1985 Legislative Session: 3rd 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)

THURSDAY, JUNE 27, 1985

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

6927 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Progress of Bill 33. Ms. Brown –– 6927

Northeast coal. Mr. Stupich –– 6927

Questions taken as notice. Mrs. Dailly –– 6927

Questions on the order paper. Mrs. Dailly –– 6927

Signs in French at Expo 86. Mr. Parks –– 6928

Annacis Island fertilizer plant. Mr. Williams –– 6928

Illegal pesticide application. Ms. Sanford –– 6928

Union of B.C. Municipalities. Mr. MacWilliam –– 6928

Expo 86. Mr. MacWilliam –– 6929

Vancouver Transition House. Ms. Brown –– 6929

Ministerial Statement

Expo 86. Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 6929

Mr. MacWilliam

An Act To Incorporate Chilliwack Foundation (Bill PR404). Second reading

Mr. Reid –– 6929

Mr. Williams –– 6929

Mr. Nicolson –– 6929

Applied Science Technology Act (Bill PR401). Committee stage 6930

Third reading

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Forests estimates. (Hon. Mr. Waterland)

On vote 34: minister's office –– 6930

Mr. Howard

Mr. Williams

Mr. MacWilliam

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Lockstead

On vote 35: forest and range management –– 6948

Mr. Howard

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Williams

THURSDAY, JUNE 27, 1985

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have

the mayor of Metchosin, Hermann Volk. With Mayor Volk we have the clerk

of Metchosin, Gary Williams. Would the House please welcome these

visitors today.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I have two sets of visitors in the

House today. Visiting us from the very beautiful island of Jamaica are

Mr. and Mrs. Barrett, accompanied by their daughter, Mrs. Elaine

Hanley. They are all related to me, so I'd like the House to bid them

welcome.

Also in the House, Mr. Speaker, in your gallery, are a number of

women from the Vancouver Transition House. They are Judy Denny, Sandy

Oliver, Monica Marquardt, Carolyn Taylor and Claudia Sharif. I'd like

the House to bid them welcome and wish them luck.

Oral Questions

PROGRESS OF BILL 33

MS. BROWN: My question is directed to the Attorney-General, who is not in his seat. I wonder who is the acting Attorney-General today,

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Garde.

MS. BROWN: My question is directed to the acting

Attorney-General, and it has to do with Bill 33, the Charter of Rights

Amendments Act, which was introduced with great fanfare on April 16.

Can the minister explain why that act has not been brought forward, and

when it will be brought forward, so that that very enlightened

legislation...?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. While the question

period allows us some latitude, it does not, with the greatest of

respect, stretch that far. The question therefore is out of order, as

would be a response.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to reword the question. In

view of the fact that the bill was brought forward on April 16 and

created a lot of accolades for the government by so doing, are we going

to see this bill implemented at some time in our lifetime? How about

that?

MR. SPEAKER: No.

MS. BROWN: No?

NORTHEAST COAL

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Finance. On

several occasions prior to the middle of April the Premier assured us that all

revenues that should be coming to the Crown from the northeast coal project

were coming in. I've had a question on the order paper for over two months,

asking for details of this. I wonder whether the minister's lack of response

to this date indicates that he's still looking for evidence of the first

penny.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member for Nanaimo, should not draw that

inference from the fact that a question on the order paper has not been

answered. I will search my desk downstairs, Mr. Member, and attempt to

bring the answer back and table it.

MR. STUPICH: I understand that the minister could table such

a response at any time during the proceedings. Will he table that

sometime today?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I can't give the member any guarantee that it will be tabled at any particular time.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) is suffering from indigestion.

I have several questions on the order paper, and I think the record

will show that I do answer a number of questions that are placed on the

order paper — unlike some members on that side of the House, who as

ministers never answered one question, oral or written.

MR. STUPICH: I agree that the minister's record has been good

to this point. That's why I'm concerned about questions that have been

there for over two months. I have to come back to my original question:

is he still looking for evidence of the first penny?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No.

QUESTIONS TAKEN AS NOTICE

MRS. DAILLY: I have a question for the House Leader. Over the

course of this legislative session 37 oral questions have been taken on

notice by cabinet ministers of your government. What are you going to

do about this?

Interjections.

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

advise the hon. member for Burnaby North — who, I am sure, is well

aware of the rules of the House — that that question too is not in

order. Nor would a response be.

MRS. DAILLY: I would like to point out to the minister in my

next question, and in my

preamble, that many of these oral questions

which have been taken on notice are very serious questions,

particularly those dealing with job creation. Does the House Leader not

agree that the purpose of taking questions as notice is to provide the

minister with an opportunity to prepare a response and not to evade the

question?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair must again implore members to bear in mind some guidelines that bind us in question period.

QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

MRS, DAILLY: Another supplementary.

MR. SPEAKER: To supplement your out-of-order question?

[ Page 6928 ]

MRS. DAILLY: A question to the same minister. Well, it is near the end. It's time to go.

Mr. Speaker, this is another question to the Minister of

Intergovernmental Affairs and House Leader. The opposition over here is

very concerned also about the failure of the government to answer

questions on the order paper. Some of those questions, by the way, have

been outstanding for two years. They also deal with very important

economic and job creation program questions. Has the government decided

to respond to these questions before the House rises?

MR. SPEAKER: Part of the question, by stretching a great deal, might be in order.

HON. MR. GARDOM: As my friend the Provincial Secretary would say: "In the fullness of time."

SIGNS IN FRENCH AT EXPO 86

MR. PARKS: My question is to the Minister of Tourism. Within

the last week my community's Expo 86 committee met with the

representation from Maillardville. As well as setting a number of

interesting cultural activities for next year, they....

HON. MR. NEILSEN: Question?

MR. PARKS: As the hon. Minister of Health is well aware,

preambles are in order, I believe, with respect to questions.

As I was saying, the concern that the members of Maillardville have

stated to me — and hence this question to the Minister of Tourism — is

that there has been some publicity that there is a concern that there

may well be inadequate signage at the Expo site with respect to the

French language. In light of the fact that all projections indicate

that Quebec is going to have an extremely large representation at Expo,

I wonder if the minister can give me and my constituents some assurance

that the issue of French signage has been attended to by Expo.

[2:15]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, I can assure the member, and I have

said publicly, that all basic signs, including services and emergency

services, on the Expo site will be fully bilingual, as will all of the

IBM information terminals.

Further, I would like to report to the member that we have installed

two new telephone information lines at Expo, one the telephone device

for the deaf, or TDD system, and a French language service line. The

number, if anyone would care to make a note of it — and I have to say

francophone.

ANNACIS ISLAND FERTILIZER PLANT

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy recently

announced the new ammonia fertilizer plant on Annacis Island. Can the

minister advise us what siting standards now prevail in terms of

proximity to residences, and what they were previously, before his

announcement?

HON. MR. ROGERS: The standards for such sites are controlled by the

federal Ministry of Environment and the federal Ministry of Fisheries. In terms

of the TERMPOL, which is the terminal that is required for this particular facility,

the standards that are required on the petrochemical plant are set down by Environment

Canada.

MR. WILLIAMS: Can the minister confirm that previously the

provincial requirement was a two-mile radius in terms of no residents

being near such a plant where there are highly toxic substances that

would or could permeate the environment or the water?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, neither ammonia nor urea nor natural

gas are highly toxic. So there was no previous provincial standard,

that I am aware of, that required such a regulation to exist. We have

never had a fertilizer plant in British Columbia before using this type

of system. However, there is one in the city of Trail, which is

certainly within any kind of two-mile radius.

ILLEGAL PESTICIDE APPLICATION

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of

Environment (Hon. Mr. Pelton), I am going to direct my question to the

Attorney-General.

The Minister of Environment stated some three weeks ago that his

department was investigating possible charges under the Pesticide

Control Act for the illegal application of Temik or that aldicarb by a

commercial cucumber grower in Maple Ridge. It's no longer hypothetical,

Mr. Speaker; the investigation has revealed heavy residues of illegal

pesticide on growers' cucumbers. Has the government decided not to

press charges for illegal application of aldicarb?

HON. MR. SMITH: No.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, can the Attorney-General inform the

House whether the investigation has been limited to just one grower, or

has it been extended to other growers?

HON. MR. SMITH: I'd have to take the question as notice. It's

a matter that would be reviewed by officials. A Crown counsel would

look at a report and determine whether there was a basis for charges to

be laid. If there was, those charges would be laid. I wouldn't make

that judgment or intervene in it.

I'd have to take the question as notice. I don't know where it stands specifically.

UNION OF B.C. MUNICIPALITIES

MR. MacWILLIAM: A question to the Minister of Municipal

Affairs. The minister's colleague, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

Segarty), said recently in Cranbrook that the government is too busy to

respond to a UBCM request for a three-year elected term for municipal

councillors. Has the minister decided to make time in his busy

schedule

to respond to this request from the UBCM?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I have not had a request from the UBCM of

late in respect to this. A resolution was passed in respect to the

triannual elections; this went before a committee and the matter is

still under review.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Can the minister advise this House when a final decision on that very topic will be forthcoming?

[ Page 6929 ]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, no, I am unable to advise the House as to exactly when a decision would be made on this matter.

EXPO 86

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, a new question to the Minister

of Tourism regarding the Expo cost-benefit analysis that was discussed

recently. The minister admitted recently to the chamber that the

Toronto firm of Currie Coopers and Lybrand has prepared a number of

economic studies for Expo, including, I might add, a cost-benefit

analysis. Will the minister advise why he has refused to make this

information public and whether he will table this information in the

House?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The answer to the question at this time is

no. The study was commissioned by the board of the Expo 86 Corporation,

and it will be a decision of the board if they choose to make that

study public.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Just a short supplementary on that question,

Mr. Speaker. As a member of the board, would the minister advise

whether it is his intention to make that recommendation for the tabling

of that document?

MR. SPEAKER: Future action, hon. member. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

VANCOUVER TRANSITION HOUSE

MS. BROWN: To the minister responsible for women: the

Vancouver Transition House is due to lose all of its funding by noon

tomorrow. Their telephone is going to be disconnected, and all their

funding is going to be terminated. Has the minister responsible for

women investigated to see whether there is anything which can be done

by his ministry or through the women's office to ensure that this very

valuable resource is carried through until a new contract has been

awarded?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: The program that the member is talking

about comes under the administration of the Ministry of Human

Resources. However, I understand that the group that is in Victoria

today has made a request for me to meet with them this afternoon, and I

understand that a time has been set aside for me to meet with them.

EXPO 86

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'd like to make just a very short

ministerial statement to leave the members of the Legislature with a

very positive note regarding Expo 86, and that is that nearly 100,000

British Columbians to date have signalled their support of Expo 86

through early ticket commitment, with almost 800 corporations involved

in payroll deduction plans throughout the province. I'd like to commend

them for the support that they have shown. As of June 22 this year,

over 840,000 visits have been committed to the fair, including the

Royal Bank's three-day passports, the Woodward's season passes, the

payroll deduction plans, and tour and travel sales. This is a record

for world expositions, and I think something we can be proud of — the

first time in history that, a full year in advance of a world's fair,

tickets have gone on sale and have even approached this number.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I applaud the minister. This side of the House....

AN HON. MEMBER: Rejoice!

MR. MacWILLIAM: Thank you. You took the words right out of my

mouth — rejoice in the matter. I think every member of this House wants

to ensure that Expo 86 is in fact the shining light that it can be,

because it is really the only show in town in terms of economic

reconstruction of this province. We want to fully support the

government members of this House in ensuring that every possible

opportunity to maximize the economic impact of this fair is used. As I

say, I applaud the minister for his announcement. We're very happy to

hear that, and we hope that the fair is the shining light that it has

the potential to become.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill PR404, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO INCORPORATE

CHILLIWACK FOUNDATION

MR. REID: I move second reading of Bill PR404.

MR. WILLIAMS: I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that we get some elaboration from the proponent of the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The second member for Surrey would then close debate, hon. members. The member closes debate?

MR. REID: Yes, and I move that the bill be referred to a

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

the House after today.

MR. WILLIAMS: What kind of nonsense is this?

MR. SPEAKER: Could we do second reading first, hon. members.

If the Chair recognizes the second member for Surrey, that would

conclude debate. Therefore the Chair would recognize participants

wishing to speak in second reading.

MR. NICOLSON: I rise in support of this bill. This bill will

create a foundation serving charitable purposes. It will be a vehicle

by which residents within the regional district surrounding the

Chilliwack area will be able to participate — leave parts of their

estates, etc. — and it will make possible scholarships and special

donations to various good works. It's very much modelled after the

Vancouver Foundation, but it will be serving a very specific geographic

area. For that reason I will be supporting this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question, hon. members? The question is second reading of Bill PR404.

Motion approved.

[ Page 6930 ]

Bill PR404,

An Act to Incorporate Chilliwack Foundation, 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 PR401, Mr. Speaker.

APPLIED SCIENCE TECHNOLOGISTS

AND TECHNICIANS ACT

The House in committee on Bill PR401; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 21 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill PR401, Applied Science Technologists and Technicians Act,

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

[2:30]

MR. HOWARD: I rise pursuant to standing order 81, Mr.

Speaker, with respect to Bill M219, Ministry of Intergovernmental

Relations Amendment Act, 1985, and ask whether in light of the

announcement today by Prime Minister Mulroney that they will not

proceed with the de-indexing of old age pensions, will the government

and the House agree to expeditiously give second and third reading to

that bill today so that the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations can

communicate to the federal government after the fact.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. The Chair would have

difficulty in ruling that in order at this time. Therefore the motion

cannot be put.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes, indeed so, Mr. Speaker. I call Committee of Supply.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

(continued)

On vote 34: minister's office, $156,162.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I'm advised that the House of

Commons of Canada Select Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry

has unanimously passed a resolution proposed by Mr. Ray Skelly, MP,

seconded by Mr. Jim Manly, MP, with the Leader of the Opposition for

British Columbia in attendance as well. The unanimous resolution passed

was that the Vancouver Island mayors' forestry proposal be funded

separately from ERDA and the forestry subagreement under ERDA — in

other words, funding in addition to that which is contained within

ERDA. That unanimous decision was made following representations to the

committee by the mayors of Vancouver Island.

In light of that decision at the federal level — basically to make a

proposition for additional funding for silvicultural purposes outside

of the ERDA agreement — and especially as it is unanimous, I wonder

whether the Minister of Forests will agree to that proposition and take

some moves in this House to meet the expectations of the proposal of

the mayors from Vancouver Island.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I have been very supportive

of the objectives of the mayors from Vancouver Island from the time

they first made their proposal. I and some of my colleagues have been

having discussions with the federal government in hopes of finding a

way of funding such a program. I'm pleased that such a resolution was

passed by the committee in Ottawa.

MR. HOWARD: As it was a unanimous decision — no disagreement

whatever at the federal level as far as the forestry and fisheries

committee was concerned — that would give some sanction to the idea

that the $22.5 million that the proposal for Vancouver Island

encompassed, which is basically ten times what has been allocated under

the ERDA agreement, that should attract the minister to be a little

more determined in his support of it, other than to say: "Well, they've

been working towards finding that mechanism for funding." Doesn't the

minister have the funds available? Is that what he's saying? Can he

make a commitment now, even though it has been rejected up until now,

and say to the mayors of Vancouver Island: "Yes, the provincial

government will find its share of the money"?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, there has been no

discussion on specific sharing of the program. I can advise the member

that we're making every effort to find a way of funding the program. I

would think that in the not-too-distant future we'll be able to make

some very positive announcements relative to that program; I have so

previously advised the mayors.

MR. HOWARD: I think it's a well-known fact that the timber

supply on Vancouver Island is being overcut by at least 10 percent — in

other words, the allowable annual cut does not recognize the realities

of the case — and if something isn't done to ensure that the volume of

timber increases, within 12 years to 15 years there will be at least

4,000 fewer people employed in the forest industry on Vancouver Island

than there are now. It would seem to me that the minister should

probably have bestirred himself a bit more than to hold out some

expectation into the future. This has been a proposal before government

for some time. Surely in the course of discussing ERDA and the forestry

subagreement under ERDA, that subject matter was raised with the feds.

Or was it?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the matter was not a part

of our discussions with ERDA. Anything we do on the proposal as

suggested by the mayors will be over and above any commitments made

under it. As a matter of fact, at this very moment discussions are

going on towards the finalization of the funding of such a program. As I

[ Page 6931 ]

mentioned a few moments ago, in the very near future I'm sure that we'll be able to make a very positive announcement.

MR. HOWARD: I'm really dismayed that here was the Minister of

Forests talking with the federal government about a funding formula for

the health of this province economically, and he didn't feel obliged to

discuss with them at that time anything other than the paltry amount of

money that's contained in that agreement. That's a shocking example of

irresponsibility. He knew full well what the proposal was for, had

listened to the representations and had examined it, and just

disregarded it completely with the federal government. And now he's

saying: "Oh, but we're talking about that, outside of ERDA." Why wasn't

it contained within the discussions in the earlier stages? Was there no

interest in discussing it?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, discussions have been

ongoing for a considerable period of time, but not as a part of the

ERDA discussions. It's a separate and additional thing to the ERDA

agreement and the funds to be allocated to ERDA.

MR. HOWARD: What the Vancouver Island mayors are saying is

that, from their assessment of it, the amount of money available under

ERDA is one-tenth of that which is required to do a satisfactory job.

If that ratio is duplicated throughout the rest of the province — and,

on balance, I submit that it is; in some areas the situation is worse

than it is in others, but, on balance, I submit that that is the case —

then the amount of money that the minister negotiated, or just accepted

as a token payment from the federal government to satisfy its election

promise and received and accepted under the ERDA agreement, was, by the

minister's own knowledge, woefully inadequate. And he knew it at the

time, and didn't bother even to say: "Look, we've got other situations

here that we have to deal with."

Because throughout the questions in this House and throughout the

statements that the minister made outside this House, at no time did he

mention anything other than the $300 million. And he has now confirmed

that he didn't bother talking within the ERDA agreement about that

funding for Vancouver Island. Why the separate deal?

Secondly, if there's a separate deal with respect to Vancouver

Island, will there be a separate deal for the northwestern part of the

province, where mayors and other municipal officials have similarly

expressed their concern and their desire to see additional funding for

silviculture?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the funding and programs to

be delivered under ERDA were discussed and negotiated, and will be

delivered under ERDA. There are other means of funding — other sources

of investment dollars — which we can place in the forests, and these

are the things which I and my colleagues have been discussing with the

federal government. I'm sure that in the very near future we'll be able

to make some announcements as to additional programs to be carried out

within the forests. I'm not at liberty at this time to make such

announcements.

MR. HOWARD: I was about to ask, and I need to do it now: how

much money are you talking about, outside of ERDA, and over what length

of time?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Announcements in answer to that question will be made in due course.

MR. HOWARD: You're not talking about anything, then.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: The ministry admitted that a memo had gone out,

regarding a new appraisal valuation system, on May 1, under the hand of

Mr. Waelti and his staff. Mr. Waelti refers to a manual, and the

subsequent green light that would probably come from the executive

committee. Can the minister advise if there has been any further

correspondence in that regard, and whether a date has been set in terms

of the new system?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: We have not yet come to a complete

conclusion as to what change we will make, but our objective date of

implementation will be October 1.

MR. WILLIAMS: So that's it: there is in fact a new system and

the intent is October I and the industry in fact has been advised of

that and was advised of that some time back in May, indeed. Can the

minister confirm that the industry was advised in early May that

October would be the date that implementation was intended?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'm not sure when the industry was

advised what our target date was, but I think we have had to move it

ahead because of inability to reach a conclusion before now. I

understand that initially we wanted to do it towards the latter part of

July, but that was not possible. Just when or even if the industry has

been advised of the new target date — I'm afraid I can't help the

member offhand, but I could search my letter file or that of the

ministry and determine just when and if such advice was given.

MR. WILLIAMS: I would remind the minister, Mr. Chairman, that

when he was asked in the House initially regarding this question he

suggested that in fact there was nothing at all intended, and it was

only when he was aware that in fact a memo was in our hands that the

story changed. Even then he indicated subsequently that he did not

expect that this thing would go ahead or probably wouldn't go ahead and

so on. And today he's telling us: "Oh, the intent was July." Well, can

the minister tell us what kind of staff reports he had and whether it

indicated that in fact this would mean further revenue losses to the

Crown?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, if the member would keep my

comments in context I'm sure he would understand and recognize the fact

that I never did say that there were no such negotiations taking place.

If the member would look back at exactly what questions he asked and

how I responded to them, he would find that his most recent statements

are not correct at all.

MR. WILLIAMS: The question, Mr. Chairman, was: does the

minister have staff reports on the impact of the proposed changes in

terms of valuation, and can he advise the House whether those reports

indicate this will mean further losses for the Crown in what we get for

public timber?

[ Page 6932 ]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, there have been no previous

losses, so I don't know how there can be further losses. Revenues to

the Crown for the sale of Crown timber vary. The very nature of the

stumpage appraisal system causes that variation and ensures it, to

respond to market conditions. The object of the exercise is to simplify

the stumpage appraisal system, to keep it equitable but simplify it,

and the object is to have no net effect on revenue as a result of these

simplifications for that reason.

[2:45]

MR. WILLIAMS: Is the minister saying that there are no

reports within his department that show this will indeed mean that the

Crown's revenue will decline, given constant market conditions, given

the former appraisal system versus this new system?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I can only say again that

when a new system is put into operation, the effect will not be to

change stumpage; it will be to simplify the system. Before such a

system goes into effect, the recommendations for such a system will

have to come from my ministry to be approved by government.

MR. WILLIAMS: The minister still is not being very clear. The

question is: are there staff reports that would indicate there would be

a decrease, one system versus the old system? I would suggest to the

minister that indeed there are. Can the minister advise us if that's

the case?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, when a recommendation comes

forward as to recommendations to change the system, only then will I be

reviewing all of the various staff reports that have been made as we

are trying to develop a simpler system.

MR. WILLIAMS: But your senior person has sent out a memo to

all the districts indicating that here's the new system, here's the

manual. Before you do that you have staff reports. I'm asking the

minister: did you go ahead then and approve sending out the manuals —

having Mr. Waelti send out his memo saying: "Here is a system conceived

and designed by industry"? Didn't you consider any of these reports or

the implications that you're only going to do it down the road?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I don't know what motivates the member,

but before a system can be put to use, we have to come up with a

recommended system. The ministry has not made recommendations to me and

to the government yet, but they have suggestions as to a system. What

they are doing right now is testing what they probably will recommend —

or a variation of what they will recommend — in parallel with the

existing system to check and see just exactly what effect we'll have.

If it has a net effect, then it will have to be changed so that there

is no net effect.

MR. WILLIAMS: The minister told us a minute ago they wanted

it in place, operating in July, and you're telling us that you don't

know what the impact or effect is. Now it's October. But my question

is: what kind of studies did you have before all this material went out

to the staff in the various districts and regions, and were there not

in fact reports that told you there would be a decline under this

system in terms of revenue?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Our original target — one of our targets

— was July. It is now October. If we cannot develop a system that is

simpler and that will have no effect, we could again change it. I have

no hard and fast deadline where I must do it at that point in time

regardless of what the effect will be. We're trying to develop a system

that is workable, simpler to administer, less costly to administer and

yet has no effect. So whatever we develop, we'll have to test it in

parallel with the existing system until such time as we can develop one

that is indeed workable and has the effect we wish it to have.

MR. WILLIAMS: So you're saying that you're giving double the

workload to your staff currently — that they're running both of these

systems through currently in order to determine the impacts over a

period of time?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I wish the member would refrain from

saying what I am saying, because I am quite capable of saying what I

wish to say myself. We are testing the system in parts of the province

to make sure it's workable. I think that's a responsible thing to do.

We'll continue to do that until our studies are completed and a

recommendation comes forward.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I say to you that you've had staff

reports that indicated there would be losses to the system, and you

proceeded regardless. That's what I say. You may well be tinkering and

modifying, but you proceeded with a system that had implications in

terms of further losses for the Crown in terms of revenue, and you did

so because it was once more an item that was on the agenda of the

Council of Forest Industries — another item. I mentioned the other day

that item No. 17 was the privatizing of scaling. You've bowed to that.

You're doing what the boys want — the bosses of the forest industry —

in terms of scaling, despite the full range and gamut of problems we

face there. Now you're proceeding in terms of an evaluation system that

once more is what the boys want — the Council of Forest Industries.

It's out there in the field; it's like pulling teeth getting

information from you on this question. And on it goes. All these items

— their agenda, delivered not to you; an agenda delivered by the

Council of Forest Industries, the big corporate lobbyists in this

province, to the Premier, and then in turn you have to jump to that

tune. That's what's been happening. It's happening now in terms of the

valuation process, and this despite the fact that the Premier right now

is going to empty offices in Washington, D.C., trying to deal with the

protectionist tide in the United States of America in the dog days of

summer even when they're planning on a recess, because he's trying to

polish his public relations image, when in fact the corporate bosses

and the people in Washington have basically cut a deal anyway that you,

in due turn, in due time, will be advised of, I'm sure. It's the

office-boy role in terms of major policy formulation.

You've got this thing in hand in terms of a new valuation system.

The valuation system is what is being challenged by the Americans; it's

what's being challenged by Congress in the United States. Despite that,

you have been proceeding basically on the agenda of the companies in

terms of the valuation program that they want, and yet this is the very

crux

[ Page 6933 ]

of the problem that we face with the Americans.

Despite that, you run all risks in terms of our major industry in this

sector. Look at the bill in the Senate. The bill focuses directly on

the question of the way we appraise timber, and they find it lacking.

Now you have sent out to the regions a new system that the corporations

want, running all that risk again with the Americans. They will be

aware of this.

What's the prospect down the road? It's a serious one indeed. It's

one of curtailment of production and a cutting back of production in

British Columbia. That means fewer jobs, less product, less wealth. All

of that is threatened in terms of what you are participating in

currently. It is threatened even more by proceeding down this path, by

being willing to concede to the Council of Forest Industries what they

want in terms of an appraisal system. It's a terrible risk, and if we

had a minister who is on top of things, pursuing the public interest in

a serious manner, we wouldn't have the kind of prospect that we do now

in terms of U.S. retaliation. The fact that you have currently pursued

this, even while the Premier is in Washington, is nothing short of

shocking, because you extend and open up the risk to us in terms of the

threats we are facing from the Americans.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The Premier is indeed in Washington, and

he is not meeting with empty offices. He is meeting the politicians in

Washington. He has had a meeting with Secretary of Commerce Baldrige.

The other day the member for Vancouver East advised that when he was

Minister of Forests, he went down to Washington and managed to meet

with some undersecretary somewhere in the bureaucracy. Congratulations

to him; very impressive indeed. The Premier, from all reports I have

received — internally and via the media — is doing an excellent job on

our behalf in Washington. I think we should be proud of the fact that

he is a leader who can gain the respect of people in Washington, unlike

the situation in British Columbia a few years ago.

Mr. Chairman, a couple of years ago when the countervailing duty

issue was in front us I too made several trips to Washington, D.C., and

as the Minister of Forests in British Columbia I too met with Secretary

Baldrige. I didn't meet with some underling; I met with the secretary

responsible. As a result of our efforts then through their

international trade court and the international trade administration of

the Department of Commerce, we proved beyond any doubt — they proved it

with the information provided by us — that our stumpage appraisal

system in Canada, and most particularly in British Columbia, is indeed

a fair system that extracts fair value for the timber being sold. There

is no doubt about that. Some of the politicians in that country are now

tending to ignore that fact, proven in their own courts a few years

ago, and are saying that we still subsidize our wood. That is not true.

It has been proven to be otherwise.

But that member from Vancouver East is doing the public of British

Columbia, the industry of British Columbia, the people who work in that

industry, a great disservice by continuing to stand in this Legislature

and say that we are giving our wood away, that we are not extracting

maximum value for it and appropriate revenue for the province, because

it has been demonstrated that we are. That member would probably love

to see some trade barrier put in our way so that he can go out and say:

"Look what the Socreds did." Regardless of how many people it would

hurt, he would like to see that happen, just as the former leader — not

this Leader of the Opposition sitting over there now, but the former

Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Barrett — went to Washington once and

made statements to the effect that "Things are tough in British

Columbia, and I'm glad." That's the type of attitude that that member

has. He would be delighted to see trade barriers brought into effect

and people in British Columbia suffer as a result of it. As the

responsible government in British Columbia, we are taking every

possible measure to make sure this doesn't happen.

The industry in British Columbia and in Canada, and the national

government, are all very much involved in a complex and important

matter. Everything that in everyone's judgment can possibly be done is

being done. It does not help our cause at all — in fact, it makes it

much more difficult for us — when that member makes that type of

statement for his cheap political gain. I am absolutely shocked about

that, Mr. Chairman. That member sitting there so smugly was

responsible...through his ill-thought-through policies, practising his

type of economics, he almost destroyed the province of B.C., and as a

result destroyed the government which he represented. He was even

ashamed to come back and sit in this Legislature after being re-elected

when his government failed. He chose rather to resign so that the

leader could come back.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, Mr. Minister. We are straying from the estimates.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Yes, indeed I am, and I apologize.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Avoid personal references. To the estimates, please.

[3:00]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. WILLIAMS: That kind of misleading political diatribe from

the minister is totally unacceptable. This is the minister who's in

charge of the stumpage appraisal system. This is the minister who's

willing to make us vulnerable. This is the point about this system that

they've raised down there. If you're satisfied that the system that was

in place was the right one, why is it being changed? That was the

system you took down there before. You are the one, along with the

Council of Forest Industries, who opened the issue up. You are the

author of our vulnerability. You are the author of the problem. Let's

get that straight, Mr. Chairman: this is the minister responsible.

MR. REID: And doing a good job, too.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, indeed.

If the system was the right system, and the kind of system that the

trade people in the United States had previously accepted, then why

would one open it up at this particular time? That's the point I'm

making. The minister is the one who has made us vulnerable. That's why

I raised the question.

He has been less than frank with this House in terms of opening up

that valuation and appraisal system. It was only when he was aware that

the opposition indeed had the data, had copies of memos from his

department, that he finally levelled with the House. So let's get that

straight. He was not

[ Page 6934 ]

prepared to level with the House until he knew we

had the information. That is what makes him vulnerable, and that's why

we face the danger from the Americans now.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Just one final comment on this subject

before we beat it to death. The system which we have in place is a fair

and equitable system. It works, but it is complex to administer. The

way of appraising the value of timber is not being changed; the way of

administering it is — the way of collecting the cost data — because it

has been rather cumbersome and complex. The system in itself has stood

the test of time for many years, and the principles of the system are

not being changed. We are streamlining the administration of it, and

finding better and simpler ways of accumulating the input data.

MR. WILLIAMS: Can the minister advise us where most of the

data was obtained? What computer base was used in reapplying this

system? In fact, did you not basically rely on material from MacMillan

Bloedel?

MR. MacWILLIAM: Moving to the Shuswap-Okanagan region, as you

are aware, a group of category 2 operators in the Shuswap area have

been endeavouring to obtain increased cutting rights for several years,

and have maintained a continuing line of communication with the

minister in this regard. I might point out that some of these operators

are long-established plants with upwards of 200 employees. For example,

Canadian International Timber, Cedarbrooke Sawmills, Custom Stud Mills,

Clairdon Holdings, a mill in Grindrod, Bilarid Mill and Lakeside Timber

are all in the Shuswap-Okanagan area. All of the above operators, as

the minister well knows, have experienced a deficit of Crown timber

supply. Many have purchased substantial volumes of wood from TFL 23 in

order to sustain their sawmilling operations, because they can't get

sufficient wood supply on their own. Without exception, those who have

purchased wood from Westar, which is in control of TFL 23, feel that

they've contributed to Westar's overall cut performance. They also feel

that they'd have been able to secure this wood much more economically

had they been given the opportunity to log it themselves.

I'd also like to mention the fact that there's a serious outflow of

timber from the area — approximately 385,000 cubic metres of timber

from the Shuswap region — to plants of major licensees in the south and

central Okanagan. When you think about it, it's very detrimental to the

Shuswap-Okanagan area and the local economy that the wood is leaving.

The disparity is fast becoming a matter of local public concern.

As the minister may recall, we addressed these concerns earlier in

the House this year, and as yet these particular concerns haven't been

rectified. I wonder if the minister would like to inform us as to

whether he has made any commitment to these firms, any decision to open

they can get access to competitively priced wood and aren't closed out

in the competition for the dwindling wood supply.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'd be very happy to respond to the

member's queries. First, category 2 operators — which is the people who

own manufacturing plants and yet have less than, I believe it is,

10,000 cubic metres of wood under ongoing licence — are eligible to bid

for wood that is put up in the small business program under category 2.

You have to reflect back to the establishment of the small business

program a few years ago, and where the cut came from for that. As you

know, for a number of years there has been a rather full commitment of

the allowable cut available to various licensees. This happened over

the years and is a fact of life. A lot of the allowable cut was under

timber sale licences, which were called third-band licences, which had

been renewed over the years, year after year, and had become almost

accepted as quota through practice in the industry. When we changed the

form of licence from timber sale licences to forest licences, and went

into a rollover process, we retained a lot of that wood unto the

government for the purpose of making it available for the small

business program. We recognized the fact that there was a considerable

plant capacity that had been built up in various communities dependent

upon that third-band wood for the continuation of those plants. We had

to recognize that that wood had to somehow be made available to them

through a different means as well.

When we established our small business program, we put what

allowable cut we could in the small business program by taking some of

it away from those third-band licences, and then we broke the small

business program down into category 1 and 2, category 2 being that

amount which we felt could be made available to these smaller mills

without causing a serious deficit for those plants which had been built

up to use it. Secondly, we had category 1, which was the wood to be

made available to loggers; and this would still be available to these

other plants that had used it in the past, by purchase from the

loggers. At the same time, it could be available to these other plants,

the smaller operators, as you have mentioned, by purchase from the

loggers, even though they were still eligible to compete for the

category 2 wood. These operators have two sources then: that category 2

allocation, plus the ability to purchase from the contract logger or

the loggers working under category 1.

As to TFL 23, we have a situation there where the licensee, Westar,

has over the years made some arrangements with other people. Downie

Street was one where they made arrangements to provide them with a

certain allowable cut within the cut available in the TFL. They have an

arrangement with Bill Chernoff, I believe, down in the southern part of

their TFL. But there is a volume of wood that they don't require, and

which is going to be removed from the TFL. We'll remove whatever land

area is necessary.

I believe that the volume is not far off what the member suggested:

some 300,000 cubic metres per year annual cut. That will be used in two

ways: one, we'll put some of it, I hope, into the small business

program, to gradually build up that viable log market; secondly, we're

going to put up a number of licences which then will have to be

competed for by those manufacturers who have the plants but don't have

a sufficient wood supply. We'll have to put some requirements in the

licences, as we did in other circumstances, for what we call "have-not"

licensees: that is, for people who have less than 60 percent of the

wood requirements under licence. They will then be able to bid for

them, and those licensees will have to have a certain quality of mill,

including barkers and chippers and so on. I think we're getting very

close to concluding this reduction in size negotiation with the

company. We'd rather do it that way than use a heavy hand and just come

and decree that's what has to be done. Quite

[ Page 6935 ]

frankly, they have complied with their cut-control

requirements, albeit through the sale of wood rather than the use of it

themselves.

I think we're going to be able to resolve some of the problems.

There is not going to be enough to satisfy all the needs of all these

smaller licensees, nor will there ever be; because as soon as you begin

to satisfy them, others will appear which will put additional pressure

on the allowable cut. Unfortunately, there will always be more plant

capacity than there is allowable cut to supply it.

MR. MacWILLIAM: With regard to previous discussions that the

minister and I had in the House involving the acquisition of Drew

Sawmills by Beaumont Timber in the Shuswap Lakes region, I wonder if

the minister can advise us what the final status of that is. As he may

recall, Drew Sawmills went into receivership some time early in the

year, and was in process of being acquired, along with the timber

assets, by Beaumont Timber. I pointed out to the minister that the

increase in timber supply for Beaumont far exceeded their cut capacity,

and suggested to the minister, as was requested by the foresters and

the independent companies in that area, that at least a portion of that

timber supply that was being transferred to Beaumont, as a result of

the transfer through, be made available to the independent operators so

that they could increase their timber supply. Would the minister advise

as to whether, in the final process, any of that wood was made

available, or was the entire cut supply from Drew Sawmills, in fact,

transferred onto Beaumont?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Yes, I can advise the member, Mr.

Chairman. We will always have smaller mills who have started up at some

time without sufficient timber supply and who wish to get more. As I

mentioned previously, we cannot possibly satisfy them all. What we had

at Beaumont was a sawmill which had been running for some period of

time in financial difficulty. Nevertheless, it employed a number of

people in an operation as a going concern. I felt my responsibility

towards those employees was to do what I could to make sure that their

means of employment — their sawmill — was able to continue. The

arrangement made between Drew and Beaumont was approved by me, whereby

Beaumont agreed to carry on with the manufacturing plant to make sure

that those people had their jobs in the community where they had

previously worked, and the allowable cut of Drew was needed in order to

make sure that could go through. Unfortunately, we were unable to make

some of that wood available for some of these operators who had a

timber deficit.

MR. MacWILLIAM: The point of the argument, if I can take

another approach to the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, is the

fact that the increased timber supply that Beaumont inherited as a

result of the transfer of the Drew timber supplies to that firm was, in

fact, far beyond their needs. The minister has made the argument that

it was his wish to secure the jobs for those individuals in Drew

Sawmills in the event that it closed down. I don't argue with that. The

jobs were preserved through the transfer of it to Beaumont. That's not

the point of the question; the point of the question is that there

could have been even more jobs preserved, and in fact created, if a

portion of that excess timber supply had been released to those small

operators so they could also take advantage of new wood supplies and

employ more people in their firms. Presently they cannot do this,

because they can't get hold of enough wood.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: As far as I know, Beaumont did not have a

manufacturing plant. He had some private timber holdings, and I believe

some of it was in a taxation tree farm. He was, in effect, a market

logger. He was logging and selling wood to existing plants. Those who

bought it were using it, and it was in use to create jobs and did

create jobs. The Drew thing is a separate operation for Beaumont, and

wood under licence to that company is being used before and now by that

company. But his other timber allocation is probably still being sold

on the market. It may be that at some point he could direct some of

that into the Drew mill and perhaps put on another shift, but I don't

know what his plans are relative to his other wood supply.

[3:15]

MR. MacWILLIAM: Again, the point of the argument I make is

that I think the minister missed an excellent opportunity to satisfy

some of the concerns of these small operators by not making at least a

portion of that timber supply available to them. Rather than shipping

the raw wood out of that area and selling it to firms in other areas,

he could have generated more job creation right in that particular

geographic area for those independent operators who have been crying

for wood and haven't been able to get access to it. The timber supply

was in excess of Beaumont's needs, and at least a portion of it could

have been distributed to those other operators. That was the argument

they had repeatedly attempted to make to the minister, and, I believe,

he missed out on a good opportunity to maximize the job creation

potential of that transfer sale.

MR. WILLIAMS: I wonder if the minister can advise us whether

he's read a study carried out and prepared for the Nishga Tribal

Council by Silva Ecosystem Consultants with respect to the Westar

tree-farm licences in the northwest?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I haven't read the document in detail. I

believe I scanned it, and it's in the hands of the ministry. I hope I

will be getting a condensed assessment of it back from them — so my

deputy advises me, at least.

MR. WILLIAMS: The report was prepared in March 1985, and it

has been submitted to the ombudsman as well. I wonder if the minister

can advise us how much of a staff he has here in Victoria in terms of

monitoring and dealing with tree-farm licences.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: We have one man who specializes in — I

guess is solely devoted to — tree-farm licences. But those tree-farm

licence functions encompass most aspects of the ministry, so all of the

staff would at some point be involved in something relative to

tree-farm licences.

MR. WILLIAMS: So there's one person in Victoria, basically a

forester who is doing a record-keeping and analytical review sort of

job. Is that correct?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: That's the one staff job devoted totally to that, yes.

[ Page 6936 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: It makes one reflect, doesn't it? Right here in

downtown Victoria there is one forester dealing with tree-farm

licences. Is it any wonder that the industry wants the rollover — I

think it should be called "roll over and play dead" — of the other

tenures into tree-farm licences? Let's ask ourselves how much of the

districts' time, the regions' time, is in fact devoted to the other

tenures: forest licences, other harvesting licences and so on. What

chunk of your staff time in the districts is geared to the other forms

of tenure?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the member seems to like to

take one little bit of information and use that to develop all types of

absurd theories. We have a full-time-equivalent allocation in the

Ministry of Forests of, I believe, 3,711 people, all of whom at some

point, I'm sure, have something to do with tree-farm licences. We have

a very decentralized operation, and our Victoria staff is just that

which is needed for the functions they must perform. Our field staff,

at both the regional level and the district level, are involved on an

ongoing basis in all types of licences.

MR. WILLIAMS: But the reporting that is required under the

terms of the licences is in fact material sent on an annual and regular

basis to Victoria. Is that not true, Mr. Chairman? Is it not true that

the basic data and material — the requirements under the tree-farm

licence agreements — are submitted to this office in Victoria on an

annual basis?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I guess that is me, Mr. Chairman. The

person who is responsible then has the cooperation of and input from

literally dozens of people of different disciplines in Victoria as they

assess the reports. Is the member trying to make the point that one

person looks after all TFLs? It's an utterly nonsense proposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Look at the fogbank descend. The situation is

that there is one person in Victoria responsible for this. You're

talking about the best forest lands of British Columbia. You're talking

about material that is coming to them.

Let's look at what an independent forester says now in terms of the

kind of monitoring and audit that in fact happens or doesn't happen.

Mr. Hammond, a forester from the interior who used to be a professor at

Selkirk College in Castlegar, and who turned out the forest technology

program there and the people who graduated for some period of time, was

asked by the Nishga people to have a look at what had happened in the

management of the tree-farm licence in their traditional area of the

Nass and that part of British Columbia. In his report, Mr. Hammond says

there has been a consistent manipulation of the annual allowable cut

with respect to that tree-farm licence; a high-grading pattern of

development, utilizing clear-cutting as the primary harvest system;

poor timber utilization standards; inadequate soil protection resulting

from high-impact logging systems; inadequate reforestation indicated by

regeneration lags. And on he goes.

He says the following commonly accepted forest management principles were applied

to field data and observations: sustained yield, i.e. continuing to be able

to harvest on a similar basis annually and not exceeding the growth, presumably,

although that's changed under your ministry; allowable annual cut; integrated

forest land use; appropriate silviculture systems; appropriate harvest systems;

management of regeneration environment and regeneration lag. Mr. Hammond found

in his analysis of those lands, which are the responsibility of you and your

tree-farm licence man here in Victoria, a lack of adherence to all these principles

and documented the same.

So that's what he tells us: that there was a consistent manipulation

of the annual allowable cut. Let's look at that. It's gone in and out

like an accordion over the years. It's gone from 343,000 cubic metres

in 1952 to 1,234,000 cubic metres in 1968, up to two million in

1970-78, and it's 1.3 million subsequently. He said that during the

period of the amalgamation of the two former TFLs, the harvest was

concentrated on the easily accessed high-quality stands of the Nass

River bottomlands, and so on. So in effect what happened was that by

amalgamating the tree-farm licences, it was possible to still keep the

basket annual allowable cut and then concentrate in one small area.

The pattern continues. He talks about the volume loss from timber

felled and not yarded as of November 1982, and he estimates millions in

timber fallen and not taken out. He talks about soil disturbance and

soil degradation, and he indicates that in fact 30 percent of the site

has suffered serious soil degradation — 30 percent of the area that was

logged. So some 6,000 hectares of the 19,000 hectares suffered serious

soil degradation on this tree-farm licence.

Then he said that treatment is required to re-establish the normal

drainage patterns, to stabilize the unstable sites, to reduce

compaction and to revegetate with suitable species of herbs, shrubs and

conifers. Then he looks at what it would cost to treat those lands

where the soil has been degraded to the extent it has — some 30 percent

of their active areas — and he estimates the cost of treatment of that

land would be $12 million to $19 million, just to treat that problem of

soil degradation. Then he looks at the question of regeneration lag —

the lag in getting productive forest beginning again on the logged-over

lands. He found that as of January 1984 the lag was some 13 years; that

was the lag in regeneration, and that's a great loss in that region.

That's a loss to the province. What has been going on is the creation

of a kind of wasteland.

He comes up with the numbers in terms of losses that this

represents, in wood that could have been produced on those lands where

the regeneration wasn't taking place. He comes up with a figure of a

loss — in terms of regeneration because of that lag, just in this one

tree-farm licence — of $31 million as a loss to the provincial economy.

So you have to put together those losses in soil rehabilitation,

silvicultural treatment that is still due, and the loss in the value of

wood fibre to the provincial economy. He comes up with a number that's

something like $67 million of loss to the provincial economy. That's

pretty significant.

I wonder if your one man in Victoria has visited the Nass Valley

this year, last year, the year before, the year before that or the year

before that. I suspect not. The bulk of your staff are tied down with

other operations. You've developed a system that you've said is

centralized, but the whole flagship of the province — the small ranger

stations that used to be distributed across the landscape, where people

understood the area that they were responsible for, the local ranger —

has disappeared. You have a bunch of people in centralized offices out

of Kamloops, out of Vancouver, with their briefcases, who have to spend

half their time travelling to get anywhere in the bush. That's the

reality under the system that you've created.

[ Page 6937 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address your remarks to the Chair.

MR. WILLIAMS: The kind of audit you talk about, and the

privatizing you've willingly accepted, has left us more vulnerable than

ever. The most telling aspect of this is with respect to the finest

lands in the Nass themselves, the bottomlands. What does Mr. Hammond

tell us about that? With respect to the bottomlands of the Nass, which

can be tremendously productive, he says: "Unfortunately, brush rather

than commercial timber is growing on 73.5 percent of the lower Nass

River bottomlands that have been logged." But how is it indicated on

the maps that Westar has? On the maps of the Westar corporation they

show those lands as satisfactorily restocked. So the reality is that 75

percent of the lands are in brush — the finest productive lands of the

Nass River Valley — and what does it say on the map? The map says it's

all okay — that that is satisfactorily restocked, that that will be

timber in the future.

I'm sure your one man down here in Victoria responsible for

tree-farm licences received the nice coloured map from Westar, and the

nice coloured map from Westar said it was all satisfactorily restocked.

He puts the nice coloured map in the drawer, his administrative

backside is clear, Westar's administrative backside is clear, and the

truth is never dealt with. It's just a paper shuffle in Victoria, and

the truth is that three-quarters of the land is in brush.

[3:30]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Now you people already admit to unsatisfactorily restocked land in

British Columbia that is of a monstrous scale. It is a swath 200 miles

long and 50 miles wide — NSR lands that you recognize in your reports.

What you don't recognize is the untrue reports that you've received —

the nice coloured maps that you receive from companies like Westar that

say: "Everything is fine beyond the mountain." It's only the occasional

independent forester like Mr. Hammond who is willing to blow the

whistle for independent clients in terms of problems like that. The

maps all say it's okay, and the truth is that 75 percent of the lands

are not okay in that particular instance. So I think it tells us a

great deal.

One man in Victoria is dealing with the nice data and filing system,

and you've got a province the size of British Columbia. From the border

to the Yukon, from the coast to Alberta, there he is — that one man in

Victoria. A lot of auditing he'll be able to do. We should be thankful

to the handful of people who independently do review some of the

information and realities in the field.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, we have an entire staff in

the ministry whose responsibilities include those of tree-farm

licences. The reports brought by Westar are done by their professional

foresters. They're reviewed by ministry professional foresters in the

district, the region and Victoria, and if there is a disparity between

things which are reported and which actually happen, then we have some

problems with professional ethics somewhere. Somewhere between Mr.

Hammond, the people from Westar and ministry staff there is a problem

with ethics, if what the member says is correct.

Now the tree-farm licence No. 1 has been behind for a number of

years on their requirements on silviculture. There's no denying that

whatsoever. That's one of the reasons we have, with the company, agreed

on ways of reducing the size, so that what they have is manageable and

can supply them with the wood needs they have for the plants they run,

to keep the people who work for them working. We have assessed and are

continuing to assess what work has to be done on those lands which have

been removed from the TFL and which will continue to be their

responsibility, and they will be held responsible for that catch-up

work.

The member mentioned felled and bucked on the ground. I guess in any

tree-farm licence, in any forest licence anywhere, that is an ongoing

thing; there will be felled and bucked on the ground. The felled and

bucked referred to by the member, I understand, has since been moved to

the mills and manufacturing.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hammond was commissioned, I guess, by the Indian

band, who have as a desire of their own to acquire a tree-farm licence.

In fact they made application for a part of the area held under

tree-farm licence by Westar then and which is still held under

tree-farm licence by Westar. Of course I cannot deal with that. If they

would make a reasonable submission for a tree-farm licence area that

can be dealt with, at some point in time I could probably very readily

assess it on their behalf.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to have this Mr. Hammond to look at the

level of forest management on those private lands held by the Indian

band who wishes to acquire a tree-farm licence. I think he'd probably

find some of the same types of things. It is a difficult forest to deal

in up there. The member knows that, because he was the minister

responsible — in fact, his government acquired that company and made it

a Crown corporation. Nothing improved when it was operated by the Crown

under the direction of that member. It has since been transferred to

BCRIC and through reorganization of Westar.

I understand that now a much better level of forestry is being

practised by Westar than has been practised in the past. Things are

improving. I'm glad to see that. I will not deny that it's a difficult

forest to work in. Because of that and a lack of revenue from that very

difficult low-quality forest, they are behind on some of their

responsibilities, but now that we've reduced the size of the TFL we

will insist that they fulfil their obligations from those areas which

have been deleted and carry on their responsibilities in the area that

still remains under tree-farm licence tenure.

I would think that when I get the report from my ministry relative

to Mr. Hammond's report, if what he says is true, or if what we say is

true, there probably is some need to have the professional ethics of

the people who prepared these reports.... If they blatantly disregarded

their ethics and sealed and signed things as professional foresters

that are not correct, I think we'd have a problem. Because I don't go

out there and inspect their sites. I don't have the technical expertise

to do that. I could not really judge whether a site is satisfactorily

restocked, whether utilization standards have been properly carried

out. Nor could that member. I cannot judge whether....

MR. WILLIAMS: Can't you handle brush versus commercial trees?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No, I can't, Mr. Chairman, nor do I think

you could. I cannot tell you whether brush on a site is detrimental to

the growing of the coniferous species on that site. If it is an obvious

case, of course I could, but there

[ Page 6938 ]

are many variants from the obvious right down to

those which are marginal, and I'm not professionally competent to judge

that, nor do I think that member is.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I'm intrigued by the response of

the minister with respect to Westar. It can probably be summed up as

well as anything by the five-year forest and range resource program,

1984 to 1989 — that flimsy seven-page document that set out the

five-year program, one page a year. The back part of it, significantly,

under the item "The Roles of Government and the Private Sector"....

Nowhere does it talk about the public interest, but the role of

government and the private sector: "The ministry sets objectives,

determines policies, develops and implements programs in concert with

the private sector." Who wrote that? Signed: "Tom Waterland, Minister."

That sums it up in one sentence, in an official document prepared and

tabled in this House by the minister.

I say to the minister: yes, it's almost standard practice to have

felled and bucked timber in the bush. But it's not common practice, as

was the case with Westar, to have felled and bucked timber sitting

there for five, six and seven years in a row, untouched and left to

rot. Timber cut and left out in the bush might provide nutrients at

some stage in the future, but that's a waste of public property. That

timber will never reach any processing plant. It cost Westar money, I

suppose, to fell and buck it. They had to pay for it; it's a loss to

them. But it's also a loss to the general public.

I moved to Terrace at the time the predecessor company of Westar —

Celanese Corp. of New York, I believe it was — got the first forest

management licence in the province. That's where it is. I was there

when that predecessor company started to log areas right outside of

Terrace. This was more than 30 years ago; I was a young lad at the

time. I walked over a great deal of that area....

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: Not in swaddling clothes; in cork boots. I walked

over a great deal of that area then when it was being logged, and drove

over a lot of their roads and branch roads at the time, when logging

took place in 1952, '53 and '54. You can drive over and walk into that

same area today and it's a barren wasteland — much of it. It was logged

30 years ago and still looks somewhat the same way: brush, alder and

overgrown. And what few evergreens are growing are stunted, nowhere

near what 30-year-old trees should be.

Yes, that company is behind in its obligations. Yes, that company

has been behind in its obligations for a long period of time. And one

would have expected that the minister, apropos of his log-it-or-lose-it

statement, would have taken some steps to correct the situation. But

the only step he took with respect to Westar was to wait until Westar

identified the junk timber it didn't want, and wanted to give back to

the Crown, which the Crown took back. I mentioned that before.

To give you another example of the handmaiden approach that this minister has

with industry, we need to look at that moment in time a few years ago when what

was then B.C. Timber sold a sawmill in Terrace that it had acquired from Abitibi-Price,

I guess it was, to West Fraser. The president of B.C. Timber, John Montgomery,

was in attendance at a meeting in the Terrace Hotel to announce this. The president

of West Fraser, Chester Johnson, was there as well. The Minister of Forests

was there, and the Minister of Human Resources. I, for the life of me, if I

didn't know the individuals involved, would have thought the Minister of

Forests was on the board of directors of West Fraser, or an officer of B.C.

Timber, or that John Montgomery was a cabinet minister, along with the Minister

of Human Resources. They were indistinguishable, hand in glove. That is what

is wrong in this province. When the minister says he sets objectives, determines

policy, develops and implements programs in concert with the private sector,

then where in blazes is the public interest?

The minister can sit back and yawn and feel bored about it all, but

where's the public interest, sir, in that type of scenario? Mr.

Chairman, that's the problem in this province. Under this minister in

the last ten years — I have to repeat it again and again — the number

of people working in the industry has gone downhill. The allowable

annual cut has been placed in jeopardy. The amount of NSR land has

increased. The control over the forest land of this province has moved

into fewer and fewer hands. The small entrepreneur has a tougher and

tougher time about it. The silvicultural activities that should follow

along after seedlings are planted have been ignored. In every instance

I pointed out that site rehabilitation and conifer release and spacing,

thinning and fertilization had all declined, had all been abandoned.

The minister then turns around and tries to point the finger at

somebody else, and say it's his fault.

[3:45]

1 wonder if I could ask the minister, with respect to his marriage

to the private sector, whether in that marriage they have examined the

question of a limitation on

section 88 credits.

Well, that's the usual belligerent belch from the minister in

response to a question. I asked the minister whether he had come to any

conclusion as to whether or not there is a limit that might be placed,

insofar as credit buildup under

section 88 for any given licensee is

concerned. Or is the sky the limit?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The member now realizes that before I can answer he must take his seat.

Traditionally credits under

section 88 build up when markets are

down. Markets have been down for a long time, and revenues have been to

such a level that we haven't been able to credit all of those credits

accumulated under

section 88. As markets improve, the credits will go

down. We have no arbitrary limit as to the extent of these, but I'm

sure that as markets improve and timber which has been developed in

some areas in recent times is harvested, they will begin to be reduced.

MR. HOWARD: I wonder if the minister has any sort of general concern about the magnitude of the credit buildup for any given licensee.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Insofar as I understand it at this time,

there's nothing that should create any great concern. If some licensees

build up much further, then perhaps we'll have to take a closer look.

But at this time I don't anticipate any problems.

MR. HOWARD: The five-year range and resource analysis that

the minister tabled in the House points out that: "A very relevant

question to be addressed is the magnitude of credit buildup for a given

licensee." The minister is ignoring

[ Page 6939 ]

the advice he gave to the House. He's not really concerned about what he told the House in the report.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I think the member realizes that these

credits will only be offset as timber is harvested and stumpage is due.

In effect, the industry has financed for the government, at no interest

charge, the construction of roads and the carrying out of certain

silvicultural operations. I am convinced that, barring any prolonged

major economic disasters, we will get into a position where we will

once again be reducing them. As a matter of fact, I would think that

perhaps even now, as we get into heavier harvesting after the spring

breakup and as markets improve, we will begin to see a start in

reduction of the credits.

MR. HOWARD: Then the minister doesn't intend to pay any

attention to what he told the House in his forest and range resource

analysis. He said in there that the magnitude of credit buildups of a

given licensee was a very relevant question to be addressed. Now he

says no, he doesn't intend to address it; maybe it'll sort itself out.

That's fair comment, but unfortunately that's been the comment of the

minister for the last ten years: "Well, maybe things will get better.

Maybe they'll sort themselves out. Maybe God will plant the trees.

Maybe there won't be a fire. Maybe the alder won't grow. Maybe there

won't be brush. Maybe a lot of other things." As a result of that sort

of aloofness to the whole system, he has got a report tabled in the

House which recites

chapter and verse the difficulty he himself has

created. It's just more of the same. It's hardly worth wasting one's

time dealing with him on subject matters like this, I suppose.

MR. WILLIAMS: The minister says, with respect to the kind of

data they've received on the Nass bottomlands and the fact that Mr.

Hammond, the forester who reviewed the area, said three-quarters of it

was NSR, but in fact it was on the maps and submitted as satisfactorily

restocked by other foresters, that that's a matter of professional

standards. Is the minister advising us...? This report was done in

March. Has there been no review with respect to this particular site

and locale? Has the minister no information from his own staff

regarding this question at this time?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I have not received word back from the

ministry directly relating to the Hammond report. I am sure the

ministry will study that report, and as a result, assess those areas in

which there appears to be some difference of professional opinion.

MR. WILLIAMS: Is the minister then assuring us that if indeed

the Ministry of Forests finds that these lands are not satisfactorily

restocked that they will then pursue the matter with the professional

foresters' association in terms of the misinformation?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, if ever reports come to me

as to what has happened in the forest under certain people

responsible.... If reports come to me that are not correct, then I will

have to take action.

MR. WILLIAMS: Has the minister ever in his tenure in office taken action with respect to this kind of question in the past?

It was a simple question, Mr. Chairman. Has the minister ever in his

ten years in office pursued this question of professional integrity

when there was misinformation — or in any instance?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Not to my knowledge, in this type of thing where there are two professionals claiming different things, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WILLIAMS: This is just one case in one valley that has

been pointed to. You and your staff are advised that everything is rosy

behind the mountain, that everything is fine, that it meets all the

standards, that it is going to be commercial timber in the future. An

independent person goes in and finds that this isn't the case, that

three-quarters of that land is weeds and that they are the most

productive lands in that particular region, the best quality soil sites.

I suggest to you, Mr. Minister, that by your actions in recent

years, you have put the Forest Service, the ministry, into a worse and

worse condition in terms of having the capacity and capability to

monitor what the corporations are doing back of the mountains. Let's

look at the numbers: 5,527 full-time equivalent employees in April 1981

in the Ministry of Forests. What have you got now? It's something like

3,800 or something of that level. The cutbacks that have been taking

place have primarily been in the regions, out there where the need is

greatest, and that is pretty typical. The cutbacks have been where they

can get behind the mountains and see what has been going on, where they

can at least do the policing job they are supposed to do. But you,

along with the Council of Forest Industries, have readily seen to it

that your staff gets reduced, that the policing won't take place. So

they can send you every coloured map they want and tell you everything

is fine, and you don't have the staff to review it. They're not out

there to do the work that needs to be done.

Why is it that some small forester from Winlaw has to traipse up the

Nass Valley to find out what the truth is in terms of what has been

going on there? You say that if indeed these are the facts, then you'll

want some policing done, and you'll go to the professional foresters.

It's hard to believe that there has not been misinformation before

this. It's hard to believe that there isn't a great deal of

misinformation in those files.

You get up and give your pompous speech about private versus public

people in scaling, and you say the opposition is opposed to private

people in scaling. We're not. But what we want is a system that assures

that the public interest will be protected. It's clear from this report

on the Nass by Westar that the public interest is not protected. It is

also clear that you don't have the staff to see that indeed it is

protected.

The small ranger stations have disappeared in British Columbia, and

yet they were needed and made sense throughout this century. You have

eliminated them. That suits the companies fine. So now you get this

line specialization stuff, and we are all the losers in that process.

You can call it a decentralization system if you like; it's exactly the

opposite. We used to have a system of rangers, and at least your deputy

had that kind of grassroots background. But that has disappeared in

terms of that kind of area understanding.

One of the great cultural lags we have in British Columbia is the

fact that there are not people out there living throughout our forest

regions. They are pushed into the cities. We have a tenure system that

eliminates them from the hinterland. We have a settlement pattern that

has been frozen in British

[ Page 6940 ]

Columbia. Look at Vancouver Island. The settlement

pattern is basically the same as it was at the turn of the century. All

of the people are on this southern-eastern side of the island. The

tenure system has frozen them out of the rest of Vancouver Island. So

the pattern you get of people distributed from Campbell River to

Victoria disappears once you get past Campbell River. You don't get the

kind of community and rural hinterland population. That's a loss to all

of us, because local people living throughout the regions could play

cop, could tell us more about what's happening in those regions. They

could be offended and concerned. That's the lag we've got in this

province. In Scandinavia, these people are scattered throughout the

hinterland. They are culturally in tune with the land, understand it

and know when it's abused.

We have a system of huge empires for a handful of forest companies,

and no people are allowed within them. They're small-scale banana

republics. It's not a good enough system in this day and age, in an era

of democracy. We're the losers; we don't have people living in these

regions that can see how the land is abused, can see whether there are

false reports being prepared by the corporation. Now, with the cutbacks

you've brought in the Forest Service, as the industry wants and

desires, we don't have the Ministry of Forests doing the police job and

the monitoring job that is absolutely essential. Yet we're still

getting pompous speeches from this minister about auditing — auditing

after the fact.

They need to be out there and available all the time. Instead,

they're in centralized offices in Kamloops, Nelson, Prince George,

Prince Rupert and Vancouver. That's not the way to deal with it. What

we need is the original area understanding of the local ranger, and we

also need people living in those regions as well, so they've got some

feeling for them and care about them and don't want to see the kind of

abuse that has occurred in Westar and in many other cases around the

province. If there were people in these regions and local rangers

available in these regions, then the abuse would decline considerably.

It wouldn't be a case of sending an independent forester in, paid for

by the Indian people — the Nishga — and then asking for a report months

later down here in Victoria. That's what you're doing.

So I say again, we now have the assurance of the minister that he

will go the professional foresters' association if he gets the report —

as I am sure he will — indicating how much of those bottomlands in fact

were NSR lands, and that in fact they're far different than the report

he has on file here in Victoria.

[4:00]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The member says that we have increased

the number of people in our regional offices. He mentioned Kamloops,

Prince George, Vancouver and Prince Rupert. In fact, the Prince Rupert

regional office is now in Smithers. However, the regions.... Those

offices which he mentioned were reduced more in number than the

districts when staff reductions took place. The districts, in fact,

from the old field offices and ranger stations, are now the lowest

possible decision-making branch of the ministry. They are the ones — 46

of them — closest to the areas of action, and have the authority to

make decisions much more so than in the past.

Now the member suggests that Mr. Hammond of course is correct, and the foresters

and the ministry and Westar are not correct. How he can judge that I don't

know, unless he also is a professional forester. But if he is right — if Mr.

Hammond, a consultant in the private sector, is correct — then perhaps my decision

to move more to the private sector is the correct decision. Because if those

in the private sector are so much more competent, perhaps we should be doing

more and more of our work through consultation, consulting with private foresters

in the private sector, than with government foresters. However, I don't

think that's the case at all.

If there is a difference that cannot be resolved in a rational way,

if there is any question of the professional ethics of anyone,

including Mr. Hammond, being abused, we must keep in mind the fact that

Mr. Hammond was hired. You ask why he went up there. He went up there

because he was hired by a client up there. He is a private forester

working in the private sector. He was hired to do a job for his

clients. His clients, of course, wanted to make the particular point

that they would be better able to manage the TFL areas than were the

people who had the licence.

That may or may not have flavoured the nature of the report that Mr.

Hammond made. I'm not making that accusation at all. But I am not going

to assume that he was right and others were wrong until I can get some

facts before me.

Mr. Chairman, we have reduced our staff considerably in the Ministry

of Forests, as have all government ministries in the last couple of

years. I think we have a pretty efficient, functional ministry. It is

staffed and run by professionals, people who are competent in their

field. It is not run by executive assistants, as was the case when that

member was the Minister of Forests.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I'm shocked at the continual low

level of debate that we are getting from this minister — you know, the

personal attacks. I'd like to take an example right out of Hansard of how this minister is....

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: I'll wait for the minister to come back.

I think this is really important. We are discussing one of the most

important sections of our economy, and that's forests. When there is

any constructive debate, any pointing out of errors that have been made

in the forest industry.... You can always tell from this minister when

we are getting to him, because he comes back with some ridiculous,

childish attack on the particular person who is speaking.

I'd like to bring this to the attention of this House, and I am not

saying it behind the minister's back. But I have continually heard him

today attacking the second member for Vancouver East, saying that when

he went to Washington, all he met was underlings. That was never said.

Read out of Hansard what was said. I'll repeat it for the minister, and then everyone can get Hansard ,

and they can read what was said. It was dated Monday, June 24, 1985,

the afternoon sitting. It was on page 6,828. I will read what was said

by the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams). We're talking

about the Premier going down to Washington to represent British

Columbia to discuss the problems we are facing in our forest industry

and the people who work in our forest industry. This problem may cut

jobs. This is what was said:

Occasionally there's an exercise in crisis management,

and that's what we are getting today, with the Premier flying off to

Washington, D.C. I've been to Washington, D.C., and I have met some of

their legislators and some of their cabinet people in the past. I'll

tell you that the lowliest economic or executive assistant in

Washington, D.C., is going to be able to beat the pants off of

[ Page

6941 ]

most of our administrators here in British Columbia, I am sorry to say. The

thought of going the whole route in Washington and Japan just scares the pants

off me in terms of our being able to stand up to that kind of tough competition

and scrutiny that one gets abroad.

That's what was said — that the junior economist

and the undersecretaries of that capital and that industry are better

trained than the people we are sending down, and that included the

Premier. That's what was said in the House.

What do we get from our hon. member? Our hon. member twists that

statement and says that when the second member for Vancouver East went

to Washington, all he met were underlings. You know, this is the low

level of debate that is taking place in the most important industry

that we have.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: No, Mr. Member of the cabinet, I will not sit

down. It bothers me that 57 members of this Legislature are not looking

at the problems that have come up in British Columbia from ten years of

mismanagement of the present minister and 30 years of overall Social

Credit sellout of our forest industry.

When you read the Forest Act.... I remember when forest acts first

came in here 30 years ago. The main reason for the forest management

licences at that time was for sustained yield. The original TFLs

guaranteed that you would have a sustained yield in that particular

area. We have changed that rule. We have changed that wording. We have

changed that concept. The wording "sustained yield" was taken out, and

we have what is now called "allowable cut."

That allowable cut goes up and down, depending on what the market

will bear. This is what is scaring the pants off those who depend for

their livelihood on the forest industry. There is no guarantee of a

supply of timber; there is no guarantee that their jobs or their

communities are going to have a long life.

I have areas in my own riding, which the minister is well aware of —

Port Renfrew, in the centre of one of the finest forest areas of

Vancouver Island, an area that men and women moved into, bought homes

in and set up their whole livelihood.... But because of short-range

planning by the company or lack of any direction from the ministry,

there is no protection given that community on sustained yield. You

know, they harvest the best areas, they move out, and what happens? The

company can pick up its machinery and logging trucks, move its office

furniture and move out. But the people who have bought homes there, the

businesses who have opened stores, are left in a virtual ghost town

because this minister and this government, and the predecessor Social

Credit government, have not looked at forestry with a long-range

program for giving what the original forest licence guaranteed: a

sustained yield.

When you go through all the reports that keep coming out of the government,

and you look at the basis of sustained yield.... The minister knows that

the basis of sustained yield is proper forest management and complete replanting,

not hit-and-miss whereby you replant just before an election — hire a few people,

send them out on an EBA program and say: "We are going to start a new forest

program. We are going to do the silviculture, we are going to do the thinning

and we are going to do the replanting." It comes out in all their election

propaganda, and a few weeks after the election the whole program is wiped out.

We still don't have a program that is going to catch up on the backlog of

forest lands that have not been properly restocked. We bring in report after

report on areas that this government has allowed to be logged, denuded, and

from which the companies move on. They've allowed that, and we still....

This is 1985, and I believe the deputy will inform the minister that

the first forest management licence, as they were originally called,

came in around 1949. That was in the area that the report that the

second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) was outlining.... The

first forest management licence, as it was known, was in that northern

Prince Rupert–Terrace area.

[4:15]

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: We still have millions of acres that are not

properly restocked, and bottom lands that are being allowed to go to

waste, and when we try to bring any of this information to the

minister, we still get nothing but personal attacks and garbage and

twisting. I often think that the minister made more sense and indicated

his true feelings when he came into the House with his teddy bear. But

I don't like personal attacks; they're very childish. And the teddy

bear incident maybe indicated something that I wouldn't want to say in

this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that why your constituents hate you?

MR. MITCHELL: There are many out there who hate me.

All the opposition want, and all the people working in the forestry

industry want, is that this government give some leadership and provide

some security in our forest industries. We can't afford the pleasure of

personal attacks against people. We can't afford the pleasure of

fighting among ourselves. This is a problem that our grandkids will

still be attempting to solve if we continue on the mismanagement that's

going on in this House and the mismanagement that is going on in the

industry.

I don't blame the industry, if they can go into an area and cream

it, and can pay their shareholders a high profit. But if you're going

to look at forestry, you have to look at the policies, at the small

business zones that the government have brought in to make certain

areas available for the small contractors. They're asking 7 percent of

the people who are harvesting under that area to pay a far higher

percentage of their return for the right to harvest. They're also

demanding that they pay the full cost of reforestation — which I think

is right. It's proper forest management.

As I said earlier on in another debate, for 20 hectares of land the

private contractor paid $189,000 to the government, which works out to

something like $22 a cubic metre; and he made money at it. Out of that

$189,000, the government had to pay something like 85 cents a cubic

metre to restock and replant that area. If these small operations can

do that effectively and efficiently and with financial soundness, why

can't we look at the broad areas where the real wealth of B.C. is,

where the forest lands are? Why can't we have not only a return in

comparison to where you have 7 percent of the loggers who are paying 20

percent of the royalties back to the people of B.C.? As I said earlier,

if we had a fair rate of return that we were collecting from the small

operators, we would have something like $600 million in revenue coming

into B.C., and there would be jobs for the people replanting that

[ Page 6942 ]

area. There would be jobs for the people who were

doing proper silviculture. This is what we have to look at. I am sorry

that the minister wants to carry on this debate in a kind of small

manner, in personal attacks.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I thought the minister might wish to respond to the remarks from the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, but I guess not.

MRS. JOHNSTON: He didn't say anything.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: He didn't say anything? He spoke for half an hour, and said a great deal on NSR, income, silviculture.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I did wish to take

part in this debate. As I

guess most members are aware, my riding is primarily concerned with

logging and woods operations, pulp milling and that kind of thing. My

riding, as you know, Mr. Minister, is some 325 miles long, with 2,600

miles of coastline. It's bigger than many countries.

AN HON. MEMBER: It borders on mine.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: It borders on seven different ridings in this

province, Mr. Minister. Anyway, that's not the point. What I was trying

to talk about was the importance of this industry to people in my

riding and on the coast of British Columbia, and throughout all of

British Columbia.

It's very difficult to touch on a subject that hasn't already been

discussed under the various bills and in great detail by members

yesterday and this afternoon in terms of debating your estimates in

this regard. But I think I should touch on a couple of matters that are

of particular interest to me.

I'd like to start off being easy on you for a moment, Mr. Minister —

through you, Mr. Chairman; just relax — and ask you.... We know what's

happening now in the small business enterprise programs, in terms of

logging on the coast. I'm not sure about the interior — I don't spend

that much time there — but I do know what's happening on the coast. I

receive numerous requests for assistance from people who either wish to

obtain timber under this program — people who have equipment but can't

obtain timber to log, people who.... I know of some people in the

industry who haven't been able to purchase a piece of timber for

logging purposes for over two years; the equipment is sitting idle. I'd

like to ask the minister what the ministry's plans are in this regard,

in terms of the small logging operator of this province. And what kind

of funds have been set aside. But more importantly, we know that many

of the large companies are not utilizing fully their annual allowable

cut within their TFLs, TSLs, PSYUs or whatever. So I'd like to ask the

minister that question. I can tie this in with one of the major topics

that I wish to discuss this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and that is the

problem — and it is a problem — of the exporting of raw logs from this

province. That is a major problem. Everybody in the province knows

this: when you export raw logs, you're exporting jobs from British

Columbia. That's basically what it amounts to. I know the process, and

I know, Mr. Chairman, that the minister is going to once again explain

to me the process. We've been through this many, many times in this

House, so to save the minister some time, he doesn't have to explain

the process to me about how this committee functions and that committee

functions. Just for the record, I'll tell you this, Mr. Chairman: the

minister ultimately can overrule that committee if he sees fit, the way

the Forest Act presently reads.

I'd like to give you a few figures, just to refresh the minister's

memory. The figures I'm using are the ministry's own figures, derived

from the ministry's own annual reports and these kinds of things.

Let me start out by saying, Mr. Chairman, that the provincial Forest

Act is intended to provide that the timber resources of this province

be used to provide employment for the citizens of British Columbia.

Section 136(3)(

a) of the act provides that logs will not be exported

unless "the timber or wood residue will be surplus to requirements of

timber processing facilities in the province."

Let me give you an example now of how we've annually increased the

volume of logs exported from the province. I can go right back to 1976,

but let's start with 1982, the first year of so-called restraint in

this province. What restraint really meant was that a lot of people

were going to get fired, that we were going to have approximately 22

percent real unemployment in this province. That's what restraint

means: that small businesses would go broke, including logging

operations — many of them did — and sawmill operations. I have a list

of those too, by the way, which I may read into the record later on.

Nonetheless, let me read this partial list to you, Mr. Chairman, of

the volume of logs exported from this province. In 1982 — this is in

cubic metres, although I have the figures converted to board feet as

well — there were 2,235,126.... No, that was 1983; well, we'll start

with 1982. In 1982 there were 1,275,561 cubic metres of logs exported.

In 1983, as I said, it was 2,235,126. But in 1984, the last year for

which we have the complete figures, that figure went to three million

cubic metres of logs exported from this province. What that translates

into is that.... That amount of timber is enough timber to keep a large

sawmill here in British Columbia in operation for five years. How many

small loggers could have benefited had that timber been allocated to

small operators in the province, who also provide jobs for the people

who log and mill these logs that we're exporting out of the province?

Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, I would like assurances

from you that this process will be reversed. A case can be made —

there's no doubt about it — for the export of certain species of timber

from this province. If I was the Minister of Forests.... There are

certain species and types of timber that are surplus to our needs and

that can be exported as whole logs from this province. There are

certain types of species that are of very little value to us here in

British Columbia. But what we are doing, to a large extent here in

British Columbia, is exporting our very best timber. I have been onsite

in several locations on the coast of British Columbia and have seen —

in fact I have pictures; I've taken photographs of these situations —

where the very best timber in certain locations was marked with the

export mark on them, which they must do under the act, and the inferior

timber was kept here in British Columbia for processing here. So I'm

very dismayed about that, I can tell you.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I want to talk a bit as well, Mr. Minister — and this is getting

serious — about certain logging practices that take place here on the

coast of British Columbia. I've viewed some of these sites personally

as well. My colleague from

[ Page

6943 ]

Vancouver East and the member for Skeena (Mr.

Howard) discussed some of these practices earlier here in this House,

and the fact that your ministry, because of your government's policy of

restraint, has laid off a number of people — approximately 25 percent,

I do believe, of the personnel within the Forest Service — over the

last several years.

[4:30]

1 know of one area where, in my view, logging practices, gross

practices, mismanagement contrary to the Forest Act, in my opinion,

were taking place. I do believe that in that area alone — it's the

Bella Coola area — 18 people were laid off. I may not be quite correct,

but I am told it's somewhere in that area. I do know that when I went

into that area — which is part of my riding — privately, people are

still employed in the Forest Service in that area. And I think they do

a good job — as best they can under the circumstances. It's very

difficult terrain and a very large area, and they have budgetary cuts.

They told me they did not have adequate people to police the operations

in the Rivers Inlet, Bella Coola, South Bentinck, North Bentinck,

Kimsquit and Dean areas. I know you know these areas, because you were

in the....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Aye what? Sorry for the interruption, Mr. Chairman. I'm interrupting myself now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please don't interrupt the member for Mackenzie.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No. Watch that!

As a result of this, I claim.... I believe I have adequate evidence

to indicate that gross mismanagement by the industry has taken place in

those areas. Others areas I'm aware of are, perhaps, the Kimsquit area,

the Rivers Inlet area, the Kingcome Inlet area and other areas where

trees were felled and bucked, left on the ground for many years.

Translating it into board feet, in one particular area it was up to

eight million board feet. I know the company involved in that

particular area was very sensitive about this particular subject, but

my criticism was not, and is not now, aimed at that company, because

most of them have carried on such practices in the past, with trees

left rotting on the ground, long butts buried and merchantable timber

burned. Nonetheless, my criticism was aimed at your administration, Mr.

Minister, and I'm continuing at this very moment to....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I don't have one — a phone, that is.

Anyway, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, I am suggesting that these

practices are happening, that you are responsible for these practices. I'm

not saying this in a political sense just to get up here and harangue you or

make some kind of political speech in this House. I have what I believe to be

conclusive evidence, which will, hopefully, eventually be brought to light.

I have the written documentation on these practices from professional foresters.

I have notes from people within your ministry in this regard, and photographs,

and I'm telling you.... I know you will get up and defend the ministry

and your personnel; that's part of your job, and I think they do a good

job under the circumstances. But the fact is that you've laid 25 percent

of them off over the last few years, and you simply don't have enough people

to have the job done properly.

There are other accusations I could make, but I think I'll leave it

at that for the moment and see what you have to say for yourself, sir.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I don't try to defend ministry staff. If

things are happening that shouldn't happen, I am just as interested as

you are in correcting such things. I have been pleased when you have

brought items forward to me in the past. We have investigated; at times

you have been right and at times you haven't. Nevertheless, bringing

them forward is very productive, and I thank you for that. I don't know

if the matter you're speaking about now is one you have brought to me

already or not, but when you have your case in hand please do so, and I

will do everything I can to cooperate with you to correct any acts that

have been done that are not proper.

I know in the last few years there have been several instances where

timber has been felled and, in some cases, bucked as well, and left on

the ground for extended periods of time. I'm advised that in most of

the cases we investigated they have since been cleaned up. It was

economic circumstances at the time, when the bottom fell out of markets

and so on; that was the reason, or excuse anyway, that was given as the

cause of having left that material on the ground for some time. Perhaps

the fact that you and others have brought them forward have caused the

felled and bucked to be picked up earlier than it otherwise might have.

We do audits on waste assessment whenever we find excess material

left behind which is within utilization standards being practised. We

do take action. We waste-bill, and we try to encourage the proper

utilization, but the utilization standard is something that is not

rigid and fixed. It has to vary with the economy just like the

definition of ore in a mine has to vary with the price of the product.

So at times material can be used which at other times can't. It is part

of the economic facts of life of that resource.

The member was talking about the small business program. About a

year ago, I guess it was, he and I were up in Bella Coola talking to

the small loggers. I have met with those people several times since.

One meeting started off with rather a heated debate. We were almost

ready to throw things at each other. But each of us calmed down

afterwards, and we came to a reasonable understanding of what problems

are ongoing. I think we are making headway with the small business

program.

Just some examples of volumes throughout the province that have been

sold over the last few years. The program, begun in 1979, was a little

slow getting off the ground. We had some growing pains then, and we

still do. But in that year we disposed of 368,000 cubic metres of wood

under the small business program. Last year, 1984 — which I have full

numbers for — we disposed of 6.1 million cubic metres under the

program. I don't believe we have that amount of wood in an ongoing way

under that program, but we have adopted a practice of applying

accumulated undercuts, which are caused by operators working within the

variance range that we have in cut control, to the small business

program, thereby enhancing it. I was just speaking with the member for

Nelson-Creston about doing the same thing again in his area as a result

of the shutdown of the Kootenay Forest Products sawmill in Nelson.

[ Page 6944 ]

The program is expanding. My staff have had a complete review of the

program with operators in various parts of the province. I have not yet

had a chance to go into detail with them on the report, but I'm sure

that report will lead to some variances in different parts of the

province. The program cannot be rigidly adapted in one way to all areas

of the province. Circumstances in the Bella Coola area with the hand

loggers — people are still operating A-frames up there — are much

different than the small business program would be in Prince George or

the Kootenays, Hope or wherever. So we're trying to keep it flexible

and adaptable to the circumstances in the area. It still has growing

pains. There is still the argument, quite extensively, about open

bidding versus sealed tendering. That will never be completely

resolved, but the person who requests an area to be put up can now ask

the district manager for either sealed tendering or open bidding.

Otherwise, the regional manager uses his discretion and tries to adapt

a type of tendering to the circumstances in his area.

We have this year a budget of $12 million, I believe, for the small

business enterprise program. I believe our recoveries from the program

through bonus bids are expected to be $16 million. So even with putting

the money that we have into silviculture, fire protection and road

building, we will net $4 million in bonus bids from the program. I'm

very pleased that we are able to make an arrangement with the Minister

of Finance for some of those bonus bids to go back into the further

development of that program so that we don't have to be continually

tagging on to areas developed by other licensees, creating somewhat of

a conflict there.

Mr. Chairman, that's what we're doing in the small business program.

My intent is to continue to expand that program. Wood sources for that

will be accumulated undercuts, as I have mentioned, and also

opportunity wood, as ways are found to bring into the allowable cut

wood that, for economic, environmental or other reasons, is now

outside. The volumes left in the allowable cut will be primarily put

into small business programs. So I see it growing over the years.

Although we have problems with the many thousands of people involved

and the hundreds and hundreds of sales we put up each year, I think

it's running relatively smoothly.

I believe I have covered most of the points. Oh, log exports; yes,

indeed. I agree, and it has been the policy of successive governments

in British Columbia that you should not export logs when they should

and can be used in British Columbia. The policy has been rather

consistent over the years. As I mentioned earlier, with the prolonged

recession these last few years, the volume of export wood has gone up.

Quite frankly, I think there are certain manipulations of the system

taking place, which disturbs me immensely. Whenever I have suggestions

of this, I ask people: "Please, if you can give me some hard evidence

of this so that I can take corrective action, I would appreciate it."

There is a reluctance to come forward.

It's because of that reluctance, and the fact that the test of need

and surface is somewhat abused, that we have changed the criteria. I

think the member understands what the new criteria are; if not, I will

briefly discuss them here. Would you like me to go into some of the

details?

In effect, the new criteria provide that exports will be allowed

only if it can be demonstrated that that particular stand of timber

cannot be economically harvested and delivered to the local

manufacturing plants at a price that a reasonably efficient mill could

afford. Then we would allow some export from that particular cutting

permit in order to help deliver or to reduce the cost of the wood that

is being delivered to the manufacturing plant. There are some people in

the industry who have made ridiculous requests such as, "I want to

export 40 percent of my stand," and there's no way that that can be

demonstrated to be necessary to me. I'm thinking in much smaller terms

than that.

But there will have to be some variance between the mid or north

coast and the south coast. There are some areas of the province that

have sufficiently good logging conditions and quality wood that they

would never qualify for export. The only reason for export under the

normal procedure would be if you can demonstrate that the cost of

logging and delivering to a mill is such that a reasonably efficient

mill couldn't afford it. There's no way that the person with a dinosaur

of a mill will be allowed to say: "Well, my mill has terribly high

operating costs and therefore I have to export more of my logs." My

answer to him would be: "Well, that's too bad. It's time you upgraded

your mill, because we're not going to support that mill through the

export of logs and, in effect, jobs from the province."

The types of logs that will be exported — I hope and it's my policy

that they'll be the lower-grade spectrum. I have seen examples of some

pretty good-grade and quality logs leaving the province and it disturbs

me, but the fact is that the system in place has allowed that. As long

as that system is the system, I'm going to allow it to work. But I

don't think it's been working properly, so that is why I'm changing it.

I think the change will allow for some exports, particularly species

such as alder and so on that we don't use, and for which there are some

markets.

[4:45]

We're developing particular markets, such as the China market. I had

a couple of weeks in China this fall, and the reason I invited Jack

Munro, Doug Evans and Roger Stanyer to come with me was that I wanted

them to see what we're up against in those markets in terms of the

demand for logs in all those Asian countries. China is particularly

unique. They have insisted that when they buy lumber they buy some

logs. Through the system as it exists, our industry has been able to

accommodate them to a certain extent. Fortunately the Chinese don't

want, nor can they effectively use, the higher-grade logs. So we have

what we call a China sort, which is the lower spectrum of the log

grades that we have. Quite frankly, there are not too many mills that

can effectively use those. So in our discussions in China with the

different groups of Chinese people that we met, this consistently was

our position, including that of Jack Munro. He would say, as I did,

that there are certain types of logs from British Columbia that we

don't mind seeing exported, particularly if that will assure us of some

market for lumber.

It's interesting to note that as a result of the aggressive sales

programs of B.C. companies and this ability to provide some logs, I

think the number is 75 percent of the lumber purchased by China last

year came from British Columbia. So it is a good entry into the lumber

market for us. It does create jobs here. We have been required to

provide some logs, but those logs are in effect buying lumber markets.

As long as they're the lower-quality logs, I think that's acceptable

for a while. I think we can demonstrate and have begun to demonstrate

to the Chinese that even at that it's cheaper for them to buy our

lumber than to try to make it themselves, because their manufacturing

plants are rather inefficient.

I think that's the general outline and expresses my philosophy, at least.

[ Page

6945 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: You

know, there was a bit of fanfare when the minister announced that we

would end log exports. That was the new policy. That was the headline.

MR. WATERLAND: I never said that.

MR. WILLIAMS: I understand that; I saw the release. But the

way it was picked up in the press was: "We're going to end log

exports." That's a problem with the press; I accept that.

But the reality is that you are going to export whole forests,

standing green timber. For the first time in the history of British

Columbia, standing green forest would be allocated for export without

processing in British Columbia. It's unheard of in a century of

operation in British Columbia. Designated foreign forests: that's your

new policy. It's far worse than ending log exports under the present

system. We have had a system here for too long where there has been a

close relationship between all the players in determining when, whether

and how logs would be exported. It has not been an honest system at

all, and the minister knows that. He's lived with it, and now finally,

when the voices are too loud, in terms of too much export, he's

embarked on a new policy. That's it: standing green forests will be

exported. And the justification is, well, when the costs are high, then

what can we do? We'll export them to where they can afford those high

costs. But he says that he's already had some proposals where the

people who have the tenures and cutting rights would like to export 40

percent. I'm not reassured when the minister says: "Well, that's a

little more than I'd planned on," because all of the evidence we have

is that he's a lap dog. He ends up doing whatever the industry wants in

the end. There may be a little bit of smoke, but he ends up doing what

the industry wants. So if he's getting requests now for 40 percent of a

forest, we'd better watch out in terms of employment in British

Columbia, because it won't be there.

He's entertaining the idea of allocating forests for foreigners —

standing green forests. Unheard of. And the justification is that the

costs are too high and our mills can't afford some areas. It seems to

me that a market is a market. I don't think the minister really

understands or appreciates that. If outsiders can affor