

sold to the industry and good value for the people of British Columbia.

In our opinion, the wood is being used to its best end purpose.

[3:15]

MR. MILLER :

I was probably talking about the time when that pulp mill was run by

the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation, the worst time for any

worker who ever worked in that place. Believe me, it was the

worst-managed.... Things are looking up a little bit now.

am trying to talk about the market. The minister seems to talk as

though the government is not a player in the marketplace and somehow

doesn't have anything to do with what happens in the marketplace.

Indeed, we are an essential player. I don't know why the minister is so

reluctant to comment on these things, but I guess we will go back again

in terms of some of these questions.

Is the minister aware

or is he unaware...? Does he or does he not know overall, in terms of

the coastal pulp mills, whether there are logs going into chippers in

pulp mills which more properly could be used to extract lumber? If he

is aware, could he tell us the extent to which this might be taking

place or to which it's not taking place? Could he advise us on that?

HON. MR. PARKER :

If there is inappropriate use of raw material, we would have a defunct

industry instead of a flourishing one. We see over $2 billion invested

this year in this industry. As we meet with the various industry

groups, we see the opportunities they see in the next year, two years

and five years and in some cases ten years and the vision they have and

the investment they have budgeted for this industry and the confidence

they have in Canada, in British Columbia and in the administration by

the Social Credit government.

If there was misuse of the

raw material, we would not have a healthy industry. We have an

extremely efficient industry. As a matter of fact, the sawmill industry

in the interior is a world-class industry. We shared that in discussion

with representatives of that manufacturing sector just yesterday. We

were happy to be able to meet with them again. We've been meeting with

them on several occasions in the last few months, as they help us

refine the comparative-value pricing system to make it more equitable

across the province. We've had representations from everybody from

woodlot owners right on through to the major international corporations.

Speaking

of international corporations, it's amazing that the members opposite

like to see commerce, business, the export of finished products and

worldwide markets to deal with, but they don't want the worldwide

markets in their back yards. In other words, they don't want to see

foreign investment in this province or this country. I think that's

pretty farfetched, because as we approach the twenty-first century,

we're seeing a global community more and more. We see philosophies

espoused by members of the opposition where they talk about a global

community, but not in their backyard. I think that's two-faced.

MR. MILLER : I don't know what you think is two-faced, and I don't know which you were talking about — the front or the back end.

We're

trying to get some answers here in terms of forest policy, and the

minister won't answer the question, which is pretty fundamental and

basic. Is he aware of the level at which...? Maybe it doesn't take

place; maybe it takes place a little tiny bit, maybe a lot. Is the

minister aware of the level of utilization — or mis-utilization, if you like — of logs that could more properly be used to make lumber, and that are instead being used to make chips and pulp?

HON. MR. PARKER :

Mr. Chairman, we are aware of a very healthy forest industry clearly

using the resource in the best interest of the province of British

Columbia, which is a healthy and vigorous forest industry.

MR. BRUCE :

I'd just like to make a comment or two here, in that there were more

than two members on that particular trip through that pulp mill

operation. Although I'm not a log grader, I do have a little bit of an

eye for what possibly could be used to make lumber, and that which

would be suitable for chipping purposes. Again, I want to stress my

lack of qualification in that particular matter — something that

perhaps more of us should do in this House. But it would seem to me

that on that mill tour, when I saw the timber coming through.... Sure,

some of it could have been used for lumber purposes. But by far, what I

saw and what I believe the majority saw was that most of the timber

going through the system would be best used for pulp purposes.

offer that only as a comment by one who was there, because there's been

much to-do today about that particular mill tour. It almost sounds like

on that tour, every single log going through there was a class A — or whatever the grading

[ Page 4755 ]

is for logs going through there — being used for chipping purposes, when it should in fact have been for lumber.

That

was clearly not the case on that particular tour. Clearly, it is

understood that in the main, the timber that went through there would

have been best utilized for chipping purposes. If in fact there are

other situations where timber should be used for lumber purposes, then

by all means, I'm sure everybody in this province would like to see the

best utilization of that timber. But I wouldn't want it left on the

record that we as a committee toured that milling operation and saw

nothing but class A logs — or whatever the letter is — going through that milling operation and being used for chips when perhaps they should have been used for lumber.

I think in fairness, gentlemen, that you saw what I saw, and perhaps basically you should come back to that.

MR. MILLER :

Thank you to the junior forest warden from Cowichan-Malahat. I agree.

I'm sorry. The minister's been sniping a bit, and maybe I'm just

picking up the habit. I don't normally do it.

I agree. But

we shouldn't use just that one instance. It would be really

irresponsible to use that one instance and try to extrapolate and say

that that is happening throughout the coast. Certainly that's not my

intent. I don't think that if you searched the Blues you will anywhere

see that 1 have said that has happened. I have asked the minister three

or four times whether he is aware, as the Minister of Forests, the

minister responsible for what happens with the trees in this province

and the employment generated by processing.... I've asked the minister

three times.

Maybe I'll appeal to the member for

Cowichan-Malahat, if he wants to get up and ask the question. Maybe

this minister sees you a little less suspiciously, as a little more

friendly. I would beg the member for Cowichan-Malahat to stand up and

ask the same questions I've asked.

MR. CHAIRMAN : I would ask that the member address the Chair.

MR. MILLER :

Mr. Chairman, the questions seem patently reasonable. We're asking the

Minister of Forests for this province about his knowledge of how timber

in this province is used. You only have to come to a couple of

conclusions after three times asking a pretty reasonable question: (

a) the minister doesn't know and he doesn't want to say he doesn't know;

or (

b) he knows and maybe the information isn't good information. Maybe

it's not good news.

It's a serious question. We've had

respected academics and others in this province, people from industry

who have talked to me privately, people from even — dare I say —

the multinationals who have talked to me privately and have told me

that they have concerns about the level of cut in this province, about

the rate at which we are depleting the old growth forests on the coast

of British Columbia, and about the possible implications of a falldown.

seems to me proper and right to ask questions about how timber is being

utilized. That's part of the whole range of information that we have to

have to make intelligent decisions in this province about the use of

timber. And utilization is not just what you take out of the bush but

what you do with it after you take it out of the bush. I'm going to

give the minister another opportunity. Can he answer? Can he advise the

House? Is he aware or is he unaware? If you are unaware, why don't you

just say so? If you do know, why don't you just share that information

with us? Is timber being misused to any appreciable extent in terms

that I've asked now three times? We're really talking about logs that

could be used to extract wood from that are now instead being chipped

to make pulp. Is the minister aware or is he not?

HON. MR. PARKER :

In response to the new question put forth by the member for Prince

Rupert as to whether there's any appreciable misuse of the resource,

the ministry has no reason to believe that there is. The forest

industry is healthy, the returns to the province are strong, and the

business of forest products in British Columbia is doing very well. In

response to his recent rephrased question: in the estimation of the

ministry, no, there is no gross misuse or any appreciable misuse.

MR. MILLER :

Logically flowing from that, I would ask the minister to advise the

House what that estimation is based on, what concrete means of

evaluation have been used to come up with that statement, and perhaps

for a little closer definition of "appreciable." I don't want to be too

fussy, really. I'm not asking for any kind of precision in terms of

that. Perhaps, as I said, the minister would advise what criteria or

what evaluation processes were used to arrive at that statement that

there is no appreciable or gross misuse of the timber.

HON. MR. PARKER :

We rely on advice and feedback from the managers and staff of some 45

forest districts around the province. As to what's taking place in each

of those districts , we get that on a regular basis, and there are no

reports of misuse of the forest resource that I'm aware of. The British

Columbia Forest Service has been a decentralized agency of this

government since its inception in 1912, and we have a good handle on

what's taking place around the province. We have a very efficient

system of reporting and a very competent staff.

[3:30]

MR. MILLER :

The advice comes from the 45 districts. Then it is, I assume. someone's

responsibility in the district to do the kind of checking that would

allow them to come up with that conclusion. Is that part of a defined

process that takes place at the district level? Do they check the

operations of the mills to determine whether or not there is misuse of

timber — in other words, a lower use than could be applied? Is it

done regularly? Are reports filed on that situation by the districts to

the headquarters?

HON. MR. PARKER : Mr. Chairman, we don't place staff on the log feeds of every conversion plant in the province, if that's the question.

MR. KEMPF :

That's very interesting, Mr. Chairman. The people in the field in the

B.C. Forest Service really do know what's going on out there. There was

a management review called for, which made it very clear — I saw most of the responses to that management review —

what is going on in our primary resource in British Columbia. Seeing as

how the minister has brought that up, where are those responses? Where

is the management review?

HON. MR. PARKER : Well, well, well! One day the member for Omineca will wake up and smell the coffee.

The

forest policies announced last fall arise largely out of the forest

management review, and the comparative pricing system arises mainly out

of the forest management review.

[ Page 4756 ]

That's

a matter of record. If the member for Omineca cares to do his homework,

he can determine that for himself. If he wants to grandstand, I will be

pleased to answer any further questions.

MR. KEMPF :

If you call wanting to get answers on questions of the forest industry

for the people of British Columbia grandstanding, I guess you can. I

guess you can do anything you want when you are a minister — except properly manage the resource, it would appear from the actions of this minister.

don't wish to argue the expertise of the member for Cowichan-Malahat

(Mr. Bruce), but if you really want to know what was going through that

wood room, not only on that particular visit but also what was boomed

in front of the mill to be utilized, not that day or the next day but

the next week and maybe the week thereafter, I have photographs of that

wood, thanks to another gentleman in this room.

I really

wonder about a remark that was made. I think it's indicative of what's

going on in the forest industry today from this administration. I don't

remember the exact remark, but it signified to this House that the

minister really couldn't care less as to the usage of fibre in the

forest industry of British Columbia as long as there was employment. He

can read the Blues and I'll do the same, because that's the way I read

it: he couldn't care less what use the wood was put to as long as there

was employment. I wonder if that minister has ever thought that just

maybe if the fibre.... I'm talking fibre, whether it be the fibre which

makes up the highest-grade fir log or the fibre which makes up the

thousands and millions of cubic metres of waste that we leave in the

bush of this province. Whether it falls in those categories or not, if

put to its proper use it would probably create more employment than it

does today. Has the minister ever thought of that?

I think

we have belaboured. this usage long enough. I want to get on another

subject. The minister talks a lot, and has done today, about a fair

pricing system. I just want to get into that for a minute. We talked

this morning about the small business enterprise program, and the

minister said — he can correct me if he thinks I read him wrong —

that the same upset price procedure is used for the small business

enterprise program as is used for the rest of the industry in the

province. Mr. Chairman, that is not the case. If it is the case, there

are some gross mistakes being made somewhere. I have evidence that I'm

going to read into the record here today to prove that that remark is

absolutely untrue; to prove that there is no fairness and equity in the

way the pricing system is worked in British Columbia. The only thing

that matters is whether you're large or small in British Columbia, as

to how you pay for your own resource.

I'd like to read from

a letter. This is not an isolated case; I could bring example after

example after example to this House. The letter reads as follows:

"Please

find enclosed the appraisals for timber sale licence Nos. A-30349 and

A-27505. I feel that the upset stumpage figures on these sales are so

high that it borders on insanity."

Those aren't my words,

Mr. Minister; those are the words of a small business person trying to

eke out a living under the small business enterprise program. These

sales are so high that it borders on insanity. I read on:

"Upon

examining the final appraisals of weighted selling price and weighted

operating costs, I found that if added to the stumpage and royalty, the

figures showed a substantial loss."

In other words, if you took into consideration the upset price — which we talked about this morning and which the minister said was fair — plus the cost of production, this small business person would be in the hole in selling his end product. Now that's fair?

I'm

not going to read this whole letter; I'll table it, if the House so

wishes. These are not my figures; this is based on the figures coming

from the B.C. Forest Service — from the regional manager of the

B.C. Forest Service in that particular area. If you take the upset

price and add the Forest Service's own figures on cost of production,

before you even get the product on the market he's losing money. That's

fairness and equity? That's why you asked me whether I should be here

tomorrow or out in my constituency, talking to people like this who are

going broke because they're a little guy in the forest industry. Well,

Mr. Minister, I don't think so. I think we have our priorities a little

mixed up. We're talking about people's livelihoods. We're talking about

a fellow who's spent his whole life in the forest industry and knows

nothing else. What are you going to do with him when you break him? Put

him on welfare? Is that the wish of this administration?

Don't give me any of your gobbledegook, Mr. Minister —

through you, Mr. Chairman. I just want facts. I just want straight

answers for the people of British Columbia. Why do we have this

situation where you stand in this House and say there's fairness and

equity in the forest industry of British Columbia and fairness for the

small business person under the small business enterprise program? How

do you figure it? How do you come to that deduction? Because I'm damned

if I can figure it out.

MR. CRANDALL : They sold out. That's why.

MR. KEMPF :

I'll talk to this fellow tomorrow night and find out how much he sold

out and who he sold out to, because this fellow never had a quota.

Don't talk to me about quotas, because I was around when they were. I

went through the whole transition period. That's where I have a little

more knowledge than maybe you and the minister. I've been through that

gamut.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. members, one at a time, please. Please continue.

MR. KEMPF :

I guess we've hit a little quick; the sheep are braying. Let the

minister answer my questions. Let him tell me why he condones this

system, why he calls it fair and equitable, when it would put a guy in

the hole after he's paid the upset price. He talked about "same upset

procedures." Tell me why then, Mr. Minister, in the very same

community, the small business enterprise program was asking to pay an

upset price of $22.98 to the Northwoods of this world, the Norandas,

the multinational monopoly that I like to talk about, and for good

reason, who get their wood for $8. Why, if it's the same system?

Why — if it's so damned fair and equitable — is there that much difference? You tell me that, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. PARKER :

The comparative value pricing system is the same one used for both

renewable and nonrenewable tenures. In the small business program, we

determine the upset and add in the cost of access and forest

[ Page 4757 ]

renewal.

That's clear on the tender sheets. If an operator feels that he cannot

operate at those levels, then he doesn't bid. Nobody drives him to bid

on non-renewable or non-replaceable tenures. That's his opportunity,

and he assesses it in terms of the economics and business situation of

the day. If he has determined that he cannot operate effectively and

make a reasonable return on his business enterprise, then he's quite

correct to back off. That's a sound business decision.

When

it comes to comparing one appraisal to another, you have to take into

account all the factors that go into the appraisal: access, slope,

aspect, soil and other considerations, such as fish and wildlife, soil

conditions, domestic watersheds and grazing rights. It goes on and on

to the timber parameters themselves: length, form, condition. When

you're trying to compare one appraisal with another, you want to make

sure that you are comparing on exactly the same basis.

The

isolated incidents brought forth by the member for Omineca, one of

which he has offered to table, we'll have the staff look at. I'm

interested in knowing just what is behind the assessment by the small

business operator, because we value the input from all our clients —

big, small, multinational and individual. I'm pleased that the member

has seen fit to table that particular letter in the House, and we will

share it with our staff, ask for an analysis and reply back. We'd be

more than pleased to provide a written reply to the member for Omineca.

[3:45]

MR. KEMPF :

You know, the minister suggests that if the small operator isn't happy

with the upset price, he should not go to the auction. He should just

pack it in and go broke. That's what the minister has just said, in

effect. If he doesn't like it, let him move on. Why don't you say that

to the multinationals? They're paying eight bucks; the small operator's

is paying $23. Why don't you say to the multinational in the same

community, in the same timber: "You pay $23, and if you don't like it

move on"? You speak glowingly about raising it to $8. Big deal! Why

didn't you use those kinds of figures then? I've got the letter from

your regional manager in my hand, and the figures he used. I'm not

using mine or my constituents'; I'm using yours. Why didn't you do what

you just suggested should be done? You haven't done that. I've got them

right here in black and white, and I'll table them if that's what you

want done. When you add up all the figures.... Why don't you ensure

that it's done out in the field — either that or set a minimum price in this province?

That

poor little guy out there not only has trouble getting timber to cut;

after he's cut it, he's a captive audience. He only has one place to

sell it. Where's that? To the forest giant who sets the price. This

great supporter of free enterprise over there.... They have a great

free market system in the forest industry in British Columbia. You get

it in the neck coming or going if you're a little guy. There's no

choice. You've got nowhere to go. If you don't want to pay that for the

raw material, you go elsewhere. Where? If you don't want to sell it for

that price, you go elsewhere. Where? There's nowhere to go.

This

minister speaks glowingly about what's happening in the forest industry

of British Columbia. What's happening in the forest industry of British

Columbia is that the giants have 95 percent of it and they want the

other 5. These are your own figures, Mr. Minister, so don't give me

that gobbledegook about what should or should not be. These are the

figures that came out of your ministry and show quite conclusively that

if he accepted this sale at the upset price, that guy would lose $4.09

a cubic metre. How long would he last losing that? The multinational

might last losing it for a little while under sympathetic

administration whereby he's given all the breaks.

Where's

the sympathetic administration when it comes to the little guy in the

forest industry of British Columbia? Where are the breaks for him?

Nowhere. And if we let it go, which we won’t....

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF :

Yes, I'll go and debate among those small operators in Burns Lake

tomorrow night. I wish you would come along. Mr. Minister. I wish you,

for a change, would start listening to the real people in the forest

industry of British Columbia, the people who really built this industry

-not bought and paid for a government, but built the industry. I wish

you'd come and listen to them for a while.

MR. MILLER :

Where was I when I was so rudely interrupted. I know I was trying to

drag something reluctantly out of the minister, and it had to do with

the ....

Interjections.

MR. MILLER : The member for Omineca is moving to the left. I hope he doesn't move too far - depending on which way you face.

The minister expressed some degree of confidence in knowing there was no appreciable misuse or misallocation — or whichever term you would like to apply —

in terms of fibre. He said he got that information from the 45

districts in the province, and I asked whether or not it was a defined

job or mandate of the districts to do that kind of checking and

monitoring on that question in order to satisfy the minister. Was it

done on a regular or irregular basis? Were reports filed on the issue?

I believe the minister's response was that he didn't have ministry

officials stationed at the top of every jack ladder. It seemed to me

somewhat shy of a reasonable answer to the question. I would ask the

minister to respond to the question that was put.

HON. MR. PARKER : I said earlier that we do not assign staff to the log decks of all the conversion plants of the province.

MR. MILLER : Yet the staff must visit there periodically —

or somebody does. Where do they get their information? How do they

arrive at the conclusions that the minister so confidently expresses in

the House, which he says he gets from the districts? What kind of

process do they go through to arrive at those decisions?

HON. MR. PARKER : Contact from time to time with their clients, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MILLER :

So we're not now, in the minister's or the ministry's opinion, in a

situation where there is misuse. I believe the minister also said that

if there was misuse of raw material, we would not have a healthy

system; in other words, the market takes care of the problem.

But we've seen — I'll refer as an example to the north coast only because I'm a bit more familiar with it — for years where there really was no processing into wood products

[ Page 4758 ]

other

than pulp. There used to be a sawmill at one time. The minister and I

were fortunate enough to be at the opening of a new sawmill. That's

great; that's good. I think we share the view that it's better, it's

preferable, that the resource be processed — I prefer it to be processed locally, obviously, for my community —

in British Columbia. The benefit measured on the other end is much

greater than if we simply continue, for example, to export the resource

unprocessed. Certainly the price on an unprocessed log that goes to the

export market is quite a bit higher than they will get on the domestic

market. But when you look at the benefit overall to British Columbia,

it's much preferable that it be processed.

I wonder if the

minister would comment on the application of that same principle, if

you like, to the question of utilization. Would it not be preferable,

despite the minister's reliance on the market, prior to logs being used

for chipping — and there are processing technologies that have been developed that aren't bad; they're pretty good — as a policy objective to try to get that maximum production out of a log?

can think, for example.... I don't know whether this will happen or

not. I really have to congratulate Repap Enterprises in terms of their

operation of that pulp mill thus far. They've done, in my opinion, a

good job, certainly in terms of the labour-management relations and in

that they seem to be a company with a lot of entrepreneurial spirit and

hustle. I think some confidence flows to the employees and the people

in that community as a result of that.

Would it not be

preferable that that extraction take place prior to these logs going

in? Certainly one could argue that markets exist, that the benefit

would be greater for British Columbia and for the workers and the

companies in that region. If that's true, does the minister have any

opportunity to...? I know you've talked about wanting to encourage

value-added, but what opportunities exist now for the minister to

encourage companies to do that, to make the maximum or optimum use of

the timber that comes their way? What can the minister do now to

stimulate that kind of processing and employment?

HON. MR. PARKER :

The policies of this ministry and indeed of this government encourage

value-added industry, greater employment opportunities and greater

market participation in the forest products industry.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PARKER :

I'm glad to hear that the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) is pleased

with the performance of Repap and the accomplishments they have made in

the Skeena cellulose mill — the pulp mill at Port Edward, to be

precise, on Porpoise Harbour on the CNR, just across from Ridley

Island. Is that precise enough, Mr. Member? Certainly that operation is

doing very well, and the same corporation has just completed a new

sawmill in Terrace. They are undertaking now to crew it up and to learn

to work with the new technology in that plant. It is to add value to

the resource and to provide pulp chips and hog fuel to the pulp mill.

They

did that without government interference on the log deck or in their

business. They did that because they had confidence in this government,

in British Columbia, in the resource, in their own business acumen and

in the opportunities that exist in the world markets — because

they are a world market player. That's exactly what will develop the

forest industry to a greater and more efficient extent as time goes on.

is the market forces and the business abilities; it's the capital

availability and, above all else, it's the crew that makes it happen.

It is not government interference in the day-to-day business of the

enterprise. But those who do their business are able to carry it out in

an effective manner. It's all levels of operators, Mr. Chairman. They

are the ones who have to react to the realities of the day or the

instant, and they have to make the judgment calls to carry on with an

effective business. It's not our place to interfere with their

day-to-day life and their minute-to-minute decisions.

MR. MILLER :

I would loosely classify that as doggerel. My colleague from Nanaimo

isn't here to advise me, but I think it is. I keep asking you

straightforward questions. What opportunities does the minister have to

encourage further process?

MR. ROSE : Doggerel is poetry.

MR. MILLER : Oh, doggerel is poetry. Well, that certainly wasn't poetry.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER : Flip-flap or gobbledegook.

I appreciate that Repap Enterprises bought — here's a tribute to the wisdom of Social Credit administrations —

a pulp mill. I think they might have paid $75 million. Most of that was

financed by the government. It's interesting to note that very shortly

after they bought it, they re-evaluated the asset considerably — I

think up to as high as $200 million. We bought it at one time, Mr.

Member from Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael), and we actually did a

reasonably good job of running it. We actually made some money for the

coffers of British Columbia. We had some people working there. Go ask

the workers in Prince Rupert; they remember. I remember; I was there.

[4:00]

I don't want to detract from their ability to operate as a company,

but I can understand how Repap got a pretty good deal. You guys sold a

pulp mill for $75 million at a time when the market was going like

that. One could argue about the business acumen. No wonder you like to

leave things to the marketplace, because it's clear that some of the

deals you've made for the people in this province have not been very

good.

The minister gives me this gobbledegook — flip-flap or whatever —

about "we don't want to interfere in the market." I wish you would cast

aside those narrow blinkers you've got on about what your job is and

try to broaden your horizons somewhat.

The minister — not this minister but the Minister of Forests way back in 1985 — offered....

Interjection.

MR. MILLER :

Back in the old days. It was the Social Credit administration, I

believe. You're not characterizing that Social Credit administration as

the bad old days, are you?

Interjection.

MR. MILLER : No, just the old days. Okay.

Nonetheless, back in those days not that far back, the Ministry of Forests advertised that they had some Crown timber — a resource owned by the people of this province. They were prepared to let it go to the operator who con-

[ Page 4759 ]

structed. a mill. Over time — a little bit longer than we anticipated, but over time — that happened. The minister and I attended the opening of that mill. In exchange for the right to use the Crown's — the people's —

assets, we demanded from the company that was successful that they

construct a sawmill. It follows that they employ workers and that they

produce a product. And isn't that great! It's good for the people who

have jobs there; it's good for the community, and it's a good

utilization of the resource. Maybe it could be better, but it's better

than what we had — nothing. I would ask the minister, given his preceding answer: is that interference in private business?

HON. MR. PARKER :

Mr. Chairman, to go back to the earlier discussion, the member was

trying to determine whether or not we had staff on the infeed deck of

every mill in the province. The reply was we do not. Of course, if he

pays attention to what's going on around him, he'll remember that there

have been several pulpwood agreements advertised in the northeast

section of the province by the current government and by my ministry in

particular requiring conversion in the province and fostering the

forest industry in utilization of the resource.

That's

exactly my point. If he had been listening earlier today, he would have

picked up by now the fact that our position as government is to create

the climate and opportunities, but not to get into minute-to-minute

decisions by business managers in enterprise.

MR. JACOBSEN : Just a couple of short questions, Mr. Minister.

One

thing I was wondering about: can you give me the average price received

for sales under the small business program for last year? How many

cubic metres are you anticipating selling through the small business

program, and what is your anticipated revenue for that?

While

you're looking that up, the other question I'd like to ask you is this.

This morning there was discussion about the extra amount of timber that

is now going to be placed in TFLs from the forest licences. As I'm sure

you're aware, the Forest Act provides that all timber within the TFLs

is subject to the 50 percent contracting clause. I assume that when

these forest licences are rolled over into tree-farm licences, they too

will be subject to the legislation for tree-farm licences, so they will

be required to have a 50 percent contracting clause. I'm asking for

confirmation of that.

HON. MR. PARKER : The new

tree-farm licences, as they come into being, will be subject to the

legislation and regulations of the day. It's a long process; how

quickly we're able to achieve the 67 percent level of the provincial

cut under tree-farm licences remains to be seen. It's not our intention

and hasn't been our intention to change anything on the contractor

clauses. What happens in the future I don't know; it depends on

incumbents at the time. But it's not my intention to change it.

for the questions on the volume to be sold in the small business

program this year and the revenues to he derived therefrom, and what

was derived from the small business program.... I presume that the

nature of the question was provincewide. We are seeking that in this

pile of material we have at hand. I'll be pleased to report it to the

House just as soon as it is available.

MR. JACOBSEN :

Mr. Minister, I know that you can't predict what actions will be taken

in the future, and I'm not expecting that, but I assume from your

answer that the status quo will be maintained, and whatever the

legislation specifies at this time is what will be applied as these

forest licences become TFLs.

The other issue I'd like to

present to you is a concern about the small business program. I know

it's had a fair bit of discussion here today, and we've heard about the

export of logs. We all know there are really two economies in logging:

logging for the domestic market and logging for the export market,

which is an entirely different economy. It's impossible for someone who

is logging for the domestic market to compete against somebody who is

logging for the export market. In the small business sales, it appears

that there are people who are not loggers, but they have some way of

being able to accurately predict the destiny of their logs. That's of

interest to many people involved in the industry, because I'm not aware

of any method by which any legitimate logger can go to a sale and be

sure that the logs he bids on are going to be sold anyplace other than

the domestic market. There's quite a local demand at this time, and we

would expect that the sales would be blocked. If you go to a sale and

obey the law of the land, which is the Forest Act in this case, and you

stay within the spirit and intent of the legislation, you bid and come

away with a clear conscience but no timber. That happens over and over

again.

I think it's necessary, Mr. Minister, that we make

some provision.... I don't know how it's done. I would like to see the

logs kept on the local market, because I think the best interest of

British Columbia is to have the timber as much as possible manufactured

into the ultimate product here, and I know you agree with that. I also

think it would be very beneficial for the province to have 15 percent,

when it gets to that, of the logs on the open market as a commodity.

That would do a lot for the Forest Service, I think, in that it would

establish a market price.

I would encourage the logs to be

used here, but I recognize that there may well be situations where

export is the desired thing or perhaps the necessary thing. I don't

profess to know all the situations. There may be cases when it would be

necessary or best to export the small business logs. I would hope there

would be some way the ministry could establish a policy that would

spell out before the sale whether the logs were going to be eligible

for export or not; whether they were domestic or export logs. The

reason I think it's necessary to do that is that it's important that

everyone that plays the game plays by the same rules. That does not

appear to be the case at this time, because as I said earlier, there

are people who seem to have some way of determining the destiny of

their logs onto the export market before the sale ever takes place.

It's literally impossible for the legitimate contractor, the small

business person, for whom this legislation was set up for the very

purpose of providing an opportunity to participate.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. CHAIRMAN : Just before I recognize the minister, the second member for Cariboo has asked leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. VANT :

I'm glad that even the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe)

conceded that I could introduce some special people. We have 13 grade 6

and 7 students from the

[ Page 4760 ]

Strathnaver

Elementary School. Strathnaver is at the extreme northern boundary of

the great Cariboo constituency. These students and their teacher, ML

Siemens, have come a long way to visit the capital, so I know that my

colleagues in the House would like to extend a warm welcome to them.

HON. MR. PARKER :

To get back to the discussion on log export, I am not aware of how

anybody on the lower coast may predetermine whether or not his logs

will be exportable, unless they're from lands that were deeded prior to

March 12, 1906, or from federal lands such as Indian reserve lands. As

far as timber sales are concerned, there are some instances in the

middle, upper and lower coast where, for economic reasons, an

application for a standing green export permit has been received and

considered by the district manager, the regional manager and the Timber

Export Advisory Committee — all of whom recommended that a

standing green permit be issued. In that case, once that permit was

issued a person would know that he could export those logs before he

harvested them, but not before he acquired the sale. So I don't know

how anyone could predetermine that they have exportable timber from a

timber sale under the small business program.

The bulk of

log exports in the province are a result of licensees applying for an

export permit, having offered the timber on the local market and having

received a less-than cost offer on the logs, or no offer whatsoever, in

which case they would be determined to be surplus to the needs of

British Columbia. Then the district manager and his staff review the

situation and the application, and so does the regional manager and his

staff, and then the Timber Export Advisory Committee reviews the

application. When they've made their recommendations, we consider the

OIC. It doesn't always come into being.

So it's a surplus

system. Logs that are surplus to our needs in British Columbia are

exported. For the most part, it's less than 3 percent. Last year we saw

about 4 percent in a very high-cut year and in a high cycle in all of

the industry, which did a great deal for the north coast; in

particular, the constituency of Prince Rupert benefited to a great

extent by that activity.

First and foremost, what any of us

in this House would like to see is raw materials processed in this

province as far as we can take them economically, and brought into the

marketplace. That's certainly my feeling. I know it's the philosophy of

this government; it's certainly the philosophy of our Premier At every

opportunity I try to encourage provincial conversion of our assets.

Just

to touch on the numbers asked for earlier by the second member for

Dewdney (Mr. Jacobsen), we expect our volume to be just in excess of 12

million cubic metres. We hope to achieve that by the end of this fiscal

year, which will be the first quarter of '89. We'll have that in place

and ready to go. I expect all those licences will be in licensees'

hands by the end of '89. We hope to see some $123 million emanate from

that program. In the previous fiscal period, '87-88, the revenues were

some $48 million.

[4:15]

MR. MILLER : Because we were talking about utilization, I want to just turn briefly — and I'll deal with it in more depth later —

to the concept of planning through what will inevitably be another

downturn. The minister talked about the cyclical nature of the

industry, and there's no question that will happen. One of the things

the government did during the last downturn, in order to save the jobs

not only in Port Clements but also, I suppose, in other places, was

practise sympathetic administration. The government said: "Look, times

are tough. We've got to make allowances for that, and the way we're

going to do it is let utilization standards be relaxed or lowered; let

a certain amount of high-grading take place, and other practices that

would normally not be allowed. " Earlier today we talked about — again, very briefly — the increase in the amount of timber that was cut. I don't think the annual allowable cut is set that high.

Are

we not setting ourselves up so that we're simply going to have to

repeat what happened starting in 1981 with sympathetic administration?

What happens when the next downturn comes, when forest firms have been

allowed to take advantage of price increases to drastically increase

the cut? Are we not then putting ourselves back in that same situation?

When the downturn comes and the timber's hard to get at, and we've

capitalized or cashed in on the good times, the temptation will

certainly be to allow those same kinds of breaks in order to do the

same thing — to give into the pressure in terms of continuing employment.

HON. MR. PARKER :

Mr. Chairman, when markets are strong and conditions are good, you take

advantage of the situation and move ahead within the terms of your

licence — which is what has taken place in the last year. If we

look over a five-year period ending last year, we find that we've

undercut across the province. You have to take into account that there

was a substantial downturn in the first four years of that five-year

period ending in 1987. Under those circumstances, activities were

reduced, harvesting was reduced, and the allowable annual cut was

basically left in the bank for better times. Better times are here, and

you start to withdraw from the account. You take advantage of that

because it benefits everybody in British Columbia. That's the purpose

of resource management.

MR. MILLER : Again, I have to

go back.... If we practise this management, why then do we have to get

into sympathetic administration? If we'd been doing our job properly,

then I assume we wouldn't have had to do that. Surely that's a comment

on poor administration. If, when the cycle was down, we had to give all

these breaks to the industry in order that they could keep running,

then somehow we did something wrong previous to that, did we not? If

we'd been running the thing properly — and I don't think it's quite like banking, but....

Again, I'm trying to tie the two issues together —

the question of utilization, the question that came up about the Queen

Charlotte Islands and other areas, such as the Nass Valley, where

utilization levels have been low.... The amount of timber or usable

fibre left in the bush has been high. We have gone in and logged some

of the easiest ground to get at, some of the best timber. We are

setting ourselves up; it seems to me, for another sympathetic

administration in the next cyclical downturn of the industry.

What

evidence can the minister show that there's been any retention of the

capital? If the times are good and you take advantage of that, has it

been retained by government so that they can smooth out the wrinkles?

Has it been retained by industry so that they can ride through the

rough times that may come along? Where has that capital been retained

to smooth out the bumps over the next downturn? What evidence can the

minister give that we are not going to be in exactly the same situation

the next time as we were in 1981 ?

[ Page 4761 ]

HON. MR. PARKER :

I guess I can't tell you how well off the world is going to be or how

well off it is not going to be sometime in the future, but I can tell

you that we will continue as a government to provide a climate that

fosters a good, healthy forest industry regardless of the outside

conditions, so that we maintain employment in this province and so that

we're able to maintain the services that people in this province have

come to enjoy and expect.

Different levels of utilization in different parts of the province, depending on the resource at the time of our recession — and that was a world-felt recession —

were determined necessary to foster employment and business at a very

difficult time. I'm certainly glad that we have had a government in

place at that time that understands the business and understands the

need for making sure that the forest industry continues in British

Columbia and is flexible enough to adjust with the economic times to

maintain a reasonable level of employment and to seize the opportunity,

such as we've seen in the last year when markets are strong, to take

advantage of those opportunities. As a result of that, we see

substantial returns to the licensees and substantial reinvestment — some $2 billion — in our forest industry to help us become efficient and effective and better able to ride out the next downturn.

are competing in world markets, in all different types of fibre, with

people from all different parts of the world and all different

political and economic regimes. We have to be world-competitive. Our

industry is doing that. It's seizing the opportunity in strong markets

to reinvest. It's doing that — it's a matter of record — and

the employment caused by the reinvestment in our industry.... The

technology that we gain from that reinvestment is also an item that we

deal in in world markets.

I believe that we have dealt with

the resource responsibly and fostered the proper climates in British

Columbia for continuing forest industry and reinvestment in that

industry.

MR. WILLIAMS : It's like watching somebody with a slow teleprompter, watching this minister.

excuses that period when they violated the statutes of British

Columbia, when the former minister, who's now a lobbyist for the mining

industry, had a deputy who's now a lobbyist for the forest industry.

Just think about that. In the United States of America, there would be

grand juries looking at those birds right now. You bet there would.

Throughout that period, this lobbyist deputy and his minister lobbyist

went through this whole exercise of allowing these corporations to

violate the terms of their agreements and contracts and to violate the

statutes of British Columbia. I don't like the term "sympathetic

administration"; it was simply outright law-breaking. This government

and its predecessor lived happily with it.

You say this was

all worthwhile because it provided employment. Well, my friend, it did

not. These companies were not cutting. It was unemployment. I don't

know where you got the history of the evolution of the tenures of this

province. I don't know if they even teach it in that MacMillan

university building over there in Point Grey.

The story is

that we let go of this king's ransom of a land of ours, in terms of the

licences, in order to maintain steady employment throughout the

province. That was the primary trade-off that Chief Justice Sloan

bought when he enunciated the tree-farm licence idea. But through that

downturn period company after company after company violated that

intent and the whole purpose of the trade-off of the public lands, and

they violated the statute, and the lobbyist deputy said: "It doesn't

matter. We'll doctor the books. We'll pretend that they actually cut

more than they did through the five-year period. We'll simply write a

nice number in the book."

If the administration had really

been on their toes, they would have looked at the violation of contract

and they would have said: "Okay, you've violated the contract. The

woods are returned to the Crown." If you really wanted to stimulate

industry in this province, then you would have taken up that cut that

they did not use. the unemployment that they created violating the

agreements, and you would have made it available to the smaller

operators and others in this province on an open-bid basis. That's what

an honest administration should have done.

I think that you

had an opportunity, coming in after these two lobbyists were in power

for yea, ten years. Imagine the lobbyists writing the statutes of

British Columbia. That's what happened.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS :

That's right. In the United States, I'll tell you, those guys would be

deep-sixed by now. But you stand up here and say it's all wonderful

because it provides employment and so on, and you don't understand the

classic trade-off that it all represents.

You say you've

been to Scandinavia, and they're jealous about these big areas of land

that we have. That's understandable. Our latitude, our opportunity, our

natural forests — my God, we should be so much wealthier than

they, given the circumstances. But that's too simple. You talk to

bureaucrats and administrators, and I have a lot of time for the good

ones. It's natural that everybody would like an easier solution. The

Swedes and the Finns would probably like easier solutions in terms of

the multiplicity of ownership and small-scale pieces of land. But at

the same time, they get a caring attitude because of the smallness.

wonder if anybody has ever thought about the simple question of big

versus small. In some areas we have to have big. The pulp mills are

very demanding. Technology is changing, though maybe there are even new

opportunities there. But in terms of bigness, we should think about it.

I think there's a problem with the kind of General Bullmoose attitude

that this minister tends to represents all too often, that bigness is

right and bigness is good and because these people are so powerful

that's the only and the right way to go.

[4:30]

isn't. Out of Scandinavia, with smallness at the tenure level, somehow

they are able to achieve significant things. If you reflect on it, it's

because they are like farmers, and farmers know the land they work.

That's what they have in Scandinavia. We have these tens of thousands

of acres and hectares allocated to corporations that have head offices

in God knows where: Auckland, New Zealand, and Toronto, Ontario, and

wherever. That's not farming; that's not farming at all. They are

simply portfolio managers. The Reichmanns have this grand range of

portfolios, and they need a forest sector as well as their urban

property sector and manufacturing sector, and it all balances out for

them with the business cycle. Very interesting. But what does that mean

for British Columbia's central concerns? It means that we are on the

margin in terms of decision-making. The Reichmanns don't care a great

deal about how our farmland or forest land is going in British Columbia

in an in-depth sense. They're simply balancing their portfolio.

[ Page 4762 ]

honestly don't think even a home-based outfit in downtown Vancouver can

really do the job in terms of tens of thousands of acres of land. It

just won't work. We don't get the productivity. You say we're ready to

do more of these tenures, the tree-farm licences; that's part of your

statement of last fall. The evidence is not encouraging in terms of our

getting the most out of that. The Scands like the idea of being able to

look at a river basin and think in terms of the river basin and

whatever, but they at least get the productivity of a caring small

farmer, which we don't get.

If I had to make the choice

between the two.... This is a person on this side of the House saying:

give me the small caring farmer. But you've farmed it out so that even

the bureaucrats aren't involved in this caring exercise to any great

extent anymore. We don't have those small ranger stations in the small

places around the province. You've made them into more and more

paper-shufflers that are monitoring what the industrial structure is

doing on a modest scale.

I just think it's a terrible dead

end in terms of our basic industry, because we're not opening up

opportunities for the small people; we're not developing an

entrepreneurial public service. We're just narrowing it again and again

and again so that the opportunity for any public creativeness is more

and more limited. The scenario is not encouraging at all. If you think

in simple, fundamental terms about individuals and the land,

productivity of the land and the creativity of individuals, we are

setting up a system that is almost doomed to mediocrity or to failure.

When we have what you say is competition on an international scale, we

may very well need these big outfits when it comes to marketing and

other things in some ways, but it doesn't mean we have to have the

whole piece. It doesn't mean we have to have a highly integrated system

throughout the piece.

The Finns, at an earlier stage, had a

law in their country that required that these things not be integrated.

They sought in the national interest not to have integration. That's

changed, unfortunately, in recent years, but that was the case at an

earlier stage. You don't get the biggies with huge land masses like the

biggies have in British Columbia. You just don't get that in Finland,

at least, so you get that productivity of individuals. It's ironic that

we on this side of the House have to lay that on you on that side of

the House who espouse individuality and the productivity of

individuals. In the end you close the door to them again and again and

again.

It's very frightening indeed to think of a future

where more and more of our forest lands in British Columbia are these

kinds of tenure, where there is a handful of players and it's virtually

fee simple ownership in the tree-farm licence tenure system. That's

very frightening.

The minister hasn't looked at the United

States, where they don't do that. They don't buy this tree-farm licence

nonsense. They tried one and it didn't work. It was in Shelton,

Washington. One — no more. They have a public service in forestry

in the United States that is significant and able to do the job with

respect to the public lands. They haven't gone our route at all. I

think it would behoove the minister to have a look at what they do down

there, to see what the capability of their public service is and why

they didn't buy this forest tree-farm licence game that you people have

so actively pursued.

HON. MR. PARKER : In the

conversations I've had with representatives of the United States Forest

Service they have marveled at what we have accomplished, and they've

expressed, as forest managers, the desire to emulate what we have

accomplished in British Columbia. Also, the bulk of the timberlands in

the United States is privately owned. There is not a large amount of

public land under forest.

With regard to the matter of Finland — and it is the same with Sweden —

there is a resistance by the national governments in both countries to

transfer ownership of fee simple lands to corporate ownership. There is

an espousal of the family unit by passing it on to the heirs of the

landowner, and hence the continuous breaking down. Most of those

landowners are urban dwellers, which is one of the frustrations that

the officials of both governments expressed to us — my deputy and me —

on our trip. The bulk of the management on those small holdings is done

by extension foresters from the major industries in both countries. The

industries in both countries are substantially forward- integrated,

from the stump right through, in some cases, to the printing firms that

actually take the papers and print for the customers. They have gone

extra steps. One of the advantages, of course, is standing in southern

Sweden or Finland on the coast and seeing the smudge across the salt

chuck. That's their market, and we are halfway around the world away

from that market and are able to compete in that market because we have

good products and efficient industry.

The member for

Vancouver East says that the previous government, in their sympathetic

administration, violated statutes. If he had done his homework, he

would know that he was really talking about policy and regulation that

arise out of statute and are developed from time to time to meet the

circumstances of the day, to make sure that the resources and the

business and the welfare of British Columbia are well looked after.

That's precisely what took place in the recession years 1981 through

1985. The sympathetic administration offered by the government of the

day was offered not only to major multinationals — which apparently is a dirty word in this member's vocabulary —

but also to individual operators. That sympathetic administration went

across the entire spectrum of the industry and helped keep it alive.

Yes, there were layoffs; there certainly were. It was an extremely

difficult period. But that was economically generated.

saw an extremely difficult period in 1972 to 1975 in the forest

industry that was generated by the member opposite, and it was

sickening. Having worked out there in those years myself, I had

firsthand knowledge of what his policies and actions were doing to the

forest industry of British Columbia. Fortunately, the people of British

Columbia recognized that and changed it at Christmas '75.

MR. KEMPF :

It's interesting to hear the minister speak glowingly about automation

and about the fact that through sympathetic administration we were able

to allow the multinationals to limp through a poor period to where now

they can make multimillions of dollars and reinvest that in British

Columbia. I've got to tell the minister — and again he would learn

these things for himself would he get out there and talk to the real

people in the forest industry — that there are millions of dollars

being spent on upgrading and automating plants, but don't for one

minute believe that that's adding to employment in British Columbia.

Literally hundreds of my constituents are jobless because of that kind

of automation and upgrading, because every time dollars have been spent

on upgrading new or existing plants in British Columbia, woodworkers

have been put out of work. That's a fact, Mr.

[ Page 4763 ]

Minister.

It happened just recently in one of my communities, Fort St. James,

where a great number of people were put out of work just because of

this investment. I don't think you, as the minister responsible for

this resource, should speak so glowingly about it.

I can't

see how anyone can figure that just because industry has gone through a

rough time it follows that they should be allowed to make multimillions

of dollars in the aftermath of that downturn. Does it not follow that

the taxpayer of British Columbia should...? They had some pretty tough

downtimes during the same period and through sympathetic administration

they gave it to the giants of the industry. Do you not think it follows

now that that same industry owes the taxpayer of British Columbia more

because they're making more of a profit? Does it not follow that if you

have it one way you should, in fact, have it the other? I believe so.

I saw all of the media coverage of the profits made by the industry in this past two years —

literally multimillions of dollars. I saw the puppets of the Reichmanns

and the Adam Zimmermans of this world speak very highly of that. Now

the picture has changed; now they're making 50 percent and 100 percent

more profit than they were a few years ago. Does it not follow that the

taxpayer of British Columbia is owed some of that profit? I think so.

[4:45]

want to get back to TFLs and talk about a particular subject at this

time. We'll probably talk a lot about TFLs in these estimates. The

minister said that at least in TFLs the province retains the ownership

of the land. That's true. Eventually that land will come back to the

people of British Columbia. The companies only have the right to cut

the timber. Are we going to face the same situation? I have to ask the

minister why. Are we going to face the same situation 25 years down the

road when that land from those TFLs is given back to the people of

British Columbia? Are we going to face the same desert-like situation

that we have in the NSR lands that were forgiven last fall in the new

forest policy? We forgave all of the ills of the past in one fell

swoop. We wiped out that land as a problem for the forest companies in

restocking. We brought that land back to the people of British

Columbia, who now have to pay for reforestation. Is that what we're

going to do with these TFLs as well? Why did we do that, Mr. Minister?

Why did we wipe the slate clean, accepting that responsibility on

behalf of the taxpayer, not the forest company? We wiped the slate

clean last fall, saying: "Fine. From now on, you have to do all of the

reforestation, but anything that was done in the past doesn't matter.

The taxpayer of British Columbia is going to pick up the tab."

Why

did we do that, and what is there to say? You say: "I may not be here

20 years from now, so I can't help what happens." What is there to say

that that same thing won't happen with these TFLs?

HON. MR. PARKER :

The member for Omineca shows an appalling lack of understanding of the

policies for which he was responsible at one time. The obligations of

the Crown prior to October 1, by statute and contract, require the

Crown to renew the forests of the province. We meet that obligation

with the policy we have in place, prior to October 1. From October 1

on, the licensees are responsible for forest renewal on their tenures.

As far as the future is concerned. the foresters, forest technicians

and those involved in forest renewal in the province, including

licensees and multinationals as well as everybody in between, have a

responsibility to forest renewal. They take that seriously and are

working at it in that vein.

There will be timber crops

ahead for successive generations of British Columbians, and they'll be,

at this time, renewed on the parameters of what we know today of the

species, industry, needs and availability of growing sites.

to what sort of policies come down the pike, who knows? It depends on

the incumbent government. I can't speak for that. All we can do as

stewards of forest land is ensure that it is regenerated and renewed to

the best of the ability of the experts and technicians in place today.

I don't think we could ask for much more than that. It's responsible

action, which is what we see in the industry and the ministry today.

The

whole context of forest management is one that looks out on an 80- and

100-year horizon. As far as NSR lands go, which was touched on by the

member for Omineca, we have in the province what amounts to about three

years' total cut. We cut about 220,000 hectares in the province

annually. We have between 600,000 and 700,000 hectares of NSR, which,

with the policies in place today, will mean that they're totally

eliminated within the next 12 years.

MR. MILLER : I

want to go back to an area that I was pursuing earlier: the question of

how we avoid having to repeat the sympathetic administration, having to

give a break to companies. Because when the cyclical downturn comes in

the industry — which it inevitably will — we don't have a

crystal ball. We can't foresee the future, but we can learn from the

past. The minister has been in the industry long enough to understand

that those downturns have occurred.

In the mid-seventies,

for example, '75-76, there was a downturn. What are we doing now to

meet, for example, the question of the logging plans? It seems evident

that in many areas, timber is becoming more and more inaccessible or

harder to access in terms of distance from existing mills and quality

of timber. One thing that came out in the Thomson report was the

addition of timber described as "marginally economic." It's not a

static thing. I don't subscribe to the notion that there's a fixed and

never-changing level of cut; it must change.

Certainly

changes in logging and production methods have all contributed to

allowing us to take an increasing level of cut, but we are running into

some fundamental problems in access, in marginally economic timber and

in timber that may exist on slopes difficult to access or

environmentally difficult to get to. All those areas are the first to

be set aside during a downturn, because the argument comes along that

we simply can't afford it. Those are high-cost logging areas and we

can't afford to go into them.

What are we doing now in

these good times? Is there a conscious policy, for example, saying that

now is the time to try to access those difficult and high-cost areas,

leaving high quality areas aside to return to at some later date,

perhaps when the economy does turn down or the market for the various

products that we manufacture in British Columbia does turn down? What

are we doing in terms of some conscious strategy to avoid having to go

through that same thing we did starting in 1981 and continuing, by the

minister's own admission, far too long? If that's planning — the minister says he believes in planning — then it seems to me that's a pretty fundamental kind of planning.

I've already talked about some academic people and some people in industry who firmly believe that we are

[ Page 4764 ]

cutting

too much, and we are trying to deplete that very valuable old-growth

forest at too rapid a rate. Presumably, that could be slowed through

better utilization — what I talked about. It could be slowed

through adding value on the other end of the process; presumably a

paper machine adds a significant amount of value, instead of just

producing pulp. There is a variety of ways that things can be shifted.

But if we just continue with the same policies that existed pre-1981,

then we're going to run into the same problem again.

Again,

I ask the minister what conscious policies have been developed within

his ministry to deal with the issues that I've raised and to head off

falling into that same trap that we were in in 1981.

HON. MR. PARKER :

In the development of management and working plans, prior to public

viewing of those plans, there are several years of discussion between

the licensee and the licenser on what's going into the management and

working plan. Part of that planning process includes the harvesting

sequence. The harvesting sequence takes into account the fact that you

have to have blocks and areas set aside for an inevitable downturn in

the market.

That sort of discussion takes place between the

Forest Service and the licensee on an ongoing basis. I've participated

in those discussions throughout the province as a representative of the

industry and talking with my counterparts in the Forest Service. That's

exactly the way that it processes. So when the inevitable downturn

occurs, the licensee and the Forest Service discuss whether there

should be any changes to that management and working plan in the

changing of the cutting sequence — maybe getting into a more

economical operating area for the circumstances of the day. That's the

way the process works throughout the province; I have firsthand

experience with that. I don't have any difficulty explaining that to

the House.

The whole purpose of the exercise, both as a

licensee and as a Forest Service, is to be sure that you have enough

wood ahead to be able to withstand a downturn. A management and working

plan really reflects that, to a large extent.

MR. JACOBSEN :

Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on a couple of things that were

said, because I think it leaves a false impression with the public of

British Columbia, if they pay much attention to the things said here.

I'm not sure that they do. If they do, then there's a bit of a false

impression.

First of all, I hear critical remarks about our

reforestation program. As someone who has been pretty close to the

industry, I don't think those comments are justified at all. British

Columbia is doing a very creditable job at this point in time on

reforestation, and they have been for a number of years. I've been in

the industry for about 30 years, and I can tell the people in this

House that there is not one acre of land that I have logged — and I've logged quite a few of them —

in the past 30 years that has not been properly and well restocked.

I've gone back to some of those early areas and had a look at them, and

the truth is that they're growing, and they're in much better stock now

than they were when I came there to log them. Some of them are just

absolutely beautiful areas of regeneration provided through a policy of

reforestation that the government has maintained over the years. I'm

not responsible. I don't take the credit for the restocking, because

that wasn't my job; I was a contract logger. But the areas are

restocked, and they're restocked very well.

Another

misconception is the suggestion that during tough times, the companies

were free to do anything they wanted within the forest management; they

could go and harvest any trees that they wished — just pick and

choose because it was tough times. That certainly is not what happened.

I was there; I was involved. If anything, I think the Forest Service

was a little too tough during that time with the market conditions as

they were. I spent a lot of that time in some very tough areas logging

timber that was of very marginal value, but we had to do it because

that was the policy of the Forest Service and we had to honour it and

live up to it.

I think