1986 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 1986

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

8209 ]

CONTENTS

An Act Establishing The Right To Public Information And The Protection Of Individual Privacy (Bill M208). Mrs. Dailly

Introduction and first reading — 8209

An Act Respecting The Televising And Other Broadcasting Of Debates And Proceedings

Of The Legislative Assembly Of British Columbia (Bill M209). Mrs. Dailly Introduction and first reading — 8209

Accountants (Chartered) Amendment Act, 1986 (Bill 29). Hon. Mr. Smith

Introduction and first reading — 8209

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1986 (Bill 28). Hon. Mr. Smith

Introduction and first reading — 8209

Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1986 (Bill 27). Hon. Mr. Nielsen

Introduction and first reading — 8209

Oral Questions

Louisiana-Pacific. Mr. Williams — 8210

Downie Street sawmill. Mr. Gabelmann — 8211

Radioactive contamination. Mrs. Dailly — 8211

College transfers. Mr. Nicolson — 8211

Gasoline prices. Mr. Michael — 8211

Ministerial Statement

Chernobyl nuclear accident. Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 8212

Presenting Petitions — 8212

Boundary Act (Bill 24). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Pelton — 8213

Mrs. Wallace — 8213

Mr. Hanson — 8213

Hon. Mr. Pelton — 8213

Municipalities Enabling And Validating Amendment Act, 1986 (Bill 25). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Ritchie — 8214

Mr. Nicolson — 8214

Petroleum And Natural Gas (Vancouver Island Railway Lands) Act (Bill 18). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Brummet) — 8214

Ms. Sanford

Mrs. Wallace Third reading

Forest Stand Management Fund Act (Bill 6). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Heinrich — 8216

Mr. Williams — 8216

Mr. Gabelmann — 8216

Mr. Lockstead — 8223

Mr. Michael — 8224

Mrs. Wallace — 8226

Mr. Nicolson — 8228

Ms. Sanford — 8229

Mr. MacWilliam — 8230

Mr. Mitchell — 8232

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 1986

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would like all hon. members to bid welcome

to Dr. Peter Leslie, who is director of the Institute of

Intergovernmental Relations at Queen's University. Dr. Leslie is a

gentleman who carries with him a Canadian reputation for

knowledgeability and proficiency, and is extremely gifted in his field

of endeavour.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, visiting us today from Grand

Rapids, Michigan, and here to see beautiful British Columbia and Expo,

is Mrs. John Bylund, who is here with my mother-in-law Elizabeth

Golata. I hope the House will bid them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT ESTABLISHING THE RIGHT

TO PUBLIC INFORMATION AND THE

PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY

Mrs. Dailly presented a bill intituled

An Act Establishing the Right

to Public Information and the Protection of Individual Privacy.

MRS. DAILLY: This bill requires the government to provide

upon request a record of public business. Failure of the government to

release the requested information can lead to an appeal to an ombudsman

and then to the supreme court. At the same time this bill would ensure

that information of a confidential nature would not be made public, nor

that which would interfere with the privacy of an individual.

Freedom of information has existed in other countries — for example,

in the United States since 1964 — and has become prevalent in many

other countries and provinces. I don't think that anyone could possibly

have any objection to this, I hope, when it gets an opportunity to be

debated.

Bill M208 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.

AN ACT RESPECTING THE TELEVISING

AND OTHER BROADCASTING OF

DEBATES

AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Mrs. Dailly presented a bill intituled

An Act Respecting the Televising and

Other Broadcasting of Debates and Proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of

British Columbia.

MRS. DAILLY: I think the title requires little explanation,

but I would like to mention that this bill would allow for a select

standing committee of the assembly to be struck within six months after

passage to consider the necessary arrangements for broadcast of debates

and consequent amendments to the standing orders. In this act also all

debates and proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

may be broadcast by any broadcasting station duly licensed under the

laws of Canada.

Bill M209 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.

ACCOUNTANTS (CHARTERED)

AMENDMENT ACT, 1986

On behalf of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), Hon. Mr. Gardom

presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Accountants (Chartered) Amendment Act, 1986.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move the bill be introduced and read a

first time now, and in so doing, on behalf of my colleague, I'd inform

hon. members that the purpose of the legislation is to update outmoded

provisions in the existing statute and provide the Institute of

Chartered Accountants with the capacity to effectively regulate

admission to membership, competence and discipline. The thrust of the

amendment is to really formalize the institute's disciplinary process,

to set out more clearly the actions which it may take against a member

where a breach of the act or bylaws has been committed. The institute

will also be given power to suspend a member without a hearing, in

extraordinary circumstances, where such action would be deemed to be

necessary in the public interest.

There are some housekeeping provisions concerning matters of an

administrative nature, including detailed provisions governing

elections and annual meetings. These matters will now be dealt with

under the bylaws.

The bill recognizes the importance of continuing competence and

establishes the framework of a scheme of practice review. A special

provision is included in the bill to guarantee the confidentiality of

client records.

Bill 29 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.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 1), 1986

On behalf of the Attorney-General, Hon. Mr. Gardom presented a

message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1986.

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

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

HEALTH STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1986

Hon. Mr. Nielsen presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1986.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, this bill includes a variety

of miscellaneous amendments to various statutes administered by the

Ministry of Health. The acts involve the regulations of certain health

professionals, licensing of health facilities, provision of health

services or insured benefits, and the registration of marriage. It is a

bill which most appropriately will be debated during committee.

[ Page 8210 ]

Bill 27 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be place on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

[2:15]

Oral Questions

LOUISIANA-PACIFIC

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier. In view

of the greatest threat to the provincial economy since the world

depression — that is, the threat of tariffs on our wood products in the

United States — and in view of the threat of countervailing duties with

respect to Louisiana-Pacific and staff reports that indicate that the

$25 million zero percent loan countervailable subsidy under U.S. trade

law would represent one more example in support of claims that Canada

does not trade fairly, and the note that Louisiana-Pacific played a

significant role in countervail activity in '82 up until nearly the

present, can the Premier advise why he would consider the prospect of

inviting American retaliation against our major industry by this

incredible loan to Louisiana-Pacific?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, again the member hasn't

searched far enough or long enough or in any depth to know what

constitutes an offence under present trade conditions in regard to

assistance in financing. If he was familiar with the countervail

hearing and the subsidies that were identified to Quebec pulp mills and

other processing forest industries, he would realize that they're many,

many times greater than this instance. And what was judged in that case

— because there is a percentage of subsidy allowed within any trade

agreement that, if it is not reached, is not considered an offence

against the trading relationship; and although it was identified, it

was not to the extent that it offended or made a case for any

countervailing action. That is why processed products such as pulp that

have received that, and other areas of processing under which the

waferboard mill would be taken, are not subject to any action from the

U.S. right now. They are concerned about lumber, but in this instance

that area has already been identified, and those amounts were

identified as not offending.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, despite what the Premier says,

senior staff in the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development

advised both the minister and cabinet of their fear in this respect. So

that is on the record. Could the Premier advise the House why

government decided to change all policy and have the public sector-that

is, the province of British Columbia — be the major risk-taker with

respect to the Louisiana-Pacific mill? The private sector should

normally be the major risk-taker with any enterprise, but we are

providing the bulk of the lending with respect to this operation.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, now the member is moving into

territory in which he asked questions of the Minister of Industry and

Small Business, who has taken those questions as notice, dealing with

this whole matter. I will wait until the minister comes back and brings

the answers on the subject.

MR. WILLIAMS: The Premier himself received documents

indicating that the lion's share of the risk was being taken by the

Crown. Given that information, can the Premier explain why he would

approve zero percent loans to the scale of $25 million?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, again, as the Minister of

Industry and Small Business has taken this as notice, as he did earlier

in this chamber, he will once again embarrass the second member for

Vancouver East with detailed answers to those questions, including that

one.

MR. WILLIAMS: In addition, government documents indicate that

this kind of lending on this kind of scale would accelerate the decline

of our provincial plywood industry. Given that kind of information, why

would this government entertain that kind of loan?

A further question, Mr. Premier. I don't blame you for not wanting

to answer these questions. They are embarrassing to the government.

In view of the doublecross this government has had at the hands of

the federal government in their willingness to use our lumber industry

as a bargaining chip in their overall gamble for free trade for central

Canada, has the Premier advised Mr. Kelleher that the proposed envoy

system is simply unacceptable to British Columbia?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I can reiterate the answer I

gave to the member yesterday that the province of British Columbia is

committed to the free trade talks. I don't agree with the premise in

that member's statement, because it goes against everything his

national party leader is saying about how the free trade talks are for

central Canada. Ed Broadbent and the Canadian Labour Congress or

Canadian Federation of Labour are against them. So I don't agree with

his premise. But I do say this: this province is committed to the free

trade talks. We are committed to the statements of the President of the

United States and the Prime Minister of Canada that it shall be a clean

launch, that all items shall be on the table and that there shall be no

preconditions. That position has been transmitted, as I said yesterday,

both publicly and privately and in any conference to the government of

Canada.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier is determined to tie

his wagon and to sit and sink with the Tories in these circumstances.

Has the Premier made it clear that he is for British Columbia and our

primary industry first and will not accept the double envoy system that

is proposed that could threaten our industry? The people who are

fighting in the United States say here and now that they think they've

got all the cards and that the envoy system will benefit them. Has the

Premier made it clear that we don't accept that system?

HON. MR. BENNETT: In supporting the free trade talks and all

items on the table, of course, that is supporting the British Columbia

industry, not only the industries we have now but those industries and

investments that we can get later, given stability of investment and

access to the larger U.S. market. Our position has always been to

advance British Columbia's cause. That's why I disagree with Ed

Broadbent, that's why I disagree with his forcing central Canada

policies on the New Democratic Party, and that's why we are for the

free trade talks where items will be on the table, where we can

[ Page 8211 ]

protect British Columbia's interests as well as

advance new opportunities. That is why I oppose Mr. Broadbent's

position and that of the New Democratic Party in refusing to get

opportunities for British Columbia and the west, as they are fearful of

their base in central Canada.

DOWNIE STREET SAWMILL

MR. GABELMANN: I have a question for the Minister of Forests.

On May 5 the minister told the House that he sent a telegram to the

owners of the Downie Street mill in Revelstoke, refusing permission to

remove timber from the millsite. Is the minister aware that his

instruction is being ignored by the company?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I am aware of what happened. To inform the

House, I advised by telegram, and the contents of that telegram are

public, that the timber sale allotted to Downie Street sawmill — and

there was a particular clause as I recall, 8.8, in the document — was

awarded to that particular plant and all the logs were to go to their

yard. I was subsequently advised, and I believe it occurred last

Thursday or Friday, that eight truckloads of logs had been taken from

the yard. When this occurred, another communication was sent by telex

to the principals and manager of Downie Street sawmill advising them

that should they continue doing so they would place, and in fact are

placing, their timber sale and the tenure that it offers in jeopardy;

and as far as I am concerned, they are in violation of the terms and

conditions under which the licence was authorized.

RADIOACTIVE CONTAMINATION

MRS. DAILLY: I have a question to the Minister of Health. I

understand that the Ministry of Health has collected data on possible

radiation contamination at various points in our province. Will the

minister advise the House when he will be in a position to report on

these findings so that British Columbians may know the situation we are

faced with?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I have a statement on that, but I wouldn't wish to intrude on question period, so perhaps immediately after.

COLLEGE TRANSFERS

MR. NICOLSON: In the absence of the Minister of Education,

I'd like to direct a question to the column two Minister of

Post-Secondary Education, who is also not here, nor is the column

three; so I'll go to column four, and that is you, Pat.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, in answer to an earlier question

that I asked the minister about the universities and college transfer

students, the minister said he would not take the college transfer

issue very seriously, because one member of the University of British

Columbia senate had expressed an opinion. Has the ministry been

informed that the UBC board of governors officially passed the transfer

policy at its meeting on May 1, and will be limiting university

transfer students to 750?

HON. MR. McGEER: In times past I would have been aware of

that, but I'm not kept up to date with what the boards of governors do.

I will therefore take that question on notice for an early reply by the

Minister of Post-Secondary Education (Hon. R. Fraser), who will be back

in the House very shortly.

MR. NICOLSON: I have a new question to the same minister. The

minister lived through a similar experience back in the late 1960s,

when he was on faculty at the university and very active on the

faculty. Having lived through that, he realizes the serious impact that

this could have on the marketability of the colleges. In view of that,

what action is the ministry prepared to take in order to ensure that

programs are funded adequately and that drastic measures don't have to

be taken?

HON. MR. McGEER: I can advise the House of the historic

policy of the government, which was to do everything possible to remove

the snakes and ladders of academia. We put a vigorous committee to work

under the chairmanship of Dr. Ian McTaggart-Cowan to make certain that

all artificial barriers were eliminated and that people in the colleges

taking qualified courses would get full credit for those courses at the

higher levels in our institutions authorized to give a BA and higher

degrees.

In addition to that, the member will know that with the help of the

Legislature we introduced the Open Learning Institute, and we

introduced the Open University Consortium to make it possible for all

of these things to happen without people ever having to leave Nelson or

these other communities.

So that overall umbrella policy is put in place, and I am sure the

Minister of Post-Secondary Education will inform the House when he

returns that it is alive and well notwithstanding the reports that have

reached the press.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier, who

promises the people of the province of British Columbia regularly,

every year or so, that there will be conflict-of-interest legislation.

Has the Premier a date in mind as to when that will be introduced into

this Legislative Assembly?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The Chair would

have some difficulty in finding that question as phrased to be in

order, inasmuch as (

a) it involves legislation, and (

b) it involves

future action.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, it would involve the Premier's mind. I wanted to know if a date was present in that mind.

MR. SPEAKER: With the greatest of respect to the argument by the member,

the Chair would have to decline.

[2:30]

GASOLINE PRICES

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

In travelling throughout the province, it is obvious that there is great disparity in the price of gasoline. In Victoria we

[ Page 8212 ]

notice the rates around 43.4 cents. I notice it's

about 43 cents in Richmond and 44.3 cents in Kamloops. But for some

unknown reason, in my own community and throughout the north Okanagan

the rates are all pegged at 46.2 cents per litre, an extra 3.2 cents

over what it is on the lower mainland. I wonder if I could ask the

minister if he would agree to get hold of his federal counterpart, the

Minister of Energy, and ask for an investigation of this disparity in

the areas of my constituency and the north Okanagan.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: In answer to the member, I think he is

aware that the wholesale price of gasoline to the retailers is fairly

constant throughout the province, and the difference is at the local

retail level as to what they do with those prices.

I can check into that, but I don't know whether there is any.... Certainly I can check into it.

CHERNOBYL NUCLEAR ACCIDENT

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make a short

ministerial statement relating to the matter of the Chernobyl accident

which occurred April 26 in the Soviet Union and the provincial

government's measures to monitor the radioactive fallout.

Understandably, there has been widespread concern in B.C. and

throughout North America concerning levels of radioactivity in the air

and in rainwater resulting from the accident, which was the worst in

the history of nuclear power generation. From the outset, it should be

noted that low levels of radioactivity were detectable throughout

Canada two weeks after the accident occurred. From the time when a

possibility of increased levels of radioactivity in B.C. has existed,

the Ministry of Health's radiation protection service in Vancouver has

been actively monitoring the situation by testing samples of rainwater,

milk and grass from various locations in the province.

Since this past weekend, when samples of rainwater in Vancouver —

consistent with samples in Oregon and Washington State — showed

significant increases in radioactive iodine-131, there has been a 500

percent decrease in samples taken on Monday and Tuesday, May 12 and 13.

It indicates that the level of radioactivity in the upper atmosphere no

longer appears to be a problem, but I'd like to assure the House that

milk sample testing will continue and, in fact, is being stepped up to

a daily basis.

To date, analyses of milk and grass samples have not turned up any

detectable radioactivity, but because levels of rainwater radioactivity

over the weekend did exceed regulatory standards for maximum allowable

concentration for drinking water, we feel there is a need to maintain

close monitoring. The radiation protection service has been receiving

milk samples from Health and Welfare Canada and from dairies throughout

the province, and has analyzed other samples, including grass and

tapwater. We will add other items, such as fresh produce, as

appropriate.

Mr. Speaker, the effects from the accident appear to have diminished

to the point where there is no cause for concern from a public health

point of view. However, it is still recommended that people who collect

rainwater directly as a sole source of drinking water should try to

find an alternative supply for the time being.

The maximum allowable concentration of radiation in drinking water

is 10 becquerels per litre. The most recent samples from the Vancouver

area have been about five becquerels. To put this in context,

approximately 1,500 to 3,000 litres of water at the highest measured

contaminated level would have to be drunk to equal the iodine-131

diagnostic dosage for thyroid abnormality, and the average person

drinks two litres of water per day. The target for rainwater is one

becquerel. Mr. Speaker, I'll be pleased to inform the House when that

level is achieved, but as I've stated, British Columbians have no cause

for concern at this point in time. Presenting Petitions

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, I seek the floor to present a petition.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, this petition is presented on

behalf of Kelowna residents who have solicited signatures from

throughout the province, and I'm presenting it on their behalf, as well

as on behalf of my colleague the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose),

the Education critic.

On February 28 and April 14 these residents wrote their MLA, the

Premier, to request a private meeting to present to him this petition.

The letters were not acknowledged, nor were repeated phone calls to the

Premier's office...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MacWILLIAM: ...apparently returned.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, during the presentation of a

petition it is incumbent upon the member to read the petition and

submit it without explanation or debate.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. Just to cite

Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 1983: "...a Member, on the

presentation of a petition, may read the prayer and make a statement as

to the parties from whom it comes...." And my explanation was to

explain from whom the petition has originated.

MR. SPEAKER: But not for why, hon. member. It's a big difference.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, the petition has a total of

5,730 names, and reads as follows: "To the hon. the Legislative

Assembly of the province of British Columbia in Legislature assembled,

the petition of the undersigned citizens, most of whom reside in the

school districts of...." I might say, Mr. Speaker, there are a total of

41 districts represented here in the petition. It states that: "We are

requesting the government review funding for public education in

British Columbia. We feel our school board should not be forced to levy

local tax increases to compensate for the shortfall in provincial

funding. We request an independent assessment of the required levels of

educational services in British Columbia's public schools and the

funding necessary to maintain them. Your petitioners respectfully

request that the hon. House convey this petition to the Premier and to

the Minister of Education. Dated May 14, 1986."

[ Page 8213 ]

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, but before

proceeding to the orders of the day and to public bills and orders, on

behalf of the Select Standing Committee on Private Bills I'd ask leave

that it be permitted to sit this afternoon at 3 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. SPEAKER: I hear several noes, hon. members.

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM: That being the case, it will not sit.

Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in calling second reading of Bill 24.

BOUNDARY ACT

HON. MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to rise to move

second reading of Bill 24. Very briefly, this bill is technical in

nature. It's really an uncomplicated bill, and its purpose is to

replace the present Boundary Act in a manner that's consistent with

section 43 of the federal Constitution Act. The new Boundary Act also

updates and makes housekeeping changes to the statutory provisions

relating to the British Columbia-Alberta boundary. The present Boundary

Act of 1975 allows the work of the boundary commission to be confirmed

by order-in-council.

section 43 of the federal Constitution Act of 1982

appears to negate the current process. This

section requires boundary

alterations to be made by proclamation issued by the Governor-General

by resolution of the Senate, the Commons and the legislative assembly

of the province affected.

The Ministry of Attorney-General provided a legal opinion on the

subject in August 1983, and in their opinion the work of the boundary

commission does in some instances alter the boundary and, as such, has

to be confirmed by legislative resolution. Therefore the Boundary Act

of 1975 should be repealed and a new act written to encompass the new

procedures.

The Boundary Act replaced by this act allowed the work of the

boundary commission to be confirmed, as I said before, by an

order-in-council.

section 43 of the federal Constitution Act negated

that process. Therefore it is required that boundary alterations be

confirmed by legislative resolution. The new act alters the procedures

for confirming the work of the commission but does not alter the duties

and responsibilities of that commission. I move that the bill be now

read a second time.

MRS. WALLACE: Certainly we have no objections to this bill.

In fact, we're very pleased to see a bill before this Legislature which

is putting more responsibility in the hands of the Legislature. Now

whether or not such a detailed thing should be coming before the

Legislature.... That's set by our constitution federally, and we're

moving in that direction. Would that we would see in this Legislature

more of the legislation that comes before the House set in this same

direction, where more of it is dealt with on the floor of this

Legislature rather than by order-in-council.

We're delighted to see this. The only thing that I would add — my

notes and the minister's are almost identical — is that it also

includes the Yukon-B.C. boundary as well as the Alberta-B.C. boundary.

We have no objection to this bill; we welcome it.

MR. HANSON: There are some matters we will be dealing with at

committee stage, but I want to add one point of concern. That is that

it doesn't address the question of the borders between Alaska and

British Columbia, and Washington state and British Columbia. The reason

I raise this is that there are rumbles that in the free trade

negotiations and so on, the Alaska government is very concerned about

altering the line between the Alaska panhandle and British Columbia.

They have for some years felt it in their interests, for fisheries

etc., to have that boundary altered. It certainly should be incumbent

upon this House to indicate that this is also something that we are

concerned with, that that boundary not be altered, diminishing the

territory that we presently have.

In addition, there is another question, and that is the Strait of

Juan de Fuca boundary. Now it is my information that the Trident

missile submarines draw so much water that they presently come

partially into Canadian waters to make their way to Bangor, Washington,

and that it has been in the interest of Washington state and the United

States government for some period of time to initiate an alteration in

the boundary of the Strait of Juan de Fuca to facilitate those Trident

missile submarines.

I'd like to have the minister consider the possibility of amending

this bill to also address the question of our Alaska boundary and our

Washington state boundary, to ensure that this Legislature would

authorize any alteration in the Strait of Juan de Fuca boundary; and in

the Dixon Entrance, north of the Queen Charlotte Islands, and the

Alaska Panhandle, because I think that territorial integrity should be

established by this Legislature.

[2:45]

HON. MR. PELTON: I certainly appreciate the comments from

both members opposite with respect to Bill 24. I am not in a position

at this point to confirm that it could be amended, but I would be more

than pleased to investigate the suggestions from the first member for

Victoria. When we come back to do this in committee stage, I'll have

some definitive answers for him.

Having said that, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

Motion approved.

Bill 24, Boundary Act, read a second time and referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of

the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 25.

[ Page 8214 ]

MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING AND

VALIDATING AMENDMENT ACT, 1986

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, this bill is self-explanatory.

It deals with three items. Number one, it deals with the Quesnel

situation, in which the city of Quesnel is about to enter into an

agreement with the Weldwood pulp mill operation there for the disposal

of their sewage, an agreement similar to that negotiated with the

company on behalf of Red Bluff last year. It is an agreement which will

avoid not only a very major capital investment but also some very heavy

ongoing operational expenses.

The second portion of this bill has to do with the Kamloops

situation. In 1980 Kamloops was requested by Dominion Construction, who

were developing a large shopping mall on the outskirts of the city,

that it install a main artery to service that shopping centre. It was

agreed that it would be done on an improvement district basis, whereby

the company would pay 60 percent and the municipality 40 percent, and

it would be based on a per parcel tax over a number of years. In the

meantime the company's selling of portions of this property meant, of

course, that the city had to deal with a number of owners, one of which

was Canadian Tire, who decided to challenge the agreement — not to pay

this parcel tax. Mr. Speaker, this amendment protects the city against

a very substantial possible loss in the neighbourhood of $105,000 over

the next 18 years — again, a self-explanatory move.

The third and last one has to do with a transaction that took place

in Richmond, whereby Woodward's, when they developed their Lansdowne

shopping centre, transferred some property to the city for park

purposes. There is some agreement whereby there is to be a transfer of

properties between the city and the Woodward's company which requires

placing the portion of the land that has been put into park in trust,

and the act does not permit them to do so. This amendment allows the

city to enter into an agreement with Woodward's to make an equal

transfer exchange of properties which both have agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, with that I move that the bill be now read a second time.

MR. NICOLSON: We will be agreeing to this bill and maybe

discussing it a bit more in committee. I must say, though, that the

Kamloops situation would create a very harmful precedent if it were

allowed to continue. It could bring orderly development of unserviced

parcels of land almost to a standstill, because of initiatives that

were taken in modifying the Municipal Act several years ago. So that

particular situation is certainly something that I would support.

Bill 25, Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act, 1986,

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

consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 18, Mr. Speaker.

PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

(VANCOUVER ISLAND RAILWAY LANDS) ACT

The House in committee on Bill 18; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

section 1.

MS. SANFORD: I'm not sure whether this is the

section — I

shouldn't raise this with you, Mr. Chairman, because then I know I may

be challenged — but I would like to know whether or not all of the

people who would be affected and all of the owners of lands that would

be affected by this particular bill will be informed about the bill so

that under a subsequent

section they will be able to apply for

compensation if that is their wont?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm not sure what question the member is

asking — whether everyone residing in that area will be notified by

phone or mail — but certainly it is public knowledge that this bill is

being passed. I do know that the gas company, and if necessary the

arbitration board, will set up offices as required in the area to make

sure that the people are clear on this. I'm not sure what your question

was. If it was whether we're going to notify everybody personally, no,

but I'm certain that publication, in whatever form, that this bill has

passed and what it means will be passed around.

MS. SANFORD: My question was whether or not people were going

to be notified, because it's pretty clear to me that if there are CPR

lands affected....

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Yes, I know the compensation

section 1s there, but I'm not sure whether the notice....

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: All right, but I'm talking about all of the

lands that are being affected under this definition, the railway lands.

It's pretty clear to me that if the CPR still has some claim and some

interest in those lands, and I have no doubt that they'll be one of the

ones that will be interested in this legislation, they certainly will

know about it and they certainly will apply for compensation if they

think that they should be entitled to compensation under a subsequent

section. But most people who are within that E&N land grant and

don't forget it's one-quarter of Vancouver Island — are not going to

know about this. They're not going to have their lawyers phoning them

saying: "Hey, look. This piece of legislation has just gone through the

Legislature, and if you have any claim for compensation under a

subsequent

section of this, you'd better get your application in,

because they have this arbitration procedure set up and so on."

People living within that E&N land grant — and don't forget

we're now talking about millions of individual pieces of property, or

thousands at least; I don't know how many, but everybody who's living

within one-quarter of Vancouver Island's area could be affected by

this, it seems to me. And those people should be notified, because you

know, Mr. Chairman, that most people are not aware of the legal

niceties that occur as a result of this kind of legislation. They're

not going to be the ones who will be submitting appeals for

compensation because they feel that they have somehow lost something by

this transfer of drilling rights to the Crown.

I would like to pose the question again to the minister. In view of

the fact that most people on Vancouver Island who will be affected by

this will not be aware of it, nor could they be expected to be aware of

it, will the minister assure the

[ Page 8215 ]

House today that notices will be sent out to every

landowner letting them know that there is a possibility of making some

claim under this particular piece of legislation?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before recognizing the minister, I'll advise

the committee that

section 3(3) indicates that the minister shall

publish a copy of the order or a

summary of the contents in a newspaper

circulating in the area of the land affected and may post or erect —

and on it reads. That may impact on the member's question and the

minister's answer, but there does appear in

section 3, which we're not

at yet, to be the operative mechanism that is concerning the member.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I wasn't clear on the member's question in

the first instance, but I think if the member carefully reads the total

act she will find that this is basically

an act enabling the government

to act, and only when an application for an area comes forward, it must

be described and posted at that time. So in other words we are not

going to be dealing with claims of everybody who happens to live in

that area. The basic intention is that the Crown now owns all those gas

rights. When an application was put forward for any of that land for

leasing purposes, then at that time it would be posted in the press,

and the person would be notified. There's no way anybody wants a

battle. They will say at that time, when an application comes forward

for a particular parcel of land, which will have to be described, that

the person will be notified so that they can check to see if they have

in fact any claims, and then they act accordingly. But to notify

everyone residing in that whole area that a bill has been passed that

could affect you, if and when something comes up — I think it is much

wiser to wait until the if and when, because some of the

property-owners may be right there, some of them may be elsewhere, and

you're composing an onerous task which may serve no useful purpose.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the member is going to continue with respect

to the concern about adequate notice, perhaps we could pass

section 1,

which is the

interpretation

section of the act only, and

section 2,

unless there is other debate, and continue this debate in

section 3.

Would that be appropriate, hon. member?

MS. SANFORD: Why don't I ask another question, then, on the railway lands themselves.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the

interpretation section,

section 1?

MS. SANFORD: Yes.

I'm wondering, under the railway lands as defined under the

interpretation section, how much of that land within that E&N land

grant still applies to the CPR, or still would be under the CPR's

jurisdiction.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm sorry, I don't think I can answer that

question. I do know that in 1976 or 1977 all of the subsurface and

mineral rights were returned to the provincial government, but because

of land dispositions that may have happened between the 1800s and the

present date, there may be somewhere where E&N.... Whenever they

sold land, private disposition of any kind, they always reserved the

subsurface and mineral rights. Presumably they retained all subsurface

and mineral rights, whatever they were; and there is some problem as to

what was defined, because gas and oil weren't even considered in those

days. When they subsequently turned over all of those rights to the

province, we assume that we own it all; but if inadvertently somewhere

in a contract it was left out.... To check the thousands of contracts

now, without ever knowing whether there is going to be a lease

application of any kind on any of those lands, didn't make sense.

So this act simply says that when a piece of land is being

considered, at that time the owners, whoever, would be notified, would

be told that they have X time to make an application, to check if they

have anything. You can rest assured that to give grant title on a lease

or application, before the application is even considered, while it is

posted.... The ministry and the government and the oil company will be

very interested to see whether the title is clear.

MS. SANFORD: One final question under this. Is it possible

that some of the lands sold by the CPR subsequent to that acquisition

in 1905 may have been sold to companies like Marathon Realty or Pacific

Logging without reference to the mineral rights, the subsurface rights,

including this oil and gas? In other words, is it likely that the

companies that are subsidiaries of the CPR are the ones who are going

to be making claims because of some omission back at that time, where

in fact there was no omission under the sale and under the title, as

you suggested?

[3:00]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, to the best of our knowledge, in any

land that CPR or E&N disposed of they reserved mineral rights. To check all

of those records would have been impossible, so this is why this legislation

is there. In other words, because of those rights that were turned over, we're

assuming the subsurface rights as belonging to the Crown. Should that inadvertently

not have happened, we are still assuming them; if anybody can prove otherwise,

then they are entitled to compensation. I would think that the same thing applied

to companies as to any individual dispositions.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MRS. WALLACE: My question also relates to this railway land.

I wonder whether the minister is aware that in that area of so many

miles on either side of the track that was granted to the E&N,

there were some prior acquisitions included within that; some old

estates, prior to 1905, that actually had — and still have, as far as I

know — the mineral rights. The one I think of is the Quennell estate in

the Cedar district that actually had the mineral rights. It's a very

large estate — some several sections of property — now divided into

many owners. In those areas where mineral rights granted prior to the

1905 acquisition by E&N hold prior claim, I'm wondering what

position those people are going to be in. They now will number several

hundred just on that one estate that I know about, and the owners of

those pieces of land actually hold their own mineral rights. I don't

know how that fits into railway lands, whether it is or isn't part of

it, but physically it's certainly part of it because it's completely

integrated with those E&N land grants.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I have to assume that this

act is to deal with the lands where E&N eventually — whatever else

happened and whoever retained

[ Page 8216 ]

the subsurface rights — turned over all subsurface

rights to the provincial government. Where there were individual

dispositions of any kind prior to or outside that agreement, then I

assume title searches, title checks, would look after those under our

regular laws.

Sections I to 3 inclusive approved. On

section 4.

MS. SANFORD: I'm going to narrow my request, Mr. Chairman, to

the minister. I appreciate that it's hard to send out mail to everybody

within that E&N land grant. In the areas where leases are actually

granted, would the minister undertake, through the land titles office —

and that would be easy enough — to notify by mail the people in that

area so that they will know there's a provision for compensation and a

procedure they could adopt in order to seek that compensation?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think three leases have been granted to

this point, and then.... Those people know of them. It was not from

those people but from further checking that it became apparent that if

an exploration program went on, this E&N problem had to be dealt

with. Otherwise, no one knew where they might stand a year from now,

ten years from now or whatever. Where leases were granted already, the

people were notified and know this.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes. In a case where a company says, "We

have an interest in this particular parcel," they have to notify the

ministry that they're interested in this particular parcel. Generally

the ministry checks titles and whatever existing rights there are,

notifies the owner automatically of this, and the oil company generally

has to deal with the owner. So yes, I have no problem in assuring that

the owner of that land would be notified.

Sections 4 to 7 inclusive approved. Title approved.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Bill 18, Petroleum and Natural Gas (Vancouver Island Railway Lands)

Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 6, Mr. Speaker.

FOREST STAND MANAGEMENT FUND ACT

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, this bill is not very

lengthy. It really came about as a result of considerable interest

which had been expressed by those who operate in the forest industry.

As most members know, over the years the Ministry of Forests has

administered certain funds, one of which was the forest and range

resource fund, which was depleted in 1982-83. That particular fund

contained only contributions from the provincial government. This

legislation proposes not only contributions from the provincial

government but also contributions from other people and parties who

would benefit. Considerable interest was expressed by the leader of the

IWA that a fund be set up which would have moneys deposited in it from

a number of sources other than government, the object being to preserve

its existence, something with which I wholeheartedly concur. The object

is also to have contributions made by municipalities, and a

representation was made by the municipality of North Cowichan, which

has a considerable reserve and thought that there would be some benefit

in participation in this particular fund. As a matter of fact, I have

met with the mayor and his forestry consultant. We thought that there

would be participation by the trade unions involved, certainly the IWA,

and perhaps the PPWC and the CPU might be interested as well. I repeat,

my objective is, by having others participate in the fund, with whom we

can all work, to place the fund in a secure position so that it could

not be unilaterally terminated by the provincial government.

For a considerable period of time there has been a fair amount of

discussion about intensive forest practices within the province. The

objective of this fund is to use the proceeds which will accrue to it

to enhance intensive silviculture practices. Planting is being carried

on and has increased substantially over the last several years. The

amount of planting taking place is not yet adequate or reaching the

criteria the foresters use when they make reference to a "steady-state

plan." The biggest concern which I have encountered on my visits to

tree-farm licences or forest-licence stands is not really planting. The

problem seems to be looking after the area that has been harvested

subsequent to the planting. The foresters constantly refer to something

called duff. Duff is really nothing more than weeds and certain types

of deciduous trees which grow and cover.... I'm not sure, but I

understand it's something like that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pudding.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's obviously what you've been sitting on.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That's really uncalled for, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's actually the soil.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, the foresters I was talking with said it's the coverage which is coming over the top of the soil...

MR. GABELMANN: ...which won't support any growth, because it's returning.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Good man. You can see that I'm new in this

slot. Thank you, Mr. Member for North Island. Am I not correct in

making reference to the deciduous trees that are covering the small

plants which have been planted? The concern they have is that they

don't get an opportunity to reach the free-to-grow stage. We hope to

use the funds we've

[ Page 8217 ]

got for fertilization, weeding, thinning, spacing — something along this line.

As all members are aware, there is a fair amount of reforestation

taking place under

section 88, but one of the biggest concerns that the

forest companies seem to have is that they do not believe there to be

adequate funding under

section 88 for reforestation. Even when you add

section 88 funding, add to that the funding provided under the

federal-provincial agreement, the amount of money which is available I

believe will, when it is fully spent, be something reaching $180

million, $190 million per year.

What we are trying to do is eventually reach one day an annual

expenditure of something in the order of $300 million. Now that will be

a while, to be very candid with you, before it is reached. However,

this particular bill I think is a move in the right direction.

I have mentioned to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Act makes allowance

for other parties to contribute to the fund. I have made a commitment

to those whom I wish to be involved that the terms of reference and the

regulations which will follow, which are in the process now of being

prepared and will only go in the draft stage, will then be given to

those from whom we want contributions made for their suggestions as to

the best way in which the fund will be managed.

One of the concerns which has been expressed by a number of

operators who have tree farm licences, and particularly those with

forest licences only, is that we are supportive of what you have in

mind. However, before any levy is made, we would like to ensure that

our participation in that particular fund will result in activity

occurring on that land over which we have been harvesting, and these

are areas which we wish to work out.

[3:15]

I would very much hope that the federal government would participate

in the fund, but that has not been firmed up, I can assure you of that,

Mr. Speaker. The real objective was to accumulate something in the

order of $70 million; $20 million from the government which is

incremental to the existing

section 88 funding, and the amount of money

being contributed to the federal-provincial agreement.

I would also look for something in the order of $20 million from the

corporate sector, and estimating something in the order of $5 million

from the trade unions involved and another $5 million from

municipalities. Whether we succeed in achieving our goal remains to be

seen, but I think the objective is something that must be pursued. I

think it is very worthwhile. Having said that for a few opening

comments, I would move second reading.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Speaker, what a pitiful display from

the Minister of Forests. The problem we have is of a monumental scale,

and he is delivering pennies where dollars are needed. That's what he

is really doing. It is absolutely amazing. I know the minister is

working on a nice, clean Smokey the Bear image to try to deal with the

mess of ten years under the former minister. And he hasn't been doing

badly: the nice new smile, boy, with the pretty little seedlings! My

gosh, there he is, all sweetness and light, trying to clean up the

image of the man from Yale-Lillooet who has fouled up this industry

along with this government after a decade in power.

His own region is one of the shockers. The special sale area in the

Prince George region, the SSA, is one of the worst, in terms of

rehabilitation, in the world, simply in the world. No standards have

applied. It was an area to be gutted. It was simply an area to be

gutted, right around his own home town. To a lesser degree but across

this whole province, it has been a region to be gutted, to be mined.

Our forests are being mined. American foresters are almost laughing at

us, saying: "If they keep up what they're doing, we're not going to

have that trade problem with British Columbia anyway, because they

won't have any trees left." That's what they're saying behind your

backs down across the border, because of the gross mismanagement. In

the face of that you come up with this pittance of $20 million, and

then you want to put the hustle on the trade unions and the

municipalities and the federal government. The federal government

finally has started to blow the whistle on your activities as it is. We

at least have some action on their

part in terms of the ERDA agreement,

which is now underway.

AN HON. MEMBER: Three hundred million dollars.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, indeed. And the $300 million makes your

$20 million look like just what it is: a bit of smoke from Smokey Bear

over there, to try and cloud the issue, just as he has done in terms of

getting on radio and claiming: "Well, there really isn't a problem out

there, folks. This is Smokey Bear, your Minister of Forests from Prince

George." He's saying: "Why, we actually put in five little seedlings

for every giant Douglas fir we knock down." Well, isn't that a deal —

five little seedlings for every Douglas fir and every mature tree you

knock down? What he doesn't say is that he doesn't look after them

after he's put them in the ground.

There is a professor of forestry at UBC who has the prestigious

chair of forest policy, funded by both industry and the unions — Prof.

Les Reed, a former assistant deputy minister at the federal level — who

has said: "The way we plant trees in British Columbia and don't look

after them is the equivalent of dropping these seedlings from an

airplane." What kind of farming is that? If we think about our forests

in British Columbia, we should think about them truly as farms, to be

replenished on a continuing basis, not as a land to be mined. Under

this administration it has been a land to be mined; i.e., not a

renewable resource. They've been gutting on a scale that means that it

is not a renewable resource in countless areas, and the minister has

all kinds of reports that support that.

What about how the NSR lands have increased in this province? The

way they've increased at the hands of Social Credit.... In the last

five years alone, they've gone from 800,000 hectares to 1.2 million

hectares — a 42 percent increase in the last five years under this

administration. That kind of abuse has been going on in terms of the

wrecking of our forest lands, leaving a legacy of weeds. And you come

in with this miserable little bill of $20 million. It's on par with

your Smokey Bear advertisements on radio, Mr. Minister.

Let's look at some of the other people in terms of what should be

done in reforestation in this province. An eminent person in the

province is Prof. Jack Walters — again, a professor of forestry at UBC

— who for the last 20 years headed up the University Research Forest at

Maple Ridge, in back of Haney. Jack Walters argued for a fund as big as

$600 million-plus a year. He didn't argue that it was a make-work

project; he argued on it and for it as a sound investment in

[ Page 8218 ]

jobs in British Columbia, and in terms of properly

husbanding the public lands of British Columbia. This was no ideologue.

This was a person, more than anybody in our recent history, who has

seen and measured the benefits of managing our forests properly.

You go to the UBC research forest on prime coastal forest land

sites, and you see what can be done in terms of increased productivity

from the land. As a result of that, Prof. Walters said we could manage

intensively on the best sites, just 28 percent of the forest land base,

and produce more wood on an annual, forever, perpetuity basis than we

presently do now. That is, we could exceed our current AAC if we only

managed 28 percent of the lands properly. Just think about it. But

there's a price; intensive management costs money. But it's reasonable,

because it is the future of this province.

Nowhere else in the modern western world is the forest resource

abused as badly as it is in British Columbia. The Norscan countries —

Norway, Sweden, Finland, even little Denmark —

none of them would handle

their forest resources in the manner that this administration has. They

know that they have to put funds back, and on a considerable scale, in

order to maintain the future of their economy and indeed their society.

That we don't do in British Columbia. Nothing could reinforce it better

than this miserable little bill from the minister.

You know what really happened? They hired Goldfarb and Public

Affairs International, their main policy advisers for this

administration, and they found in their polling that the people of

British Columbia had come to the conclusion that the forests were not

properly managed. The people had figured it out: the root of our

economic problems to a great extent in British Columbia lies in the

fact that we do not manage our primary resource, the forests, properly.

So then it's a matter of getting together with the hotshots in the

Premier's office, and saying: "Well, how do we try to fog up the

public's mind on this issue?"

It's not a matter of dealing with the substance of the issue.

Professor Walters has told us how we deal with the substance of the

issue: we deal with it by employing one tremendous amount of people to

begin the cleanup process. It makes all the sense in the world in the

times we have in terms of serious unemployment. So this government, as

usual, doesn't deal with the substance of the problem; it's old Marty

Goldfarb and another $60,000 to Public Affairs International. How do we

cloud it up? Let's use some taxpayers' money again, and we'll go on

radio, and we'll fool those folks out there. Old Jack will do the

Smokey the Bear number, and he'll say: "Why, we do plant five seedlings

for every giant Douglas fir we knock down."

Not good enough, Mr. Minister —

not good enough at all. How many of

those five seedlings survive? What kind of husbandry takes place after

they're dropped in the ground the equivalent of from an airplane, as

Professor Reed says, and so on? It isn't there. You're not dealing with

the substance of the problem at all. The best expert in the province

says really we should be spending $600 million-plus annually, and he

argues that it's the best investment we could make. He argues, in

addition, that it could over time create 100,000 jobs in British

Columbia. Just think of that — 100,000 new jobs in British Columbia,

and this is a province that has been careening with 200,000 unemployed

and 200,000 families on welfare. What a marvelous opportunity to start

thinking in terms of substance instead of dealing with the stuff of the

Goldfarbs of the world.

So you concoct this little fund, and you say we'll try to rope in

the municipalities and the trade unions and the industry. Well, very

nice. But you bring the legislation forth, and it's a surprise to the

other players. That's typical of the lack of consultation by this

administration. You say you want $5 million, is it, from the trade

unions? Yes, and $5 million from the municipalities — the strapped

little municipalities of British Columbia — and $20 million from the

industry and $20 million more from the fells. You've already signed an

agreement with the feds. Aren't they going to be a little amazed when

you come back and say: "Well, in addition to the $300 million ERD

agreement, we have this here very interesting fund we'd like you to put

$20 million in, because we're just playing this game that Martin

Goldfarb suggested to us for trying to confuse the public into thinking

we're actually doing something about the problem or the opportunity?"

Because it is a great opportunity to employ people on a great scale and

to renew this industry.

The unions are surprised. Out of left field comes the minister

saying: "We want $5 million, you chaps from the union." It's news to

them. What kind of consultation is that? If you were serious, there

would have been active consultation for some time with these people on

board from day one. That isn't what the exercise is all about at all.

You'll be happy to be able to point at them, if the trade union says,

"We simply don't have the funds and our membership must vote on this,"

and to say: "There they are; it's the trade unions that aren't doing

the job." It's very clear that it's the administration that hasn't been

doing the job and hasn't been doing it for ten years.

But it really begs another question. It begs the question about

revenues from our forests, and that issue is a smoking gun that sits on

the desk of this minister. It's a smoking gun that sits on the desk of

the Premier of this province. It's a smoking gun still pointing at us

that the Americans may yet use in this fight, which is the biggest

fight since the Great Depression in terms of access of our forest

products to the United States.

[3:30]

The minister knows what I'm talking about. He has smoking-gun

reports that tell him clearly he could be collecting more revenue from

the forests of British Columbia. Those smoking guns are pointed at all

the people of the province; they really are.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Just say, ma'am, if you were the personal owner of all

the trees of British Columbia....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would you please address the Chair.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, if you were the owner of all the

trees in British Columbia, and you were going to sell the trees —

75,000 cubic metres a year; that's what we sell, in terms of public

forests in British Columbia — you would expect to make some money on

that exercise, wouldn't you? Let's all just think about it,

collectively, for a minute. Just think: if we individually were the

owners of all the forests of British Columbia, you would think that we

would make money out of the exercise of selling trees, wouldn't you?

One would think the most incompetent businessman in the world would

make money selling trees on that scale. But the truth of

[ Page 8219 ]

the matter is that we don't. We do not make any money from the direct selling of the trees that we own.

That is nothing short of a scandal. That, indeed, is one of the

reasons the Americans are looking with such jaundiced eyes on this

administration and this province today. They are good businessmen, and

they say: "How could you own all of these assets and not have a net

revenue out of them?" The people of British Columbia should be asking

the same question. If we were properly managing the resources and

selling the trees at a genuine market price, there would not be a net

loss in terms of revenue, not at all. The minister has reports that

basically indicate that to him. He's got reports that indicate the

Crown has been shortchanged. The Hopwood report clearly shows that.

There are other reports that show it as well. Recent reports by the

FEPA group under Dr. Peter Pearse at the University of British Columbia

also clearly indicate the Crown is being shortchanged in terms of what

the trees are really worth. I will bring more of that information to

the House at a later stage.

It is abundantly clear now that this administration does not collect

the real value of the trees cut down in British Columbia. The data is

building up and building up. It is indeed a smoking gun that could hurt

the entire economy of British Columbia; make no mistake about it.

Not only that. We don't charge the market value for trees; that's

now abundantly clear. We don't even count the trees properly; that's

now abundantly clear. The Shoal Island incident involving B.C. Forest

Products, which is now going before the courts, and for which

examinations for discovery have already occurred, indicates that for

half a dozen years there was no monitoring of the Crown timber going

through that operation. The ombudsman indicated we lost millions, nay

tens of millions, of dollars, simply because the trees were not

measured or weighed or counted properly. Those reports are all out

there. The Americans are not unaware of these reports. They are in the

public domain. So every day that this minister lives with those facts

and that reality, in terms of the cheating and undercharging with

respect to our basic resource, he invites retaliation by the Americans.

Every day that he lets those reports sit on his desk and in his files,

he invites retaliation by the Americans.

Beyond that, those reports indicate that there are abundant funds to

bring the forests up to scratch, if we were getting proper revenues,

instead of the minus $100 million plus whatever it is currently. For

all of those trees that we sell every year, we end up with something

like minus $100 million-plus. In terms of managing, that's the way it

works in British Columbia: we sell our trees for minus numbers. They

could be plus numbers. There are now reports and studies by academics

at Simon Fraser University — in their department of natural resource

management where they offer a master's degree program — that indicate

the measure of the shortfall in terms of what economists call economic

rent.

The economic rent that is not collected from this industry is now in

the hundreds of millions and is documented by the academics at Simon

Fraser University; hundreds of millions that could be ploughed back

into reforestation, hundreds of millions annually in terms of

legitimate revenues for the Crown that could be ploughed back into the

industry every year and create new jobs in British Columbia. That is

nothing short of a major provincial scandal, Mr. Speaker — nothing

short of a scandal.

Who can trust the people over there, Mr. Speaker? The public of

British Columbia knows they can't be trusted. What have they done with

previous silviculture reforestation funds? What have you done? You've

gutted them in the past;; that's what you've done. Let's see, there was

a $1.4 billion program over five years that was to have been in place.

The last time, you attempted through the Goldfarb route to say you were

concerned about this issue, but you ended up gutting the funds. You

ended up simply gutting the funds.

Between 1980 and 1985, in terms of what you said in your budgets you

were going to spend, you underspent by $71 million; and you come in

with this pittance of a number of $20 million now saying you want money

from the unions, money from the companies, money from the feds, money

from the municipalities to help clean up your mess, the former Minister

of Forests' mess, when in fact you underspent those moneys by $71

million between 1980 and 1985.

Well, we ended up with a stadium in Vancouver at one point when the

funds were gutted real well. That is certainly nice, but that doesn't

deal with the issue. Those funds were gutted. They were taken back. It

was part of the smoke and mirrors exercise in the pre-election period.

It was part of Martin Goldfarb and Public Affairs International and

that whole approach to government policy that permeates this

administration.

Beyond that, look what you've done in terms of your staffing in the

Ministry of Forests. You've gutted the staffing of the Forests ministry

as well. Mr. Minister, I urge you to check the memos that are flowing

in from the subregions of the province dealing with the lack of

staffing, dealing with the lack of funds, dealing with the likelihood

of another fire season like the one we had last year because you are

not providing the funds necessary. They are out there, and I think it

is time you fessed up to it and went back to Treasury Board and said:

"Boys, we've got to do more. We've got to do far more than we are doing

now." Because the information is out there, the reports are coming in.

The job is not getting done. There is not the staff.

You have privatized whole areas, even in fire fighting, and the

privatized people are not trained. And so it goes: a 35 percent cutback

in staff, half of all the local offices eliminated. What kind of real

job in monitoring can be done? Your Ministry of Forests people are in

central cities. Is it a point of order?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have

enjoyed his remarks, and frankly, I was allowed a great deal of

latitude, because that's really the spirit of debate. But really I

think the last few comments are getting into something that I would

think the member knows full well have to do with estimates. Perhaps we

could confine the remarks, however enlarged they may be, at least to

Bill 6.

MR. WILLIAMS: I am sure the minister is reading all those

memos. But clearly there was a major underspending over the last five

years of $71 million, and now you come in with this small bill of $20

million trying to hustle money from the unions and the rest, and it

makes little sense at all.

There just isn't the staff in the Forest Service to monitor the

silvicultural program adequately now. That is abundantly clear. There

is a need for funding for staffing to monitor more of the private

sector work that is going on. More and more that is going on is private

sector. But it requires more administration and monitoring, and it

isn't getting it.

There are people in the industry that have made it abundantly clear you're not doing the job. Doug Little, vice-

[ Page 8220 ]

president of Northwood, has made it abundantly

clear that you're not doing the job, and that's in your own home town

in the special-sale area around the town of Prince George.

At the very minimum, Mr. Speaker, we should be spending at least

$330 million on silviculture and reforestation. That's part of the NDP

jobs-first program that was announced by the Leader of the Opposition

(Mr. Skelly) recently. That's a minimum. We should be moving toward

Prof. Walters's goal of employing 100,000 people down the road in this

industry.

For us to be having the worst unemployment problems we've had since

the Great Depression, and at the same time not be dealing with forest

renewal, has to be the ultimate kind of mismanagement. And Prof. Reed

has made it very clear, as I've indicated earlier, that the job isn't

being done properly. The planting and the subsequent work is woefully

inadequate. The job is not being done. Look at what little Denmark

does, for example, in their tiny forest areas. If we managed in British

Columbia like the Danes do in terms of the annual allowable cut they're

able to get just from their limited forest resource in that part of

Scandinavia, we could triple the cut. Just think of that, Mr. Speaker.

We could triple the cut in British Columbia if we managed to the scale

of the Danes. That means tripling in terms of logging, tripling in

terms of industry, and then getting into value-added — tremendous

opportunities for employment, if we would only manage the forest better.

In Sweden they get four to five times the wealth out of an acre of

forest land compared to us in British Columbia. If we would only stop

and think about that: four to five times the wealth generated out of

their forest land on any comparable basis. That has to be what we

should be pursuing as a goal for British Columbia. If we could but

double the wealth out of our forest lands, we wouldn't have an

unemployment problem today. We wouldn't have it at all, if we could but

double the wealth. That potential is clearly there.

[3:45]

We can double the wealth. That should be a realistic goal within a

reasonable length of time, and if we assiduously applied ourselves to

that kind of goal, we would deal with the root causes of unemployment.

We genuinely would, if we opened up this industry to the degree that is

needed and if we did a proper job in silviculture and reforestation.

But what this bill does, Mr. Speaker, is simply play the Goldfarb game,

the public relations game, with the critical issue — the issue of our

forests and our economic future, and employment and jobs. It's a real

opportunity. The serious problem that we have in this industry is, on

the other side, our unemployment problem and our wealth-creation

problem in British Columbia. With a positive attitude instead of the

smoke-and-mirrors game that we have at the hands of public relations

experts, we would be genuinely solving our economic problems. The

minister should simply be ashamed that he acceded to Mr. Goldfarb's

game, that he acceded to the game of the whiz kids in the Premier's

office in trying to manipulate public opinion.

We expected something more of this minister, and we still do,

compared with the guy who was in office for a decade. But this one

indicates that we're getting more of the same, that it is going to be

the old PR shell game, and we and the people of British Columbia simply

deserve better.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, in terms of the resources and the

economy of British Columbia, there is no greater issue facing us than

the question of forest management and the question contained within

this bill, silviculture.

There is no other issue that demands our attention in the way that this one does.

It has been said by many people, but I don't think it can be said

often enough: we are facing a crisis of monumental proportions in our

forest lands in this province. That crisis doesn't extend just to those

NSR areas that are so rampant in the Prince George region and

throughout many parts of the interior, but in many ways the crisis is

as bad or perhaps worse on parts of this coast which have the best

land, which are the high sites for forestry in this province, which in

the agricultural sense are your best farmland. The crisis exists on

this coast in a way that is defined differently from the way it's

defined in the interior, but is just as great.

What's the response, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that we have a farm in

this province that provides most of the wealth for this province and,

in effect, we don't plant any trees on that farm? I want to deal with

that in more detail as I go through. What's the result? What's the

government program? Six years ago it was to introduce a program; four

years ago it was to cancel that program, and now to have in its place,

in terms of provincial revenue, a $20 million program.

I welcome the efforts that appear to be intended in the bill to

recognize this as a problem, and I welcome the efforts that are

contained in the bill to attempt to involve other players in this

province in helping to solve the problem. But if you want the

cooperation of the municipalities and of the trade unions and of the

other players in the industry and the other players in our

community.... How do you get that cooperation, and how do you get that

help and assistance? Do you do it by presenting a bill in the House

that catches them by surprise, or do you do it by talking to them and

involving them in a consultative way, and having that process followed

by some legislation which incorporates the various views, the realistic

contributions that can be made by those groups? That's the appropriate

way to go.

In my view, Mr. Speaker, if the government were serious about this

particular project, it would have done that. It would have sought the

views of the parties concerned with this question, consulted with them,

sought to generate a program that everybody involved would be

enthusiastic about and would overwhelmingly support. The government

didn't do that. Why? Because in my view the government was responding

simply to the growing political pressure in this province generated in

part by the Vancouver Island mayors and their silvicultural proposal to

the federal government, and in part also by the growing awareness on

the part of the public in this province that there is a tragedy and a

travesty occurring on our forest farmlands.

They recognized that politically they had to do something, so rather

than do something that would have some substantive benefit and result,

they introduced a bill which says to the trade unions in the industry

and to the municipalities: we're going to seek your assistance to

generate moneys for silviculture.

A $70 million fund — that $70 million couldn't deal with the

silviculture requirements in North Island alone right now. I make that

statement without being able to say that it's precisely true, but in

rhetorical terms it's close enough to being true that I'm prepared to

make it.

Mr. Speaker, the ministry and the government are proud of talking

about 200 million seedlings this coming year. After a year, I wonder

how many of those 200 million seedlings will be alive.

[ Page 8221 ]

MRS. WALLACE: One hundred million, if we're lucky.

MR. GABELMANN: I was going to say 80 million for sure, but

not many more for sure, for a whole variety of reasons. Site

preparation isn't done properly. It's done very well in some cases.

We're talking here, in many cases, getting back to the point about the

duff.... You've got to have mechanical site preparation. You're talking

about $200 a hectare on good site lands. On poorer areas, where there's

a lot of old growth that's lying after the harvest or where there are

steep sidehills, you're talking $330, $350, $400 a hectare for

mechanical site preparation, where the machine actually goes in and

stirs the soil, brings the soil up from two feet down and mixes it with

the duff so a tree can be planted. That's done on too few sites. In my

riding there are probably only six machines operating now.

Mr. Speaker, if we gave the same value in our minds and in the

pocketbooks to those people who work in the industry.... If we just

provided the same set of values and the same monetary value to the

person who plants the tree and who tends it that we do to the person

who cuts it down, we would have begun to go in the right direction. Who

gets the most money in the industry? The people who cut the trees down.

Who gets the least money? The people who plant them and tend them. The

value system is wrong. That's a starting point, it seems to me.

We have, in parts of my riding, most of which is under TFL — a fair

amount of timber licence, but it's primarily TFL land — companies who

have used all their

section 88 money for reforestation and, in some

cases, spent more of their own in addition to the

section 88 money,

which presumably is a bill to be collected from the Ministry of

Forests. But who knows if that would ever happen. But foresters

throughout my riding — some companies more than others; considerably

more in some companies — are trying to find grants, spending all their

time looking for

section 38 UIC money, looking for job creation

programs, looking for student programs to try to get some intensive

forestry done. In some cases they are finding money for some of the

basic site preparation in the TFLs. I'm not talking here about the

Crown lands — that's a whole other problem. I just want to talk about

the TFLs for a moment. They are finding that money. They are getting up

to 60 percent or sometimes even a little bit more of the seedlings they

require.

One TFL holder in my riding last year was only able to collect as

many seedlings as they wanted because other TFL holders didn't use all

the seedlings that they had asked for because they didn't have enough

site prepared and they weren't prepared to spend the money because the

section 88 fund had run out. So this company that I am referring to now

was able to come close to getting enough seedlings to plant all the

area that it had logged last year or the previous year — usually being

a year and a half behind — simply because other companies in the same

general area didn't use the seedlings they had been allocated. The

allocations weren't enough to plant all the land that had been logged

to begin with.

Even if we get up to 200 million seedlings, with the survival rates

that we have, too often as a result of poor site preparation.... This

is a big problem that the minister is going to have to deal with, in

terms of making this kind of program work. Too often, applying the

low-bid principle in tree-planting contracts, whereby the Forest

Service or the forest companies are required to take the low bid....

The best contractors are now working in Ontario. A lot of the

treeplanting contractors live on Vancouver Island. Many of them live in

the Black Creek area in the member for Comox's (Ms. Sanford'

s) riding.

I know some of them; members of my family have been involved in this

business. The best contractors, the people who have done the work for

the most years and who know the business, have gone to Ontario because

they will not participate in this current low-bid system. What does the

low-bid system produce? It produces shoddy work in too many cases. It

means that too many trees die, adding to the mortality rate. So all the

talk about 200 million seedlings, or 110 million a year or so ago, is

of no consequence if the current silvicultural procedures for basic

forestry are continued. You're not getting your money's worth. You may

as well forget about it and let nature plant the trees — you'd be

better off in many cases.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Just a moment on the low-bid system. I am just going to use an

analogy, and I am not straying from silviculture when I talk about

this. Occasionally the government has to hire a lawyer in private

practice to defend an agency of the government, or whatever. For

example, Jack Giles was hired by the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith)

to represent the Council of Human Rights in a human rights case that

went to the supreme court. Can you imagine the Attorney-General of this

province saying: "I've got a particular legal case that needs a lawyer,

and it is open to the low bid." So the lawyer with the low bid gets to

represent the Crown in the supreme court. That's the parallel. There's

no way the Attorney-General would live with a policy that said: low bid

for legal services to government that are contracted for. There's no

way the Crown would live with that. You wouldn't take the lowest bid,

nor should you take the lowest bid in forestry. It's a disastrous

policy. It means our best people are not involved in the industry. It

means that the kind of people who are being attracted to it now are

desperate. They're not making a career of it.

Tree planting should be as important as falling and should have the

same status. It should have the same remuneration and should have the

same importance in our society, and it doesn't. The low-bid system is

just one more way of making sure that it doesn't have that kind of

status. When it doesn't have that kind of status, it doesn't have

importance. When it doesn't have importance, it doesn't work very well,

and it doesn't work out there at the present time.

That's talking just about basic forestry. But you know, when you

look at the numbers, most of our silvicultural money is going into

basic forestry and very little into what is, to my mind, at least as

important on the coast, and that's intensive forestry. Money is not

available for pruning. Money is not available in sufficient quantity

for spacing. There's no incentive built into the system for commercial

thinning for 30-year-old stands or thereabouts. There's no money

available for fertilizing. There's no money available for the costly

item of adding the trace minerals that are required to the urea that

should be sprayed, that should be circulated around over forest land in

this province.

[4:00]

No doubt at all, shortages in boron and a number of basic heavy

metal requirements for forestry. No doubt that there is a whole range

of products that should be added to the urea, in

[ Page 8222 ]

terms of making sure that these forests grow properly. No money for any of that.

Where we do see it being done properly is that all of us on the

coast at least — the area that I'm more familiar with — can find

hectares here and hectares there within TFLs, and within Crown land

that's administered by the Crown, that have been tended properly. But

more often than not they're tended out of federal UI grants, a

section

38 kind of approach to it. It's just not good enough. We don't fall, we

don't yard, we don't haul and we don't mill using

section 38 UIC money;

why do we do basic and intensive forestry using

section 38 UI money?

That's where the problem is. This bill doesn't deal with it. The

bill doesn't provide any money for this year. It hasn't collected any

more than the possibility of having $20 million allocated to it from

the Ministry of Finance; it hasn't got any of the rest. So we lose yet

another year. If the planning for expenditure isn't in place soon,

we'll lose next year too. You can't just dump the money in and expect

it to be able to be utilized effectively without plenty of preparation

and time to plan.

Mr. Speaker, one could go on and on. I don't want to speak long just

to try somehow, by speaking long, to suggest that it's an important

issue. l think I can be brief. But I want to say in as compelling a way

as I'm able to that this is the biggest crisis facing economic resource

management in this province. We've got lots of other crises in terms of

issues that come up day to day, and the countervail is an obvious one

for the current period of time. But when we look at the long-term

economic prospects in this province, we've got to realize that the

foundation of the economy of British Columbia is going to be forestry.

We can enhance tourism; we can extend it from three months to maybe

getting five months of effective tourism; we can get into high tech; we

can do more in the knowledge industry. There is a whole variety of

things that we can and should do; but if we did them all perfectly,

forestry would still be the foundation of our economy in this province.

It would still be the major employer and the major producer of wealth.

But it won't be for long unless we begin to spend the kind of money

that people like Les Reed talk about. Les Reed gets quoted often in

this kind of thing. It may be that we just haven't had enough forest

resource economists making loud enough noises in the past little while;

you have to rely on a few people like Walters and Reed and one or two

others.

From what I know about the subject-which isn't a heck of a lot but

it's a knowledge that comes from learning to represent a riding that is

virtually totally dependent upon forestry — when I read Les Reed I find

him to be on the conservative side of what's required; so it's not a

radical document. He says, and this is in any context an outrageous

statement, except I think it's true: "This province has been following

an implicit policy of forest liquidation for well over a decade." Any

MLA or any citizen of this province who travels around the forest areas

in their area, anywhere in this province or anywhere on this coast....

I will speak of what I do know. On northern Vancouver Island it's

certainly true; you go out with a forester who's trained to understand

what should happen and start talking about what isn't happening, then

the statement that Les Reed makes is no doubt not at all an

exaggeration. We've been following an implicit policy of forest

liquidation for well over a decade. He says, and this has been

mentioned many times, particularly by the member for Skeena (Mr.

Howard) and the member for Vancouver East: "My estimate of the total funds which are required annually

just to sustain the existing harvest is $300 million, more than double the present

spending." The minister would agree that that's the kind of money we're talking about.

Yet in the face of insufficient moneys to plant and to tend and to cultivate,

and the well-known effects of there being a shortfall, a so-called fall-down,

we still export logs; 12 percent of our best off the coast, until the last few

weeks. It really makes you stop and wonder.

Reed talks about forest renewal budgets in British Columbia. He

picks one here. I just want to cite this one, 1983-84. The total forest

renewal budget was $139 million; $90 million of that was for basic, $20

million for intensive — not enough to do 10 percent of what's needed in

intensive forestry. By that I mean the full range of intensive

forestry, including commercial thinning, which I think can pay for

itself; it may not make any money but it can pay for itself. We must

find some ways to encourage that commercial thinning for 30-year-old

stands — or thereabouts, depending on the kind of tree and the site.

Ten million dollars in 1983-84 for rehabilitation, site preparation.

Counting administrative overhead, $139 million total. He says the

projected target is $300 million.

I don't know what the spending is going to end up being this year,

but I suspect it's not going to be any more than half of the needed

$300 million. So each year we fall further and further behind.

Certainly this bill is not going to have any impact at all in terms of

what's needed this year. Reed goes on; I don't have to quote this at

length. I'm sure the minister has read.... The particular one I'm

quoting from is a February 16, 1985 speech to the Vancouver Institute

by Les Reed.

We're not arguing here, I suspect, about the need to do all of these

things that I'm talking about, and more. We're arguing about a

fundamental issue, which is the will — or lack of will — on the part of

the government to do what is necessary to ensure that forestry does

remain the major industry in this province. Otherwise, the suggestion

that forestry is becoming a sunset industry is going to come true. No

amount of protestations from government members or from the minister

himself about, "No, forestry is not a sunset industry; no, I think

forestry is a major issue...." None of those declarations are worth

anything until we begin to spend the kind of money that needs to be

spent in basic forestry and in intensive forestry — both of those

areas. We've begun, finally, to allocate sufficient numbers of trees,

or close to it. We haven't figured out how to get them in the ground

and have them survive. We've started to deal with that, but a $20

million fund, hopefully augmented to become a $70 million fund, does

not deal with the problem.

Where's the money going to come from is perhaps the next question.

We can always find money for any number of projects when we think

they're important. Whatever any of us might think about any number of

important and large projects that have gone on in British Columbia over

the last few years, whatever any of us think about them, I don't think

a member of this House should say that any one of those projects is

more important than making sure that our forest resources are able to

be sustainable. There isn't a single project that this 11-year-old

government has embarked upon — or that our government embarked upon

before that, or W.A.C. Bennett before that — not a single project, in

my mind, and I would hope in the mind of every member of this House,

that is by

[ Page 8223 ]

itself more important than sustaining or ensuring the sustainability of the forest industry in this province.

That requires considerably more money than is being projected by

this bill. It requires a different approach than is being taken by this

bill, a bill which lays on by legislative fiat to players in the piece

that we hope you'll come up with certain amounts of money. Sure, I've

got no problem with all of those groups coming up with money, and I

hope they're able to. But the government will have to come up with at

least another zero on its contribution. The $20 million should become

at least $200 million. The total spending would then be somewhat over

$300 million in terms of basic forest renewal in this province. That

won't meet what Walters suggests we require, which is $600 million, but

I think a lot of us would say we can live with $300 million. There's a

limited availability of capital, and we can't have a Cadillac when a

Chevy will do. But a horse and buggy is not good enough at all.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I understand the minister's problem. I've got a lot of facts and figures here, and I'm sure you'll follow them in Hansard .

I take my place in this debate not only because of my very large

riding, which depends primarily on the forest industry and forest

renewal for the hundreds if not thousands of jobs that are created in

my riding, but also because of my concern all my political life for

reforestation, forest renewal and the effects of the lack of

silviculture on our communities and on the economy of the whole

province.

I have quite a number of reports and people I'm going to quote from

here in a few minutes. But I fail to see — and this has been mentioned

before, Mr. Speaker, by previous speakers on this bill —

how this small,

almost insignificant amount of funds will make any significant change

in the reforestation of our not satisfactorily restocked lands here in

British Columbia. They will have very little impact indeed. I'm very

concerned that the government has placed before us a bill of this

minute size in terms of funding for this purpose. Further, the bill

provides for the spending of these revenues to be under the total

control of the Minister of Forests, even though the bill also provides

for and is seeking the assistance of municipalities and contributions

forest sector unions and others. My question to the minister on this

portion of the bill would be — and I think this question has already

been posed; I'm not quite sure: has he met with the municipalities, the

trade union movement and the forest industry? I see nothing on that in

the press or any other releases to come out of the minister's office.

Now the minister may answer.... The fact is, we know that

municipalities are now facing very grave financial difficulties, and

many of them, although they may wish to participate in these and other

types of programs, where they may have control over their own forest

harvesting and replanting practices in their areas, simply don't have

the funds at this time. In fact, we have had experiences in this

province in which a few municipalities have been more successful dollar

for dollar, log for log and tree for tree than the government's

management of the Forest Service. A little bit of money is better than

none for this very important purpose, and we will be voting for this

bill. But just the fact that this bill had to be brought before this

House at this time indicates how the government has mismanaged the

silviculture process in our province.

[4:15]

I want to get to a couple of quotes here from the British Columbia

professional foresters' association and others. I think I'll start with

others. It's very clear, Mr. Speaker, that the provincial government

has a responsibility to preserve and renew forest land on behalf of the

people of British Columbia, who own the resource. Under the present

government's mismanagement the amount of NSR land has increased by 50

percent during the past five years — using the government's own

figures. According to the forest and range resource analysis, we now

have over 700,000 hectares — that's in excess of 1,400,000 acres — of

productive land which needs silviculture treatment. "Site preparation,

brushing, weeding and present planting levels are all insufficient to

sustain current levels of annual allowable cut." I think we're all very

much aware of that in this House. Planting on the coast — about 166

hectares creates one job for one year. In the interior, planting about

333 hectares creates one job for one year. Brushing and weeding —

treating about 56 hectares creates one job for one year. Juvenile

spacing — treating about 44 hectares creates one job for one year.

We'll talk a bit more about the implications of the job creation aspect

of silviculture in a few minutes, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to talk for a few minutes — and I know this has been

referred to slightly by a previous speaker — about what's happening in

terms of silviculture and forest renewal in some other countries. I

think I'll discuss briefly the Swedish connection. I'm not sure the

minister is aware of all of this, but he may be. I'm not sure that he

receives the same publications that I do. He probably gets a lot more,

actually. Anyway, I want to quote from a source which I'll name in a

moment. "Part of our future problem in B.C. Is that we as citizens are

not directly involved in our forests. Few of us live within them and

fewer have anything to do with looking after them." And that's true,

Mr. Speaker.

"Even though 94 percent of the forest land in our

province is theoretically under public ownership, the fact is that

under TFLs and various other forms of licensing there is a virtual

monopoly by a relatively few people in control of the vast forest lands

of our province. In Scandinavia hundreds of thousands of people are

directly involved in their forests, many of them as forest farmers.

That is, most rural families run a family farm in the summer and in the

winter work on the other half of the farm — the forest. The result of

this careful tending of the forest is far greater productivity and

growth. It is also one of the ways the Scandinavians avoid our kind of

unemployment. Unemployment levels beyond 3 or 4 percent would be

considered enough of a scandal to topple one of their governments."

Only 3 or 4 percent, and what is it in our industry at the present

time, Mr. Speaker? I think you know the answer to that as well as I do.

One more remark about the Scandinavian people: "They have a respect

for the land. It is a link with their past, and it's seen as critical

to their future. It provides both summer and winter work, and many

forests are worked by generations of the same family. As a result of

this, the Scandinavians generate four or five times the wealth out of a

hectare of forest land than we do in this province. That's an

astounding figure. This government and previous governments, in terms

of forestry, should hang their heads in shame.

[ Page 8224 ]

"Improperly reforested land covers an area equivalent

to a swath" — and this is here in British Columbia — "320 kilometres

long and 80 kilometres wide. This type of abuse simply couldn't happen

in Scandinavia. Their people are too involved in the wide process of

forest management for it to happen in those countries. They know that

the forests are their future."

Mr. Speaker, I promised to talk about jobs in our industry our major

industry in this province. I'll spend a brief bit of time on that

aspect for the benefit of the minister and the record. British Columbia

spends about $2.6 billion annually on unemployment insurance and

welfare, but only about $90 million on reforestation and silviculture

in this province. This spring the federal government signed a joint

agreement with B.C. to fund an accelerated forestry program. The $300

million five-year program will allow an average of $60 million to be

spent annually. How does this compare with what the experts tell us we

should be doing? Prof. Jack Walters, head of the UBC experimental farm,

says that $660 million a year on reforestation and silviculture would

provide 25,000 direct new jobs in the woods planting, weeding,

fertilizing and trimming and an additional 75,000 jobs in the industry

as a result of increased wood production.

Mr. Speaker, I'll pause here for a moment and tell you — if I can

find it — that if we don't take action along the lines that my

colleagues and I have been discussing, under the policies of this

government the annual timber harvest in this province will drop off by

one-third and 60,000 jobs will be lost over the next 20 years,

according to the federal government's Pacific Forest Research Centre.

So there's the alternative, if we don't replant and practise

appropriate silviculture policies.

I don't think that this bill, Bill 6 — I understand I have to

mention the bill once every 15 minutes or so.... But in any event, I

think that under this bill this will be totally insufficient and

inadequate to accomplish at least some of the goals that we believe to

be appropriate in this province. I think it's important to note that

forestry is not just a make-work; it is an investment in growing

capital. The Scandinavians generate five times the wealth that we do —

I think I mentioned that earlier —

from an acre of forest. Part of the

reason lies in their reforestation and silviculture work. "In fact,"

says Walters, "$660 million spent on intensive management of about 28

percent of our best forest land would produce far more than we're

cutting from the 100 percent of the land at the present time."

One more quote from Les Reed. He has been mentioned, I think, by

just about every speaker, but here we go again. Les Reed, UBC forest

policy chairman, says that our minimum spending right now should be

about $330 million annually. I would like to tell you, Mr. Speaker,

that our leader, Mr. Skelly, the member for Alberni, has in effect put

forward a policy and position paper of the New Democratic Party called

"Jobs First." Part of that policy indicates that we could create 60,000

new jobs in the first three years of an NDP government with an

enlightened and manageable forest policy.

Mr. Reed goes on to say: "Of course, many jobs on the industrial

side of forestry...and adding value to the wood products we produce

presently. Presently B.C. produces very low-value-added products from

our forests." I am not sure that it is appropriate to discuss this

section of his quotes under this bill, but how can we produce

value-added products from our forest industry when the trees are gone

and we don't have any trees? So I guess replanting is involved,

silviculture.

Should we be producing quality dimension lumber for specific

purposes and specific markets such as the Japanese market? Should we be

working on state-of-the-art pulp mills and sawmills? Should we be

producing fine paper and materials? I might remind you, Mr. Speaker,

that less than two weeks ago I raised this matter in this Legislature,

where a certain sawmill in my riding had to close down because they

couldn't obtain timber to provide value-added products for our overseas

market, while at the same time we were exporting some of our finer

trees and logs. We are exporting these trees, our prime timber by the

way, at a record rate never before seen in this province, not

replanting those lands in silviculture when our own industry is running

short of timber, and not utilizing the timber in some instances for

value-added products bringing in four or five times the revenues that

we receive from a single log going out untreated. Mr. Speaker, this all

ties into silviculture, in my view, and proper forestry practices and

management of our forests in this province.

Mr. Sten Nilsson, a Swedish professor, has studied our forest

industry. He says we should spend $35 billion over the next 20 years

just to catch up. B.C. lags badly in the value-added to wood products

by only 16 percent while Sweden increased value-added by 80 percent.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

So there we go. We've discussed the possibility of job creation, the

very intense need for a proper forest management program in our

province. I've discussed briefly the comments of our party and our

leader on the vast need for a proper and appropriate silviculture

program in this province. I can indicate to you literally hundreds if

not thousands of hectares of untreated forests and unplanted forest

land in my own riding. I am sure every other MLA could do the same

thing, with the exception perhaps of Vancouver Centre or Burnaby. I'm

not sure, but....

AN HON. MEMBER: Stanley Park.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Stanley Park, yes.

With that, I'll take my place. As much as I would like to vote

against this bill.... I really would like to vote against this bill only

on the grounds that it is a totally inadequate bill to meet the needs

of our not satisfactorily reforested lands. But even this little bill,

badly drafted as it is, working on the hope that some of these other

groups will come up with some dollars, in spite of the fact that the

bill provides total control of the expenditures of these funds directly

out of the minister's office, as is the wont of this government.... A

number of other pieces of legislation are in the same category.

Nonetheless, I guess I and we will be forced to vote for this bill — we

have discussed it — on the grounds that this little bit of money is

better than none.

[4:30]

MR. MICHAEL: The first thing

I would like to do is to compliment the Minister of Forests on bringing

in a bill such as this, Bill 6, Forest Stand Management Fund Act. I

know that a lot of us in this House would like to see more than $20

million allocated, but I think it is a very positive step in the

[ Page 8225 ]

right direction. I can say that the question of

reforestation and silviculture in the forest industry was one of the

prime reasons that caused me to enter the political arena, because I

know that a better job had to be done in the forest industry in British

Columbia.

I should relate to you and the minister that shortly after my

election in 1983 I took it upon myself to initiate discussions with

local foresters throughout my constituency in the north Okanagan, as

well as to initiate discussions with the organization representing

foresters throughout the province of British Columbia. I asked them for

their input, and at that point in time, back in 1983, the message came

through loud and clear as to what the number one priority was: the

province of British Columbia should press hard for the signing of the

forest

section of the ERDA agreement, providing for $300 million over a

five-year period.

I can tell you that as a private member, as the MLA for

Shuswap-Revelstoke, I did all in my power to convince the government

that $300 million had to be set aside in that fund, and of the need for

signing an agreement over five years providing for $300 million of

provincial-federal money to be put into the silviculture program in

British Columbia. I should perhaps state at this time that it was

interesting to note, in looking at the Hansard from Ottawa, the silence

of the NDP members in Ottawa in backing up the position of the province

of British Columbia attempting to get a fair amount from the federal

government for the ERDA agreement.

I found their silence very peculiar and very hard to understand.

However, it's interesting to note the amount of money. And this, as we

all know, is on top of the regular amounts budgeted by the Minister of

Forests and the private sector in the forest industry. It is

interesting to look at the amounts of money that will be spent on

planting trees and doing silviculture work in the province of British

Columbia as a result of that ERDA agreement.

We sometimes forget that in 1985 an additional $22 million was put

into the planting of trees, and spacing and thinning projects, as a

result of that agreement. In the year 1986 that amount will be doubled

to $44 million. We should be all aware that in 1987, 1988 and 1989 the

amount of money will increase from the $44 million mark up to $78

million. That is a lot of dollars, a lot of jobs and a lot of progress.

When you look back at the tail end of the NDP years, from 1972 to

1975, and see the record of what happened in those years.... The level

of trees being planted in 1975 was somewhere around 65 million or 70

million trees a year. In 1987, next year, we will be putting 200

million trees a year into the ground. That I consider to be good

government action, good progress in the field of reforestation and

silviculture in the province of British Columbia.

Now if I have one criticism of Bill 6, the Forest Stand Management

Fund Act, it is the fact that the bill does not have a clause in it

that provides that it will be ironclad and guaranteed to be spent in

the ground in the province of British Columbia in the forest industry.

There should be a clause in that bill that makes it irrevocable and

untouchable that the money will be spent in the field of silviculture.

I would encourage the minister to give consideration to adding another

section to that bill to cover that one flaw — the only flaw — that I

see in Bill 6.

Also, it has been widely advertised that this fund is just a

beginning. It's a $20 million start fund, and they're hoping to attract

equal amounts from the federal government, equal amounts from the trade

unions and a portion of money from municipalities. Well, I am

disappointed in the fact that since the bill was introduced I have not

seen a single whisper, not a single line in any newspaper in British

Columbia talking about any trade unions willing to come forward to put

their money on the line to back up what they've been talking about for

so many years, and putting some of their money into this fund; not a

single word. Yet, Mr. Speaker, we read in the newspapers, just in the

last two days, that there are tens of millions of dollars being taken

out of the pockets of trade union members in the province and going

across the line into the United States, and not coming back. I think,

Mr. Speaker, that that is a shame; that the trade unions, particularly

those trade unions in the forest industry, should be looking at backing

up this fund, stepping forward with some hard dollars, and saying:

"Look, we're going to put our money where our mouth is. We think this

is a good bill. We think you're on the right track, and we're going to

match the province of British Columbia, dollar for dollar, in making

sure that a better job is being done in the silviculture programs."

Mr. Speaker, I can say at this moment that there is a fund in my

community that's prepared to discuss with the Minister of Forests, once

this bill is passed, matching dollar for dollar, up to $250,000. If the

minister is prepared to put up $250,000, they are prepared to put up

$250,000 to make a $500,000 project in the area of Salmon Arm, to do

spacing and thinning work. When we talk about spacing and thinning and

silviculture and tree-planting, we should bear in mind that in the

forest industry of British Columbia there's a tremendous natural

regeneration that takes place once a forest is logged. But the greatest

problem that we have is spacing and thinning. It's not necessarily the

planting of the trees themselves that's important; it's the fact of

getting in there after those seedlings are planted, or after natural

regeneration, and tending the patch. The forest industry is no

different from a carrot patch or a radish patch. It's no use just

letting the seedlings and the natural regeneration go, because they

grow so thick that they need to be thinned and spaced; and that's where

you get the true growth and the true increase in the volumes that can

be logged out of the forest industry. It's by doing a good job of

spacing and thinning.

So, Mr. Speaker, I'm passing that message on to the minister, and

I'm hoping that the minister is not going to take the position that the

municipalities must come in, that the trade unions must come in, and

that the federal government must come in, to make this fund $70

million. I'm hoping, Mr. Speaker, that the minister will be negotiable,

open for positive suggestions, and flexible, so that when an

organization such as the one I have mentioned in Salmon Arm comes

forward and says, "Look, we have got $250,000; you match that," we can

start letting the contracts and hiring people within two to three

weeks. That's the position that they've relayed to me as recently as

this morning.

We hear a lot from the NDP about the programs that they're

suggesting and the things that they would like to do. We hear so much

from them about the province of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, I challenge

anybody in this House to go to their research and check and see what's

happening in Manitoba when it comes to reforestation and seedlings

being planted in the ground in that wonderful province. I'll tell you

what you'll find, Mr. Speaker: you will find that there were less trees

planted last year in Manitoba than there were the year before that. The

tree-planting program is going down, not up. When we talk about 200

million seedlings being planted, I want to tell you that the province

of Manitoba barely plants

[ Page 8226 ]

four million seedlings a year. I think it's

shameful for the members opposite to be criticizing and advocating and

negative, negative, negative — negative Nellies — when they know very

well that in the province of Manitoba, represented by the NDP

government, they're doing a poorer job this year than they did the year

before.

I will wind up by saying once again that I compliment the minister.

I repeat: we would all like to see more money in there. But $20 million

on top of the ERD agreement, on top of the money that's being provided

by the private companies, the corporations and the Forests ministry, as

far as the basic program is concerned, is a very bold and innovative

step forward. I compliment the minister, and I hope that he takes my

suggestions under advisement, particularly the one providing that the

fund be untouchable and that the $20 million provided in this bill be

irrevocable.

MRS. WALLACE: It's very interesting to see all those new-born

foresters over on the other side of the House. For years we sat here

and talked about forestry on this side of the House, and all we were

told was that it was a sunset industry; it was disappearing. For two

years that I know of, that government sat there on their hands and

refused to accept the federal 50-cent dollars to go into forestry. They

let them go down the tube; didn't accept them. The NSR lands increased

by nearly 45 percent over the last five years as a result of that

policy, and suddenly they're all reborn foresters. They realize that

they have made a mistake, and suddenly we're going to spend money.

We're going to do wonderful things for forestry, and forestry is

suddenly a great industry again. It's a bit shocking, Mr. Speaker.

The record of that government is pitiful, relative to forestry.

AN HON. MEMBER: You people can't be trusted.

MRS. WALLACE: It's the government that can't be trusted, Mr. Minister.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: What happened to the last forestry fund we had, Mr. Minister? It disappeared.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: From the former minister, Mr. Speaker, we had

great promises. We had great talk about use it or lose it. We had a

five-year range and forest renewal fund set up.

[4:45]

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MRS. WALLACE: I can shout just as loud as they can, Mr. Speaker, don't worry.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair doesn't enjoy the

shouting. The hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat has been recognized.

Other members may stand in their place in due course.

MRS. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That government cannot

be trusted. We saw what happened with the last forestry fund. They set

up a fund for five years, then recouped it two years down the road,

took it back into general revenue and spent it for whatever they wanted

to spend it on. Now they're expecting to set up another forestry fund,

going into general revenue. It's not only their own money, but they're

asking industry and municipalities and trade unions to contribute.

They're going to have a special levy on stumpage, going in supposedly

for forestry, all at the discretion of the Minister of Forests — not

even a special fund this time.

Is it any wonder that municipalities haven't come forward and that

the industry hasn't come forward? Is it any wonder that even the member

for Shuswap-Revelstoke, who has some kind of little group that has

$250,000, hasn't yet come forward? They want to know that you're going

to put up a matching $250,000, and somehow they want to be sure that

that's not just going to be sucked out into some other thing other than

forestry. That's what can happen, Mr. Speaker, under this bill. There's

no provision to ensure that that money is going to be used for

forestry. It's completely at the discretion of the minister and the

cabinet, and we saw what happened before, even when we had some

protection, with having a fund.

That's the kind of thing that the NDP is talking about in their fund

which is set at arm's length, exactly what the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke is asking for: somehow that this be set at arm's

length so that it can't be recouped. Underneath it all, that member has

the same fears that we have, that the whole thing is going to go down

the tube and it's not going to be used for forestry. That's exactly

where we're at.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That period of 1972-75 proves that you can't be trusted. Broadbent says one thing, Skelly says another, and there you go.

MRS. WALLACE: And you say nothing at all, whether you're

standing up or sitting down, Mr. Minister. You make no sense at all, and

you have no ideas.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister will have his opportunity to

stand in debate. In the meantime, will the member for Cowichan-Malahat

please address the Chair.

MRS. WALLACE: They say that they can't trust us. We say that

the people of B.C. can't trust them. And why not? In 1980, in the

budget, the Minister of Finance said: "In view of the concerns which I

expressed earlier about the depletion of our forest resources, the

government has made improved forest management a major priority in this

budget." That was in 1980. They set up the Forest and Range Resource

Fund with $147 million in it for 1980 and $120 million for 1981, and

the next year it was gone. The remaining $83 million was transferred

into general revenue to deal with the deficit. Just gone, taken away —

we can't trust them. It was to be a five year, $1.4 billion forest

management fund, and it only lasted two years. Why should industry or

municipalities or trade unions or anybody else put money into the

general revenue of this province with no assurance that it's going to

be spent for forestry? There is nothing in this act that assures that.

What's the history of this ministry in its spending, Mr. Speaker