[ Page 3789 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 74) . Hon. Mr. Gardom.

Introduction and first reading –– 3789

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Forests estimates.

On vote 129.

Mr. Lockstead –– 3789

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 3790

Mr. Lockstead –– 3791

Mr. Nicolson –– 3792

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 3793

Mr. Nicolson –– 3794

Mr. Skelly –– 3795

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 3798

Mr. Skelly –– 3800

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 3800

Mr. Levi –– 3801

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 3802

On vote 131.

Mr. King –– 3803

On vote 133.

Mr. Lockstead –– 3803

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 3804

Mr. King 3804

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 3805

Mr. Barber –– 3806

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 3808

Mr. Nicolson –– 3809

On vote 134.

Ms. Sanford –– 3810

On vote 135.

Mr. King –– 3810

Mr. Wallace –– 3811

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 3811

Mr. Cocke –– 3811

Hon. MR. Waterland –– 3812

On vote 138.

Mr. Wallace –– 3812

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 3812

On vote 142.

Mr. Wallace –– 3813

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 3813

On vote 143.

Mr. King –– 3813

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 3813

On vote 144.

Mr. King –– 3814

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 3814

On vote 145.

Mr. King –– 3814

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 3814

Matters of privilege

Public accounts committee: motion on setting of agenda.

Mr. Speaker rules –– 3815

Public accounts committee: motion to strike Hansard from the record.

Mr. Speaker rules –– 3815

The House met at 8 p.m.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Seated in the gallery this evening are two friends and constituents of mine, Mr. and Mrs. Bill McDonough. I would like the House to make them welcome, please.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Seated in the gallery tonight is none other than the ex-mayor of Langley district, his two daughters and a friend. I would ask the House to welcome them.

Introduction of bills.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

Hon. Mr. Gardom presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1977.

Bill 74 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

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. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): I had just about completed my remarks prior to the adjournment but I do have a few more questions for the minister, Mr. Chairman. For example, we were discussing pulp markets, I believe. While all of us on this side of the House have paid close attention to the economists' analysis of the possible future of pulp markets for British Columbia, I wonder if the minister has any thoughts on this situation, particularly in view of the fact that countries all over the world are building and improving their pulp market capacity, particularly the eastern countries, and how this may possibly affect British Columbia markets.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring the minister back to a situation, once again, in my own riding that concerns some possible seven or eight billion board feet of timber in the Kimsquit Valley, Rivers Inlet and the Chilko Plateau. We're very fortunate, Mr. Chairman, that under the former Social Credit government during the W.A.C. and Ray Williston giveaway days, it seems a small portion of timber was not allocated to any single big company and is still under control of the Crown. I wonder if the minister has any thoughts on how this timber might eventually be allocated or if the minister is considering the possibility of establishing a pulp mill in that area or letting the timber out to some private company such as Mayo, perhaps, Crown Zellerbach or whatever with the possible view to establishing a pulp mill in that area. This matter is of great concern to people in my riding.

But it's the Kimsquit Valley, depending on whom you believe.... If you believe the Forest Service, they say there are some four billion board feet of potential timber in this valley, and if you believe the analysis of the Mayo logging forester, they say some three billion board feet of timber. But the fact is that this fishery does bring in about $500,000 a year to British Columbia, so if any logging is going to take place in that valley eventually, the environment and the fisheries are of the utmost concern. I'm sure the minister has some thoughts on this and I'm looking forward to his answer.

Another area, as this House well knows, Mr. Chairman, that I've been involved in for some years is the plight of the independent logger in this province. Under the regime of W.A.C. Bennett and Ray Williston, the majority of independent loggers and sawmill owners in this province went broke, went out of business because of a lack of timber. I could quote the sections of the Pearse report but I don't think I will. I'm sure the minister is familiar with these sections. I do know that the Pearse report is being studied by a committee, who's studying a committee, who's studying a committee sort of thing.

I know this will be one of the major concerns of the committee that is presently studying the Pearse report. The fact is, for the truly independent loggers and sawmill owners we have left in this province, Mr. Chairman, V in hoping that some of the recommendations of the Pearse report will be considered by that minister. When I say "by that minister, " I suppose I should say "by that committee." The fact is, having had almost two years' experience of how this government operates, Mr. Chairman, I think the thoughts and the recommendations of the minister will come before any recommendations the committee may put forward. I'm hoping that this evening the minister will give us some indication on what he feels the role will be of the truly independent, small, truly competitive operator in this province.

The minister may be interested in this next item and, in fact, if he consults with his seatmate next to him, he will understand it. Recently I had the fortunate opportunity of attending an all-day seminar hosted by the Council of Forest Industries of B.C. in

[ Page 3790 ]

Vancouver dealing with the future energy needs of the timber industry in British Columbia. The minister also attended that conference and I was pleased to see him there - that is the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) . 1,

One of the items that came out of that conference, Mr. Chairman, was that 70 per cent of the energy needs of the logging, pulp and lumber markets of the interior of this province could be supplied by utilizing waste wood. At the moment, it's something on the order of 22 per cent, if I am correct. I may be wrong. The minister could correct me.

The fact is that we all know it's not economical for these forest companies at the present time, from their bookkeeping point of view, to utilize this waste wood and make maximum profits. That's what these companies are all about, obviously. As the price of a barrel of oil increases in price - in fact, reaches the world price, which it will I think in some 18 months to two years, if I'm correct - then it may be economical for these forest companies to utilize waste wood to supply their energy needs, particularly in the interior of this province.

There's been a great deal of tremendous background research and work done by numerous people in this province and other parts of the world, and I wonder, first of all, if the minister is familiar with this problem and how he plans to encourage our lumber, woodworking, logging, sawmilling, pulping industry to utilize these waste woods for energy sources. With that, Mr. Chairman, I'll take my seat and hopefully receive a reply from the minister.

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Forests): Mr. Chairman, the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) began his comments before the adjournment, earlier this evening, and his first line of questioning was regarding the Ocean Falls Corporation.

Mr. Member, a little more than a year ago I was relieved of any responsibility towards Ocean Falls Corporation, as I was for other Crown corporations involved in the forest industry. I think that's the way it should be. I must deal with the Ocean Falls Corporation on exactly the same basis as any other company in that industry, whether it be owned by the Crown or otherwise. Therefore I cannot really comment on the questions you asked regarding the Ocean Falls Corporation. The responsibility for that company, as far as our government is concerned, now lies in the hands of the Premier. My only real concern is that it is dealt with on a completely equal basis to any other corporation involved in that forest sector of our economy.

He mentioned MacMillan Bloedel's Powell River operation and the fact that modernizations have taken place recently which have caused layoffs. I think it's unfortunate that modernizations do have to cause layoffs. One of the things that has happened in our British Columbia economy over the last few years is that the cost of labour has increased rather dramatically, as have all other costs. It has come to the point where corporations can now afford to pay more and more money in order to eliminate the very expensive labour-intensive parts of their operations. However, because people are laid off at a particular manufacturing plant because of modernizations, I don't think we can consider that a complete loss of jobs because the technology which they are introducing, the equipment which they use, and so on, has to be manufactured. To a certain extent these jobs are replaced in that sector, but I don't think we can discourage our industry from doing everything they can to become more cost competitive. Additional jobs will be created when the industry does become cost competitive and expands.

The member mentioned some of the timber supplies which are not yet allocated in our coastal regions. He mentioned the Kimsquit. He also mentioned the fact that there are environmental problems there. There are environmental problems wherever industrial activity takes place. He said that we should encourage our companies to increase their activities. He mentioned the fact that when we do this, though, we must look at the harbours and what happens to the environment and so on. This is very true of our society in British Columbia: they're very environmentally conscious. I think that is a good thing to a certain extent.

However, generally one of the biggest obstacles those companies that have indicated a desire to build additional manufacturing plants have to overcome is the reaction of people with environmental concerns. So we do have to balance our concerns environmentally. We have to balance them with the need for the industrial expansion, and I think we should all try to keep a more balanced viewpoint towards industrial activity and environmental problems because we can impose such very strict environmental requirements on anybody that nothing can possibly happen. So we do have to create a balance, and I am sure this is beginning to happen.

The member asked me to please consider the sections of the Pearse report where it deals with timber supplies for presently independent companies, as we call them - independent loggers and so on. Yes. indeed, this section of the Pearse report will be considered, as will all sections and all recommendations by Dr. Pearse. I can't say how we are going to do it but I am sure there are ways. We do have some thoughts on ways of allowing timber supplies to go directly into the hands of some of the more independent companies and some of the independent loggers.

But I must point out to that member, as I have to the independent loggers associations of British

[ Page 3791 ]

Columbia, that with timber allocations of their own goes a tremendous amount of responsibility -responsibility which does cost them money. They must then have the funds and the staff to deal with the Forest Service, to deal with the environmentalists, to deal with the Ministry of the Environment and the fish and wildlife branch. All these must be dealt with. They must have capital to build roads if they are holding their own quota. At least that is the way it is today.

You mentioned that all the successful independent loggers and independent companies have gone broke in British Columbia. That is certainly not the case. There are many, many very successful independent loggers who have been in the business for many years and are successful. The cause of bankruptcy for quite a number of successful independents has been the single fact that they have acquired timber quota of themselves and they didn't have the financial strength to deal with all the problems and expenses which go along with timber quota.

However, we do have some what I think are very innovative ideas in this regard; unfortunately, I cannot discuss them yet because they are evolving policy.

I'm glad the member attended the energy priorities conference in Vancouver. I was very disappointed that I couldn't. I can't recall what was on that I couldn't but I had planned on attending. My colleague, the minister responsible for energy matters in British Columbia, did attend. We have discussed what went on there and I received all the reports and briefs that were given there.

The cost of energy is increasing - this was discussed this afternoon. As the cost of the more traditional sources of energy increases, the cost of using wood wastes for energy production becomes more competitive. As a matter of fact, I think this point has arrived now, as evidenced by certain forestry companies putting in hog-fuel fired boilers for their operations.

I believe this covers most of the points raised by the member. I am very sorry that I can't elaborate on the plans for the Ocean Falls Corporation, but this is not within my sphere of responsibility at the present time.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I appreciate the reply of the minister; I think the minister is replying straightforwardly and honestly.

In terms of independents going broke, I know that we have had whole debates in the past in this Legislature during my term here and before. I don't intend to go through that again, but I think the minister's answer regarding these truly independent people, who worked hard for years under various forms of bidding and tenure in terms of receiving timber and timber allocations, is really not quite valid. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, he really doesn't understand the situation. I want to tell this House, Mr. Chairman, that I was in that business for many, many years and had the opportunity to know literally hundreds of independents, particularly in the coastal area of this province.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Gyppo.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That's right [illegible]. They're true competitors - people who bid against each other for timber who didn't have security of supply like some of your friends.

Mr. Chairman, I truly understand the large companies requiring security of supply, and I personally am not opposed to that if capital investment is going to go into this province. It's one way we can go. There are better ways. If you read our resolutions to convention you'll understand some of those better ways. But in the meantime I understand the large companies' need for security of supply, and when they tell us they need the security of supply for capital investment. But when they have the security of supply and we don't have the capital investment, then there is a mistake being made somewhere. But that isn't what I got up to talk about.

You know, the minister discusses responsibility of the people who have the luxury of having a TFL, and I want to talk about that for a moment, Mr. Chairman. I want to tell you that the people who have TFL licences in this province also have a lot going for them. Generally speaking, the stumpage rates for people who have TFLs are a great deal lower for the person who has to get a quota. They're in effect being paid for the responsibilities that they are supposedly assuming not necessarily always, but supposedly assuming and so I don't want to hear about these responsibilities.

Look, no one ever does anything for nothing and these people are coming out very well on the transaction. You'd better believe it. I read their annual reports, their bottom-line figures and they do okay. They do a heck of a lot better than some of the people I mentioned - the independents I mentioned earlier, the so-called gyppos. You better believe it.

Anyway, what I really got up to talk about, Mr. Chairman, very briefly, was the minister's responsibility to this Legislature in terms of Ocean Falls. He says that's the Premier's responsibility. It is not the Premier's responsibility. It is partially, of course, as the Premier of this province, but that minister has a responsibility to answer to this Legislature for the Crown corporations of which he's a member of the board of directors and for which he's a member responsible to see that timber and resources are supplied to that company. The minister cannot escape his responsibilities that easily in this

[ Page 3792 ]

Legislature.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Earlier today I questioned the minister. He referred to the conference which was held on the Fraser Canyon budworm spraying programme of April 28 and 29 and the Hansard edition of it. I've had a chance to go over some of it at his suggestion.

The minister said in response to my remarks that in the New Brunswick experience there was no comparison. Well, I would Re the minister to outline what the aims and objectives of a spraying programme are if it is to go ahead. Is it, as I gleaned from reading here, to have a 95 per cent kill? Is it to continue spraying every year and to see the proliferation of the species throughout the province?

There are a tremendous number of facts that seem to be established, and a consensus seems to be established among all of the experts there in entomology. The prevailing feeling is that each time you allow the natural process to go on, just prior to the breakdown or the reduction in numbers when the problem sort of peaks out, there is an increase in population. This more or less precedes the return to smaller numbers and the demise of the problem if it's done in the natural way.

The historical experience, as I pointed out, from back in the 1800s has been that there have been periodic outbreaks. There certainly has been loss, but these are reduced back to reasonable numbers. Now the minister more or less made out that the budworm in the east is completely different from the budworm in the west. Well, I said in my remark that they preyed on different species of trees. The one in the east is choristoneura furniferana and the one out here is the same genus occidentalis. Now the minister said earlier today that he wanted to call a spade a spade so we're putting things in this proper perspective, particularly since some of the lawyers are here this evening.

Mr. Chairman, I would really like to know what the aims and objectives of this are. Are the aims and objectives as suggested here by this panel, in which there was no real consensus agreed upon except that there were some very strong recommendations about salvage operations in infested areas that are anywhere near maturity? There was a lot of talk of that. Well, the minister shakes his head; he says there's no consensus, so I don't know what came out of this.

That's what I want the minister to say. What would be the aims and objectives of such a programme? Would it be to get a 95 per cent kill every year, as was suggested, I believe, by one of his departmental people? On the basis of experience in the east with the budworm of the same genus and with an experience of 25 years of spraying with different pesticides, starting with DDT and later with some of the more current sprays.... Here we see talk about this proposal which was, I think, to use two different pesticides. At least two were being discussed - Orthene and another one. They are discussing doing this.

The minister said there is no comparison to the New Brunswick experience. Yet one of the foresters in this report came out and said: "One thing they have in New Brunswick is a healthy forest." What they have gotten into in New Brunswick is an expenditure, according, again, to the information in this report, of $20 million per year. That is the same amount you have in your estimates for what I would consider a larger province for total reforestation for the year. Those are the kinds of dollars we are talking about. They are spending $20 million per year now in terms of aerial spraying techniques.

There is a great deal of very technical information in here: particulate size, and if you are going to be spraying at an average size of 150 microns, then how many particles of 50 microns are going to be created, how far they will be dispersed, what their effectiveness is and all of these different things.

What I would really like the minister to get down to now is: is he electing to have an annual spraying programme or an ongoing spraying programme getting larger and larger and larger? This has been the experience back in New Brunswick. He said in his remarks that he is looking more at what is happening in Washington, Oregon and Idaho, I suppose, as well as other areas west of the Rocky Mountains in the United States for their experience. How many years have they been spraying? Do they still have to spray? Why do they still have a problem if this is such a solution? Why does the spraying go on? These are certainly some of the questions which I don't think are answered in any way by that minister.

On a couple of other subjects, I would like to bring to the minister's attention that he met with a group of cedar salvage operators. We often hear people on both sides of the House championing the small businessman and the small independent logger. The minister met with a group of people and a decision was made to cut out all cash sales of cedar salvage operations in the Creston PSYU. These people with whom you met a couple of months ago, Mr. Minister, have since that meeting gone around just about the entire Nelson forest district. They have gone very far afield looking for cedar salvage. They have talked with companies. They have been up in the Lardeau, the East Kootenay and the West Kootenay looking for these opportunities to continue a form of livelihood that they did enjoy under the New Democratic Party government when there were actually more lumbering operations being created, reversing the trend where one independent operator was going out of the sawmill business every four days under the previous administration. Now we see this government that pays lip service to free enterprise but

[ Page 3793 ]

really only comes through when they are helping to perpetuate monopolies, whether it be in the petrochemical industry or the forest industry.

I know that this minister would like to do something. What I am suggesting is that a policy was brought through without any warning. I don't think there was any understanding of the economic impact in the dislocation to the people involved. There are at least six operators in the little town of Creston that I know of and there must be others in the riding. Indeed, there must be others in the riding of my colleague from Kootenay (Mr. Haddad) and certainly in the ridings of my colleagues from Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) and Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) .

The minister has explained some of the problems involved in giving cash sales of cedar when there is a different species existing with hemlock and various things. These people go in and they only want to get hold of the cedar - they aren't interested in the hemlock - and perhaps have to be supervised somewhat more. A decision was made purely on a forestry type of decision. There was no regard given to these small free-enterprisers who work a darned sight harder, I would say, than the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has probably worked in his life. They work harder every day.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): I just suggest that you drink hemlock.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, if you're trying to elevate me to the level of Socrates, Mr. Minister, I'm flattered, but no thank you.

Mr. Chairman, the minister was good enough to talk to those people that evening, but the problem is still there. These people have really looked hard in the area. They haven't just looked around in the Creston PSYU; they've gone further afield than that. They're willing to work out and commute home on weekends, I'm sure, because that's the kind of hard-working people they are. I'd like some consideration to be given to that.

Also, what would be the aims and objectives of a spraying programme, beyond getting rid of the spruce budworm? Is this concept of a 95 per cent kill per annum the objective? Is the objective just to maintain green growth every year? What about the hazards if we just leave it to natural forces - the splitting of heads? There's a term in the vernacular of the lumber industry for these trees that split in two, but we won't use it in the polite society of the House. I'd like some explanation of that and of the other questions.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The polite term is "multileaders."

The member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) has gone, Mr. Chairman, but he was talking about independent bidding for timber supplies. Under the present requirements of the Forest Act and the regulations which exist, 1 don't think that small operators can compete on a competitive basis for timber supplies. We hope to find a way of making this possible, but we require some pretty basic legislative changes before that happens. The financial clout of the larger companies makes it impossible for these people to compete on a purely competitive basis. We hope to find a way of overcoming some of those difficulties.

The member for Mackenzie mentioned those companies which have an excess supply of timber. 1 have said many times, and I'll say once again, that we will not allow any company, regardless of its size, to embalm timber in British Columbia. If they cannot use it, they'll lose it. Again, it's going to require changes in our legislation to give us the authority to do this type of thing.

On budworms, the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) could not possibly have been here listening this afternoon because the points he raised were covered many times. The aims of our programme are to attain a 95 per cent kill. This is achievable. It is not the same condition they have in the cast, Mr. Member. There is a slight difference in the species of budworm.

The main difference in the problem is the host tree. As 1 said this afternoon, in the east it's primarily the spruce trees that are under attack. Spruce trees cannot withstand repeated defoliation. They must spray in order to protect the foliage, to keep the trees growing and green. Our fir trees here can stand a few years of defoliation. Out objective, just as it has been in the United States adjacent to us, with the same trees and the same insect, is to attain a 95 per cent kill. If you have read thoroughly the transcript of our hearings you will find that it was stated by myself and others that we are committed to not getting into a repetitive spraying programme. Our objective is to attain a 95 per cent kill to reduce the insect population to its endemic level, at which level its natural predators can keep it under control. There's no guarantee that it will not, in isolated cases, again grow into epidemic proportions. Under normal conditions of weather and environment here, it will not.

I mentioned this afternoon that in Washington and Oregon, under conditions almost identical to ours, they have achieved this 95 per cent kill. In less than 1 per cent of the cases have they had to go back in and respray. They have been spraying since the 1950s. They don't repeat spray in a specific area. When an infestation breaks out, they control it in that area. In only 1 per cent of the cases have they

[ Page 3794 ]

had to go back. I mentioned this afternoon that last year they had to go back because they used a new insecticide which did not work as they thought it would. I'm sorry, but I don't recall the name of the insecticide.

I really had difficulty following the member for Nelson-Creston when he said that we had eliminated cash cedar sales, because no such thing has happened. In fact, in the last year, since cedar prices have been relatively buoyant, we have had more cash sales than we have had in the last decade. Some of the individual operators have difficulty, I'm sure, finding areas in which they feel they can work, but we have had a large number of cash sales. You must be getting your information from some erroneous source, because it's certainly not the case.

You mentioned that you understood some of the problems created by cedar salvage operators working in a licence area of another licensee. This is indeed a problem. There are some people who get involved in cedar salvage when the price is high; all it requires is a pickup truck and a power saw and someone who will' allow them to go on to their area. Some of these people act in a very irresponsible manner, but it's not a high proportion. Most of the operators are pretty good guys. They accept the responsibility which they are given. But superimposing sales of specific species such as cedar over top of other species is perhaps a way in which we can approach this. However, we must be very careful; if you have different types of sales for different species, what you are doing in effect is highgrading a stand.

We have problems in the northwest part of the province with cedar pole sales. The cedar poles are part of the total forest value within an area, and if you allow someone to go in and high grade the most valuable timber out of it, then you are making the rest of the timber less economic. There are some ways of doing this and we are discussing them. I'm sure we are going to come up with something that is much more workable than now but it's not in place yet. We can't use it yet.

Responsible cedar salvage operators usually deal directly with other licensees. Those who are responsible generally carry on year after year and do a good job. But I've seen some of the areas that have been salvaged by some of the irresponsible operators and they do create a tremendous problem. Of course the original licensee is responsible for the area. That is why in many cases there is reluctance on the part of licensees to allow some of these people to come in and salvage after they have logged other species. So it is an ongoing problem and it's something we are dealing with.

I think if those who wish to salvage cedar were given legislative responsibility for assuring that it's done with good forestry practice and without creating fire hazards, it can work. But it's going to require a little different approach than some of them use now. Those long-established salvage operators generally are quite good but there are problems.

Like I say, I know of no such policy within the Forest Service that we will not have cash sales. The chief forester doesn't and none of his staff does. So I would like you, if you would sometime, to tell me your source of information because I think somebody must be giving you wrong information.

MR. NICOLSON: The source of information was, I believe, some of your own staff who were at that meeting at Creston. It was in the Creston PSYU that I believe that this was started and I believe that part of the presentation that evening, which was done by the student group, incorporated that new policy into their presentation for some of the reasons which you outlined.

I think that I'd like to know if the minister would be contemplating some kind of change whereby the licensees could be alleviated of some of this liability and that the onus could be put on these operators. Then, if they don't operate properly, well, they just don't get another chance.

I'll perhaps also bring this up in terms of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) , and that is the Workers' Compensation levy on the little contractors who are involved in reforestation. They're being assessed the same as if they were operating in the woods failing lumber. They are assessed at the same rate as if it was a logging operation when, in fact, they might very easily be working out in the open.

I also understand that one of the problems and one of the real dangers they do have is that when they are working in proximity to actual logging operations and some People think it's.... Well, I think it's fair enough to say that it's rather good that reforestation has provided work for a lot of people who I'd prefer to call counter-culture people but who other people call hippies. There's been a real cultural thing between loggers and these people; they have different lifestyles and values. There have been incidents, I understand, of harassment and deliberate dropping of trees near to people and this type of thing in the woods. Well, that certainly is a danger but it isn't a liability that these people are incurring by virtue of the type of employment.

So the people that are contracting this are, by and large, just people who will put together the operation, to put in a bid for some reforestation. It's my understanding that they're having to pay the same rate -- or on the same basis of hazard - as the rest of the forest industry. It might help them to be a little bit more competitive in their bids and help things all around if this were looked into. I would ask the minister - maybe he can confirm this with his staff -if he would look into this with the Minister of

[ Page 3795 ]

Labour.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): I'd like to just go back to the spruce budworm question for a moment and not really the abortive programme that was done away with by cabinet up in Courtenay recently. But under this minister's budget, we're expected to vote $2.076 million dollars. I understand that that comes under a following vote so I won't deal with it in detail, only to express some surprise that it exceeds last year's vote, which was $29,000, by a substantial amount.

You can understand some of the concern, Mr. Chairman, when the budget increases from $29,000 to $2.076 million. We're wondering what the direction of the Forest Service is in terms of spraying programmes, the use of herbicides, pesticides and this type of thing, because it is a substantial increase. The votes indicate no increase in staff, but a vast increase in the programme budget for "pest management."

The minister seems to be a little befuddled as to why people are opposed to the budworm spraying programme in the Fraser Canyon, why they seem to question the facts that the minister presents. I think the reason for that, Mr. Chairman, is that the facts differ every time the minister makes a presentation. He just said that they're anticipating a 95 per cent kill, yet back in March he had that back down at 90 per cent. Some of the documentation which he presented - or which finally came out; I shouldn't say that he presented it voluntarily - in the process of the hearings - and I congratulate the minister for holding those public discussion sessions - suggested that the kill would be even less than that.

According to George Nagle's report, the Nawitka consultants report which the minister commissioned in January of this year, the area that he's planning to spray now has been infected by spruce budworm back in 1952. The infestation increased, according to Mr. Nagle, from virtually zero acres in 1952 to something like half a million acres, over roughly the same area that he plans to spray or that he did plan to spray this year.

In his introduction to the old budworm song, he was saying that what a tremendous impact the budworm had on the habitat in the area, what an impact it had on water supplies and on recreational values, and the danger of wildfires spreading through the whole Fraser Canyon. He really painted a dismal, emotional kind of picture of what the impact of the spruce budworm would be.

Yet that's not the picture which the Nawitka consultants present in their study of the situation. This is one of the reasons why the minister's own constituents, the ones who are to be sprayed with these two poisons, Orthene and Sevin-4 oil, were so opposed to the programme in the first place: they were not getting a clear statement of facts from the minister on the programme itself.

Mr. Chairman, I know the whole House can't see the graph in the Nawitka consultants report; I'm sure the minister would be prepared to table it in the House. But it does show between the period of 1952 and 1959 an increase in the area of budworm infestation from virtually zero to half a million acres, roughly the area that's affected by budworm at the present time and in the same area. Yet I don't hear very much in the way of complaints, Mr. Chairman, about wildfires sweeping the canyon, about the destruction of wildlife habitat, about the destruction of water quality in that area. A lot of people in the Fraser Canyon question those very facts, or what the minister was presenting as facts, to justify the budworm spraying programme. In fact his own consultants couldn't agree on the validity and the value of that programme.

I'd like to just quote from the Nawitka consultants report, just to give the House some information.

"The forest insect and disease survey of the Canadian Forestry Service has monitored the outbreaks in close co-operation with the B.C. Forest Service. In 1976 a special interdepartmental task force was set up to study the need for chemical or other controls. The insect was already close to the limits of the previous experience and severe forest damage was becoming a real threat."

He didn't say it was a real threat; it was becoming a real threat.

"This budworm task force recommended chemical control of the insect in 1977. Opinion was divided between forest managers and forest scientists on the task force, and the managers and scientists responsible for fisheries, wildlife and parks. Both the task force and the senior forest pest review committee, to whom they reported, felt that a further clarification of the potential benefits and costs of a control programme was required. As a result, the independent contractor, Nawitka Renewable Resource Consultants, was hired."

Yet the recommendations and the conclusion of Nawitka Renewable Resource Consultants were not conclusive in favour of chemical management programmes. In fact, the first of the summary of conclusions states:

"There is an overbearing uncertainty and wide scientific disagreement over the most likely future course of the current outbreak. Some people feel that the outbreak could collapse at any time through the natural life cycle of the budworm."

There is an indication in the Nawitka Renewable Resource Consultants study that the cost-benefit ratio is not that substantial in favour of the spraying programme. In fact Mr. Nagle pointed out in his third

[ Page 3796 ]

conclusion that if the outbreak collapses in 1977 or 1978 - which some people consider likely - the expected benefits will be reduced to management information and training benefits only. These will not be insignificant in overall B.C. forest management perspective. In his final summary of conclusions he says the environmental risks of the programme should be kept in the forefront of all planning and monitoring if a decision is made to proceed.

So the independent consultants' report wasn't entirely conclusive in favour of the chemical programme, and yet the ministry came out with a decision in March. The study was commissioned in January, and three months later, on March 30, the minister made an announcement that a spraying programme would take place in the Fraser Canyon. He gave an independent consultant three months to do the study. So the first questions are: How much did the study cost? What time frame was it given to report? Who made the decision to spray following the submission of the Nawitka consultants report?

I understand that the programme was to cover an area of something like 100,000 acres and it was to cost $1 million. In this minister's budget, Mr. Chairman, we're going to be called upon to vote a sum of something like $2.076 million for pest management programmes. Now that the spray programme in the Fraser Canyon has been cancelled, what is going to happen to the $1 million that was going to be allocated this year to the spruce budworm spraying programme? In the first place, how much of it was spent on preparations for the programme? I myself flew over the Anderson Valley recently and observed some damage - not that much.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: At 20,000 feet?

MR. SKELLY: No, I flew over at about 2,000 feet.

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): Were the wings on?

MR. SKELLY: I was pilot-in-command that day.

AN HON. MEMBER: No wonder you couldn't see anything.

MR. SKELLY: I did see a number of Chevron chemical trucks in the area, a base being established and a number of tanks at the base, What were the costs of preparations for that abortive programme and what was done prior to cabinet cancelling the programme? How much of the taxpayers' money was spent - money we haven't voted yet by the way, Mr. Chairman - on this abortive spraying programme prior to it being cancelled by cabinet?

Another reason why your own constituents lack confidence in the facts which you present to back up the spraying programme was the fact of its cancellation. At first it was cut back to roughly half the area, even though the statements you made before implied or suggested that the whole area must be sprayed in order to combat the spruce budworm menace which was eating up wildlife habitat, which was destroying the water quality of the area, which was destroying the recreational and aesthetic values of the Fraser Canyon. You made all of those statements to back up the 100,000-acre programme; you then used the same statements to back up the 40,000- or 50,000-acre programme or the one that was cut down to half the size. As a result you lost a lot of credibility as a minister able to handle a programme within your ministry. A lot of that credibility was lost on the part of your own constituents who now doubt the facts which you're presenting and doubt your word as a minister and as a representative for their constituency.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. SKELLY: I'm just stating a fact, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In this House all members are honourable members, all word is trustworthy and we cannot allow any attack on any individuals, but unless the minister takes offence I'll not ask the member to withdraw.

MR. SKELLY: I'm not sure the minister takes offence, but I'm saying that on the part of his own constituents and people who took an active interest in the spraying programme there is some doubt now. We hope the minister will clear it up in his statements in this House. There is some doubt on the part of these people as to the competence of this minister in managing his department.

The minister states that some of the information he received on the chemicals that were to be used in the programme - Orthene in particular and Sevin-4 oil - backed up the fact that it was nontoxic or relatively nontoxic to human beings, to nomarget species and this type of thing, although he did mention that it would have some effect on bees and pollinators and aquatic insects.

He made those statements to the press. But some of the studies which he obtained this information from are suspect in themselves, Mr. Chairman. People throughout the province, people with scientific backgrounds, not just Merriam Doucet ... she should be congratulated on the amount of study she has done in the area of pesticides and herbicide chemicals, because she has done a terrific amount. The fact that she doesn't have a PhD after her name or RPF or whatever you choose doesn't mean that

[ Page 3797 ]

she isn't intimately knowledgeable with the chemicals which she is talking about in these public meetings.

I'd like to just quote from some of the studies that were done from the Chemical Control Research Institute of the Canadian Forestry Service, and the acknowledgements that appear in these reports are interesting.

"The enthusiastic support of the Thompson-Hayward Chemical Company, Kansas City, Kansas, and Delcicole Corporation of Canada, Mississauga, Ontario, in providing the students and extra casual help, allowed the field work to be carried out."

So chemical companies provided the people who did the field work, but the minister just recently said that he didn't want to be involved in corporations like Ocean Falls and Canadian Cellulose because there would be a bit of a conflict of interest there, that if he was involved in regulating those corporations, he would be the referee and the corporation at the same time.

Okay. We can accept that, but some of the studies that he did accept and take at face value were suspect studies because the chemical companies who stood to profit by the studies were involved in the studies themselves. FMC of Canada Ltd., Burlington, Ontario, provided valuable assistance in the person of Dr. Phil Jones. Now I'm not questioning Dr. Phil Jones' competence, but the fact that he is supplied by a chemical company to do a study on a chemical from which his company stands to profit makes the whole study suspect in my view.

Another study, on aerial applications of Orthene on nomarget organisms, was done by Chemical Control Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, in November, 1975: "Appreciation is also expressed to Chevron Chemical (Canada) Ltd., who provided support for these studies."

So the people who did the studies were the people who stood to profit from a whitewash of those toxic values of those chemicals.

I think that's what's been happening all along, Mr. Chairman. I've pointed out in debate on other minister's estimates that the studies done in the FDA in the United States were suspect for that very reason. The Kennedy committee looking at the administration of the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States called those studies into question because chemical companies were involved in those studies. So a lot of the information that the minister presented in support of the spruce budworm spraying programme was information which itself was suspect.

So I do have that question. How much money was spent on the spruce budworm spraying programme to date? How much of the taxpayers' money was wasted on the abortive programme? How much money is left over and what does the minister plan to do with that money? The spruce budworm infestation, I understand from the minister's tour of the area by helicopter this morning, is still going on. Even if he obtains a kill of 90 per cent on the budworm programme, it will still be at infestation or epidemic levels from what I understand. So if the programme is still going on, what does the minister plan to do with the $1 million or the balance of the $1 million that remains? Is he doing an active study in the area on other types of controls - biological controls, salvage logging, this type of thing? What does the minister plan to do with the balance of those funds?

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

I also have another series of questions which relate to the type of public meetings which are held by the Forest Service. I attended one of the public meetings - or public information sessions - in Hope. This was after the minister left, by the way. I understand these sessions were held in Boston Bar, Yale and Hope in the Fraser Canyon. It's the type of public meeting that was set up that I am really questioning.

The Forest Service noted in the newspapers that they would be there from, say, I o'clock in the afternoon until 7 or 8 in the evening, or whatever. How they handled it was more like a public relations programme than a public information session or a public meeting where people could come, express their concerns, crossfeed each other with information, and really develop some kind of knowledge as to what type of programme you were developing. As it worked out, when a number of people did show up at a certain time, your staff indicated they weren't entirely cognizant of all the implications of the spruce budworm spraying programme and, in fact, their knowledge of the facts was pretty sparse. The people in the area recognized that immediately. That's another reason why you lost credibility with the constituents in your riding, Mr. Minister. I am concerned about the type of meetings the Forest Service holds.

We had a problem in Port Alberni, and this relates to a different matter entirely from spraying. When logging companies are cutting in an area adjacent to a built-up community - a city the size of Port Alberni, for example, or some of these suburbs in the rural areas of Port Alberni - People get quite concerned. The aesthetic values they enjoy are affected and their property values are also affected by large cutblocks taking place adjacent to their areas. I am referring in particular to the Sproat Lake area of Port Alberni, and the minister received some correspondence from my constituents about logging by MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. on Dog Mountain which faces or fronts on a lot of recreational and permanent homesite lots on Sproat Lake.

[ Page 3798 ]

Now by the time they heard the cutting was to take place, it was really too late. To give M&B credit, they did appear at the Sproat Lake Ratepayers' Association meetings; they did explain exactly what they planned to do; and they did present maps before the assembled ratepayers' groups who were very concerned about the effect of this cutting on their property values and the aesthetic values they enjoy around that lake. They were also concerned about the possibility of a wildlife reserve being cut and the impact on the tourist industry. As I said, to give M&B credit, they did appear at the meeting. They sent their foresters down and they sent their logging division managers down, but the plans had proceeded sufficiently far that it would be too expensive to back off from the plans at that point. It would also eliminate a winter logging show that was required to maintain employment in the area. I'm asking the minister, since I know he's contemplating some changes in the Forest Act, if he will consider zoning of forests.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Okay. Well, I'm glad you woke the minister up anyway. Now I am wondering if the minister is planning to zone forests. I would suggest to the minister that he zone forests. I realize that he is doing it right now - that is, with sites that are sensitive recreationally, that are sensitive for ecological values, slope problems, and other reasons -and special regulations are being developed to log in those zones. I'd like to see the situation under the Forest Act where areas that come within municipal jurisdiction, or within the jurisdiction of a municipal zoning bylaw and do have some impact on property values and aesthetic values, and also community values in the area where the logging is to take place, that logging plans for those areas must be submitted to public meetings and go through the regular zoning procedure through which every other development in the area must go.

At the present time, the Forest Act, and provisions under the Forest Act, are exempt from the Municipal Act so any type of forest development is exempt from the zoning procedure. I wouldn't like to see this thing cover the whole province because it would create so much red tape for the forest companies that it would be impossible to log.

But close to urban areas and close to built-up areas I think that logging operations and large clearcuts should be submitted to the regular zoning process and that logging companies should have to submit their plans to public meetings and accept the input from those public meetings on their logging plans. As I say, I'm not advocating that for the whole province - it would be ridiculously expensive - but only in a limited area which could, in consultation between the

Forest Service and local government, be declared a sensitive area considering the urban values, property values and aesthetic values in the area. So I would ask the minister to comment on those two proposals.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Back to the budworms. I wonder if that member, Mr. Chairman, can stand in this House and tell me that he flew to the Anderson drainage and saw only minor indications of damage. Next time you go up for your MOT medical, you had better watch the eye examination part, Mr. Member, because you've got a problem. You must have been flying IFR.

MR. SKELLY: No, the weather was good for a change.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Well, there was something wrong. Anybody who can say that they see minor damage in the Anderson drainage due to infestation of the spruce budworm cannot see very well.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's upside-down and flying backwards.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The member talks about a natural collapse. It was mentioned this afternoon that people say that prior to a natural collapse there's a tremendous buildup in population of the insect. This is not so. This is not a fact; it is a fallacy. It has perhaps happened in about one out of 10 infestations. When it does happen, if it does, it's caused by the insect building up until it eats everything and starves to death. But there's no evidence that an actual buildup of population comes before a natural collapse. It's just not true and those who say that are ill-informed. I received this information from a great number of entomologists and none of them can document any such type of procedure.

The member mentioned the cost-benefit ratio which was in the Nagle report. By the way, that report cost $10,000. That report was not intended to quantify a cost-benefit ratio. All that was to be indicated, because of the time constraints in producing it, was that if a positive ratio were indicated, then there was an economic advantage to doing it. It was never intended to quantify. Those figures have been used: $1.10 returned for every $1 spent. No attempt was made by Dr. Nagle to quantify. It was just an order-of-magnitude type thing. He didn't have time to do a detailed economic analysis. However, the only values that he used, as far as I can understand from reading his report, are direct revenues to the government.

Also, if you look at what's happening to the timber resources there, a great deal of damage is being

[ Page 3799 ]

done to immature timber. Of course, the member knows that if you try to take the value of timber which is not going to be harvested for 15 or 30 or 80 years and try to put a present worth on that, it's worthless. By the same token, you can say that it's not worth anything to plant trees today, but we know that in order to ensure the future of forest industry, we must do reforestation and we must protect the immature growth we have. Twenty years from now or 30 years from now, if we do not look after that immature timber, there will not be any timber to harvest. That is when the real impact will take place, although the damage to the mature timber has serious implications for the allowable cut in that area now, and that is serious.

The member asked how we could rationalize the fact that we were going to spray 100,000 acres. We said that we must spray that to get a kill of the insects in that particular area. You say that because we reduced it to 52,000 acres my previous arguments were not correct. Again, the 100,000 acres was only a part of the total 600,000-acre infestation.

The 100,000 acres was split up into several areas. There were those on the east side of the Fraser River; there are isolated pockets of infestation throughout this area and there's the more concentrated Anderson drainage. We felt that by spraying within the Anderson drainage to the east of the mountain ridge which lies just east of the Fraser Canyon, a natural barrier against reinfestation existed because of the mountain ridge itself, and this would prevent reinfestation to a certain extent. We would have gained a great deal of very valuable information by doing that 52,000-acre area.

As far as what it cost, it's difficult to pin a number down as to what the actual aborted programme cost because many of the commitments that were made are being redirected into intensive study of the area. A great deal of the helicopter time, for example, which we contracted for is being used for support for people who are doing this intensive monitoring in the area right now.

There were some costs which are not recoverable - a $7,000 charge, for example, for the transportation of the Orthene chemical which we purchased, which was delivered and which we shipped back. We had to pay the transportation costs. We do have a quantity of Sevin-4 oil now in stock which is being moved to Kamloops to be stored for the winter in a place where tight security is possible. It will be stored at our tanker base at the airport and it won't add any jobs to Kamloops, Mr. Member.

The Forest Service ordered the specialized spray equipment which was required to get the proper droplet size for the spraying. We own this equipment. If we spray in future years we will have this equipment and can put it to use. Other funds will be redirected into other protection areas of the province.

The spruce budworm is but one of the many insects and pests which are damaging our forests. The mountain pine beetle, for example, is rampaging through some of the Cariboo part of our country, and other areas as well. I am sure the member has seen some of the signs of this, but perhaps he hasn't. If he can't see the spruce budworm problems in the Anderson drainage, he certainly wouldn't have been able to see the others. We are redirecting some of these funds into controlling other pests and to very intensified monitoring of the spruce budworm problem, not only throughout this part of the area, but also throughout the entire 600,000 acres under infestation now.

The member mentioned that the people in Port Alberni have a problem, and with that I must agree. They have a problem. There have been cutting plans near Dog Mountain by MacMillan Bloedel. The member says that everybody in Port Alberni....

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Was that subtle, Tom?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: That was subtle, yes. The member says that people in Port Alberni were all against this, but they certainly weren't all against it. There was concern that the logging on Dog Mountain - the winter logging show for MacMillan Bloedel -would cause a scar on the mountainside. It was explained to the people and most of the people, I am sure, realize what is happening. Many of the people there are employed in the forest industry, and I know the IWA membership there came out in support of this programme. I think the problem, again, was a lack of awareness and knowledge by the people in the area as to what effect it was going to have.

This is a problem throughout the province and that is why my ministry is continuing to encourage the establishment of public advisory groups in various areas of the province. The member for Nelson-Creston and I attended an organizational meeting of such a group in Creston. Many, many problems of the Forest Service and the forest industry with public relations are overcome by having public input into the planning process. We intend to encourage this throughout the province. I think it can do nothing but good, both from the public's point of view and from the Forest Service's and the forest industry's point of view.

The member referred to many well-qualified professionals and said he wasn't questioning their professional ethics but, at the same time, he did. He said they were suspect because they happened to work for chemical companies. Well, I hope the member doesn't make such statements outside of the House. These are professional people who work for chemical companies as chemists. Most chemists work for chemical companies. They do a great deal of

[ Page 3800 ]

research. Agriculture Canada accepts a lot of the information provided by chemical companies in research of pesticides. Where they feel any of the information is suspect, they attempt to repeat the studies themselves. I really think it's uncalled for to say that these professional people, because they happen to work for a chemical company, are abrogating their professional ethics in order to help the chemical companies sell chemicals. I don't have that type of view of professional people.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) mentioned doctors who work for cigarette companies and appear before senate committees to testify at very substantial per them rates and tend to find that cancer is not related to cigarette smoking at all, although doctors doing independent research tend to find the opposite. I would think a true scientist would consider all scientific evidence suspect and wouldn't accept anything on firm ground. I don't think any scientist who considers himself worthy of his credentials would take any umbrage at the fact that I question the studies they did. It doesn't really matter if I say it out of the House because people have said it about those same scientists before. The fact that they work for chemical companies and the fact that these studies were supported by chemical companies and money was provided makes the studies themselves suspect. It's unfortunate that a ministry of this government would take those studies at face value. I don't think they should.

The minister mentioned that the cost of the Nawitka study was $10,000. That's a pretty small amount to pay for an independent consultant to work for three months to examine a problem which the minister considers of such tremendous magnitude that he has to spend $1 million to solve it. I think it would be money well spent to commission a fairly solid study of the impacts of the spruce budworm and the impacts that he outlined when we initially began discussion of the spruce budworm. He said it was going to destroy wildlife habitat. Well, that isn't exactly what came out of the Nawitka resources report. In fact, he said that defoliation by the budworm may be beneficial to some species and harmful to others, so it was a question of one way or the other. There would be a negligible impact on upland game in the infested areas although increased ground cover and food production could be favourable. He did have some questions as to the possible impact of spraying of the spruce budworm. To quote Mr. Nagle again:

"With a few exceptions, predatory and parasitoid arthropod species populations have not been drastically affected by conventional forest dosage. Immediate mortality is often high but population recuperation appears to be very rapid." The minister stated that.

"Ecosystem surveillance, however, is relatively underdeveloped and under supported. There is still a great deal we do not know about faunal community dynamics, and we may yet have to face unpleasant surprises."

So while on the one hand he said that parasitic insects recover rapidly, he made the qualifying statement that there's very little we know about faunal community dynamics and we may have some unpleasant surprises. So he made some statements which, because they were abridged statements from the reports, really constitute half-truths.

We have in this area an example of a historic infestation that took place less than 20 years ago. I don't think the studies have been done of the values that were lost by that infestation that took place between '52 and '59. Did we have the tremendous decline in water quality? Did we have wildfire sweeping the Fraser Canyon, as the minister implied in his emotional statements, trying to get support for the spruce budworm spraying programme? No, I don't think we did. The damage wasn't that substantial and it wasn't damaging over the long term.

Back to the problems in Port Alberni. Yes, they do have a problem. The problem wasn't with MacMillan Bloedel. The minister didn't really answer the question. What I asked was: in areas where urban values were affected and where community values and property values were affected, would the minister consider a forest zoning procedure similar to what he is doing for recreational values, ecological values and kind of specialized-site values in other forest areas, where more public impact will be allowed?

I know that you've set up citizen advisory committees, but what about the municipal zoning process for every other development? For example, MacMillan Bloedel operates on the west coast of Vancouver Island, and for their booming grounds and industrial operations out there they do seek local government approval. Part of this they obtain through the Ministry of the Environment referral procedure for booming grounds and water lots and this type of thing. The regional government has an input into how those developments take place. Through negotiations with the companies they're able, in general, to reach some kind of amicable solution to their problems. In built-up areas such as Port Alberni we don't get that citizen input that's required when property values are affected. I'm wondering if the minister will consider submitting those types of operation to the municipal or regional zoning process.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Regarding zoning by municipal authority, the member has probably read the Pearse report. Dr. Pearse recommended that

[ Page 3801 ]

regional districts become involved in approving forestry plans. This recommendation of Pearse is being considered with the others. We are not considering having zoning by municipalities for forestry operations adjacent to them.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Chairman, I understand my colleague covered the tree problem in our riding this afternoon. What I want to deal with is not the budworm problem....

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: No, I want to deal with another kind of worm, Mr. Leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace) - the worms in the boardroom. I want to bring the minister's attention to a letter that he received recently, as did two of his cabinet colleagues, from the Vancouver and District Labour Council, from Paddy Neale. He wrote to Hon. Tom Waterland, May 3,1977: "Please find enclosed a resolution adopted in the last regular meeting of the Vancouver and District Labour Council." The resolution is:

"That the Vancouver and District Labour Council call on the provincial government to hold a public inquiry into the irregularities and questionable trade practices reported in a news release made public March 31,1977, by MacMillan Bloedel Corporation, and further that the council call on the B.C. Federation of Labour to pursue this matter."

They enclosed for the minister a copy of the press release by MacMillan Bloedel, and also the resolution. The minister did reply on May 9:

"I have to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated May 3, together with the attached resolution. As the matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Attorney-General and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, I have taken the liberty of forwarding your letter to the Hon. Rafe Mair. I note that you have forwarded a copy of the letter to the Attorney-General."

The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs also replied to the letter from Paddy Neale. He replied on June 20:

"I am in receipt of a copy of your letter to Hon. T.M. Waterland, Minister of Forests. Since the instances of irregularities referred to are all Criminal Code matters and do not fall within the jurisdiction of my ministry, any comments which might be made by this government will have to come from the Attorney-General."

We haven't yet heard from the Attorney-General, Mr. Chairman. Don't get nervous, I'm on the point. I'm dealing with MacMillan Bloedel, Mr. Chairman -a small impoverished company that's been operating in this province for a long time with some very special privileges.

Now in raising this matter with the minister, what we're dealing with here is not so much with company law. That can come under some legislation that's before the House. What we're dealing with is behaviour, because last year, when the Pearse commission report was released, Dr. Pearse made some very special reference to MacMillan Bloedel. He said they had some very special privileges in relation to old tenure.

There were some denials. There were denials from the company itself; Mr. Forrest of MacMillan Bloedel made a statement on behalf of the company. However, Dr. Pearse was quite categorical in his statement that back in 1958 the then-Minister of Lands and Forests (Hon. Mr. Williston) made some specific decisions which he had no legal right to do. What we have to rely on in response to this - because we have not had a response yet from the minister - is what Mr. Forrest said on behalf of Mac and Blo.

All too often when issues like this arise, Mr. Chairman, in the first instance that I described, which relates to practices which were revealed in the United States before the Securities Exchange Commission that Mac and Blo had been involved in, they said to their press release that what they did was to enter into a voluntary inquiry to look into any allegations about practices which were not in good keeping in terms of the operation of the company.

We have no such legislation in Canada. But in the United States there are demands made by the Securities Exchange Commission if you're going to raise capital down there. They want to know what you do. They want to know whether the shareholders, to some extent, know what's going on. They want to know that from their point of view. Interestingly enough, we don't have a similar kind of situation here but we tend to garner this kind of information as a result of what happens when a company goes down to the United States to raise money. We found out about B.C. Hydro recently because they had to file a prospectus in order to raise money in the United States. The same thing applies to MacMillan Bloedel. That's why they had to make these statements; they went down there to raise some money. When they do, they have to fill out what is called a form 1 OK, and I OK requires that they make certain revelations.

Now in their press release, they said that they entered into an inquiry; they were investigating what was going on. Now what they did was to set up an investigation committee, which is going to look into some of the irregular practices of MacMillan Bloedel. One would think: "Well, okay, they're going to do this. Where do they go for the people to do the investigation?" Well, where did they go?

AN HON. MEMBER: George Kerster?

[ Page 3802 ]

MR. LEVI: No, no, the Kerster wasn't around then. What they did was this: the investigating committee is composed of....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. We refer to members by constituency.

MR. LEVI: Yes, you're quite right, Mr. Chairman. I withdraw that last remark.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Who said that?

AN HON. MEMBER: I did!

MR. LEVI: Call that member to order, Mr. Chairman.

So the investigating committee is made up of J.V. Clyne, J.N. Ireland, J.E. Richardson - who was later replaced by Mr. C.B. Wright. They were assisted by the MacMillan- Bloedel legal staff, by the company's auditors, Price Waterhouse, and they were also assisted by their lawyers in New York. They made certain statements in the press release that they issued in which they admitted that moneys had been paid out in an irregular fashion, moneys which came almost to some $3 million.

Now this has to be of interest not only to this House, Mr. Chairman, but to everybody in this province because in the final analysis, that money comes from the consumer. That kind of effect of paying out that kind of money has to be of interest to everybody in this province. After all, they're in the forest industry; they sell lumber. People in British Columbia buy lumber. It's very costly. Part of that cost, contrary to what the company said, is the result of moneys being paid out in somewhat irregular fashion. They say that nothing took place in Canada; we don't know.

Now I have two questions for the minister. In relation to Dr. Pearse's statement in his report that MacMillan Bloedel had special privileges in 1958, has he, in his capacity as Minister of Forests, looked into this allegation, because MacMillan Bloedel did respond to this? Now has he looked into this? Is he satisfied that what took place in 1958 under a previous minister - who is now the chairman of Can-Cel - was legal, and that there was a legal basis to the decision that he had? Dr. Pearse is, I would say, in terms of his position as a forester and economist, a man who put together a report which I don't think was based on fallacious arguments but rather on the observation of the facts as he found them when he did the work that he did. Has the minister inquired into that?

The minister, in his reply, did say that matters the Vancouver trades and labour council was dealing with were not in his purview. Did he, in any case, because he is the minister responsible for forests and MacMillan Bloedel or a forest company, make any inquiries about this? Did he simply say, "It's not my bag, " or give it over to somebody else? They are serious allegations. They are public; all of this is public knowledge.

I'm interested in the two things: what did the minister do in respect to Dr. Pearse's allegation about MacMillan Bloedel? Did he go any further in respect to Mr. Neale's letter, other than to refer Mr. Neale's letter to the Attorney-General and to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, regarding correspondence from the IWA regarding the so-called sensitive payments made by MacMillan Bloedel in foreign countries, it is indeed a matter for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and/or the Attorney-General. It is within their areas of expertise to investigate such matters; it certainly is not mine. That is the reason it was turned over to them. No, I have not conducted an investigation myself, nor do I intend to.

The member mentioned statements made in the Pearse report regarding, as he put it, special treatment given to MacMillan Bloedel in 1958. At that time, as is the case today, there were quite a number of old temporary tenures in existence. These temporary tenures are such that they are renewed and have been for many years as the timber is harvested and then they revert to the Crown. Because these temporary tenures were in isolated areas of holdings which were held under tree farm licences and through other tenures by MacMillan Bloedel and other companies, in 1958 the then minister attempted to rationalize these programmes.

It was brought before the standing committee on forestry and fisheries in British Columbia. I believe it was unanimous agreement by that committee, which represented all parties then in the House, that these old temporary tenures should be incorporated into long-range harvesting plans. They would be harvested in a logical manner insofar as good forestry planning was concerned. Yes, MacMillan Bloedel did receive more consideration here because they owned more of the old temporary tenures. I believe they own something on the order of 60 per cent of them. Dr. Pearse says there were irregularities.

We are, as I have said many times, doing a complete analysis of the Pearse report. This matter, along with all of the other matters related in the Pearse report, is being studied and will be a part of our rationalization of new forest policy.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, with respect to what the minister has said, I appreciate that there is an ongoing review of the Pearse report. It's a very long,

[ Page 3803 ]

complicated document. One of the charges made by Dr. Pearse was very specific: there was no legal basis to the action that one of the previous ministers took. What I asked the minister was: did they look at that? I'm not asking him to give a legal opinion. Did they seek a legal opinion from the law officers of the Crown as to whether, in fact, Dr. Pearse was correct in saying that there was no legal basis? I appreciate that later on there will probably be a complete rewriting of the Act. But Dr. Pearse has made a very serious allegation.

In some way, I suppose, one has to give a legal determination about this. Has such a legal determination been sought by the minister in respect to this particular allegation by Dr. Pearse? I'm not asking about the whole business of rewriting the legislation because that's not coming, as we've been informed, until next spring. Can the minister tell the House if there has been a legal determination in respect to the allegation of Dr. Pearse?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, we have outside legal advice working with the Pearse advisory committee. We also have legal advice from within the government. Yes, this and all other matters requiring legal advice within the Pearse report are being assessed.

MR. LEVI: I'll have to just go back over it a little bit. I appreciate all of what the minister has said, Mr. Chairman, but what I'm saying specifically in relation to the allegation by Dr. Pearse.... He has actually said that MacMillan Bloedel has a series of rights that were granted to them in 1958 and there was no legal basis to it. My question to the minister is: have you or the law officers of the Crown determined that he is right or wrong? It is not whether there is a review going on or an advisory committee. After all, he said there is an advisory committee.

If they were available at the time when he was doing the report.... Yet he comes out and says there was no legal basis for the decision made. The minister surely can tell us whether they have actually looked at that particular issue - not a wholesale review. That is all I'm asking. All the minister is telling us is that they are doing a wholesale review. We understand that. But if we are to accept Dr. Pearse's statement that MacMillan Bloedel is in receipt of something which legally it is not entitled to be in receipt of, has the minister been able to confirm whether Dr. Pearse is right or not? That's all I'm asking. Has he been able to get a legal determination?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'll say again, Mr. Chairman, I don't know how long we're going to carry on this way.

MR. LEVI: Just till you answer the question.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: But this and all matters are being assessed and will continue to be assessed. We're not going to jump up after we assess each of the over 400 recommendations and comments made by the Pearse report and say that's the way it is. The member said that it was a legal opinion. That's what it is and we are seeking other legal opinion. The determination has not yet been made.

MR. LEVI: I gather what he said is that yes, they are seeking a legal determination and they haven't got it at the moment. That's all I was seeking. Thank you.

Vote 129 approved.

Vote 130: ministry administration programme, $19,421, 832 - approved.

On vote 131: engineering support services programme, $9,830, 468.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I understand that this is the engineering branch which is responsible for reservoir clearing, at least in some areas. I've been concerned over a period of time within my own riding, Mr. Chairman, about the practices that We used by the forestry engineering branch in terms of wasting wood. There is a market in my particular area for a variety of different kinds of mills that utilize waste wood - some shakemakers, another plant that uses very short material for cedar fence-railing, and so on. They market that from Super-Valu stores and so on. It's quite a unique operation with a good deal of individual innovation involved.

It concerns me greatly when I see a lot of waste material being drawn from the Duncan reservoir and burned, rather than allowing these small operators to come in and salvage that material and use it in their own small plants. Usually there's a small number of people employed but again they are fairly remote areas and 10 or 12 jobs mean a lot.

So I hope the minister is conscious of just how much waste material means in these areas. I know I've discussed it with him before, but I hope in that particular area he will instruct the engineering branch that every effort should be made to fully utilize whatever is salvageable.

Vote 131 approved.

Vote 132: public information services programme, $591,742 - approved.

On vote 133: resource management programme, $8, 05 5,875.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: One short and brief question

[ Page 3804 ]

that I failed to ask the minister under his vote regarding resource management, Mr. Chairman, is that it's well known that many of the TFL tenures are due to expire within the next year or two or three. If these tenures are renewed under the present terms of the contracts, that will carry these tenures well into the year 2000 and beyond. I wonder if the minister would care to remark on how these renewals are being handled presently or how the minister plans to handle these contract renewals in the very near future.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: All I can advise the member, Mr. Chairman, is that all forms of tenure, all means of acquiring tenure are being reviewed. We hope to come up with a very equitable system of distributing Crown timber.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, I understand, Mr. Minister. What I am wondering about is if the review is not completed by the time that some of these contracts do come up for renewal, how does the minister intend to handle the situation in the meantime?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Is the member speaking of the TFLs?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The 2 1 -year TFLs.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: There are tree farm licences with 21 years automatically renewable. There are perpetual tree farm licences. There are lots of different terms of tenure of tree farm licences and we're trying to rationalize the whole thing into a more simplified consistent policy.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I think this is the correct vote where we should discuss the regional staff of the forestry branch offices. I am extremely concerned that within my own riding we are faced with the phasing out - at least the reduction - of one Forest Service station in the village of New Denver. I've written to the minister about it and I understand a review of that particular ranger station is underway. Now whether or not the ministry is considering simply removing the ranger and reducing some of the staff, or phasing the office out altogether, is not clear to me and apparently is not clear to the ministry at this time.

I want to say, Mr. Chairman, in the strongest possible terms, that I believe this is the wrong direction for the Forests ministry to take. I pointed out to the minister, in my letter to him, that the Pearse commission report recommends the decentralization of the Forest Service insofar as is possible and practical. I'm concerned that the closure of field offices such as the New Denver office tends to centralize the operation rather than decentralize. It means that the administration is then moved to the regional office of Nelson. That's a vast area to administer from a central point.

I'm concerned that over the years there has been the opposite problem in my view. That is that the local rangers have not been given adequate responsibility and autonomy. Indeed, I believe there is evidence to indicate that where local rangers have used their own initiative in terms of applying the regulations, in terms of enforcing proper cleanup and so on, there has been a tendency for some of the companies involved to simply go over the head of the local ranger to the regional staff, flex their political muscles and come up with a different standard.

I want to say to the minister that I agree with the Pearse recommendation: there should be a strengthening of the field offices and the local rangers who become intimately familiar with the resource in their area; who become intimately familiar with the terrain and the approaches that are most practical, the road construction problems, and so on. I believe there's a strong case to be made for giving them more responsibility and more autonomy. Now certainly they have to be accountable, but they must have an opportunity to proceed through the exercise of their own judgment before they can be held accountable for anything. I think if the threatened closure of the New Denver ranger station is an indication of a general policy initiative which the branch is taking, then I must say that I'm extremely concerned.

Now there's one other dimension to the particular problem to which I refer, and that is more of a social one. I submit that the Forests ministry, the same as any other government agency or any private enterprise, has a social obligation as well. I want to suggest to the minister that he should think very, very hard before reducing the employment opportunity of a small town such as New Denver, reducing the payroll, and reducing the public services that are available in that area. This type of cutback, if it's pursued in a general way, such as health and education facilities and so on, tends to make small communities less attractive places to live. It tends to hasten an exodus of the population to larger points with all of the attendant problems of housing, sewage and so on. The Forests ministry is no less responsible for that kind of social evaluation than any private entrepreneur. In weighing the economics of whether that station should be phased out or not, I certainly urge the minister to take that dimension into account, because it is important. It's very crucial in a small area like that.

I want to make the final point in terms of the need for the facility there. That area is subject to tremendous electrical storms. I myself have visited the Mount Idaho fire lookout. I get around and visit and service my constituents, Mr. Minister. It's really a

[ Page 3805 ]

spectacle to be up in the mountains in that area when there is an electrical storm on. It's not uncommon to see 15 or 20 fires ignited on the surrounding ranges, both the Monashee and the other - oh, I forget the name of the place across the lake where the wilderness area is proposed. It's not uncommon at all, and the ability of a localized ranger station to respond quickly to those fires that are spotted, in my view, saves a lot of money. If one had to wait for aerial surveillance, the weather would have to be appropriate. There is also the problem of night flying which is very difficult in that terrain.

What we would inevitably have is fires that were getting a head start and, as a consequence, would cost a great deal more to bring under control in the final analysis. So it wouldn't be only the cost of greater firefighting necessity, but I suggest too that there would be significant increase in the loss of merchantable timber. So all of these things should be taken into consideration. I believe that the consideration of closure in that area is the height of folly and I hope the minister pays very close attention to it.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the member for Revelstoke-Slocan has corresponded with me regarding this matter, as have many members from the community.

We are reviewing all of our field facilities. We are also having a very thorough review done by an independent organization, as recommended by Dr. Pearse, regarding the total organizational structure of the Forest Service. I must agree with the member that the best possible situation is when you have as much authority, responsibility and accountability as possible at the lowest possible level, for these are the people who know the local problems, terrain and so on.

We have not made a decision about the New Denver station. There are problems. It has been suggested by the district that the personnel there can be more effectively and efficiently utilized by moving them. However, we are not going to make any decisions until after our review of the total organization of the Forest Service.

Yes, indeed, we must, as employers in a community, consider other factors than just requirements of the Forest Service, such as the social responsibility. However, the overriding factors must be the most effective and efficient use of forestry personnel. This decision has not been made and no such decisions will be made until our total organization structure is looked at.

MR. KING: One final thing. I appreciate the minister's answer. I would ask for one further commitment, though, which I think is a reasonable one. I must say, Mr. Chairman, that I somewhat resented learning of this review and the possible closure of the New Denver station as a second-hand rumour. I only learned of it when I visited the community of New Denver in June, I believe it was. At that point it was all speculation and hearsay. I did learn that there was indeed a review underway that may result in the New Denver station.

I d on't appreciate that approach to the administrative responsibility of any department of government. It matters not whether the MLA for the riding is an opposition member or a government member. Each and every member of this House is elected to represent the constituents in his area, and he is entitled to be consulted, I submit, on a matter such as the possible phase-out of a government service.

Beyond that, I suggest to the minister that the local community deserves representation. They deserve to be consulted on a matter so crucial to their community life. Perhaps the minister and his staff overlooked this courtesy. Indeed, it's more than a courtesy; it's good business, because I'm sure that the Minister of Forests and his department would rather administer and proceed about their own duties with the advice, consent and good will of the community rather than in spite of it or rather than inheriting a harsh reaction after the fact of a decision being made.

I submit that it's good business - it's good politics, if the minister will - to take the community into your confidence and advise them of what the considerations are, what the long-term planning proposals are that are being considered. As for the involvement of the local community in assisting you to make that decision, I think in most instances the minister will find that it's not only good business and a courtesy but it's profitable from the department point of view too because there are many good ideas out there.

All of the good ideas do not reside within the ivory towers of this Legislature, nor indeed within the deputy and director's offices either. So I strongly recommend this approach and this policy to the minister.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I would like to respond very briefly to the member, Mr. Chairman. The initiative to review the total organization of the six forest districts is taken from time to time by the district office. That member knew of this study before I did, and I would hope that if he should hear of future studies he would advise me as soon as he hears about them.

Initiative is taken at the district level. They are always reviewing the disposition of their staff to make the best possible use of them. They don't have the authority to make the decision to move it without coming to Victoria, but we're doing this study and I guess rumours got out in the local

[ Page 3806 ]

community. Of course we would not consider moving a station such as that without getting the feeling of the community and advising them, and certainly not without advising the member for that area.

MR. BARBER: The minister is responsible for, among other things, the future of the Stein Valley in British Columbia, as has often been pointed out by people concerned with this last unique, untouched and quite remarkable feature of British Columbia. This p particular minister, under the resource management programme, the estimate we're now discussing, has in our view, Mr. Chairman, not addressed himself to any of the profound and enduring questions about the future of the Stein Valley.

The minister has frequently talked in public remarks, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'm trying to determine under which segment of vote 133....

MR. BARBER: It's resource management, Mr. Chairman - the general attitude and aptitude of the minister for such resource management proposals as are now advertised and intended for the Stein Valley. The minister is on record, Mr. Chairman, as saying that he does not favour the single use of any particular woodland resource, but rather the multiple use of those resources. The resource management programme of this ministry, Mr. Chairman, is responsible, as I understand it, for among other things developing proposals for the Stein River Valley. I believe this is the most appropriate section under the minister's estimates to debate it. I could have debated it under his office vote but I thought this was more appropriate.

If that is the case, what I'm looking for is some statement from the minister about whether or not it is possible that this particular remaining, unique and untouched aspect of British Columbia might not be deserving of some more special attention than that generally given by a general policy that talks about multiple use.

One of the problems with the minister's argument about multiple use, Mr. Chairman, is that once you have used it - especially if, even for a moment, mining should ever be permitted there - then the aspect of some of those multiple uses denies forever the single use to which it just may possibly be best put.

I had the luck earlier this evening, Mr. Chairman, to come across a remarkable critical article written by an American author named Anthony Brandt. The particular topic he was discussing was that argument between multiple and single uses of such a gift as the Stein Valley is to the people of this province. He was using, of course, American examples, Mr. Chairman, but it seems to me he is raising some important programmatic and philosophical arguments here. I wonder if the minister would be willing to reply to some of them.

Essentially the question he is asking is whether or not our sense of property and pride and whether or not the sense of unique approaches and uncommon views that one presently obtains in the Stein Valley but once it is converted to multiple use will lose forever, might not just possibly justify an exception from the multiple-use policy which the minister is trying to apply generally throughout the province.

If I could read into the record briefly, Mr. Chairman, a couple of the extremely lucid and really very poetic remarks of Mr.Brandt, l would appreciate the minister's reply. Of necessity these remarks describe American examples and experiences and problems, but I think it is really not very difficult at all to transform and transfigure those illustrations and to understand how proposals for the multiple use of the Stein Valley - this paper being a metaphor for the discussion of it - might tell us something about decisions that we should be taking in British Columbia to preserve it uniquely for a single, unrepeatable use, the like of which, so far, presumably largely by accident, we've been able to maintain in this province.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

Mr. Brandt originally talked about Yellowstone National Park, which was perhaps somewhat similar to the Stein Valley in its formative years and the subject of much controversy and conflict. Indeed, in those days there were people who would say that Yellowstone National Park in the United States should have been multiply used. There are people who would argue that the mining, forest and fishing resources in Yellowstone Park should have been made available to commercial exploitation, regardless of the single use to which it could have been, and finally was - happily - put. What we are suggesting, Mr. Chairman, is that it is just possible that in this particular unrepeatable, enduring instance, the possibility of the Stein Valley remaining as it is is something that the minister should be prepared to commit himself and his government to forever. It is just possible, in this particular instance - the Stein Valley being so strange and so beautiful and so much a creature that can never be encountered again - that it is deserving of being spared from the minister's multiple-use policy.

Mr. Chairman, let me read briefly, if I might, the remarks of Mr. Brandt. lie started by saying:

"To the early travelers and the rest of those who fought to preserve it, Yellowstone was not wild, primitive and grand, but picturesque, in the pre-romantic sense of the term. One

[ Page 3807 ]

hundred years later Yellowstone remains a tourist attraction, of course, but for entirely different reasons. Now people go there for the natural wonders and the wild mountain scenery. Now we clearly prefer mountains to parkland. We prefer dramatic vertical rises, fathomless pink canyons. We like to climb up and see a long way. One pioneer wrote that lie could see all of God's creation from Zabriskie Point, while at Brice Canyon, overlooking the Kapisaki Plateau, where the power plant could have been built, the horizon is more then 80 miles away. Our favourite views are all spectacular in this sense, encompassing amazing heights or distances."

Mr. Chairman, the article goes on to say:

"They are also devoid of any sign that human beings have ever been out there in the view. They contain no housing developments, no church steeples, power lines, highways, certainly no strip mines. We insist that views be pristine. The world must seem to be untouched as if it were being viewed for the first time. It is not hard to see that a hidden myth is at work here. We are in the beginning of things.

" 'In the beginning, all the world was America, ' said John Locke years ago. Nature is not the familiar, ordinary nature of one's backyard, but nature at its best - an exalted, virginal nature. The viewer stands out, looking 'over paradise in the sun, and who can he therefore be but the first man, alone with the world? Who can he be but Adam?"

What the American writer Mr. Brandt is suggesting, Mr. Chairman, is that there are some special places where the ordinary administrative, commercial, political policies that would justify for ordinary, commercial, political purposes a multiple-use application of development procedures, may not be appropriate at all.

There is no place left quite like this in its location; there is no area left as untouched or free or clean or green or natural or near-perfect as the Stein Valley is in this particular part of the province. There any numerous areas where this minister's policies have had impact and effect. Fortunately, so far the Stein Valley is not one of them.

What Mr. Brandt was recognizing here, Mr. Chairman, and what I hope the minister might be willing to recognize, is that particular, unique, very special and very wonderful arguments can be made in favour of preservation of an area like this. Somehow - perhaps by luck or some design that makes more sense than we understand - this area has remained untouched. There are few roads that go through there; there are very few developments of even the smallest sort that have ever been permitted there; there is very little housing. Generally it remains the kind of view or the kind of paradise that most of us have only been very rarely privileged to enjoy. It seems to me personally, Mr. Chairman, that it would be a shame, the mistake of which could not be corrected later on, to let such a paradise be lost or diminished in any way at all. The economic, commercial, pragmatic, dull, predictable games of multiple use of the Stein Valley, in my view, don't justify the loss of the beauty and the freedom and the naturalness and the poetry of this place which many people reasonably enough have called a very special, last-remaining paradise.

I wonder if the minister might not be big enough and bold enough and imaginative enough to concede that there could be exceptions to a multiple-use policy. If so, logically one might ask where those exceptions lie. Having asked that, Mr. Chairman, one might ask if one of the exceptions lies in the Stein Valley. I think that's a reasonable question, I think it's a reasonable argument. I hope that the minister might be prepared to tell us whether or not, if they are reasonable questions, he'd be willing to answer that reasonable argument.

I would like very briefly to conclude by reading one final remark, again from Mr.Brandt, and ask the minister's opinion. Once again, of course, it describes an American example but I think it's appropriate enough and describes symbolically the problems we face in British Columbia.

"The landscape photographer Phillip Hyde, who writes for the Sierra Club, once noted: 'If you do go there, leave so little trace of your passing through that the next one in may fancy himself almost the first to come there.'

"Hyde's remark about the meaning of the experience is explicit. You are the first one there, the first person to see this part of the world. What you see is therefore, by implication, yours."

Departing from the quotation for a moment, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me particularly true and authentic and obvious that the same feelings and the same sensations and the same truths apply to the people who for the first unique time go to the Stein Valley and because they see something clean and untouched realize that just for a moment, just like Adam, it is theirs. They own it, they deserve it and they deserve to have it theirs in that untouched state forever.

The article concludes and so do 1, Mr. Chairman, by saying:

"What we need to preserve are not particularly gorgeous views but the world in its interdependency and continuity. We must come to understand that we are not transcendent beings, the lords and masters of creation, but natural beings, as much products of the world as maples or grasshoppers or coal and as much

[ Page 3808 ]

subject to its loss. The world is one; part is ultimately, inseparably related to part.

"We could never have made anything so complicated, so well balanced, so lovely. All we have the unfortunate power to do is to destroy it. It contributes little to the preservation of the world and nothing to our respect for it to concentrate our environmentalist love on places like Death Valley, Bryce Canyon" - or the Stein Valley, if I might interject - "however inspiring or beautiful they may be. What we must better work on are our own ambiguous attitudes which remain the ultimate source of all threats to the environment."

It's the ambiguous attitude that suggests to us, Mr. Chairman, represented by that minister in his own comments about multiple use, that will lead to the questions I've raised: Will the minister consider it is just possible that exceptions to a multiple-use policy should be entertained? If so, where should those exceptions be found? If they can be found, is it possible that we've already found one of them in the Stein Valley itself? I would appreciate the minister's comments.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The decision not to dedicate the Stein River Valley to single use was made by a multi-disciplinary committee - the Environment and Land Use Committee - after a great deal of study. It was decided on behalf of the people of British Columbia that the best use of this valley was multiple use. The part of the Stein Valley which is unique - if it is any more unique than any other mountain valley in British Columbia - is the upper part of the valley in which no forestry operations will be carried out.

Mr. Chairman, I have lived in British Columbia practically all of my life. I have traveled the length and breadth of this province. I have spent many, many hundreds of hours flying around this province in light aircraft down where you can see the many, many valleys and the vast wilderness. There is nothing particularly unique about the Stein Valley. It's a valley as many, many other thousands of valleys in this province are, and because someone says that it is unique and it must be preserved is not sufficient reason. The upper parts of that valley will not be harvested. Only 9 per cent of that entire drainage will be harvested - that's less than one-tenth. If we don't harvest it, will its beauty remain? If we do harvest it, will its beauty disappear?

You know there's nothing more beautiful than a fresh, new, young, live forest. We have many, many virgin forests in British Columbia which are decadent and dying. Those are not beautiful. The Stein Valley at this time is one of the many areas in British Columbia which is terribly infested by the spruce budworm, which we have been talking about here for many hours. Shall we leave it to be eaten by the spruce budworm? How beautiful will it be then?

No, I cannot agree with that member, Mr. Chairman, that the Stein Valley is that unique. There are many, many valleys in British Columbia just as beautiful, just as unique.

I did not ever say that I do not believe in the single-use alienation of any of our province. We have a great deal of our province now set aside as wilderness areas, we have many parks, and we will probably have more in the future, heaven forbid. We must use the resources of our province for the best of the people of British Columbia. I do not believe in setting them aside to the extent that we have been doing over the last number of years.

Many, many people in this province depend upon these resources. The people in Lytton do. That 9 per cent that we are going to harvest - even that small 9 per cent - represents 55 jobs forever. That's 55 people employed, supporting 55 families, forever. Now do you want to take that source of employment away from them? The part of that valley we are going to harvest is not that unique. If any of it is, it's the upper parts of the valley. And they are beautiful, just as many, many valleys in British Columbia are -many thousands of valleys. I cannot buy the argument. The member almost brought tears to my eyes, Mr. Chairman, but no, I cannot say that I wish to commit the Stein Valley for single use. I hope that answers the member's question.

MR. BARBER: Honestly, Mr. Chairman, I would have preferred to have brought sense to the minister's head than tears to his eyes.

If the minister seems to feel that 91 per cent of the Stein Valley should be preserved because of unique qualities which he admits just possibly are possessed there, then what is the justification for logging the other 9 per cent? The minister tells us there will be 55 jobs there forever.

That's a very curious statement - "forever." Is he talking about forever until the planet darkens into a black husk circling around a dead sun, or is he talking about 20 years forever, or the life of his government? Fifty-five jobs that indeed, for better planning and better management, might well be found elsewhere are apparently the justification that the minister is using for the 9 per cent. That's not a great deal of logic in the minister's arguments, Mr. Chairman.

If a single-use policy of some sort or another can, in his mind, justify retaining 9 1 per cent of the valley - or at least of that loggable portion of the valley, presumably mostly in the upper reaches, presumably as usual the logging will take place in the somewhat flatter lowlands rather than on the hills where it's more expensive to log - then with what measurements, on what adjudication does the minister justify the 9 per cent? It's really a rather

[ Page 3809 ]

inconsistent position he's taken, Mr. Chairman. The minister reduces the question to embarrassingly simple proportions, but the embarrassment is his and not ours.

The reason there has been such a conflict is precisely because the people from the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat, people from the federal Department of the Environment, environmentalist groups generally, private and interested citizens have made a very powerful and effective case. Evidently, Mr. Chairman, they've won at least 91 per cent of the case because the minister tells us tonight that only 9 per cent of it will be logged. Well, where's the rationale? What's the excuse? What's the measure and what's the yardstick? How do you apply it? Why 9 per cent? Why not 19, or 29, or 39? How do you come to that figure? When you admit, even for a moment, Mr. Chairman, that some of the valley should be preserved for single-use purposes, if some of the valley should be preserved for those purposes, why not all? What's the point - 9 per cent, 55 jobs that will last as long as the pyramids and longer? I don't understand the minister's rationale?

Would the minister be prepared, Mr. Chairman, to table in the House the reports and the written advice he received from the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat, and from the advisory group which he indicates has studied the matter and has finally come up with a recommendation? If only 9 per cent of the total loggable area is going to be logged, can the minister tell us how he came up with that figure, how it can be justified, and would he be prepared to table illustrative and supportive documents and materials in this House to persuade us of the conclusion that he has reached? The remarks he has made have persuaded us of nothing at all.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I was very distressed to hear the minister treat this in a very cavalier way. He's based his conviction upon studies which he alleges to exist and careful research which is supposed to have taken place. You know, it was only this evening that on television we heard an exponent of freedom of information - access to public information. If this minister is making a decision which is going to affect the public of British Columbia, then the public has a right to know.

And yet he sits there and he goes mute-1 I won't use the other vernacular term. He goes mute, Mr. Chairman, when he's asked whether or not he would be willing to table the information upon which these decisions were based. And it could very well be that that information raises more questions than it does give answers to the position being taken by the minister.

You know the minister said that he's lived in this province almost all his life. Well, I've lived here all my life. Many of us have and I don't know that that's a credential one way or the other. He went on to say that he's flown over most of this province. Well, I'd like to know how much of this province he has tramped and walked over with a backpack and how much he's gone in....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: A hell of a lot more than you'll ever see.

MR. NICOLSON: He's claiming a lot more than me, now, Mr. Chairman. Well, I don't know how a person who could have such a background as that could fail to be sensitive to the fact that going in and destroying an area ... another area which is under the threat of this minister, the Valhalla Wilderness. You have marginal logging potentials there and I suppose the minister would say: "Well, if we log in the Valhalla, we'll only log 5 per cent or 10 per cent and what difference can that make?" It can make a tremendous difference on the visual impact. If people ever want to create a tourist industry, an industry which will not be short-term but which will go on when people become more and more aware of the value of this type of a resource that we're talking about - the Stein wilderness and the Valhalla.... This minister seems, in spite of his professed experience in being in the outdoors and backpacking and doing various things, to have remained very insensitive.

Perhaps he has been there but he has not really seen where he has been, because how can this minister get up and say, "the only forest is a young growing forest; that's the most beautiful forest."? If you want to see that, Mr. Chairman, well, just go up Island here. Go into some of the areas that have been reforested and you can see uniform, vigorous young growth trees that are all 10 feet high. Perhaps, Mr. Minister, you can walk into them and maybe you'll get lost up there and that might do a service to the people of British Columbia. But you'd have a great deal of difficulty if you ever did get in there without a compass, finding your way out. That isn't a recreational type of a property - something very important to the economy of this province. Is this minister meaning to tell us that there's no room in this province for a mature forest? Everything that he looks at as mature is considered in his terms to be decadent. Is there no room for a forest in which there is moss and fern and other types of organisms, plant organisms on the ground? Is his definition of a forest simply harvestable trees, the valuable species? It's hard to say what will be. Has he achieved no sensitivity toward these things in terms of all of his experience which he has alluded to in what he's tossed across the floor?

Mr. Chairman, it is with a sense of alarm that people that really do cherish what we have had here

[ Page 3810 ]

in British Columbia, whether they've lived here all their life or they've come here in the last two or three years to try to find some part of the world where something does exist of a value on which a price cannot be placed.... That's what people are concerned about and that gives us concern that this minister, who sees these things in terms of nothing but dollars and cents, who looks at a place like the Stein River Valley and says that there's parts of it that are decadent and that there's no place in British Columbia for such a thing, that everything must be harvested. That certainly gives great concern, that our forests are in the hands of this minister.

I would ask that minister to think. Perhaps when you were on some fishing trip, did you not see something there of value that was a little more intangible than something that could be measured in cunits? Is there not a place in this world for a log that has fallen, a decadent log that has fallen and been taken over by fungi and mosses and ferns and brackens and various other processes which are natural and beautiful and part of the British Columbia that our forefathers came here and first saw? I would hope that the minister would give some reconsideration to his feelings towards setting aside a few valleys.

Mr. Chairman, I too have flown over quite a few areas of this province, in addition to having tramped over a few areas of this province, both on Vancouver Island and in the interior. I can certainly see the imprint of the forest industry. When I fly with people and they look down and say, "Well, isn't that terrible, all that open clearcutting, " I say, "No. Remember, that's what puts the bread and butter on the table in this province."

But there is no room for extremism either way. You cannot be an extremist in terms of saying, "No part of our forest can be harvested, " but this minister is really taking an extreme view. He is saying that any forest that has reached maturity is threatened with being decadent. In my view, there do have to be areas in this province where forests will grow, where they will mature, where trees will drop down and go through some of the natural processes. If we don't have that in this province, then we will be very, very much poorer for it.

Vote 133 approved.

On v vote 134: special studies programme, $522,569.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering if under this special studies programme the minister would have his people undertake a special study which relates to tree farms?

I have an example within my own constituency in the community of Port McNeill where a tree farm exists within the municipal boundaries. Even though the assessed value of the shops and so on located within that tree farm were assessed at $187,000, the municipality was not permitted to collect any of that money, because improvements on tree farms are not subject to taxation. Under this special studies programme which looks into the problems related to forestry, I would suggest to the minister that this is a problem, maybe not for the company involved, but certainly for the community involved.

Now at Port McNeill, I think the situation is changing and a lot of those shops are being moved out of the community. But in terms of other communities in this province who are faced with similar situations, I would ask that the minister undertake to have a look at that problem under this particular vote. The problem was resolved with respect to tree farm licences and the Act was changed so that improvements on tree farm licences within municipal boundaries could be taxed. But as far as tree farms are concerned, changes are still needed within the Taxation Act as well as the Municipal Act. I would suggest that it is the minister in his ministry who should take the initiative in making that change.

Vote 134 approved.

On vote 13 5: reforestation programme, $20, 85 3,993.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I too am concerned about the reduction in the budget for reforestation. My good friend, the leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace) , has indicated earlier that the Pearse report made a very strong point regarding the inability of both the Forest Service and the private forest industry to keep pace with the reforestation needs. There is a backlog of a very, very large number of acres that should have been reforested.

MR. WALLACE: It's 1.8 million.

MR. KING: Yes, 1.8 million is a vast amount of potential for growing trees and timber in this province. It is disturbing to see a cutback in the budget for reforestation from $22.8 million to $20.8 million, a reduction of $2 million. With the kind of deficiency in keeping pace with reforestation that has been pointed out very dramatically in the Pearse royal commission recommendations, I find it somewhat shocking that we see this reduction in the budget for that purpose.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

Now the minister has attempted thus far to develop the image of a hard-fighting defender of the forest resource in this province. Certainly if he wants

[ Page 3811 ]

to genuinely earn that reputation, then here is one of the basic ways in which he can prove it without any question. That is, come up with the bucks that are necessary to do an effective job of bringing our forest inventory up to date.

I think that it's extremely unfortunate when we hear debates in this House about the multiple-use concept as opposed to the single-use concept and we hear assertions from the minister that we can ill afford to lose any of the potential job-creating forest industry to recreational or other purposes, and yet we find that in an area where the minister has the opportunity - in fact the obligation - to build up the inventory....

Interjection.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I wish you'd call my colleagues to order. I am not going to out shout them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is, hon. member, your bench that is causing most of the commotion.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, it is a bit inconsistent to hear the minister demand the right for single-use philosophy toward the majority of the forest industry in the province and yet see a backlog of over a million acres of potential forest land that is non-productive just because of our failure to appropriate adequate funds for an up-to-date reforestation programme. I would be very interested in hearing how the minister justifies the cutback in the budget this year. It is extremely alarming.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I raised this matter this afternoon and since then I've looked at more detail of the vote. I am particularly puzzled as to how the minister can even suggest that reforestation is being well handled when the particular item for planting operations is to drop from $8.5 million to $4.9 million this year compared to last year. I notice that site preparation is also about half - from $2 million to $1 million - and the staff in this section of this ministry is to be reduced from 162 to 132. Now this afternoon the minister assured me that all kinds of jobs were available in the planting of seedlings. I presume these numbers of 162 to 132 are permanent employees as compared to students working in the summer months within the Minister of Labour's budget. Nevertheless, I would assume that this matter of reforestation is very much a long-term planning operation.

When one reads of the reduction in funding and the reduction in staff and we read that Dr. Pearse said that there's a backlog of 1.8 million acres, the whole thing is a complete contradiction, Mr. Chairman. On the one hand we are told that the government acknowledges the very sound principle that we must endeavour to replant as much of the acreage as is logged or burned or whatever, and yet the figures are in complete contradiction to that. I don't think we've really had an adequate answer from the minister on this very important issue of reforestation. Maybe he can give us a better answer now in relation to these specific figures.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, as 1 mentioned this afternoon, over the last year we budgeted $22.8 million dollars for reforestation. We only spent $19,211, 915.74, which was about $3 million more than was spent the previous year under the previous government. But as 1 mentioned this afternoon, it has been an objective since 1965 to achieve the plateau of 75 million plantings a year. For all practical purposes, we achieved that last year. We were slightly under but it was due primarily to some adverse weather conditions that we did not achieve that.

Now the member points out the fact that planting operations have gone from $8.5 million down to this year's budgeted $4.9 million. Although we budgeted $8.5 million last year, we spent $5.1 million. Last year was the first year when we got into objective coding, when we attempted to get a more realistic distribution of the cost figures throughout the various codes in the vote. This year the slight drop from $5.1 million to $4.9 million simply dictates a better refinement because last year was our first experience with this. We will continue to work towards more and more plantations each year.

MR. WALLACE: How about staff reductions? 1 think the minister just overlooked the fact that the staff is to be reduced by 30, according to the figures. Again, 1 would like to know, if we are being more aggressive or at least sustaining the goal of 75 million seedlings per year, how we can reduce the staff by 30.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the explanation is quite simple, really. We have been attempting to achieve this level of planting stock production, and by doing so, we have gone to more greenhouse growth of the seedlings. By establishing this level of seedling production, we have been trying to achieve that, which required more staff. We are now at that so it's possible to reduce the number of people involved and still get the same number of seedlings.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Chairman, 1 haven't that many forests in New Westminster but 1 must confess that from time to time 1 do get disturbed, particularly when 1 talk to professional foresters who indicate that our forest planting programme would be relatively adequate but our protection of the newly planted forests is

[ Page 3812 ]

inadequate. We spend a tremendous amount planting the seedlings, but as for protecting the seedlings from the weeds of the forest, we're found wanting.

For example, I think many of you have driven around the province. Some of you who have enough energy to walk into the forests have found from time to time in areas that have been planted the weed of the forest, the alder.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Do you go for a tramp in the woods?

MR. COCKE: Would you like to be Attorney-General for very much longer?

Mr. Chairman, it happens to be a serious matter.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for New Westminster has the floor.

MR. COCKE: If you're not careful, we'll let you get onto the Education estimates.

MR. WALLACE: It's better than going into Labour, anyway.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I do think....

Interjections.

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

MR. COCKE: My remarks are for the Minister of Forests - no one else.

I know I'm wasting a good deal of time with the Minister of Forests but I hope that he has behind him some officials who are somewhat informed in this matter. That is the fact that while we do have a fair reforestation programme at the outset, we don't protect the seedlings once planted. If you will look at some of the half-grown seedlings or the seedlings that are three, four and five years old, they become sheltered by alder and other weeds of the forest which tend to kill them off or not give them the kind of growth potential that they require.

I would just like to hear what the Minister of Forests has to say about that.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Some problems do exist with weed species overrunning our planted seedlings. Intensive forestry practices, which we hope to do a lot more work on in the next few years, will help this problem.

Another way of controlling these weed species, of course, is through the use of herbicides. I don't think you would like me to apply for the use of herbicides to get rid of the weed species, so I won't this year.

However, it is a problem and we are working to the best of our ability to overcome these weed species and will be practising more intensive forestry in future years.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, that minister is so preoccupied with pesticides and herbicides and all the other cides that he is almost committing political suicide.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who's your writer?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, they have young people out planting, and it strikes me that there are enough young people today who are having difficulty with employment that if you can use young people for planting you can also use young people for doing some of the brush cutting and weeding that is necessary. You don't always have to resort to herbicides.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Haven't you got enough sons-in-law?

Vote 135 approved.

Vote 136: research programme, $2,800, 000 -approved.

Vote 13 7: fire suppression programme, $9,202, 000 - approved.

On vote 138: forest protection programme, $10,100, 000.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I just have one question. I notice that last year the figure for pest management - I'm sure that doesn't refer to this chamber - was $29,000, and I notice it's $2 million this year. Is this because the $2 million was intended for the programme which has been postponed? What was the budworm spraying programme intended to cost had it proceeded according to the minister's original proposal?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Back to budworms, Mr. Chairman. The $29,000 last year up to $2,076, 000 this year is a substantial increase.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Promote that man!

HON. MR. WATERLAND: It would appear that previous governments did not accept the responsibility of having to control pests which were devastating our forests. Of this amount, about half was budgeted for spruce budworm control; the balance was budgeted for other pests such as pine

[ Page 3813 ]

beetles and various other pests infecting the forests -mistletoe and so on. So we are intensifying the protection of our forests from all types of pests -thus the rather large increase in that item.

MR. WALLACE: Another quick question, Mr. Chairman. I notice there's quite an increase in funding for fire detection, but fire prevention is much the same. Could the minister tell us what the extra half million dollars will be spent on in regard to fire detection?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Over the last few years, Mr. Chairman, we have determined that a much more effective job of fire detection can be done by using aircraft patrol rather than stationary lookouts. We are moving towards this. It costs more money, but it's much more effective. This accounts for part of the increase there.

MR. WALLACE: I'm very interested, Mr. Chairman, because the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) , in his reply to my question about cost of air travel, mentioned that there were certain other services provided by aircraft which were not included in calculating the cost of transporting cabinet ministers from Victoria to Kamloops. I just wonder if this $1.35 million includes a specific amount for aircraft use alone which in turn is paid back to the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications. Could you tell us that?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No, Mr. Chairman, to the member, the Forest Service on fire patrol do not use government aircraft because we go into contracts with aircraft operators and all our surveillance is done in that manner.

MR. KING: I would ask the minister if he gets those aircraft for $42 a flight to Kamloops in the same way that they transport cabinet ministers.

Vote 138 approved.

Vote 139: inventory programme, $6,000, 000 -approved.

Vote 140: scaling programme, $9,800, 000 - approved.

Vote 141: range management programme,

$2,000, 000 - approved.

On vote 142: forest development roads programme, $7,000, 000.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, we talked a little bit about the high cost of developing roads this afternoon. But I notice the costs budgeted for last year are $4.6 million, and they're $7 million this year. Could I ask where these particular roads are and how many miles does this represent for $7 million, which is almost double last year? Why is there this dramatic increase in the cost? Is it the inflated cost-per-mile or is it that we are building a much greater mileage of forest roads in 1977-78 than in 1976-77? Perhaps the minister could say what the average cost is per mile compared to last year.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I don't have with me at the moment the specific roads which are being built this year. I could certainly provide them for the member.

MR. LAUK: It's $7 million and you don't know where the roads are.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Last year we budgeted $7 million; we actually spent $4.8 million.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, coach.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: This year we are budgeting about $2.5 million. But the need for forest roads changes from year to year. A road will be developed; that area will then be developed for harvesting and harvesting will proceed. It's not a continuous flow of funds. It does vary from year to year for that reason.

I have a list of the actual roads, Mr. Chairman, which I'm not going to read out but I'll make available for the member.

Vote 142 approved,

On vote 143: reservoir waterway improvements programme, $2,500, 000.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I see a tremendous cutback in the allocation for reservoir clearing. As far as I know, there are just the Williston Lake, the Duncan and the Mica reservoirs.

It concerns me very much when I see a reduction of, well, close to $5 million in the reservoir clearing appropriation. I'm sure the problem has not gone away in terms of debris finding its way into the reservoir and impeding not only navigation but also the opportunity for the enjoyment of the recreational sport of boating and fishing. I just wonder why there is this kind of cutback in the vote for keeping the reservoirs in shape so they're safe for small craft navigation.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, this was discussed this afternoon and I pointed out that the funding is actually determined by B.C. Hydro. We

[ Page 3814 ]

attempt to get them to provide as much money as we can possibly use. This is the limitation to their budgeting this year. The money will be used primarily in the Peace pondage, the Duncan reservoir and Stave Lake. We do not have complete control over budgeting these amounts; we must work with Hydro. As I mentioned this afternoon, it's something I would like to see changed so that the responsibility for reservoir cleaning lies with those who create the problem.

MR. KING: Are you satisfied with that amount?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No, I'm not.

MR. NICOLSON: Specifically how much is going to be expended on Duncan Lake this year?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: It's $300,000.

Vote 143 approved.

On vote 144: building occupancy charges, $1,689, 621.

MR. WALLACE: Ask your question, Bill! (Laughter.)

MR. KING: I'm going to give that businessman an opportunity to account for his administration, Mr. Chairman. Can he tell me precisely what the cost per square footage is of the facilities occupied by the Ministry of Forests, both with respect to the space rented from the Crown and the cost per square foot of that rented from the private sector? I know that this businessman's government will have these kinds of figures at its fingertips.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Well, if I don't put my "futt" in my mouth, Mr. Chairman.... (Laughter.)

MR. KING: Again?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I do have some of the answers for the members. The Forest Service uses a lot of space because we have a very wide-ranging operation in the province.

I have some figures here which I'll give you. We occupy a total of 1,855, 317 square feet of space in the province, ranging from a little lookout station on the top of the mountains to our offices here in Victoria. Of this we provide and maintain 1.62 million; the balance of 235,317 square feet is provided for by the B.C. Buildings Corporation. We have to do a lot of our own maintenance because we are in such remote areas and it is not practical for the B.C. Buildings Corporation to have a man at each of our lookout stations and ranger stations. We take on much of this responsibility ourselves.

MR. KING: That was an interesting exercise, Mr. Chairman, in failing to answer the question. I simply asked what the cost per square foot is of the facilities that are rented by the forestry ministry.

Interjections.

MR. KING: I'm sorry that I didn't pronounce "futt" (laughter) acceptably to the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot) , but I'm more interested in footage than I am in "chobs" at this moment.

Mr. Chairman, I wish the minister would give me an indication of what the cost is - that is all I'm after - per square foot. After all, Mr. Chairman, this administration was obsessed with space requirements over the past few years. I feel sure that they're not occupying space of which they are not aware of the costs involved. My goodness, that's a terrible admission. I ask the minister to answer that question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 144 pass?

MR. KING: No, no, no, no. Mr. Chairman, if the minister wants to get his votes through, he's got two left. I'm not asking too much. Now either he knows or he doesn't. If he doesn't know and will give the House a commitment to provide it to the member for Revelstoke-Slocan by memo tomorrow not later than 10 a.m., then I will agree to see this vote go by. But if he doesn't know, be honest enough to admit it.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The number of square feet are here; I have given them to the member. The area which we are using is given here in square feet and the cost is provided in the budget. The member can do his own arithmetic, Mr. Chairman.

Vote 144 approved.

On vote 145: computer and consulting charges, $535,000.

MR. KING: I wonder if the minister can give the House an appraisal of how this cost is levied against his ministry. Is there a unit charge involved? Is this levy arbitrarily set by the computer services branch of the government or is it negotiated by foot between the minister and that branch?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I understand that an estimate is made of the usage of each ministry of the computer time and then this is prorated back to all the ministries on the basis of the total cost of that service. We use computers quite a bit and I hope we are going to be able to use them a

[ Page 3815 ]

lot more in the future because they certainly do help in the technical administration of the Forest Service.

Vote 145 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, 1 have a decision which 1 can hand down this evening concerning the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs, or 1 can hand it down tomorrow when we resume.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: In view of the fact that there is a meeting of the committee tomorrow, perhaps it would be well if 1 gave my decision now.

Hon. members, the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) rose on a matter which he indicated might be either a point of order or point of privilege in regard to the proceedings of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs. He claimed that a motion passed in the committee conflicts with the position of the chairman. The motion reads as follows:

"That the Chair, on receipt of a certificate regarding the summonsing of a witness, contact the committee for the purpose of determining by way of an agenda the time or times which would be set aside for such hearing, such agenda to be arrived at by the consensus of the whole committee under motion."

The member alleges that it conflicts with standing order 72 ( 1 ) .

Firstly, a previous Speaker's ruling, found in the 1970 Journals at page 202, makes it clear that questions of procedure arising in committee are not to be raised in the House by way of points of privilege, as they are points of order to be dealt with in the committee. I would also refer the members to previous decisions found in the Journals, 1968, at pages 52 and 53 and at page 118.

1 would draw the attention of the members to the following passage, which appears in the 17th edition of May at page 248:

"The opinion of the Speaker cannot be sought in the House about any matter arising or likely to arise in a committee. The Speaker is always ready to advise members of all parties who consult him privately whether upon any action which they propose to take in the House or upon any questions of order which are likely to arise in its proceedings. The same remarks apply to proceedings in committee.

Secondly, 1 feel, however, that the points raised by the hon. member do require comment, insofar as they concern the very structure of the committees of the House. The member infers from standing order 72 that the chairman of the public accounts committee must have a special status with regard to control of the agenda before that committee.

In 1863, the proceedings of the same committee were called into question with respect to the same point, and the then Speaker ruled as follows:

- T his afternoon, the Leader of the Opposition raised two questions of House privilege. The first of these was as to whether the chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Printing may, on his own initiative, arrange the proceedings of the committee. The chairman of any committee may, in order to facilitate the work of the committee, make certain preliminary arrangements. However, only the committee is competent to direct the performance of its own functions, within the rules and within the terms of reference by the House. It is true that the chairman may summons a witness without instructions from the committee, and the power to do the same thing, by a slightly different method, is available to each and every member of a committee. But whether or not the witness may be heard is for the committee to decide."

In view of the foregoing and the comments of Dawson in his text, Procedure in the Canadian House of Commons, at page 226, it seems that the chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs is bound by the same rules of procedure as the chairman of any other select standing committee, and does not have powers not possessed by other chairmen, as suggested by the hon. member. I trust that these references will be of assistance to the members in regard to the proceedings of the select standing committees of the House.

On the same day, July 12, the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) rose on a matter of privilege. In his words:

"With respect to the custody and authority for the Hansard recording equipment, in public accounts committee a resolution was moved by the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) , seconded and approved, that the previous public accounts committee minutes and verbatim reporting (through the Hansard equipment) of the meeting which was conducted on June 29, be destroyed."

The secretary of the committee in question had stated in the House that: "The motion was not to destroy any tapes." The hon. member agreed to provide me with a copy of the minutes relating to the matter, These minutes read as follows:

"On a motion by Mr. Kerster, seconded by

[ Page 3816 ]

Mr. Kahl, the following motion was presented, that Hansard recordings for the meeting held June 28,1977, and all minutes, be struck from the record, as no quorum existed, and therefore no legally constituted meeting could be held. The motion was carried with the following vote. Voting aye: Messrs. Veitch, Kahl, Loewen, Phillips, Bawlf, Fraser, Calder and Kerster. Voting nay: Messrs. Stupich, Gibson, King and Wallace.

The hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) interprets the motion to mean destruction of the records in question and the hon. member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch) disagrees with that interpretation.

It is not for the Speaker to settle such a dispute between hon. members. See citation 113, Beauchesne, fourth edition. If the matter is to be pursued further, it should be in the committee itself. However, as the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan quite rightly points out, standing order 129 (l) provides that the magnetic-tape record of debates in the House and all of the committees of the House, "shall be under the control and custody of Mr. Speaker." The Chair will most certainly intervene with severity if there should be any improper interference with such control and custody.

Accordingly the matter is for the committee to resolve having regard to my reference to standing order 129 (l) and my comments relative to proceedings within select standing committees.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, just on a point of privilege, I realize this is a matter for the committee but the minutes did state that as chairman of the meeting I voted a certain way on a motion. I will attempt to correct the minutes tomorrow morning. As Chairman, I took no part in the voting.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe you would follow my advice and correct it in committee, hon. member.

MR. STUPICH: I wanted it in these records, too.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11: 12 p.m.