1978 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 29, 1978

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2763 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Presenting reports

British Columbia Ferry Corporation financial statement and report. Hon. Mr.

Bawlf –– 2763

Ministry of the Provincial Secretary and Travel Industry annual report, 1977.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2763

Oral questions

ICBC policy. Mr. King –– 2763

Annual report of Human Rights Commission. Mr. Gibson –– 2764

Responsibility for school tax levy. Mr. Kahl –– 2764

Agricultural aid to developing countries. Mrs. Wallace –– 2764

ICBC advertising of executive positions. Mr. Strongman –– 2765

Advertising lottery tickets. Mr. Rogers –– 2765

Cost of trip to Japan. Mr. Lauk –– 2766

Forest Act (Bill 14) Hon. Mr. Waterland. Committee stage

section 1.

Mr. King –– 2766

On the amendment to

section 1.

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2766

Mr. King –– 2766

On the amendment to

section 7 as amended.

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2773

Mr. King –– 2774

section 7 as amended.

Mr. Gibson –– 2774

Division on the amendment 2767

section 1.

Mr. Gibson –– 2767

On the amendment to

section 1.

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2767

Mr. Gibson –– 2767

section 1.

Mr. Skelly –– 2768

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2774

section 10.

Mr. King –– 2775

On the amendment Lo

section 10.

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2775

Mr. Gibson –– 2775

section 11 as amended.

Mr. Gibson –– 2776

On the amendment to

section 1.

Mr. Skelly –– 2768

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2768

Mr. Gibson –– 2769

Mr. Skelly –– 2769

Mr. King –– 2769

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2769

section 2.

Mr. Gibson –– 2770

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2770

Mr. King –– 2770

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2770

section 3.

Mr. Skelly –– 2770

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2770

Mr. Nicolson –– 2771

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2771

Division on

section 3 –– 2772

section 5 as amended.

Mr. King –– 2772

section 6.

Mr. Gibson –– 2773

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2773

section 7 as amended.

Mr. King –– 2773

section 13.

section 14 as amended.

section 16.

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2779

Mr. Gibson –– 2780

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2781

section 27.

Mr. King –– 2781

On the amendment to

section 27.

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2781

Mr. King –– 2781

Mr. Gibson –– 2781

Mr. Nicolson –– 2783

Division on the amendment –– 2783

section 33 as amended.

Mr. Gibson –– 2783

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2784

section 38 as amended.

Mr. Gibson –– 2785

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2785

section 41 as amended.

Mr. King –– 2785

section 53 as amended.

Mr. King –– 2786

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2786

Mr. Lloyd –– 2787

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2787

Mr. Gibson –– 2787

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2787

section 55 as amended.

Mr. Gibson –– 2787

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2787

section 63.

Mr. Gibson –– 2788

section 19.

section 25.

section 88.

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2788

section 107.

section 131.

Mr. Lockstead –– 2789

section 147 as amended.

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2793

Division on

section 147 as amended –– 2793

section 149 as amended.

Mr. Gibson –– 2794

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2794

section 150.

Mr. Lockstead –– 2794

Division on third reading –– 2795

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 40) . Hon. Mr. Gardom.

Third reading –– 2796

Builders' Lien Act (Bill 42) Hon. Mr. Williams.

Introduction and first reading –– 2796

Repairers' Lien Act (Bill 43) Hon. Mr. William .

Introduction and first reading –– 2796

Evidence Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 44) Hon. Mr. William .

Introduction and first reading –– 2796

Contracts Enforcement Act (Bill 45) . Hon. Mr. William

Introduction and first reading –– 2796

Motion

Sessional allowance for second member for Vancouver-Burrard.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2796

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: legislation estimates

On vote 1.

Mr. Gibson –– 2801

Presenting reports.

Special Committee on Privilege first report. Hon. Mr. William ––

Supply Act, No. 2,1978 (Bill 28) . Hon. Mr. Wolfe.

Introduction and first reading –– 2803

Second reading –– 2803

Committee stage.

section 4.

Mr. Levi –– 2804

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 2804

On

Schedule A.

Mr. Levi –– 2804

Report and third reading –– 2805

Royal assent to bills –– 2805

Appendix –– 2806

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. KAHL : Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery today is Miss Shirley Goble from Hamilton, New Zealand. She is accompanied by a constituent of mine, Yvonne Andrews, and I would ask everyone to please make them welcome.

MR. LAUK : Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are two baseball players from the city of Vancouver: my son, Greg Lauk, aged 12, and his friend, Christopher Riley. Would the House make them welcome?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : Mr. Speaker, it takes a very dedicated and a very special crew of people to operate British Columbia's first lady of steam, the Royal Hudson, and I would like to introduce to the House today one of those dedicated crew members from the Royal Hudson, Mr. Al Broadfoot who is visiting us today. I would like the House to give Al Broadfoot a royal welcome.

MR. ROGERS : Mr. Speaker, this being the final day of school, so to speak, for at least one group and hopefully two groups, we have a full complement of pages today: those who are in attendance on the floor and those who are watching from the vantage point of the gallery. I know all members would want to wish them goodbye and thank them for coming here on their day off.

Presenting reports.

HON. MR. BAWLF : Mr. Speaker, I believe this would be the appropriate time to file a report. I have the honour to present the financial statement and report of the British Columbia Ferry Corporation for the fiscal period ended March 31,1978.

If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should advise the House that the audit of the statements is not complete. It is a draft statement as such, but the auditors advised me they are satisfied that there will be no material change to the statement of accounts when the audit is completed.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present the 1977 annual report of the Ministry of the Provincial Secretary and Travel Industry.

MR. SPEAKER : Any further business before we proceed to question period?

Hon. Mr. Phillips files answer to question 22. (See appendix.)

Oral questions.

ICBC POLICY

MR. KING : Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Education responsible

for ICBC: could the minister tell me if it is the policy of the Insurance Corporation

of British Columbia to refuse claims pertaining to damage done on the basis

that the offending vehicle operator had no prior knowledge that the accident

or the incident was going to take place? Is that the policy of ICBC?

HON. MR. McGEER : It might have been at one time, Mr. Speaker, but certainly not under the present government.

MR. KING : I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I am very pleased to hear that. I wonder if the minister could explain why a letter directed on June 22 to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia from Mr. Bob Hall of Salmon Am quotes a letter from the corporation with this passage in it:

"Our investigation indicates that there is no negligence by our insured in regard to his tire blowout, which resulted in your glass breakage. That is to say, this is an uncontrolled situation with no prior knowledge by our insured that his tire would explode."

His claim was declined on this basis. If that is not the policy of ICBC, can the minister now give me assurance that this claim for broken windows in the Hall Grey broadcasting station at Salmon Am will be paid?

HON. MR. McGEER : Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't want to be accused of political interference with ICBC and obviously the member wouldn't want me to give any assurances about the payment of claims; but I would be delighted to look into the matter if the member would give me the courtesy of a copy of the letter. I assure him that I will try to get him a satisfactory answer.

MR. KING : I have a final supplementary. I certainly have no wish to see political interference with claim adjudication. However, I would just once request that the minister assume the full responsibility for ensuring that the corporation which he presides over complies with his stated policy in the admini-

[ Page 2764 ]

stration of that corporation.

HON. MR. McGEER : Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that I am not stating my policy. I am merely stating the policy of the corporation, as one humble member of the board of directors.

ANNUAL REPORT OF HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

MR. GIBSON : I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Last Thursday I asked the minister about the annual report of the Human Rights Commission. The minister informed me that he had not received the report provided for in

section 14 of the Code. Has the minister received that report since then?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS : I have not received the report since then. The matter was referred to the deputy minister immediately following the member's question.

MR. GIBSON : I'm not certain I understand the minister's response.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS : I thought: I made it clear, Mr. Speaker - the report has not been received. The matter was immediately referred to the deputy minister following the member's question.

MR. GIBSON : In view of the fact that the minister received a report from the commissioners in mid-May - which report was made public today - and given that that report is in the same format as the report filed last year - which the minister last year accepted as the annual report - can he say why he doesn't consider the document that was given to his off ice in mid-May to be the annual report for this year?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS : It doesn't comply with the requirements of the Code.

MR. GIBSON : Why not?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS : If he would read the requirements of the Code, he would recognize why it doesn't comply; at least, I do.

MR. GIBSON : Inasmuch as the report is in the same format, I can only consider that the minister is saying that it doesn't comply with the requirements of the Code because there are no longer commissioners, their terms having expired. The minister says it doesn't comply with the terms of the Code. Would he say exactly how? This is a document that has been sitting in his office since mid-May and the former commissioners finally had to release it today to make it public. Why was it covered up for that period?

MR. SPEAKER : This is a study that perhaps could take place outside of the chamber.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS : Well, Mr. Speaker, the member is asking for a legal opinion as to the adequacy of the report.

MR. GIBSON : I'm not.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS : The report is not being covered up. I have asked for a report which complies with the Code, which contains much more in the way of information and statistics than the one which was presented to me by the Human Rights Commission.

MR. GIBSON : On a final supplementary, considering we've now been without a Human Rights Commission since December, 1977, when will the minister appoint the new members?

MR. SPEAKER : This is regarding future action. The question is not in order.

RESPONSIBILITY FOR SCHOOL TAX LEVY

MR. KAHL : Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education. Recently we've had statements from the ex-Minister of Education, the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) , about whose responsibility it is to levy a mill rate for schools. I have a memo from the Department of Education in 1974, when she was Minister of Education, that says: "Please note that under the provisions of

section 199 of the Act, the board is solely responsible for the levying of a rate to raise within the district all moneys required to be raised by taxation for school purposes."

I wonder if the Minister of Education could clarify those two statements, please?

HON. MR. McGEER : I think, Mr. Speaker, I would have to take that one as notice. But I would say that the financing of education is a matter which is subject to great confusion, especially these days.

AGRICULTURAL AID TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

MRS. WALLACE : My question is to the Minister of Agriculture in relation to the report he recently filed on agricultural aid to developing countries. This report indicates that there were 46 applications and a total of

[ Page 2765 ]

$347,173 granted. Can the minister tell me how many more applications were received and what, apart from lack of funds, were the reasons for not granting those applications?

MR. SPEAKER : This is a rather detailed question.

HON. MR. HEWITT : Mr. Speaker, I cannot respond to the member at this time regarding the number of applications received. I would be pleased o get that information for her. There are many reasons why grants aren't made, though, and that is determined by a committee that deals with the applications. I would be pleased to get the other information for the member.

ICBC ADVERTISING OF EXECUTIVE POSITIONS

HON. MR. McGEER : It seems to be ICBC day, Mr. Speaker. I would have to take that as notice, though I find it hard to credit the possibility that under the former government ICBC would have been permitted to advertise for Americans. But I will look into it.

Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet I took as notice a question with regard to current advertising in American newspapers with respect to ICBC. I'm afraid I'm unable to add anything more to what was reported on the front pages of the newspapers - that indeed ads were placed with the concurrence and co-operation of the Manpower and Immigration officials, who agreed that the suitable candidate was not appearing from Canada.

MR. COCKE : I have a question for the Minister of Education, since he likes ICBC day. I heard a report this morning that the Premier has announced that all ads will be pulled out of the American journals and papers, with respect to the ICBC search for an actuary. In view of the fact that the Premier has so often said that there will be no political interference in ICBC, I would like to ask who is running ICBC, in light of that kind of a statement this morning.

HON. MR. McGEER : As the member well knows, ICBC is a financially self-sufficient corporation run by an independent board of directors (laughter) which is responsive, as well, to the shareholders and their representatives, and perhaps even from time to time to the media, though I would hope not too responsive to some of the suggestions that we've had from that quarter.

MR. COCKE : Mr. Speaker, I would wonder whether or not the Minister of Education will request the Premier's immediate pulling out of this situation with ICBC.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE : I'm sorry, I've got all excited because they're having some difficulty running that company. But I wonder if the Minister of Education would ask the Premier to cease and desist right now his political interference of ICBC.

HON. MR. McGEER : Mr. Speaker, I'll make no such request. I want to assure the member that unlike the current Leader of the Opposition, the Premier does no such thing with respect to ICBC.

MR. SPEAKER : Perhaps a final supplementary.

MR. COCKE : Yes, perhaps a final supplementary.

Does the minister know whether ICBC has issued the order that the Premier required them to issue this morning?

HON. MR. McGEER : No, I don't, Mr. Speaker, but I'd be happy to take that question as notice.

ADVERTISING LOTTERY TICKETS

MR. ROGERS : My question is to the Provincial Secretary, in her role as the head of the B.C. lottery branch. I'd like to know how much money is spent on advertising in the flogging of lottery tickets, in both the electronic and the print media. I know the answer is too much, but if you have a ballpark figure I'd really appreciate it.

MR. SPEAKER : It's a rather detailed question.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : Mr. Speaker, on that basis, I would prefer to take that question as notice.

[ Page 2766 ]

COST OF TRIP TO JAPAN

MR. LAUK : A question to the Minister of Economic Development, who has kindly filed answers to questions.

He indicates that on a Japanese trip last year he took five people with him, and the total cost of the trip was $29,496.04. My question to the minister is: the trip lasting approximately two weeks, did you have a good time? (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER : The question suggests its own answer. (Laughter.) However, the minister may wish to answer.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS : Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'd be most happy to answer that question and advise the member for Vancouver Centre that I came back from that trip exhausted (laughter) because we went over there.... I'll quit while I'm behind, Mr. Speaker. That mission went over there to promote the province of British Columbia. And we didn't go over there, Mr. Speaker, to play rugby. We worked, we made many contacts and, as the years roll by, that will prove to be of great economic benefit to the people of British Columbia.

When indeed the. economy and the coal industry and the lumber industry ' and all of these things unfold, the people of this province and the opposition, indeed, will agree that that was money very well spent.

Orders of the day.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : Committee on Bill 14, Mr. Speaker.

FOREST ACT

The House in committee on Bill 14; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

section 1.

MR. KING : Mr. Chairman,

section 1 is the

section relating to the

interpretation of the terms used in the Act, I believe, is it not?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Yes.

MR. KING : I'm particularly concerned in this area, Mr. Chairman, that there is no reference to sustained yield, I think, which fact has created and engendered a great deal of public discussion and debate, both in this House and in the public, with respect to whether or not that concept is included as an ingredient of the new Act. The minister has indicated that yes, it is inherent in the new Act, although it is not really spelled out in very precise terms.

Mr. Chairman, if that indeed is the case, then I suggest strongly to the minister that there is nothing to be lost by including a proper definition of sustained yield in the

interpretation

section of Bill 14. Accordingly I would move an amendment to

Section 1 which reads as follows: by inserting between "special timber licence" and "timber" the following: "Sustained yield means a programme of forest management which ensures a continuous yield of timber." I offer this amendment and commend it to the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The amendment appears to be in order.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Mr. Chairman, later in the Act, determination of annual allowable cut is spelled out in considerable detail. And included in that are the various things which must be considered in determining annual allowable cut. The matter of sustained yield is dealt with there. It states - I can't recall the number of the

section right now -the rate of growth of timber that can be sustained over a period of time, or something to that affect. And we see no need to attempt to have a simplistic determination of sustained yield in the definition, because sustained yield is not a simple item, not easily defined.

MR. KING : Well, Mr. Chairman, I've read the sections pertaining to the allowable cut. And they do not deal in any precise way with the concept of sustained yield. They include a number of considerations - some of which I feel are highly questionable, in terms of appropriate criteria for developing an annual allowable cut. But surely, if sustained yield is to be the central concept of forest management in this province, it should be defined in a general way and contained in the initial section, the

interpretation

section of the bill. The language which is contained in the amendment is not restrictive and narrow. It certainly is general enough to allow for proper professional development of all of the scientific considerations and the scientific programme that have to be put together to

[ Page 2767 ]

develop a sustained yield concept. There's no threat in terms of the language there. If the minister is in favour of and if he, indeed, approves of and has as a central objective the maintenance and development of a sustained yield concept, I can't for the life of me understand why he would not be willing and anxious to include that definition and that kind of declaratory purpose in the

interpretation of the Act.

I think that it's basic, and unless lie's willing to accept that, I have to look with a jaundiced eye upon the very vague references to sustained yield which follow in later sections of the Act. I have to look with a jaundiced eye indeed. Surely if the minister defends and supports the concept, he should be willing to state it as a primary function and there is no better place to do that. Indeed it is essential that if it is to mean something and be salutary, then it should be in the

interpretation

section so that everyone can understand what the direction is. In terms of being narrow or simplistic, there is nothing in that language which binds it to a narrow programme - nothing whatsoever. It just states the general objective of maintaining a sustained yield from the forest resource. ,

Now if the minister finds that objectionable or unacceptable, Mr. Chairman, I have grave doubts about the direction which he is taking in this entire statute.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS - 16

King

Stupich

Cocke

Nicolson

Lauk

Gibson

Stephens

Wallace

Barber

Brown

Barnes

Lockstead

D'Arcy

Skelly

Sanford

Levi

NAYS - 23

Waterland

Hewitt

McClelland

Bawlf

Nielsen

Vander Zalm

Davis

Haddad

Kahl

Kempf

Kerster

Lloyd

McCarthy

Phillips

Wolfe

McGeer

Chabot

Calder

Smith

Bawtree

Mussallem

Veitch

Strongman

Amendment negatived.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

section 1.

MR. GIBSON : I have just a couple of questions on these

definitions, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, under the

section that is called it to control of a corporation, subsection 1 refers to 'by one person" and subsection 2 refers to "by a group of persons." Could the minister confirm that "persons" includes corporations within its meaning?

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Yes, it does.

MR. GIBSON : Second, Mr. Chairman, in the definition of forest officer, it says that it "means a person employed in the Ministry of Forests who is designated by name or title to be a forest officer by the minister, the chief forester, or a regional manager." There is a very significant omission here. The deputy minister apparently does not have the power to designate a forest officer, even though the chief forester or regional manager does. It seems to me the deputy should have that power. Therefore I move that in the definition of forest officer, immediately after the word "minister, " the words "deputy minister" be added.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The amendment appears to be in order.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Mr. Chairman, under the

Interpretation Act the term "minister" includes "deputy minister" - so the lawyers advise me. Therefore the amendment is not necessary.

MR. GIBSON : Mr. Chairman, surely the minister is not suggesting that the term "minister" includes "deputy minister" for all purposes and all the powers of the minister. For example, is the minister suggesting that a deputy minister could sign a submission to cabinet, let us say? Is he suggesting he could exercise, without reference to the minister, the enormous discretionary powers that are conferred under this bill? That is completely against our traditions and our system where we have political heads of departments who are accountable to the Legislature; that's what ministers are for.

AN HON. MEMBER : Can he sit in the House?

MR. GIBSON : Can the deputy sit in the House? Obviously not. There is a distinction between a minister and deputy minister. I'm just asking the minister to remove any uncertainty by putting into the definition

section that it

[ Page 2768 ]

includes the deputy minister. It can't do any harm and, I suggest, it might do some good.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Unfortunately, I'm not a lawyer, and the member

for North Vancouver-Capilano is obviously not a lawyer either. A deputy minister

works under the instructions of the minister; the minister can instruct him

to do or not to do certain things, and if he doesn't, he probably will no

longer be the deputy.

Section 20 of the

Interpretation Act spells this out f

or the, member, if he would care to read it. It states that "...words in

an Act directing and empowering a minister of the Crown to do something ...

include a minister designated to act in the office and the deputy of the minister."

So it's spelled out very clearly in the statutes, and lawyers advise me that this is the way the law reads, the way it works; and I'm riot going to attempt to change the

Interpretation Act through the Forest Act.

MR. GIBSON : Well, I think it doesn't appropriately recognize the stature of the deputy. I think that's wrong; I think the minister ought to put this in.

Amendment negatived.

MR. SKELLY : The minister rejected a definition of sustained-yield management in the definition

section and, in doing so, he referred to

section 7, which he says provides an implicit definition of sustained-yield management. I know that it's not allowed for us to debate an upcoming section. But in fact,

section 7 allows the chief forester to abandon or violate the sustained-yield management principle by considering things in addition to it, such as the economic and social objectives of the Grown. For that reason I think we should have a more definite definition in this

section of sustained-yield management in annual allowable cut.

I wonder if the minister would accept an amendment to the term "annual allowable cut" in

section 1, to add after the word "land" in the definition the words "subject to sustained-yield management principles. I would move that amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The amendment appears to be in order.

On the amendment.

MR. SKELLY : The reason for this addition to the definition is to restrict the chief forester from establishing an annual allowable cut in any area that would exceed the amount of timber that could be grown on a sustained yield basis in any area, so that it does bind the chief forester to sustained yield management principles, because in

section 7 he's only required to consider sustained yield management principles and he's not bound by them. He's also allowed to bypass those principles and give consideration to other objects of the Grown such as short-term economic objectives and this type of thing.

So we would like to see the forests of this province perpetuated forever and this important part of the provincial economy perpetuated, Mr. Chairman. That's why we would like some constraints, based on sustained-yield management principles, on the chief forester when designating an annual allowable cut for any area.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Mr. Chairman, this proposed amendment attempts to do exactly the same thing as the amendment that was just defeated.

The rate at which timber can grow on a specific area of land may not always be the best way of managing the forest land base. This legislation, throughout it, provides for the best management tools and techniques available. The very restrictive biological growth rate of timber on a specific area of land is not a good management tool. Any forester will tell you that. Therefore this amendment is not acceptable.

MR. SKELLY : What the minister is saying is strictly not true. I realize he's being advised by a deputy minister and by another forester, but we shouldn't be listening only to foresters when we're talking about what is essentially an ecological system rather than simply trees. Now I realize that there are certain areas of the province where it may be necessary to remove forest cover and not replant it - hydro reservoirs and this type of thing. But in that area, it really should be expected that that land would be removed from forest land and attributed to other purposes. What we're talking about here is kind of leading up to the debate on

section 7. In lands that we are going to be using in perpetuity for forest management, we should be basing the allowable cuts on sustained-yield management principles in order to protect the forest economy of the province.

Now I understand that as a management tool in other areas, it may be not acceptable. Hydro reservoirs are only one example. Clearing land for agriculture may be another. But in areas of the province where we're

[ Page 2769 ]

establishing annual allowable cuts, and those areas have been designated for the production of timber forever, we should be basing those annual allowable cuts on sustained-yield management principles.

MR. GIBSON : Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the member for Alberni a question. I sympathize with the spirit of his amendment, but I would ask him: how would this bear upon areas which have overmature or decadent timber throughout a fairly wide area which in the interests of proper regrowth should be cut down as quickly as possible? Would this amendment, in his view, inhibit that procedure?

MR. SKELLY : We'd have to cover that probably in more detail under

section 7. We're not allowed to do that under the

interpretation section.

I have a number of amendments that I'd like to present along those lines

section 7. But no, I don't think this would affect areas where there

is a large amount of - as you call it - overmature timber. I think that you

can still cut that overmature at probably accelerated rate, but still base the

total annual allowable cut on sustained-yield management principles.

MR. KING : I'd like to hear a bit more response from the minister on this concept.

He's resisted the sustained-yield concept as an inherent part of the bill through placing it as a term with a proper

interpretation.

He's now resisting it in the form that my colleague is putting it before the House. The stated objective of a sustained yield is not a restrictive thing. That does not mean that you do not manage the forests in an intelligent way on a professional biological basis to maximize the growth rate. That can vary from area to area, depending upon the geography, on the purpose, as my colleague pointed out. If you want to remove land from forest use to put into something else, no problem. But surely the objective is the important principle here.

This is not restrictive. It simply dedicates a policy toward that stated objective of making sure that our forests are regenerated, that there will be trees and timber to harvest on a continual basis for generations to come. If we can't commit ourselves to that principle and to that policy, at least in a general way, then I think I have to become exceedingly more concerned about the whole thrust of this bill.

It has been argued that it is a major give away of resources, that it does encourage accelerated cutting, and while there may be the case, in terms of some stands of over mature timber, for accelerated cutting, it should be inherent in such a policy that there be an accelerated programme of replanting and regeneration in that particular area as well.

That's simply what we're talking about: the dedication to ensuring that those forests are regenerated for all time and for generations to come, not for the quick cut-and-run proposition that may bring short-term economic benefits to this government and our generation, but leave us in serious straits in terms of maintaining a constancy in the supply of timber resource for our children and their children. If the minister can't accept that as a general direction, then I'm afraid this bill is worse than any of us anticipated.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Mr. Chairman, the member, in his dissertation, is providing many of the reasons that the rigid, even-flow concept of sustained yield, which is really what they're talking about, is not a good management tool. Now sustained-yield, the allowable cut, is defined in the Act under

section 7, which we can discuss at that time. Requirement of reforestation is also provided for in the bill.

This amendment will add nothing to the Act. The whole thrust of the Act is the best management of a forest land base forever for the benefit of the people of British Columbia. Many factors have to be considered in addition to rigid, biological growth rates. You mentioned some of them yourself and the member for North Vancouver-Capilano did also. There are many factors which must be considered. Reforestation is required. The determination of allowable cut must include the rate of timber harvesting that can be sustained forever. These things are very adequately covered in the Act and this proposed amendment adds nothing to it.

MR. KING : Mr. Chairman, just a final comment. I wish the minister wouldn't tell me what I am saying and what I'm asking for. We did not mention the sustained yield even-flow proposition. The minister is responsible for this bill, and if he would tell us precisely what he means instead of interpreting the remarks of other members of this House, it would certainly be more helpful and perhaps we could proceed more quickly. It's a bit arrogant, you know. I can articulate my concerns and my objectives quite adequately without assistance from the minister, so I would simply ask him to respond to the points we are making.

It is not a narrow even-flow absolute objective we are talking about. It is a general objective of a sustained yield, which means

[ Page 2770 ]

taking into account all of the considerations pertaining to the economic, social, but more particularly, biological, because trees don't grow at a rate that conforms to economic and social considerations. They respond to the biological, and that's a general principle. The minister's resistance indicates to me that we are moving away from that principle.

Amendment negatived.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. GIBSON : Mr. Chairman, this

section requires a chief forester to develop and maintain an inventory of the provincial forests. I was under the impression that we had at least some kind of inventory at the moment. I wonder if the minister could tell us the current state of the inventory and the improvements that he hopes to make in the near future.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Mr. Chairman, the present inventory of our forests in British Columbia is complete. We estimate to be accurate within plus or minus 15 per cent. This must be maintained and continued, according to this section, and made as accurate as possible throughout history.

MR. KING : Just one point on this section. In developing that inventory, Mr. Chairman, is it anticipated that there will be a more precise mapping and inventory of accessible, merchantable timber? Is it the intent that this inventory will take place primarily by aerial photography, which may not reveal the terrain that could interrupt and interfere with access to the timber for extraction to a market, so that we will have some more precise and intelligent basis upon which to base the annual allowable cut? How is this inventory going to be done? Is there a new programme, a new approach envisioned? Or is it simply adding to existing data, or is it a completely new programme?

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Mr. Chairman, methods of establishing inventory and mapping and so on will include all the possible tools at our disposal: ground work, aerial photography -even satellite photography.

Of course as we move along we will be considering economically harvestable timber, environmental set-asides and protection areas, and so on. We wish to have an inventory of timber which is harvestable both at the present time with existing technology and which could be harvestable as technology changes and develops. A good example is the timber which we are harvesting right now by helicopter logging. It was not economically harvestable a few years ago. This type of thing is not static; it has to be changed as conditions change in harvesting.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

MR. SKELLY : This appears to be the

section that we are concerned about in terms of integrated management of forest resources in the province. It appears that it gives total authority to the chief forester to assess the value of land potential in the province for recreation, for forage for livestock and wildlife and this type of thing. I'm wondering just what capability the chief forester has to do this that is superior to the credentials and the capabilities of people working in other branches of government, such as the fish and wildlife branch and the Ministry of Agriculture. What requirements and constraints are on the chief forester to consult these other departments?

Over the past four or five years, in any case, administrative developments have taken place: the establishment of the Environment and Land Use secretariat to provide for a kind of integrated management approach among other forest resources. Is there anything in the regulations that requires the chief forester to consult with these other people? It should be included in the legislation itself; also that there is a draft of the regulations currently being circulated to at least some people in the forest industry. I'm wondering just what constraints will be placed on the chief forester in assessing the land in the province.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : The member said he understands that a draft of the regulations-is being circulated to members in the industry. There is no draft of regulations being circulated to anyone. I have not seen them yet. Even my deputy minister has not been through them completely yet. As soon as the Act ums tabled in the House, members of the ministry and different division heads began initial drafts of regulations, as they pertained to their particular function within the ministry. These are now being brought together by my deputy in order to begin a draft of a consolidation of them.

As far as I know, unless they were stolen from the ministry, they have not gone to anybody outside of the Forest Service

[ Page 2771 ]

yet.

With reference to the member's questions on

section 3, the Ministry of Forest Act requires consultation and co-operation with the other land-use ministries; this, of course, is what will happen. Our function as Ministry of Forests will be to concentrate on those resource values which we have responsibility for - that is, timber growth and livestock forage.

MR. SKELLY : Wildlife?

HON. MR. WATERLAND : There's always an overlapping between livestock

and wildlife forage. When you grow forage, you never know who is going to eat

it - the wildlife or the livestock.

Consultation and co-operation with the other ministries is required in the Act, and this

section here just spells out what we will be doing in a little more detail.

MR. NICOLSON : In examining the previous Forest Act, under that Act the power now granted to the chief forester was formerly held by the Lieutenant-Governor-in--council. Under the old

section 9 it said:

"The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may constitute in any portion of the province a forest district and declare by what local name it shall be known, and may from time to time extend, reduce, subdivide or annul any existing forest district or merge in whole or in

part in consolidation of two or more forest districts."

Essentially, I would say that -the powers granted under that section, which had to be decided upon by cabinet, are now going to be, to a great measure, decided upon by the chief forester - not the deputy minister, not the minister, but the chief forester.

"The chief forester shall assess the land in the province for its potential for growing trees for providing forest oriented recreation, producing forage for livestock and wildlife, and accommodating other forest use.

Then in the next section, which we will debate, it actually elaborates somewhat upon this.

It seems quite clear that decisions concerning recreational use, wildlife and other resource uses in the forest are going to be made by one person. To say that that person will do it in consultation with others still does not change the fact that the person who will have the final say in the matter is going to be the chief forester, who is a civil servant twice removed from the minister. In the previous situation, at least it was done by Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, where other ministries could be involved.

It would appear to me that we will see a complete departure from the work which is being done by the local inter-sector committees and the very fine relationship which has grown between regional staff of the Forest Service c the other resource agencies such as the water rights branch, fish and wildlife branch, parks branch and others. So I certainly cannot support this concept and must speak against it.

I think if the minister was aware of the good news that could be told about the work that has been done, largely, I think, since 1972 or 1973, towards developing co-ordinated land-use plans and bringing about compromises where there was a division of powers.... Certainly, as the member for Alberni (Mr.

Skelly) has pointed out, the role has been played by the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat towards helping make each forester, to some measure, a competent biologist, helping make each biologist to some extent conscious of forestry, and making each person in the water rights branch somewhat conscious of the other needs of the other resources, and so on down the way, as well as creating co-operation between the users - the ranchers who depend upon the forest for livestock - and other areas.

It would appear that there is going to be a complete tipping of the scales, and when it comes down to the final crunch it will be the chief forester who makes the decision, having listened to these other things. We are doing away with a division of powers which forces co-operation, and we are leaving the avenue wide open towards authoritarianism. We will see the erosion of the very fine work which has been done and the very fine skills which have developed in the Forest Service and in other agencies of the Crown.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : I don't know what the member is reading into

section 3, but all

section 3 says is that the chief forester "shall assess the land." We do not know which land we can do what things on unless we make an assessment of it. The Forests ministry will be assessing it for its ability to grow timber crops and forage and, in consultation with others, for other uses. All this

section says is that we must make an assessment. We cannot plan the management of land unless we assess what we have to manage. That's all this

section says.

MR. NICOLSON : Mr. Chairman, I can't really

[ Page 2772 ]

take responsibility for the way in which the minister drafts legislation, where he takes a

section 3 that could probably be connected with

section 4. I'm trying to avoid discussing

section 4 until we get to it, but if I do that, if I don't discuss the two of these together, the opportunity will be lost. Really, sections 3 and 4 should be looked at together.

section 3, the one we are discussing right now, he will assess the land and its potential for the following. Then, having done that, in

section 4 he will then classify it as forest land. If he classifies it as forest land it might be the best and highest use. If you look in the Canada Land Inventory it might be classified there as the highest use for wildlife ungulates. But if he classifies it as being the best and highest use of maybe being grasslands and decides that that land is not in production as grasslands and that it should be planted and seeded and that it should not be overburned to propagate grass but it should be planted and seeded into forestry, that decision is the one which will be made because he will, in the next section, be classifying it.

So I say the time to step in here is right now in

section 3, where we are starting this whole trend. It isn't my fault if the minister has sort of dismembered sections which should have been written up perhaps as one

section with a subsection, so that we could discuss the total principle inherent in this total

section where the chief forester is going to be able to assess the land capability and then he is going to be able to classify it.

I would say it is quite obvious, and many groups have expressed concern over this. As I say, in the old Act the decision was made by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. Why does the minister want to delegate this authority to one civil servant? Theoretically the minister now has no control over it, and since an elected person has no control aver this assessment, that means that the people of this province have no control aver it either.

This is pure and simple technocracy, and I am sure that this minister must go around with one of those little integral-shaped signs with red and white painted onto his grey car.

Section 3 approved on the following division:

YEAS - 26

Waterland

Hewitt

McClelland

William

Bawlf

Nielsen

Vander Zalm

Davis

Haddad

Kahl

Kempf

Kerster

Lloyd

McCarthy

Phillips

Wolfe

McGeer

Chabot

Calder

Smith

Bawtree

Mussallem

Veitch

Strongman

Stephens

Gibson

NAYS - 15

Lauk

Nicolson

Cocke

Stupich

King

Macdonald

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : I move the amendment standing on the order paper. (See appendix.) The amendment is simply to correct a typographical error.

Amendment approved.

section 5 as amended.

Mr. KING : Mr. Speaker, just to comment briefly on this section, I would point out that this

section taken in conjunction with

section 3 and

section 4 makes it very clear that the chief forester has the authority, subject to the regulations promulgated in support of this particular statute to make the assessment of the provincial land, to classify it and then designate and consolidate it as forest land subject to a variety of considerations.

We don't really have any particular argument with the overall objective, but we think that the ministerial authority and the chief forester's authority in regard to all of these considerations should be tempered by a statutory requirement which obliges him to do so in consultation and in co-operation with the other important branches of government which represent Fish and Wildlife, which represent agriculture and which represent recreational uses. It's not an argument for or against forest land, as the minister likes to make it seem.

We want the proper balance in considering and assessing the highest use of land in the province of British Columbia. These three sections make it clear that the superior position and the overriding authority now rests with the chief forester to the detriment and to the declining influence of those other sections of government which have a legitimate interest in this area also. That's why we

[ Page 2773 ]

voted against

section 3. It's representative of this total approach, which we think is inappropriate.

Section 5 as amended approved.

section 6.

MR. GIBSON : In designation of PSYUs and so on, it says "the minister may." I'm wondering under what circumstances he would not designate all of the forest land within the province. Why would tie wish to hold any of it back from a designation of some kind?

HON. MR. WATERLAND : If I understand the member correctly, he's asking why all forest and Crown land is not designated as PSYU.

MR. GIBSON : No. This

section says the minister "may" designate forest land as different types, rather than the minister "shall" designate forest land. Why is it all automatically designated? Why might any be held back?

HON. MR. WATERLAND : For example, a tree farm licence is not within a public sustained-yield unit. A farm wood-lot licence is really not a part of a public sustained-yield unit. The Prince George special sale area will now cease to exist. It may not be within a public sustained-yield unit. We may continue to call it a special timber supply area or another name. All forest land is not necessarily within PSYUs, but that which has the forest licence type of tenure on it would be, and various other types of licence. But some of them are not.

MR. GIBSON : I understand that all forest land is not within PSYUs, and perhaps I've misread the section. What I was concerned to ascertain is: will all forest land in the province be included within some type of tenure or other, whether it's PSYU, TFL or whatever?

HON. MR. WATERLAND : All forest land will be included in some type of forest management designation, whether it be PSYU, tree-farm licence or whatever.

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : 1 move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

section 7 as amended.

MR. KING : Mr. Chairman, in subsection (

c) and (

d) of

section 7 (3) . it says:

"In determining an annual allowable cut under subsection (1) (a) , the chief forester shall consider... (

c) the nature, production capabilities and timber requirements of established and proposed timber processing facilities, and (

d) the economic and social objectives of the Crown, as expressed by the minister for the area, for the general region and for the province."

Again, Mr. Chairman, I must conclude that this particular approach to determining allowable cut is not consistent with the objective of a sustained yield.

Now it's nice to look at social needs; it is nice to look at economic needs; and indeed it's essential to look at those things in terms of comprehensive forest management in the province. But to do those things in the absence of the objective of maintaining a perpetual yield of the forest is, in my view, a dangerous departure from the concept of sustained yield. The rate of growth for trees does not respond to economic and social needs or the supply needs of established facilities in the area.

The growth rate of timber is regulated by biological constraints, not by desirable economic and social objectives. Again we see the thrust in this statute toward considerations that move away from the objective of sustained yield.

Mr. Chairman, accordingly I move an amendment to

section 7 which deletes sections (

c) and (

d) of

section 7 (3) and renumbers

section (

e) as

section (c) .

On the amendment.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Speaking to (c) - "the nature, production capabilities and timber requirements of established and proposed timber processing plants" - I think that we should recognize the fact that the harvesting of timber is really a very important part of the economic and social fabric of British Columbia. Some flexibility is required in year-to-year harvesting rates. I'll give the member an example of the type of thing that we require the flexibility to do.

We can take, for example, an area of the province - perhaps the Kootenays would be a good example - where a sawmill may exist which does not have sufficient timber available to

[ Page 2774 ]

it to carry on as an effective operation. Knowing that that is the case, the operation would have to shut down. Now there may be some amount of timber which, if harvested over a shorter period of time, would allow that operation to continue for a period of time. For example, it may have an inadequate 10-year supply, but it may be an adequate supply if that harvesting were to be carried out in seven years.

It may be to the best interests to employment in the area if we were to tell that company: "All right, recognizing -the fact that seven years from now you will have to end your operation, you can harvest at an accelerated rate for seven years to carry on economic operation in that time." This could very well take place, with the government knowing that during this period of time there's a very good likelihood that other activities such as a new coal mine or some other such undertaking may be underway to replace the loss of jobs.

So it's just providing some flexibility for short period changes in the allowable cut, accelerated harvesting for a short period of time and then having a reduction later on.

MR. KING : Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the minister's response and I accept that there can be those circumstances. There can also be the circumstance where there is a shortage of timber to an operator and an excess in some adjacent operation and a need for reallocation. Those things do occur. I have no objections to that kind of approach. But that kind of approach in isolation from the objective of sustained yield, which implies attention to the potential growth rate of the timber, is what I object to. I find a departure, an abandonment of that concept consistently throughout each

section of this Act and that concerns me. When I see references to production capabilities, references to the economic and social objectives of the Crown, without tempering those objectives with the complementary objective of a sustained yield of the forest, then I say the minister is approaching this thing in a distorted way. I have to oppose that, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Mr. Chairman, the only reason that this appears to be a departure is that the member is intentionally taking it out of context to the rest of the section.

Subsection 3 (

a) says the rate of timber production that may be sustained on the area is one of the prime considerations. He can remove that in his own mind, but it doesn't take it out of the bill. These are all factors which must be considered.

Amendment negatived.

section 7 as amended.

MR. GIBSON : I have some questions on this section.

Section 7 (l) (

b) says: "the chief forester shall determine an allowable annual cut for every tree-farm licence area" - underline these words - "according to the licence."

1 wonder if the minister could describe what "according to the licence!' means. I would have thought that the annual allowable cut would have been determined by the facts on the ground - the timber and so on. What does it mean?

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Mr. Member, it simply means according to the area contained within the licence. The rate of cut provided in the licence is determined by the area described in the licence.

My second question concerns the provision that there shall be taken into account, among other things, "the nature, production capabilities and timber requirements of established and proposed timber processing plants." Well, I'm very happy about this, and it's one of the things that I believe should be the case with respect to the annual allowable cut awarded to any particular firm. I suggested in second reading debate that there were companies in the province - namely, the majors on the coast - with about 80 per cent of the annual allowable cut and only about 60 per cent of the conversion requirements.

What I want to know is: given that this factor is to be taken into account, to what extent is it to be taken into account? In what way? May we finally look forward to that day when the majors will no longer control substantially more wood supply than they actually convert?

MR. WATERLAND : Mr. Chairman, it is necessary to determine how much timber we need in the future, and therefore we must plan our cut to be able to effectively balance the industry with the cut available. If we don't know what timber is available, we won't be able to determine what the industry's needs will be.

But there is no attempt here to reduce the

[ Page 2775 ]

timber that is harvested within a treefarm licence. And this is what the member was talking about in second reading, he is attempting to say that only the manufacturing capability of the owner of the tree-farm licence should be used in determining the allowable cut he should keep. That's not the intention; here we're saying that within that part of the tree farm licence section, as long as he is harvesting and making available to some manufacturing plant, he is, for the purpose of this Act, using his cut. I hope the member doesn't think that this is a way of getting around his objection to the others, because it is not.

MR. GIBSON : This is an area-based concept rather than a licence- or corporate-based concept. Thank you.

Section 7 as amended approved.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

section 10.

MR. KING : Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to offer on

section 10, the purpose of which is to restrict allocations under any of these forms of licences to 80 per cent of the annual allowable cut for the licencee - which was recommended by Dr. Pearse in the Pearse royal commission report - and I've chosen this

section to insert that amendment. Whether or not it's practical in terms of all of these forms of licences is something the minister may care to respond to. The objective is to ensure that all enterprises in the province of British Columbia - whether they be the large integrated firms or the small ones - have the basic preponderance of their supply secured, but also that they be required, through a competitive bidding process, to get out and compete on the market for a certain portion of their supply - the fibre they need - and that is to ensure that, as Dr.

Pearse so eloquently pointed out, the need to remain lean in terms of the efficiency and the productivity of their operations is met. I think that this is an admirable concept, and if the minister and his government are truly committed to any vestige whatsoever of free competitive enterprise in this province, then, Mr. Chairman, I'm sure he will accept this amendment. I so move. Perhaps the Chairman will read it.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The amendment is moved by Mr. W.S. King, that Bill 14,

the Forest Act,

section 10, line 4 be amended by deleting sections (a) , (b)

, (c) , (d) , (e) , (f) , (g) , (

h) and M , and substituting the following:

"section (

a) forest licence,

section (

b) timber sale licence,

section

(

c) timber licence,

section (

d) tree-farm licence,

section (

e) pulp-wood agreement,

section (

f) wood-lot licence;

section (

g) free-use permit,

section (

h) licence

to cut,

section (

i) road permit; "

and by adding subsection (2): "Allocations made under this

section shall

not exceed 80 per cent of the annual allowable cut required by any licencee."

It's duly signed, and I would assume it's in order.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Mr. Chairman, the member bases the need for this amendment on something he said Dr. Pearse said. Dr. Pearse never made any such recommendation that 80 per cent of the cut is what should be allocated to the various manufacturers. In fact a great deal of thought as to this concept was gone into by people in my ministry with the forest policy advisory committee, and with the entire sector of people we consulted in a review of this legislation.

It was generally agreed - in fact unanimously agreed - that this type of thing would be extremely disruptive to established manufacturing plants and the security of jobs within manufacturing plants. It really would do nothing to increase the efficiency of manufacturing plants. The biggest thing there is the competitive marketplace in which they deal.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not acceptable.

MR. GIBSON : I'm not sure that this is necessarily the appropriate

section for the amendment, or that the wording is exactly what might be required, or that 80 per cent is exactly the right number. But I do want to say that the direction being moved in by the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) is, in my view, the right direction. You can argue whether it should be 80 per cent or 100 per cent, but I do very definitely agree that cutting rights should be intimately related to actual utilization, and by utilization I do not mean simply logging. Logging, to me, is not a utilization of a forest; it is the harvesting. Utilization comes in the milling section.

As I said before, on the coast the major companies control about 80 per cent of the log supply and have about 60 per cent of the milling capacity. That, to me, seems to be wrong. There should be a much closer relation-

[ Page 2776 ]

ship between the secure log supply available to any given company and its actual milling requirements.

The minister speaks of job security. I suggest to the minister that if a pulp mill is in existence and if pulp logs are being harvested, the person who harvests them will not eat them. He will sell them to somebody with a pulp mill. The logs will find their way to the pulp mill and there is no question about the jobs being continued.

I draw the minister's attention to the recent new adventure of MacMillan Bloedel in France and Belgium where they wrote off their investment in four pulp mills over there but have now decided to re-enter in an active way, to put more money in and take over the active management. Those mills, I believe, are largely fed by wood supplies not under the control of the company. It is interesting that in that kind of context it seems possible to buy mill feed from other sources and the company gets along perfectly well.

In the southern United States, again that is the case. In the Pacific Northwest, it is not at all uncommon for a company to have the majority of its wood supply on private lands and go out and scramble for the rest, and it works just fine.

I very much support the philosophical thrust of the member for Revelstoke-Slocan in the amendment. Although, as I say, the details may not be exactly right, the direction he is trying to move in would, as far as I am concerned, improve the competitive situation in the British Columbia forest industry.

Amendment negatived.

Section 10 approved.

section 11.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to

section 11 standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

section 11 as amended.

MR. GIBSON : If I understand it correctly, subsection (4) of

section 11 means that the highest bid is not necessarily accepted. I think that's the case at the moment. I wonder if the minister could just tell us briefly how he goes about balancing things. For example, he's got this recent bid in the mid coastal region where he got $7 per cunit for one application of a very high bid, and much lower bids that may give higher social advantages. How does he balance these kinds of questions?

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Mr. Chairman, the balancing is just as the member says, the best socially or for the betterment of the people of British Columbia generally. Because someone can bid a higher bonus amount in a bid proposal for this type of licence does not mean that it is in the best interests of the province to provide him with the wood. The best utilization of the wood, the person who perhaps provides the best recovery, the best employment base.... The community needs can be a very big part of it.

If a community requires an employment base or a continuation of an employment base, that could be a very important factor. All of these things have to be judged. As a matter of policy in the past, it has been my practice at least to get outside expertise, not only outside the government but outside my ministry as well, to help balance these various aspects, which you cannot put an easy dollar figure on.

MR. GIBSON : Mr. Chairman, in order that the public itself can evaluate the evaluation, so to speak, would the minister tell me if it is provided anywhere in this Act that the details of the applications that are being judged one against another shall be public?

MR. LLOYD : This is one of the sections I referred to in my remarks on second reading, and certainly I can see the member for North Vancouver-Capilano's (Mr. Gibson'

s) point. The use that could be made of this in our own area is where McBride and Valemount are getting chopped off by Kamloops and Prince George moving ever closer to the community, without the flexibility of deciding the social benefits to the community. I guess it refers back to the previous

section as well - adjustment of PSYUs with a little more flexibility. A couple of communities could become extinct if they lose their forest bids, so I think that's a very necessary part of the bill.

MR. GIBSON : I agree with the member for Fort George as to the necessity. What I an concerned about now is whether the details of the application will be made public so that the public will know just what balancing ums done.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Mr. Chairman, in the past only the dollar figures have been made public, as a fact. This subjects both the government and other people to a lot of criticism. Why did you make such a decision?

[ Page 2777 ]

So our intention is to have a list of all the factors that were included. We're not going to make public confidential corporate information which may be required in the tender, but all the factors that are important to the public in determining who gets what will be made public when our regulations are in place. This is our intention.

Section 11 as amended approved.

Section 12 approved.

section 13.

MR. GIBSON : We're now into replacement forest licences, and it is specified in part (

d) that they shall include an allowable annual cut equal to the AAG under the forest licence then in force. What happens if for some reason the total cut in the PSYU has had to be reduced in the interim? How can the minister replace each annual allowable cut with the same amount if the overall has been reduced?

HON. MR. WATERLAND : It does provide that the cut will be rolled over, in effect, subject to reductions made since the original licence was issued. If reductions are to take place in the future, then reductions will be based .... If a sustained-yield unit has a general reduction in allowable cut for any reason - environmental damage, alienation, and so forth - all licencees in the area would be reduced proportionately. At the end of his licence period when a rollover takes place there may already have been reductions, and that will only be the amount that is rolled over.

That seems to be an equitable sort of principle, Mr. Chairman, and I would ask the minister why it's not provided here.

The member, in second reading, Mr. Speaker, was saying that he does not believe in perpetual licences. Well, by doing what he is suggesting here, you are, in effect, providing perpetual licences. We don't have any such thing in this legislation as perpetual licences. Licences are only renewable subject to good performance, and subject to the changing needs and demands of the government because of changing demands of the public. So we have to maintain some flexibility. The standards of performance will be spelled out in the licence, and if changes take place, they'll take place for the better management of the forest land base. The government does require some flexibility, and this

section provides that.

MR. GIBSON : Well, I think the minister put a couple of words into my mouth. I'm not in favour of perpetual licences in the sense that he defined them. All I'm saying is that I think companies that have reasonably undertaken the work they undertook to do should have some reasonable security of replacement time, and I don't think it's here in this Act now that the companies may be big enough to look after themselves. I'm just suggesting that they should have better security.

MR. KING : Mr. Chairman, I must take the different viewpoint from my friend the Liberal leader. I think that this form of licence replacement is, in effect, perpetual licensing. I have yet to hear of any tree-farm licence in this province that has been revoked. I would point out that possession is nine points of the law, and I think they have every reasonable security in terms of assurance that the replacement will occur.

I think the terms are too long under the various licensing provisions of this

statute, and certainly beyond the ball-park recommendations made by Dr. Peter

Pearse in his recommendations. It appears the ministry is commit-

[ Page 2778 ]

ted to that, and I can do nothing other than state my concern and my objections that it appears to tie up our resources with the major licence holders in this province on a perpetual basis. I do not think that is a healthy approach to a good competitive enterprise. I do not think that is a healthy approach in terms of the Crown's interest of the priority use and management of the people's resources in this province.

Section 13 approved.

section 14.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

section 14 as amended.

MR. GIBSON : Mr. Chairman, may I just enter once again this short objection? At the rollover period, holders of existing tenures, timber sale and timber sale harvesting licences will not be required under this

section nor anywhere under this Act to justify the holdings that are being rolled over in terms of their conversion facilities, and I believe that that is wrong.

Section 14 as amended approved.

section 15.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 15 as amended approved.

section 16.

MR. GIBSON : Mr. Chairman, this is a celebrated small-business

section which is supposed to do a lot for small business enterprises. I have not as yet seen the draft regulations. I don't think the minister's released them. Failing that, could the minister at least give us an extract from those draft regulations as he may have them now, and tell us what a small business enterprise is for the purpose of this Act?

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Mr. Chairman, I don't think we are going to be able to have any one definition of small business that suits all sectors of the province. We have to be flexible enough with our definition to be able to provide reasonable access to timber, both for the independent logger and for the person who perhaps has a very small stud mill or shake plant and who does not have a timber allocation.

So we are still wrestling with the definition. Initially our thought was that a small business would be considered any person who has no manufacturing capability, up to a certain size. We're going to have to be, I think, a little more flexible on that, though, and adapt it to the needs of the various areas of the province. I'm afraid I cannot give a more definitive answer at this time, but we certainly welcome input from anybody who would like to assist us in wrestling with this problem.

MR. GIBSON : Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister what annual allowable cut, provincewide, he thinks might fall under this particular form of tenure - the new timber sale licence - and of that, what percentage we might expect to have set aside for small business enterprises, however defined.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Well, once again, it's a thing that is going to have to be flexible. There are some areas in the province where timber supply is so tight that perhaps there will be no timber that can be removed from the third-band licences right now without making the people at the manufacturing plants so short that they cannot survive. However, in other areas, we have more flexibility. One area which I hope will provide us access to reasonable volumes is the special sale area near Prince George. We can take parts of that SSA and have it developed as a small-business set-aside area.

In other parts of the province, as w- read in the sections on forest licences, rollover into forest licence of the third-band timber does not require that we roll all of the third-band or timber-sale licence timber into a forest licence. So we can extract some at that point and make it available to loggers to feed a log market within a defined timber supply area.

So no fixed figure can be given. We can mention a figure of 20 per cent. It might be possible for one area to have 20 per cent of the cut set aside; in another area, it might not be possible to have that amount. So we just have to work with areas in the industry as it exists now.

[ Page 2779 ]

MR. LLOYD : Mr. Chairman, my question would be the same as the first question from the member for North Vancouver-Capilano.

On the definition of small businesses, I think the cutting rates that have been given to the quota holders to protect their security of investment are probably very well justified. But again, I think if we're looking for small business enterprises, the security of investment for the logging contractors on their equipment should be recognized. I wouldn't want to see small business be considered as a group of dentists or a group of brokers. I don't think we need any more jobbers in the Art.

The loggers would be better off working for the quota holders than working for people who don't know anything about the enterprise at all. So I had hoped that the definition of small businesses would be specific and certainly would relate to the people who have investment in the logging end of it.

MR. GIBSON : I would have thought that dentists were skilled at extracting resources.

The minister mentioned a figure of 20 per cent as an example, just to understand what the base was. He means within a given PSYU or given region of the province.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Or a timber supply area - whichever.

MR. GIBSON : It will be important to those interested in these kinds of licences to know when they may be coming up and to know how and to whom they should make representations and at what time. Could the minister give some guidance to small business enterprises as to how they find their way into the Forest Service at the appropriate time to make representations to say: "Really, in this particular replacement licence, you should cut some off and make it small business enterprise."?

HON. MR. WATERLAND : I'm not sure I completely understand your question. However, the regional managers will be responsible for these set-aside programmes. Areas for the rights to cut will be advertised through local media, the Gazette and so on, and thus invitations made to apply for cutting rights on the competition.

MR. GIBSON : So the regional manager will then be the point of contact for the small business person.

MR. LLOYD : Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to follow that up a bit. If the wood isn't being utilized by the present operators and more wood becomes available on a rollover, who gets first crack at that? Would it go to a prospective enlargement of a sawmill, or would it fall into the category for the small business enterprise?

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Well, again, we cannot specifically say who it will be made available to. Our intention is to have a percentage of the wood available to independent small business people - primarily the loggers.

Personally I would like to see as much as possible there in order to develop a real log marketing situation within a timber supply area. Again I can't give any specific answer to that. That question will have to be determined by the facts in each area.

MR. KING : I'd like bit more of an indication from the minister as to where this timber is going to come from. It's my advice from many of the companies throughout the province that the timber is all allocated - it's pretty well sewn up. I appreciate the minister has pointed out the Prince George area, where there might be a carving up of the special use area there, but could the minister give me some example, for instance, in the Kootenays, on the coast and on Vancouver Island as to where this timber is going to come from that's going to be freed up and made available for the small competitive operators?

The people are certainly going to want to know that, and I would like to be able to give some general indication.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Mr. Chairman, the member mentioned the special sale area. That is one possibility. But I must caution him and others that that's not an answer to all our problems. It's strictly around the Prince George area. You'll notice in the rollover of TSL timber into forest licences that it says that the regional manager may roll over all or what part of that third-band timber that he considers advisable. So there's a possibility of extracting some allocation from third-band timber to be made available for the independent sector.

We do have some areas in the province where there is not a total allocation of the allowable cut, and we intend to hold some of the unallocated timber for the small business set- aside programme. In fact, that will probably be our first venture into this type of a program . Areas where we can come up with a sale, we immediately proclaim as legislation and have it set aside for the small business people. The other will have to wait

[ Page 2780 ]

until rollover or until the current rights within the SSA expire, which is the end of this year. So our first opportunity will be unallocated timber; the others will be on rollovers in the extraction of some of the TSL wood and within the third band and other such areas.

MR. GIBSON : Mr. Chairman, a very specific question to the minister: unless wood is somehow taken from existing annual allowable cuts on the coast, in the Vancouver forest district, does he foresee any possibility of small business set-aside in the Vancouver forest district?

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Yes, Mr. Chairman. The member's favourite topic is tree-farm licences - the degree of utilization of those, of harvesting of the allowable cut. As a result of one of the amendments we made to the

section on withdrawals - I forget what

Section 1t is - at the time of rollover, any undercut in the management plan which is in effect when this Act comes into place can be removed. If the member's right and says some of these tree-farm licences are only using 50 per cent of their cut, we're going to have a great deal of wood available for the set-aside programmes. But unfortunately he's not right. There's no company that is undercut to that extent. I think one company is in the order of 40 per cent undercut. They have already approached us with an offer to give back some of their TFL. However, we're not going to take it back.

We're going to take it back on the terms that we wish. We'll define the area which will be taken back. So any undercut in TFLs can be removed and made available for this programme, and that is probably our largest access to wood, depending upon how close the cut is. Now we're not going to take back a cut that is used and has been properly managed and harvested for the industry. But if there is a serious undercut - and we don't have a complete handle on these numbers yet -they will be withdrawn.

MR. GIBSON : I want to get a bit further into these undercut numbers when we get onto the TFL sections, but I am encouraged by the minister's statement that he does intend that the Vancouver forest district will at least look into these areas for a small business to set aside opportunities.

I want him to define a word that he employed a moment ago when he spoke of wood being used.

In the minister's concept of annual allowable cut being "used, " is it merely logged, or to be "used" must it be actually converted in a mill of the licence holder? What is his definition of "used"?

HON. MR. WATERLAND : My definition is in keeping with wood that has been cut - annual allowable cut that is being cut, being used. It's either being used by the licensee or it can be placed in a log market and be used by someone else. Like the member says, multinational companies can't eat the wood, and if they're not using it, it's being used by someone else, other than a very small percentage of lower grade wood that does wind up exported from the province.

MR. GIBSON : I would just like to see the smaller people that can't eat the wood have a chance to sell it to the multinationals. No, not the multinationals; I do not mind multinationals. The majors are the people I'm talking about.

Sections 16 and 17 approved.

section 18.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 18 as amended approved.

section 19.

MR. GIBSON : Mr. Chairman, this is just a question of curiosity. What is pulp lease CZ3, and %by is it specified in particular in the bill?

HON. MR. WATERLAND : That is just to cover all the bases, Mr. Chairman. CZ3 was one held by Grown Zellerbach and it was turned back to the government. We just want to be sure that because of the way this is written, it doesn't reactivate that previously surrendered licence.

Sections 19 and 20 approved.

section 21.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 21 as amended approved.

[ Page 2781 ]

Sections 22 to 24 inclusive approved.

section 25.

MR. GIBSON : Subsection 25 (

b) says: "A timber licence shall be for a term determined under this division." I have read this division as carefully as I could. By "division" I guess he means other than this section; he means division 4 timber licences. How is that term to be determined?

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Mr. Chairman, the timber licences are the rollover of the old temporary tenures. What we wish to do is have the areas of the OTTs or new timber licences harvested in a logical harvesting sequence. They may be in an area which we do not want to go in and harvest now because it would disrupt the normal, logical harvesting sequence. So within a working plan - and it may be a long-term working plan - these OTTs or timber licences will be worked into the normal harvesting programme. That is the term. When they come up in the normal sequence of harvesting, that will be their term.

Once they are harvested, of course, they either become a part of a TFL or revert to the Grown if they are outside. We don't want to have illogical harvesting systems or sequences because of these OTTs. This was the type of thing that the former minister was attempting to do when he was chastized by Dr. Pearse for his attempt to have these worked into a logical, normal harvesting sequence.

Sections 25 and 26 approved.

section 27.

MR. KING : Mr. Chairman, subsection 27 (10) says: "This

section does not apply to a treefarm licence entered into under

section 29 or 33." 1 move that that

section be deleted.

MR. CHAIRMAN : There is a minor error, but we will correct that if it passes.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Mr. Chairman, I realize that there have been a number of individuals and interest groups lobbying for public hearings on the rollover of tree-farm licences. We cannot do it for several reasons. The most important reason is that it is going to be administratively impossible, really, in the time frame within which these TFLs are rolled over. I would rather that the decisions on rollovers be made on the basis of what is really best for the industry, and not through perhaps heated public debate.

We are, however, requiring that advertisements of the fact of rollover be published, and anybody who wishes to raise an objection or have input into the rollovers is more than free to. I don't think anything in the Act precludes us from having public hearings if we feel it necessary.

MR. KING : Mr. Chairman, let the record show that the minister prefers to do business in the secrecy of the backroom rather than in the light of public scrutiny shining upon the transactions - and this with respect to public timber, that this government said they were interested in consulting with people on. There is no reason on earth why it's not administratively possible to conduct hearings. This is simply the administrative preference of the minister and it serves notice clearly that they have nothing but low regard for the interest of the public, for their consultation and the benefit of their counsel. I think that's shameful.

MR. GIBSON : Mr. Chairman, this is a very important amendment. I'm glad the Premier is in the House; 1 want him to understand this. This is the subsection that eliminates the possibility of public hearings for our treefarm licences in this province, when they're being rolled over under the new Act. And I ask: if public hearings are a good thing for new tree-farm licences, why aren't they a good thing for the old ones when they're being rolled over?

These tree-farm licences have not been reviewed since they were granted, and members of this House will recall the circumstances of the granting of some of these tree-farm licences. They were granted under terms of bribery and corruption, and even those tree-farm licences, as I take it, aren't to be reviewed at any rollover period.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : I'm sure it was a Liberal government that did it.

MR. GIBSON : Oh, I think you have the wrong government in mind, Mr. Minister. 1 have more in mind the period of 1955-56, when there were interesting events in court.

HON. MR. BENNETT : Which licence was granted by Robert Sommers?

MR. GIBSON : I'll have to go back to my notes - I'll be very glad to do that. Yes, it was the one that was granted by Robert Somers, the one for which he went to jail. The minister went to jail, convicted by a court, for

[ Page 2782 ]

having accepted a bribe with respect to the granting of forest management licences.

HON. MR. BENNETT : Just say who got it.

MR. GIBSON : Listen to the Premier. The Premier knows his history.

AN HON. MEMBER : It was B.C. Forest Products.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please. Hon. members, we're in the dying hours of the session. How can members forget that we have to address the Chair?

MR. GIBSON : Are these licences, or any licences, not to be reviewed when they're being rolled over under the terms of this new Forest Act? It seems to me just as clear as the light of day that they should be. Look at what is to be required for new forest management licences:

"The minister or his designate shall convene a public hearing in which any person may make a submission respecting application for a TFL, determine the procedures...."

Then, following the public hearing:

"The minister shall evaluate each application, including its potential for creating or maintaining employment opportunities and other social benefits ... providing for the management and utilization of Crown timber, meeting the objectives of the Crown ... environmental quality in management of water...."

There are very sound objectives, matters on which public representations ought to be available, and not simply in respect of new tree-farm licences - of which we know there won't be many, Mr. Chairman, because there is very little additional economic wood left in the province at this time, unless there are remarkable changes in economic circumstances. So there won't be many new TFLs. Why can we not have a chance to review the old TFLs at this point?

We get into this question of undercut or not with respect both to annual allowable cut and the relationship of annual allowable cut to existing conversion facilities owned by the licence holders. These are the two central things which ought to be debated at the time of the rollover of existing forest management licences, tree-farm licences. I know that the minister is concerned that public hearings will just provide some kind of showplace for every fringe group in the province to come in and shoot their mouth off. That might be. Who knows? But I say: What's the matter with that,

1978 every 10 years or so, in the case of these tree-farm licences, which cover enormous areas of our province? Why shouldn't people have a right not just to stand up and give their opinion, but to ask questions of the trustees of these great areas of land - the forest companies that hold them? If you have a trust, then you have a responsibility to be accountable. And I would suggest that the minister is probably underestimating the companies in this regard; I would suggest that the companies would be glad to account for their stewardship of these resources, which have been placed in their hands for these tree-farm licences.

I know many of the executives of the forest companies; I know many foresters. They're responsible people. They understand that they've had placed in their hands a public resource and they want to do the best job they can. It's not all one-sided, you know. The companies have had too little a forum to protest some of the enormous costs that have been placed on them by such things as some manifestations of the guidelines. Public hearings can work both ways. To me, they are something that very definitely should be included in the rollover of every tree-farm licence in this province.

It's not administratively impossible. There are very few licences that are going to expire before 1985. That gives you lots of time to conduct the necessary public hearings that would be required to give the companies their chance to come before some kind of a commissioner in charge of this programme and say: "This is our stewardship on this TFL in the last 25 years. These are our plans for the future. These are our needs."

MS. SANFORD : Re-investment.

MR. GIBSON : "These are our re-investment plans. These are the jobs they're providing." All of these are important questions for the province. Again, this is our fundamental industry, don't forget. This is the forum for these kinds of questions to be discussed - not in the back room, but out in public.

I say to the minister that, truly, he should accept this amendment, which would put this requirement of public hearings on the rollover of existing tree-farm licences. It would be a very good thing. He would remove a major part of the objection to this bill if he would do that. This bill is so discretionary in so many of its terms, often necessarily so, that the only way people can feel safe about that discretion is if there is guaranteed public scrutiny. The elimination of subsection (10) from

[ Page 2783 ]

section 27 would allow and guarantee that scrutiny. I very much commend it to the minister's attention.

MR. NICOLSON : Mr. Chairman, I point out to this minister that I know of one company - and I'll name it because it's changed management -Kootenay Forest Products, which when it was owned by the Eddy Match Company - and I can't blame the Eddy Match Company either, because they were so remote and removed from the day-to-day management of that company - was responsible for deliberately destroying the timber which they could not harvest in the Coffee Creek watershed area. That happened in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

In that type of thing there was never a forum for people who wanted to manage the resource and use the resource in a proper manner to bring that out in public. There was a haste to burn over that area and to really destroy the evidence of the wanton destruction of that timber. The area was creamed. This is the very type of thing that could be brought out in a public hearing at a later date. I would hope that such a thing would never happen again, particularly when people were looking, within a few short years, to some kind of a rollover.

I've asked, and I've had confirmation that it happened. It's history. We can't make those trees grow back again. We can't go in and salvage any of that timber. But that type of thing happened, and I think this type of provision would be a signal to all companies that they are going to be held accountable. So it's really up to the minister as to whether or not he believes that this is the right way to go. I would hope that he does believe it is.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS - 15

Macdonald

King

Stupich

Cocke

Nicolson

Lauk

Gibson

Stephens

Wallace

Brown

Barnes

Lockstead

Skelly

Sanford

Levi

NAYS - 26

Waterland

Hewitt

McClelland

Williams

Bawlf

Nielsen

Vander Zalm

Haddad

Kahl

Kempf

Kerster

Lloyd

McCarthy

Phillips

Bennett

Wolfe

McGeer

Chabot

Calder

Shelford

Smith

Bawtree

Mussallem

Loewen

Veitch

Strongman

Mr. King requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Sections 27 to 32 inclusive approved.

section 33.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

section 33 as amended.

MR. GIBSON : This is the

section which relates to what happens to a TFL at rollover, and how the licence is to be replaced with a new licence. It's at this stage that I want to briefly discuss the undercut figures which the minister referred to earlier on.

I have already made a point with respect to the comparison of existing annual allowable cut to existing conversion facilities, and I believe that that should be something that is measured at the rollover point. I appreciate that that is not provided for in this bill, so now I want to talk about undercut.

The minister, in later amendments to this bill - and specifically, if I understand correctly the immediate application of

section 55, at rollover - is going to give himself or the ministry the possibility of making deletions at rollover point based on undercut. That being the case, it becomes very important to determine what undercut figures are.

I gave some figures that were developed by a reportable forestry consultant for the Truck Loggers Association as to undercuts on the coast TFLs for the period 1972-1976, and the apparent figures were in the neighbourhood of 29 per cent. 1 have since received representations from some of the companies that for various reasons, particularly retroactive adjustments which were not available to the consultant at the time the measurements were taken, some of these figures should be adjusted.

I'd be happy to issue a statement in that regard with respect to Grown Zellerbach. I would today, because I want to be fair to any company that has any protest to make, like to read into the record a Telex that I have received from MacMillan Bloedel:

"We respectfully request you correct the record of your comments on the new Forest

[ Page 2784 ]

Act of June 19. According to Hansard you stated that MacMillan

Bloedel had a 26 per cent undercut on its TFL licences during the 1972-1976

period. This comment was reported on the front page of the Vancouver Sun the

next day. In fact our undercut during that period was less than 9 per cent,

taking into account an adjustment in annual allowable cut from the 1975 strike.

"To put the matter in historical perspective, from the inception of our treefarm licence through the end of 1977 our total cut has been 97 per cent of AAG. The period 1972-76 was the most difficult harvest period in the entire history of the TFLs, since it included two major strike years, 1973 and 1975, a major international economic recession in 1975-76, and the impossible problem of extending our road network fast enough to log the AAC after the imposition of the B.C. logging guidelines in 1973."

That is MacMillan Bloedel's side of the story, and I'm very happy to put it on the record on their behalf. Since I only received the Telex today I've been unable to complete a reconciliation of the figures, but some of it again obviously relates....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please. Hon. members, I cannot tolerate any longer this excessive noise. I would ask the members to please be quiet, otherwise I will have to go to the unpopular process of naming those people who are making excessive noise.

MR. GIBSON : Some of it obviously relates to retroactive changes in annual allowable cut, some of it relates to strike credits in the order of hundreds of thousands of cunits, and some of it relates to simple disagreements as to figures that in one case come from. the Forest Service files and in the other case from the company. It will be a difficult job to reconcile them.

The basic point I'm making here, aside from putting MacMillan Bloedel's objection on the record, is that there has to be a way - and a public way - prior to the rollover decisions being made as to whether there will be any reduction in the annual allowable cut of TFLs based on undercut. There has to be a way of examining the figures and coming to agreement on them. I say that that way, if it is not to be a public hearing - and the vote of the House just ensured that that was not to be the case - must at least be some way whereby the facts arising therefrom are accessible to the public.

I would like the minister to give a commitment under this expiry

section or rollover

section that the facts arising from a performance review having to do with annual allowable cuts on each TFL will be made public prior to the issuance of a rollover licence. Will the minister give the House that commitment?

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Mr. Chairman, the determination of AAC and tree-farm licences in the past has been carried out primarily by the licensee with checks by the Forest Service. Now before any rollovers take place, the AAG will be determined by the Forest Service and this information, I assure you, will be public and has been public in the past. In fact the consultant, working on behalf of the Truck Loggers Association was provided with all the information that we have. Now some of it is perhaps suspect because it was developed by the companies themselves, but we, as the manager, will determine the AACs.

A retroactive reduction may be justified at times because environmental protection areas may have made it impossible for licensees to harvest timber, and if the EPAs cause a reduction of cut, I think we should recognize that. We must be as realistic as possible. But yes, indeed, the information on inventory and allowable cut on tree-farm licences, as on on Crown land, will be made available to the public through the Forest Service.

MR. GIBSON : Mr. Chairman, I'm glad to have the assurance that there will be a new Forest Service inventory on each TFL prior to the rollover, and that that data will be provided to the public. Will there also be provided at that time a detailed history of harvesting performance during the tenure of that TFL as compared to harvesting requirements?

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Mr. Chairman, this information is available now, and there is no reason for us not to have it available in the future.

Section 33 as amended approved.

Section 34 approved.

section 35.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Mr. Chairman, 1 move the amendment to

section 35 standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

[ Page 2785 ]

Section 35 as amended approved.

Sections 36 and 37 approved.

section 38.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

section 38 as amended.

MR. GIBSON : Subsection 38 (2) (

c) says that the new pulpwood agreement shall specify a maximum annual volume. All of the other rollover licences seem to maintain an annual allowable cut. This appears to be a different approach and it doesn't suggest that what is now will be maintained. Is it indeed different?

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Yes, indeed, it is different. CHA agreements only provide a maximum volume of wood for any particular year. It's only an emergency supply. It probably will not be harvested, because there is very little likelihood of it being needed. But, for example, in the event of a prolonged shutdown of the woods, when byproduct material is not available, they can harvest roundwood for pulp.

Section 38 as amended approved.

section 39.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 39 as amended approved.

Section 40 approved.

section 41.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

section 41 as amended.

MR. KING : On division 7, the woodlot licences, I certainly want to register the approval of our caucus to this particular approach. I think this is the one area of the bill which departs from the tendency toward monopoly control of the timber resource in this province. It indeed provides an avenue for small independents and for average citizens to become involved in timber harvesting. The only question I have is whether or not the limitation on the size of the woodlot is realistic. The 400-hectare maximum size limitation seems to me to be inordinately small.

While it may be appropriate in a given area, it could certainly be most inappropriate in certain areas of the province, depending on the terrain, density of growth and so on. I wonder why the minister did not make that provision a bit more flexible to represent the differences in the province.

I think that in general terms, though, this is a move towards an approach to forest management similar to what some of the Scandinavian countries have undertaken. One of the things that I think has thoroughly frustrated citizens of this province is the fact that there is no opportunity for their involvement, even on a limited scale.

We have had over the last few years in this province tremendously high unemployment on an almost chronic basis, while people are obliged to remain idle when they have the ability and the desire to get out and carve a bit of a niche for themselves out of some of the resources of the province. They should be allowed to do so and, indeed, encouraged to do so. This direction seems to give that kind of incentive and that inducement. I certainly commend the minister for including this provision in the statute.

As I say, it's a bit of a small thing in comparison to the major monopolistic direction of the statute in general terms; but I give credit where credit is due and I think it's fine. I wish the 400-hectare limitation were a bit more flexible and larger.

Section 41 as amended approved.

section 42.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 42 as amended approved.

Section 43 approved.

section 44.

[ Page 2786 ]

HON. MR. WATERLAND : I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 44 as amended approved.

Sections 45 to 48 inclusive approved.

section 49.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 49 as amended approved.

section 50.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 50 as amended approved.

Sections 51 and 52 approved.

section 53.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

section 53 as amended.

MR. KING : Mr. Chairman, this particular

Section 1s not too clear and there seems to be some ambiguity. I would like the minister to explain it. I'm not sure what the

section refers to. Is it a system of roads that can be deducted as full costs from stumpage? I would appreciate it if the minister outlined for me just what this

section envisages as appropriate and legitimate deductions from stumpage.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Deletions from tree-farm licences, woodlot licences,

et cetera, may be areas that are not timber producing areas such as alpine areas,

which, if they are removed will not affect the cut. I think we should remove

them and make this area available for other uses. There is a certain control

established over land within tree-farm licences and, if it's not productive

forest land, there's no need to have it there.

MR. KING : Mr. Chairman, I'm referring specifically to

section 53 (4): "Where the total reductions in the allowable annual cut authorized in a forest licence or timber sale licence made during a deletion period, in consequence of Crown land use It goes on to provide the percentage that may be removed and then a formula for compensation. It's ultimately subject to arbitration. I want to know just what the minister has in mind in total scope of this section.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Well, there are two parts to it. One is for rights-of -way. The 5 per cent can be removed for rights-of-way for Hydro lines, highways, whatever. At the present time there is no limit to the amount that can be removed for such purposes, but we are restricting it in order to provide that security that is needed for timber production. Five per cent should really be more than adequate to accommodate rights-of-way that may be required.

The other

part is for removals for higher purposes. A higher purpose may be a park; it may be storage for a water reservoir for hydroelectric development. However, by limiting it to 5 per cent without compensation, we're making the government accountable for large reductions.

If, in fact, it is in the best interests of the public to remove more than 5 per cent, so be it. But the government agencies must forward plans sufficiently so that we can recognize this before the licence is established. If it is then necessary, we are actually moving a right, granted to someone, over land. We are withdrawing that. It can very seriously affect the economics of the operation dependent upon that base.

We're trying to make the government accountable and responsible for its decisions as well.

MR. KING : Mr. Chairman, I must state my objection to this particular

provision. This is, in effect, granting the right of private ownership to Crown

land in the province of British Columbia. The licence to log and to harvest

the forest resource is simply that: a licence to harvest. It should not imply

ownership right of the land. If it becomes necessary for the Crown to delete

certain sections from that licence for a higher purpose in the public interest,

to provide all of this accountability to the licence holder, and

[ Page 2787 ]

built-in provisions for compensation, I suggest it is a degree of beneficence that the average citizen in this province does not enjoy from government. I would point out that in the case of a private property owner who has his property expropriated by B.C. Hydro, by the Highways ministry or, indeed, by the Forests ministry, he has no absolute right to compensation beyond going through an arbitration, which is very costly to do in most cases because it implies a court action. Therefore the cost of obtaining any arbitrated settlement destroys the advantage that may be gained by a higher settlement.

Let's just contrast the treatment that that private landowner, who actually has deed and title to his land, receives at the hands of this government. Let's contrast that treatment he receives against the treatment that this particular

section of the Forest Act proffers to the major monopoly - largely foreign corporations in this province - who have no deed or title to our land. They simply have a licence to log.

Mr. Chairman, I object very strongly to this kind of generous provision. Indeed, it is almost the granting of ownership of Crown land to private corporations. I think it's a retrograde step. It harkens back to the buccaneer mentality in terms of proper management of Crown resources in this province.

MR. LLOYD : Mr. Chairman, I would like a little more clarification on that particular

section too. I can see when you're responsible for adding to the timber cut, the annual allowable cut in your area, if some public use comes in that they want to impose on it, I think compensation is directly in order. But I would like to have it clarified whether it is the actual timber we're talking about or if we are talking about land. I think my sentiments would also be that it is public land.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Mr. Chairman, we are not compensating anyone for land. What we are doing is saying that if we withdraw the right to harvest above 5 per cent then we are, in effect, withdrawing a thing of value, a grant that has been provided by the government, and it's the government's obligation to pay for that. The same thing applies with the resumptive power of the government through private land. Up to 5 per cent is allowed without compensation, and then compensation can be and is provided above that.

Previously, Mr. Chairman, the government only had the right to withdraw I per cent of any timber base. We are multiplying that times five. It's a giant step forward.

MR. GIBSON : Just as a matter of fact, I wonder if the minister could tell the committee how that value is assessed. What's the basis for assessment of the value of the rights?

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Well, it will be based on the value of the allowable cut for the remaining period of the licence within which it was withdrawn. The value of the cut, I guess, will ultimately be determined by what profit you're withdrawing from the company for that period of time.

Section 53 as amended approved.

Section 54 approved.

section 55.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

section 55 as amended.

MR. GIBSON : This is the major rollover cut change section, Mr. Chairman. We've discussed that there will be no reductions related to lack of conversion, planned or not; we've discussed the undercut reductions and how they will be handled. There is also a provision in this section, as I understand it, for a reduction with respect to reinventory. I wonder if the minister would explain how that will be handled and whether the inventory will be done by outside consultants, for example. Will the inventory be made public, and do these things go two ways?

For example, it's suggested that if the re-inventory finds a greater annual allowable cut than had been specified, then part of the licence can be cut off. What if it finds less? What if the inventory has to be adjusted downwards? What happens in that eventuality?

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Mr. Chairman, if a new inventory magically finds wood that we were not aware of previously, it's the Crown's wood. It doesn't belong to someone who perhaps wasn't providing us with accurate figures in the past. If the inventory provides for a reduction of cut, that's the way it will have to be, because that cut cannot be replaced from somewhere else. If it's a reduction cut, it will be reduced.

Section 55 as amended approved.

[ Page 2788 ]

Sections 56 to 62 inclusive approved.

section 63.

MR. GIBSON : Mr. Chairman, this

section provides that the Crown shall not be liable for the payment of any compensation in certain eventualities. It sounds dangerous to me and I don't understand why it should be in there. If the Crown is proceeding according to law, I do not see how it would become subject to compensation for any damages, and if it's not proceeding according to law, perhaps it should be. Could the minister explain this

section a bit further?

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Mr. Chairman, this

section does, in effect, abrogate certain rights within the special sale area and rights to perpetual tree-farm licences. This section, my learned friends tell me, will protect the Crown from court actions because of these rights which are being taken away from perpetual tree-farm licences, special sale areas, PHA agreements and so on.

Sections 63 and 64 approved.

section 65.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 65 as amended approved.

Sections 66 and 67 approved.

section 68.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 68 as amended approved.

Sections 69 to 82 inclusive approved.

section 83.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 83 as amended approved.

section 84.

MR. GIBSON : The very last phrase of

section 84 says : "...for a period not exceeding one year." Is that a renewable term, Mr. Minister? I mean, could you keep that up year after year?

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Yes, if necessary that could be renewed.

MR. LLOYD : Mr. Chairman, I was wondering if the stumpage appraisal is going to be looked at in both areas, the coast and the interior? The coast has been on a log-market basis. I wonder if they're both going to be looked at. The present system in the interior, I think, deserves a lot of revision as well, and I just want to make sure that it is going to be looked at, since there has been no bidding any more. It's pretty important that the stumpage rate is relevant and up-to-date. We've been working on six and seven and eight months in the past, and I think this has to be revised very shortly.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : The appraisal system is under study right now, as a matter of fact. There's a lot of work needed yet, but we are concerned with it. The slowness of the reaction of the end value system is one, and we do have plans to change the stumpage system on the coast.

Sections 84 to 87 inclusive approved.

section 88.

MR. GIBSON : Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering what happens, for example, with reforestation responsibilities when in the area concerned the stumpage that may be payable is not sufficient to cover the costs of reforestation, as may occur particularly in overmature stands where it's a minimum-stumpage kind of thing and there's just not enough in the stumpage account to pay for the reforestation. What happens in that case?

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Well, Mr. Chairman, in order to ensure that this reforestation is done, we will be providing full offset for reforestation.

MR. GIBSON : I appreciate there's a full offset, but what if there's not enough funds in the stumpage account to cover that full offset?

[ Page 2789 ]

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Mr. Chairman, if there's not sufficient stumpage available to pay for it, it will be allowed as a forestry cost. But that doesn't really matter because there's only so much money available. However, it will be a term of the licence that this must be done. As we do with road offsets, it can be carried forward.

Section 88 approved.

section 89.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to

section 89. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 89 as amended approved.

section 90.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Mr. Chairman, I move both amendments to

section 90. (See appendix.)

Amendments approved.

Section 90 as amended approved.

Sections 91 and 92 approved.

section 93.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to

section 93. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 93 as amended approved.

section 94.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to

section 94. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 94 as amended approved.

Sections 95 to 106 inclusive approved.

section 107.

MR. GIBSON : On

section 107, dealing with stumpage credit, I just want to draw to the minister's attention - 1 think this point was made in the Pearse report as well - that really these stumpage credits should be in some way accounted for in the estimates, even if just for an informational item.

Sections 107 to 123 inclusive approved.

section 124.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to

section 124. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 124 as amended approved.

Sections 125 to 127 inclusive approved.

section 128.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to

section 128. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 128 as amended approved.

Sections 129 and 130 approved.

section 131.

MR. LOCKSTEAD : I want to say just a few words on this section. Sections

130 to 134 deal with log salvage operations on the coast of British Columbia,

a topic with which I'm somewhat familiar, as I've met with representatives of this group of people on numerous occasions. There's not too much

to be said under the Act, which merely sets up the regulations which will govern

the log salvage operations. However, what I want to discuss is this. The Gulf

Log Salvage operation is essentially a monopoly operation now, as you well know.

The Gulf Log Salvage Co-operative Association consists of people in the industry,

such as: Mr. K. G. Boyd, vice president of MacMillan Bloedel; Mr. J. A. Deighton,

log supply manager of Rayonier Limited; Mr. D. A. H. MacAllister, security manager

of B.C. Forest Products Limited; Mr. Gate, who seems to be an adjuster; Mr.

J. F. Given, log supply manager of L & K Lumber; Mr. M. J. Moelksen, log

supply manager; and a Mr. J.D. Reed, insurance broker with J. D. Reed and Company.

But what I'm pointing out here is that the industry itself governs how log supply and the price of these salvaged logs are paid for, and who receives them. This is what I'm pointing out to the minister. The fact is and it would seem to me that Pearse felt there is no need for the Gulf Log Co-op to maintain its monolithic position for salvage to get less than the full value for their logs. This is what we're talking about - full value for their logs.

[ Page 2790 ]

I know that this should be and must be dealt with under regulations that are now in the process of being drawn up by people within your ministry. But we have no idea what those regulations are, and we can't know until after they're published. I thought I would point this out to the minister, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : I'd just like to mention to the member that, if he can indeed come and see us about the regulations, and have input into them and let us know what he feels should happen, we would welcome his advice.

MR. LOCKSTEAD : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want the minister to know that I will be taking full advantage of that offer.

Sections 131 to 134 inclusive approved.

section 135.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to

section 135 standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 135 as amended approved.

Sections 136 and 137 approved.

section 138.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to

section 138, standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 138 as amended approved.

Section 139 approved.

section 140.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to

section 140 standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 140 as amended approved.

section 141.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to

section 141 standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 141 as amended approved.

Section 142 approved.

section 143.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to

section 143 standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 143 as amended approved.

Sections 144 to 146 approved.

section 147.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to

section 147 standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

section 147 as amended.

MR. GIBSON : I think this

section 147 is a nonsensical

section and a dangerous section. It's bad, and it should be deleted. I don't see how any Social Crediter could vote for it, because it purports to control and restrict competition in the milling of forests products in this province. It would require the obtaining of a licence, when the minister so directs, before the construction of any mill