[ Page 3753 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions.

Payment of Surrey Dodge ICBC claim. Mr. Cocke –– 3753

Prices Review and Monitoring Board. Mr. Wallace –– 3754

Employment of immediate relatives by cabinet minister. Mr. Lauk –– 3754

Escapes from Oakalla. Mr. Wallace –– 3755

Employment of Minister of Transport's son-in-law. Mr. Lauk –– 3755

Alleged Human Resources grants under the Provincial Secretary's name.

Mrs. Dailly –– 3755

Release of report on Oyster River. Ms. Sanford –– 3756

Number of provincial government employees. Mrs. Dailly –– 3756

Release of confidential medical information. Mr. Wallace –– 3756

Escapes from Oakalla. Hon. Mr. Gardom replies –– 3756

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Forests estimates.

On vote 129.

Mr. King –– 3758

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 3761

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 3762

Ms. Sanford –– 3763

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 3764

Mr. Macdonald –– 3765

Mr. Nicolson –– 3766

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 3770

Mr. King –– 3772

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 3775

Mrs. Wallace –– 3776

Mr. Rogers . 3777

Mr. Lea –– 3778

Mr. Wallace –– 3779

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 3782

Mr. Wallace –– 3785

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 3785

Mr. Lockstead –– 3785

Appendix –– 3787

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Mr. Speaker, in diverse locations in the gallery today we have a delegation from the city of Revelstoke and district who have been meeting with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs regarding the interests of that community. I would like the House to welcome His Worship, Mayor Parker from the city of Revelstoke, the regional director, Mr. Carman Saporito; Mr. George Evans; Alderman Dan Chernish; municipal clerk, George Sawada; Mr. Bob Hume; the chairman of the regional district, Mr. Ken McKee; and Mr. Abe Hiob.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce from the constituency of Comox, Michael Moravec who has with her today two friends from California. Michael is formerly a child-care worker in the Courtenay area. I would like the House to make them all welcome.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Today we have seated in the gallery Pam Slade from the fair city of Cranbrook. She is also a representative from the Kootenay area and sits on the executive of the New Democratic Party provincially. I would like the members to join me in welcoming her.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery today four distinguished visitors from the municipality of Richmond. They are Mr. and Mrs. Don Hardy and their two sons, Christopher and Matthew. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): In the gallery today we have a relative stranger, but a close relative of mine and past president of the New Democratic Party. I'd like the House to welcome Yvonne Cocke.

Oral questions.

PAYMENT OF SURREY DODGE ICBC CLAIM

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education in charge of ICBC. This is with respect to the Surrey Dodge claim to ICBC, No. 1961075 under policy No. 4500792973 covering dealers' unlicensed cars. In view of documentation from the Surrey claims centre of March 25,1976, that their investigation with the agent showed that the premium of $450 had not been paid, and later documentation of April 8,1976, from ICBC headquarters showing premiums still unpaid, I ask the question: why was the claim paid?

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the information the member is alluding to. Perhaps he could table the document from which he received that information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh!

MR. BARRETT: Read your own statements to this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: What was the number again? I missed that number.

MR. COCKE: Immediately after question period I will table the document. Mr. Speaker, I would ask a supplementary, however. It is reported in the press that the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) spent six and a half hours in the executive suite of ICBC. Was this pressure the reason the claim was paid?

HON. MR. McGEER: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): How can the Minister of Education say he is unaware of this circumstance when he says in his memo about B.F. Pearson, which he himself filed with the House: "I think that if the decision was made to pay the claim to the insured, the amount of the outstanding premium should have.been deducted."?

AN HON. MEMBER: You filed that.

MR. MACDONALD: Is there a policy to pay claims when the premium has not been paid or is it just in very special cases?

AN HON. MEMBER: Pay as you crash.

HON. MR. McGEER: I'll take that as notice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Don't you read what you file?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Would the hon. members allow the hon. Minister of Education....

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't think so.

HON. MR. McGEER: May I proceed, Mr. Speaker?

[ Page 3754 ]

It is my understanding that if the premiums are not paid, the claims are paid nonetheless and there are deductions from the claims.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, is there any evidence that the actual automobile in question existed? To the Minister of Education - is there any evidence that the automobile in question existed?

AN HON. MEMBER: The Mustang.

HON. MR. McGEER: Which Mustang? (Laughter.) Are you referring to the Surrey Dodge?

MR. LAUK: Yes. This is following up on this question.

HON. MR. McGEER: Did the claim of the member from New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) ... ? But again, Mr. Speaker, I think we'd need to see whatever documents those members have tabled. Obviously the car existed, and just to elaborate for a moment on what I said a moment ago. If a person has a decal and a valid licence plate, it's deemed that they have a valid insurance policy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no.

MR. COCKE: We're talking about an unlicensed car insured on a lot. It had no decal, no nothing. It was an entirely different kind of situation to what the minister has....

PRICES REVIEW AND MONITORING BOARD

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): To the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker: since the minister has not made any more statements about his prices review and monitoring board since the original announcement on June 11, and since the federal Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) has now made it clear that a decontrol programme will be commenced October 14 - or early in January, 1978, at the latest - can I ask the minister, is it still his intention to set up a prices review and monitoring board?

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is my information that the federal minister has not definitely stated the date for decontrols. There have been intimations of October 14 and January 2, et cetera. No definite statement has been made, although we expect one in the near future.

MR. WALLACE: Since the minister has acknowledged that no new legislation will be required, could I ask the minister if the board will simply provide information to the public but have no authority to correct any excessive price increases?

HON. MR. WOLFE: As the member is probably aware, the authority to deal with matters of prices exists under our present Anti-Inflation Measures Act. In other words, a reference could be made from the proposed price review and monitoring board to this Act.

MR. WALLACE: Can I take it, then, that the policy of the government through this prices review board will be to make recommendation to cabinet to freeze prices where it is considered that an attempt to raise prices has been excessive? Who will be the referring body to decide what is an excessive price increase?

HON. MR. WOLFE: That could be an action by such a board, although that is a policy question and pre-empts what determination such a board might make. To a large degree I think it should be said that the board will be involved in monitoring, perhaps receiving complaints and investigating possible price abuses.

MR. WALLACE: As a final supplementary, can I just ask the minister if he, at this point in time, has decided what the size of this review committee will be and whether in fact any members have yet been appointed to it? How many members does he anticipate will be on this board, and have any members yet been appointed?

HON. MR. WOLFE: No members have been appointed as yet, Mr. Speaker, and the size of the board has not been determined, although it is not anticipated to be very large.

EMPLOYMENT OF IMMEDIATE RELATIVES

BY CABINET MINISTER

MR. LAUK: This question is to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. Now that the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) has informed the public that his cabinet colleagues knew he was appointing his son-in-law as his executive assistant, does the Premier wish to change the statement he made saying he was not aware of the relationship?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): No, Mr. Speaker, but I might take at this time the chance to table in the House or ask leave to table afterwards a memo sent to all cabinet ministers today from my office. It says:

"Subject: employment. Under no circumstances are immediate relatives to be

[ Page 3755 ]

employed on either a temporary or permanent basis within your ministry.

"If at the present time any immediate relatives are employed within your ministry, steps should be taken to terminate such employment."

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary to the Premier. Does that mean that Mr. Tozer will be leaving the employment of the government?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BENNETT: No. Mr. Tozer is not a relative of mine, Mr. Member. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this is a statement that's been corrected m any times. Either through ignorance or irresponsibility, it has continued to be spread by some members of the opposition, chief among them the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) . It's not true. Mr. Tozer is not my brother-in-law. He's not my son-in-law-, he's not my father-in-law-I he's not my brother-, he's not my sister. Mr. Tozer is no relation.

MR. LAUK: Is not Mr. Tozer your sister's brother-in-law? Is that not correct?

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): We're all brothers under the skin.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LAUK: The Attorney-General has said we're all brothers under this. I agree with him.

MR. SPEAKER: What is your supplemental question, hon. member?

MR. LAUK: If the Premier is not....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: I think the Attorney-General's a little bit nervous today. I don't know why.

Mr. Speaker, if Mr. Tozer is not going to be terminated - that is, his employment (laughter) -will the Premier undertake to inform the House if there are other immediate relatives that are employed by the government as and when these reports are made to him?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I think the memo speaks for itself. I trust that if there are any cases that require action, it will be taken. I'm sure that if and when my sister follows me into this job, she'll terminate Mr. Tozer. (Laughter.)

ESCAPES FROM OAKALLA

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to have the Attorney-General back in the House because I wanted to ask an important question about escapes from Oakalla. Six people escaped in 1974; 20 in 1975; 35 in 1976; and in the first six months of this year, there have been 2 1 escapes. Since three female prisoners escaped from the womens' unit last Saturday, bringing the total number of prisoners at large in British Columbia to eight, and since one ex-prisoner is saying that Oakalla is the easiest joint in Canada to escape from, has the Attorney-General launched any internal investigations to determine the chief cause for the increasing number of escapes. Specifically, is it due to insufficiently trained guards or a breakdown of staff discipline?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I do have a fairly comprehensive reply to the question, which was actually first raised by the hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) last week. I think that rather than take the time in question period I'll respond after. It takes three or four minutes. Would you prefer that I do it now?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, after question period.

HON. MR. GARDOM: After?

EMPLOYMENT OF MINISTER OF

TRANSPORT'S SON-IN-LAW

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, to the question that I asked the Premier before, he said in answer.... Does he wish to change his statement to accord with that of the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) that he did not know of the relationship of the minister's son-in-law to the minister? The order-in-council is dated April 14. My instructions are that the Premier did not attend, but neither did the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications, and that in fact the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications informed the cabinet on the day.prior when the Premier was in attendance. Can the Premier confirm that information on the record?

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's not a proper question. Don't be silly!

Interjections.

ALLEGED HUMAN RESOURCES GRANTS

UNDER PROVINCIAL SECRETARY'S NAME

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Provincial

[ Page 3756 ]

Secretary. Have any Ministry of Human Resources grants gone out under the Provincial Secretary's name or jointly with the Minister of Human Resources?

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): No.

RELEASE OF REPORT

ON OYSTER RIVER

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. During discussion on his estimates way back on March 3, 1 asked the minister if he was prepared to release the Western Canada Hydraulic Laboratories report, which is a study done on the Oyster River. At that time the minister said: "Yes, I'm quite prepared."

I'm wondering if the minister will now release that report.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of the Environment): If the member has not received a copy of the report, I apologize, because I certainly saw communication come across my desk addressed to that member. If you haven't received that report, I'll see that you receive one immediately.

NUMBER OF

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

MRS. DAILLY: I wonder if the Provincial Secretary could explain her reluctance to inform the House of the number of provincial government employees. Has there been an increase since this government took office?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the information is a question that has been asked on the order paper and I hope that the information will be obtained soon for the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) to place on the order paper.

MRS. DAILLY: I know we have no right to push questions on the order paper but I would ask your guidance. This has been on since January - I'm wondering how long it takes this government to prepare the answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, it's improper to ask questions of the Speaker.

RELEASE OF CONFIDENTIAL

MEDICAL INFORMATION

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Health, with regard to confidential medical information, including names, addresses and the diagnosis of former patients of Hollywood Hospital, which was released to UBC researchers without permission of the patients involved: can the minister tell the House why this information was released without the written permission of the patients concerned, who were subsequently contacted by the researchers on the telephone, causing some considerable distress in view of this breach of confidential information?

HON. R.W. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, there have been many occasions on which information such as that has been released to reliable research personnel in developing a research question of one kind or another.

However, on this occasion, that confidentiality was breached by the researchers. Generally, if a patient is to be followed up, it's done through the patient's family physician or the physician who dealt with the patient at the time of an illness. It's never done through the patient directly.

On , this occasion, I can't answer why that confidentiality was breached. I can only say that the research project was suspended immediately on notification that it had happened.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to move Motion 13, standing in my name on the order paper.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

AN HON. MEMBER: The ayes have it.

MR. SPEAKER: It's not a matter of a vote, hon. members; it's a matter that the Speaker heard a few noes.

MR. BARRETT: Were there some negatives?

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure there were, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House I table documents.

ESCAPES FROM OAKALLA

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House I'd like to respond to the question that was mentioned by the hon. Conservative leader (Mr. Wallace) .

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, concerning this question of escapes, officials have informed me that within the corrections branch as a whole there has been a 20 per cent reduction in all categories of

[ Page 3757 ]

escapes in the most recent reporting year, which is February 1,1976, to January 31,1977, compared with the previous reporting year. This has resulted primarily from improvement in classification procedures to minimum security camp placements and also improved administration in the community correctional centres.

So while the total provincial picture does show some improvement, the question still focuses on the increases in the number of escapes from the main centre at Oakalla over the past few years. The statistics with which I've been furnished, Mr. Member, from the corrections branch indicate that for the period April 1,1975, to March 31,1976, there were 17 escapes from the main centre at Oakalla. But for the period April 1,1976, to March 31,1977, there were 41 escapes from the main centre. These figures are for the male population.

Figures for the women's centre at Oakalla reveal that from April 1,1975, to March 31 of the next year, there were 12 escapes from the building and the grounds of that facility, while during the period April 1,1976, to March 31 of this year, there was one escape. Then there have been the three over the weekend which 1 do not have a report on as yet.

Mr. Speaker, the problems related to Oakalla have been put to successions of governments and to successions of Legislatures in this province for years. But I would like to say that this government is at least coming to grips with it, which certainly didn't appear to occasion too very much in the former administrations.

Firstly, everyone, 1 think, will agree that Oakalla is an outdated, rundown custodial facility with a large number of structural problems. Secondly, it serves as the main provincial remand centre for both men and women, and it's from this population, Mr. Member, that the most difficult security problems arise. This is also coupled with the fact that over the reporting years since 1974-75, the remand population has increased dramatically, which has caused a significant overload on the institution. For several years, Mr. Speaker, Oakalla was staffed to maintain a population of 567 inmates, and it has consistently run at levels of 650 to 700 inmates.

I'd like to make a third point that during the reporting years - right across Canada - we have been exposed to the most serious crisis in prison administration and inmate upheavals ever experienced in the country. Primarily this has been in the federal system, but it has also obviously had a springboard effect into the provincial system wherein we have to take their overload. This is particularly true at Oakalla where the province of British Columbia must hold all the prisoners in remand, many of whom will be receiving sentences to federal institutions. It must hold people who are awaiting appeal from conviction of serious offences, and, as well, it must serve as a backup system to the B.C. Penitentiary, particularly during this time when the B.C. Penitentiary was experiencing its most severe difficulty. It is not difficult to readily see, Mr. Speaker, why Oakalla has experienced increases in the number of people attempting, and actually effecting, escapes.

A number of decisions have been made to attempt to try and resolve the situation. I think the most important of these is the fact that two remand centres will be developed on the lower mainland in order that this difficult remand population can be separated from the sentence population.

I'm also pleased to say that within the last two months there has been experienced an appreciable reduction in the overall population at Oakalla to levels which allow for more effective management. It's down to about 550 to 575 from 650 to 700. This has made possible the removal of double bunks from a number of tiers and has considerably eased the pressure on the administration.

Further, Mr. Speaker, there has been recently completed a reallocation of posting assignments -that is, manpower allocation - within the institution itself which will allow for better management. This has been accomplished with a move to a more organized regional management structure within the corrections branch.

Fourthly, Mr. Speaker, the use of metal detectors and other electronic surveillance techniques are being experimented with with a view to improving security.

Fifthly - and I think perhaps the most important initiative that has taken place within corrections, given all of the current problems - has been the one to increase and improve the availability of staff-training programmes and reduce the number of people functioning in institutions with inadequate training.

Mr. Speaker, the dilemma which correctional systems face all across Canada is that while the institutional prison populations are remaining fairly stable with the increased use of the community-based alternatives, the population within the walls of the institution tends to be more hardened, recalcitrant, more difficult to motivate, and apparently less subject to control through the normal and existing programmes.

I would like to assure the hon. members - and I think the House would be in agreement on this - that the corrections branch of this ministry is a very progressive branch and they're certainly working very hard on this problem, along with other correctional ministries in the country. The problem itself is far from unique to British Columbia.

MR. WALLACE: When will Oakalla be phased out?

[ Page 3758 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: The hon. member asked me: "When will Oakalla be phased out?" I'm not going to be silly and give you a date, which has happened, I think, since I first became interested in Politics. Oakalla was always going to be phased out.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It's proper, hon. minister, for you to make a statement. It's not proper for hon. members to ask questions from their seats or try to engage in a question period, other than at question period time.

HON. MR. GARDOM: We see light at the end of the tunnel and we're moving in that direction as quickly as we can.

MR. WALLACE: That's more than I can see in my party, I'll tell you. (Laughter.)

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I picked this point in orders of the day to ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) if he will fulfil the undertaking he gave us last Tuesday, July 12, when lie said that within one or two days he would table documents pertaining to the Crown Lumber situation?

MR. SPEAKER: It is not the proper time to ask such a question, hon. member.

MR. NICOLSON: It's the most important time, anyway.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

(continued)

On vote 129: minister's office, $101,012 -

continued.

MR. KING: Don't be too hasty.

Mr. Chairman, I listened with much interest to the discussion on Friday surrounding the Minister of Forests' administrative responsibility. And while the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) may be very anxious to get Mr. Chips' estimates through the House, I think that he has an obligation to answer a few more questions before we let him go that easily.

I'm interested in a number of areas that I want to raise. But first of all, let me refresh the minister's memory with regard to the matter that was being discussed last Friday afternoon, basically the problem that the northern forest industry has encountered with respect to a reliable transportation system to get their product to market. I think the Minister of Forests must be aware, Mr. Chairman, that for a number of years and throughout a number of government administrations, there has been a continuing problem in terms of the supply of railcars to accommodate not only the transport of chips but bulkhead flats to accommodate the transport of lumber as well.

Now I was interested in a comparison of the minister's reaction to two separate problems. On the one hand, we have an infestation of budworms in the Fraser Canyon, and the minister became very vociferous about the need to spray budworms to protect the forest industry. He portrayed himself as the defender of the forest industry in this province to the extent of publicly disagreeing with his cabinet colleagues, especially the Minister of the Environment. Yet we find the Minister of Forests strangely silent when it comes to fighting for the means to transport the forest product to market.

We had, it was revealed last Friday, an offer from the federal government to provide some assistance, perhaps a new contract, for car construction to the Railwest car plant. The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) failed to respond to Senator Ray Perrault's overture. I would think the Minister of Forests would be extremely upset and be taking an equally vociferous public position about the need to supply railcars so that the northern forest industry can indeed get their product to market. The whole thrust of their submission to the McKenzie commission sitting on B.C. Rail was the unreliability of the current transportation system to get our forest resource to markets - both south of the border and to other international points.

So I would like to hear the Minister of Forests' comments with respect to this issue. The minister, certainly in my view, has an obligation to try to persuade his cabinet colleague that every initiative should be taken to try to keep the Railwest car shop in operation.

There is a shortage of cars; the squeeze that was put on B.C. Rail by the two national carriers, CN and CP, is a well-known fact. Surely an independent supply of rolling stock for our own British Columbia Railway would do much to persuade our international customers that we are a reliable supplier of the forest product. I think the Minister of Forests should not sit silently on this issue; I think that he should certainly state his position. I hope that position will be to exert some pressure on his forgetful colleague, the Minister of Economic Development, to see if he can't provoke some recall in that minister and to see if he can't provoke some initiative in that minister with respect to jumping at the federal offer which was proffered by the Hon. Senator Ray Perrault, in terms of prolonging the life of the Railwest car plant in the province of British

[ Page 3759 ]

Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, there is another matter that I wish to raise with the minister. 1 was tremendously intrigued by the admonition which the minister gave to some of his departmental staff with respect to attending public meetings on the budworm spraying dispute. As I understand it, and I'm subject to correction if the minister chooses to do so, the minister discouraged - if not ordered - some of the foresters in his department not to attend the public meetings and make public statements on that issue -is that not correct? Well, 1 certainly hope the minister will correct me but there was an indication - and in fact, the minister mentioned it - in earlier discussion in the House that he had discouraged his staff from participating in public debate on this issue. Well, that was my understanding and 1 think if we check the Blues, we'll find that the minister acknowledged that.

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Forests): It was a different matter.

MR. KING: 1 want to say, Mr. Chairman, that there seems to be a dangerous precedent creeping into this structure of the current government, a dangerous precedent in terms of the cabinet's desire to put a gag on all public servants in this province. We had, Mr. Chairman, the issue of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) and the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) apparently exercising some power of restraint upon a public health officer.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That's a lie and I said that before!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, this is not relevant to this particular vote. We are on vote 129, and I'd ask the member to Please keep his remarks to that vote.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, 1 would ask the Minister of Health to withdraw the charge that that is a lie. The Minister of Health did not have the intestinal fortitude to table the documents that were referred to in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member.

MR. KING: Unless he is prepared to do so, he has no right to charge a lie on anyone's behalf.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. You can see how when one member becomes disorderly it provokes disorderliness from other members. 1 would invite the member to please return to vote 129.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't think being called to order in terms of the debate justifies unparliamentary language. I would trust that the Chairman would ask the Minister of Health to withdraw his unparliamentary remark.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the hon. Minister of Health please withdraw the remark: "That's a lie."?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, that statement that was made was not true. I withdraw the word "lie."

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member proceeds on vote 129.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, my point is that there is an unhealthy propensity on the part of certain cabinet ministers to gag staff of the provincial government in terms of participating in policy-making in this province. While the Minister of Health certainly may not be guilty, there is no question that his colleague, the Minister of the Environment, dispensed to him a memorandum suggesting that perhaps a member of the public health staff was too vocal. That's a matter of record.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must remind you again to return to vote 129.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the issue that I'm referring to in this case is the Minister of Forest's admission to the House that he was not willing to have staff of his department participate in public meetings. Perhaps I am wrong in terms of the details, but in terms of the substance I suggest that I am correct.

Mr. Chairman, I want to read into the record of this House some letters. I want to ask you whether or not the minister's policy is consistent in light of the letters that I propose to read.

There is a letter here, Mr. Chairman, dated October 1,1975, from the Merritt Herald. It reads:

"Dear Editor,

"On March I I this year, Mr. Hall, our Provincial Secretary, then complaining on a television interview about the unfair treatment his government receive from the press, said: 'All we want to do is tell the people how they can plug into the system.'

"In August, at the B.C. Native Women's Society meeting in Kamloops, Audrey Baptists, in moving a resolution of support for rejection of government funding, said: 'We are not helping our people by requesting further welfare, which has degraded our people for so long.' Our native Indians have experienced the state of welfarism for many years and now

[ Page 3760 ]

want the self-respect that comes when they say: 'We can and will look after our own needs.'

"The Barrett government is creating a welfare state in British Columbia. They are encouraging a non-work ethic in many of our citizens who can and should work."

And on it goes. Guess who it is signed by, Mr. Chairman? It is signed by one Tom Waterland, whom we affectionately know now in this institution as Mr. Chips, the current Minister of Forests.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think it is an accepted practice in the House to refer to members of the House by their proper designation. I would ask the member not to use the term "Mr. Chips."

MR. KING: All right, Mr. Chairman, I respect your advice in that regard. I might say that I thought it had become an acceptable term when I heard the government backbenchers addressing their own minister in that style. However, I shall refer to him as the Minister of Forests.

The point I'm making, Mr. Chairman, is that at that time, the individual, Tom Waterland, was an employee of the provincial government. He was a mines inspector with the provincial Department of Mines. He made constant public attacks on the government of the day - his employer. He wrote letters galore. I'm not going to read them all because the text of them was not that intelligent, Mr. Chairman, but certainly very vocal.

There is a letter on June 14,1975, in the Merritt Herald; another one on October 29,1975; and a further one on April 23,1975, all from Mr. Waterland who was, at that time, an employee of the provincial government. He found, Mr. Chairman, that he had the complete freedom, as a public servant, to not only comment on the realm of his employment, which was mining, but to comment on the political issues of the day in the province of British Columbia.

Now this same man, once charged with a cabinet position and an executive responsibility, sees fit to issue memoranda to employees of his own ministry vetoing their desire to attend and participate in public meetings solely with respect to the forest industry. What double standards. What hypocrisy, Mr. Chairman. What hypocrisy and what double standards.

I wonder if the minister would fire anyone in his ministry who violated his memoranda. I wonder if the minister believes that in truth he should really have been dismissed as a public servant when he entered the political realm of debate in 1975 - a paid government employee attacking his employer. But there's a different standard of things now that the minister has under his charge a ministry of professional people to administer.

This is consistent with the whole approach that this government is taking, completely consistent with "Do not do as I do, but do as I say." It's the heavy hand of government interfering with freedom of expression, the heavy hand of government demanding one standard for themselves but allowing another standard for the public service and, indeed, the public of this province. These are things that I think the minister should answer for.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The administrative responsibilities of a minister are what is properly debated under his administrative vote. Those matters which took place before his appointment to his present administrative office are hardly in order. I thought that the member would just be giving a temporary reflection on those things and I would hope that he would soon move to vote 129.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I hope you do not become unduly restrictive in attempting to keep this debate on track, because certainly reference has been made very widely to the previous administration in this House without any of the government ministers being called to order. In terms of drawing an analogy and outlining the minister's attitude in terms of his responsibility to his current administrative role, I think that the comments that I've made are perfectly valid and perfectly appropriate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm just drawing to your attention the standing orders of your House.

MR. KING: The bulk of what I was dealing with was, in fact, the minister's current attitude and his current instructions to the employees of his ministry, and that's quite in order.

Mr. Chairman, one other matter which I wish to raise with the minister relates to the policy decision he made last spring, I believe. He referred to it when he introduced his estimates on Friday. That is the problem with respect to an adequate market for the chip supply that now exists in the province of British Columbia. There's no question that there is a problem in terms of finding a market for all of the chips that are produced in the province. We have a shortage of pulp capacity. The minister and his government moved to eliminate the export tax on the shipment of chips out of the country. While I agree with that as a temporary measure, I am concerned that as an indefinite approach that kind of action is going to work as a disincentive to the construction of new pulp capacity in the province.

The minister has indicated he is very optimistic about one or possibly two new pulp mills being brought into construction within the not-too-distant future. The minister hasn't been very precise or specific. I presume he has some information that

[ Page 3761 ]

most of the industry does not have, because I have been reading the newspapers, I've been talking with industry representatives, and it's my understanding that no major integrated firm in the province of British Columbia is now interested in meeting the kind of capital investment incident to developing a new pulp mill in the province. So I wonder who the minister is talking to in terms of his optimism. I wonder if he's talking to some new multinational corporation that exists outside the province.

It's almost inconceivable that the government could have any of their own plans in this regard, but wonders never cease. After all, I did know of a previous Social Credit government that liked to identify themselves as free enterprisers but were quite prepared to go into public ownership and public development of certain commodities when it suited their political purposes. So I wonder what the minister's intentions are; I wish he could be more precise.

The fact is, though, that at the moment we're shipping out large volumes of chips. The export tax is removed, which is certainly an inducement to export our surplus, and that arrangement may look like it's the long-term solution to our problems and consequently reduce the chance of increased pulp capacity in the province, which we're sorely in need of.

I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that the export of our natural resources is never an adequate or acceptable alternative to developing secondary industry and the consequent jobs that go with it right here in the province of B.C. So I would like the minister to reconcile that problem and the policy initiatives he's taken thus far to the House, if he would.

The other problem with the chips industry that I'd like to dwell on and I'd like the minister to comment on.... Mr. Chairman, I've heeded your admonition. When I'm dwelling on chips, it's not because of the nom de plume with which I associate the minister; this is an important part of the forest industry.

Mr. Chairman, one of the big problems for the smaller operators in the forest industry is their inability to find a firm market for their chips. Indeed, there is a problem in the total industry in terms of who gets to sell their chips to the pulp mills. There is power vested in the large integrated firms to virtually dictate who survives in the forest industry by determining what the amount of chips that they will accept from any small sawmill will be, or whether or not they'll accept any.

This is very, very often crucial to the margin of the small operator in determining whether he'll survive, go under or have to sell out to a larger firm and consequently compound the problem of too much monopoly control of our forest industry as it is.

The Pearse commission report dealt with the monopoly dimensions of the forest industry resource in great detail. I'm sure the minister wouldn't want to do anything to contribute to the further control in fewer hands of the forest resource.

Now what I'm suggesting - and I would like the minister's response - is a form of quota for the sale of chips in the province. I wonder why it would not be more appropriate - why it would not be economically sound in terms of encouraging small operators - to require the large integrated firms, the pulp mills basically, to accept on a fair, perhaps rotational basis or quota basis, a supply of chips from all the operators. Because if that is not the case, and disputes arise between some of the larger firms and the smaller ones, as they frequently do with respect to access to the material and so on, the large pulp mills virtually have the ability to put many of the small operators out of business by squeezing them out on the chip supply. I think that that's the kind of power that is dangerous to competition in the forest industry. I think that is the kind of power which does not serve the public interest.

I see no reason why we could not have a quota system in terms of the supply of chips so that everyone gets a fair shake and so that we are doing what we can to encourage the preservation of small independent operations in the forest industry. It's an idea that may have problems and deficiencies. If so, I'd certainly like to hear the reaction of the minister to what some of those problems might be. I certainly do not profess to have all the answers, by any means, if any of them. But this seems like an obvious approach and an obvious - at least partial - answer to what is a very dangerous situation for competition in the industry and which, as I say, has the spectre of delivering ever-increasing power into the hands of the large monopoly corporations at the expense of the small, free entrepreneur who is trying to survive if he can only find at least a reasonable market to get rid of some of his chip products.

So I think I'll let it go at that, Mr. Chairman, and ask the minister to respond to these points. I have more questions for him later on but I think that if he can deal in as comprehensive a way as I have, in terms of putting the question to him, then I'll hold the other questions in abeyance until later on.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the member for Revelstoke-Slocan did bring up the matter of railcars and the matter of the telegram from Senator Perrault, which was part of the discussion in this committee last week. While I know this does not come under the minister's responsibility, Mr. Chairman, but comes under the Minister of Economic Development, I would like to just read a copy of a telegram into the record for the benefit of the members because I know they're concerned. Then perhaps it won't take time from the minister's

[ Page 3762 ]

estimates again in this debate, although we agree that the forest industry certainly does require a consistent supply of cars to move the product.

MR. CHAIRMAN: May I just clear the way for.... Is it agreed that we hear the telegram?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's agreed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I really intended to use this as an answer in question period but nobody seemed to want to ask that question today.

HON. DON PHILLIPS, MINISTER OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS, VICTORIA, B.C. JULY 18,1977. 11 A.M. SENATOR R.J. PERRAULT, LEADER OF THE GOVERNMENT IN THE SENATE, PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE, OTTAWA, ONTARIO. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY DISCUSSED THE CONTENTS OF YOUR TELEGRAM OF LAST THURSDAY, JULY 14,1977, AT AN EMERGENCY MEETING AT 9 A.M. TODAY, JULY t8, IN PRINCE GEORGE. IN THE DISCUSSION PARTICULAR ATTENTION WAS PAID TO YOUR OFFER OF TECHNICAL AND CONSULTATIVE RESOURCES WITH A VIEW TO FINDING A LONG-TERM SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEMS FACING THE SQUAMISH PLANT OF THE RAILWEST MANUFACTURING COMPANY. THE URGENCY OF THE PRESENT SITUATION AND DILEMMA FACING, RAILWEST EMPLOYEES MAKES A MEETING NECESSARY AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE DATE. THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY THEREFORE REQUEST A MEETING WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, TRADE AND COMMERCE TO DISCUSS POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS TO THE RAILWEST PROBLEM ON WEDNESDAY, JULY 20,1977, IN VANCOUVER, OR AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. PLEASE ADVISE TIME OF ARRIVAL AND WE WILL ADVISE EXACT LOCATION OF MEETING. PLEASE REPLY AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO ME AT MY OFFICE IN VICTORIA.

Since that telegram has gone I have been advised, Mr. Chairman, that a meeting has been set up. The meeting will take place in Vancouver at the British Columbia Development Corporation boardroom at

2:30 p.m., Wednesday, July 20,1977. Mr. Chairman, that is the information 1 have to bring before the committee so that we can help get along on the Minister of Forests' estimates.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) asked a few questions on general policy. He started off by saying that 1 was obsessed with the need to spray to protect the forest industry. That member knows well that protecting the forest environment is what we are doing. We are not doing it to protect the forest industry, although protecting the forest resource will assist in maintaining our forest industry, an industry which employs about half of the people in British Columbia.

I'm glad the Premier responded to your remarks about transportation of wood chips and matters relating to the B.C. Railway because 1 was going to say that we do have a minister responsible - a very competent minister - who is doing everything he possibly can to assure the continuation of Railwest.

I might also say that since early in 1966 there has been no serious problem with the delivery of cars by the BCR to most of the forestry-based communities on that line. The railway has been running. It has been running very well for the first time in several years prior to that. The service is good, the cars are being delivered, and except for perhaps a few isolated instances service has been quite good and this has been remarked to me by many, many members of the forest industry who are shipping on the~ BCR line.

The member talked about my attempts to muzzle members of the Forest Service. This- matter was discussed last Friday, Mr. Member. I believe you were here; perhaps you weren't listening. 1 at no time ever discouraged members of the Forest Service from discussing the spruce budworm situation; in fact, I have been encouraging them to do just the opposite and to tell the people of British Columbia just how serious that situation is and how important it is that we do take some measures to protect our environment.

1 did, as 1 mentioned last Friday, tell senior members of the Forest Service that 1 didn't want them taking part in panel discussions relating to the Pearse royal commission findings for the simple reason that these senior people on the staff are privy to discussions that are taking place regarding evolving new forest policy. I did not want false rumours to be created if these people were considered to be speaking on behalf of the government rather than themselves. A lot of disruption could be caused within that very important industry.

1 did not, when 1 was an employee of the Ministry of Mines, speak about developing government policy. It was my responsibility to administer government policy even though, at many times, it was very distasteful to me. 1 actually feel very badly about

[ Page 3763 ]

having had to speak out against the government, but it did help to have the effect of removing that government from office.

Mr. Chairman, we are, at the present time, attempting to encourage the export of some of our surplus wood chips in British Columbia. A surplus exists now, the problem exists now and a solution has to be found as soon as possible. There is absolutely no evidence anywhere that the export of wood chips discourages the establishment of pulp mills. In fact, the experience in the northwestern United States is exactly the opposite. Weyerhaeuser, in the United States, for example, is probably the largest exporter of wood chips in North America; they are also the largest producer of pulp and paper in the Pacific Northwest. In fact, what happens is that as chips are exported and as the capacity to produce the chips is increased, a market is built up for them. Once that market has reached a point where it can support pulp milling facilities, generally these facilities are built.

In British Columbia today we are faced with a surplus of wood chips in excess of a million units right now. The cost of these wood chips is being borne by the forest industry, and a great part of that cost is being borne by the smaller, independent sawmilling companies. If these companies can be in a position to recover revenue from these wood chips, we should make it possible for them to do so by having this revenue returning to the forestry-based companies of British Columbia and is providing them with some of the capital needed to perhaps co-operate in the development of a pulp mill in the future.

I don't believe that the export of any unmanufactured raw material over a long period of time is a good thing. We should have as much possible value as we can right here in British Columbia. That has been the objective of successive governments in this province and it certainly is the objective of this government. In fact, words to that effect were written in our Forest Act, which exists today and which was written in 1912. That will be a continuing policy of this government in British Columbia.

However, we do have to maintain a balance of the chips we are producing now. The efforts of the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and consultants working on his behalf in order to assist the industry in establishing chip export markets have been moderately successful to date. It appears that we are at the point where there is about a 250,000-unit-per-year export possible over the short term.

The member mentioned the fact that pulp mills, or the chip-consuming companies, at times seem to have a great deal of corporate power over the independent producers. At times this is true. When there is a shortage of wood chips, many of the smaller companies enter into contracts with the consuming companies - with the pulp mills. In spite of this, many of the companies did not. In spite of the fact that there are contracts in effect, there has been, I think, a great deal of co-operation from all sectors of the industry - large, integrated companies and the small companies, as well - in order to attempt to rationalize the inequities that exist in the distribution of wood chips.

Many of the smaller companies have voluntarily not enforced contracts which they had to give a chance to some of those others who do not have contracts. Many of the large, integrated companies are cutting back the purchase of chips from their own subsidiaries to the same degree they are cutting back the purchase from non-related companies. There are still some imbalances. Where the big problem really exists is in those smaller, independent companies which are a long distance from the point of consumption of chips. The freight cost then becomes a problem to them.

Negotiations between members of the industry, without any involvement of the government, are continuing and have been going on for some time. They have helped to find some resolution to the problem. More work has to be done. I would hope we don't have to get into a government chip marketing board. We have enough problems with egg marketing boards, and milk marketing boards, and everything else.

I believe the best possible solution is to maintain a vigorous free market for chips. That is why, at this particular point in time, it appears necessary to encourage some exports to get the supply and consumption in British Columbia into proper balance.

I believe that covers most of the points mentioned by the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) , Mr. Chairman. If I have missed any, I'm sure the member will advise me.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, the other day when we were discussing the minister's estimates, the Tsitika-Schoen was mentioned by one of the members of the House. I would like to direct some questions to the minister with respect to the decision which everyone is awaiting on the Tsitika-Schoen.

The Tsitika-Schoen area, Mr. Chairman, is an area on northern Vancouver Island which has been under moratorium for a long period of time with a view to , coming up with some special recommendations for the treatment of that area in the future.

I'm wondering why the government is taking so long in coming to some decision with respect to the Tsitika-Schoen. I know the Ministry of Forests has a direct interest in what happens there. I'm wondering if the minister could advise me what the holdup is. Are there differences in there that can't be resolved? Is there a very wide disparity of views within the committee that is going to make the final

[ Page 3764 ]

recommendation on this? Why is it that this government has been grappling for some 17 months with this issue and has not yet come up with an announcement?

I would like to point out to the minister that there is a lot of pressure to have some decision with respect to the Tsitika-Schoen. I do hope that he will be able to give us some information on that.

The other issue that I would like to raise with the minister is one which was raised with him when he traveled up to Port McNeill not too long ago. Up at the north end of the Island, where it has been very difficult to obtain property and where the cost of property and building costs are very high, a group of citizens banded together some years ago in order to form what is called the Landlovers' Society. This was a group of people who, with the blessing of the regional district of Mount Waddington, wanted to obtain an area of land which they themselves could develop. This is a rather unusual procedure. The Department of Lands finally agreed to their suggestion and members of the north Island Landlovers' Society, along with representatives from the lands department, spent many hours traipsing through the bush in the northern part of Vancouver Island in order to find land which would be suitable for their purposes.

This group has been paying a monthly fee, I think, of $5 into a fund so that they will have money ready for development when the final approval from the government comes. The lands department agrees and every other department agrees, but unfortunately the Ministry of Forests is dragging its heels. They have said they are not keen to take the particular land, which has been agreed to by both the lands department and the Landlovers' Society, out of the tree farm licence.

Now that's regrettable and I cannot fathom why the Forestry minister is dragging his heels on this. I know the minister is aware of it. I know that the people in the northern part of the Island are very disturbed by the length of time that's involved here. When they felt they were finally at the stage where they were going to get tentative approval, the Forestry ministry steps in and says: "No, we are not keen on removing this area from tree farm licence."

I really would like an explanation of what is happening there. If it's not going ahead, why?

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to speak for a few moments about a development in the constituency as well. This is at Campbell River with the Crown Zellerbach pulp mill at Elk Falls. Not too long ago, Mr. Chairman, the company announced that they were going to spend some $125 million to convert from their oil-fuel burner to a hog-fuel burner. I suppose that companies all over the province are making similar discoveries. What I really want to know today is if the minister has had indications from other pulp mills or other companies that are involved in oil-burning operations as to whether or not they are considering the same kind of move as has been taken by the Crown Zellerbach company.

What they have found, Mr. Chairman, is that over a period of 25 years it will be economical for them to spend $125 million now to convert from oil-burning to hog-fuel burning. Now I feet that the decision by the company is a good one, in that the company will now be able to use far more waste wood than has ever been used before. Secondly, not only will people be employed in the Campbell River area - needless to say, unemployment is high everywhere in the province - but they will be employed in constructing in the changeover to the hog-fuel burner. Finally, once the new burner is in, there will be I I additional employees at the plant on a year-round basis in order to maintain the hog-fuel burner.

This company, Crown Zellerbach, has been importing oil from California for a number of years. Unfortunately, the oil is of high sulphur content and as a result, their S02 output is very high, which disturbs a lot of people in the Campbell River area, particularly those who have lung problems such as emphysema.

Now with the construction of this hog-fuel burner, the S02 levels will be cut by 70 per cent, which I think is very significant. Also, the company claims that the fly-ash problem which is usually associated with hog-fuel burners will in fact not be a factor in terms of the air quality in Campbell River.

I'm wondering if the minister has had any information from other companies Which might be considering the same sort of thing; whether or not the minister has any information with respect to improvements in the problem usually associated with hog-fuel burning - that of fly ash; and whether or not the information which Crown Zellerbach has with respect to the cost saving over a period of years is in fact information which Crown Zellerbach has made available to the minister and which the minister in turn will make available to other pulp mills in this province.

I think it's a good move and I'm quite pleased that Crown Zellerbach has made this decision.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) started out with questions regarding the Tsitika-Schoen moratorium. I don't believe there has been an official moratorium declared by the government. I think the stopping of work was a result of an agreement between government and the various TFL holders in the area. It does have the same effect, in any event. No work will proceed in the area in any matter until this thing is resolved. It is a matter which is being discussed in great depth by the Environment and Land Use Committee, of which I am a member.

[ Page 3765 ]

1 believe that a decision will be made on it in the very near future. There are many values to consider. There is the aesthetic value, fish and wildlife, potential parks in the area. There are some unique areas at the mouth of the river, I believe, which are of great concern to various people. I can't say anymore, Madam Member, other than that a decision is probably not too far off and, of course, a press release will be issued at the time a decision is made.

Your discussion regarding the Landlovers' organization at Port McNeill: I did meet with those people on my trip to the north end of the Island and they discussed with me what their problems were. I came back immediately and discussed it with my senior staff of the Forest Service to determine why they were opposing such a move, if in fact they had been. The Forest Service is not opposed to it. As a matter of fact, I have, with my senior people, decided that if such a move is the best use of that land - and it may well be - then, although we wouldn't be pleased to, we would find it necessary to use our authority and we have the authority to remove up to I per cent of an area from a tree farm licence.

I believe there is some problem with the municipal government in Port McNeill. They feel that they have some properties ready for sale and it might interfere with them. However, that's a problem locally and I will not get involved with that. The Forest Service is on record now, and has been internally with other ministries of the government, as saying that we do not object to doing this; it is the best use for land. That will have to be determined by the Ministry of the Environment, which is responsible for land grants,

The Crown Zellerbach conversion from oil-fired to hog-fuel-fired power is, I think, a good thing as well. I don't have any details on the amount of sulphur dioxide emitted by the oil-fired furnace, as the member does. I don't think that the cost of that specific conversion is anywhere near anything like $125 million. I think their actual burner conversion is a part of that total announcement they made earlier, and I believe it runs in the order of $20 million.

Now there is a great deal of discussion among the forest industry today about using our wood waste as sources of energy. In fact there was an energy imperatives conference in Vancouver just a few weeks ago which had participation of most members of the forest industry, the federal government, the provincial government, B.C. Research, I believe, and the B.C. Energy Commission. I believe the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) was present. I wasn't able to be there myself, but I was represented there.

The cost of fossil-fuel energy, as we all know, has been increasing dramatically over the last few years. Now indications are that it will continue to increase as dramatically in years to come. Because of this increase in the cost of fossil fuels it is making other sources of energy much more competitive. I believe the time is here, in certain instances now, where we can make use of this former waste and get energy from it. A great deal of discussion and study is being done by the industry; the government is encouraging it in any way possible. I agree too that it is a good thing rather than having to pay for the disposal of what could be a good source of energy. Even if it costs a little bit more to do it now, I'm sure that the cost saving, as other forms of fuel increase over the next few years, will make it very worthwhile. There are many major companies making serious studies. I don't know of anyone yet who has made a formal commitment, but I'm sure we'll see much of this in the very near future.

MS. SANFORD: I want to thank the minister for correcting me on the $125 billion, That is correct; it's part of their $125 billion announcement. I believe the conversion will cost about $25 million, which they will be able to write off in terms of the saving that they will make by converting from oil.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the minister has said that he is not welcoming discussion by members of the Forest Service on the Pearse report. I want to read to the House a secret letter of the minister at a time when he was a provincial civil servant and ask him whether he regards this as proper conduct of a provincial civil servant. The minister wrote it, Mr. Chairman, and it has now been published in B.C. Studies, spring issue, 1977, on page 19. He wrote it on April 19,1974, to Bill Bennett and to David Anderson. In a post script, of course, to his letter he says: "A post script asked that the writer's name not be publicized 'as I am presently employed by the provincial government and jobs in B.C. in my profession are becoming quite scarce.' "

He doesn't come up front with this, Mr. Chairman; no way. Do you think this is proper conduct, Mr. Chairman, for a provincial civil servant? This is the question I'm putting to the minister because I'm ready to receive letters of this kind from the Forest Service, perhaps, telling me about the millionaires' government over there, if the minister agrees that is proper conduct.

The letter says this. It was written to Bill Bennett and David Anderson:

"I strongly believe that if two or more candidates oppose each NDP candidate in the next provincial election, there is every likelihood that the NDP will be re-elected. British Columbia and your political parties cannot afford the luxury of a split free-enterprise vote. We cannot afford another term of socio-communism."

[ Page 3766 ]

Now what the heck is that, eh? "Socio-communism" - that's doing violence to the English language as well as the political concept.

This is very surreptitious. He's writing there and he's saying "I'm a good candidate." He's writing to Bill Bennett and David Anderson, but not up front.

You also wrote letters to the press while you were a provincial civil servant, and I can't object too much to that because in your off hours it seems to me that civil servants should be free to participate in politics. But I don't think they should write undercover letters like this and say, "Don't use my name, " and use that kind of slander against the then government, saying it's communist. Really!

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Okay. If this is what your definition is, I understand that. I understand that you consider that the NDP are a communist party. It's something I can't do anything about if that's the way you feel about things. The description is libelous but considering the source, it's to be expected in this case.

But I'm asking the minister now: do you think it's proper - I'm ready to receive mail - for me to receive a surreptitious letter of that kind from a public servant who says: "Don't use my name, " and described the coalition over there as some kind of semi-fascists or a group of on-the-make millionaires dominating a few people who are having a pretty tough time of it on the back bench? Would that be proper, Mr. Minister? That's my question. Do you think that's proper conduct?

As Anthony said, I think it was, after his long speech: "I pause for a reply." Is it proper conduct, Mr. Minister?

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, the minister seems not to be too proud of those words that he spoke in 1974, or perhaps it's the manner in which he uttered them. I think the minister should be up front and stand by those words or repudiate them. Certainly, I think that the opposition - as the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) has said - would have to view any such letters that might come to them and ask the government of the day, and particularly that minister, if it came from his department, if they thought that was proper.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to read another letter written by the minister, when he was minister in charge of forests, rather recently to the Goldstream Gazette. It is addressed to the editor of the Goldstream Gazette and it says:

"Let's call a spade a spade and let's talk a language that everyone understands - no gobbledegook, no confusing, highly technical jargon. When your heart is threatened, your body is threatened. There's no guesswork in what you would do. You'd do everything possible to save yourself, The action you would take would undoubtedly leave some scars. If it was open-heart surgery the sear would be a big one, but with proper care and attention, it would heal."

He goes on to say:

"Let's look at our forests. They are the heart of the province in more ways than one. They Provide thousands of jobs. They do far more than most of us realize to maintain our precious water supplies. They contribute more than anything else to the 'beautiful' in beautiful British Columbia. All of us know that.

"Right now, that heart of our province is being threatened. It is being literally eaten away by countless insects. The pulse of the forest is slowing down. Maybe nature will provide the cure - the surgery. She has before and, most likely, will again."

I'm reading the full letter, Mr. Chairman, because when you don't read out the full letter, people take great exception to you quoting and they say: "You're quoting out of context." I might reduce this in the interests of brevity, but I wouldn't want to be accused of quoting this out of context. It's short and I'll go on:

"But when in vast areas we have been waiting for eight years, the healing process hasn't even started yet. Meanwhile, the heart is getting steadily weaker. Should we wait until it stops?

"The Forest Service, responsible for the patient, with its variety of expertise in such matters, has carefully studied a number of possible remedies. Supported by outside authorities who are just as concerned about health and environment as we are, the forest managers have prescribed spraying as the most effective and efficient way of arresting the problem. It's intended to start the treatment early next month in a region east of the Fraser Canyon.

"We must perform this treatment on our heart, our forest. If we allow this budworm disease to progress, the pulse of British Columbia might eventually stop. It's as basic as that."

It's signed by our Minister of Forests.

Mr. Chairman, using the minister's analogy one might say that there's a cancer spreading in the forest, but I think that what this minister has prescribed is some unproven remedy - in fact, a remedy that in this case is even more harmful for our forests than laetrile is for cancer. While the effects of laetrile haven't been discovered one way or another, this minister isn't really prescribing open-heart surgery.

[ Page 3767 ]

Something that would leave a scar might be a forest fire, which is one way in which nature has regenerated forests. Certainly we've had various bugs and such, as the minister has said, going after our forests and eating them for many, many years before even the native population of North America arrived on this continent.

Let's call a spade a spade, Mr. Chairman. We're not talking about bugs here. We're talking about choristoneura furniferana. That's what we're talking about, Mr. Chairman, otherwise known as the spruce budworm.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Say it without reading it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't know if that's in order or not. (Laughter.)

MR. NICOLSON: Well, I know you have none of the learned Latin scholars next to you at this time.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to refer to a few clippings which have been gleaned from various journals by a former student of mine - and I'd like to give him credit - Mr. Robert Weber, who is now a post-secondary student, I believe, at BCIT. He's researched this because it is a current topic and a matter of great concern.

It's a matter of great concern because we know that the chemical in which the active ingredients are used to discourage budworms has been linked with Reye's syndrome and we know that there are some cases in New Brunswick in which children have been linked to this. There's a great deal of controversy going on about it. There is also more firm evidence of the cause and effect between Reye's syndrome and aerial spraying in Vietnam as a result of the intensive spraying in Vietnam.

Let's go back. Let's look at the evidence and the reasons from other jurisdictions studying a number of possible remedies. Look back to The Financial Post of July 12,1952: "Budworm Death Rate Climbs After New Brunswick Aerial Spray Job."

"The big aerial spraying job conducted over 300 square miles over northern New Brunswick timberlands in an effort to save the three million cords of pulpwood from destruction has been completed. Initial studies indicate that the project was a success, although it will take about a year to gauge the ultimate effect of the spread of the budworm."

The cost? It says: "It's thought to be fairly certain that infestation has been checked for at least a year, which was the objective of the $500,000 project." Half a million dollars.

Then in 1955 we see that the budworm wasn't completely wiped out. "New Brunswick Budworm War Costs Less. Epidemic Wanes, Not Over Yet." The

Financial Post, April 9, 19 5 5. It says:

"The budworm epidemic isn't over but there is some evidence suggesting that the peak has been passed.... No evidence yet exists that a permanent dent in fish population occurs after forest spraying in a limited area."

But at that time in 19 5 5, evidence was starting to suggest that that was indeed a fact. Researchers had concluded that aquatic insects on which young salmon feed were so extensively killed by DDT in the spray that it might take some years to reach former levels of production. This of course is one of the things which we must bear in mind in terms of areas and watersheds. That's why we want to leave strips in forest management areas. I believe this was even brought out in a presentation on the planning for the Creston PSYU which the minister and I both attended. The young fish depend upon insects that fall from the trees and into the streams. This is a major source of feed, particularly for young trout and salmon and other desirable species.

In The Financial Post, September, 195 6, there was another annual story on budworm: "Budworm Devours Tall Trees and Industry's Profits." Here we see in this article that they are finding evidence of the budworm coming back in areas which had previously been sprayed.

In other words, between 1952 and 1956 the budworm was already making a recovery. This was when they were using DDT, which is certainly a much more lethal type of a spray than some of the ones which we've used since we've done away with DDT - and thank God for that. It indicates that already back in 1956 there was a recovery of the budworm in areas that had been previously sprayed. The deputy minister, of course - Mr. McCormick - remained optimistic. "If we can keep the wood green and growing, " he said, "then we can cut it and use it. I don't think the price for spraying is high." He was talking in terms of stumpage and revenues and the trade-off between the cost of spraying. "Long-term potentials of the spraying are considered still obscure, and intensive studies must be considered in the forest to determine the ultimate effects of repeated or periodic applications of insecticides on the complex biological balance." Biological balance refers to the fact that as you poison and kill the spruce budworm, you're also poisoning some of the natural predators, which of course die off and are reduced in numbers.

Still in The Financial Post, 1960: "Damage to Birds, Fish May Affect Budworm War." So now they're becoming more concerned with some of the environmental spinoffs of this unresearched thing. I could also point out that when they were spending millions of dollars per year in spraying in the cast, they were spending only $10,000 on research into the ecological ramifications of this programme; $10,000 in research at a time when over $1 million was being

[ Page 3768 ]

spent annually.

"Damage to Birds and Fish May Affect Budworm War." This also comes at a time when evidence now being collected suggests that insecticide sprayed over some six million acres during the seven years did considerable damage to the natural environment. Some 2.5 million acres are to be sprayed this spring and summer by Forest Protection Ltd., a Crown company financed by the Canadian and New Brunswick governments, and pulp and paper companies - that was on a one-third one-third one-third basis.

The annual report of Fraser Koss, one of the participants, says: "A sharp and unexpected resurgence of the spruce budworm infestations along the southern boundary of tracts previously sprayed in central New Brunswick occurred in the past year." So back in 1960 they were having a "sharp resurgence" of the budworm. The earlier spraying hurt the birds first and insect life, as well as beating down the budworm menace.

Also, there is an article on the Green River project by H.D. Heaney, April 1963, which again points out the growing concern about the futility of this type of approach. In The Financial Post of 1965 - The Financial Post has maintained an interest in this controversy over the years - in an article entitled, "Expansion for Budworms; Cornwall Firm Beware, " they show how it has indeed spread in spite of all of these efforts.

Finally: "Budworm Battle Takes to the Air." It's now affecting about 100 million acres in forest from Winnipeg to New Brunswick by 1972.

They've come up with new types of sprays and dispersants. The minister has said that there need not be any concern if we spray; it will be done on a very controlled basis. I'd like the minister to go back to his undergraduate days and indeed think back to the Stokes theorem on viscosity. These particles which are being dispersed are one micron in diameter. Perhaps the deputy minister would appreciate this theorem. He's probably never forgotten it, and 1 hope the minister hasn't. When you think about a particle which is one micron in diameter - that is, 10-6 meters - it will fall with such a low terminal velocity that.... 1 don't care if you drop this thing from three feet above the treetops, you're going to get a spread of this. These particles can drift around just as surely as a parachute can float away from a dandelion that's on the ground and travel miles and miles and miles. But this is one of the techniques that was being used in 1972. I'd like the minister to keep that in mind.

An article published in another journal in 1974 entitled, "CNIZ Co-sponsors Seminar on Spruce Budworm, " says:

"At present there is no comprehensive programme to study the effects of prolonged spraying. In 1973 less than $10,000 was allocated for research purposes. Accidental oversprayings have already been linked to the death of bees, fish and birds." It suggested:

"At least 10 per cent of the total cost of the programme should be directed toward research. A consensus of the meeting, however, seemed to feel that the most rational approach would be to reduce spraying. Some felt no spraying would be the best solution; others felt light spraying every few years would be more effective."

One of the things that was coming out in these seminars, Mr. Chairman, was that by having these spraying programmes, they were propagating the very tender type of growth on the spruce - of course, I realize in British Columbia it's a different species that we're concerned with, but the same pest - and that we had indeed created a very wide habitat that was at the optimum for these. Thus we were getting these reinfestations of these various areas.

Another article by Mr. Gary Saunders on the spruce budworm crisis, published in 1975, talks about the problem that when the budworm has gone through an area, it destroys vegetation and creates a fire hazard. Fire often follows, but he says: "In a way, this is good. Fire, in these circumstances, is nature's antiseptic." Getting back to the minister's medical analogy, perhaps the solution, where harvesting of these species can't take place, is to allow some controlled burning. We should consider such things as this in order to reduce hazards after this has traveled through.

The budworm, is as native as the balsam fir it feeds on, During the long evolution it has developed a full quota of natural enemies. Here we have been threatening the natural enemies. I'd like to point out to the minister that they have documented cases of spruce budworm epidemic going back to about 1820. These things have not lasted more than 10 years. The one that we have going on now has lasted more than 20 years. It has lasted in New Brunswick not in spite of, but probably because of this spraying programme. What I'm suggesting to the minister is that he really should look at some of the other evidence,

I don't know what evidence he has been looking at, but it would seem that a volume of information and summaries of reports which have been coming from such journals as The Financial Post have shown that the minister's concept has led to nothing but failure and has, in fact, increased the budworm in an epidemic fashion.

Mr. Chairman, some of these articles are rather lengthy. It appears, based on the information which we have, that all of these efforts have been very unproductive and counterproductive. In fact, if one looks at the growth of the expenditure in the

[ Page 3769 ]

spraying programme, we see that since about 1952 it has grown from $500,000 up to about $20 million per annum at present. It's an exponential rate of growth. It's a curve that is going up.

The other thing that has gone up at the very same rate is the area affected. It has also gone up at an exponential rate. That can't continue, of course, because there is a finite area to be affected by this. What it does point out is that this type of a measure is not the one that is universally recommended as the only thing. It is desperation. I can appreciate the minister being under great pressure with his responsibility to do something, do anything. The government has slapped his fingers on this thing and told him to pull back on it, As long as that minister goes around trying to say that this is a solution, you're going to hold out false hopes.

The minister can probably solve his little problem for his tenure of office. He might only be Minister of Forests maybe for the rest of this session. He might be transferred to some other portfolio. Another election could bring about an end or a change of portfolio to the minister's tenure. I don't suppose he is going to be Minister of Forests forever.

He can, perhaps, buy his way and silence some of the pressures from the industry for him to do something - to appear to be doing something - by talking about a spraying programme. But it has been shown that the spraying programme is wildly unsuccessful and that this little expenditure has grown from $500,000 to $20 million in an exponential fashion. Every three or four years the amount expended is doubling. Is $40 million going to be spent in Canada in a couple of years? After eight years is it going to be $80 million, and so on? The minister knows what exponential growth is. When things start to double every five years, it would not take very long before a spray programme in British Columbia, which might start out at $500,000, as it started out in New Brunswick, could end up outstripping the total provincial budget in very short order.

It may not be a problem that he will be around to have to worry about, but this is just begging the question. There have to be other solutions. Certainly one of the things that is constantly referred to in these studies is the fact that back in New Brunswick they created conditions that only encouraged the growth of the host species tree. The forest practices in this province are very similar. The problems were not so great when there was a diversity of pines, spruces and various other things. These conditions and the spraying programme itself have created a homogeneous rather than a heterogeneous forest and have created these epidemic conditions.

I'd like the minister to think in terms of the threat of Reye's syndrome. Certainly not all of the facts are in on that. There are certainly questions raised concerning Reye's syndrome.

Also, the minister has not made every effort to get people of both opinions consulting with him on this question. From the Nanaimo Daily Free Press we see: "Biologist Refused Say at Spraying Conference." The story was datelined Victoria and said:

"A biologist with the federal Environmental Protection Service said he was denied a request to appear at the conference here Thursday and Friday on spraying of pesticides in the Fraser Valley. Otto Lange, the EPS senior project biologist for freshwater studies on pesticides and hazardous chemicals, said Thursday he was turned down by Don Owen, the forester in charge of the Ministry of Forests' protection division. He said Owen told him he was acting on the instruction of the minister, Tom Waterland. Lange said that he is particularly concerned about the effect the proposed spraying of 100,000 acres of the Fraser Canyon area will have on fish stocks,

"He said he expressed his concern to Owen earlier this week and asked to appear at the conference. 'Owen came back and said people had been hand-picked by Waterland and that Waterland had turned down our request.' "

In other words, what the minister has done is to set up a committee; he has hand-picked his experts; and then he's taken this advice because he obviously is not willing to hear all sides of the question. If the minister was to listen to the other side of the question, there is no way that he could be pinning his hopes on this slim, fragile hope.

I'd like the minister to step out of his role for a moment as Minister of Forests and look upon this from a detached point of view. See yourself as others would see you, Mr. Minister. How could a person say that on the basis of information that this is the way to go?

Spruce budworm spraying has been an unmitigated disaster, There has to be a better way. There have to be other solutions which are more environmentally natural in terms of our harvesting procedures. The cost of this type of loss should perhaps be waived when we look at the cost of harvesting through selective logging as opposed to clearcutting, which I'm not advocating as an either-or situation. But in terms of making choices as to whether a place is most appropriate for clearcutting or for selective logging, I think these potential costs have to be weighed.

I think that it's time this minister turned over a new leaf; he's not long in this office but he could certainly point out his willingness to start listening to some others. Take the type of input that we really enjoyed at that meeting which we attended together in Creston - these young foresters have some new fresh ideas - and listen a little bit more widely. There are other solutions. I would like the minister to say

[ Page 3770 ]

on the basis, maybe, of what he's heard here today that he would be interested in looking a little bit more closely into this question and to put a moratorium on his advocacy in contradiction to his government's policy of budworm spraying. He still seems to go around insisting that this is the way to go. As long as the minister is saying this, it's of great concern.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One minute, hon. member.

MR. NICOLSON: It's of great concern to people. You were proposing this spraying in your riding. Well, I don't like to see it in your riding, Mr. Minister, and 1 certainly don't want to see it in mine.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: 1 would like to respond to some of the points raised by the member for Nelson-Creston. Yes, indeed, 1 was proposing spraying in my riding, Mr. Member, because that happens to be where the spruce budworm infestation is. It wouldn't make much sense to spray it in your riding because 1 don't believe you have spruce budworm there.

MR. NICOLSON: We do have larch.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the member has covered a lot of points, all centred around the spruce budworm situation in British Columbia, and he has read very extensively from reports on the spruce budworm situation in New Brunswick. He is not talking about the same thing. The budworm in New Brunswick - I can't remember the Latin name he used; I wish he would table that for me - is not the same insect which we have in British Columbia. The trees which are being attacked in New Brunswick are not the same trees we are....

Interjection.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, would you call the woolly member to order?

The insect is not the same; the tree species is not the same, Mr. Chairman. There's absolutely no comparison that can be made between the continuing spray programmes which have been carried out in New Brunswick and those which are proposed for British Columbia. The situation which exists in the northwestern United States - in Washington and Oregon - is similar to ours. The tree species are the same; the insect is the same; the topography of the terrain is very similar.

The member, Mr. Chairman, constantly referred to Reye's syndrome. As he has acknowledged, there has been no definite link made between fenitrothion, which is blamed for this syndrome, and the syndrome itself. I believe that people are now studying questions.... Perhaps the emulsifier used in the use of fenitrothion as a spray is the cause. They have not yet established any link here.

Mr. Chairman, we have no intention of using fenitrothion in British Columbia. In fact, fenitrothion has not been used for spraying insects in the forests in British Columbia since 1973 when it was used near Port Hardy and when it was approved by the then Minister of Health for use near Port Hardy. We do not intend to use fenitrothion.

The experience in the northwestern United States and their conditions are almost identical to ours with the same species and the same insect. They have been spraying various areas since the 1950s in Washington and Oregon and they have found that the methods they use, which are the same as the ones we intend to use, are very effective. They have received about a 95 per cent kill of epidemic infestations of the western budworm. They have also found that in less than I per cent of the cases there they had to go back and respray. At least that I per cent was true up until last year when they used a new insecticide called malathion and the effect of that was not as successful as the Sevin-4 that they had been previously using.

Mr. Chairman, I hope and pray that some other method of controlling this insect is found - some more environmentally acceptable method. But until it is we must do what we must do to protect our forest environment.

Mr. Chairman, I spent three hours this morning in a helicopter flying the Skagit Valley, Manning Park, the Anderson drainage, Scuzzy Creek, Spuzzum Creek and the Fraser Canyon looking at the devastation that is taking place in our forests there. I asked the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) , when he drove up to Revelstoke a few weekends ago, if he would look and see. He did and said: "Yes, I saw the odd red tree." There's a little bit more than the odd red tree. There are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of acres of timberland being devastated. It is a very, very serious problem and something that must be dealt with.

The natural controls that nature provides are more devastating than the insect itself because nature's control is to allow the trees to be defoliated and allow them to be then attacked by other insects like bark-boring beetles. Nature's cleanup and mopup action after that is gigantic wildfires which sweep through the entire defoliated area. This has occurred in the past in British Columbia before we were here to witness it. There is ample evidence of this having happened; we cannot allow that to happen.

Our society depends upon our forests; our economy depends upon our forests; the beauty of our province depends upon our forests; the habitat for the fish and wildlife depends upon our forests; the control of the erosion of the soil depends upon our forests. We are very, very dependent upon our forests

[ Page 3771 ]

and we must not ignore the problem. It is very serious. I would invite any member from the opposition who would like to come and see and look at it and see it first hand to come and have a look. I am sure that you would then realize just how terribly serious this is. I am sincere about that, Mr. Member. Please join me and come and look at what I looked at this morning.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Who'll pay the expenses?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: If I have to pay for the helicopter myself, I will.

Mr. Chairman, there have been many other types of control suggested. There are other types of control in the research stage right now. Bacillus thuringiensis is another bacteria which will perhaps control this insect and it is in the research stage. Initial indications are that it could work. It has worked in test conditions but it has not yet been proved to be operational. No one knows what the long-term effects of adding other bacteria to the environment will be. If that method proves more acceptable to the environment than the use of chemical insecticides, I will be the first to say that we should use it.

One of the members of the opposition suggested the other day that we manufacture miniature leghold traps and trap the spruce budworm, but I don't think that would work either. I know he suggested that in jest, of course.

I got a letter from one of our senators in Ottawa suggesting that someone had a radionics method of controlling the spruce budworm. He said it has been proven to work. We inquired about this but it turned out that a fellow sitting in Florida has a little electronic box powered by a six-volt battery attached to a map of New Brunswick. He takes his scribe and runs around the infected area, and that is supposed to control the insect. Obviously, it is not a serious control method. We wonder what would happen if he were to move his scribe and put it on British Columbia or on Victoria and increase the power.

Mr. Chairman, harvesting of the infected areas is a control measure, and we are directing a lot of our effort to harvesting those areas infected. But it is impossible to harvest all of the areas just because of pure physical barriers, and also because of the fact that a great deal of the timber infected is immature timber. It's not ready for harvesting. All you are doing is destroying the resources you are trying to affect.

Controlled burning. Perhaps in isolated areas you could do this. But if you can control burning, you can also get into harvesting. Why destroy the resource we are trying to protect? The damage to the environment - and there is some environmental damage by using insecticide, I have never denied that - which is caused by such use, though, is much, much less than the damage caused by doing nothing, and this is the fact we have to recognize.

The member mentioned the spray drift when you're using 1 micron-size spray particles. No one has ever intended to use 1 micron-sized spray particles. The equipment which we use and which we intend to use and which has been used in other areas will produce micron sizes of 110 to 120 microns. Still there will be drift with particles of that size as well. No one can ever hope to say that you will get no spray drift. Using helicopters to distribute insecticides does, to a great extent, cut down on the drift because you are very close to the ground, and the downwash from the helicopter rotors does tend to drive the spray down immediately into the foliage.

However, there is some drift. 1 can't guarantee you that there will never be a particle of spray get into a watercourse even if you're a mile away or 10 miles away, but what we have to look at is if there is going to be any significant drift of spray which will cause any significant harm. The answer to that question is no, that we can control significant spray drift and we will if we ever spray our forests to protect them.

The budworms in New Brunswick, as 1 mentioned, are not the same as here. The tree species are not the same. Their plan in New Brunswick each year, because the spruce trees there could not withstand defoliation, was to kill the insect before it started feeding on the trees. They wanted to kill that insect as it was feeding.

In British Columbia, our fir trees can stand several defoliations. Our plan, as has been the plan in Washington and Oregon, is to forego that year's foliage, get the insect when it is most vulnerable and to achieve a kill in the order of 95 per cent. Yes, when we do that we will damage some other insects but we will plan our spray programmes so that it will be done when the budworm is at its most vulnerable period and those other insects are not necessary at that period. The predator insects recover. As has been demonstrated time after time, they recover much more quickly than the budworm.

We always have a certain endemic level of budworm population. Through reasons which are not fully explainable but primarily related to weather, from time to time these populations get out of control. At the present time in British Columbia, they are more than five times what is normally considered an epidemic level, and it's getting worse.

The member mentioned exponential growth. He was speaking of the growth of the cost of spraying in New Brunswick. He said that if it doubles every five years, the cost will be tremendous. Well, let me tell you about exponential growth, Mr. Member. It is indicated that the growth of the area of infestation in British Columbia, Washington and Oregon, if untreated, is about 30 per cent per year. That is

[ Page 3772 ]

considerably more than doubling every five years - a 30 per cent increase every year to the areas infected by the budworms. There are many, many more problems here than just saving trees for sawmills, although that is important because many of our citizens work at these sawmills and work at harvesting the timber. It's a serious problem, and I beg you: please come and look at it before you say that it's a wrong thing to do.

You mentioned the fact that I had a hand-picked group of people who were here to take part in a panel discussion and that I refused access to a Mr. Lange, I did not personally issue instructions to anyone and my forester in charge of protection has said this many times. What I said is: "We can only have so many people there. We must have people representing various areas of concern and expertise."

We did have people from the chemical companies, yes, because they are the most expert in the history and use and testing of these chemicals. We had people from Agriculture Canada who worked for many years on the approval of these sprays for agricultural and forestry uses. I did have a hand-picked group of panelists. I hand-picked Merriam Doucet; I hand-picked Dr. Kenneth Graham and Dr. Patrick Moore of Greenpeace. I hand-picked these people to come and sit on this panel so we could hear their viewpoint as well.

Everyone with one exception - Mrs. Doucet -who was on the panel and who attended as observers and experts, told me afterwards that they thought having this discussion was a very, very worthwhile exercise. They remarked in what an unbiased way it was conducted. I thought that exercise was good. I received a lot of very valuable information. I hope, Mr. Member, that you have a copy of the transcript because it was recorded by Hansard and has been distributed to anyone and everyone who wishes it. I believe we sent all the members of the Legislature a copy of it.

Please don't remove this very valuable tool for the protection of our forest environment from us until we can replace it with something better, because it's a necessary tool that foresters throughout North America and the world use and it's an essential tool. I pray that we will find a better one, but we don't have it yet. We must protect our forest environment because it's extremely important to us, not only, as I said, because it adds raw materials to our forest industry but it means so much to us in many, many other ways.

In the Fraser Canyon right now, both sides of it, from Yale up to north of Boston Bar, there are very obvious red tinges to the trees - much more than tinges. Whole mountainsides are red. It wasn't that way last year. This infestation is growing very, very rapidly

In the Anderson drainage, which I was in this morning, some of the trees there have been infected now for three or four years. You have vast areas with the silver ghosts of what were once trees standing there, absolutely defoliated, tinder dry. It is a tremendous fire hazard, a tremendous loss to British Columbia. I beg you, Have a look and see what it looks like before you condemn it.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, no one in the House doubts for one moment but that the Minister of Forests is genuinely concerned with the spruce budworm problem. In fact, I think it goes without saying that every member of the House - certainly every member of the public in the province of B.C. -must be concerned with this tremendous threat to what is a vital resource in the province.

I want the minister to understand that although he is the member of the executive council charged with the political responsibility of administering forestry, certainly he is not unique, nor is he alone, in terms of concern for preserving our forest industry. The question is: just what kind of action does one take to come to grips with a problem such as the spruce budworm?

The concern is that the cure may be worse than the disease. That is the concern and that is the debate. Mr. Chairman, there is a difference of opinion among the experts as to what the impact would be of spraying with the particular properties that were put forward as the proposed solution to the budworm infestation. Certainly I have no way of knowing whether the environmental damage that would accrue to the rest of the ecosystem and the water drainage from spraying those toxic materials would be as devastating as some believe. I don't know. I question whether the minister knows. It is rather significant that he was unable to persuade the rest of his cabinet colleagues and, more particularly, the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) , that this was the best solution. That is the question and it is a very thorny problem. It is a very vexing problem. I certainly understand and sympathize with the minister's great concern. No one questions his sincerity in that regard.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

I don't think one has to take a one-dimensional view of it. Perhaps there are other options in terms of a solution. I don't know. I'm not satisfied and convinced that the minister has really investigated the total plans and alternatives that may be available in terms of coping with the spruce budworm. There are those who suggest that given its life cycle, the insect will disappear on its own without creating the havoc in the forest industry that the minister fears. I don't know whether that is valid either. Certainly one cannot ignore the tremendous public reaction which

[ Page 3773 ]

was provoked in the minister's own riding from people who rely on the watershed in that area, the people who are farming, and the people who have to raise their children there and are concerned that some of the toxic chemicals used might, through the water system, create unanticipated damage in human beings for years to come.

So I say to the minister: at what price is he prepared to put his responsibilities to the forests first and foremost? These things have to be reviewed in balance. As I say, the minister was unsuccessful in persuading his constituents that they should not have a valid concern and fear of the spraying programme. He was similarly unable to convince his cabinet colleagues. Indeed, the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) superseded the Minister of Forests' orders in terms of cancelling the spruce budworm spraying programme. The Minister of Forests indicated his dissatisfaction. Fair enough.

But I want to urge the minister not just to sit back and say: "Well, it's unfortunate we couldn't protect the forests in this way. I hope that we will be able to spray in the future." I suggest to the minister that he continue intense research and that he continue to gain advice from every jurisdiction in North America and elsewhere, if there is an experience, to try to come up with alternative plans which are less of a threat to the rest of the environment than the spraying programme would pose.

I really don't view this as a political issue because, as I said at the outset, every member of this House and every responsible citizen in the province has to be concerned and has to be anxious to find a way of overcoming this menace from the spruce budworm. You know, quick over-reaction and the simple answer can sometimes pose more serious problems than it solves. I urge the minister not to be so overzealous in his one-dimensional concern for forestry that he fails to weigh the human consequences that might flow from spraying. That is really the issue.

I don't pretend to know, but I'm very concerned when I see the public reaction. History, I think, should show to politicians that where there is a tremendous public reaction, there is usually some valid basis for that concern. The people are not a bunch of irresponsible nuts out there who just oppose everything. There are real fears and real concerns.

When we look at some of the tremendous hazards that have been injected into our environment by the so-called experts and the consequences in human misery that people have had to suffer, then one can understand that the public is becoming less and less satisfied in terms of accepting the official point of view and the official solution without an opportunity for adequate public representation and for positive proof that health hazards are fully understood and fully accommodated before these programmes are brought on stream.

Think of the new chemicals brought into the environment. Think of the drug thalidomide and what it meant to thousands of people in North America. That was brought in with the best of intentions. Certainly it was offered as an aid to improve health, but the consequences weren't foreseen. Perhaps with some more caution, perhaps with some more testing and analysis and research, the consequences might have been anticipated and untold human suffering might have been prevented. 1 don't know about the properties involved in spraying the spruce budworm. 1 believe Sevin-4 oil is one of them. 1 forget what the other thing is. It's all Dutch to me anyway. .. .

AN HON. MEMBER: Orthene.

MR. KING: Orthene, is it? But when there is that kind of public concern out there about these properties, when there is a division of professional opinion as to what the possible consequences may be, then 1 say it behooves the minister as a member of the executive council.... He's not only Forests minister but he is a member of the government and he has a responsibility not only to the forest but to the total population and to the total environment. I know he's concerned about that and 1 know he recognizes his responsibility, but 1 certainly urge him not to become so one-dimensional in view that he sees his responsibility as to the trees alone.

There are a lot of people out there, and they are a more vital and valuable resource than the trees will ever be. What we need is a balanced, ;intelligent approach to this problem, an approach which is prepared to put up some bucks for more research, for more liaison with every jurisdiction and every chemist and every scientist in the nation and in the world who may be able to provide a solution and an alternative which is a lot more palatable to the people of British Columbia from every point of view.

1 know it's a thorny dilemma and 1 certainly empathize with the minister and his staff in terms of the problem he's confronted with. 1 understand and 1 certainly sympathize. The jobs of our people are a factor and this is a concern that has to be weighed against the other consequences. It's a difficult problem. So 1 just wanted to respond to the minister and point out that he's not suffering alone in this thing. The total population is concerned and they want the best possible solution - not a hasty one, but one that's arrived at after every possible solution is viewed and investigated.

I wanted to go back to one other point that 1 raised earlier....

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Tell it to the loggers.

MR. KING: Well, the loggers are citizens of the

[ Page 3774 ]

province of British Columbia. The loggers in large numbers opposed the spraying programme, as a matter of fact. I think whether you're a logger or a miner or a railroader or a doctor, they're all citizens of the province of British Columbia and I think they're all responsible citizens; they're not one-dimensional. The miners and the loggers of this province are not prepared to secure their jobs at the expense of the health and security of the citizens of the province. Maybe the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) is, Mr. Chairman, but that's the kind of narrow viewpoint that I don't think is necessary or welcome in the debate.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, that's the same mentality the old fastbuck artists used to use: unless you go along with this cut-and-run programme, you're not going to get jobs in the province of British Columbia. I would like to think we have arrived at a more mature state of affairs where we can have a balanced development programme which respects the environment, which respects the need for the broadest possible return to all our people from our resources, not just to those involved in the primary extraction of the resource. That's the essence of the difference in political view which obtains between this side of the House and the other, Mr. Chairman, and I welcome a debate on that basis.

Let me ask the minister to comment - I don't think he did satisfactorily - on the Wood committee that he set up in his department to advise him on the implementation of the Pearse report.

The minister didn't say too much about the Wood committee. He did say I was invited, and he seemed to think: "Aha, you were invited so that makes everything fine." I suggested to the minister that I'm quite well aware of the fact that 1, as an MLA and the forestry critic for the official opposition, was invited. But I believe that the legislative chamber is the forum for elected politicians to hold their discussions, to debate and to arrive at conclusions. But what does concern me more, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that the Wood committee is conducting its meetings in private, in camera.

Colin Beale, who puts out the industry newsletter, is a fairly rational guy who I think, by and large, has the interest of the industry at heart. I don't think he's unduly critical of the current government. I want to quote from his newsletter that was issued on March 28 - newsletter 136:

"We hear, and we hope we hear wrong, that Bob Wood's advisory committee will hold its meetings in camera. Briefs must be in by March 31, 1977. If this is true, then it's bad, bad news. There have been too many secret meetings, too many secret deals in the past. Are we returning to the government-industry ways of the '50s?"

I say, Mr. Chairman, that that's a valid point. 1 see absolutely no reason why the Wood committee deliberations should have been conducted in secret. The point has been made numerous times in this House that secret deals in the past in that particular ministry have left an aura that's not a very pleasant one surrounding the forest industry in British Columbia. 1 think we have an absolute obligation to steer clear of any suggestion of questionable deals being concluded in private. After all, the Pearse royal commission was a public hearing mechanism, and to set up a private departmental committee which is under the political control of the minister in a very, very direct way and to conduct meetings behind closed doors dealing with the possible implementation or the possible rejection of ideas and recommendations in the Pearse royal commission report is certainly not a healthy climate to create in the province.

1 would like some more detailed explanation from the minister as to why he found it necessary to set up these secret meetings. He said that people would feel more free to say their piece. Well, 1 suggest to the House, Mr. Chairman, that if anyone dealing with public policy on the forestry is not prepared to state publicly the recommendations that they are making to the minister, then perhaps those recommendations should not be heard at all.

Are the recommendations and suggestions of such a nature that the public has no right to hear them, that the media has no right to attend and comment on the recommendations? It's an extremely dangerous precedent that the minister has developed here, an extremely dangerous course to chart. It doesn't matter what your political stripe is; this is a matter of credible public administration - whether you're Socred, NDP, Liberal or Tory. Between the last three there's precious little difference.

But, Mr. Chairman, I want to remind the minister that he was extremely critical of the previous administration in terms of their day-to-day administration.

AN HON. MEMBER: As a civil servant he was critical.

MR. KING: As a civil servant he was extremely critical and vocal publicly.

AN HON. MEMBER: 1 didn't even chastise him.

MR. KING: 1 always said you people weren't as tough as when I ran my department.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, the fact is 1 think the House deserves a more detailed explanation as to what the minister's motivation is in setting up this secret, almost clandestine committee that will

[ Page 3775 ]

determine what parts of the Pearse royal commission report are given credence, are brought to legislative action in the House, and what parts of it are ignored because of pressure from select people who have the opportunity to go quietly behind closed doors and deal with the minister's senior staff making recommendations that never see the light of day.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The member for Revelstoke-Slocan is again into the secret, clandestine meetings of the Wood committee. These are not secret meetings. Everyone in British Columbia knows they are being held. They are being held in camera...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. WATERLAND: ... in exactly the same manner as the Pearse task force meetings were held which was asked to do these studies under your government, Mr. Member. The Pearse task force reports were the result of meetings held in camera with representatives of all facets of the forest industry.

MR. KING: Nonsense! Public hearings.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No, they were not. The royal commission report meetings were public; the task force reports, which were in 1973 and 1974, were held in camera.

Mr. Chairman, we are meeting with people from all walks of life in British Columbia and all interests. The members say that we are having secret meetings with the forest industry. We are meeting with the IWA, the fish and wildlife people, SPEC, the Sierra Club, biologists, miners, the general public - anybody who wishes. The reason we are having these meetings is, very simply, to get the most unbiased, total input we possibly can, and people will speak more frankly if the press is not there.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Input on what?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I asked that member whether, when he was Minister of Labour, every time he met with the parties to a labour dispute he invited the press to sit in on the meetings he had with them. There are certain times when it is to your advantage to have things done quietly, in camera, so people can speak frankly,

It was my decision and the decision of my adviser that better information can be had this way. That is why we are holding them that way. There is nothing secret or clandestine about it. We are trying to do the best possible job of interpreting and implementing the Pearse royal commission report. I am sure the results will demonstrate that this is perhaps a good way to go about it.

I am glad that the member says the spraying business is not a political thing. I would not like to see it a political thing. I would like to agree with him and tell him that we are, in fact, keeping abreast and finding out all we possibly can about everything that is being done throughout the world related to this type of problem. Our Forest Service staff, our professional staff, the staff of the Canadian Forestry Service are monitoring everything that is being done throughout the world. As I said before, we would like to have an alternative to spraying.

We did not take this decision lightly. It was a very balanced, weighed decision. We got the best possible advice from wherever we could and wherever it was available. Certainly there is an opinion that says you shouldn't do this, but there is a very great abundance of opinion that says, "Yes, you should do this if there is nothing else you can do, " and they say there is nothing else you can do that can be effective. We will continue to monitor everything that is happening.

As a matter of fact, the programme which we had planned for this year was to be very, very closely monitored, It was a small area. Even the original 100,000 acres was a relatively small area. The 52,000 acres which we decided on later was even smaller, and there was going to be intensive monitoring as to what was happening, just as there is in other jurisdictions. Because we have cancelled the programme now, we are continuing to do as much possible research as we can in those areas of infestation to find out as much information to add to the wealth of knowledge that already exists. Perhaps by doing this we can contribute to a better solution to this problem for future years.

At the present time, the best evidence that scientists can give us.... And I weighed this very, very carefully. I am trained as an engineer and some of the things I understand and a great deal I don't understand because this is not my area of expertise. The studying which I did personally, the reading, the consultation I had, convinced me that there is no real hazard to people. In fact, I was so convinced that I offered, and had planned, to move my family into the area being sprayed when it was being done. I was that sincere and convinced that it was not a harmful thing, and my family is very precious to me, I wasn't sacrificing them. I was saying that I believe the best scientific evidence available shows that there is an insignificant hazard created for people when you do this type of thing, if you do it properly. Every effort was being made to have it done properly. However, we will continue to monitor what's happening in the world, and hopefully, in years to come, a better solution will emerge,

MR. LEA: Why did you back out then?

[ Page 3776 ]

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): I have listened with great interest to the minister's remarks on the budworm spraying programme. It's rather surprising to find him still so confident that this is the answer in spite of the fact that the cabinet has decided otherwise. I am wondering when he talks about, "We will spray, " whether or not he is still determined to go ahead, if we are going to have this in spite of the cabinet's decision that it is not the route to go. I am a little concerned that he's exhibiting something that might be called "blinder vision." He is not looking at all aspects. He seems to be convinced that he's right in spite of the fact that his cabinet colleagues have indicated otherwise. That must have been the case when lie was overruled by cabinet decision.

As I said, I have listened with great interest to his comments on this and to hear him using the terms that we "will" and not that we "might" or "possibly, " that we will be spraying. It sounds a little bit frightening to me. I am wondering just when we will be getting this spraying programme that he is apparently so determined to carry out.

However, I rose to speak about some other items in this debate, Mr. Chairman. Earlier on, during the discussion of the Attorney-General's estimates, we talked about the issuing of burning permits in unorganized territories and other areas. This is a decision that was made by the forestry ministry. I just have a letter from the minister dated July 11, saying that they have negotiated this over a period of time and telling me that the district forester is meeting with the particular fire departments in my area.

But I would urge the minister to consider some of the points that were raised earlier during the estimates for the Attorney-General, when we talked about things such as the fact that in the transfer, while the local fire departments are now charged with the responsibility of issuing the permits, they do not have the right to cancel those permits. That is maintained by the Minister of Forests. So I would hope that something is being done about that in the negotiations.

I would also urge the minister that in these negotiations he consider some sort of recompense for the volunteer fire department, because this is an extra duty put upon volunteer people. Now that's a different situation than where you have a paid, full-time fire department which is doing this. But where you have volunteer firemen - community people - who are now obliged to go out and take more of their own time to issue these permits and who are supposed to inspect and do all the other things they are supposed to do on their own time, that's just not fair to those people. And what's happening, Mr. Chairman, is that friends and neighbours of those volunteer workers in those volunteer fire departments, rather than ask them to come out and issue these permits and take the kind of time that's required to issue those permits under the basis that they're set up, are going ahead and burning without the permit. It's just causing a real problem.

I would hope that the minister would, in his negotiations, consider some form of recompense, because the foresters who were formerly issuing them - I've talked to the foresters in my area - are quite prepared to continue; it wasn't taking up too much time. But under the directive, they can't do it. So there are two points there: the recompense for the volunteer firemen and the fact that they can only issue them but they don't have the right to cancel them. Those are two things that certainly should be considered in that particular item. Another item which I wanted to speak to the minister about is the question of reforestation. I think that certainly every statistic we see indicates that we're not keeping up on that programme and that we, over the long term, have certainly gotten ourselves in the position, as is indicated now by the fact that we're into cutting trees much smaller and of much lower quality than we were before, of not keeping up with reforestation. I would like to ask him just what programmes he has in mind, if any, to increase the amount of reforestation that's being carried out on public lands, whether or not he has any definite programmes in mind, what those programmes are, and how he intends to initiate them.

Another item which I want to speak to the minister about is of course the rangeland and the rangeland policies. I was very pleased to hear the minister indicate to the B.C. Cattlemen that he is now going for long-term leases. So there will be some incentive to improve that rangeland. My concern is just how that is going to be managed and whether or not these will be, as the Pearse report recommended, put out for public tender. Is that the minister's intention? Or is he going to handle it in some other manner?

What length of time is he going to set? Is he going to establish 5-year or 10-year leases - what length of duration? And also, is there going to be precedence given to the established rancher who lives in the community; contributes to the community; who does all the various things like putting up hay that mean a year-round operation; who is a contributor to the economy of the given area by purchasing equipment, groceries, household appliances, machinery and so on in that area? Or is that person just going to have to take his chance with groups that come in from the outside, buy cattle, put them on the range, let them pasture and then ship them out as feeders, without really contributing anything towards that community? I think there are two very definite types of rancher involved, and I would urge the minister to establish a system which gives a very definite

[ Page 3777 ]

precedence to that rancher who does make a real contribution to the local community.

Another point that I would like to raise, I think I have to raise under this minister's estimates inasmuch as he is responsible for rangeland. It is a joint responsibility, I recognize, with Agriculture and with Fish and Wildlife and Recreation and Conservation -that is, the compensation for animals that are on the rangeland, Mr. Chairman, and while on that rangeland are damaged, killed, destroyed.

Now if in fact that happens in Alberta, there is compensation, but if it happens in British Columbia there isn't. I would urge the minister to look into some form of compensation. We have come to a point where it's no longer acceptable to simply go out and destroy holus-bolus these predators. We've come to a concept of joint use. As long as we have that joint use, then it is the responsibility of the senior minister in that joint-use committee to ensure the protection of the animals that are on that rangeland. This has been done across the border in Alberta, and I would urge that the minister take some action to bring that kind of protection into being for the ranchers in British Columbia.

One other item - and it's a minor one - is that when permits are issued by local forest representatives for cutting of firewood, it often results in some rather hazardous situations. In one instance that I'm thinking about in my own area, there were 23 permits issued to cut firewood in this given area. These people came in and cut the firewood and left a terrible mess, Mr. Chairman -branches, fire hazard, unsightly. It's even down into the edges of the roadway going along there. It's a really bad situation.

When the thing was raised, there was no way that the person responsible could be tracked down because there had been 23 permits issued in that same area. So there was no way that you could pinpoint the responsibility. I think that that's sloppy management on the part of someone, either at the ministerial level or lower down the line. But really, there should be some sort of control on those permits so that kind of thing doesn't happen. I would ask the minister to have a look at that particular one, or he may have some comments he wishes to make now.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): Mr. Chairman, the minister has in his office a copy of the Centurion Engineering report which is prepared for the Council of Forest Industries on floating debris management. This is about the seventh report. I have seen the rest of the pile, but this is the most current one.

They all say about the same thing. Last year during your estimates I talked about the wingdam at Laidlaw and the driftwood cleanup in Avalon. There are several recommendations in this report, some of which I am delighted to say you've carried out. I know I've made a believer out of you about reclaiming old wood by personally escorting you through a mill in my constituency which cuts wood that no other mill would want to cut.

But there are seven major recommendations about what should be done with the driftwood and floating debris that comes out of the Fraser River. The first ones, of course, are making a permanent wingdam at Laidlaw to stop the driftwood that is coming down the Fraser up to that point; secondly, of course, they recommend doing something at the Annacis Bridge which traps an enormous amount of wood that is destined to go down the river. At the present time they just have a crane that lifts off one side of the bridge and dumps it down the river on the other side. To catch the wood from the Avalon booming ground, there are presently log-salvage people under contract who tow it over to a place where it's burned.

It doesn't really address the fact of about 6.5 million to 7.5 million board feet of lumber which is lying on the beaches of the lower Gulf coast and the Gulf Islands. It goes into the constituency of Mackenzie as well, probably up as far as Rupert, but it's very extensive on the lower coast.

The economics of recovering driftwood - all of these reports deal with the same thing: it just doesn't pay to recover this stuff. In terms of a civic responsibility, this would be that it doesn't pay to pick up garbage. It doesn't pay to pick up glass and other things; it's actually a money-losing proposition. But driftwood is the garbage of the forest industry and of the forests.

There is some hope in the future, because as more of the mills convert from burning fossil fuels to burning hog fuel, we foresee an increased demand for hog fuel. Hog fuel currently is just about a dollar a unit, and in some places you have to pay to take it away. But within the next three or four years, as more of the mills convert to burning hog fuel, the time when we can see a commercial reclamation effort on the driftwood is not too far in the future.

I would ask the minister now to look at this report, which is the latest one on the subject. After the mandatory things to do, the second things are to get involved in cleaning up some of the backlog of this wood that has been there for, in some cases, as long as 60 years. Many of the beaches and coves along the coast - all of you who fly back and forth between Vancouver and Victoria can look down and see it from the airplane - are absolutely plugged up with logs. If they are not commercially valuable the log salvagers won't take them. They won't take the chip logs because there is not enough in them. The sawmills are reluctant to accept logs once they have escaped from a boom and spent a couple of weeks or months bouncing around on the beaches.

My annual plea to the minister - and it will be

[ Page 3778 ]

annual, Mr. Minister - is that somewhere in your department you find the funding to undertake a pilot project or probably even a more extensive project of driftwood and debris cleanup.

We've had enough studies. The studies alone probably weigh 10 or 12 pounds, and with all the copies involved I suppose there are a couple of acres of trees just in the studies. There are seven million board feet of junk out there. Some of it is recoverable. Some of it can go to chips and some of it can go to sawlogs. There aren't that many that could be peelers. I doubt if there are more than one-tenth of I per cent of those. They are worth collecting, but the rest of them are there. If you run through a hog mill and put them in a barge and take them to some place where they are going to make use of them, we'll be doing ourselves and the boating community a service. The environment people would appreciate it. I think everybody wins and nobody loses if we get involved, except that it will cost us a little bit of money. I think it is well worthwhile. I'll mention it again next year and I'll report to the House on your progress.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to get back for a few minutes to the budworm situation and tackle it from a little different direction. What we have, Mr. Chairman, is a minister who firmly believes that there is a course of action that should be followed - a spraying programme. If I understand it correctly, that has been the minister's position from the beginning, not only in public but here in this Legislature, and, as I understand it from remarks that have been made, also in cabinet. That the spraying programme for budworms should be carried out is the minister's firm belief, as I understand it.

Mr. Chairman, would the minister agree that it is his firm belief that the budworm spraying programme should be carried out to safeguard the forests? Whether I believe that or whether any other member of this House or any other member of the public believes that is another topic. But the minister believes that the spraying programme should be carried out because he believes it is the right course of action to take. And yet, with that minister believing that so much, he is willing not to carry out the programme. What does that mean? The minister firmly believes that the programme should be carried out within his ministry but will not carry it out because he has been given political marching directions that go another way.

I think we should examine that, Mr. Chairman, for a couple of minutes. What it means is that we have a minister who will take orders from cabinet about his ministry to go in a direction that he does not believe he or his ministry should be going. I think that is dangerous. We have a minister who will take political direction on anything, apparently. It is a minister who will walk into cabinet and say: "I believe firmly that in order to save the forests we should carry out a spray programme for budworm. But if you politically tell me to go in a different direction, 1 will, and I'll remain in this ministry and do things that 1 don't agree with myself. 1 so much want to be a minister in this government that 1 will do things that 1 don't believe in, in order to be a minister within this government."

That is what we're talking about. We're talking, Mr. Chairman, about a minister who will not put a spraying programme into effect that he thinks should be in effect because he has had political direction from cabinet. What else will he do?

If we look at history we'll see a lot of people who have belonged to a lot of governments or worked for governments who will do things because they have been ordered to, even when those things are against their own beliefs.

HON. R.S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): And you never did that.

MR. LEA: No, 1 never did that. We have the Minister of Recreation and Conservation saying: "And you never did that." In other words, he is saying: "Yeah, I'm willing to do that." The Minister of Recreation and Conservation and the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) say that they are willing to do things they don't believe in. That is what they are saying.

Is the Minister of Forests so incapable of defending his own actions or inactions that these two ministers over here, who never get up on their feet and talk about anything... ? The last time the Minister of Recreation and Conservation spoke in this House was when he was on the back bench trying to get into cabinet. Now he doesn't say anything, Mr. Chairman, except, when you are going after some other minister, he goes: "Yip, yip, yip, yip, yip, yip." Get on your feet, Mr. Minister, and say something once in a while,

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Back to vote 129.

MR. LEA: We have a minister here who is willing to take political marching orders when he firmly believes, and states so publicly, that he doesn't believe that is the direction to go. We have to ask what is the honourable thing for a minister to do. What is the history of the British parliamentary system when a minister is politically told to do something that he will state publicly is not the direction that he thinks should be taken?

What we have then is a minister who should no longer be a minister, Mr. Chairman. That's what we have. We have a minister who says, "I will submit to

[ Page 3779 ]

political marching orders, even when I believe that those political marching orders will be to the detriment of the forests which I have sworn to protect.---It doesn't matter whether 1 believe, or any other member of the public believes that the spraying programme should be carried out. We have a minister who says: 9f we're going to save the forests, we have to spray, but cabinet has told me that it's politically not nice at this time, so 1 won't spray.---That's what we have, Mr. Chairman.

There are some who would describe that action as gutless. I won't. But there are some who would. Do we want a minister who believes with his every fibre that we should have the budworm sprayed to save the forests but he doesn't do it because the rest of cabinet tells him not to go ahead but to shut up because it's politically hot soup? Do we want that minister to remain in that portfolio? That's what we have to ask.

1 know that this minister is in a certain amount of conflict because he was a junior civil servant who took political action against the government for which he worked. That's the history of the minister. He was a junior civil servant who took political action against the government for which he worked at the time. That's fair enough because we just happen to believe that civil servants should be allowed to do that. But he now works for a government that believes civil servants shouldn't do that.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): He is a government member.

MR. LEA: That's the problem. That minister cannot convince himself that he's a government member. He still believes that he should take orders from senior civil servants. That's what he believes.

He can't quite get it in his head, Mr. Chairman, that he's a minister. He can't seem to get it into his head what kind of a role a minister has to perform. He still somehow believes that he is a junior civil servant who has to believe what senior civil servants tell him - a member in the cabinet firmly believing that, and then backing down in the face of government. He doesn't know what he is, fish or fowl. He doesn't know what he is. He says: "I firmly believe that if we're going to save the forests of British Columbia, we have to spray for budworm, but 1 won't do it if the political party of which 1 belong to the cabinet tells me not to do it for political purposes."

Can the minister tell me why he's not going ahead with the spraying programme as he first outlined? Can he tell me that? Is it because of political pressure? That's what it's about, Mr. Chairman. We have a minister who believes the only way to save those trees is to spray, and he won't do it because he's had his political marching orders. That minister should resign because he has proven not only to us but to this province that he will do things that he does not believe in in order to save his cabinet seat. That's what he's proven. He has proven that he will go against what he believes to be the only way to save forests for which he is charged to save - to spray -and he won't do it because he's had his political marching orders to go the other way. That's what we're talking about - a minister who won't stand for his own convictions, a minister who will say: "Oh, I disagree with my cabinet colleagues, but I'll go along with it anyway, even though I believe it should be different, and if I don't do what I believe, the forests will suffer." But he's willing to see the forests suffer, because he won't go in and do the proper thing, which is to say: "I believe this. Do it, or I'll resign!"

What we see, Mr. Chairman, is a minister who will give up his sense of duty for his political hindside. That's what we see - nothing more, nothing less - a minister who will sell out what he believes in order to remain in that cabinet. Otherwise, he would stand up and say he was wrong on the bud-spraying programme in the first place. Let's have him do one or the other. Is he wrong or is he sold out? My guess is the latter.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I've just a few questions to ask the minister. It seems to me the central thing in his estimates this year is that everyone is almost holding a moratorium on his estimates because of the Pearse report. We have, admittedly, a very detailed study of the forest industry in the form of the Pearse report. Since the minister has set up an advisory committee, the feeling is somehow we should just be waiting for the reaction of the advisory committee before we can delve into serious matters regarding the forest industry.

Now I can appreciate the thinking behind having an advisory committee. Obviously Dr. Pearse isn't the last word on forest industry. There's no one individual who should be considered to be God in this industry any more than in any other important subject. But what puzzles me as a layman in forest matters is that there are so many serious problems that we don't need Dr. Pearse to tell us, (1) that they're there, or (2) what needs to be done about them.

By that I mean that if you read highly knowledgeable people in the industry, you just read over and over and over again - until it's ad nauseum - that we have some very serious cost problems in the forest industry, regardless of the particular legislation governing tenure or many of the other complicated administrative matters in the forest industry. I am referring particularly to the kind of statements that the public in general can read from, such as Robert Fisher, the chairman of the Council of Forest Industries, quoted in The Globe and Mail as

[ Page 3780 ]

recently as May 21,1977. He just puts it all in a few words, Mr. Chairman. He says:

"We are close to becoming marginal producers because of our high manufacturing and transportation costs. The comparison of some of the ingredients that contribute to the high cost of B.C. products compared with those of the U.S. competitors, particularly in the Pacific Northwest, emphasizes the disadvantages faced by the B.C. industry.

"Costs are 25 per cent higher because of the more difficult and remote terrain. Plant and equipment costs are higher in B.C., due to higher domestic prices, import duties, federal and provincial sales tax and interest rates. An integrated company in British Columbia has an effective tax base of 52 per cent compared with the American tax rate varying from 33 to 38 per cent."

I don't know a great deal about forests but I know that since we are trying to sell the products of the forest to make dollars for British Columbia, you don't have to be very smart to realize that if these are the comparable costs which we face in a highly competitive market, no wonder the forest industry is having difficulties,

I don't think we need a voluminous report to deal with many of the aspects, administrative and otherwise, of the forest industry, when what is really staring us in the face are the costs, as I have just mentioned.

I wonder what, for example, this minister or this government is doing in its deliberations with the federal government to try and at least bring the tax structure somewhat closer to the tax level that's placed on our American competitors.

Do we just always talk about this every time we get into budget or estimates on Forests? I know that much of what I'm saying is repetitive; other members have talked about it. And when I think back to debates in the last two or three or four years, we keep talking about the difficulty we have in remaining competitive, but we never seem to come up with much in the way of positive proposals as to how these costs might be modified. The figure that strikes me most is the effective tax rate. If the effective tax rate in B.C. is 52 per cent and it's 33 per cent in the case of your competitors, they have a tremendous edge over us right there.

I also understand that the base hourly rate is in the neighbourhood of $1 less an hour in the United States than it is in British Columbia. I'm not suggesting that we should try to make ourselves competitive simply by penalizing the forest worker in this province. Not at all. But I'm saying that it doesn't really help British Columbia and it certainly doesn't help Canada if we can't sell the products and earn dollars for Canada, simply because the government, for a start, is applying a tax rate that seriously hinders our competitive position.

And so that would be my main question at this time: what hope is there that we can bring these costs under control? I've got a speech here that Mr. Knudsen made, emphasizing all these various points. But I wonder if the minister could tell us what particular steps he sees as being within our reach to try and close the gap between the B.C. industry and the American competitors.

I think the advisory committee that was mentioned has already made two recommendations regarding the change in recovery standards and regarding the export of chips. Again, that brings me back to this point: are there not some other things that this committee could be suggesting right now?

I think that governments not just this government, but all governments spend so much time in studies, and studies of the studies, and advisory committees to the study of the study, until I just sometimes wonder if governments ever do anything. I know the minister is smiling, but we've had that kind of more localized experience in the hospital field in greater Victoria for the last 10 years. That's why, although I disagree with some of the Minister of Health's decisions, at least he made decisions. I think that this particular matter of the forest industry is so serious to our economic position that we again seem to be running the risk of spending so much time studying the problem rather than coming forward with some definitive and positive ideas of how to deal with the problem.

You know, Mr. Chairman, I bet you in the long run what will happen is that the revisions to the Forest Act which will arise out of all this studying will probably be placed on the order paper somewhere in one session and then, before we can really get the reaction of all the interested parties to the legislation, which after all is the key, we'll have maybe the usual kind of haste, We'll have the industry and everybody else screaming that they haven't had time to respond to the proposed amendments in the Act,

There's all this interminable, long, drawn-out period of study in so many of these complicated subjects. But then, Mr. Chairman, when the legislation hits the floor, it's surprising how often the people who are going to be most affected by the legislation find that they have very little time to respond.

I would ask the minister this question: could he give the industry - and the public, for that matter -some reasonable assurance that when the advisory committee, or his ministry, finally decides what the appropriate amendments will be to the Forest Act, that at least, if and when these amendments are tabled in the House, it won't be a matter of tabling them one week and calling second reading the next?

[ Page 3781 ]

1 know the minister can't give promises, but I have spoken with people in the forest industry and they are nervous that while too often the study part of the subject takes long enough, the period of time within which they are allowed to react to proposed legislative change is very often too short.

Again, I'm just speaking as a layman, but I notice from the number of times I read it that the biggest problem in the industry is the investment of new capital to update and replace old equipment in the hope that we can become more productive. The more productive we are, the more again we can hope to compete with those less costly operations south of the border. I notice the Pearse report touched upon this very important concept - that the need for capital investment in new equipment is more important than growth itself - but then again, the Pearse report does not explain how this should or could be dealt with.

I wonder if the minister could give us any comment on that. The Pearse report makes it very plain, and it's very simple and understandable, that there has to be a reasonable return on money invested in the forest industry just the same as in any other sector of the economy. Yet any suggestion as to how that might be accomplished is quietly left out of the Pearse report,

I wonder also if the minister would care to comment on the other important subject that comes up every year in this debate and which this year, I think, is particularly depressing. That is the issue of reforestation. When one reads various reports from the forest industry, it reminds me again of the analogy of the Health estimates. We all talk about preventive health, but it's amazing how little is ever done. In the forest industry I've listened to debates for eight years from three different governments and they all pay lip service to reforestation.

I won't take the time of the House to quote all the sources I could demonstrating that we have a tremendous backlog of areas that should have already been replanted but, just for the sake of the record, Mr. Chairman, I would quote page 275 of the Pearse report, which says: "The best available estimate of the lands that need reforestation amounts to some 1.8 million acres."

Now that's the most up-to-date information that's available. What do we see, Mr. Chairman, when we look at the minister's estimates this year? We spent $22.8 million last year, and this coming year we're going to spend $20.8 million. Now how in the name of anything that's supposed to make sense can you pay lip-service to the very obvious, sensible principle of replanting what you cut, and then say that we have a backing of 1.8 million acres and that we're catching up with it, when you're spending less and less money?

MR. NICOLSON: Ask him how much he actually spent.

MR. WALLACE: Maybe the interjection is valid -that we should also know from the 1976-77 financial year how much was actually spent. The estimate in the budget, Mr. Chairman, was $22,853, 993 and the figure in the estimate for the year 1977-78 is $20,853, 993. So I would like to know by what magic this government or any other government can enhance its reforestation programme and catch up on some of the thousands of acres that should have already been replanted with less money than last year.

Now if there is some secret and some magic to this, I'm sure every minister on the treasury benches would like to know because they could maybe use the same magic in their own budgets. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is listening very attentively....

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): I always do.

MR. WALLACE: I can just imagine that if you can do more with less money, well, that would be an excellent formula for all the cabinet ministers.

I notice, Mr. Chairman, that the Pearse report also mentions that there was an attempt made to reach the objective of 75 million seedlings. That was met in 1974 for the first time. Dr. Pearse in his report - and I'm quoting from page 278 - then goes on to say:

"By 1975 production" - that is of seedlings - "had expanded to 90 million, enough to plant nearly 2,000 acres, which is about half the area annually logged, but unexpected budgetary constraints in that year restricted planting to only 65 million seedlings.

"The Forest Service has repeatedly tried to work toward targets in this manner, only to be frustrated by budgeting difficulties."

I can well see what Dr. Pearse is referring to because here we have in the time between 1976-77 and 1977-78 a drop of $2 million in the reforestation programme.

Dr. Pearse also says in that same section on page 278:

" There is an obvious need for better continuity in the government's financial provisions for reforestation, An efficient reforestation programme calls for long-term planning. Seed must be collected in opportune years, stored, grown and made ready according to the species and quantities required for the projected planting date."

But apparently the scientific considerations go out the window because the amount of money made available clearly determines just how much can be done.

[ Page 3782 ]

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

I should say, Mr. Chairman, that there is another part on Dr. Pearse's statement on page 277, which I omitted to quote. He just says: "It is my impression that current reforestation policy is seriously deficient with respect to the attention given to the costs and benefits of alternative practices."

Without going through the whole section on reforestation, I think it's quite obvious from the general thrust of Dr. Pearse's comments that it's very much a stop-and-go situation. The minister would quite likely wish to have longer-term planning and to be able to implement that planning, but the provisions of the budget are apparently very much a year-to-year affair. I wonder if the minister then could tell us how much last year was spent out of that $22.8 million, and why or for what reasons the estimated amount for the 1977-78 fiscal year has been diminished by $2 million.

The third question related to that, Mr. Chairman, is the question of employment. We all know of the serious unemployment in the province. Surely here is a very positive, useful, productive way to create jobs. I wonder if the minister could tell us how many staff are involved in the reforestation programme, let us say, compared to last year or the year before. In other words, is this a productive sector of the forest industry where we can gain some reassurance from the fact that students or others are receiving employment, particularly in the summer months?

I know that the minister may not agree with the intensity of the criticism, and the clipping I have is now two years old, but Mr. Jack Walters, who is in the forestry faculty at UBC, said that on the average, Ontario spends three times more than B.C. on reforestation and takes out three times less, This would seem to me quite a staggering comparison. Could the minister tell us then if we're falling so far behind in adequately replanting the acreage that we are cutting? It was always my impression that the fundamental principle in good forestry management was to ensure that you replaced as much as you cut on a long-term basis, for the obvious reason that otherwise our ultimate resource would diminish to a serious degree.

The last question I have for the minister I know could be raised under the vote, but it would be simpler to raise it now. This is the question of the reservoir waterway improvements programme. It's rather the reverse of the reforestation question, Mr. Chairman, because here, while we have a reduction in funding, we have exactly the same number of staff. The funds that were estimated last year were $7.1 million and this coming year it's $2.5 million, but the estimates show that there will still be 35 people employed under that vote. Now it would seem to me that if we're finally getting Williston Lake cleaned up - and I doubt that we are - and if there is less money needed to continue the cleaning up of reservoirs, would it not be reasonable to assume that there would be transfer of staff from that particular branch to, let us say, the branch dealing with reforestation or one of the other more positive and productive segments of the minister's ministry? That reduction of funding for reservoir waterway improvements is really substantial. It's cut to almost a third of last year. So was that $7.1 million spent last year and, if not, how much was spent?

Secondly, is the reduction of funding done for simple budgetary reasons or is there less need to be cleaning up reservoir waterways? In particular, how is the minister making out in cleaning Williston Lake? For the last several years in this House it has been described as an environmental catastrophe. Certainly the limited information that's been published lately on this subject doesn't bring the members of the House up to date with the progress that was reputed to be the goal of this new government. particular

Can the minister give us some idea of what future projections are for this particular expenditure - the $2.5 million - in the years ahead? Are we in fact looking forward to ever-decreasing requirements, both of personnel and funding, under this vote?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I should respond to some of the questions that various members have asked me in the last little while. The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) and the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) were discussing cancellation of our spraying programme. It was very clearly stated at the time that we weren't cancelling the programme; we were deferring it until such time as a proper appeal procedure is set up so that there will be a formal way for people to object to such a programme.

The biggest problem we had this year was the inability of the Forest Service and myself as the minister to get factual information into the hands of people who were concerned, because there was so much in formation around in the press, some of it not factual, some of it absolutely incorrect.

So there will be a formal appeal procedure provided by the new Pesticide Control Act next year. At that time, if the necessity still exists, and every indication is that it will, we will apply under the new Act to spray,

The member for Cowichan-Malahat was inquiring about burning permits in organized areas. The Forest Service is attempting to have the responsibility for burning permits and fire protection in the remnants of the forest that exist in some of these areas passed to the people who have the direct responsibility for fire protection and for prevention within those organized districts.

I wasn't aware until she mentioned it that the Forest Service retains the right to cancel permits. I

[ Page 3783 ]

will check into that. I can see where we must have the right to cancel permits if fire hazards get extreme, but I also think those local authorities should have that right as well. However, I will check out tomorrow to see if this is true and the reasoning for it and report back to that member.

She spoke about the volunteers wanting to be paid for issuing these permits. They are hardly volunteers if they request to be paid for performing the functions which are their responsibility.

That member and the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) spoke of reforestation. I will hold my comments on the questions of the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) until I deal with those of the member for Oak Bay because they did cover the same ground.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat spoke about the range management programme. We have indeed this year, as government policy, decided to increase the term or tenure of range management permits or grazing permits. We will be issuing permits for periods of five years and eventually we hope to get to permits for up to 10 years. The government will always retain the right to cancel such permits if the permittee does not properly manage the range and abuses it.

Thought has been given to tendering for range permits. This is still a matter of government policy. As you know, a new Grazing Act is being produced. Tendering or competition for range permits tends to put the smaller ranchers at a great disadvantage. For that reason, I don't think it would be a good thing to do in all cases. There may be some areas where competition would be good, but details of that are being studied at this time and will be incorporated into a new Grazing Act which will be before the House next spring, hopefully.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat raised the question about compensation for ranchers through damage to their stock by wild animals. I believe predator control comes under the responsibility of the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. However, I recognize that at times it is a problem to ranchers. I'll be very happy to discuss this problem with my colleagues and see what can be done.

Regarding free-use permits for firewood, she mentioned that some of these permittees left a terrible mess behind them. I hope that that member and anybody else in British Columbia who notices such a mess being left will report immediately to the ranger. There is a much greater chance off finding out who is responsible if we can address the problem as soon as it becomes apparent. Holding such a question until my estimates doesn't help us in solving the problem. I do recognize that it is a problem. Most people are very responsible. The odd person who does not assume the responsibility which goes with these permits can make it bad for everyone and create a hazard. If anyone knows of such instances, please give it to the ranger specifically so he can follow up immediately.

The member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers) -the now Chairman - was talking about debris cleanup. He and I have discussed this at great length. We are talking about ways of using the wood that is on our beaches and, indeed, I hope that we can come up with a way of doing this. The conversion of many of our plants in the future to waste-wood burning rather than hydrocarbon fuels, I think, will give even greater opportunities to clean this material up and get some value from it.

As that member knows, the Forest Service this year is co-operating with the Council of Forest Industries, the federal government and the Harbours Board in attempting to control debris on our waters in the Fraser River. The Forest Service's contribution this year is $150,000, and we are concentrating on building a new thin boom at Laidlaw in order to stop material from coming down. He did take me on a tour of some very interesting wood-manufacturing plants in his constituency. I was indeed impressed at what some of them are doing with what normally is waste and junk. We must continue to encourage this in British Columbia, and it is the intent of my ministry to do just that.

Other than his comments on why the budworm spraying programme was cancelled, the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) had nothing of substance to say. I have answered that question.

The member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) initially was talking about the cost-competitiveness of our forest industry. I have stated many times that it is a serious problem, and indeed it is. A lot of costs borne by the industry are costs imposed by governments not just through taxation but through unrealistic enforcement of regulation. The most apparent one that we are dealing with and have dealt with is the logging guidelines for coast logging operations, Dr. Pearse did address this matter as well in his report. Guidelines have become hard and fast rules rather than just guidelines, and, by doing so, a great deal of additional cost was imposed upon the industry.

On the coast Dr. Pearse points out that one of the most environmentally damaging parts of logging operations is road building. It is also one of the most expensive parts of logging operations. He feels that by building additional roads we're defeating the environmental protection purposes of the guidelines. Cut block sizes were reduced to a mandatory 200 acres. In many cases it did not make any environmental sense and it made a great deal of additional costs to the industry.

We're addressing these guidelines. We're interpreting them on a site-specific basis and hoping thereby to relieve that industry of some of these costs, and also to improve our environmental

[ Page 3784 ]

protection by proper interpretation of these guidelines.

Taxation is a problem in British Columbia. Our forest industry is higher taxed than our competitor countries, and is indeed higher than some other provinces of Canada. 1 do recognize it as a problem. All matters regarding taxation are constantly under review by the government. 1 cannot speculate or discuss at this time what we are specifically going to do about those matters. We'll come forward in due time by the proper minister. However, they are a problem. The economic pie of the forest industry must be split between government through taxation, labour through wages and benefits, and with the industry in their return on investment.

The forest industry, 1 think, this year is having a reasonably good year, especially in sawmilling - the lumber-manufacturing side of it. 1 hope that they will be able to recover from some of the very bad years they've gone through in the recent past, because if they cannot demonstrate a return for investment, investment will not come.

They also must recognize, and to a great extent have, that in our coastal industry in particular, if they don't make the investment now to upgrade their plants they never will be competitive. Yet at the present time they can't show a sufficient return to justify this investment. However, if they predicate their future returns on the basis of an obsolete industry. they never will be able to justify it.

So what they're doing now is determining what their return. produced by a modern manufacturing plant, will be. Many of our major companies and a large number of our smaller companies have made very large commitments, and they are moving towards upgrading that industry to adapt it to the present profile of the forests which they are working with. I am sure that's going to go a long way to replace the competitive position of our industry.

The productivity of our industry has dropped off dramatically in the last few years. The productivity has dropped off not because the people working in that industry are working less hard but because the tools which they have had to work with are not adapted to the forests which they are working in.

Our labour costs are higher, and I am not going to get into a debate as to whether that is the reason for the industry's non-cost-competitive position, but it is a contributing factor. 1 am sure that those in our labour movements recognize the fact that there is only so much that can be taken from the industry in the form of wages and benefits by the working people if that industry is to remain healthy. I think there is a very responsible attitude being shown by all sectors in negotiations this year and 1 hope that we can arrive at contracts in the forest industry without interruptions of our working year.

Reforestation has always been a commitment of successive governments in this province. A member asked specifically what amount we spent last year. We budgeted $22.8 million but last year we would effectively spend only $19,211, 915.79. Part of the reason for this was that we had a very wet year. It was difficult to do site-preparation work in many areas. We did, however, for all practical purposes, last year achieve a plateau that was decided upon 10 to 15 years ago - the objective of planting 75 million seedlings. We were at 73 million or so seedlings. We would have reached that plateau had it not been for these problems with site preparation.

At this time, the facilities for the production of seedlings by the Forest Service exists as is required to maintain that objective. What we have to do now is look ahead and determine what our next plateau will be: how many seedlings must we plant year to year on a continuing basis in order to catch up - and we must - on the backlog we have? This study is underway now. In order to increase our seedling production will require a substantial additional capital investment by the Forest Service to put in the facilities for growing seedlings. We are addressing this now, and whatever that new plateau will be, it will be reflected in next year's budget in capital expenditures to attempt to make it possible for us to produce those seedlings.

The member must keep in mind, however, that a great deal of reforestation in British Columbia is done naturally and a great number of acres are planted through natural reforestation. I can't give you specific figures at this moment but we can certainly make them available if you wish. Our budget this year is about $7 million more than we actually spent last year - about $1.5 million more actually - so we have the physical facilities in place; we can produce more than 75 million seedlings and, hopefully, weather conditions permitting this year, we will plant our objective, which was set quite a number of years ago.

The member mentioned long-term budgeting of forestry planning. Dr. Pearse recommends this. 1, as the Minister of Forests, would like to see long-term plans made, and the Forest Service does, in fact, create for internal uses long-term plans - where we are going, what we are going to do. It's a matter of getting these recognized through the system. We have the budgeting funds; this is another question. We will be making recommendations in line with some of the things that Dr. Pearse says. We at least have to have some degree of confidence in future budgeting for ongoing programmes.

We haven't had a problem since I have been the minister. Last year we budgeted $22.8 million. We couldn't spend that. This year we are budgeting more than we spent last year. Those responsible for budgeting recognize the fact that reforestation is very important and we don't have a great hassle here. The people responsible for budgeting usually recognize

[ Page 3785 ]

that we do have to have this funding available.

In reforestation, the member asked about staff employed on reforestation work. Again I don't have the specific figures at hand, but last year I think we employed something in the order of over 2,000 students, many of whom were involved in reforestation work, many in other areas as well. A great deal of the reforestation work done by the Forest Service, of course, is let to contract and done by independent contractors. This will carry on this year.

I think there's a good argument to the effect that the independent contractors do a more efficient job. The figures are something in the order of 22 cents per seedling as compared to 12 or 14 cents for contracts. If we can do it more efficiently through contract, I think that is the direction we should move rather than having the Forest service have staff of their own. For this reason, funding is being made available this year through the Ministry of Labour to assist outside organizations to hire students to do this type of work in addition to many other types of work in the province. We are very concerned about reforestation. It's an ongoing priority with myself, as the minister and with the staff.

As for the reservoir improvement programme, this is a difficult thing for the Forest Service to budget because it is simply a pass-through from B.C. Hydro. They provide the funds and they tell us how much they are going to provide. We then budget for that amount. We are in discussion with them, of course, urging them to commit sufficient funds to do what we can do each year. Last year we budgeted $7.1 million, I believe it was, and we actually spent $4.8 million because B.C. Hydro did withdraw some of the budget allotment which they had for waterway improvement.

Personally I would like to see B.C. Hydro take more of the responsibility for cleaning up waste in lakes because it's not really a forestry matter; it's an environmental matter. If there is merchantable wood, yes, we should be involved, and we will continue. I think much more emphasis must be placed on pre-flooding harvesting rather than waiting until an area is flooded and then attempting to salvage. This is a matter for ongoing discussion with Hydro. They are co-operating with us this year on harvesting prior to the flooding of the proposed 1,880 dam at Revelstoke. If that dam is approved, then we will immediately begin to do what we can to harvest merchantable timber.

I think that fairly well covers the points raised. If there are any I have missed, I'm sure the members will remind me.

MR. WALLACE: Just briefly, Mr. Chairman, the minister didn't touch upon the concern of the industry about what will obviously be very extensive surgery on the Forest Act. 1 know he can't give commitments, but would he consider at least making some kind of statement of his awareness that it doesn't really make sense to spend several years preparing amendments and then expecting the industry to understand and swallow them or whatever in a matter of a week or two? This kind of thing has happened before in this House; it may not happen in the future.

First of all, could 1 be specific and ask the minister if he regards the Pearse report as being a very... ? I hate to use the word "historic, " since that sounds altogether too strong a word, but does he regard it as a turning point in a review of the forest industry? If so, are the amendments to the Forest Act likely to be of a very far-reaching nature? If so, would he try to give some kind of commitment that, as he has mentioned when the legislation appears next spring, the industry and anyone concerned in the forest industry will likely have a reasonable amount of time to react publicly and privately to what will be far-reaching amendments to the way in which our forests are to be managed?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, my apologies to the member. 1 did miss that point. You asked whether 1 thought the Pearse report was an historical document. There are some who call it hysterical, but those are the people who have been used to using policy which has been in place for a long time and they obviously become a little nervous when they see that perhaps drastic changes are going to be made.

There are not going to be amendments to the Forest Act. We are going to have a new Forest Act in 1978. The present Act is 19 12 vintage and it is very badly outdated. Reading that Act, 1 can't see how it relates at all to the present forest industry. Most of it talks about spark arresters on logging locomotives and this type of thing. The new Forest Act will be written from scratch and it will set the trend for forest policy for the next several decades, 1 hope. We hope to introduce it early in the session - at least, this would be my desire - and debate it as much later as possible, because 1 do believe that there should be some reaction received from the industry. My objective is to keep all sectors of the forest industry equally unhappy and 1 think we will have done the right thing. If any one sector is too happy, then we made a mistake.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Chairman. 1 have a few questions for the minister. We seem to be running a bit short of time here. I'll try to be as quick as possible.

Before 1 do, Mr. Chairman, 1 should say that we have spent a lot of time in the House this afternoon talking about the budworm. The minister is pretty set

[ Page 3786 ]

in his ideas on this project. I would like to outline to the minister just what can happen.

Under the estimates of another minister two or three weeks ago, I was assured that there would be no problem about B.C. Hydro spraying on rights-of-way. There were columns in local newspapers by Hydro saying there would be no problems. Now just this morning, I received a report from a constituent of mine who lives in an area where certain chemical actions by Hydro have taken place. These people in that area are advised not to drink the water because of these chemicals which have contaminated the water supply.

The fact is, Mr. Minister, that you get up in this House and assure everybody that there'll be no health problem to the people involved, but this is the kind of thing that we receive from the people living in those areas. So before you make any hasty decisions, I would suggest you think very carefully about these matters.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I want to ask about Ocean Falls. That community has just been hanging on by its fingernails for some years. Under the former government, as you well know, the former Minister of Lands and Forests commissioned several studies to take place in the area, but I'm talking now about the one study which suggested three alternative ways to improve and modernize the Ocean Falls complex. That's the Symons report, Mr. Chairman. I think I brought this matter to the minister's attention last year and he said that they would be working at it and studying the reports. Mr. Minister, you have had a whole year to study those reports, and I'd like an answer from you this afternoon or possibly this evening on what the future is going to be for Ocean Falls. There are 1,200 people living in that community, approximately. We do have a high turnover rate because the plant is deteriorating every year, and I do know that the pulp markets are not that great at the present moment, but this may be the time to implement some of the recommendations of the Symons report and to assure the people living in that community that you're not planning to shut down or sell that plant.

While I'm on my feet, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the minister as well what action they are taking in terms of the pulp contract that was arbitrarily cancelled by the Mitsubishi company many months ago, which action severely affected the employment rate in that community. Now as you are aware, Mr. Chairman, the Premier told this House that certain actions were being contemplated. This has been going on for some months. I would think that when we're dealing with an international customer on signed contracts ... and a lot of these contracts really depend on good faith on both parties, but in my view the Ocean Falls Corporation has kept its part of the bargain. I want to know from this minister, MR.

Chairman, what action is being taken against that company that cancelled the contract.

I have one other item in regards to Ocean Falls, Mr. Chairman, and that is the Central Coast Regional District funding problem. The fact is that prior to Ocean Falls becoming a Crown corporation, some taxes - in fact, I think the majority of taxes - into that Central Coast Regional District were being paid by Ocean Falls. That of course was terminated when that community became a Crown corporation.

What I'm suggesting to you now, in view of some of the severe financial difficulties being faced in that region, is that we come up with a system of grants, even if it's not too much, because I know that Ocean Falls can't stand the financial strain. But I do feel that that corporation, like other Crown corporations, should be paying local taxes or grants in lieu of taxes.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): That's the first time you've brought that up.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That's not true, Mr. Minister of Mines. The Minister of Mines, just for the record, Mr. Chairman, said that's the first time I have brought that up. That's not true.

I have one other brief item, Mr. Chairman. I'll be very quick about this but I'd like the minister to consider this. In areas like Powell River, which I represent, quite a bit of capital has been expended on modernization programmes. That's fair enough; I understand that. I can understand a company like Powell River Company or any other large company modernizing and upgrading its plant.

But here's what happens, Mr. Chairman. I think in the case of the Powell River Company they spent some $26 million putting in thermo-mechanical pulping and what not. But what it really means is that to date over 200 employees have been laid off. I'm not saying they were arbitrarily laid off. There were negotiations with the union and the whole thing was done that way and through attrition. The fact is that nobody was just given their two-weeks' notice and sent down the road. It didn't happen that way. But what we have now is that soon another 100 over the next period of less than a year will be laid off. Their jobs will be terminated.

What this really means is that there will be 300 less jobs in that community. We have a situation now, for example, where one can buy an $80,000 home for some $45,000 or $50,000 in Powell River. So what I'm really getting at, Mr. Chairman, is that I would like the minister to let us know how in communities like this he intends to perhaps meet with or discuss with these forest giants how new capital expenditures should be spent in places like Powell River. We have room for new plants; we haven't room for facilities. We do have good harbours; we do have energy

[ Page 3787 ]

supplies.

We're all very much aware, Mr. Chairman, that the large forest companies do have security of supply because they do control most of the timber through TFLs on this coast. So they do have security of supply. Yet it seems that the working population in places like Powell River, perhaps Campbell River -other large pulp communities - are being depleted all the time.

Yet the government at one point, Mr. Chairman, did say they're trying to decentralize. They're trying to decentralize - get people out of the lower mainland and out into the country. Now how the heck can you do that when we're cutting off jobs? You do understand, Mr. Chairman, that I do have in excess of 18 per cent unemployment in my riding -18 per cent.

I have a number of other items, Mr. Chairman.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Gardom tables the 55th annual report of the liquor administration branch.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt files an answer to question 100. (See appendix.)

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.

APPENDIX

100 Mrs. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Agriculture the following questions:

With respect to the Farm Income Assurance Program-

1. What was the effective starting date for each commodity or commodity group covered?

2. To the latest date available, what was the premium balance with respect to each commodity?

3. To the latest date available, how many participants are there in each commodity plan?

The Hon. J. J. Hewitt replied as follows:

¹ Commercial eggs-Surplus.

² Estimated.