1989 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JULY 17, 1989

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

8581 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 71). Hon. S.D. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 8581

Capital Commission Amendment Act (Bill M225). Mr. Blencoe

Introduction and first reading –– 8582

Presenting Petitions –– 8582

An Act to Protect Parks and Wilderness Areas (Bill M226). Mr. Williams

Introduction and first reading –– 8582

An Act for Better Child Care (Bill M227). Ms. Marzari

Introduction and first reading –– 8582

Oral Questions

PCB storage sites. Mr. Perry –– 8583

Pouce Coupe long-term-care facility. Mrs. Boone –– 8583

Mr. Rose

Exclusion of Spetifore lands from agricultural land reserve. Mr. Perry –– 8584

Purcell heliskiing venture. Mr. Blencoe –– 8585

Royal assent to bills –– 8586

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

On vote 27: minister's office –– 8586

Mr. Miller

Mr. Kempf

Mr. R. Fraser

Forest Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 86). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Parker –– 8607

Mr. Miller –– 8608

Hon. Mr. Parker –– 8609

Islands Trust Act (Bill 78). Committee stage, (HON. Mrs. Johnston) ––

Mr. Blencoe

Third reading

Natural Gas Price Act (Bill 54). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Davis) ––

Ms. Edwards

Third reading

Vancouver Island Natural Gas Pipeline Act (Bill 55). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 8621

Parole Act (Bill 53). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Ree) –– 8622

Mr. Guno

Mr. Sihota

Third reading

Wildlife Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 70). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 8626

Ms. Edwards –– 8627

Mr. Guno –– 8628

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 8628

Land Title Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 61). Second reading

Hon. S.D. Smith –– 8629

Mr. Sihota –– 8630

Hon. S.D. Smith –– 8631

Offence Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 63). Second reading

Hon. S.D. Smith –– 8631

Mr. Sihota –– 8631

Hon. S.D. Smith –– 8632

Attorney General Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 64). Second reading

Hon. S.D. Smith –– 8632

Mr. Sihota –– 8632

Hon. S.D. Smith –– 8632

Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 71). Second reading

Hon. S.D. Smith –– 8632

Mr. Rose –– 8633

Social Service Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1989 (Bill 81). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 8633

Mr. Rose –– 8634

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 8634

Temporary Use Tax Validation Act (Bill 82). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 8635

Mr. Rose –– 8635

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 8635

Securities Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 83). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 8635

Mr. Rose –– 8637

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 8637

Electoral Boundaries Commission Act (Bill 87). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Reid –– 8638

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. PELTON :

In the gallery today, hon. members, are the guests of Mr. Speaker: Mr.

and Mrs. Bob and Adele Mairs from Santa Barbara, California. Would the

House please give them a warm welcome.

In your gallery

today, Mr. Speaker, is a member of our outstanding research team, Sarah

Weir. With Sarah is her grandmother-in-law Mrs. Patricia Madden and her

mother-in-law Mrs. Patricia Weir from Chilliwack. Would you please

welcome them all.

MRS. BOONE : I am pleased today to

introduce a very close friend of mine — somebody who has travelled from

England, arrived yesterday in Vancouver and rose early, I am sure,

today to make it over to Victoria — Sam Greene, and his friend, who is

also from England; I don't know his first name but I will call him Mr.

Anderson. Would the House please give them greetings.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

In the members' gallery today is a person who does a great deal of

service for the constituents of Kamloops and who does an outstanding

job on my behalf. I would like the House to please join in welcoming to

this chamber my constituency assistant, Kim Petersen.

MR. ROSE :

Behind the opposition is the Member of Parliament for

Regina-Qu'Appelle, Mr. Simon de Jong. He is here as part of his tour

because he's a federal leadership candidate. We have a number of those

on the road. I think that it is only fitting that since we have — and

are the only House that has, to my knowledge — two Jansens, two Hansons

and two Hagens, that we ought to at least have a couple of De Jongs.

So, welcome.

HON. MR. PARKER : I would ask the House

to welcome today some ladies in the gallery. A special lady in my life

is my wife Dawne. Another special lady in my life is my secretary,

Chris Diemer; and Chris's sister-in-law Ginnie Diemer is here. She

lives in Colwood and is a teacher at Norfolk House school. Would the

House please make them welcome.

MRS. GRAN : Visiting Victoria today and seated in the members' gallery

are eight very important people to the Social Credit Party — eight Young Socreds.

I'm going to take the liberty of naming them: Ken Frost of New Westminster;

Christine Hoffman, New Westminster; Elizabeth Zink, Coquitlam; Trenton Poy,

Coquitlam; Neil Mancore, UBC; Nina Leeka, Coquitlam; Erin Thomas, Port Moody;

and Troy Lanigan of Victoria. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. LOENEN :

I just noticed a constituent up in the public gallery. On behalf of the

Premier and myself, I would like the House to welcome Rick Post.

Introduction of Bills

ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Hon. S.D. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill

intituled Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1989.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

This bill contains a pot-pourri of amendments to legislation under the

authority of the Attorney-General. One of the highlights is an

amendment to the Estate Administration Act which is intended to

safeguard inheritances that are intended for children. Unless a will

otherwise provides, monetary assets of an estate that are payable to a

minor shall be paid into court by the executor or the administrator to

the credit of the minor.

Similarly, the Insurance Act is

amended to protect a minor beneficiary's interest under an insurance

policy, and it will provide the insurer with greater protection. The

amendment requires that insurance proceeds payable to an infant be paid

into court. Where a trustee is named, the insurance proceeds shall be

paid to the trustee, with notice given to the public trustee.

The

bill also contains an amendment to the Infants Act to improve the

ability of the office of the public trustee to manage efficiently a

minor's finances. This amendment clarifies that when money is held in

trust for a child, the public trustee has the same authority to deal

with money which he controls directly in his office as he does when

dealing with money held in court.

The bill also amends the

Expropriation Act to allow regulations that may be made to establish a

procedure for expropriating private interests on unregistered Crown

land where the expropriating authority has a right to expropriate.

There

are several amendments to the Law and Equity Act. One minor amendment

allows that where foreclosure against property is occurring, the

foreclosure proceedings will be brought in a court registry near the

affected property. Also, amendments to the act will enable the courts

to order that damages for loss of future earning capacity or the cost

of future care be made by way of periodic payments as an alternative to

lump-sum awards of damages, where the court considers it to be in the

plaintiff's best interest.

The bill also contains

improvements to the operation of the Legal Profession Act and the

Notaries Act. A new

section is added to the Legal Profession Act to

address an important present and future trend; namely, power for the

Law Society to recognize and regulate law firms which operate in

another province or country as well as in British Columbia. The

phenomenon of interjurisdictional law firms will continue to grow, and

this amendment will ensure

[ Page 8582 ]

that they are well regulated for the protection of British Columbians.

There

are also several minor amendments to the Legal Profession Act to

improve the efficiency and fairness of the administrative and

disciplinary functions of the Law Society. The bill contains amendments

to the Notaries Act to effect a number of changes to improve the

administration of the Society of Notaries Public.

A minor

amendment to the Occupiers Liability Act will clarify that where

agricultural or range land is fenced and posted against trespass, the

liability of an owner or occupier is limited to the duty not to create

a deliberate hazard.

Mr. Speaker, I've given a description

of some of the important amendments contained in this bill, and I'll be

pleased to explain each amendment in greater detail during Committee of

the Whole.

Bill 71 introduced, read a first time and

ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

CAPITAL COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Blencoe presented a bill intituled Capital Commission Amendment Act.

MR. BLENCOE :

Mr. Speaker, this bill is an important amendment to the provincial

Capital Commission Act. Currently the Provincial Capital Commission

does all its business in camera, and the general public is excluded

from the decision-making process. Past decisions of the provincial

Capital Commission have been made without any public scrutiny, and the

Victoria community has had to accept them as faits accomplis .

The operation of the provincial Capital Commission has little to do

with open government, and change is essential. This amendment requires

the Provincial Capital Commission to do its business in an open and

democratic fashion and end the current in camera process.

[2:15]

Motion approved.

Bill

M225 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

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

today.

Presenting Petitions

MS. EDWARDS : I have the honour to present a petition.

"To the hon. the Legislative Assembly of the province of

British Columbia in Legislature assembled: the petition of the undersigned

the Elk Valley Conservation Society of the city of Fernie, province of British

Columbia, and surrounding areas states that we, the undersigned, as concerned

residents of the Elk Valley call for a one-year moratorium on logging in the

Elk Valley, particularly the area currently being logged between Morrissey Ridge

and Coal Creek, until such time as environmental, wildlife, watershed, visual

and economic impact studies can be conducted in cooperation with the communities

involved.

"Your petitioners respectfully request that the hon. House

direct the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Environment, in their role

as forest managers, to take measures to control the mountain pine beetle in

a fashion which will ensure that the present quality of life enjoyed in the

Elk Valley will not be adversely affected. Their actions should be coordinated

with the existing Elk Valley integrated forest task force and the Fernie community,

and should explore alternatives to the current clearcut logging style being

practised in the visually sensitive Elk Valley-Highway 3 corridor."

It is accompanied by some 1,620 signatures.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO PROTECT

PARKS AND WILDERNESS AREAS

Mr. Williams presented a bill intituled

An Act to Protect Parks and Wilderness Areas.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Too many bills, yes, but not enough of the right kind; that's our

problem. This bill would have as its mandate the doubling of the

provincial park system in British Columbia.

I hesitate to

mention that the last time the parks were doubled in British Columbia

was in the period 1972 to 1975, but I am more than happy to introduce

the former minister who was responsible for that doubling of park

space. I would note that names like Desolation Sound, the Spatsizi

Plateau, the Kwadacha Wilderness, Carp Lake, the Purcell Wilderness,

Mount Assiniboine and others that we now think of — the great Naikoon

Park in the Queen Charlottes — were all part of that doubling in '72 to

'75, and we on this side are ready and willing to do that again.

The

legislation provides for legislative protection of ecological areas in

all regions, and it would see that we had parks in areas where we don't

have them now. I think of the southern Chilcotin. In a world where

wilderness is becoming a more and more precious commodity, and when we

have a planet in peril, this is only a small beginning to right things

in British Columbia.

Bill M226 introduced, read a first

time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading

at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT FOR BETTER CHILD CARE

Ms. Marzari presented a bill intituled

An Act for Better Child Care.

MS. MARZARI :

Mr. Speaker, this bill speaks to many years and many thousands of

people who have been involved in the child care movement in this

province. It gives thanks to preschool educators, it gives thanks to

the child care teachers, and it gives

[ Page 8583 ]

special reference to the family care workers of our province.

have put together this bill with the able assistance of people in the

child care movement such as Penny Coates, Mab Oleman, Peter Ashmore and

Judy Pollard. These people and I, with the special assistance of Nancy

Thompson, a legislative intern, have produced a bill which basically

says we can build on what we've got in this province to provide safe,

licensed care for children who need it.

The bill makes

special reference to non-profit care, which we believe is the kind of

care best suited for children, which gives them the safety and the

licensing standards that they need. We also provide for those

non-licensed services now which can be brought into accordance with

licensing regulations.

This bill wants to see a new system

of child care which recognizes the needs of parents and children in our

province at a community level and in their neighbourhoods and

on-the-job sites. It recognizes the need for child care in a market

which is totally inadequate for parents who need it and in a society

where

definitions of family life are rapidly changing.

it gives me great pleasure to bring this bill forward. I know the House

will probably not be debating it this session, but it will give ample

opportunity for those many thousands of people who have thought about

and given careful consideration to this issue to read it during the

year to come, and perhaps we'll look at it again next year.

Bill

M227 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

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

today.

Oral Questions

PCB STORAGE SITES

MR. PERRY :

A question for the Minister of Environment. Can the minister confirm

that nearly one-quarter of the 450 PCB storage sites recently surveyed

by the Environment ministry were found to be unsafe?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

After checking with ministry staff today, the correct number is 82. 1

would not use the term "unsafe." They are out of compliance, but many

of the permit irregularities are conditions such as fencing not being

quite high enough or barrels stacked three high when our regulations

say two high. I can advise the House that all permit irregularities are

currently being investigated and permit-holders are being asked to

comply.

MR. PERRY : A supplementary for the minister

The minister has failed to respond to repeated requests from

environmental groups to provide a full list of these PCB storage sites.

In view of what he's just told us — that he's got nothing to hide — has

the minister decided to reverse his position and make public a full

list of PCB storage sites in B.C. ?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

I'm investigating that now, and I may make the decision to release the

list. However, given criminal events that occurred around the St.

Basile-le-Grand fire of last year, I do have some concern. Given that

there could be a dangerous element and public risk involved, I haven't

completely made up my mind on that question.

MR. PERRY :

A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. If the minister is concerned about

criminal or terrorist activities at PCB storage sites, can he tell this

House what steps he's taken to secure them from such disruption?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Some of the permit irregularities we're concerned about now are

adequate security fencing, locks, staffing and that type of remedy to

ensure that we do have safe and secure storage. When I'm satisfied that

all of that is in place and that there could be no risk to the public

from releasing those addresses and site locations, then I may consider

releasing that information. I do want to make sure that we have

everything in place before we do that so that we don't draw these sites

to the attention of those who may not be acting in the best interests

of the people of British Columbia.

POUCE COUPE

LONG-TERM-CARE FACILITY

MRS. BOONE :

A question to the Minister of State for Nechako and Northeast. A

long-term-care facility in Pouce Coupe has been moved to a motel.

Patients are living in intolerable conditions in that motel, and it has

not even been endorsed or approved by the fire marshal. What actions

have you taken as the minister of state for that area to represent the

people to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) and make sure they

have a facility that is adequate for them?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER :

My understanding of the situation in Pouce Coupe is that there is a new

extended-care facility being built. There were some 20 persons who

could not be housed in the hospital while the construction was going

on, so the hospital board, along with the hospital board in Dawson

Creek and in other communities in the Peace, investigated several

possibilities, which included moving the residents to three or four

different hospitals for the time the construction would be ongoing. My

understanding is that it was a decision by the hospital board to rent

the lower floor of a motel — not a hotel — in Pouce Coupe, which would

allow the residents to move back and forth and to continue to be

treated by the staff at the hospital.

MRS. BOONE :

Supplementary to the minister. You have explained to me why they were

moved into this facility. The facility is obviously not appropriate. it

has not been approved by the fire marshal. The people have to be

transported to the hospital once a week for baths. What have you done

to make sure that these people are housed in a facility that is

[ Page 8584 ]

adequate? This facility is not appropriate for people to be living in, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER :

Other than the fact that I've been in contact with the hospital board

since they first approached us about the need for a new building, which

was an extreme need, and a further visit to the facility by my

executive assistant, I haven't taken any action. I have not been

contacted by any citizen about concerns; the only concerns I have heard

so far have been from the member. Until I get someone who is a little

closer to the situation than the member for Prince George North, I

don't intend to take any action.

I can assure you that the

decision was made by the local hospital board, with advice from the

hospital board in Dawson Creek and, I believe, with the support of the

majority of the community. I am quite satisfied that the right decision

was made by that board. I think the board deserves credit rather than

criticism for having dealt with a very difficult situation for the

overall and long-term benefit of not only Pouce Coupe but all people in

the Peace River area.

MRS. BOONE : Supplementary to

the minister. Mr. Minister, I will give you the name of a resident

there who has a father in the thing. I don't think you can shirk your

responsibility. You are doing nothing about the fact that these people

are in a facility that has not been approved by the fire marshal, that

is not appropriate.

MR. SPEAKER : Has the member got a question?

MRS. BOONE :

Yes. Mr. Minister, would you make a commitment today that you will

investigate this and review the whole procedure if I give you the name

of the person involved? Will you give you that personal commitment

today to the people of Pouce Coupe?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER :

Perhaps I have an even better idea. Why doesn't the person who has a

concern contact me, and I'll follow it up the same way I would follow

up contact in my constituency office from any constituent who expresses

a concern? If you would like to give your contact a call and have him

contact me, I am sure we will look into the matter in an appropriate

manner.

[2:30]

MR. ROSE :

Mr. Speaker, supplementary. The minister seems to require some sort of

authority figure to make a report on the conditions in that particular

institution or its temporary location. Two months ago a male nurse who

had worked there reported to me, and I subsequently reported to other

authorities that the conditions in that temporary facility for the

elderly and for some retarded people were simply appalling, if not

disgusting.

MR. PERRY : I can't help observing that

it will be interesting to see if the members opposite pound their desks

as hard when the facts about this case come out.

EXCLUSION OF SPETIFORE LANDS

FROM AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE

MR. PERRY :

My question is for the Premier. Can the Premier confirm that during its

July 16, 1980, meeting to consider exclusion of the Spetifore lands

from the agricultural land reserve, the Environment and Land Use

Committee heard only from the developers, who were proponents of

exclusion, and not from the opponents?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

It seems to me that we continue to hear from the members across the way

how they can do things better than local government. They would love to

eliminate regional districts, school boards and municipal councils. The

know-it-all NDP socialists would love to take control, and this is

another example of that.

However, let me answer the question directly: no, I cannot. I was not a member of the committee in 1980.

MR. PERRY :

A supplementary for the Premier. The Premier, in his former role as

Minister of Municipal Affairs, dealt with this issue as a member of the

cabinet, and he should know the history of that decision intimately.

Let

me state as a matter of fact that ELUC did not hear from the opponents

before making its decision. It only heard from the proponents of

exclusion: namely, the developers. In light of that biased ELUC

hearing....

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. The Attorney-General on a point of order.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

Mr. Speaker, we've had the opposition House Leader get up and make a

speech; now we have this member up. We haven't heard a question from

either of them. I would appreciate it if question period were used for

asking questions.

Interjections.

MR. PERRY :

Mr. Speaker, the energy is directly proportional to the discomfort with

this question. Does the Premier not feel that the biased ELUC decision

to remove those valuable agricultural lands from the land reserve was

erroneous and should now be reversed? That's the question.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Again, for the member opposite, who has been here for several months

and now, like the rest of them, seems to believe he has all the

answers, this matter was dealt with by the regional district. The

regional district unanimously voted to support the Delta application

for the exclusion of the land and the redesignation to urban 1. It went

to the park committee, and they too dealt with it. It should be pointed

out that the regional district

[ Page 8585 ]

went

as far as to take a tour of the lands before they made their decision.

Incidentally, a certain Mr. Rankin was a member of the committee that

toured the property and unanimously supported the decision of that

particular board at the time.

The Delta municipal council

put forth the request; the request went to a committee. I can't comment

on the cabinet confidentiality of that particular committee, but I can

say that local government was very involved in the process. Local

government may definitely change its mind and, after many hearings,

make a submission to have things changed. I would dread the day when an

NDP group would take over that role from local government. All I've

heard for the last number of weeks is: "We know better. We don't need

local government." This government respects the decision of local

government, and we will continue to respect local government.

PURCELL HELISKIING VENTURE

MR. BLENCOE :

A question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Given the Premier's

rants in defence of local government, some weeks ago I asked the

minister whether she had signed a bylaw in Golden to permit a

heliskiing venture that she had been holding up since April, violating

local autonomy and violating what the Premier is defending in his rant

today. Has the minister heard what the Premier said today, and has she

signed the bylaw?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Yes, I heard

what the Premier has said, and those of us on this side of the House

agree 100 percent with recognizing local autonomy The matter of the

bylaw that you have referred to is still being considered.

MR. BLENCOE :

For two weeks the Premier has defended local government. We have a

bylaw that has been requested since April. Golden council has supported

the bylaw; the courts have supported the bylaw; the chamber of commerce

has supported the bylaw. Can the minister confirm that the only reason

she hasn't signed the bylaw is that the member for Columbia River (Mr.

Crandall) is opposed and has threatened to resign if you don't sign

that bylaw?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER :

Order, please. At the commencement of last Friday's sitting, the hon.

member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) rose in his place, stating he had a

matter of privilege he wished to raise at the earliest opportunity and

was presently getting his material in order so that the matter could be

presented to the House in a formal way. Later the same day, the member

stated his matter of privilege and tendered the form of motion he would

propose he move, should the Chair find that the matter raised qualified

as a prima facie matter of privilege.

The essence of the member's statement relates to remarks of the hon. Minister

of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) made in Committee of Supply on July 13, 1989, at

which time the minister observed that the member for Omineca has a relative

working with the Forest Service and went on to state: "The young man is

probably very capable but still cannot be looked upon as being representative

of all the employees of the Forest Service."

The

Chair notes that the member for Omineca immediately rose on a point of

order, objecting to the reference, and requested a withdrawal. The Hansard

report indicates clearly that the hon. minister immediately withdrew

his remarks without reservation, and at that particular point the

matter appeared to be at an end.

The member for Omineca has

raised the same issue as a matter of privilege, having had an

opportunity to review the remarks after Hansard Blues were circulated earlier on Friday.

this point it might be useful to redefine parliamentary privilege for

members, as outlined in the seventeenth edition of Sir Erskine May at

page 42. Parliamentary privilege is described there as:

" . . . the sum of the particular rights enjoyed by each

House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and

by members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge

their functions....

"The privileges of Parliament are rights which are 'absolutely

necessary for the due execution of its powers. They are enjoyed by individual

members, because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use

of the services of its members; and by each House for the protection of its

members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity."

Individual privileges of members of parliament may be summarized as follows:

the privilege of freedom of speech, the privilege of freedom from arrest or

molestation and the privilege of access to the Crown.

Having

considered the definition of privilege, the Chair must ask itself

whether or not the matter raised is such that immediate intervention of

the House is required. I have examined the statement of the hon. member

for Omineca with great care. The Chair finds it difficult to convert

what is essentially a personal complaint into a prima facie matter of

privilege.

However one might view the minister's remarks

during the exchange in question, the minister withdrew those remarks

without reservation. It is the Chair's view that that ends the matter.

Accordingly, a prima facie matter of privilege has not been made out in

accordance with the long-established rules as above described.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Mr. Speaker, the information I have is that His Honour will be here at

2:40, which is imminent, so perhaps we could just have a recess and at

such time you can summon the members with the division bells, as is our

practice.

MR. SPEAKER : Hon. members, we will take a short recess.

[ Page 8586 ]

The House recessed at 2:39 p.m.

The House resumed at 2:51 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER : Hon. members, I am informed that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor

is in the precincts and will shortly enter the chamber.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT :

Municipal Amendment Act, 1989

Financial Administration Amendment Act, 1989

Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1989

British Columbia Enterprise Corporation Loan Privatization Act

Labour and Consumer Services Statutes Amendment Act, 1989

Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 1989

Financial Institutions Act

Motor Vehicle Amendments Act, 1989

Mines Act

Mining Right of Way Act

Waste Management Amendment Act, 1989

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Statutes Amendment Act, 1989

Litter Amendment Act, 1989

School Act

Independent School Act

Hospital Amendment Act, 1989

Mineral Tax Act

Indian Land Tax Cooperation Act

Income Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1989

CLERK OF THE HOUSE :

In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank

Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to

these bills.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Before calling Committee of Supply, I wonder if I could ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Visiting us in the gallery today is the wife of our Minister of Forests

(Hon. Mr. Parker). Would the House please welcome Dawne Parker.

AN HON. MEMBER : We did.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

I understand she was introduced. I'm sorry. But we'll do it again.

Dawne doesn't visit here very often, so we'll give her two in one day.

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

On vote 27: minister's office, $327,244 (continued).

MR. MILLER :

On Friday I was pursuing the issue of the Fletcher Challenge cutbacks

on Vancouver Island and the role of the government in terms of this

major company coming from offshore, acquiring existing companies in

British Columbia and subsequently — in the minister's words —

rationalizing their operations.

I don't think the minister

has yet responded to the issue I raised with respect to the Forest Act

and the particular sections I quoted — 27, 28 and 50 — which give the

minister ample power to require certain things to be done by forest

companies. Why did the minister not exercise that authority and

responsibility in anticipating or asking Fletcher Challenge what their

future plans were and, going beyond that, requiring a certain level of

investment to be made? I wonder if the minister would care to get back

onto that.

HON. MR. PARKER : As we discussed on

Friday, the matter of the amalgamation of the two firms was discussed

by my office. To begin with, the acquisition of those two firms was

handled by previous ministers. The possibility of any rationalization

depended upon subsequent investigation by Fletcher Challenge after

amalgamation to determine how the two firms fit together and what, if

any, changes should be made. We had long discussions on that and on the

rationalization at a later date.

MR. MILLER : In that

response, is the minister saying that the Crown accepted that Fletcher

Challenge would advise them that there would be investigations

subsequent to the amalgamation but that the results would be unknown?

Is that the minister's position?

HON. MR. PARKER : As

we discussed last week in estimates, the rationalization was to be

subsequent to determination after amalgamation, when Fletcher Challenge

saw how the two corporations fit together. The discussions were on the

business plan and what sort of future there would be with the two

together. They said: "There is nothing we can talk about until we

really have the two companies amalgamated, at which time we'll see how

the two operations fit together and determine then what sort of

rationalizations and changes would take place, if any." That was

subject to a further discussion at a later date when they had an

opportunity to investigate what changes they would make and how the

corporations would fit together. And out of that arose the

determination to close the Victoria sawmill.

MR. MILLER : So the agreement was that you discussed it with the company and they said: "We're

[ Page 8587 ]

going

to have to do this subsequent investigation. The results of that are

unknown but will be subject to further discussion at a later date."

Could the minister advise when that later date was? When did Fletcher

Challenge come in and advise you of the results of their subsequent

investigation?

HON. MR. PARKER : I can't recall the specific date, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MILLER : Was it prior to the announcement to the employees that they would be losing their jobs?

[3:00]

HON. MR. PARKER :

It was prior to, not very long prior to, and I can't recall when that

date was, Mr. Chairman. The act requires a discussion with the minister

about any changes to operations of conversion plants. So we would have

been apprised of what their plans would be. But I do recall them saying

that they wanted to offer as much notice as they could to their

employees, and it seems to me that they made their announcement to

their employees either late last year or early this year. I can't

recall the specific date.

MR. MILLER : I think

there's a point here, Mr. Chairman, that has to be explored: just how

long prior? The minister seemed to indicate by his answer on Friday

that really it was.... I don't know how to put time on the words "just

in advance," but those were the words used by the minister. "Just in

advance." In fact, quoting from the Hansard

Blues of Friday, the minister said: "I was made aware of these plans

about the same time that the employees were made aware of them, just in

advance."

Presumably along with the minister's other

statements, the minister agreed with the plans to shut those facilities

down that Fletcher Challenge presented to you.

There are

two questions there: the minister agreed, and, secondly, try to be a

little bit more precise. I know the minister has difficulty with memory

sometimes, but what is "just in advance"? Is it a day, a week, a month?

Perhaps the minister could be a bit more forthcoming.

HON. MR. PARKER : A short time, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MILLER : A short time. Could the minister advise whether that was more than a week?

HON. MR. PARKER : Mr. Chairman, a short time.

MR. MILLER :

Well, Mr. Chairman, here we have the minister resorting to his usual

monosyllabic response. We've gone through this fairly traumatic

exercise with the employees of Fletcher Challenge, over 400 suddenly

put out of work, and the minister can extol the virtues of the

retirement plan. I think it in some respects highlights the need for

some legislation, when it comes to giving advance notice to employees

about layoffs. The largesse of various forest companies is hardly

something you can rely on when it comes to losing your job and finding

yourself in that situation.

"A short time." When the minister was asked questions previously

in this House, he indicated that it came as almost as much of a surprise to

him. But now we find that in fact the company had come in and advised the minister

that there would be shutdowns. The minister has confirmed that there was an

agreement between Fletcher Challenge and the government, and the government

approved those layoffs in those plants.

Was

there any consideration on the ministry's part — on the minister's part

— to doing an analysis on whether it was advisable to keep the company

separate? In terms of the net benefit to British Columbia, whether jobs

or whatever, was there any kind of analysis? Did you do any kind of

fundamental work in terms of that other side of the coin: would we be

better served if these two large forest companies were not joined

together as one?

HON. MR. PARKER : As we've said

before, Mr. Chairman, the mandate of this ministry is not to get

involved in the day-to-day business affairs of licensees; that is best

dealt with by those whose expertise lies in that field. What we did was

consider the business plans and discuss them. They were reviewed by

both parties; some adjustments were made. The agreement between the

licenser and the licensee was that the rationalization plan was a

reasonable one in view of the changing times and log supply. The

placement of displaced employees was discussed at length, as well as

the plan the employer had for first providing some six months' advance

notice of the mill closure, when the labour contract calls for a month.

Also the licensee had a very substantial plan for making sure that the

employees were placed on early retirement, if they so wished, or in

other employment. The last information I had was that some 80 percent

had been placed, and they were working with the balance to get them

placed. So it's a pretty responsible approach.

In the

meantime, we see substantial investment across the province by Fletcher

Challenge in a plant at Mackenzie, in refurbishment at Crofton and in

work at their plants in the lower mainland.

MR. MILLER : I believe my question was whether the government had done

any kind of fundamental analysis of whether it would have been preferable to

keep those plants separate. Perhaps the minister could respond.

HON. MR. PARKER : We discussed their business plan and agreed.

MR. MILLER :

So there was no analysis at all. It was simply accepting.... You know,

a major company comes to the government and says, "Here's what we

want," and here's what they get.

Is it a fact that you knew in late 1988 that they were going to shut down the Victoria plant?

[ Page 8588 ]

Is the minister refusing to answer the question, Mr. Chairman, or is he waiting for the answer?

Isn't it a fact, Mr. Minister, that you knew in late 1988 that those plants were going down?

HON. MR. PARKER : As I said earlier, I can't recall the exact date, but it was around New Year's Day of this year.

MR. KEMPF : This is an interesting debate. It's not an exchange; I guess you might call it a debate.

Does

the minister not recall a letter he wrote to Mr. Donald on October 29,

1987, laying out certain stipulations for the merger?

HON. MR. PARKER :

I can't recall precisely, but the merger was one thing and the

subsequent rationalization was another. The member for Omineca is a bit

behind on the discussion, but that shouldn't be surprising. The member

for Prince Rupert was talking about rationalization subsequent to the

merger.

The matter of whether or not I recall particular

items of correspondence from several years ago.... I imagine we can

pull the files and find them with no problem at all; but no, I don't

recall precisely what was written on what date in 1987. What the member

for Prince Rupert has been discussing is rationalization subsequent to

amalgamation, and what the member for Omineca is talking about is the

discussions prior to amalgamation.

MR. KEMPF : Call

it what you like. Did the minister not write Mr. Donald on October 29,

1987, laying down one of the stipulations for the merger of those two

companies: "No plant closures or substantial reduction in the operation

of any timber-processing facility will result from this change of

control." Does he not recall that letter?

HON. MR. PARKER :

When we, the ministry, are approached by a licensee asking for

permission to transfer ownership, there is a standard reply. I think it

refers to

section 50 of the Forest Act, if that's what the member is

talking about. If he has a copy of that letter, it may help the House

if he tables it. Certainly before any such ownership change can take

place, licensees must get the permission of the licenser to proceed;

that indeed took place. As to the specific date, I couldn't say.

MR. KEMPF :

Was the minister not concerned when he received a reply from Mr. Donald

to his October 29, 1987, letter, which stated: "Some rationalization

will be necessary"? Was the minister not concerned then for the closure

of certain plants and the layoff of employees?

HON. MR. PARKER : We're always concerned.

MR. KEMPF :

If the minister was concerned, as he seems to tell this House, then why

did he allow the merger, knowing perfectly well there were going to be

closures of sawmills and layoffs of personnel?

HON. MR. PARKER : Sorry, Mr. Chairman. I was busy with staff. Could I have that question again, please?

MR. KEMPF :

After receiving the reply dated November 2, 1987, from Mr. Donald which

stated that "some rationalization will be necessary," were you not

concerned enough at that point to have some trepidation about the

merger?

HON. MR. PARKER : As I said before, I'm always concerned.

MR. KEMPF :

In reply to Mr. Donald's letter of November 2, 1987, there was a letter

of November 23, 1987, over your signature which stated, and I quote:

"Your

interpretation is not contrary to my understanding of our

discussion." Was that discussion around shutdowns of certain plants and

layoffs of employees?

HON. MR. PARKER : The discussion included my concern for employees.

MR. KEMPF :

Then why did you let the merger go ahead, knowing full well from this

exchange of letters that when the merger took place there was the very

real possibility of a sawmill — perhaps more than one — going down and

employees being laid off?

HON. MR. PARKER : Because

the determination by this ministry was that the amalgamation of the two

firms was in the best interests of the province as a whole.

MR. KEMPF :

I don't understand. After having made it quite clear in a letter to Mr.

Donald of October 29, 1987, that "no plant closures or substantial

reduction in the operation of any timber-processing facility will

result from this change of control," why did you go back on your own

word to require that kind of a stipulation from Fletcher Challenge

before allowing the merger? If it was your understanding that no

substantial plant closures would take place, and they have, why haven't

you taken some action, as is your power under the act, against Fletcher

Challenge?

[3:15]

HON. MR. PARKER :

We are talking about two separate situations. One was a determination

of whether or not there would be any shutdowns at the time of

amalgamation. We were told there would not be, but that subsequent to a

consideration of how the two corporations operated together there might

be some rationalization which could see some changes in operations.

That is what they gave us notice on, that is what we agreed to, and

that is what has transpired.

The whole procedure is one in

which we consider the effective use of the provincial forest resource

across the province, and we have to consider levels of investment and

how the evolution of the industry is

[ Page 8589 ]

coming

about. The Victoria mill was set up to deal with a type of timber that

is no longer in the wood supply profile to any extent. The

rationalization of that mill was one where the type of timber profile

that we have now in the coastal region of the province is best dealt

with in modern mills and in the mills that the licensee has in the

lower mainland. The large wood timber supply that was there in the past

to support Victoria sawmills is really no longer there in any quantity.

The determination was that the resource would be best used through

other plants in the southwest part of British Columbia.

The

concern about the employees at Victoria sawmills was dealt with by the

employer by giving substantial advance notice of what was transpiring

and making a substantial effort to place all those employees in

new employment if they so wished and, in some cases, in early

retirement.

MR. KEMPF : Mr. Chairman, has the

minister just told this House that at that time a deal was made with

respect to the Mackenzie TSA, and is that why it hurt so much for the

TFL rollover not to happen in Mackenzie?

MR. MILLER :

Just to get back to the line of questioning in terms of when the

government was aware.... I see the Premier is in the House, and that's

good to see, because he was involved in this affair as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Where's your leader?

MR. MILLER :

Mr. Chairman, a seemingly innocuous remark about the Premier's

attendance in the House has brought a chorus of catcalls. I was simply

commenting on the fact that he was here and involved in this particular

issue and would be interested.

The fact is that we had a

major company come from offshore, buy into British Columbia, obviously

because there's an attractive investment here in terms of our timber

resources, and subsequently come to the government — I'm really dealing

with the merger — and propose to merge two existing companies, two

companies with separate licences that were granted in the promise of

certain things to be done, certain processing jobs and I guess certain

community stability, which is an essential issue as well. The minister

is very circumspect when it comes to discussing this whole issue, as

though somehow it's some private little matter that he doesn't really

want to talk about too much. He seems to have that attitude about a lot

of things under his jurisdiction. I suggest that's part of his problem.

Here

we have this scenario, this sequence of events, finally culminating in

the public's mind, in the employees' mind, in late February 1989. All

of a sudden the company announces their layoff. We've managed to drag

out of the minister, in a little under an hour's worth of questioning,

that he was aware of that layoff two months before the company

announced it. He talked about New Year's; I assume that means January

1. Maybe it was his New Year's present from Fletcher Challenge. Two

months before the employees, or British Columbians, found out, the

minister was aware of it, and presumably the cabinet was aware of it.

Then

when the announcement is made and the uproar ensues, when Jack Munro

and the IWA become excited and when the communities become excited, all

of a sudden there's a meeting with the Premier and the Minister of

Forests. All of a sudden the Minister of Forests says: "Now we're going

to do an audit." I don't know why he didn't think an audit was

necessary before the issue became public. Was it only public pressure

that convinced the Premier that something had to be done in terms of

damage control? Was it only damage control when the minister reversed

almost every statement he'd previously made on log exports and emerged

from the meeting with Mr. Munro to announce a new policy on log exports?

There

we see, as much as we can drag out at least, how this whole issue was

handled — in secret. The minister would still prefer not to discuss it.

He can't remember dates. He gives one-word answers; he thinks he's

clever. But we see the process that took place: behind closed doors the

deal was made, and the minister knew at New Year's that those

employees were going to be losing their jobs. He knew.

MR. KEMPF : He knew it in '87.

MR. MILLER :

He might have known it before, says my colleague from Omineca. He knew.

Then the feigning of surprise, the horror: we have to react, we have to

respond to the public pressure; we'll order an audit, and we'll change

our export regulations. That's the sorry history of this administration

dealing with these major firms, which all too often feel that they can

come in and use our resources so that it benefits their bottom line the

most; but it surely doesn't benefit the people of this province,

particularly the people who make a living in the forest industry.

You

contrast that with the.... I don't think this really went far enough,

either, but when Stone bought into Consolidated-Bathurst — and the

regulations have been watered down substantially at the federal level —

at least there was a requirement from Investment Canada that Stone

invest $1 billion. Those are the kinds of discussions they have at the

federal level — or at least they had in this particular instance — when

a major American corporation proposes to take over into Canada. Let's

sit down; let's put some things on the table. What are you getting?

What do we as Canadians and British Columbians expect in return? We can

clearly see that by Roger Stone's own admission: "I wouldn't have made

a commitment without that negotiation with Investment Canada." At least

somebody is saying we have something to offer. We're not here at the

whim of companies. We have something to sell. Let's put a price on it,

and let's put a good price on it.

We can see that the minister did not do that. Instead, decisions behind closed doors and then

[ Page 8590 ]

when

it becomes public, a little show for the public: "Oh, yes, we really

are concerned." But the minister slips up occasionally when he does put

together more than a few words. He let it slip the other day that that

audit was simply an appeasement. "Simply an appeasement," were the

minister's words: "I had to appease the Victoria city council, so I

ordered an audit."

Well, I can understand now the Premier wanting to leave.

any event, Mr. Chairman, it's simply not good administration on the

part of the ministry, and the whole issue with Fletcher Challenge has

really highlighted the question of overcutting. There is a legitimate

debate about that whole question of overcutting.

One would

have expected that in the case of the Victoria mill the

ministry itself — the minister — would have been fully apprised of what

the situation was. What was evolving in terms of that different log

profile? That, I think, is something that is going to have an impact at

least on the coast; I'm not certain that it doesn't also have an impact

on the interior, and we will get to some specifics on that.

During

that announcement by Fletcher Challenge, they produced quite a few

documents, in terms of what they had proposed to do, justifying their

rationalization. One of those documents was a table on what they called

"B.C. Coastal Log Balance (Million Cubic Metres)." In that table they

highlighted the fact that the estimated sustained yield harvest on the

coast of British Columbia is 26 million cubic metres, that the 1987

usage of all the consumers was 33.7 million cubic metres, and that

there was a 1989 forecast usage of 36 million cubic metres, for an

estimated shortfall of about 10 million cubic metres If you add that

evidence — and that evidence was deduced from a Canadian forestry

residual chip availability study, December, 1988, done by Reid Collins

— and if you add other voices to that, and I intend to quote a few very

briefly here, there emerges a pattern which clearly, in my view and

that of many others, illustrates overcutting.

Mr. Donald of Fletcher Challenge, on March 2 in the Times-Colonist ,

commenting on the layoff, said: "'Nothing I've heard...would make me

believe that we can withdraw those termination notices,' Donald said

Tuesday night following the meeting. 'The fact of the matter is there

is just not enough timber there to keep all our coastal mills

operating, and in particular the mills such as Victoria, which relies

on old growth to keep it going.'" So there is the head of Fletcher

Challenge saying there is not enough timber to keep those mills, and he

includes more than just the one they shut down.

When we look at a newsletter put out by Fletcher Challenge, Newsline ,

February 1989, Vol. 1, No. 6, the heading of the editorial — I assume

it's an editorial — is "Facing Up to the Fibre Shortage." I'll just

quote a few lines from this: "But the stark reality we must all grasp

is we simply do not have enough fibre on the Island to run the

manufacturing facilities we are currently operating." Another quote:

"We have more manufacturing facilities than the forest resources

available to us can support on a sustained yield basis."

I cite a few others, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bob Sitter of Interfor, vice-president of manufacturing, in the Sun ,

Saturday, March 4, was commenting on the banning of exports which

became a topic after Mr. Munro twisted the Minister of Forests' arm:

"Bob Sitter, Interfor's vice-president of manufacturing, said Friday

part of the company's problems with supply could continue in the future

as the entire coastal industry confronts a possible downsizing of

annual harvests."

[3:30]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Does your party support the banning of log exports?

MR. MILLER : That was a clear question from the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and the answer is yes.

A further

article from the Province

of April 25 deals with the fact that Canadian Pacific has announced a

downsizing. I quote: "Canadian Pacific Forest Products Ltd. will lay

off approximately 112 company and contractor logging employees in its

Gold River division at the end of its 1989 logging season. It said the

layoffs are directly related to declining harvest levels and excess

harvest capacity." Again dealing with the Canadian Pacific

announcement, a further

article from the Province

of the 24th from Patrick Durrant reads: "British Columbia's next

newsprint mill starts up in September" — in Gold River — "in this

Vancouver Island community with a declining timber harvest looming over

the woodland workforce." Further on in the article:

"Canadian

Pacific Forest Products said last month the logging layoffs are

directly related to declining harvest levels and excess capacity. The

combined allowable annual cut of 1.7 million cubic metres for the

company's tree-farm licence 19 and forest licence has started to

decline and is expected to fall below 1.3 million cubic metres. But

company officials acknowledge that the problem also stems from

imprecise measurement of the timber resource in earlier years and the

fact that second-growth plantation trees are not ready for harvest."

Article

after article. Maybe I'll save a couple and let the minister respond at

this point to this most serious issue, which, as we've already seen,

has affected a significant number of employees in southern Vancouver

Island and which many believe will affect employees on the rest of the

coast. I'd like the minister to advise what his view is on the issue of

overcutting, what handle his ministry has on where we might see future

layoffs and what the impact of declining harvest levels is going to

have on the forest industry on the coast of British Columbia.

HON. MR. PARKER :

I haven't backtracked on any of my policies on log export. Log export

has its place in the forest industry of British Columbia, and the

changes made earlier this year provided for a levy in lieu of

manufacture in the province of 100 percent of the difference between

the export price and the

[ Page 8591 ]

domestic

price for logs determined to be surplus. That meant that the operator

did not have to warehouse the logs in salt water and have them

subjected to marine bores. They could sell them if they had the

opportunity. It's just that there is no profit advantage to selling

into an export market. But as far as an inventory control method is

concerned, that opportunity was available.

The audit on the

Fletcher Challenge tree-farm licence 46 was done out of deference to

public concern on whether the management and working plans had been

adhered to over the years. The records that we had in the Forest

Service were that indeed the aim of appeasing had been met, but we

agreed to going with an independent audit to set minds at ease on what

had taken place with respect to the management working plans. I have

confidence in my staff when they tell me that the obligations have been

met, but if outsiders have a problem, then we go to a third party, an

outsider, to have a look and, in this particular instance, to do a

paper audit and field audit.

As far as cut levels are

concerned, in the coastal regions of British Columbia at this time, by

current merchantability and operability standards, the cut is

approximately 26 million cubic metres annually on lands for which the

Forest Service is responsible for management, which includes the timber

supply areas and tree-farm licences of the province. Whether there is

capacity in excess of the provincial annual allowable cut is a decision

that individual operators have to make, and if they feel they can

justify making that kind of investment, then they are quite at liberty

to go ahead and do precisely that.

In the province we do

have some alienated lands — those held by people other than Crown

provincial — and a number of operations take place on those lands.

Indeed, in some years we see a very substantial harvest come from those

lands. But as far as the management of the cut is concerned on lands

for which the Forest Service is responsible — and management includes

taking into account things like the amount of immature stocking — it

impacts on the total consideration for harvest levels.

The

second growth mentioned by the member for Prince Rupert will contribute

to the growing stock of the particular licence or timber supply area he

was talking about, as will the old growth and the younger mature; so

will the recently restocked areas. When you take into account the

allowable annual cut, you also take into account those areas slated for

harvest and subsequent restocking. So there is a considerable amount of

consideration in determining annual allowable cuts.

should remember that over the years, as long as we've had sustainable

yield management in the province, there has been provision for an

allowance to move.... It can be as much as 50 percent over the annual

allowable cut in any year or, conversely, 50 percent under, but it has

to be balanced at the end of a five-year cut-control period to within

10 percent. If operations have cut 110 percent for the previous five

years, it means that in the next five-year period they can only cut 90

percent. So it has to be balanced over the long term, and that's the

way you manage, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MILLER : Just a

couple of comments on Fletcher Challenge. It seems to me — not to run

over all of the ground — that a government that was aware in January

that this action was going to take place did nothing until it became

public. Then, when it became public, in order to deflect public

criticism of mismanagement, it ordered an audit. If I were a member of

the public, not knowing what we know today, I suppose I might actually

take some comfort from the audit; I might actually think that the

government was responding to my concerns. We find out from the minister

today that it's simply out of public deference...." He used that

term; I suppose that's a little better than appeasement. I suggest that

you have changed your policy. I suggest that your log export policy

changed substantially as a result of the Fletcher Challenge decision.

One could only wonder why that wasn't done when you knew about it, not

simply when it became public.

With respect to the

breakdown, then, would the minister advise what the level of cut is on

private land in coastal British Columbia? After all, we're talking

about a fairly large deficit.

HON. MR. PARKER : Once

again, Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind the member for Prince

Rupert to take a look at the legislation. You'll find that we are

responsible for Crown provincial land, not private land.

MR. MILLER : Mr. Chairman, the fact is that I have quoted a number of

sources that say we're faced with a declining log harvest that will impact

on jobs and employment. It has already. We've seen a vivid example of that

in the Fletcher Challenge situation. The minister's response is that it's

none of his concern.

get this curious statement again that it's not his business if industry

wants to build to excess capacity. In other words, if our capacity to

process wood is greater than the amount of wood available, it's none of

his concern. Yet the minister is in a position to be very much

concerned about it and very much involved in those decisions. Decisions

are made to award licences for processing facilities and to cut Crown

timber. Are you saying that there's no analysis done internally in the

ministry with respect to that question; that it is simply a matter of

anybody who wants to build a plant can build one? "We don't interfere;

we don't become involved. If the result of that is that there may be

substantial layoffs, well, again, it's none of our concern." Is that

the role taken by the minister?

HON. MR. PARKER : In

the evolution that takes place in any segment, there are changes,

improvements, deletions. The only private land this ministry gets

involved in is that dedicated within tree-farm licences. Land that is

unregulated by this ministry is

[ Page 8592 ]

land outside of tree-farm licences and outside of the TSAs; they are not Crown provincial.

The

determination by operators of whether they want to expand, change or

establish a plant of any kind has to be reviewed with us. When it comes

to dealing with supplying those types of plants from Crown sources, we

get involved in the discussions. However, there is an opportunity for a

segment of the wood supply in the province which comes from lands that

are not regulated by the Forest Service. That opportunity becomes

available, and various people in the private sector are of the opinion

that they can compete successfully for that. They may or may not opt to

expand their plant or establish a new plant to take advantage of that

particular wood supply.

Furthermore, as technology evolves,

we find plants that can effectively convert timber supplies which in

the past have been considered either non-merchantable for various

reasons, or even considered weed species. As technology evolves, we

find that these trees can be used. When that happens, that becomes part

of the timber supply; we have to rework our numbers and reconsider

merchantability factors and operability factors. That is what's done.

It's

a dynamic situation; it isn't a static situation. If it was a static

situation, our main industry would be spars for Her Majesty's sailing

ships.

[3:45]

MR. MILLER :

When I look at the question of the annual cut on Crown lands, and the

fact that some of them are tied in with private lands, it seems to me

that you can't simply divorce one from the other and say: "We have no

responsibility for one, but we do for the other."

The model

that was adopted in British Columbia for the tree-farm licence system

was put in place as a means of encouraging private land owners to

practise good forestry practices and bring a measure of regulation to

those private lands. That was the whole premise on which we based the

tree-farm licence system. Now we have a minister who is saying "Those

private lands have nothing to do with me; I don't care about them. The

companies can do what they want." Yet the model, in terms of

administration, was to bring them together with Crown lands.

Crown

lands are impacted, and we'll deal with the declining harvest that's

going to be available on Crown lands as well. But in the Canadian

Pacific case, where they're going to have a reduction in cut from 1.7

million to 1.3 million cubic metres, certain practices have taken place

on their private lands as well. For example, in 1988 they exported

75,000 cubic metres of sawlogs off their private lands. The minister is

just saying: "Well, they're in that pot over there, and we're in this

pot over here and never the twain shall meet."

What kind of

management is that? What kind of responsibility to manage and plan

activities in the forest industry is that? The idea was never that the

private lands were some little fiefdom in which the company could do

whatever they wanted. It was that they would be roiled in; there would

be management.

I have serious doubts as to whether or

not the Crown lands themselves can sustain the level of harvest. We'll

deal with that, but just before we get on to that.... What about this

concept of bringing together the private and the Crown lands?

HON. MR. PARKER :

During this decade, 1987 was the only year that we exceeded the harvest

level on regulated lands. That year the AAC was 72 million cubic

metres, and the harvest was 78 million cubic metres — well within the

plus or minus 50 percent in any one year, and certainly well within the

10 percent over any five-year period.

The performance in

forest management in the province has been good and continues to

improve, as information is gathered on utilization opportunities and in

changes in operational techniques as technology grows.

The

matter of log export — the member for Prince Rupert keeps harping on

log export. Log export means that you sell to some country other than

Canada. He is fully aware that external trade is a federal

jurisdiction. I know that people with a socialist mind do not believe

in private property. Everything should be regulated: you, me, our

personal lives, our personal property. It's something I cannot accept

and, fortunately, that most of the free world cannot accept. It's the

sort of thing the major socialist states in the world are realizing and

doing something about in moving towards private initiative.

The

forest lands held by Canadian Pacific Forest Products, as most people

in British Columbia and particularly southern Vancouver Island are

aware, are some of the best-managed forest lands in North America. A

number of people have worked on those lands and been part of the

silvicultural crews that have improved the crops on those lands. The

harvest from those lands is not handled by the Forest Service in this

instance. It's not part of a tree-farm licence; it's private property.

It is being managed by Canadian Pacific Forest Products as basically a

tree-farm, and it's being done in a very effective manner: full

regeneration, stand-tending, aerial applications of fertilization and a

very thorough protection program, not just for fire but also for

insects and disease. When they crop it, it's certainly their farm to

crop, and it's certainly their farm to sell the produce from. They have

to sell the produce according to the laws of Canada and British

Columbia. Should they opt to export some of that crop, then they do it

through the laws of Canada.

MR. MILLER : First of

all, I think we have a minister who is himself regulated by the

Premier's office, if I'm not mistaken, so he knows all about regulation.

wonder whether he gave that lecture on socialism to the Scandinavians

when he visited them recently. I wonder whether he said to the

Scandinavians: "I've just come over here to tell you how much I

disagree with your system." I wonder why the minister spent so much

time over there looking at

[ Page 8593 ]

their system, the one he finds so disgusting and makes such foolish statements about.

I haven't yet questioned forest practices; I'm talking about the level

of cut. I would have thought the minister would be able to discern the difference.

Again, I don't know why the minister would not respond in terms of the issue

of managing Crown Lands and private lands, which, as I pointed out, is fundamental

to the establishment of the tree-farm licence system. I've quoted endlessly

here — not extensively, but endlessly — in terms of my contention. I will offer

a further one from Canadian Pacific's own newsletter, May 12, 1989, Volume

1, No. 5, under the heading "Demand Triggers Supply."

"Like

most coastal forest companies, Canadian Pacific Forest Products Ltd.

has known for some time that declining harvest levels would have an

impact on our operations. With current resources, we have the ability

to harvest more timber than is available: for example, at Gold River,

two million cubic metres versus 1.7 million cubic metres. So we must

downsize our operations to get them in line with harvest levels."

It's

the whole issue of how much we're cutting. The Ministry of Forests was,

after all, substantially responsible, as it should have been, for

establishing AACs' — levels of cut. In theory at least they would have

done it on the basis that employment levels should be maintained, if

not increased. But why would the ministry plan for a decline in harvest

levels leading to unemployment? Really, the ministry should give more

credit to the topic and first of all discuss the private land-Crown

land relationship under TFLs and then deal forthrightly with the issue

of the declining harvest.

MR. R. FRASER : Just a quick question to the minister.

MR. KEMPF : What's the annual allowable cut in your riding?

MR. R. FRASER :

We've got one of the best-managed sawmills in the whole province in my

riding, believe it or not. You probably don't know that, but you should

know it. I know it, the minister knows it, and the member for Omineca

should know it, but he doesn't.

The question I want to ask

the minister today is based on a bill that was submitted by the man I

consider the real leader of the opposition, the first member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Williams). The suggestion was that they were going

to double the amount of park space in the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Minister, can you tell me what effect that would have on the

forestry industry?

HON. MR. PARKER : To deal with the Gold River issue first, the issue

on that particular tree-farm licence is, as I recall it, a short-term matter

of balancing cut. It's not a long-term situation. In the long term, the

AAC of the province is a minimum of 72 million cubic metres, because of the

efforts that this ministry has put into forest renewal and stand-tending and

also because of the efforts that this ministry and the federal Department of

Forestry have put into the forest resource development agreements in catching

up on backlog NSR in the province. We will see an absolute minimum 72 million

cubic metres annual allowable cut, which has been the provincial AAC for the

last five years or so.

The

proposal by the Valhalla wilderness group for doubling the park area in

the province would have a very serious effect on the provincial cut,

because a good portion of that land is productive forest land base. As

we said earlier in the estimates, I think some 26 percent of the

province is productive forest land base. By today's standards, 44

percent of the province is forested. Almost 50 percent of the province

is either park or de facto wilderness.

The need for

preservation in park of twice the area that we have today is probably

not such a bad idea if you consider all of the land forms of the

province and redirect away from the productive forest land base. If we

start pulling from the productive forest land base, it's unquestionable

that the provincial cut will go down and jobs will be lost. The

statement from the member for Vancouver East about endorsing the

doubling of the park area in the province is done to play to the

environmentalist-preservationist crowd, and it isn't done in the best

interests of the province when it's just cast out wholesale as it was

today.

What you have to do, really, is take into account

what the future of British Columbia should be. Should it be one of a

preserve, or should it be one of a "conserve," where conservation — the

wise use of resources — is the fundamental foundation for the policies

for economic development and the wellbeing of the province? I would

suggest that a preservation approach to this province would be one

where we basically become a welfare province and whether or not people

could even afford to stay here would be in question.

MR. MILLER :

The minister said "short term." I believe that was his answer: that we

had some short-term adjustments. Then he talked about the FRDA program,

and I believe he was offering the suggestion that we could make up some

of the shortfall. I suggest we're dealing in the long term. Again, I

think part of the problem is that there does not seem to be an easy

reference to some fairly precise numbers. That's disturbing enough.

[4:00]

I want to re-quote the Province

article of April 24 by Patrick Durrant. First of all, this paragraph:

"But company officials acknowledged that the problem also

stems from imprecise measurement of the timber resource in earlier years and

the fact that second-growth plantation trees are not ready for harvesting. 'We

are logging 100 percent old growth, and it will be 40 years down the road before

we start on the second-growth timber,' says Cliff Holst, manager of the company's

Western Woodlands division."

Mr.

Minister, that hardly suggests short term. We've got this imbalance. In

a number of statements it's agreed that there's an imbalance of 300,000

to 400,000 cubic metres. We have a statement from their

[ Page 8594 ]

woodlands

division that they can't get into second growth for 40 years. That

suggests to me that the imbalance is going to stay — that there won't

be second-growth trees available to make up that imbalance. Would the

minister comment on that?

HON. MR. PARKER : Mr.

Chairman, the Province has some pretty good guys on staff. I'm not sure

that the information that winds up being printed is necessarily right

on. The lands which we in the Forest Service are responsible for

managing are managed in a capable and forthright manner. The provincial

annual allowable cut of 72 million cubic metres, as a result of efforts

made in the last five years and efforts that will be continued to be

made by this ministry, will remain at 72 million cubic metres at least.

[Mr. Mowat in the chair.]

There

are licensees who have been harvesting second-growth timber here. As a

matter of fact, tree-farm licence 2 is a second-growth tree-farm

licence. So there may be some second-growth stands that certainly

aren't available for harvest for some licensees in some places. But

I'll say it again: the second-growth timber, the younger mature, the

older immature, the seedlings, and lands that are prepared for

restocking and are being restocked all contribute to the annual

allowable cut. They're all part of the harvest and management system.

The

provincial AAC is sustainable today at 72 million cubic metres. The

efforts we're making as a government and as a ministry are such that we

will see improvements in that level in the years to come. The thing

that will change, of course, is the type and size of wood available for

the conversion plants, because as we get into a managed forest, then it

becomes second growth, third growth or fourth growth. It depends on

where you are. Sweden, I guess, in many cases is into fifth growth or

fifth rotation. That's the nature of a managed tree-farm, and that's

what the productive forest land base in this province is.

Perhaps,

Mr. Chairman, it wouldn't hurt for us to focus a little more positively

on the productive forest land base of the province. Perhaps we should

consider something like the agricultural land reserve, which has grown

substantially in the past decade; we should have the silvicultural land

reserve, so that the fibre base for this province and the well-being of

this province is safeguarded from alienation by schemes such as those

put forth by the first member for Vancouver East.

MR. MILLER :

I don't think the minister answered my question, Mr. Chairman, in terms

of planning or managing. Is that an example of planning, where you

actually plan for the falldown; you plan for a loss of volume? Is that

how the Forests ministry does it?

HON. MR. PARKER :

As I stated, Mr. Chairman, and I'm sure you heard me.... The member

opposite clearly has some sort of hearing problem. My good friend the

Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Vant) often thinks

that there might be just a socialist short circuit in the hearing. I

stated quite clearly that the annual allowable cut today is 72 million

cubic metres from lands regulated under the Forest Service. There will

be at least 72 million cubic metres, and we fully expect to increase

that as a result of the management programs undertaken by this ministry

and the dedication of this government to funding those programs and as

a result of FRDA, the agreement reached between the province and the

federal government to take care of backlog reforestation in the

province. So our AAC will continue at 72 million cubic metres or

better, and that is because of commitment and capable forest management.

MR. MILLER : Mr. Chairman, I will quote just a couple more. A Province

story of Thursday, May 18, quoting Brian McCloy, the environment

manager for the Council of Forest Industries of B.C. The minister said

our AAC would continue. Mr. McCloy said in this article: "...less money

for forest renewal would mean an even bigger reduction in timber

harvests by the turn of the century than is already anticipated." There

is a spokesman for COFI who is saying that there is going to be a

reduction in the timber harvest. There is another

article quoting Mr.

Graham Lea, of all people, of the Truck Loggers' Association — he

sounds familiar. Mr. Lea said in this

article on February 23 in the Vancouver Sun :

"...there isn't enough timber to support all the processing capacity on

the coast." He said his association's review of the Canadian Pacific

situation "led the forester" — they used a forester to do it —

"to conclude that there was a gap of about 400,000 cubic metres between

what the mills need and what the company's timber rights can supply."

In the same article, quoting Mr. Neighbour of Fletcher Challenge:

"'There's

a gap between when our second-growth is ready.... It varies between 15

and 30 years out in time.' just how much old-growth big-log timber is

left? It's anybody's guess,' says Mr. Neighbour."

The story then goes on to say:

"The

most recent study, released last year, concluded that old-growth timber

will be depleted on Vancouver Island and the adjacent mainland within

30 years. That study said that in three areas it will be depleted

within ten years. That study was released by the Canadian Forestry

Service and the Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada and

looked at old growth left on the coast to estimate the coastal logging

industry's equipment needs."

There we have again, I would

say, reliable people in the industry: Mr. McCloy of COFI, Mr. Lea and

Mr. Neighbour, all saying that we have a problem. All we get from the

minister — and I'm afraid it's not that reassuring — is: "Don't worry,

be happy. It will be 72 million cubic metres." That's it; we don't have

a problem.

I guess those employees of Fletcher Challenge

probably wouldn't be too eager to trust. How about Peter Pearse, who is

well respected and conducted the last royal commission on forestry in

this province?

[ Page 8595 ]

Mr.

Pearse had a variety of things to say about the coastal timber shortage

two years ago, and I think they probably still apply, if not more so.

In a story in the Vancouver Sun on January 14, 1987, Mr. Pearse said.... At that time he wanted an independent public inquiry into what he termed:

"'...a critical timber supply problem on the B.C. coast.'

Timber supplies, the UBC professor warns, are much lower than is generally believed,

and there will have to be reductions in the volume the industry is allowed to

harvest. Pearse said Ministry of Forest inventories that suggest there is a

74-year supply of old-growth timber left in B.C.'s coastal regions are misleading,

and the concept of 'sustained yield' is not being practised."

Fairly harsh words, Mr. Chairman.

"'In

spite of the rhetoric since the 1945 Sloan report on sustained yield,

we have never really been following a sustained yield policy. It is a

forest conversion policy,' Pearse said."

So, Mr. Chairman,

you can forgive me if I have some difficulty accepting the minister's

very brief statement that there is no problem. It appears that right

across the board, whether we are dealing with the Council of Forest

Industries, individual forest companies, the Truck Loggers' Association

or Mr. Pearse and the academic community, they are all saying

essentially the same thing: that indeed we do have a problem; that

there is an imbalance; that the amount of fibre simply will not be

there; that we are running out, and in some areas very quickly; and

that it is going to have an impact on employment in processing

facilities.

I repeat: I would like to know the minister's

feeling about the responsibility he has there. What about these

declining log harvests and the impact they are going to have? Have you

identified them? Do you know where they are going to occur? Do you know

the impact, at least in today's scenario, in terms of employment or

unemployment?

HON. MR. PARKER : The member for Prince

Rupert cites a number of press items. The one he attributes to Mr.

McCloy of the Council of Forest Industry talks about a reduction in

cuts. I'll tell you, the cut levels on Crown provincial lands, which

the Forest Service is responsible to manage, will support 72 million

cubic metres or more, as they have over the last five years and will

for the foreseeable future.

Anybody speaking for COFI would

be speaking of their total cut, which includes cut or harvest from

lands for which the Forest Service is not responsible. Those are

unregulated lands, private lands, and we've already seen from Fletcher

Challenge and Canadian Pacific Forest Products some reduction in cuts

on their private lands. But where they manage those lands, they will

take so much one year and less the next. Over the long run it will

balance off. That's on private lands, which are not under the mandate

of this ministry, by legislation.

If anybody cares to read the Blues from our debate here earlier today, I stated

that indeed there is overcapacity in the province for the fibre supply from

the regulated lands provided by the Forest Services; that's the 72 million

cubic metres. The capacity is something in the neighbourhood of 86 million cubic

metres. That has been filled to some extent by purchases from private lands,

but it has also been purchased across the line in Washington State. I don't

know of any industry that runs at 100 percent at all times. So it's somewhere

around 90 percent or better, and at 90 percent or better the capacity in the

forest industry at this time is quite supportable by harvest from regulated

lands and from unregulated lands.

What's

available for mature timber for harvesters or supply for mills has been

reported as being "anybody's guess" by the member for Prince Rupert. As

we evolve in the forest industry and develop new techniques for

extraction and conversion, we find that all of a sudden we have a use

for timber that previously we couldn't access or was considered

non-merchantable by the standards of the day. So it's a dynamic

situation, as I've said many times. It may not be highly animated, but

it is dynamic, and the standards and technologies change and evolve. So

what was yesterday's garbage — if you want to call it that — or

yesterday's inaccessible timber is today's accessible timber or

desirable wood furnish.

So that's not a bad statement: it's

"anybody's guess." You try to see ahead as to what's going to evolve,

what's going to develop and what sort of species, sizes and types of

terrain are usable and operable. So that is an open-ended situation;

there's no doubt about it.

Fortunately the industry in

British Columbia has been a world leader in the development of

technology not only in conversion, but in logging operations. When I

talk of logging operations, I don't just mean the means of yarding, but

the means of felling, building roads, water transportation such as the

self-propelled log barge and so on. British Columbia has been a leader

and will continue to be a leader. Not only that, they'll have the wood

resource they need to continue to build on as far as leading the world

in forest conversion technology and forest management technology.

[4:15]

MR. MILLER :

I keep trying to get the minister to deal realistically with the issue

of the falldown. He rejects the quotes I've used. Again, I think

they're reasonable and balanced in terms of the cross-section they

represent.

I wonder if the minister would care to comment on a statement he made in an

article printed in the Western Silvicultural Newsletter

in spring 1988, when he was asked.... He can say this is not correct if

he likes, but under the heading of "Falldown in Allowable Annual Cut,"

these are the minister's words: "Finally, I was asked to comment on a

question: is British Columbia facing a falldown in the allowable annual

cut that could be averted with intensive silviculture? Yes, there is an

anticipated falldown. In some cases intensive silviculture may be able

to alleviate it, but not in all cases."

The minister's own words say there's going to be a falldown. Where is it? How much? When?

[ Page 8596 ]

HON. MR. PARKER :

Intensive silviculture — the comment he refers to — is one of

stand-tending. The forest renewal requirements we've instituted as of

October 1, 1987, together with intensive silviculture, improved

technology, improved logging techniques and equipment and the use of

species such as aspen that before were considered weed species, will

see a sustained level of annual allowable cut and probably an increase.

I fully expect a substantial increase in annual allowable cut, because

of the commitment this government has in all aspects of forest

management.

MR. MILLER : Mr. Chairman, the minister's

own words were that there would be a falldown in the allowable annual

cut. Where? How much? When? These are legitimate questions that people

want the answers to in various parts of this province. You have said

it's going to happen. Where is it going to happen?

HON. MR. PARKER :

There's a falldown only if we do nothing, Mr. Chairman. And to take the

comment out of context isn't doing a service to this House.

MR. MILLER : Mr. Chairman, I did not take the comment out of context. I'll read more of it if the minister would like.

would like to get some answers, as would the people of British Columbia

about what their future is in forestry in various regions of this

province. I've cited a number of instances where knowledgeable people

in the industry have said there will be a reduction in harvest — the

same volume will not be available. The minister has said it himself.

We'll deal with silviculture later, but to the best of my knowledge

there is virtually no intensive silviculture being practised in British

Columbia. On balance, to increase the growth, I'd like to know....

Again, I don't want to get into silviculture at the present time; but

I'm convinced that intensive silviculture is not being practised on the

tree-farm licences. In fact, I think there's a fundamental problem

there in terms of who reaps the benefit of investments.

But

let's get back to the topic. Let's deal with the coast of British

Columbia. Where are we going to see the next impact of this falldown?

HON. MR. PARKER :

Mr. Chairman, with the commitment to forest management and the forest

resource development agreement, circumstances that were reported in

1984, which said that if we did nothing this would be the case, have

been offset They've been offset by forest renewal on NSR lands and on

recently harvested lands; by improvements in harvesting techniques —

skyline yarding and helicopter yarding, for example — by reduced losses

in waterborne transport — going with towed and self-propelled barges —

by improved sawmill technology and better recoveries; by

biotechnological improvements in forest regeneration — improvements in

growing stock, through substantial effort on the part of the Forest

Service research division and private licensees — and by genetic

improvement of growing stock. There are a substantial number of

improvements that have taken place since five or six years ago, when an

analysis of the status quo was that if we did nothing, we'd be looking

at substantial setbacks, substantial reductions in AAC — or falldowns,

as the member opposite refers to them.

A great number of

positive steps have been taken, as I've reiterated here a number of

times — and I really don't care to reiterate again; we can all read Hansard

and the Blues. A substantial effort is being made by this government

and the Forest Service to make sure that all falldowns are mitigated

and that the AAC of the province, at 72 million cubic metres, is indeed

sustained and actually improved upon.

MR. KEMPF :

Most of this discussion around the sustainability of our forest stands

at the level they are today has been about the coast, and I'd like to

move that into the interior for a moment. The minister said last

Thursday in this House that he disagreed with the W.D. Ewing report of

December 1986 that the Prince George TSA was dangerously overcut. Since

that time, what has been done in the Prince George TSA to increase the

annual allowable cut? And while the minister is at it, could he tell me

what the annual allowable cut is for the Prince George TSA, and what

inventory it's based on?

HON. MR. PARKER : Mr. Chairman, I imagine that in a few minutes we can

share with you the AAC level of the Prince George TSA. But what has taken place

in the TSA? Well, during this decade a very substantial log salvage program

took place in the Prince George TSA, where licensees were concentrated on some

supply blocks that were absolutely devastated by spruce bark beetle and mountain

pine beetle. That effort basically took place in the Willow River and Bowron

River drainages. The area that was harvested is currently being restocked.

There

are some things learned there, as a matter of fact, just by way of

interest. Under the circumstances, to salvage the wood, there was a

very limited time-frame and a very substantial area, so it resulted in

a very substantial clearcut area. We learned that we had to make

adjustments for the microclimate changes in the area, and found that

some of the growing stock that had been planted in parts of that

clearcut did not survive because of the changes in the microclimate. So

species that do survive under those circumstances have been introduced

in those areas. They are indigenous species and pioneer species such as

lodgepole pine and Douglas fir.

The purpose of that rapid

move to regenerate the areas was to make sure that the growing stock

was established prior to brushing-in of the sites and also because most

of the seed sources had been killed by a bark beetle infestation. We

had to provide artificial reforestation, and that's well in hand. That

growing stock contributes to the total annual allowable cut calculation

of the Prince George timber supply area. That's a very substantial

timber supply area. It covers from about east Fraser right through to

the head of Takla Lake.

[ Page 8597 ]

don't know if staff have the annual allowable cut levels. We can bring

that in a little later, Mr. Chairman. The purpose of the Prince George

timber supply area, of course, is to supply the needs of the mills in

the areas of Fort St. James, Vanderhoof, Prince George and down towards

Dunkley and the upper Fraser. It's something that evolved out of the

rationalization from the old public sustained yield units, which at one

time were based upon manufacturing centres of the day, back some 30 and

40 years ago. The TSAs were set up more than a decade ago, and they are

a reflection of conversion centres in the province at the time.

Prince

George TSA is one that's quite diverse, going from interior wet belt to

the spruce-pine and pure pine forests of the interior plateau. So it

has quite diverse growing sites, quite diverse soils. It's a little

different than what we see in much of Scandinavia, which is often held

up as an example of how you manage spruce and pine forests. There is

more diversity there, because we do run into several other timber

types. Where the Scands look at basically Norway spruce and Scotch

pine, we have to look, in that Prince George timber supply area, at

mountain hemlock, western red cedar, Engelmann spruce, white spruce,

lodgepole pine, Douglas fir, and now aspen and, to some extent, birch.

It gets quite diverse.

MR. KEMPF : I thank the

minister for that lesson in history with respect to the Prince George

TSA. I'll wait, though, for the AAC figure. He still didn't answer the

question of what inventory and when that inventory was done that this

AAC is based on. What is the inventory that it's based on? When was

that last inventory done? While he's at it, with all this new

technology — and I appreciate that there has been a lot of technology

in the last decade or two — what now is the rotation time of, say,

lodgepole pine, western white spruce or the other species that grow in

that area? How much have we increased that rotation time by this

technology?

[4:30]

HON. MR. PARKER :

There has been a continuous forest inventory in this province now for

some 40 years. The inventory system was one that in the past was based

on a sustained yield unit. We have moved, as I said earlier, to timber

supply areas. Often these timber supply areas are administered by one

district office, and the updating of forest inventory information now

lies with region and district instead of with a centralized inventory

division at headquarters. So the updating of information comes

basically from field staff. Our inventory division down here in

Victoria has developed some systems that are of interest to a number of

offshore jurisdictions which use remote sensing to keep track of

natural resource developments. We are looking at that technology

transfer at this time and actually getting it in place.

The

SYUs that constitute the Prince George timber supply area are several.

I'm sure the member from Omineca is trying to pinpoint the last time

that any one of those sustained yield units was inventoried as a unit.

If you go back to those surveys, I think you will find them classified

as interim surveys, because everybody realized then — as we do now —

that forest inventory is something you have to continually update. I

would have to check in the old records as to when those particular SYUs

were inventoried, because as I said, a number of sustained yield units

are involved there: the Willow, the Bar N, the Longworth, the Nechako,

the West Lake, the Carp, the Takla, to mention some of them. It's not

the sort of thing where I have instant recall, so I can't help the

member from Omineca; but if it's important and pressing and he needs to

know, I'm sure we can source that for him.

MR. KEMPF : Yes,

it is very important, not for me to know, but for the people who live

in the communities of Fraser Lake and Vanderhoof and Fort St. James and

others in that TSA. It is for the exact reason that the minister just

stated that I have a real concern about that situation: I think we're

robbing Peter to pay Paul, and there are going to be some great losers

in this scenario. There are going to be some falldowns; of that,

there's no doubt.

Whether the minister believes the Ewing

report or not, it tells exactly what the problem is in the Prince

George TSA. You can go as far back as the 1956 Sloan commission report

and it will tell you exactly why we should never have gone to TSAs in

the first place. I quote from Mr. Justice Sloan himself:

"To satisfy the essential criteria of a sustained yield

unit, it must be organized regionally to produce a sustained annual yield under

a single working plan, but it would be technically impractical, in an economic

and social sense, to attempt to manage the forests of a whole country — or something

as large as a TSA, presumably — as a sustained yield unit..."

The minister has just said how large the Prince George TSA is. Yes, it's

very large, and it encompasses a number of areas and communities.

"...with the consequential result that in all probability

regional areas would be seriously overcut."

That

is exactly what's happening with respect to the Prince George TSA — and

not simply the Prince George TSA, I would suggest, but a number of

other TSAs in this province.

You don't have to be an

expert. You don't have to know what the rotation periods are. You need

only go out there without blinkers on, open your eyes and see what is

happening. They're already fighting for timber on each other's back

doorstep. That's why the whole idea of the Mackenzie TFL was

ridiculous. They're logging on the Fort St. James doorstep, to the

southwest out of Burns Lake.

The minister himself had to

get into all kinds of trouble with respect to the Takla-Sustut timber

and where it should go, merely for short-term gain and long-term pain.

He had to direct the Takla-Sustut timber through the community of Fort

St. James and into Prince George because of the very things that W.D.

Ewing said in 1986. Talk, if you like, about all of the technologies;

nothing has changed. Twenty years from now we'll have ghost towns

because of the TSA

[ Page 8598 ]

system. Is Fort St. James one of the sacrificial lambs, Mr. Minister?

Again

I say: you don't have to be an expert. You don't have to know how fast

a tree will grow. In that part of British Columbia, you'd have to be a

real expert to grow a tree in less than 80 years — an 80- to 120-year

rotation depending on species. Mr. Minister, I spent 20 years in the

industry as well.

We're going to have ghost towns in

British Columbia because of the falldown that you will not recognize.

Mr. Chairman, in last winter's operating season 200 loads of logs a day

traveled through the main street of Fort St. James to places elsewhere

that were 50, 60 and 120 miles down the road. How long do you think you

can sustain that within the radius necessary to transport wood? Or

within any radius, because they are coming in from the north and from

the southwest; they've already come in from the east. What's left?

Where are you going to go? They're already across Sabine Lake, taking

it as far as Tahtsa Lake into Burns Lake and Houston.

You're

running out of space. You're running out of province, and you're

running out of timber. That is the truth of the matter. The

minister can stand up here and talk about his 72 million cubic metres a

year all he likes. But we've got a sustainability problem in the centre

of this province. Can the minister get up today and tell the people of

Fort St. James, Vanderhoof, Burns Lake, Houston, Smithers or in his own

constituency of Hazelton that 25 years down the road they're going to

have the kind of industry they have today in their communities?

No,

Mr. Chairman, he cannot. Whatever stories he wishes to make up to feed

the people of British Columbia, he cannot do that today. You don't have

to be an expert to know that. You need only go out there with your eyes

open and see it.

You may have some fibre left out there,

but you're not going to have the kind of wood that is now being

processed in the plants in those communities — not by a long shot. All

you're going to have 25 years down the road on your high-technology

plantations are Christmas trees. Is that where the minister is going to

come up with all of those jobs that are going to be created that he

spoke so highly about last Thursday and Friday? Yes, the loggers are

going to be relegated to farmers, because all there's going to be left

to do is plant. The harvesting will have all been done, finished and

complete.

Then where will the multinational integrated

companies be? They certainly won't be in Fort St. James running a

sawmill; they won't be in Houston running a sawmill; they won't be in

Burns Lake running a sawmill; they won't be in Vanderhoof running a

sawmill. They'll be gone from this province. We'll be taking all that

fibre which is left — and there will be precious little of that — into

the pulp mills in Prince George.

That's what will be left of a once proud forest industry in the very centre

of this province. Those are the concerns I have. I would think the second member

for Cariboo (Hon. Mr. Vant), the Minister of Transportation and Highways, would

have those same concerns.

They are knocking on our back doors, coming out of Blackwater. We have reached

each other's doorsteps. The plentiful supply of timber that we once thought

we had in British Columbia is gone. We are working on the last of it in north-central

British Columbia, where, as I say once again, it takes 80 to 120 years to grow

a lodgepole pine large enough to cut a 2-by-8 out of. Those are the kinds of

concerns that I have for not only the people I represent but a whole lot more

in the northern two-thirds of this province.

That government likes to talk a great deal about

regionalization. We'll have regionalization all right. We won't

even have governments in those communities to listen to, because 20 or

25 years down the road we won't have communities.

You

can talk about all the high technology you like. The only high

technology we have in British Columbia right now is the technology

devised by multinational integrated corporations to take our money

elsewhere in the world and use it there. That's the high technology the

minister talks about. It sure isn't a high technology of sustained

yield.

The death of those communities started when we left

the old system of sustained yield units in British Columbia. We signed

the death-warrant for those communities on that day. That's over ten

years ago, and it is ten years worse today than it was then. We signed

the death-warrant of the small resource-based communities in British

Columbia when we deviated from the sustained yield unit.

[4:45]

All we are going to have in those communities 20 years from now, as

far as a forest industry is concerned, is a bunch of farmers planting

Christmas trees. That's pretty sad. The minister hangs his hat on 72

million cubic metres a year. Of what? Sawlog material? Anybody living

in those communities can see as clear as the nose on his face when he

looks in the mirror that 25 years down the road there will not be an

industry as we know it today.

What is the minister going to

do about that? He is the minister now. Perhaps mistakes were made in

the past; but even if it looks hopeless, we shouldn't continue to make

those same mistakes today. What is the minister going to do? What

answer does he have for those people who live and bring up their

children in those communities? That's the question I have, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Shall the vote pass?

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Aye.

MR. MILLER :

Not even the silence of the minister — the refusal of the minister to

answer fundamental questions that are of concern to people in this

province — will allow the vote to pass.

The minister has talked about planning. Let's deal with the Prince George TSA. First of all, perhaps the

[ Page 8599 ]

minister would advise me how many of the new TSA plans are completed?

HON. MR. PARKER :

I presume the member is asking about the TSA plans. Every TSA in the

province has a management and working plan. It is reviewed on a

five-year basis. They are all in a state of planning from one time to

another. As far as the Prince George plan is concerned, we are very

close to studying the next management and working plan. The last one

was about five years ago.

MR. MILLER : The minister

might want to correct the information I have. As of March of this year,

my office has only been able to get three completed TSA plans —

Lillooet in 1988, Lakes in 1987 and Prince George in 1986. Only three

of the TSAs have completed TSA plans.

HON. MR. PARKER :

As far as I know, there is a management and working plan for every TSA

in the province, and a number of those are actually working on their

second round of planning. The province has about 34 TSAs, and every one

of them has a management and working plan in various stages. Some are

running out, some are being redone and some are active.

MR. MILLER : The process of TSA planning, as I understand it, is that

there is indeed a new plan every five years, and in that five-year period, various

things are done: the terms of reference are set; information reports are received;

analysis reports, options reports and AAC rationale statements are worked on.

Then, in five years, you have a plan.

Currently

the only up-to-date plans — and to my information, the last time they

were all done was 1981 — are three: Lillooet, as I said, Lakes and

Prince George. In addition to that, only four TSAs had reached the

stage of completing their analysis report. To compound matters, in

trying to do some basic research on figures, I am advised that the

ministry can't give me AAC figures for timber supply areas because they

are programming their computer. So we've had to use volume-billed

figures in order to do some of our basic research. Three complete TSA

plans and only four TSAs that have reached a point of doing the

analysis report — is that an example of up-to-date planning in timber

supply areas?

HON. MR. PARKER : Every one of the TSAs

has a working plan, and every one of those working plans is under

review. You have to because it's an ongoing system; you don't sit back

and wait. Every one of them has a management and working plan, and

replacement plans are underway.

MR. MILLER : Could the minister advise me how many of the plans due for 1986 have been completed?

HON. MR. PARKER : My instant recall is going away. I have to ask the staff for records.

MR. MILLER :

Well, we always encounter this problem: whenever the questions get to

the point where there is some reluctance to answer, the hazy memory

steps in. This minister constantly castigates people for not knowing

enough about forestry and sets himself up as someone who does. There

are only 34 TSAs, did he say? I wouldn't think it would be that hard

for the minister to remember how many have plans in place that were due

in 1986. I've given him a clue; I've already told him three.

they were all complete, I assume he'd tell us that. Therefore I'll have

to assume that they're not all complete, and ask the minister why there

has been such a delay in completing the TSA plans in this province.

HON. MR. PARKER :

For the third time, the TSAs in the province are all operating under

management and working plans, and every one of those plans is in a

different stage of update.

MR. KEMPF : If that is so

— and I take it as the truth — could the minister then tell this House

what the inventories in each of those 34 TSAs are? If there is a

management and working plan in place, surely the province knows what

the inventory of each TSA is. If you don't, would it not be a serious

mistake to be operating on a premise that you do have a certain annual

allowable cut in each of those TSAs? What's the annual allowable cut in

the 34 TSAs, on a TSA basis?

MR. MILLER : It's extremely difficult. The minister keeps talking

about wanting to discuss forestry on an informed basis and then refuses to answer

questions in this House. He refuses to get up off his chair and answer fundamental

questions, Mr. Chairman. It's shocking.

Would

the minister confirm that there are only four timber supply areas — and

some of these TSA plans, by the way, are almost ten years old — that

have completed the analysis report? Would he also confirm that they are

four that were done, really, in anticipation of the TFL rollover

hearings — that policy that the minister had, which I guess he got from

COFI and which has now been taken out of his hands and given to someone

else to look at? There are only four TSAs that have completed their

analysis report: Strathcona, where we know there was a scheduled public

hearing on a TFL rollover; Mackenzie, where we know there was a

scheduled hearing on a TFL rollover; Arrowsmith — we hadn't got that

far yet; and North Coast. Will the minister confirm that?

MR. KEMPF :

While the minister is not confirming that, would he not confirm

something else for us? If the minister is telling this House that he

doesn't know what the inventories are in the 34 TSAs, how then can he

stand in this House and assure the people of British Columbia that 72

million cubic metres is a logical and fair and sustainable annual

allowable cut for the province? If you don't know what the cut is in

[ Page 8600 ]

the

TSAs, how do you know what the total annual allowable cut is for the

province? How can you stand there and say that 72 million cubic metres

is in fact the sustainable annual allowable cut?

We can do

this all day, Mr. Chairman. Let the record show that the minister isn't

about to answer questions with respect to the operation of his

ministry, questions that are crucial to the very existence of whole

communities — not only whole communities but whole regions, if we are

hung up on the regional system. How can you do that, Mr. Minister?

MR. MILLER :

If the Minister of Forests refuses to get up and debate his estimates,

I think it is a sad day for British Columbia — a sad day indeed.

I'd

like to deal some more with the TSAs. I have some information here that

I received from the Ministry of Forests. It is dated March 1989, and

it's the TSA report

summary. Perhaps the minister could confirm that

these figures are accurate. We will go through the province by region.

will start with the Cariboo and the 100 Mile TSA 23. The analysis

report was done in 1981 Information report: no date. Analysis report:

no date It hasn't been done. Quesnel, No. 26. Analysis report: 1980.

Info report: nothing, no date. Same with the analysis report: it hasn't

been done. Williams Lake — there is one that's done; analysis report

completed in 1988.

Moving to the Kamloops TSA, the analysis

report: 1981. There has been no analysis report since. Lillooet: done

in 1980, and they have an info report for 1986. Merritt: again 1982 was

the last analysis report; there is no new one. Okanagan: that's one

that's completed; it was done in 1988.

[5:00]

We go through these. We see that the Arrow TSA is not done; the

Boundary TSA is not done; Cranbrook, 1985; Invermere not done; Kootenay

Lake not done; Revelstoke not done. These are all plans done in 1980

and '81. Dawson Creek not done. There have been some changes in the

boundaries of the districts and names of the districts, so there may be

some.... Dawson replaces the old Peace, and Fort St. John is in that as

well. Mackenzie is done, as I stated, in anticipation of the TFL

rollover. Going further — Bulkley Valley, 1981 — not done to date;

Cassiar not done; Kallum not done. Sorry, Kallum's got an info report

in 1988.

So we have a history, Mr. Chairman, of the

ministry failing to do its work and the minister refusing to stand in

this House and explain why that is the case. Why are there so many

gaps, Mr. Minister? Why is this work not proceeding? Is this faulty

information we received from your ministry? Why aren't these plans

updated to reflect current inventories and all of the other factors

that go into these TSA plans?

HON. MR. PARKER : Every

one of these timber supply areas in the province is operating under

management and working plan, and every one of them has an updating

process for the management and working plan. In every instance the

member for Prince Rupert raised, there is work in process as those

plans are updated. The ministry continues to work on updating. That's

the way the various ones he cited as being complete have been

completed: purely through a process of continuing to update and make

the information current. That's the case with every timber supply area

in the province.

Every one of them is working under a

management and working plan, and every one of them is in

the process of being updated, even those the member for Prince

Rupert flags as being complete. They are complete for that particular

instant in time, and they too are in the process of update. It's an

ongoing process, as I have said before.

MR. MILLER :

We have critical questions of log shortages, and the ministry's ability

to plan has been called into question. Yet in the face of a document

that shows that we have not completed new plans for timber supply

areas.... For those members who are unaware of what a timber supply

area is, it is in effect a TFL held by the Crown, if you like. It is an

area that we designate and within which we plan in terms of the level

of harvest, the inventory and all of those kinds of issues. The Crown

assumes that responsibility, unlike a TFL, in which we turn over that

responsibility to a private company.

I don't know if we'd

be satisfied if a private company had this kind of dismal record in

planning, but the fact is that since 1980-81, in the majority of timber

supply areas we are operating on the old plan. In some cases there has

not been a new plan produced for ten years, yet there should be one

every five years. Why has that been allowed to develop?

HON. MR. PARKER :

Mr. Chairman, the process of management and working plans for timber

supply areas is long and involved, and it includes input from users

other than just the Forest Service; that is, the licensees and all the

other players. It includes the lands branch and their program for

agriculture leases; Fish and Wildlife; the water management branch;

range management; Municipal Affairs, in some of the requirements of

some of the municipalities in the area; and watershed management. The

list is substantial. Those are just some of the instances, and the

planning process is long and involved. It is an ongoing process.

The

options reports for most of those TSAs are close to being completed and

will be shared with the public as soon as they are available, because

the planning process is very much a public process. There are

substantial opportunities for public input into the system.

MR. MILLER :

I don't know how the minister can say, in response to the earlier

discussion we had on falldown and sustained harvest, that we don't have

a problem, that we can continue with the current level of harvest and

that there will be no falldowns, if he's operating on plans that in

most instances are ten years old. I don't know how the minister can

expect

[ Page 8601 ]

anyone

to have any level of confidence in what is put out by the ministry on

these critical questions, if we're operating on plans that are at least

ten years old. There is a developing crisis of confidence when it comes

to this ministry.

With regard to the Prince George TSA

plan, it appears that there will be a substantial falldown. In fact,

there could be a falldown of up to 900,000 cubic metres per year in

that Prince George timber supply area. Would the minister advise if

that is correct? What steps are being taken to mitigate, if you like,

the impact of that falldown?

HON. MR. PARKER : I

can't confirm whether that's the correct figure or not. As I've stated

earlier today, the changes that we made on October 1, 1987, on forest

renewal obligations, and the policies we established at that time for

forest renewals were for a free-to-grow state. In the commitment that

this ministry has to forest renewal for areas which this ministry is

responsible for regenerating and through the forest resource

development agreement, there are a number of initiatives and

undertakings in place to make sure we can continue to maintain the

provincial level of cut of 72 million cubic metres or better.

MR. MILLER :

We do allow ministers to have staff on hand to assist them in providing

answers to those questions that they can't all recall themselves. Given

the fact that we've had a series of non-answers from the minister

today, it might be appropriate if the minister sought assistance from

his office in answering these fairly basic questions about the

operation of his ministry. It makes it extremely difficult to debate.

The

1986 TSA plan for Prince George says that over the next 20 years,

there's an expected falldown of 12 percent from the 1988 billed volume

and a falldown of 6 percent from the plan's current harvest level. In

addition to that, if the railway is not reopened into the Takla-Sustut,

providing access to that timber by 1991, we will have a falldown of

900,000 cubic metres. I would simply ask the minister to advise us what

he's doing in terms of working on that problem.

HON. MR. PARKER :

Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I was in discussion with the staff, as you

probably noticed, and I'd like to hear the question again, please.

MR. MILLER :

I asked the minister to comment on the 1986 TSA plan for Prince George,

and the fact that it indicates a 12 percent expected falldown in the

1988 billed volume and 6 percent from the plan's current harvest level.

If the Takla-Sustut is not opened up via the railway, we'll see a total

of about 10 percent or 900,000 cubic metres taken away from that AAC.

What is the ministry doing about that?

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. PARKER :

In the Takla supply block area, there are several blocks within that

area. It is accessed in part by the Leo Creek forest road and in part

by the Dease Lake extension. The Dease Lake extension has not been

active for some seven or eight years as a functioning railroad. A

couple of years ago — 1987 — a non-renewable forest licence was offered

in that area for some 400,000 cubic metres AAC. The successful

tenderers were two consortiums from Prince George who offered to

refurbish that railroad to an industrial railroad state. At present,

they are negotiating with B.C. Rail to bring that about, at which time

the Takla region of the Prince