[ Page 1515 ]

CONTENTS

Privilege

Conduct of public accounts committee. Mr. Speaker rules –– 1515

Routine proceedings

Municipal Amendment Act, 1978. (Bill 17) Hon. Mr. Curtis

Introduction and first reading –– 1515

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Forests estimates

On vote 108.

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 1515

Mr. King –– 1518

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 1520

Mr. King –– 1521

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 1523

Mr. King –– 1525

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 1525

Mr. King –– 1526

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 1527

Mr. Levi –– 1527

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 1531

Mr. Skelly –– 1532

Mr. Lloyd –– 1534

Mr. Nicolson –– 1535

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 1535

Mr. Skelly –– 1536

Mr. Nicolson –– 1536

On vote 109.

Mr. King –– 1536

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 1536

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before we proceed, I have now had an opportunity to consider the matter of privilege raised yesterday by the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) .

The essence of the hon. member's complaint is that he was denied, in the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs, the opportunity to put questions of a certain nature to a public servant. The hon. member stated: "The means of enforcing this refusal was through an unprecedented motion passed by the government majority that the opposition chairman leave the Chair, which amounts to closure." In reading Sir Erskine May, 17th edition at page 134, 1 find the following statement: "Generally speaking, a matter alleged to have arisen in a committee, but not reported by the committee, may not be brought to the attention of the House as a question of privilege."

The hon. member's complaint clearly arises from matters alleged to have risen in committee, and, as there is no report by the committee, this alone - in accordance with the cited authority - would appear to preclude the House from dealing with it as a question of privilege.

I also note that the hon. member further indicated in his written statement of the matter his proposed motion, namely:

"That the selection committee be instructed by the House to strike a special committee to inquire into the aforesaid matters and other events having to do with privilege and arising out of the meeting of the committee of public accounts this morning, such special committee to be chaired by a member of the opposition and to meet and consider the above reference with all convenient speed and report back to the Legislative Assembly."

In view of a ruling by Mr. Speaker Lamou reux, cited with approval by Mr. Speaker Dow-ding, Journals of the House, 1975, at page 48, the hon. member is confronted with a further problem. The ruling reads in part as follows:

"The second procedural difficulty comes from the form of the motion proposed by the hon member for St. John's East. In my view the motion should follow the question of privilege as a logical sequence. Such a motion cannot merely ask that the committee investigate whether or not there has been a breach of privilege, it must allege a breach of privilege. It should not simply propose that a matter be investigated to determine if there is or is not a breach of privilege. In the result, nothing occurred on last Thursday which could set into motion the processes relating to breach of privilege."

In the light of these authorities, I cannot see how the matter can proceed further. If it is also necessary for me to consider whether or not a prima facie case of breach of privilege has been established, I would have great difficulty in doing so.

As I have earlier noted, the hon. member complains that as the result of a motion being carried in the committee that the Chairman leave the chair, he was cut off at that point from pursuing a certain line of questioning, which amounted to closure. Hon. members will know that dilatory motions are not infrequently made in the House and in Committees of the Whole House which, if carried, have the effect and indeed are or may be made for the purposes of superceding a question. I cannot see how when such a motion is carried, whatever its immediate effect on proceedings then in progress, it could give rise to a valid claim of prima facie breach of privilege, and I would so rule.

MR. SHELFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome two charming young ladies in the Speaker's gallery this evening, Linda Chevrier from Ontario and Cheryl Johnson from Nova Scotia.

Introduction of bills.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

Hon. Mr. Curtis presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Municipal Amendment Act, 1978.

Bill 17 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. Rogers in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

On vote 108: minister's office, $110,042.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, 1977 was a very good year for the province of British Columbia. The province of British Columbia

[ Page 1516 ]

received stumpage revenue in the amount of over $83 million in 1977, which was substantially above the 1976 level of $63 million. Because of the lag effect of the stumpage appraisal system. I think that in the present year we can look forward to stumpage revenues in excess of those received in the good year of last year.

The timber harvest in the province of British Columbia totalled something over 25 million cunits, which was an all-time record for timber harvest in this province. The total annual allowable cut at the present time calculated for the entire province is in the order of 29 million cunits. Much of this present allocation is presently unallocated, so we do have some room for expansion years ahead. But the harvest of 25 million cunits in one year is an all-time record. I think it is very significant and does reflect on the very good market we had for our lumber products from the province of British Columbia last year.

Paper sales and prices in 1977 remain strong and I'm sure will continue strong next year. And this sector of our very important forest industry should bode well in the next fiscal year.

The export of manufactured lumber products and plywood last year again set all-time records -the highest value ever received for lumber and plywood exported from this province.

The only soft spot on the market situation in the forest industry was the pulp market. Market distortions created by stockpiling of production by the previous socialist government in Sweden, I'm afraid, upset the normal supply and demand of market pulp in the entire pulp industry in the world. Last year our pulp industry in British Columbia ran at about an 80 per cent capacity. There were serious market pulp price drops in the latter part of 1977. However, there has recently been some strengthening shown in the pulp market situation. The inventory adjustments that were anticipated are taking place. Market pulp is moving from inventories of producers to those of the consumers. And we expect by the third quarter of this year, which is not too far distant, that there will be some improvement in the price of market pulp. As a matter of fact, only today I heard that already some of our Canadian companies are increasing their prices for market pulp. So I myself believe -and recent economists' reports which I've read have indicated - that the turnaround in pulp prices and demands in the world will take place more quickly than many economists had anticipated a few months ago.

I'm very happy to say that the forest industry in British Columbia is still far in excess and above our second industry and will, I'm sure for many years to come, remain No. 1 in the province of British Columbia.

We do have some problems. One of the problems which has plagued us in my term of office has been a surplus of wood chips produced in the province. The government has taken certain steps which would help to alleviate this surplus problem. We have encouraged the establishment of a co-operative company whose name is Fiberco and whose objective is to seek world markets for the excess wood chips produced by our lumber manufacturing in British Columbia. This company has been very successful and part of their success is due to the economic mission which was made to Japan and Korea by the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and myself last December. This company has secured contracts for wood chip sales, if they should be necessary, from British Columbia. As a result of the establishment of Fiberco and the effective breakup of the monopoly of wood chip markets in British Columbia which has been held by the pulp companies, it appears that not only is there incentive for the export of chips, but it has added some incentive to our pulp industry in British Columbia to have more serious looks at the possibility and probability and economics of expanding our pulp production using these wood chips, which would course bring about expanded jobs and opportunities for the people of British Columbia.

Our tactics in this regard have been successful. I'm sure during the next year we will demonstrate that there is indeed investment confidence in British Columbia and we will see expansions in our pulp manufacturing capability.

Reforestation, a subject which is very important to us, is, I'm sure, uppermost in the minds of all of the people in the Legislature. And most of the citizens of British Columbia are aware of the importance of our forest industry. In 1976 we planted 66 million seedlings. Unfortunately, that was some 7 million less than the previous year. There are times when it is impossible to plant the number of seedlings which we would like to be able to plant, and the reasons for this are many and varied. One of the reasons was that during the winter of 1976-77, in the areas where we have our nurseries, there were some rather unusual weather conditions which caused damage and mortality to some of the seedling stock which was then in these nurseries. We did have heavy nursery losses last year which made it impossible for us to develop and plant

[ Page 1517 ]

the number of seedlings which we would like to.

This is very similar to the situation which happened in 1975. It was not as serious as in 1975, which was a disastrous year for seedlings. That year the budget for reforestation was underspent by some $6 million, due primarily to problems with site preparation and seedling production. We did have a problem last year, and that is the reason that we did not achieve the planting expectations which we hoped to achieve.

Also, last year during the summer we had unusual weather conditions - excessive moisture in certain areas, excessive lack of moisture in other areas - which made site preparation difficult. So there was a problem in preparing areas for artificial reforestation.

We have a continuing problem in British Columbia with the control of insects and diseases. We have a continuing bark beetle problem, a continuing problem with the spruce budworm and with diseases which attack our very valuable resource. I have said in the past and will say again that forest resource losses due to insects and diseases were last year the equivalent of about one-third of our actual forest harvest. The Ministry of Forests in British Columbia and the government and the people of British Columbia must expend additional efforts in years to overcome these problems and the devastation of our resource caused by insects and disease. This is a very real problem confronted by the forest ministry and which is attacked by the protection of our ministry.

We received a report from the Forest Service this year based on many months of research last year on the spruce budworm problem, a very well-documented, concise report which recommended last year against spraying with chemicals for the control of the spruce budworm. I am sure that will come up during my estimates.

I would like to say that that report was based on information which was not available the year before and indicated that the actual mortality rate of our Douglas fir trees in the Fraser Canyon area was something in the order of 1 per cent. In the previous year it had been predicted to be about 15 per cent. The information used in the previous year was based on, to a great extent, information received from the northwestern United States where they were experiencing a mortality of about 15 per cent.

However, we were not aware, nor were the foresters in the United States at that time, that their mortality was in grand fir rather than Douglas fir, and we were not fully aware of the mix between grand fir and Douglas fir. We were very happy to learn that our mortality was as low as I per cent. One per cent, of course, can be a problem. If this I per cent mortality in the Douglas fir is concentrated in an area which supplies one or more sawmilling operations, then that I per cent within a public sustained yield unit can have a very dramatic effect on the cut available which is tributory to those particular operations. This is one of the areas of additional research recommended to my ministry by the forest pests review committee which assessed our spruce budworm report this year.

That committee also recommended that we do experimental work with other types of insect control. Bacillus thuringiensis, more commonly known as BT, has been recommended for spraying on test areas, a developing control method which has not been operationally proven yet but which has promise. We will be using some of this in small test plots this year. And also pheromones, or sex attractants, will be used to test their effectiveness in controlling the spruce budworm. The minister for forests for the federal government has been a great proponent of pheromones for insect control. I would tell him and the members here that we must recognize that sex is really not the answer to all of our problems.

Fire protection last year, Mr. Chairman, did not present a great problem to the province of British Columbia. We had a very dry summer, but the protection capability of the protection division of the Ministry of Forests -quit smiling, Mr. Member - proved capable of overcoming the problems which were presented to us. I think this speaks very well for the technology and the expertise which has been developed in our protection division.

Last year we had 1,854 fires, which compared to a 10-year, average of 2,500. The average size was less than two hectares, or about five acres. The reason for the small size of the fires was because of the response capability of the protection division of the Ministry of Forests. We have developed a very capable air-attack capability. We have good public support and awareness in fire reporting, and the protection crews of the Ministry of Forests did a very good job in keeping fires to a very small size during the year.

Another factor very instrumental in reducing the size of fires was the test work done with infrared scanners, which is new to the protection division of the Ministry of Forests. These scanners made it possible to detect fires in their incipient stages and to therefore control them before they became fires which caused any damage at all.

[ Page 1518 ]

There were certain staff changes in the Ministry of Forests last year. I think most members here know John Stokes, who for many years in fact for most of his professional career was an employee of the Forest Service and for the latter years deputy minister. John Stokes was to have retired a year ago, but he agreed to spend the last year, a year when he should have been retired, devoting his many years of experience and expertise to the forest policy advisory committee. He did a very good job in helping and advising that committee in the development of new forestry legislation.

Ted Young, who was formerly our chief forester, has been given an assignment so that he can provide us with the many years of expertise and experience he has had prior to his retirement next June. We have had other retirements in the ministry. Mike Apsey was appointed as Deputy Minister of Forests and he will commence his duties on June I this year, about the time, I hope, that we have a new Forest Act to work with.

Mr. Chairman, I would 'like to say a word or two before I close my opening remarks about the work done by the forest policy advisory committee this year. We received the Pearse royal commission report, which was commissioned by the previous government in October, 1975. 1 must commend Dr. Pearse for the very high quality report which he gave us. He did an exceptionally good job, and I am sure that the public of British Columbia will for a long time remember the work he did.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

The forest policy advisory committee was appointed early in 1977 to use the Pearse report as a basis for developing new forest policy. This committee did a tremendous job and worked endless hours in developing the new legislation which I introduced last Friday. I'm certain that this legislation, once it has been debated, will receive unanimous support of this House, because the legislation is designed to assure that our forest industry remains the very vital part of our economic and social welfare in this province that it has been for many years.

I would like, Mr. Chairman, to just say at this time that I think we, as legislators in the province of British Columbia, owe a great debt of gratitude to the forest policy advisory committee and I would like to see them recognized.

I will not go into many areas which were studied by this committee, but it meant much more than simply analysing the Pearse report.

Every aspect and every possible implication of the new legislation was studied exhaustively, and I'm sure when that is debated this fact will become very evident to all of us.

The Pearse report, the forest policy advisory committee and my ministry's work through this year have resulted in the introduction into this House of three new bills last Friday: a new Forest Act, a new Range Act and a new ministry Act. These Acts will launch British Columbia into a new era of forest management.

Mr. Chairman, in closing I would just like to refer the members to the 16th edition of Sir Erskine May, page 739, on which it gives the general restrictions on debate in Committee of Supply. It says: "Matters which are included in legislation before the House cannot be debated in Committee of Supply." Therefore I expect that I will have immediate passing of both my personal estimate and those of my ministry, and we might get home early tonight. Thank you.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, hope springs eternal from the human breast.

I want to say a few words about the minister's area of responsibility, and I intend to respect implicitly the fact that there is a bill before the House which will provide ample opportunity to explore future policy - such as it is - and will confine my remarks to the minister's current and past area of administrative jurisdiction.

I listened very attentively to his dissertation on the ministry's activities aver the past year and I found some of his statistical information valuable - and I appreciate receiving that. I found some of it very interesting also when reconciled with stated policy of an almost unrestricted increased cut in the timber resource for the province over the next few years. When we find that the total annual cut is in the area of 29 million acres and when we find that by the minister's own admission he has not been able to keep pace with reforestation, then I have some difficulty accepting the minister's stated objective of getting all possible forest land back into production. I understand we have a backlog of somewhere in the area of 8 million acres of land that should have been replanted, which it has not been as yet.

To comment specifically to the minister's estimates, I'm intrigued by the emphasis that seems to be reflected in the votes under the minister's estimates. I've just done a cursory examination, Mr. Chairman, and I see an increase in the minister's total budget of about $14.5 million over last year. I find

[ Page 1519 ]

that about $6.5 million of that is in the area of administration rather than research programmes, reforestation programmes, silviculture programmes and so on, which would come to grips with the real problem that has beset the forest industry over the past number of years - regardless of administration, in fairness. But I certainly don't find of the spending priorities contained in the minister's estimates squaring with his stated objectives over the past year and his opening remarks tonight.

Indeed, it's a bit shocking to see the reforestation programme cut back $1 million in the budget estimate for 1978 as compared to 1977. 1 don't want the minister to make any excuses for that cutback in the very essential area of forest management in this province on the premise that there may be some bill before the House which we are not allowed to discuss. We're talking about the minister's estimates. We're talking about his administrative area of responsibility and I would like him to confine his remarks to that when answering these questions. How does he reconcile that cutback in reforestation with his stated objective of bringing about intensive forest management in this province? That belies those brave remarks and those stated intentions. I'd like an answer to that simple question.

I want to go through a number of other remarks that the minister made and ask him to elucidate a little bit and clarify some of the things that I didn't quite understand. I readily admit, Mr. Chairman, that I have a great deal to learn about the forest industry. I doubt that there are very many people in public or in politics who understand the forest industry nearly as well as they should. I did have the opportunity, along with a number of other members of this House, of going up to the Cayuse operation and the Mesachie Lake experimental station with the Canadian Institute of Forestry. I certainly found that tour of the operations intensely interesting and very, very valuable. I've had a rather limited association with the forest industry, so frankly I have a lot to learn. I'm looking for information from the minister rather than trying to be argumentative. I know that with the minister's intensive crash programme of education over the last two years, he's well equipped now to explain to members of the House what's going on in the province's No. I industry.

What about the pulp situation? I'm a bit concerned about the export of chips. I can understand and appreciate that on a short-term basis it may well be prudent and necessary to export chips, but I've also paid close attention to the minister's promise and his fairly tough statements aver the past year that we are going to experience expansion in our pulp capacity in this province. There is confidence in the economy of B.C. and we can expect increased pulp capacity. I hope he's right. We're interested in jobs. We're interested in utilizing to the highest degree possible our primary resources, but if that's the case, I wonder what the minister meant when he referred to his aggressive trip to Japan seeking markets. Are they long-term markets you're looking for, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman?

I see the minister's getting some counsel now in terms of the potential for industrial expansion in this province. I'm glad he's receiving that, because the public hasn't received very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like the minister to expand on that particular area. We've had a whole variety of statements that to some extent are in conflict.

I understand that Mr. Doman may build a pulp mill if and when economic circumstances dictate that it's prudent to do so. That gives me grave fear, because under the current administration that it's prudent to do so. that kind of capital investment. I wonder if the minister can be a bit more precise about the terms of the licence that was issued to Mr. Doman, and just when we might expect the kind of capital investment that will bring about a new pulp mill in the Vancouver Island area, to say nothing of the northern part of the province.

The minister indicated that 66 million seedlings were planted last year, 7 million less than the previous year, for a net reduction in reforestation. I see a $1 million reduction in the reforestation budget again this year and I want to ask the minister: was the problem really with the preparation of sites and the preparation of seedlings, or was it simply a lack of the proper appropriation to accommodate and maintain the level of reforestation that had been established the previous year?

I ask the minister in addition, Mr. Chairman, what is being done to come to grips with the backlog of land that has been neglected in terms of replanting. I understand it's in the area of eight million acres. I'm subject to correction; I would like the minister's comments on that. But I understand it's a fairly significant chunk of real estate.

The minister said he had site problems and he said he had trouble in the preparation of the seedlings. Again, when I look at this year's budget I see a focus on the administrative rather than the areas that to me appear more important. That is in the research budget, in the reforestation budget, in the fire

[ Page 1520 ]

suppression budget and those things that are required for the proper management of the forest resource in the province.

So I ask the minister, in terms of his site problem , what he is planning in terms of developing new nurseries and committing larger acreage to the genetic experimentation for better classifications of timber in the province. What is he doing in terms of stimulating and increasing the seedling capacity of existing nurseries in the province? Certainly the foresters I have talked to indicate that they're pitifully inappropriate in terms of the total kind of reforestation program that we need for this province. I'd like to hear something from the minister in terms of what he anticipates in those areas.

I have a whole variety of notes here and I don't want to go on for too long, because the minister may forget some of my questions. Perhaps I'll let it go at that for the moment and ask the minister if he would be kind enough to expand a little bit on the areas in which I've expressed some concern and some interest.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I would be very happy to carry on the discussion with the member for Revelstoke-Slocan. I made some notes here, but I'm not sure I can read them.

The member mentioned, Mr. Chairman, what he seems to feel is a focus on increases in administrative budget rather than reforestation, fire protection and so forth. I did go into the fire protection situation a bit in my opening remarks. We are required by statute to budget each year for fire protection an amount equal to the average of the last five years. Over the last decade this amount has roughly been decreasing, which reflects really the increased protection and fire suppression capability of the ministry. Actually the province of British Columbia leads North America and perhaps the world in its fire protection capabilities. Our air-tanker capability, which was developed in co-operation with the private sector, is second to none in the world. I've received letters this last year from various people who say that we are using obsolete aircraft in our fire protection air tanker capability. Actually British Columbia has the best air capability of any constituency in the world. We're using A-26 bombers from World War II, and DC-6s. Up until recently we had been using Avenger aircraft. This year we're beginning to use a new bomber which was developed by Conair, the Gremlin Tracker Aircraft, which I was very pleased to have had a demonstration of a number of months ago. This particular aircraft will increase our capability even further than it is now.

As a result of this continuing lead that British Columbia has in these capabilities, we are able to reduce the number of dollars required each year for fire protection and control. I think that is a good thing because we don't have to spend more and more dollars of the taxpayers' money each year to protect our forests. We are taking advantage of advances in technology through the private sector and through our own capabilities in the Forest Service to provide better protection each year and suppression measures with fewer and fewer dollars. That is a reason that our protection vote is reduced this year.

I must say that there is a factor over which no government has any control, and that is Mother Nature. Last year we did have a rather dry, hot summer in most areas of British Columbia, but we were fortunate not to have a large number, of the massive dry lightning storms that we do have in British Columbia from time to time. We are required by statute to provide the amount of money which is the average of the last five years actual expenses, and this is what we are doing. If Mother Nature co-operates at all, I'm sure that as the years go on we'll be able to spend less and less money for fire protection and achieve even greater and greater levels of protection and fire control.

In the matter of reforestation, in 1978 we will be seeding 97 million seedlings in our nurseries. There is a one- to two-year delay in the time seedlings are initiated in our nurseries until they're actually planted. Our containerized seedlings are generally planted in year one, and the bare root seedlings in year two. This has increased over last year when we actually planted 75 million and our seedling planting in our nurseries was less. So we are increasing our ability to produce seedlings. The only controlling factor really is our ability to plant them, and this is not constrained by budget but by physical realities on the ground.

Last year we did have problems in site preparation and in seedling mortality in the nurseries which made it impossible for us to be able to plant the number which we would have wished to plant. I refer to the last year of the member for Revels toke-Slocan's government. They had similar problems, but much more drastic than we had. These are tricks and things that Mother Nature does which neither this government nor that government had any control over.

Reforestation is an extremely important thing now and will become even more important in the years to come. The member mentioned NSR

[ Page 1521 ]

- non-satisfactorily restocked forest land -in British Columbia, and he mentioned a figure of eight million acres. I don't know where that figure came from, Mr. Member, but if you will recall having read Dr. Pearse's royal commission report on forestry, he said that in British Columbia we had 1.8 million acres of NSR land. Even that figure is very difficult to pin down. The amount of NSR land Chat we have depends upon which lands are included, and from year to year different lands are included in the estimate of NSR lands. Several units were added from 1975-76 which would appear to make the problem worse. However, it was just because those acres were included in the statistics; the lands didn't change.

In British Columbia we find it necessary to artificially restock or plant with the nursery stock 35 to 40 per cent of the lands which we harvest. Natural regeneration very adequately takes care of the rest. As a matter of fact, in some of our coastal forests you almost have to jump back because natural reforestation takes place so quickly. But there is a provision made in our annual allowable cut which allows for the lag effect in natural reforestation. We can increase our cut, but we will substantially increase our costs by artificially reforesting the lands which up till now we have left to nature to reforest.

But please don't get the impression that natural reforestation is giving up the responsibilities of the government, because in many areas it is very effective and cannot be improved upon by natural regeneration. There are areas which we allow right now to be naturally reforested which we should and will in the future, I hope, artificially reforest.

There is a slight reduction in the reforestation budget this year, as the member pointed out. That does not in any way reflect the amount of seedlings which we will plant, because we will plant the seedlings which we are capable of producing this current year. What that reflects really is a reduction in the necessity of site preparation. In effect this cost which was formerly borne by the government has been assumed by industry through better logging practices. Because of the enforcement of these better logging practices by the forest ministry and because of better logging techniques, it means there is less need for the preparation of sites and less expense involved by the government for site preparation. We have in effect passed this cost from the taxpayers of British Columbia to the industry which operates in the forestry sector. I think that is a good thing.

I do not wish to get into the legislation before the House, but in years to come we will be passing much, much more of that responsibility not only for site preparation but for reforestation back to the industry. So because there is approximately a $1 million reduction in our reforestation budget, that does not mean that we will be doing less reforestation work. It only means that we are required to do less site preparation.

The government last year has acquired additional lands for seed orchards within which we will develop additional seeds for use in our nurseries. We will continue to expand our nursery capability. I'm sure through changes in the direction of the ministry we will also encourage the industry to increase their participation in seed and nursery production and reforestation measures.

I think this pretty well covers the points raised so far by the member for Revelstoke Slocan. If I've missed anything, I'm sure that member will bring it to my attention.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I think that is entirely possible. I find the minister's response with respect to the reforestation thing actually a little bit incredible. I don't know where you gain that kind of rationalization, whether it was as a mining inspector or whether you got it from professional foresters or where on earth you got it, but to suggest that you can cut back the budget for reforestation in the province of British Columbia and still maintain the needed reforestation is just patent nonsense, Mr. Chairman.

I beg your pardon for my error in the acreage - you're quite right, 1.8 million acres is the backlog - but that is a very, very large chunk of British Columbia that has not been reforested.

I question the minister's statement that it's only necessary to replant up to 35 per cent and natural regeneration will take care of the rest. I think that also is absolutely patent nonsense. There I s no question that regeneration will occur, but regeneration of what - a merchantable species?

MR. SKELLY: Alder.

MR. KING: Alder? Aspen? Poplar? Cottonwood? That's nonsense and the minister knows it is nonsense. If there is any kind of commitment here to getting the forest industry in the province of British Columbia back on the track, there's an accelerated programme necessary, not a cutback in the annual pittance that is provided for a budget. That's crass nonsense.

Maybe there was a problem with seedlings. Certainly there was a problem under his

[ Page 1522 ]

government and under ours. But to suggest that that justifies the cutback because we're not manufacturing the kind of seedlings that are necessary to accommodate....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: You don't manufacture seedlings, Bill.

MR. KING: All right, we're not planting the darn things and they're not lasting in the nurseries. I haven't got all the fancy forestry lingo. A-11 I want the minister to get is some horse sense. That's what's needed. We are short of nursery space.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Will that make the trees grow, Bill?

MR. KING: Well, your kind of fertilizer certainly would, Mr. Minister. That's what we need - a fertilization programme in this province coupled with expanded nurseries with proper spacing programmes and so on. I suggest that we send the whole cabinet touring the forest. They would probably grow a lot better; certainly much more quickly.

: "Sex is not a major problem." I don't know what kind of a case he's pleading but I wish he wouldn't bring his hang-ups here.

Let's talk about the forest industry. I think the major problem is that there hasn't been enough of an allocation for nursery facilities. There hasn't been enough of an allocation for research into genetic improvement. Certainly there has been no accelerated programme to come to grips with the tremendous backlog of land in British Columbia that should be in forest production now and is certainly not. I don't know where the minister got his suggestion that 35 per cent replanting is adequate. That's completely at odds with the advice I have received from a wide number of professional foresters and certainly from a wide variety of industry people that I have spoken with. That may be the case in certain regions of the province and certain isolated cases, but on a provincial basis I say that's just absolute nonsense.

The fact is, I suggest to the minister, that there has not been the research and there has not been the experimentation to determine what all the growth conditions are and what the best species choice is for certain areas and regions of the province. So to say that natural reforestation will handle over 35 per cent of the area logged is nonsense. If we haven't done the work and the research to find out what the best choice is in terms of species, then how can you make that kind of determination? I think that's a cop-out for the fact that the government has not bitten the bullet and produced the kind of budgetary allocation that is necessary to come to grips with these problems.

I know there's a major allocation needed and I know it's very, very difficult in terms of setting budgetary priorities to say that the forest industry of British Columbia is going to get proper attention, which may result in the diminution of other services, possibly social services and so on. But I think a proper kind of assessment has to be made in the long term if we have a sick forest industry. What is going to happen to the revenue that we rely on to support the social services of this province?

I think the minister could have shown a bit more forcefulness. Pardon me, I'll amend that. I think the minister could have shown a bit of forcefulness and fought with his cabinet colleagues and demonstrated to them that this is the heart and soul of the economy of British Columbia. This is the kind of priority, this is the kind of allocation, this is the kind of dedication we have to make to the industry now because 15 years down the road there is going to be a serious discrepancy, I suggest, in terms of maintaining the kind of sustained yield and the kind of allowable cut that we have been experiencing in the past few years and we anticipate for the immediate future. Those things are going to catch up unless there's a proper allocation made and proper attention given to regeneration of the forest now.

When I talk about regeneration, what that means to me is proper research into genetic improvement, proper research to find out what the best species choice is for different regions of the province, and improved and expanded nurseries so that we have adequate stock available for replanting not only the area used on a current basis, but to catch up with the backlog. If I could help that minister in any way, I'd be most happy to do it in terms of impressing on his cabinet colleagues that this is a good investment in the future. Not only that, it's a job-intensive kind of exercise. It provides jobs so that the money expended now will come back in many ways into the provincial coffers. You know, we had 110,000 people unemployed over this past year.

I wish the minister were a bit more aggressive and would not bring his hang-ups to the Legislature here and would go into the cabinet meetings and hammer the desk a little bit and lay down the law, and point out that this

[ Page 1523 ]

makes sense from an economic point of view, it makes sense from an employment point of view and it makes sense as a proper investment in the future, in terms of maintaining the viability of our forest industry. If I could help him in that exercise, I'd be very happy to do so. I just don't accept his remarks in terms of reforestation thing.

I'll continue on just a little bit. The minister talked a bit about changes in the administrative structure of his ministry. That may be good; it may be bad. I don't know. I don't know the people involved and what they do. I presume John Stokes is retired. I was rather intrigued by the description the minister gave of Ted Young's position. He said he's been given a position so he can contribute his talent prior to his retirement next June. I thought he'd been contributing awfully well as chief forester of this province over the past quite a number of years. I wonder what kind of unique analysis the minister has in mind which would indicate that the former chief forester is now in a better position to contribute his experience and knowledge from some other obscure position which is really not defined that well - certainly not in the existing structure of the ministry or in the new legislation, as far as I can determine.

Perhaps the minister would be kind enough to expand on these decisions. As I say, I don't know whether they're right or wrong, and I don't presume to instruct him in that way, but I would appreciate it if the minister would explain to us what these moves were predicated on. Did the minister just decide that by osmosis this individual should be kicked upstairs, and the other individual should be kicked downstairs, and some other individual should be moved around in some kind of domino game? What does it all mean? Was this your personal appraisal after studious examination for two years, Mr. Minister? Or was there some more structured, formal approach to the reorganization of your ministry? I'd be rather intrigued to learn.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Many things the member for Revelstoke-Slocan said I agree with - very much agree with, as a matter of fact. The first thing he said that I agreed with is that he doesn't know very much about forestry. That I wholeheartedly agree with. However, neither do I. I'm not a professional forester. In technical forestry matters, I'm sure that we must take a lot of advice and direction from the professionals.

The member said in his last go-round that 35 per cent actual regeneration is not good enough. We must improve our regeneration, and with that I have to agree. We must. We should have really started this quite some time ago, perhaps in 1973,1974, '75, '76 or '77. We didn't.

MR. STUPICH: In '72?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: In '72 or even '75 or '65.

Mr. Chairman, up until the present time the forest industry in British Columbia has been a developing, evolving industry which always appeared to have a new, untapped forest over every mountain ridge. That was the case for many years. It's only been in recent years that this has come to an end. We have some parts of the province, more remote northerly parts, where we do have untapped forests which are available for expansion of our industry. But by and large in the productive areas of our province our virgin forests, untapped forests and unallocated forests are a thing of the past. We must in the future pay much, much more attention to the management of the forest land.

We should be planting more trees artificially, because when you do, you do have the choice of the seed stock which you plant. This is not to say that natural regeneration will not always continue to be a very valuable tool in those areas where natural regeneration takes place with the type of trees which we need - high-value commercial species.

We are short of nursery space and we are short of seedling production capability. The Forest Service last year acquired considerable additional land, primarily on Vancouver Island in the Saanich Peninsula area, on which to produce seedlings or cones and on which to carry on with our attempts to produce superior seedling stock. We will continue to do this and we must encourage industry to continue to do that as well, because I don't think the whole cost imposition of increasing our capability of producing seedlings should be borne by the government. It should, and will in the future, be borne to an increasing degree by the private sector and they're very willing to do this. And provisions made in the new legislation will make this very attractive for them.

But reforestation is not the only matter related to the management of forest land. Bill 5 - which received royal assent today - makes provision for an additional $10 million for my ministry to use in intensive forest management, and that type of funding is the start of a continuing and expanding programme of intensive forest management for British Columbia. It's a beginning which is perhaps late in

[ Page 1524 ]

coming, but it is here now and this government has accepted that responsibility and is facing the necessity of doing that type of thing. Thirty-five per cent artificial regeneration is not enough and we must increase that in years to come and we certainly will - this government will, at least.

The choice of seed stock and genetic research into superior tree species and types is, of course, going to carry on. Now we can draw upon the research which has been done not only by the Forest Service but by the private sector in British Columbia and the private sector in other countries. There is a great pool of information available for us to use.

But we can't spend more money this year for reforestation than we have seedlings and seed stock to plant, and our budget this year reflects our capability in seedling production. We will plant those seedlings which we can produce, providing that we have the ability to do it and depending upon weather conditions - and over those, of course, we have no control.

The member for Revelstoke-Slocan said that we have a sick forest industry in British Columbia. I disagree with that statement wholeheartedly. In British Columbia we really have two forest industries: an interior industry and a coastal industry. The coastal industry is in need of modernization and right now there is in the order of $1 billion committed by the coastal industry to the modernization of that industry, to bring it up to a more competitive position. Our interior industry, including the area the member for Revelstoke Slocan comes from, is really the most competitive forest industry anywhere in the world. Our interior forest industry can produce pulp, plywood and dimensioned lumber at such a cost as to be competitive in any world market. We have a very healthy forest industry in the interior. I don't think we should ever say that we have a sick forest industry in B.C. Parts of it need rebuilding, which is taking place. And I think part of the reason it is taking place is that this government has taken steps to encourage investment in that industry, and a vast amount of investment is now committed.

Administrative changes referred to by the member for Revels toke-Slocan - yes, indeed, there are administrative changes taking place in the Forest Service, and there will be many more taking place over the next year.

Ted Young indeed contributed a great deal to the Forest Service - not only during his tenure as chief forester, but during all of the 35 years which he spent with the Forest Service - and I have nothing but respect for his administrative and professional capabilities. But Ted Young had indicated to me that he wished to retire next year and so, to take advantage of the many years of experience which he had accumulated, I thought it best -and Ted agreed - that we relieve him of the day-to-day administrative hassles so that he could sit down with some support staff and provide us with a plan for intensive forest management in British Columbia in the future. I can think of no person in British Columbia more professionally capable of doing that than Ted Young. He is a good forester, he has been a good administrator and he can contribute much more by having the quiet and the time to do the research, to do the traveling necessary to see what's happening in other areas and provide us with the guidelines so that we can assess what happens when you apply these intensive silvicultural techniques to the many varying climate and forest conditions in this province. I'm sure that when Ted presents us with the result of his year's work, we will have a tremendous asset to the province of British Columbia. He's a good forester, a very well-organized forester.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

I have said that we have been making organizational changes. No, Mr. Member, it's not things that I've pulled out of the air. Over the last two years there have been two internal studies done by the Forest Service, one by the professional staff and one by the technical staff of the Forest Service, the ranger staff, studying what they feel are the problems with the administrative make-up of the Forest Service at present.

Quite frankly, they were extremely critical of the way the Forest Service is organized at this time, and they said loud and clear that they as members of the Forest Service spend far, far too much time shuffling paper and writing letters back and forth to each other and to Victoria. "We cannot really get out on the ground where the forests are, and we don't have the accountability or the responsibility to make the decisions on--site."

I also had an outside assessment of the Forest Service organization carried out by management consultants by the name of Price Waterhouse. They presented us with a report which concurred to a large degree with the internal studies which we had had done.

As a result of the three reports and assessments that I and my immediate staff have made, we will be undertaking administrative organizational changes in the Forest Service for the purpose of increasing our administrative

[ Page 1525 ]

effectiveness and increasing the efficiency and effectiveness with which we spend the taxpayers' dollars which we have to administer in the Forest Service. So a great deal of study has gone into the organization of the Forest Service, and any changes we make will be for the purpose of better, more effective administration of this most valuable resource that the people of British Columbia own.

MR. KING: Yes, I know a bit about the interior forest industry. Yes, it is intensely competitive in some areas. Yes, it is also seriously overutilized in certain areas, precisely because there was not proper management in years past.

I am not too concerned.... Well, I am concerned about what happened in the past, but that is a fait accompli and there is not too much we can do about it. We have to plan for the future and the minister has to answer for the future. That is his responsibility as a minister of the Crown. Sure there are handicaps, sure there are problem , but we expect accounting of what is going to take place to bring about greater help in the industry for the future.

I am not at all persuaded - indeed I am very disappointed - that there is the kind of dedication either in this budget this year or in the minister's attitude in meeting current reforestation needs, much less the backlog that is seriously hampering the future health of the forest industry in British Columbia. Lame excuses about problems in the nurseries or lack of proper programmes in the past are not going to be good enough to rationalize and justify the minister's inactivity at this time.

Mr. Minister, you are elected, you are a minister of the Crown, and it is up to you to provide the kind of husbandry and the kind of administration that's going to bring about a healthy forest environment in this province. I don't see that happening and I'm quite disappointed.

The minister indicated, with respect to the administration thing, that there had been an internal study by the technical staff of the department. He indicated there was another study by Price Waterhouse. Who were these individuals from Price Waterhouse who conducted this survey, Mr. Minister? Could you give us their names?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'll find them.

MR. KING: Was Mr. McCallum one of them? I see a nod. Who else? Mr. McCallum was one of them. How many people were there involved in this survey - two or three?

Interjection.

MR. KING: Two. And these people were representatives of Price Waterhouse, the minister has said.

Have Price Waterhouse ever acted for the Council of Forest Industries in any representation or submission to the Ministry of Forests in this province, particularly with respect to logging costs and stumpage? Has Price Waterhouse, indeed, ever made a submission to the minister or any of his staff since he took office with respect to logging costs and stumpage? Can the minister tell me that?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, Mike McCallum was one of the gentlemen from Price Waterhouse. I'm afraid I can't recall the other, but I'll get that for you.

Price Waterhouse is probably one of the world's most recognized management consultants and the member is fully aware of that. Yes, Price Waterhouse has acted, I'm sure, at times for the Council of Forest Industries and for various forest companies. I'm sure they have also acted for organized labour and various sectors of the industry in British Columbia. I know they've acted for the Mining Association and mining companies and perhaps every business and political organization in this country at one time or another. It's because of their reputation and their broad experience that we chose them to do this study for us.

They did give us the study - quite a good study, a very thorough study. I'm sure that Mike McCallum and his partner on this study used the total resources of Price Waterhouse and their management consulting capability in advising us. They did a very good job, a very thorough job. They not only interviewed hundreds and hundreds of members of the Forest Service but they interviewed many members of the private sector, including those in the industry and many sectors outside of the industry. The Forest Service impinges upon practically every sector of the public in British Columbia. They in their study interviewed all sectors upon whom the Forest Service and the forest industry impinge. It's a very good study indeed.

I don't know what the member is getting at. I suppose he wishes to draw some terrible, dire conflict of interest somewhere. But I was very happy with the study they did. I think it was a very thorough, professional study and one which was very helpful to me, to the forest policy advisory committee and to my senior staff in assessing our management

[ Page 1526 ]

capabilities and needs for the future.

To the member for Revels toke-Slocan, I'll make mention of another remark or so that you made in your last go-round. You mentioned that the interior forest industry was very competitive, which it is. You agreed with me. You said that the forest was overutilized. I'll take exception with that statement. The forest resource in the southern part of British Columbia is not overutilized. In many areas, it's fully utilized, and that's what we should be aiming for - full utilization of the forest resource. If we have an annual allowable cut calculated which we have confidence in, we should be using every cunit of that annual allowable cut for the benefit of the people of British Columbia. If we don't use it, it's lost forever. If it's available today, we should use it today. If we don't harvest it today, we must put it at the end of the line. It's up to us to balance the allowable cut that we have with the capability of the industry, and that is a delicate balance indeed. There are always companies in that industry emerging to utilize that resource and there are companies leaving the industry. There are individuals entering and individuals leaving. It is indeed a difficult job to balance the resource with the industry, but our ultimate objective should be to have a 100 per cent balance. I doubt if we'll ever achieve that because of the changing demands upon the forest base. That should be our objective.

The forest resource in southern British Columbia is not overutilized but it is utilized to a degree which is approaching what it should be utilized at. There is very little room for expansion. The only possibility of expansion is increased recoveries, increased utilization and increased yield from a forest acre through better forest management.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I guess the minister and I have to disagree on that. I submit that there are areas of the West Kootenay particularly that are seriously overutilized. I draw the minister's attention to the ranger's comment from Creston, Mr. Hernandez, who pointed out that in his opinion there's a seven-- or eight-year supply of merchantable timber left in that particular area. I want to say that that stated opinion of the forester at Creston is not an isolated opinion. I have certainly received support for that point of view from many people in the industry up in that particular area.

The minister's confidence and faith in the allowable cut is a bit shattering. Is the minister telling us that he has got such faith in valid inventory upon which allowable cut is based that he's confident that there's a supply for all time, regardless of increase in allowable cut - that sustained yield can be maintained on the current inventory practices? I say nonsense.

Again, the advice that I receive from people in the industry and from professional foresters is that the inventory procedure, which is one component of consideration for establishing allowable cut, is crass nonsense. It's based on the area involved in the particular TFL or the PSYU or whatever, not without respect to the terrain involved or whether or not it's economic to harvest the crop. And if you're basing allowable cut on that, that is not very intelligent management of the resource.

I think if the minister consults with his staff they'll bear out that point of view. Particularly in the interior where the terrain is extremely rough, it's just nonsense to suggest that it's economic to extract and take the timber to market from any of those areas. Yet because that particular area is involved, and part of the terrain and the particular licence, then the allowable cut is based on that equation. It's nonsense.

With respect to the administrative review of the department, I don't know about that minister over there. He seems to get so sensitive, and I can't imagine why. He came out with a statement that perhaps there was some conflict of interest in securing Price Waterhouse to do a management survey of his ministry, an administrative survey. I didn't say that, the minister said it. He said perhaps there's some terrible conflict of interest. I would ask the minister: was there? I don't know, but now you've told the House that Mr. Mike McCallum was one of the partners of Price Waterhouse involved. I think if the minister %wanted to really be frank with the House he would say that Mr. McCallum had two partners involved in that survey of his ministry also. I think both of those people have been involved in representing the Council of Forest Industries in arguments with the ministry about stumpage and the cost of logging - in essence, the amount of revenue that they were going to return to the Crown in British Columbia.

If the minister thinks there %, as a conflict of interest there, maybe it is because he can envisage a situation where these Price Waterhouse representatives came into his ministry -the same ones who had found themselves in conflict in negotiation with some of his senior staff - arguing about logging costs. lo and behold, the minister hires them to come into his department and tell him how it should be restructured. Some of those senior staff

[ Page 1527 ]

who had been fairly hard-nosed with the Council of Forest Industries negotiators found themselves in the hands of these very people whom they had sat across the bargaining table from.

Now I can't imagine why the Minister of Forests thinks there may be a conflict of interest there. But since he brought it up, I would like him to explain to the House how he would characterize it. Can the minister, for instance, tell the House whether Price Waterhouse is on a continuous retainer with COFI representing them on a continuous basis to argue and negotiate with the Ministry of Forests? Are they on an ad hoc basis? Does the minister intend to hire these people who represent management for any other purposes, deciding who in his department might be problematic and moved aside or restructured or reorganized?

The minister sees no conflict of interest in that - fair enough. But he mentioned it and perhaps he would explain to the House how he reconciles this whole procedure. I find it rather intriguing. Mr. Chairman, I know something about restructuring a department. I never found it necessary to bring Price Waterhouse in or anyone else. I think perhaps if the minister has some confidence in his effectiveness, in his own administrative skill -and certainly if he has the strength of his own convictions - perhaps he could make an assessment of the effectiveness and the efficiency of the people in his ministry without bringing in industry's representatives to tell him who had been problematic in that ministry previously.

I would be very interested in hearing the minister's comments.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The other member of Price Waterhouse was Paul Hagens, Mr. Member. I am sure that you can develop something from that. I did not say that there was a conflict of interest. I said that were you suggesting there was. The member for Revels toke-Slocan said that when he was in government he didn't find it necessary to use experts and consultants. I think that's quite obvious from the mess that they made of their administration when they were the government.

The tactics again.... I guess he feels he has an opening now where he can develop the conflict of interest theme. I said that Price Waterhouse is probably the best recognized management consultant - don't go away, Bill -in the world and have done a very good job for us and we're very pleased with their work. I'm sure that Price Waterhouse does work with the Council of Forest Industries. I think the

Council of Forest Industries probably has obtained very good advice from them. But when Price Waterhouse was hired on a contract basis by me, they were not looking at the cost of logging or any financial problem related between the ministry or the government and the industry. They were asked to do an assessment of the organizational structure of the Forest Service which they did and which they did a very good job of.

The member for Revels toke-Slocan again said that the annual allowable cut is based solely on the area involved. Once again that member has demonstrated a remarkably well-developed level of ignorance of forestry matters in spite of the fact that he is official critic of the Forests ministry in this House. Many, many criteria are involved in establishing allowable cuts in addition to acres.

He mentioned the remarks made by the forest ranger from Creston who said that industry there would be out of trees in seven to eight years. But he didn't say that that ranger said it would happen unless we manage our forests on a multi-use concept and stop using ridiculous alienations for reasons which do not enhance the environmental aspects of forestry operations of timber harvesting.

It we continue to restrain the activities of the Forest Service and the harvest. which is allocated by the Forest Service, indeed, in many parts of British Columbia we could run short of trees and raw material for our very vital forest industry. We must and will practise multi-use of the land base. The Forest Service I in determining allowable cuts, makes very realistic assessments of environmental constraints, and these are considered as well as acres involved when determining allowable cuts.

If there is continued pressure by people who don't really understand what the factors are in forcing us to reduce our cuts for unrealistic reasons, then we could have a reduction of allowable cut in parts of our forest industry. We could be short of wood, and I'm sure that the people of British Columbia recognize the need for our practising multi-use of our forest land base so that we will not run short of wood for our industry.

MR. LEVI: I won't be very long. I just want to bring a couple of things to the attention of the minister, and maybe he could bear some of this in mind. About three weeks ago about nine MLAs went up to Mesachie Lake at the invitation of the Canadian Institute of Foresters. I understand that the minister was scheduled to be on it but couldn't be there, and I must say that it was one of the most

[ Page 1528 ]

interesting two days that I've spent. It's been a long time since I've been in the bush, and it was a very interesting, if very crowded, weekend that we had.

One of the things that occurred to me after I left there was that in all the years I've been in politics I've heard a lot of politicians on this side and that side of the House say that 50 cents of every dollar in this province is coming from the forest industry, and love come to the conclusion that that's probably right on. But I don't think very many people know about it, or really care about it. I think this is one of the sad parts about what happens with the forest industry.

I've been somewhat critical of the major forest industry people because they seem to have rather special feelings for people who have forest activity in their ridings and therefore take the trouble to do something with the local MLAs, but they do not seem to bother too much about the people who live in the urban areas. So it was a good opportunity to go up to Mesachie Lake and get an opportunity to watch some of the activities that go on in relation to the actual logging operation and also to the very important planning that's going into reforestation.

What I sensed in talking to the foresters, and certainly I think they.... We were in a one-on-one situation there. I think there were nine of us and at least nine foresters; we seemed to be surrounded by them all the time. Obviously they had something they wanted to say. There was an incredible sense of urgency about what they were saying. They were trying very hard to get our attention to the fact that the forest industry has some very serious problems. The problems really relate to where the resource will be 20 or 30 years down the road.

Now I'm not about to go into a harangue about what happened last year or the year before or even five years ago, but certainly something very serious has happened in respect to the forest industry and the question of leadership, both from the government and from the industry. Now I know the minister is pretty new, because when he gets up he feels absolutely bound to filibuster his own estimates. If he wants a piece of advice from somebody who used to have to go through what he's going through, just sit there, take notes and don't get too jittery. Follow the example of the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) who is a veteran at this kind of thing. You don't see him wrestling too much to get up to the microphone all the time. Besides, you're going to have your big day when the Forest Act comes up, or maybe your big three days or four days - who knows? Maybe three weeks. So you've got lots of time to get up and explain your position.

What occurs to me is that in the space of about 25 years in this province, where we've had four Ministers of Forests.... We had Sommers, and that was kind of a low ebb for this province. Then we had Williston, which tended to be part of the rising tide of the forest industry. Then we had Williams, and now we've got the present minister. Also, we've gone from the bottom, up, up, up to the top, and then we're going down again. All right, he may have an opportunity to vindicate himself in the legislation that he's put into the House - that we'll have to see.

It seems to me that there has to be a greater degree of impact that the government wishes to make on the public and on the forest industry regarding just where the minister sits in terms of his position in cabinet. We on this side have been of the opinion that forestry has been a very low-key portfolio for almost two and a half years. The government might very well say that we've been waiting for the Pearse commission report, and we've been waiting for the drafting of the legislation, but what we haven't had in the space of that two and a half years is really the minister sharing with public and the industry just what he thinks about things.

He had an opportunity on January 20,1978, when he spoke to the Truck Loggers Association, and if I had the time to read the speech it might be worthwhile because you would get an idea. There are eight pages of notes of a speech that I sent to the minister's office for, because I read about it in the newspaper. He devotes less than half a page to a discussion of the forest industry, but he spends quite a little time talking about his feelings and his experiences about going to Japan and South Korea. In the remarks he made about South Korea, he very much shares the opinions of the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) , who says that we're not as good as the people in the United States. Now the minister has gone and compared us with the people in South Korea. You know, we've got a couple of people on that side who constantly make comparisons about the capabilities of Canadians.

Now let me just quote some of these rather esoteric gems that the minister dropped. He is the Minister of Forests, he's not the minister of culture, he's not the Minister of Education, he's not even the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources. But this is what he says before the truck loggers. I spoke to some of the truck loggers after they heard the speech and most of them wound up outside of the

[ Page 1529 ]

meeting hall where the speech was being made. This is something that he said in respect to South Korea:

"Before I went on the trip to South Korea I didn't have a very clear impression of what it was like in that country. I learned that there are very clear distinctions between the Japanese and the Koreans. They are two totally different countries, each with its own definite race of people, culture, history and set of problems and opportunities.

"South Korea was devastated by the Second World War and then by the Korean War in the early '50s."

We are now on page 3 of the history lesson.

"In effect still in the post-war reconstruction area, communist North Korea is an immediate and daily threat to South Korea, as is evidenced by the highly viable military presence in Seoul."

This is the Minister of Forests, presumably spending the public's money going overseas to come back and give us a political, military and historical analysis of Japan and Korea. He goes on to say:

"Perhaps it's the spirit of rebuilding their country that drives South Koreans, perhaps is the threat in the north that inspires them to strengthen and improve themselves. Whatever the reasons, the South Koreans are digging, scratching and working very diligently to build a better country. Whatever the incentives, they are out to prove that their system works. I think you'll be hearing a lot about South Korea in the years ahead. They have a long way to go, but they're doing it and they're doing it very quickly.

"Seeing these two energetic countries naturally made me compare them to Canada." Now this is where the member for Dewdney comes in, because he really out-does the member for Dewdney.

"I'm sorry to say that in comparison Canada comes up short. We as a society are simply not working as hard as they are, considering what they have to work with compared to what we have to work with and what they're achieving compared to what we're achieving. We're either lazy, complacent, self-satisfied or, for some reason, have lost our incentive to progress as we could and as we should."

Now whom is he saying this to? He's not saying it to the tourist bureau; he's saying it to the Truck Loggers Association. They call him, he's the key-note speaker and he proceeds to walk all over them like the member for Dewdney by comparing them to the South Koreans and indicating that the South Koreans are pulling themselves up by the bootstraps, and then he says that we fall short. That they wanted to hear, Mr. Minister, were some ideas from you on where they're going in terms of the forest industry. Where do they fit into your grand scheme of things? They didn't hear that; they heard this monumental put-down.

You know, when we were at Mesachie Lake and we were talking with the foresters, we spent long hours talking to them. It seems that from the time we were going into the bush in the morning to look at various operations, they were constantly talking to us - not expressing their great frustrations, although it was obvious that they do have some frustrations about where the industry is going .... As a matter of fact, in the four-page information that they gave us.... I'd just like to quote from a couple of things that they said. They said they would like to take just a few minutes to put intensive forestry in perspective, to examine the implications for wood supply and, more importantly, for economic prospects in B.C.

"The first is that the forest industry requires a lot of work to keep it operating. Industrial developments already underway will push the average annual work consumption past the 25 million cunit mark before 1980 and probably this year.

"The second is that without the application of forest management programmes like you're seeing on this trip, the long-term annual harvest would decline and stabilize below the 20 million cunits. With the interest now being expressed in the intensive forestry, back up with hard cash, that decline can be prevented."

And that was the [illegible] most of the way through the two days that we got. They gave us these rather graphic illustrations of producing forests from the stem; some of the wedges indicated where the growth had increased at an incredible rate. They showed us one in which in three years the volume of the tree had practically doubled, probably because of the various techniques like juvenile spacing and commercial thinning and that kind of thing.

I think that by the time we finished the trip, we got the feeling that here were people who had a real feel for the resource and who were talking to politicians who they hoped would get the same kind of feel for the resource. It's not an issue at all. It's not one of these chippy issues as to whether you've got 15 years or 20 years in the forest industry or whether you've got two years or one year as the minister. It is really what direction you are going.

[ Page 1530 ]

Now it may very well be that when we come to discuss the legislation, we may get some direction. But I'm just wondering as to whether the minister will have the credibility to articulate this direction because of the fact that for two and a half years he's practically been invisible.

One of the things I want to ask the minister is: in terms of all of the things that he does in his ministry, what does the ministry do in terms of explaining the industry to the public? And I don't want him to tell me that he puts out that magazine once a month. If people in this province are going to understand the kind of problems that exist in the forest industry, the government and the people on this side are going to have to go a lot further than saying that the forest industry is important to us because we get 50 cents of every dollar out of it. People have to understand why it is important.

There has got to be a lot more public education about this kind of thing. Certainly the foresters are playing their part in this, and I want to know what the minister has in mind, because we'll probably get to this when we discuss the legislation. Just where is the department going to go in terms of taking the public with them on this kind of situation?

The reason I quoted what the minister has to say in his speech about Korea and this kind of thing.... Unfortunately he had an opportunity there to give some incredible leadership to an important section of the forest industry, and he blew it. All right, that's a small audience. But what is he going to do in terms of the whole province? Is he prepared to go to the extent of moving around this province once his legislation is through and really start telling people what it's all about and where you are going? It's got to be brought down from the somewhat esoteric discussions that go on with just the forest industry and the foresters and his own ministry.

One of the things that these people were saying to us was that if we're not prepared to put a great deal of money in.... The minister said that perhaps when it comes to the whole seedling programme the industry has got to do that, and they've indicated that. We didn't get that indication last week when we had a tripartite group come before our caucus. Representatives of the forest industry, of labour and of foresters them elves - the three aspects of the industry came in. It was the first time in the history, apparently, certainly in the history of our caucus, that we've had three groups come in as one delegation, partly because it was Forestry Week, and make the same plea, all three of them, that was made to us at Mesachie Lake with the foresters - that the industry has problem , that the resource does have serious problems, and it is going to require a lot of money.

They had a concern, for instance, about the $10 million that has just been passed that is going to add to the reforestation programme. One of the things they wanted to know is - and they still need to know - is that a one-shot effort? Once you've spent the $10 million are we going to go back to the same kind of peg-leg operation of reforestation? They want to know that, because I suppose everything is now coming together, new legislation, new ideas in terms of intensive forest management and the direction that the government is taking. But you're not going to be able to take it unless there is going to be some ongoing commitment of money. That's what they constantly talked to us about - the amount of money that has to be spent now in order to make the resource even more viable 10, 15 or 20 years down the road.

So it is not good enough, Mr. Minister, simply - as you've indicated we've got the legislation; I do not want to talk about that -to say that that is somehow going to answer all the problems. There's got to be some longrange planning in terms of what the expenditures are. It may take you five years to bring the industry around to the idea that they have to play a bigger financial role in the whole business of the intensive reforestation thing, right from the beginning in terms of the seeding. But that's going to take five years. What is the government prepared to do in the meantime? That's the kind of thing that we're being asked about, and that's the kind of thing that I said that when the estimates came up we would ask about.

Outside of the legislation, what is the government going to do in terms of its commitment of money? I want to go past next year or this fiscal year. Donot let's talk about $10 million. What's it going to be like next year? Are we going to create a base this year in terms of intensive reforestation, and then next year, because they don't have any money put aside, that base is going to shrink? We need to know that.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Never mind the legislation. You'll learn that legislation has to be backed up with money, and you'll have your chance when you get up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. You are all aware of the fact that when we are

[ Page 1531 ]

in estimates it is not appropriate to discuss legislation or matters involving legislation. If the members wish to participate in this debate, please wait until they you recognized by the Chair. The second member for Vancouver-Burrard has the floor.

MR. LEVI: Well, we have at least three ministers of defence or backbenchers of defence who are going to get up and explain the minister's policy, because so far he has not told about money. I am not talking about legislation. I want to know what the ongoing commitments are going to be. That's the important thing. Well, the minister wants to get up. Let's hear him.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the member is beautiful. He wants to debate the next 10 years' budgets tonight.

On exactly January 11,1975, 1 made a commitment to enter political life. Up until that time, although I was involved in one of our major resource industries of British Columbia, I had never been directly involved in the forest industry. At that time I realized that forestry was a very big part of the economy and the socio-economic. life of British Columbia. So I made a point of getting out into the bush myself, with the loggers, with the foresters. I spent many, many hours with people involved in that industry, from the truck loggers, the skidder operators, the fallers, the buckers, right through to the presidents of companies, learning something about that very vital industry. I thought that if I was going to be involved in public life in British Columbia, I should accept the responsibility of knowing something about that very important industry.

I find it very surprising, Mr. Chairman, that this member had to wait until there was a tour put together at my initiation to invite MLAs to go out and see the forest industry of British Columbia before he would go out and spend a couple of hours in one day. It was the first time, he had said, in many years that he had been into the forests of British Columbia to see what was going on. I made that one of my very first commitments to find out about this very important industry. You surprise me, Mr. Member, with the lack of attention that you pay to this very important industry.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Why don't you be quiet. You had your turn. Mr. Chairman, would you call the funny little fellow to order, please?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Minister of Forests has the floor.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I agree with one thing that member said, I really do. He said that the public of British Columbia is not aware of the importance of that industry and what goes on. The member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) last year in my estimates brought up the forest centre in Portland, Oregon. He pointed out that it was a very important educational tool in that part of the United States.

As a result of the comments he made and moves and discussions which I initiated, right now we have a group in British Columbia who are attempting to put together a forest centre for this province, something that will be used to inform and educate the public on the total concept of forests - not only industrial forestry but the whole meaning of forests to this province, They mean much more than a raw material source for industry - much, much more.

That is why, right now, the forest centre of British Columbia is being incorporated into a society. It has the co-operation of the forest industry and the educational institutes of British Columbia, the IWA and other unions involved in forestry, of the federal government and the provincial government. All these parties are working together very closely to put together what I'm sure will become a very exciting educational tool for the citizens of British Columbia to learn more about forestry.

Yes, we do have to educate the public and make them more aware of the importance of our forest resource, our forest industry, and the effect that this total forest has on our .u y of life. I couldn't agree with you more; we must do more. We will do more. My budget for information this year is $649,000, a slight increase over the previous year. I hope that you don't say to me what you said to our Provincial Secretary, that she was spending too much money on information. It's our responsibility to inform the public of the programmes of the government and of the responsibilities we have towards our portfolios and industries related to them. We are doing this. I am, at the present time, establishing an information officer in every forest district in British Columbia. And eventually, every member of the Forest Service, all 2,900 of us, will become information officers to let the public know how important that industry is.

The member mentioned that there have been

[ Page 1532 ]

four ministers in British Columbia in the last couple of decades. Yes, there have. There have been four ministers and w've gone through a changing forest environment, a changing forest economy. There are royal commission reports established previous to the one that was established in 1975. Four ministers have been wrestling with the problem of developing new forest legislation for this province. I tabled that legislation last Friday, and that legislation will lead to a new era in forest management and the responsibility of this ministry. It has been accepted and will be discharged. If you want to know what the thrust of the future is, Mr. Member, I suggest you take a few days and read that legislation. Study it carefully because it's all there.

That member was very proud that a tripartite group representing the professionals, the unions and the industry met with his caucus. They met with them shortly after they met with the cabinet of the government of British Columbia. And they gave us the same message which I have been saying to the public of British Columbia for the last two and a half years.

MR. LEVI: Nobody heard you.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Reforestation, forest management is intensive. Yes, I have been heard, Mr. Member, and that is why the public of British Columbia is becoming more and more aware of the need for this type of management.

MR. SKELLY: I'd like to correct the minister on just one thing. He mentioned that he initiated the Mesachie Lake forestry tour that was conducted by the Canadian Institute of Foresters. But in fact when the Select Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries was struck by the minister that proceeded this minister, that was the first group from this Legislature that ever attended and toured the Mesachie Lake forest station.

In fact, that was drawn to our attention by the people in the minister's department that were doing work there, and they were very surprised that a group of legislators would attend the Mesachie Lake forest research station. They were very pleased and proud that we could come there and watch some of their studies in commercial thinning, juvenile spacing, provenance, Douglas fir genetics and this type of thing. We spent two or three days at the Mesachie Lake forest station. That was back in 1973 and 1974, so the minister did not initiate the tour. It was done under the previous ministry, when there was a great deal of concern for the forest industry in British Columbia - concern to the extent that we would have a legislative committee operating on a full-time basis out of this Legislature.

Some members of the present government back bench - and I notice one who isn't in his seat right now - spent a great deal of time working on that committee and on the report that came out of that committee that laid the groundwork for the Pearse report. Some of the information and the concerns that were relayed to us by the industry, by the people in the forest service and by the people in other branches -the fish and wildlife branch for instance -were relayed through the legislative committee to the government, which encouraged the government of the day and the minister of the day, the Hon. Bob Williams, to strike the Pearse committee and the various Pearse task forces that looked into some of the problems. This has ultimately produced legislation, although the legislation that's produced and that we'll be discussing later bears no resemblance whatsoever, as far as I can see, to the problems that we're facing. I'd like to talk about some of those problems, problems that aren't addressed in the legislation as far as I can see. I've spent a little time looking over it and discussing it with some of the people who have examined the legislation and will have some time, I hope, to examine it further.

It's interesting how timber is allocated in this province as compared to how timber is allocated in other jurisdictions throughout the world - especially in areas where our close competitors are operating, such as the northwestern part of the United States.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wait for the bill.

MR. SKELLY: I've seen the bill, Mr. Member. If you haven't read it, you better read it over quickly because we're going to be in trouble with our competition as a result of that bill.

Let's look at the timber sales that are allocated in the Vancouver forest district alone. This is a government that talks about free enterprise and competition for allocation of the resource. Here's a list of the timber sales awarded in the month of February, 1978, in the Vancouver forest district: 3,000 cubic feet of timber, stumpage upset rate $2 per cunit, tender $2 a cunit - no competition; 60,000 cubic feet of cedar, upset rate $2, tender $2 - no competition; 15,000 cubic feet of cedar, stumpage rate $2, tender $2 - no competition. Almost every timber allocation in the Vancouver forest district in the month of February, 1978, went at the upset rate - no

[ Page 1533 ]

competition. E & N Railway belt, fir and other species, stumpage upset rate $4.40 per cunit, tender $4.40 no competition. Vancouver forest district no competition. Quadra PSYU - no competition.

But where there is competition - fir, stumpage upset rate $13.80, appraised rate $15.40, tender $70 per cunit. Just look at this example: Quadra PSYU fir, appraised rate $8 per cunit, stumpage upset rate $2.90, tender $26 - something like four times the appraised value, but in that sale there was competition. In every case where there's competition, there's four or five times the bidding on the upset value. That represents a return to the Crown and a return to the people in this province.

But in 90 per cent or more of bids which represent allocation of timber in the Vancouver forest district there is no competition. As a result we're not getting the stumpage return that we should be getting on the timber that we're selling to operators, and it's because of the tenure arrangements and the monopoly arrangements in the forest industry in this province.

One of the problems in allocation of timber in the province of British Columbia is that, as opposed to our nearest competitors, there is no competition for the resource. As a result the operators are more inefficient and the inefficiencies are built into the system. There's no proposed change in that method of allocation under the new Forest Act which the minister has presented. As a result we have to subsidize timber down the line through transportation, through production and through loss of stumpage revenues to the Crown. That's well documented in studies throughout the industry.

I would just like to ask the minister a question about one of the reports that was submitted to the B.C. Rail inquiry which indicated that interior operators are being subsidized by B.C. Rail. Accountant David Sinclair told the commission Thursday that there remains a question as to whether a much higher degree of support is required by the industry through volume guarantees, compensatory rates and guarantees of protection against trucking competition. This accountant presented a brief to the B.C. Rail royal commission saying that B.C. Rail was subsidizing the forest industry in the province through low transportation rates. I would be interested in the minister's response to that brief.

One of the things the minister announced recently was the fact that virus tests were planned against the spruce budworm in the Fraser Canyon, Anderson Valley and Lillooet areas. We all know the fiasco that the minister got involved in with the previous budworm spraying proposal. We don't want to go over that again, and I'm sure the minister doesn't want to get involved in that again because of the political flak he took over that problem. But right now he is doing what I feel he should be doing and that's experimenting with alternative methods of controlling the budworm using this virus, bacillus Thuringensis.

But in some of the experiments that have been done back east, this bacillus has been used in conjunction with Orthene. I'm wondering if the minister would give us a description of the programme. Is he using bacillus Thuringensis in conjunction with Orthene, which is an organo-phosphate spray? This is something we're really concerned about, something which has been identified back east as a contributing factor in Ray's syndrome, which causes death among young children.

Another thing I'd like to talk about is the level of utilization in the Vancouver forest district, particularly in the Port Alberni area where there has been a problem with MacMillan Bloedel operations there. I brought it up during the budget debate. The minister sought an opportunity to gain the floor to correct a statement I had made about the level of utilization there and the fact that M & B has now cut back on their road-building programmes to the point where 60 per cent of maintenance crews and grade crews have been laid off. That is because they're not expanding the roads the way they were in the past. I believe Franklin River division of MacMillan Bloedel, for example, was planning to build something like 37 miles of road in the last year. They've cut that back to 26 miles of new road, and as a result something like 60 per cent of crews were laid off.

There's going to be a real problem in changeovers in the forest industry and in the processing sector in the Alberni Valley with the changeovers in APD, for example, and in the MacMillan Bloedel mills in the Alberni Valley where they're going to eliminate a lot of the labour in that area. We are concerned that these grade crews are being laid off. In fact, they've been told by the chief executive officer of M & B that there's no possibility they'll be hired back until something like 1982. They're cutting back their grade crew and maintenance to that extent. So I'm wondering what the minister has to say about that.

The minister was attacked by the Sierra Club recently and by one of their foresters, Mr.

[ Page 1534 ]

Bob Nixon, on h is attitude towards single-use alienation. It seems the minister has taken an outspoken position on single-use alienation where it involves recreational use - things like the Valhalla wilderness area, the Stein Valley proposal, Palliser wilderness and this type of thing. The minister has taken a strong stand in opposition, and a very vocal stand in opposition against those proposals.

Yet on the McGregor diversion, where valuable timberland would be placed under water permanently, the minister didn't take a stand at all on that.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Don't worry, Mr. Member, I'm going to finish before 11 p.m., so you will be okay and I'll give you an opportunity to respond.

The minister didn't take a stand at all on that. Yet that's single-use alienation to the extreme. You can always go back 100 years from now or 60 years from now and log in wilderness areas after present cuts have greened up and have grown to mature timber, but you can't do it if that land is under water. I would like to know what the minister's stand is on areas such as the Valhalla wilderness proposal. I guess we've already been made aware of his stand on Akamina-Kishinena and the Stein River valley.

I'd like to ask a final question. Certain groups throughout the province - and I'm thinking of the Nass-Clokuskus Indian bands, the Slocan Valley Resource Management Society - have called upon the ministry to allow citizens to get involved by providing input into forest management decisions, and I mean effective and valid input. Is the minister willing to allow these people to get involved in an effective way in controlling how logging takes place in their areas?

It's a real problem. These people see timber being cut down that they feel shouldn't be cut, that's uneconomical to be cut, and yet they're losing that timber. They have no right to have any input in those decisions. There's no provision in the new Act. Yet interestingly, the Council of Forest Industries has got together with the unions and with environmental groups. The council seems to have taken a step in advance of the Forest Service and the administration in this province in liaison with environmental groups and citizen groups in the management of the forest resource. So I'd be interested in the minister's response. Is he going to allow more effective and valid citizen input into forest allocation and into logging practices?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I might ask the other members, just before you begin, hon. member, to either take their seats or carry on their conversations outside the chamber. It is difficult to recognize which member is standing. Please continue.

MR. LLOYD: I'm going to save most of my comments for when we're talking on the forestry legislation that has been introduced, because it does cover a pretty broad range.

However, I think I would be remiss not to make a few remarks, since forestry is so important in my area. We can mention 50 cents of every dollar in other areas, and it's probably closer to 75 cents of every dollar in the Prince George area.

The minister related the healthy lumber markets we've enjoyed in the last year and how healthy the industry's becoming. We have a good deal of new mills or conversions on mills taking place in the interior. He's also mentioned pulp having problems with the sales, and he specifically mentioned the pulp company monopolies causing a problem on the export of chips. He's mentioned the co-op setup between the producers and the Fibreco company to export chips. I'd just like to have a comment from the minister on what's been done to control the integrated companies so that they aren't purchasing and exporting chips in competition with this particular company. I think this would be an unhealthy situation to have develop on any large scale. I think if Fibreco is going to work.... I think it's a good idea. It should provide incentive for more pulp mill development in the province if there's a private company co-op exporting. I think it was a forward step to create Fibreco, but I hope that they don't allow the integrated companies to ship too many chips out of the country.

The other area I would like to refer to is reforestation. I'm pleased to see the efforts .that are being made this year - the extra $10 million that was put in later on. I think it's going to create a realistic programme, working with the B.C. Forest Service. It's going to really create a major programme, I feel.

One thing, Mr. Chairman, though, I am a little concerned about is that I noticed an article in the Province tonight, and I've seen it before in the logging magazines, about the reconversion of an old tank into a planter. It states that this reconverted machine can plant up to 20,000 seedlings a day. It says that this particular machine costs $165,000 to put together and $28,000 for the carrier. I think before we get too enthusiastic about this, we just have to look down the road a little ways,

[ Page 1535 ]

and we'd be manufacturing new carriers, and you certainly wouldn't buy them for $28,000. So we could well be looking at a quarter of a million dollars for a machine that might plant 20,000 seedlings a day.

This particular machine has a crew of four -a driver and three people operating the planting guns. They compare this in that same article to people planting by hand, and quite often it's women. They reach up to 800 trees a day, but planters using planing guns can go as high as 2,000 seedlings a day.

I think the point I would like to make is that today with the shortage of jobs, particularly in some of the rural areas, this would be a good supplement in the springtime when the logging isn't going on and they can't get on the farms. This type of labour is a real assist to the rural communities. I wouldn't want to see somebody go overboard on mechanizing something that they can do almost as well by hand. You just have to look at four people versus 10 with guns and then you look at the mechanical availability, and I think it would be a very big mistake to try to overmechanize at this stage of the game. I sometimes think we've almost done that in logging, where we've got $250,000 mechanical harvesters that replace $300 power saws.

But I would hope that the stress on the reforestation, the thinning and particularly the planting, is given to the manual crews. I think it's a very definite assist.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, there is a very serious forestry problem in the Creston PSYU with which the minister is quite familiar. People in the community, who came to the meeting which was brought together by the ministry and which created a public advisory group, a meeting which both the minister and I attended, have looked at ways and means of solving some of these problems.

The local forester, Mr. Vince Hernandez, made a statement that we had only about seven years or eight years of cutting left at the present rate. Of course I have had subsequent meetings and looked into this problem with people in the community and with the local foresters. One of the things that was brought to my attention - I've looked through the estimates - is that it was felt by some of the professional foresters that one of the things that we most sadly lack in the Ministry of Forests are hydrologists, and that decisions and folio planning has had to go ahead without having the input of a hydrologist in the area. That's in many instances something with which we are very much concerned. If we had this kind of input and if we were to combine this with intensive forest management so that we could get on right away with replanting and then use fertilization to get a good fast regrowth, it could be possible that we could then go into some of the leaf strips which are being left in order to protect watershed areas and harvest them once a watershed is protected.

As it turned out, the local community group managed to get the volunteer services of a hydrologist from the Forest Service of the state of Idaho. He came up into the Creston area, met with the people, got the data, returned to Idaho and ran the data through his computer programme down there gratis to this province. I think that it's just a little bit embarrassing that the province of British Columbia.... It was very nice of the forester hydrologist of Idaho to give his time freely, but we are acting here as a charity case. I would just like the minister to give some indication of.... I see some spots for technicians and various others, but is his ministry going to make some move in order to bring in hydrologists? I'd just like to give this analogy: operating without a hydrologist in forestry is almost like operating without a game biologist in terms of harvesting wildlife in wildlife management. It would be like , saying; "Well, we don't know how many goats are out there, so we'll have no season this year on goats, because we don't have a biologist." So it could very well be that in certain watersheds, Mr. Chairman, we're perhaps leaving more of a leave area to protect the watershed than what might be necessary had we the input of hydrologists in these areas. We could be leaving too much. We might not be leaving enough. I asked professional foresters in our area what was perhaps the single most important shortcoming, the one message I could perhaps give during estimates, and this is the one that they identified. So I would appreciate the minister's comments.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, to the member for Nelson-Creston, we don't have hydrologists now, as he has stated. This is something we are going to look at in our reorganization. In the meantime, we'd like to use the hydrologists employed by the Lands branch or the Ministry of the Environment.

To the member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) , the reforester is a developing tool. It has problem , which hopefully can be overcome. I think it is something that we should be looking towards in the future. It's not capable of replacing people planting at the present time.

No, Orthene will not be used as a carrier

[ Page 1536 ]

for BT; we'll be using water. On the problem of competition, I don't think there's any way that we can decree that thou shalt compete when we put up sales. If competition is there, it's there. If it's not, it's not. These matters will be addressed in the new Act which we can debate later.

MR. SKELLY: A very short response, Mr. Chairman. The reason I asked the question is it doesn't appear that it's in the new Act. The thing is that in the northwest United States there are certain sales that are available to operators of a certain size only - for example, people who require less than 30,000 to 50,000 cunits per year - and in those sales there is open competition and timber goes at a fairly substantial rate and there is a good return to the government down there. But up here, that's not the case and that isn't addressed in the new Act.

MR. NICOLSON: I also, Mr. Chairman, heard the minister talk about his advertising budget and I've added it up. I'd like the minister to know that he's actually down four-tenths of 1 per cent over last year in this budget.

Vote 108 approved.

On vote 109: ministry administration programme, $21,337, 907.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, this is one of the votes in which there's a fairly substantial increase this year - pretty nearly $2 million. Could the minister just give us a brief indication of what the increased expenditures are in the administration programme? Again I'm concerned that I see the bulk of the increase going to administration services rather than real meaningful programmes in the field.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The bulk of the increase is in wages. In fact, that's the total increase. The summary distribution is from (04) code when we transferred temporary people to permanent category.

Vote 109 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Phillips moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:59 p.m.