[ Page 2711 ]

CONTENTS

Ministerial Statement

Medical Plan Premiums.

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 2711

B.C. Bonding Rating.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2711

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Forests estimates.

On vote 103.

Mr. King –– 2715

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2716

Mr. Howard –– 2718

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2719

Hon. Mrs. Jordan –– 2719

Mr. Howard –– 2720

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2721

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 2723

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2723

Mr. Howard –– 2723

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2725

Mr. Mitchell –– 2725

Mr. Lockstead –– 2727

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2728

FRIDAY, MAY 30, 1980

The House met at 10 a.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take this opportunity to rise and ask the House to make welcome a good friend of mine visiting from Langley today, and a good community worker in our community, Pat Boulanger.

MR. STRACHAN: On behalf of the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie), I would like to introduce to the House grade 6 and 7 students from Peardonville Elementary School, with their teacher, Mr. Larry Scott, and chaperons, Mrs. Toews and Mr. Olson. Would the House welcome these students.

MEDICAL PLAN PREMIUMS

HON. MR. MAIR: I would like to make a short ministerial statement. I would like to advise the House that the press release issued yesterday concerning the increase in medical plan premiums contained a typographical error. For the members' information, instead of the premium for a couple being $17.50 per month, it is $17 per month. I thought I would just make that clear to the House.

B.C. BOND RATING

HON. MR. CURTIS: I wish to make a very brief ministerial statement and ask leave to table a document. I spoke in the House a few weeks ago with regard to the fact that British Columbia had received an AAA rating for bond purposes from Moody's Investors Service, Inc. A development of this sort is of such significance to all the people of British Columbia that I think the Journals and records of the House should show the actual letter which has been received from Freda Stem Ackerman, senior vice-president of Moody's Investors Service, dated May 22, 1980, which confirms the fact that the AAA rating has been granted to British Columbia and its Crown corporations.

Leave granted.

MR. BARBER: I ask, first of all, leave to table the proceedings of the meeting of the Provincial Capital Commission, dated October 3, 1979, in their entirety, which includes three pages of minutes and five pages of report attached.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Oh, I see. Yesterday they were minutes. Today they are proceedings.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted? Hon. member, I believe I heard a no.

MR. BARBER: What? I ask leave to table a document. Someone says no to that!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will ask one more time. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Are you going to apologize for calling them minutes?

MR. BARBER: No. I also rise on a point of order. I was not here in the House yesterday, but I have had an opportunity to review the Blues.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where were you?

MR. BARBER: I was in my office working.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: Are you going to listen? Yesterday when I raised certain matters in question period I did, inadvertently, refer to page 4 of the report presented to the commission on October 3, 1979, as being page 4 of the minutes.

HON. MR. CURTIS: You called them "the minutes" throughout.

MR. BARBER: That's correct. I inadvertently did so and I rise....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The first member for Victoria has the floor. Proceed, hon. member.

MR. BARBER: I rise to correct that impression now. I thus and thereby table the entire report and minutes of the proceedings.

However, a careful reading of the Blues reveals that the minister tried to leave the impression that I was quoting from a document which did not exist. I will refer very briefly to that document, Mr. Speaker. He knows that's not so. He knows that page 4 of the October 3 Provincial Capital Commission report made a recommendation which he approved February 5. That is the central issue here. When the minister spoke yesterday, he knew the whole story; he knew about the report, but he chose to tell only half the story. The impression the minister tried to leave of the October 3 Provincial Capital Commission meeting was incomplete, inaccurate and objectionable. The minister knew about the report that contains page 4 and chose to omit that from his statement, thus telling only half the story. Therefore I ask him to withdraw any suggestion whatsoever made yesterday that I deliberately misinformed the House, when he knew full well....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, the point of order must not be argumentative.

MR. BARBER: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is now engaging more or less in a debate. The point of order has been raised by the member.

[ Page 2712 ]

MR. BARBER: I ask the minister to withdraw any implication or suggestion that I was referring to documents which did not exist at all and that I intended in any deliberate way to misinform the House. I ask him to so withdraw without qualification.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the first member for Victoria has asked that the Minister of Finance withdraw any imputation that the member deliberately misled the House. I would ask if the Minister of Finance would so withdraw, as asked by the first member for Victoria.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I don't wish to be argumentative in rising on the same point of order. Therefore my remarks will be most cautiously framed to avoid any such argumentative thesis. The fact remains that Hansard Blues — the rough form — will show the questions posed in question period yesterday afternoon, and I think they will show reference by the member who has risen on this point of order to the fact that "minutes" contained such and so. That is not the case, and that is why I felt that I had to table the document at 5:52 yesterday afternoon.

The Blues will also show that I did not indicate in my statement just prior to adjournment yesterday afternoon that the member deliberately misled the House. I've said that there is no reference to so-and-so on page 1, 2 or 3 of the minutes, and that is the full set of minutes. I wasn't on a fine point, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that in any organization, either here, in a society, in any club or in any company the minutes are the formal record of the discussion which took place. I look to you for direction, Mr. Speaker, but I do not see that what was said yesterday afternoon is what the member is asking to be withdrawn today.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: In order to conclude the matter, the Chair must have an opportunity to review the Blues from yesterday. Notwithstanding, if any imputation was made by the minister that the member deliberately misled the House, would he give a withdrawal of that imputation.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, usually these matters are on interjections. The fact is that the record of the proceedings yesterday do not show what the member asks me to withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. That clarifies that part of the issue.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please, hon. members. We are not going to get into a debate on a point of order. The Chair has undertaken to review the statements that were made yesterday and report back to this House at the earliest possible opportunity. That being the case, and with all due respect, hon. members, that should conclude any debate on the matter at this time.

HON. MR. CURTIS: If I may, upon hearing your view when it is filed after due consideration, I would be happy to do that which the Chair directs.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I fear that the Chair is now entering a dangerous field on the question of an individual member asking for withdrawal of direct or, as perceived, indirect request for withdrawal. If you are going to embark upon defining members' requests, I fear that the Chair will be placed in an area of judgment that has not been the pattern of this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, inasmuch as this incident took place yesterday, the Chair would only be doing its best to undertake to review the exact wording of what took place. That is what the Chair has undertaken, and that is what the Chair will do.

MR. BARRETT: It is establishing, in my opinion, a dangerous precedent to have the Chair review statements before the Chair passes a judgment on whether or not a judgment is warranted. I point out to the Chair that in the past and always the practice has been that when an hon. member asked for withdrawal, a decision is made immediately by the member who is requested to withdraw. There are two choices: a gentlemanly suggestion that if the member is offended by anything, a withdrawal is given and the matter rests, or a refusal for a withdrawal and then action by the Speaker.

If the Chair now intends to place itself in the judging of whether or not a member's request for withdrawal is valid, we are entering a very dangerous, unprecedented area. I urge caution in this regard.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The Leader of the Opposition is quite correct that it is the immediate obligation of the Chair. I would point out to the hon. members that had that matter been raised at 5:40 p.m. or 5:50 p.m. yesterday, the arguments by the Leader of the Opposition would have much more validity. In fairness to both members concerned, it is the necessary obligation of the Chair to review the proceedings fully and not in the light of approximately an 18-hour delay.

MR. BARBER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I recall one previous occasion when the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) — as I mentioned to you in private — rose the following day, because he was not in the House at the time, to ask for the withdrawal of an ironical remark which referred to him as a "muckraker." That withdrawal was given instantly, regardless of the fact that the offending phrase was stated the day before.

My point of order, in the briefest summary, is simply this: had I been here yesterday, as I am now today, I would have asked then, as I do today, for a withdrawal of any suggestion that I deliberately misinformed the House and was referring to a document which did not exist.

HON. MR. CURTIS: There was no such suggestion, and you know it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, we must not enter into debate. The Chair will not permit a debate to be engaged upon on this particular point of order.

MR. BARBER: To conclude my point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister just called across the floor: "There was no such suggestion." If he would stand up and say that he intended no suggestion of that order, I would be perfectly pleased. That for me would be a satisfactory withdrawal, but

[ Page 2713 ]

anything else is not and leaves a very different impression. That's all he needs to do; it's a simple as that.

HON MR. CURTIS: Read what was said.

MR. BARBER: I have. I've got it here.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The Chair has given an undertaking. In view of the fact that we are now....

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, the Chair has said that the member did not raise it yesterday. The practice is, as pointed out, at the earliest opportunity. The member rose today at the earliest opportunity, and I am suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that if we embark on this course it is a dangerous precedent. That means the orderliness and gentlemanliness of this Legislature will no longer be based on practice, but we will go into the area of rulings by the Speaker, which is dangerous in itself.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Again, hon. members, there is no question that the member has raised the matter at the first opportunity; but for the Chair to make any kind of a ruling the Chair must be familiar with the terms and the words used. That is my ruling.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, this is of urgent importance. I specifically ask you to recess the House and come back....

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: May I have order, Mr. Speaker?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Please proceed.

MR. BARRETT: I am suggesting that before this course is embarked on, references be brought to the House where a precedent has been clearly established, either in our rules or in other jurisdictions, that such interpretation is made by the Chair. It is not the immediate instance that will be the problem; it will be the establishment of a new practice that will in effect cause far more serious problems in the future if we allow judgments to be made on offences perceived — real or otherwise — in this chamber, regardless of what side they originate from. I am warning, cautioning and pleading to the Chair that if we move into this practice, we may establish precedents that will bog down work purely on the basis of emotional interpretation, regardless of what side of the chamber it comes from. I humbly suggest that a reference be made quickly to this matter, or that a recess take place so that precedents may be referred to, before we embark on a course that I think will cause more harm to this chamber in the long run than any temporary good at this point.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I was hoping that we'd get into the orders of the business of the day.

Mr. Speaker, I think that you have made it abundantly clear to the leader of the official opposition that you wish to review the matter — I think that's a very fair request, particularly in view of the fact that documents were filed this morning, documents were filed yesterday afternoon, and if you've had an opportunity to consider those documents that have been filed this morning you're certainly a remarkable man, because they've only come to the table within the last few seconds. I think it's accepted knowledge....

MR. HOWARD: If Curtis had been honest about it they'd have been there yesterday.

HON. MR. GARDOM: What are you shouting about now? Are we going to have another high school procedure debate from the...?

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I must ask the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) to withdraw the remarks referring to the honesty of the member previously....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I must ask the member for Skeena to withdraw the remarks that he made aside, regarding the Minister of Finance.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. HOWARD: Perhaps I should put it on the record so that it's there. What I said from my seat was that those documents, if the Minister of Finance had been honest, would have been on the table last night. I'll withdraw the imputation that the minister is not honest. I wish you would apply the same ruling, Mr. Speaker, to the request from the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett). You're making fish of one and fowl of the other.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member is now clearly embarking on a lecture of the Chair, which will not be tolerated.

MR. HOWARD: It's being asked for, though.

HON. MR. GARDOM. As I was saying, Mr. Speaker on the same point of order — these documents have just been filed this morning and it's a perfectly reasonable request on the part of the Speaker to review it. Hon. members, the Speaker has always, since he's taken the Chair, responded most efficiently and effectively, and I think it's only common courtesy that the Speaker's opinion be respected. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, we are going to carry on with all these silly little high school points of order that are always raised by the official opposition. They've been holding up estimates, they've been holding up bills and they've been holding up the business of the people in this province. Quite frankly, it costs thousands of dollars to sit in here every day. Why don't they get to the people's business?

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To clarify possibly to some degree, I must inform hon. members that I am not reserving any decision to review the papers that were submitted; what I am doing is having an opportunity to review the remarks that were alleged to have been made by an hon. member of this

[ Page 2714 ]

House. Until the Chair has had an opportunity to review, how can the Chair possibly undertake to ask a member to withdraw something that the Chair has no knowledge of actually being said? For that reason I am asking the tolerance of the House to allow me that opportunity.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. HOWARD: I think you put it very succinctly just now when you said you wanted an opportunity to review what was alleged to have been said. The member for Victoria is asking for a withdrawal of an imputation against his character. You're not going to find imputations through reading what words were there. You're going to find them in the sense of what the member for Victoria perceives as an affront to his integrity, and that's what he is asking to be withdrawn. This is a very sad day, when it comes to those kinds of questions.

MR. BARRETT: I want to make a distinction in response to the former Attorney-General's remarks. This is not a question of privilege, and I agree completely with the statement that the documents themselves are not what is in question, but it is interpretation by an hon. member. What I am afraid of, and I emphasize that the right of an interpretation....

HON. MR. MAIR: Who cares?

MR. BARRETT: You may not care, but this institution is more important than any one of us. When a member defines an imputation as having been made, the member's definition has always been the criterion or the benchmark. I do not oppose the desire of the Speaker to bring order to the House. I am warning that embarking on this course — that the Speaker is forced to determine what is in a member's mind in terms of their reaction on an imputation — means that the Chair will be forced to become judge on matters that normally have been handled within seconds by gentlemen and gentlewomen in this chamber. That is a dangerous course to embark upon, in my opinion.

HON. MR. CURTIS: On the same point of order, the fact is that two members are in disagreement, and all members are equal in this House. Mr. Speaker, you have never suggested otherwise, nor have your predecessors.

On the point of order, every once in a while some sanity must prevail in this place. The odds speak in favour of it. The fact is that yesterday in question period the member for Victoria indicated that minutes contained a number of matters, and in fact the minutes did not. If the member had said, "I was incorrect," that would have been the end of the matter as far as I was concerned. However, he's chosen to take it further, and that's unfortunate. It just delays the business of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. minister. Order, please. Hon. members, we are now getting clearly into a wide-ranging debate on a matter. The Chair is in a very awkward position. It has two conflicting views from members of this House. It would be inconceivable to ask the Chair to rule on a matter that the Chair does not have full knowledge of. Again I ask hon. members, in the case of a conflict between two members, to allow the Chair an opportunity to review.

MR. BARBER: I did, in fact, correct my statement and said just a few moments ago that I did inadvertently refer to page 4 of the document accompanying the minutes, which I took to be....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. BARBER: How much more plainly can I make the case? In reply to the point of order simply raised just now by the minister, I did in fact inadvertently — I'll say it for the fourth time — refer to it. I thought it was the minutes. It was not. It was the report. I apologize for that.

I also ask, very simply, for the minister to say for the record what he said across the aisle, that he was not attempting to leave any impression or suggestion that I deliberately misinformed the House. He said it across the aisle. I ask him to say it for the record. I would be totally satisfied with that, and that would be the end of it. That is what I ask for, and that's all there is to it.

To conclude, I ask the minister a very simple matter which would immediately put an end to all of this, to say into the record what he said to me across the aisle, without having been recognized, that he did not in fact attempt to leave any impression that I deliberately misinformed the House. I have corrected the record. I have tabled the whole of the documents. There is a page 4, and I ask him simply to say that there was no deliberate attempt to misinform the House, because there was not. That is all.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The observations by the member are quite correct. If that were the case, then the matter would be concluded. That has not yet been the case.

MR. BARBER: If it were, it's over.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I look for your guidance. Again, the member.... I don't think there's anything wrong, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, with looking to the Speaker of this House for guidance.

MR. BARRETT: Don't you know your responsibilities?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, to the member opposite, I do, and I've tried to conduct myself in a correct way in this House at all times but have not always been successful — that applies to all of us. The fact of the matter is that the member for Victoria has taken the statement that I made at the end of the afternoon sitting yesterday, expanded upon it and asked me to apologize for something which is not contained in the statement. Therefore your position, I think, is a very reasonable one, sir: you want to examine what occurred earlier in the day.

How can I apologize for something which was not said? The record, in fact, is there. I understand very clearly that Speakers in this House over the years have insisted quite properly that members immediately withdraw statements made across the aisle that are offensive to all members of this House. We're not debating that, sir; we are debating what Hansard shows occurred yesterday afternoon. I stand by the

[ Page 2715 ]

earlier statement, Mr. Speaker, and upon your review I will do as the Chair directs.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the matter could very clearly be concluded, as I indicated earlier, if the minister would indicate that there was no imputation on his part; that would conclude it. Failing that, the Chair is left with no alternative but to reserve judgment until the Chair has had an opportunity to consider the facts. If there is no further statement from the minister, the Chair must do so.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

(continued)

On vote 103: minister's office, $123,272.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I indicated to the minister yesterday that I would read for the record an appraisal of the stumpage system and the accompanying allegation that it is most inequitable and unfair in the province of British Columbia. I propose to do that without revealing the source of the dissertation on it, except to say that it is an operator in the small sector of the province. The reason there's an unwillingness to release the name of that individual is solely based on fear of retaliation by some of the large operators.

Interjection.

MR. KING: If the former Liberal would contain himself.... If he's uncomfortable in his present post, Mr. Chairman, I can understand his qualms of conscience. He looks most comfortable over there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister will come to order and the member will speak with relevancy to vote 103.

MR. KING: I'm quite prepared to do that, if I can have the attention of the House without interruptions.

Mr. Chairman, what follows basically is a detailing of the stumpage system as a small operator sees it. I'm simply reading this to try to make the minister aware of at least the perception that's out there. The minister certainly is more familiar with the stumpage appraisal system than anyone else in this House, but I think the people who have to live by the guidelines out there in the reality of the real industry are pretty familiar, too. So perhaps the minister could pay close attention with the hope that maybe he can be a little less insular in looking at the administration of the ministry and trying to understand how it's affecting the people who are really having a difficult time making a go of it with today's market conditions.

This person explains it in this fashion:

"Simply expressed, stumpage assessment starts by estimating the grades of logs by species in the timber sale area. This establishes market value of logs. Cost to produce and deliver to market is then estimated. The difference is called conversion return. This is shared between the government and the logger. The logger's share is fixed by profit and risk allowance, roughly 18 to 20 percent of market value. The remainder is stumpage.

"The principle is sound and simple to administer, but it is only fair and workable if there is accurate estimating by the forest officer who does the appraisal. When his estimate deviates from accuracy, whether from lack of knowledge, incompetence, manipulation, or to please a friend, the resulting erroneous stumpage charge, particularly if it is too low, is not detected, because the ministry maintains no overall scrutiny or audit of the appraiser's work. Moreover, no agency or person, certainly not the Legislature, has access to information or facts to ensure the ministry is held accountable for fairly and properly assessing and collecting this important source of public revenue.

''While section 154 of the new Forest Act provides appeal of stumpage appraisal, it is only the logger who can appeal. He only does so when he is overcharged. There is a three-tiered appeal: first, to the forest officer who made the appraisal; second, to his boss, who is normally a regional manager; and third, to an appeal board appointed by the minister. What happens is that only gross errors, which is to say errors of incompetence that raise the stumpage to be paid by the logger, get appealed.

"In a ministry, staffed by a self-serving, self-protecting bureaucracy, gross errors are not admitted. Thus appeals end at the first tier level and are discreetly covered up by the appraiser or his boss. Errors causing undercharge of stumpage, which are numerous, are, of course, never appealed by the logger, and thus never come to light.

"Another kind of undercharge, called satisfying the lobbyist, is common. It involves manipulating the estimates, reducing grades and raising the cost estimate artificially, which artificially reduces the conversion return and lowers stumpage.

"The deputy minister, and most particularly the minister, have no audit or scrutiny.... Therefore...no measure of the competence of the field staff and no measure of whether or not the public interest is being fairly protected or whether or not there is honest, reasonable equity of basic assessment on the big companies compared to the small pulp companies compared to sawmills and loggers, compared to manufacturing companies.''

I have here, as my colleague for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) outlined to the minister yesterday, various worksheet forms that are mailed out to the companies undertaking the contracts. These chronicle the disparity that is referred to in the stumpage rates between the small and the large firms in the province of British Columbia.

''These show inequitable appraisal from one company to another, gross errors by the appraiser leading to gross overcharge of stumpage and gross errors leading to undercharge in some cases. Exposure of these underlines more than anything else the pathetic incompetence of the ministry to administer a simple, sound principle of an appraisal system and collection of public revenue.

"The mess demonstrates why back-room deals called "stumpage offsets" cannot be allowed as part of the intensive forest program. Just think of the

[ Page 2716 ]

open-ended unscrutinized kickbacks available to companies — the bigger the company, the bigger the kickback — superimposed on an already mismanaged inequitable stumpage appraisal system."

They are very serious charges. They're from people who operate within the industry. What they're basically saying is that there is incompetence and inequity in terms of applying the stumpage formula, which is a fine formula if applied fairly and with proper appraisal. They are claiming there is inequity in applying that formula between the large and the small operators in the province of British Columbia.

Then he's posing the question:

"In light of the new provisions for the offsets from stumpage claimed by the large companies" — well, claimed by all companies — "against the new intensive forest management program, how can we have any confidence whatsoever that there is the ability, the mechanism and the technical competence in the field to ensure that the public is receiving fair value for those very large write-offs?"

I would appreciate it if the minister could respond. I think perhaps what the minister needs to do — whether or not all of this is valid I don't know, but these are people in the industry.... But it seems to me that if concern is there and if, as many these small operators say, they can document the inequity, then it seems to me what has to happen is some open public hearing, Mr. Minister, where these people can come forward and document the cases of incompetence, document the cases of prejudicial action against them and preferential treatment for the large, because I really can't say from the vantage point whether these very, very serious allegations are true or not, and I really doubt whether the minister can.

The minister is not out there operating in the field; he is presiding over a large portfolio with a myriad of field staff all over the province specialized in their various fields. The minister is a politician, and his basic duty is the administration of that ministry. I strongly suggest, whether or not there is validity in these allegations, that they should be heard in an open public forum, because even if they are not true, Mr. Chairman, they are of such a serious nature as to undermine the confidence of the public and a wide sector of the industry in the fairness, in the competence and in the policy objectives of the ministry. I suggest that that is a very dangerous, very disruptive kind of attitude to be abroad. If for nothing else, it's surely necessary to take these kinds of charges seriously and to come to grips in some decisive way rather than simply to respond by saying: "Well, I'm advised by my senior staff that everything is okay." They're attacking the bureaucracy, and I'm not in a position to say whether they're right or wrong. I know there are many good people in the Forest Service as there are elsewhere, but for a variety of reasons there can develop problems within a government bureaucracy as within a private bureaucracy, and when serious allegations of this nature are made, then I think it's incumbent on the minister to take unusual action to make sure that there is a forum for these people to be heard.

The other thing that bothers me greatly — and it comes through loud and clear from virtually all of the small operators I hear from in the industry throughout British Columbia — is the question of fear. They come in a confidential way and they say: "Look, this is what's going on, but we don't want to be named. The reason we don't want to be named is not because we can't stand behind our allegations, but simply because if we rock the boat we are inevitably dependent upon the good will of the major operators and the ministry. If we are seen to be protesting or rocking the boat unduly, then we can expect recrimination." That, too, is a very, very serious kind of attitude to hold in our number one industry in the province of British Columbia. Again, I can't vouch for the validity of that position, but, Mr. Chairman, I can say that I'm very impressed with the proposition in light of how widespread that attitude is. So again, whether it's real or perceived, there is a problem out there in that industry; that problem relates to the view and the sense that there is virtual monopoly control in the forest industry with the passive support of the ministry. If any of the people who are getting squeezed in the game cry out in a public way, then they will be squeezed even harder.

I would be quite prepared to sit down privately with the minister at any time and in a confidential way go over the information I have — the letters that I've received from people, the submissions I have received in a verbal fashion — and outline for him the kind of reaction from the people in the industry I am receiving which is, as I indicated, so widespread that I simply can't dismiss it. I have to think that there is some foundation, that there is some validity there.

So, Mr. Chairman, I would very much appreciate hearing from the minister. I don't know whether he's heard similar complaints, whether he gives any credence to them, whether he cares, whether he thinks this is important enough that it should be vented publicly, but I would be very, very appreciative of him giving to me some kind of indication of where he intends to go with this very widespread problem, because it's not diminishing, Mr. Chairman; it's becoming stronger, if anything.

I'll let the minister respond, and then maybe the meeting down the aisles will come to a halt too, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke read from a report from an undisclosed source. I wish that you would share it with me, if not by tabling in the Legislature, by discussing it with me in my office, because I do receive similar queries quite frequently. Whenever such suggestions of impropriety among people in the ministry or manipulation of the stumpage appraisal system, or any suggestions as to incompetence of the people in my staff or intentional discrimination come to my attention, they are dealt with and dealt with very specifically. However, I cannot deal with innuendo. I cannot deal with other than facts as they are presented to me; I deal with them when they are presented.

I thought, by the way the member was speaking yesterday, that he was going to come forth today with some positive suggestions as to what changes we can make to improve the stumpage appraisal system. However, I may have misunderstood him yesterday when he said he was going to bring this report forward.

Mr. Member, as you are fully aware, it was during your term of office that Dr. Pearse conducted task force reports into the stumpage appraisal systems in British Columbia and brought forth a report really outlining the way it is. We are using the information that Dr. Pearse gathered as a part of the input we are having in attempting to come up with a much more appropriate stumpage system. Whether we can improve it substantially or not I don't yet know. But if there are ways of improving it we certainly will. It is in all of our interests to do so.

I mentioned yesterday that our stumpage White Paper

[ Page 2717 ]

will be to the Queen's Printer by the end of June and that there will be opportunities for discussion of that paper once it is issued. There will be public forums or meetings to which people are invited. I think it is also necessary to arrange for private meetings with individuals who may not wish to come forward in a public forum to discuss individual things. I think the same implication the member brought forward, of possible reprisals, keeps people from being completely frank in a public forum. But we are always willing and able and more than eager to do what we can to improve the system.

The member must keep in mind that each year we issue something in the order of 6,000 or 7,000 cutting permits in the province. Because people are people, mistakes will be made. I hope there is no intentional discrimination, incompetence or manipulation. But whenever suggestions of these come forward, we look after it. As the member mentioned, we have a formal appeal procedure, which ends at a panel selected by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. The rights of individuals, if they feel they are being discriminated against in stumpage, are very clearly looked after. That is the intention of the legislation we've passed, and that is the intention of the way this government administers its affairs.

However, I am always open to suggestions. If the member wishes to meet with me at any time, I am sure that he has always known that he is welcome in my office if he has something to contribute in a positive manner. I would be very happy to meet with him or anyone else who has serious questions about abuses of the stumpage appraisal system.

Yesterday before the member finished his discussion he presented us with a series of photographs and said that these photographs demonstrated logs of good, sound wood being chipped. I had already received a set of photographs from the same source. There is a suggestion and accusations that these logs are going into chippers. I don't know whether they are or not, but it is certainly not demonstrated by these photographs.

The member described for us the round log, and it is almost round. It is a log; it's barked and on an in-feed for a head rig. The second photograph is almost the same. The third photograph shows what I assume is the same log going through the head rig. It is slabbed in the first picture. The next several pictures show it being broken down further into planks. There are several of the head rig pictures here. If the log was destined for a chipper I wonder why anyone would take the time to saw it down to that extent, because a great deal of cost and labour is involved in breaking it down. It gets through the head rig in a series of about half a dozen pictures and then there is a photograph showing it on transfer tables. Normally on transfer tables they are destined for further sawing down the line. Then there is a photograph showing the discharge chute being operated. The photograph actually shows a slab from the side being discharged into the discharge chute. As you know, there are arms that come down to transfer more usable material across into further manufacturing. Indeed this photograph shows material on the other side of the discharge chute. If it were going to be chipped it would have gone down the chute itself.

The only tie-in that these photographs give to the possibility of these logs being chipped is two photographs of chip barges. Of course, this material that does go down the discharge chute goes to chippers, because it's not usable for other materials. That is what winds up in a barge. I'm not saying that there aren't abuses of logs. I am trying to monitor it as closely as possible and to discourage the use of the material for other than the highest-valued product.

But these photographs.... I wish the member would give me, if he has them, photographs of this sawable material actually going into the chipper. Then we would have some real hard evidence that we could go on to try to correct the situation.

I have been monitoring this problem very closely over the last couple of years with what we call our SLAP crew. It's a sawlog appraisal program where we have a body of scalers whose job it is to drop in unannounced at various plants in the province and monitor what is going into chippers and what log booms are assembled which are destined for the chippers. We have found in some areas that there are abuses, and over the last year or so it hasn't improved very much. But we must also keep in mind that as the conditions within the industry change there's a certain class of logs that under a good market can be sawed into lumber. Under a poor market perhaps the best use for them is to be put into chips, because chips are a product and chips going into pulpmills are even being exported. They create jobs; they go into our provincial pulpmills and they create more jobs in the pulp sector.

I don't like to see good sawable material going to chippers, and in our administration of the ministry, even though we don't have the legislative authority to say exactly what each log should be used for — and I don't think a government should ever assume that, because then you get the government directing what products should be manufactured, and I don't think governments are in a position to know what markets are available for what products.... But, yes, the abuse of logs is a concern of mine and something that I have been working on.

These photographs presented by the member don't demonstrate the fact that any of this material is being chipped. In fact, if you look at them closely it demonstrates the opposite — that the sawable material is, in fact, not going to the chippers. Perhaps the member could identify for me the mill and I could follow up this specific place myself. I don't expect him to do it here, because he suggested that someone is afraid. If he'd like to advise me privately, I'd be more than happy to look into it myself.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I have a frozen face; I had a tooth worked on. So if I look like I have some of the minister's snoose in my mouth it's not that at all. There's quite another cause.

[Mr. Hyndman in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, that's the point I wanted to raise. I agree that the pictures don't provide proof positive that those choice sawlogs are going through the chipper. But the people who took the trouble to send them along assured me that that was the case and I rather believe them; I don't think they'd go to that extent to set up that kind of a ruse. I think there's genuine concern, and the minister has acknowledged that more sound sawlogs than should be are ending up going through the chipper. I find it a bit interesting that the minister says: "Well, perhaps that's the best use under some soft market conditions." The minister seems to have two standards. When we talked about the small operators who were having difficulty surviving on the existing stumpage rates he said: "Well, let them quit cutting trees, let them quit logging. If it's not economic, that's the harsh reality of the marketplace." Yet he's prepared to concede that the marketplace

[ Page 2718 ]

is a little rough, well, fine, ship the prime sawlogs through the chipper. Isn't that kind of a double standard, Mr. Minister? There's one for the small guys and one for the big guys. That's the very thing we've been criticizing you for and talking with your ministry about for the last few years. It seems to me that epitomizes the double standard many people in the industry complain about.

I wanted to raise one or two other points. The minister said: "Fine, come to my office." I've been to his office before, as well as to the offices of other ministry staff and, yes, I intend to come again, and I will bring along the specifics of the case I've outlined. But the minister says: "If you have something positive to contribute...." It's becoming quite a thing for the government ministers to say, "Well, if you have something positive we want to hear it," implying that we're always negative on this side of the House. In the first place, Mr. Chairman, that is our role. We are the opposition, we are the government watchdog, we are the critics of government policy. That, under the British parliamentary system, is a very important function, if the minister doesn't appreciate it.

In the second place, I think it is really positive if, when we outline deficiencies in the ministry, we're able to remedy any prejudice that exists in the ministry and its administration; I think that is pretty positive. If, as a result of revealing abuses in this Legislature, corrective action is taken, would that not be considered positive, Mr. Minister? You shouldn't take things so personally, you know; it's not always a direct affront to the politician. Sometimes things occur within a ministry which the politician is not aware of. You can get into a trap of becoming so defensive that you forget where your responsibility and obligation lies, and that is totally to the public.

I do have a couple of suggestions to make regarding the stumpage system. One relates to the three-month period which it's founded on now. I've discussed this with the minister before — about the difficulty, particularly in a declining market, of having to pay stumpage rates based on the previous three months' market prices. I'm well aware that when the reverse is true — when the market is increasing or appreciating — then the stumpage rate benefit flows to the logger as well. The problem with it again, though, is that small operators haven't got the kind of cash flow that the big ones have — so they can make that kind of accommodation over a three-month period. Some of them are in a position where they're really operating hand to mouth, tied down heavily with mortgages on equipment. If they are paying a current stumpage rate at a much higher appraisal reflecting the market three months ago, it is often the difference between surviving or shutting down. I've discussed this with the minister. I know that there's a problem in terms of the computation of all of the elements of the appraisal system, and being able to do that on a monthly basis might be very difficult.

I have another suggestion for the minister that I would think he might be able to look at, and that is a system of a mean average being set for the various species, and charged on a six-month basis, with provision at the end of that six-month period for an adjustment either upward or downward — on a basis similar to the one that the income tax system works on. I do not see why that couldn't be looked at. At the start of a year you know what the market conditions are at that time; you know roughly what the projections are for the market for the next six months. And I think you could — on a guesstimate, or on a mean basis — apply a level stumpage rate. Of course, if there were an overcharge, then it would be credited onto their second six months. Or conversely, if enough stumpage were not paid, then they would be billed for that overage at the end of the six-month period — or a yearly period, whatever.

There are a variety of other collections that do take place on that basis, and it's one idea that I thought might be worthy of consideration in terms of flattening out, in terms of enabling the industry to budget for a reasonable fixed cost that they can anticipate and meet, rather than the wildly fluctuating ups and downs that take place on the basis of the current stumpage appraisal system. There may be reasons why that would not be acceptable; but it's one approach that I thought the minister might look at in terms of trying to stabilize stumpage rates and eliminate the surprises in the system, particularly for those small operators that operate very close to the margin. I'd be interested in hearing the minister's reaction to that proposal.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Yes, Mr. Chairman, yesterday we did discuss quite extensively the current plight of the market logger, and I acknowledge that presently they are having a difficult time.

The member suggests a means of moderating the wild fluctuations in stumpage figures that are brought about by the system we have now. I too am looking for a way of moderating those cycles. It would make the cash flow management for operators, particularly the small operators who perhaps don't have a cash reserve to work on.... It would make it easier for them to manage their business and it would stabilize employment somewhat.

The concept of an adjustment at the end of the period is something that we have considered — and we should consider further — and just what the administrative difficulties would be, I'm not yet sure. Even though it might be administratively difficult, if it leads to a more equitable way of charging stumpage I would be all for it. So I'll certainly take the suggestion of the member as presented, and work on it further as we explore other ways of accomplishing the same end-result.

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to discuss with the minister a couple of items relating to the area which I represent, with respect to forestry and the potential and so on.

There's been concern for some time now that the timber is just not there, Mr. Minister, to support an expanded industry. Putting it in its gloomier context, the forest industry in and around Terrace will remain in either a static or depressed situation for some years to come. This is the general comment around Terrace by people working in the industry and business people who look to it as the foundation of their existence. If the minister could tell me at this point, hopefully to dispel those rumours, I'd like very much to know what the prospects are in Terrace and area insofar as the potential within the next 10 or 15 years is concerned. If the minister does have anything of that nature readily at his fingertips, or if he can obtain it within a reasonable period of time, I think it would be very pleasant to hear. That's if it's on the positive side. If it's on the negative side of projections, of course it won't be pleasant to hear, but at least the people in the area will know what the picture is and will not have to rely upon the continuation of rumours that feed one upon the other, as rumours do. The whole community is basically unsure of just

[ Page 2719 ]

what is facing them in the future with respect to the forest potential, particularly in Terrace, insofar as sawmilling is concerned, and the area immediately surrounding there.

I'd like to talk afterwards, of course, about another portion in the upper Skeena area of the Hazelton and Kispiox-Kitwanga regions as well, which have a separate and distinctly different complex than that which exists in Terrace. So if the minister does have anything that he might be able to impart about that at this juncture, before I go any further, it would certainly help my understanding of the situation and maybe put us in a position to be able to examine the situation more clearly.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'm advised by my staff that the timber supply area analysis for the general Terrace area is not yet completed. It should be forthcoming within a few months. What our procedure has been, Mr. Member, in finalizing our timber supply area analyses and determination of allowable cut is to hold a public discussion with anybody in the private sector, the general public or whoever wishes to look at the figures with us. As you know, it's just not a matter of counting trees and saying we have so many trees and they'll last us so long, because we do have to consider the other resource users as well, and we have to consider the economics. In some areas we have put timber in the uneconomic category, unless outside of the allowable cut. It has been demonstrated to us by operators in the industry that we can log that economically so it comes back in. That's the value of this discussion process before the finalization of the timber supply analyses.

I can't be very specific on the Terrace area until that timber supply analysis is finished. But I can say that the forest sector of the economy in that area will undoubtedly remain at least as big a part of the economy as it is now. If it diminishes in its percentage of the economy, it will only be because other things have surpassed it. As the member knows, that area is becoming more and more a centre of mining activity for that part of the province. There's quite a bit of mining exploration work going on in that area and other of the northern communities. However, the specifics of the forest industry in that area will have to wait until the analysis is finished.

There are some very positive aspects to that particular area, though, because it does contain some of the best growing sites that we have in an area in which I'm sure the government will be directing a great deal of effort in intensive forest management, which in itself creates employment and job opportunities in the private sector for contracting of this work, and secondarily helps to increase the yield of the forest. So I would tend to be reasonably optimistic about the forest sector in that part of the province. As a matter of fact, I'm optimistic about forestry in the entire province. But the details of just what levels of uncommitted cut are there will have to wait until after the final public discussion on the timber supply analyses.

Transportation plays a large role in the stability of communities. If the member will cast his mind back, as we can, not that many years ago we had a large number of bush mills being moved about the province, which is not good for community stability. These mills were consolidated into larger, more efficient manufacturing plants which provided a great deal of recovery. They were located in the various communities, and the communities built up around those industries. That, of course, led to longer-distance hauling of the raw material in the form of trees.

Terrace is on major transportation links. We can haul logs a longer distance now. We can move them by train and other means rather than trying to stimulate additional community developments in more remote areas. Perhaps we should be looking at more effective transportation systems, which are in fact being developed now both in the road and off-road systems rail and other ways of moving logs longer distances to provide this community stability. I would be reasonably optimistic about the Terrace area, especially as to the ability to grow additional volumes of wood through our intensive management program.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I thought it might be an opportunity this morning to leave a few ideas with the ministry — we have discussed some — and with this House, from our side of the House.

The first that I would leave with you in terms of, I hope, getting some feedback is my conviction that the forest industry and the tourist industry and ministry can work very closely together to develop a better understanding of the industry among our own citizens and people from outside British Columbia, as well as to add a broader dimension to the tourist industry in British Columbia, both for our own citizens who like to travel around our province and for the general public. I wonder how many people in this House today have actually had the thrill and pleasure of going through a pulpmill, of seeing our forest industry develop from the nursery through to the plantings — such interesting parts of responsible forest management as aerial planting, aerial fertilization, and the development of a growth program which is very similar to farming, where you thin and cull trees and go into the various forms of cut.

Mr. Chairman, probably 95 percent of the people in British Columbia alone have not had that opportunity, and certainly hundreds of thousands of visitors to our province have not had that opportunity and would very much like to. I would hope that as time goes on, the industry and our ministry and the Ministry of Forests will work together to see if we can. In a responsible way, open up our forest industry to the public in a way that they can feel part of the industry and can understand it, but so that we don't violate the complexities of sound and safe working conditions and don't become a charge upon the industry by our very presence.

I believe that industrial tourism has a very important future in the eighties and nineties. This would fall into two classifications. There is the specialized industrial tour which is generally organized by people from out of British Columbia through tour operators who are specifically interested in a special industry, in this instance the forest industry. These have been going on with great cooperation and assistance from the Forests ministry. In that sense I believe there is a lot of room for improvement so that we don't make unnecessary demands on our ministry, the private industry, or again our ministry, and we can better coordinate it in the future. As a citizen and MLA, I want to express my excitement and strong complimentary words to the industry itself and our ministry in what they have been doing in the past to open up the forest industry to the public. I am sure many members have seen the forest council Vancouver Island forestry display on the Malahat highway, which leads you to a better understanding and some direction in which to go to follow up this interest.

The forest complex which was initiated by this minister

[ Page 2720 ]

and ministry and is now managed by an independent group of people, not specifically related to any industry, is going to be a great credit to the minister and the ministry and British Columbia and will be a major incentive in the whole area of developing industrial tourism in our province. Of course, it will be an exciting addition to the False Creek area, not only in the future but now. We are all looking forward to this year's opening of the mini-complex. We will be doing our best, as a ministry, to help encourage our visitors to visit the complex.

I would like to say that I feel there is a great need to expand the concept of open forest observation throughout the province. The coastal area has led, in terms of industrial tours, access and, I believe, school tours and MLA tours. There have been no major school tours that I am aware of, and no MLA tours in the interior. I would like to see this encouraged through the ministry.

I believe there are some areas where we have to come to grips with the economic values and the visual values, and in some very specific areas how to manage those usually sensitive forestry areas — and I speak specifically of the Tofino region. We have two challenges there. When you go to Ucluelet you can view from Ucluelet a very exciting aspect of responsible forest management; there are about four cuts that are visible which are in various stages of redevelopment. Some are clearcutting now and in operation, some were clearcut a few years ago and are in the stage of early replanting and growth, and others are more mature stands. I would like to see the community and the industry and our two ministries work together so that could become an attraction to tourists. They could go in, they could have a little talk and a visual presentation of what's happening right there; and then, instead of the people in Ucluelet possibly saying, "Well, yes, we earn our dollars from the forests and we like those incomes, but it's hurting our tourist industry," we'd turn that around positively, and they'd say: "Yes, we earn our dollars in the industry; yes, we practise sound forest management; and yes, it's exciting, and it's part of our visitors' opportunity to learn about it and to realize how exciting it is."

When you can contrast with the Tofino area, as an example, you realize that visually there are a few extremely sensitive areas. Unless we can work out a plan ahead of time, I believe that we are in danger of conflict. What I would advocate is that we work now with the community, those holding the licences in the area and the two ministries in order that we manage those visual areas with the cooperation of sound tourism and sound forest management.

Mr. Chairman, there is much I could say about the forest industry as it relates to my own constituency of Okanagan North, but suffice it to say that we are very grateful, and we work hard to manage our own resources in such a way that we contribute to the forest management policy of the province as well as the opportunity for the smaller operations — which do exist in our area — to have their rightful place. Again, I would look to see the forest industry base, which is the base of the economy in the Okanagan North area, becoming part of not only our lives but of our growing tourist industry in the area.

I realize that the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) and the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) don't really like to hear any debate in this House that is positive, that is opening up new ideas, and that, as the Minister of Forests has, seeks their opinion. Nonetheless, Mr. Chairman, I believe that it's important that the people of British Columbia understand that there are very positive members in this House with some very exciting new ideas, and that these members on this side of the House are anxious to get along with the business of the people and to see that our public can benefit from that business.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, may I have leave of the committee to introduce a visitor?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SMITH: I have the pleasure today of introducing Mr. Bruce McCaffrey, who is sitting behind us on the floor of the House and who is the Member of the Provincial Parliament of Ontario for Armourdale, which is in the north-central part of metro Toronto. He's here on an educational mission. I would ask the House to welcome him and his wife, who is also in the gallery.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Minister of Tourism, and it struck me that she's not on talking terms in cabinet with the Minister of Forests. She has got to take the opportunity in the House to put forward her requests to him. She also took the opportunity, in what was otherwise a fine presentation, to soil it somewhat by making reference to the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke and me not having positive attitudes about matters.

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: The minister wants to reply to whom — the Minister of Tourism? You can do that in cabinet. I realize you're at different wage levels, but you can answer it.

MR. KING: He gets paid.

MR. HOWARD: He gets overpaid. No, I'll withdraw that; underpaid — underpaid and overworked, is that what it is?

We talked earlier about Terrace. The minister indicated that in terms of current analysis of timber supply — that will wait until the completion of the examination of the timber supply areas in that region sometime this fall, I understood him to say, or generally in a few months' time, that they might be completed. Some of them are completed now, I am told, and it's just the ones up in the Hazelton-Kispiox-Smithers area that are just commencing.

Let's get back to Terrace again. While the minister has a good feeling of anticipation about the level of the forest activity in that area, the general conversation for quite some time in Terrace has been that that industry doesn't have the type of future that was just put forward by the minister. That's the rumour or the understanding. I realize that that's aggravated from time to time by comments from people who take a negative view about the forest industry — which I don't take, incidentally. I put in that category groups like the Aluminum Company of Canada who, in support of their position to build the Kemano completion project, say that that is necessary in order to provide job opportunities for people who now are working in the forest industry but in a few years won't be able to work in the forest industry because it will be in a declining position. Now that may be a self-

[ Page 2721 ]

serving argument from some of the officials of the Aluminum Company of Canada; nonetheless, when those statements are made they add to the rumour, and from that source certainly give more than just casual observation about the thing.

I wonder if the minister could tell us whether he has had — say in the last four or five years, or something like that, since he's been minister — any reports, whether from industry or within the department, expressing concern about the level of forest activity in the area, the potential for growth and what they may be facing. I'm not talking now particularly about the timber supply area examination that's going on, but looking back as background information upon which to found some decisions. Has he had anything of that nature? I'd certainly appreciate knowing that.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The member speaks of the typical lumberman's mentality they're notorious for throughout the province: when things are good they're going to stay good forever, and when they're bad they're never going to get better again. I guess we're in a slump now and there's a bit of doom and gloom around. But that usually changes rather rapidly as markets start picking up.

The member asked about reports. He's probably referring to the report done by the secretariat of ELUC in cooperation with the regional districts a year or so ago, in which they attempted to do some of the things we're doing right now: that is, look at operability rather than just the older method of straight tree-count and inventory. We use information like that and reports from various other sources to assess what we're doing as far as our timber supply areas are concerned. But there's nothing that struck my mind as being particularly negative about that particular area. So I guess we really can't say much more until we have the timber supply analysis in front of us; things will be quite a bit clearer at that time.

The Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) made some comments about the interaction of tourism and the forest industry, and indeed she made some good points. I'm glad that she didn't get the members opposite too upset, and that they maintained their rational manner that we have had for the last little while in the House. I think that has led to some good discussion.

Tourism and the forest industry do interact in a lot of ways. To a great extent, as the minister knows, we have a recreation program within our ministry which provides opportunities for tourists from the province and from outside to share our forest experience without having to isolate areas of forest for that single use. The forest industry itself, in many areas, is very cooperative in providing industrial tours through various plants; together with the minister I should encourage that, and indeed I'm sure we both do in our separate ways. Perhaps we can join forces in some areas and try to promote specific areas for industrial tours, because they have the advantage of educating the general public, who perhaps are not too familiar with forestry activities, especially those from the lower mainland, highly populated areas. It lets them understand better what the industry does.

I think the Cowichan demonstration forest is an example of the industry cooperating with the ministry and showing the whole gamut of the forest experience from the recent clearcut to the new regeneration to the trees of various ages and degrees of maturity — showing how the forest is managed. The Cowichan demonstration forest is, I think, a very good tourist type of attraction and very educational as well. It's tied in with the forest museum at Duncan.

As far as the effect of harvesting patterns on tourism, I mentioned a few days ago that we do have on staff at this time a landscape architect who is working with our field people to try to make shape, size and configuration of harvesting openings in the forest more in keeping with the landscape of a particular area. My objective is to have, within a reasonably short time, a landscape architect in each of our forest regions so we can do more of this type of thing. It will increase our ability to harvest wood as the public become aware that we, indeed, can do it in such a way that it is sensitive to the perception people have of the landscape and its aesthetics. It will be less displeasing than it would otherwise have been. It will always be visible but we can make it much more acceptable.

MR. HOWARD: It is interesting to note how the Minister of Forests just made a very extensive commentary about tourism, which has really got nothing to do with his department. He has no authority, no ministerial responsibility and no authorization under the Forest Act to discuss that. Compare that with yesterday when he objected strenuously to the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) wanting to raise a question about the health and safety of workers in the forest industry. He wanted nothing to do with that. This puts the thing in its proper context and makes me wonder, really, whether the minister's priorities aren't mixed up a bit. It seems to me that the health of workers in the industry should be on a higher priority scale than the question of tourism, insofar as the forest industry is concerned. I wish the minister would have permitted the second member for Victoria to pursue that question of health and safety factors in the industry yesterday, but he didn't.

I take it from what the minister said in reply when I asked about the Terrace area.... He made some reference to some reports that were apparently developed in the area in conjunction with the Kitimat-Stikine Regional District. Yes, there has been something of that nature done. I understand that two, three or four studies were done by F.L.C. Reed and Associates and one was done by the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat about that area, but I wasn't talking about those. I was talking about reports that the minister might have received internally in his department from people who spend their daily lives working in the forest industry and pursuing administratively the authorities under the Forest Act and under the minister's mandate.

Have the professionals within his department, since he has been minister, given any information to the minister saying: "Look, here is what we understand about the forest industry."? I'm not discounting by that the value that outside reports may have. They analyze potential and so on, but I do know from experience that outside examinations often do not use the same criteria used in the Forest Service and also do not have a consistency about them. If you take the management consultant firm A and say, "Make a study of this and give me a report on it," and ask management consultant firm B to do the same kind of thing, you are liable to get two separate and two different reports with different analyses, depending upon the foundation from which they start. Within the Forest Service there is a consistency. There is a standard practice and they look at the same criteria time after time and it goes along. I was wanting to know whether the minister has received any intimation from within the Forest Service that says: "Look, here is the situation we are faced with with respect to Terrace." I didn't want the outside consultant

[ Page 2722 ]

firms or anything of that sort. Is there anything of that nature that has come along?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: As we develop our five year program, and our timber-supply analyses, that is exactly what takes place. The ministry assesses the situation. There are innumerable reports from different sectors of the ministry that come in to make this up. I don't receive all of these reports; they don't come to my desk. I'm afraid I can't help the minister regarding what specific reports have been developed.

On the point the member made about whether I should talk about tourism, he will notice in my estimates — in the green book, I guess it is — there is a timber range and recreation program, amounting to $36 million. Currently about $1.9 million of that will be on recreation. Recreation is a tourist aspect. I don't have responsibility for the minister's ministry, but there are certainly definite tourist aspects to what we do in outdoor recreation, so it is perfectly in order for me to discuss that.

I will say again that the business of job safety and health hazards in the working place are very specifically the Minister of Labour's (Hon. Mr. Heinrich's). There is nothing in my votes to indicate that I have direct responsibilities there. However, I also said that I am concerned about safety in the bush and the industrial plants and will do whatever I can without impinging upon that minister's responsibilities to see that it is improved.

MR. HOWARD: I'm trying to satisfy a lot of current and continuing concern in the Terrace area about what is facing people there. These rumours have persisted for some time. They are not, I think, as the minister said, a reflection of the standard logger or lumberman's approach that says when things are beautiful they're forever and when they're bad they're forever as well. It's not an ebb and flow of opinion. It's been a consistent feeling in the industry that has not been dispelled. "Yes," the minister says, "we have these timber supply area assessments going on and that will tell us the availability of timber and allowable cut and so on." That will be a variable, as the minister knows, from time to time. Because timber identified today as — I think the word in the industry or in the Forest Service is inoperable — timber which is not able to be logged at a profit today, might be able to be logged at a profit at some other time depending on where the price of a product goes. If lumber goes up, inaccessible timber becomes accessible, so those variables always ebb and flow and that kind of thing.

So I don't think the analysis of the timber supply area is going to be, say, on a current basis and will give us the picture as of this year. That picture's going to change and there's going to have to be some continuation of that. I hope that analysis has been going on in the past; apparently it has within the Forest Service — not on the defined areas of the timber supply areas as they are laid out now but probably on a different area basis. Nonetheless, that sort of assessment is a continuing thing.

It may well be that one of the contributing factors to the rumour that Terrace is in a bad way potentially comes from a memorandum that was sent to the minister three years ago. The heading of it says "Stability of the Forest Industry in the Terrace Area," and the first conclusion of this memorandum says: "The timber resources tributary to Terrace cannot support another sawmill. However, with good planning the existing industry can be sustained." We can stay static, where we are.

The memorandum goes further and makes analyses of four studies that were done which the minister referred to. It says this. He extracts three generalizations from the reports; the first one is "that the timber supply that is economically available for industrial development is less than the presently approved allowable annual cut." They're overcutting — that's what that says — at that point in time. It says also: "There may be inappropriate use of timber within the region. Proper sorting and direction could result in more timber being processed at Terrace." If the minister gets reports that say there may be inappropriate use of timber within the region, it would seem to me that it would behoove him, as the minister — or somebody within the department at least — to examine that and say: "What do you mean by inappropriate use? Because the Forest Act gives the minister not only an authority but an obligation to manage the forests and have appropriate use of timber, not inappropriate use." That sort of thing was reported to the minister.

I'm extracting bits and pieces from this, admittedly, because it's a lengthy document; I'll be glad to table it, glad to give it to the minister if he hasn't got it already. It says: "For the immediate future there appears to be no possibility of increasing logging as a source of employment in Terrace. In conclusion, the contribution of the forestry sector to the economic well-being of Terrace is expected to remain depressed, near the current level for the next 15 to 20 years."

That was a memorandum that was sent to the minister on July 14, 1977, and it was signed by E.L. Young, chief forester. Other people have this. You know, with xeroxing, anybody can have anything once you have one copy of it.

This was a memorandum that said certain things to the minister. It talked about stability of the forest industry in the Terrace area and painted some sad parts about it. This may be one of the foundations for the continuing turmoil of conversation that goes on in the industry in Terrace, which says: "What are we faced with? Things don't took too rosy." That's what I'm trying to get the minister to sort of say, instead of giving glowing, clichéd accounts about it looking good. That's fine, we all appreciate that, but we would like to look at some details and some specifics about it — something definitive in what may exist as the potential here. Unchallenged, the conclusion of the chief forester is that the contribution of the forestry sector to the economic well-being of Terrace is expected to remain depressed near the current level for the next 15 to 20 years, and that's not a good story.

If that is true, there should be some substantiation for it and people in Terrace and the industry in Terrace should know. If that is true, and the government — although I know it has abandoned any responsibility for managing the economy, if it ever wanted to have any in the first place — has that opinion, in addition to saying to people in Terrace, "Yes, this looks to be the case," countering measures should be taken to ensure that economic potential does exist to ensure that the growing population in Terrace — many of whom come there and live there because of the forest industry — can be looked squarely in the eye and told that things are bad, things or good or: "Things are going to change, because we're going to try some other industrial tack; we're going to move in some other direction to balance this out."

It simply is not fair, and I don't think it's honourable, to permit the rumour mill to continue unabated about the viability and life of the forest industry. I'm talking about Terrace,

[ Page 2723 ]

because that's where I'm from, but it could apply anywhere else in the province. It is unfair to leave the community and the industry in a community in a state of turmoil about something. It is better to face the facts, whatever they are, and lay them out, make the case and move in the direction — deliberately and consciously on the part of government — of attempting to balance out and provide other opportunities for employment, or putting to rest these statements by the chief forester at the time and his opinion about what was facing the forest industry in Terrace.

HON. MR. FRASER: I thought I would say a few words on forestry, because I think they're doing an excellent job. For the information of the House, I have the honour to represent Cariboo, and they certainly have their part in forestry — a big part. We've got the best operators in British Columbia in the Cariboo. They can recover more from a log than anybody else — even in Prince George, a small place I've heard of. I want to say that I think the Minister of Forests is doing an excellent job — on reforestation, future plans and so on.

I am amazed at the member that just sat down. You know, he's the member for Skeena. When this government defeated that government on December 11, 1975, we had the whole forest industry out of business, thanks to their non-policies. That member wasn't even in British Columbia, so he wouldn't want to know about it; but that's what I wanted to tell him.

Thinking of the Terrace area, the cabinet of this government went into Terrace and we found 300 houses for sale in 1976. I'd like to ask that member how many there are for sale now with no buyers. It's a lot different economy on the west line, no thanks to you. You stand here and say: "Stop the rumours." You're the one that starts the rumours and keeps them going.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, that's fine. Sure, those letters went all over British Columbia. Let's face the facts of the timber supply. You can't increase your production forever without growing some trees to back it up. That's what they're saying. Isn't that being responsible?

Now, dealing with the current situation, in 1979 we had an excellent year. Why "we"? The people of British Columbia. Because of the export market and the export price, it is now in the doldrums and things aren't too good, but it'll come back. We're not pessimists. The world markets will come back, and in the meantime its tough going, and it's tough on some people, admittedly. But that is a world situation which is tied to financial interest rates, to housing in the United States and so on. I am going to tell you that prior to that happening, the forest industry had a good run. History shows it will come back. I don't like the condition any more than that, but it's not all controllable in our province. When the member got up and spoke, I decided I'd have something to say. I say to the Ministry of Forests, carry on with the excellent work. You're doing a fine job.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Thank you, Mr. Minister, for your comment. I must agree with everything the hon. Minister of Highways said. I think we are doing a good job. There is room for improvement and we will continue to improve the management of the forest resource. But for the first time ever we do have a program to work with and an analysis of the resource. I think that has to be agreed by all members to be a very positive step forward.

The member referred to a 1977 memo from E.L. Young, who was then chief forester of the forest ministry. Mr. Young in his memo apparently said that industry in that area would be at its depressed level for some time. That, again, is an example of a lumberman's mentality — with all apologies to Ted — because the years 1978 and 1979 were very busy years in the forest industry in that area. There was a lot of activity, which, up until the time of the current market slump, has continued, and will resume afterwards. Now the member said: "Lay these rumours to rest. Let the public know what the situation is." Indeed, that is what we are doing. Again I will refer to the timber supply analysis, which will be open for public scrutiny and discussion within the next few months. I get just as many reports about that area and other areas that say there are no problems. We have to balance what each of these people's opinions are with what the facts are.

The forest industry in Terrace or in any other part of the province can’t continue to expand to provide opportunities of employment and industry for anyone who may wish to take part, because we do have a finite resource. We have to manage it to provide timber on into the future. I work very closely with the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). We have to balance the opportunities that can be provided by the forest industry with other opportunities in other sectors. There are areas of the province where, perhaps in 20 years time, there will be less wood available and we have to work with him so that there is other activity available at that time to replace perhaps losses of jobs.

One of the areas that we spoke of earlier in my estimates, or perhaps it was in the debate on Bill 7, was the tremendous problems we have in the Kootenays with pine beetle infestations. If we continue to harvest at the rate which we must now to attempt to recover this dead wood, the wood damaged by the beetles, at some point in time there will have to be a reckoning. There will have to be a reduction in cut. That is a fact of life. At the same time, encouragement is being given in that area to other industries, such as the coal mining industry, to come along and increase their production, which is to plan and to help balance the economy. We can't work the forest industry in isolation from the total economy and that is why we have a very good Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, who is tying these things together. No sector of our economy can be managed in isolation from the rest. In 1979 that report was done before we even had conceived of a timber supply area concept and the production forecasting concept which we are using now to determine what our short- and medium-term allowable cuts will be.

MR. HOWARD: I am always amazed that when one embarks upon a very quiet conversation about something that is of a serious nature to people in Terrace, approaching it from a positive point of view, wanting to find some answers to serious questions, not just for me, but for people who live in the Terrace area, the response we get from the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) is one of those vicious personal attacks, an attempt to drive the conversation off in another area. All that does is reflect the barrenness of mentality of the Minister of Transportation and Highways.

[ Page 2724 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. You'll have to withdraw that.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, you permitted him to make all sorts of innuendoes against me, and didn't interrupt. I'm just saying now that that minister has a barren mentality.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that remark cannot be allowed in the good spirit of....

MR. HOWARD: Why?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Because it is personal affront to an hon. member of this House.

MR. HOWARD: But it's all right for him to make personal affronts to me, which is what he just did in a terrible, disgusting way.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, will you withdraw the remark?

MR. HOWARD: I'll withdraw it, and I won't bother asking him to withdraw that; I wouldn't elevate his comments to any level of dignity at all. It's particularly offensive, Mr. Chairman, when a member trying to represent the people he does represent puts forward things in a serious manner and listens to that type of garbage in an accusatory way; it simply means that unfortunately one shouldn't pay comment upon the level of the minister's mentality with respect to that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On vote 103, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: That's what I'm talking about.

The minister talked about the beauties and how the forest industry went along well in 1979. He said it went along well because of the export price; and while he didn't say it, connected with that was the exchange rate. The Canada-U.S. exchange rate for some years now has injured many people in this nation and in this province, because it means we have to pay higher prices for imported goods; on the other side, it's a beneficial factor to industries which export, and it was a beneficial factor to the forest industry. I was told, for argument's sake — this was a year ago — that a 1 percent change in the exchange rate meant a 25 cent per share net profit for MacMillan Bloedel — that's one company. That profit automatically flows to MacMillan Bloedel when there is a 1 percent change....

AN HON. MEMBER: Up or down?

MR. HOWARD: Downwards, obviously; if it goes up, it's 25 cents the other way. For a couple of years now, throughout the period of '79 that the Minister of Transportation and Highways was talking about, the exchange rate has been roughly 15 percent, something of that nature. When it moves up towards parity, obviously that 25 cent advantage will disappear.

I'm just using arguments of the Minister of Transportation and Highways to say to him that when the industry is in good shape, as it has been in '78 and '79, he and his government take all the credit for it; when it's in bad shape — and it's a cyclical industry — and it happens to coincide with a certain period when he was out of office, then he blames somebody else. That's the kind of Social Credit mentality, Mr. Chairman, that gets that party into trouble — they want to have it both ways. They can try consistently to do that if they so desire, but the essence of it is that it doesn't work.

I said earlier that the income to the treasury in this current budget year and last year was founded in part upon inflation, and the expectation of inflation was in the minds of the government when it wrote the current budget. As long as inflation persists, government is the beneficiary in terms of dollars flowing into the treasury. The lumber industry has been no different than other industries in that regard.

There are various other factors that impinge upon it and have impinged upon it for a long, long period of time: interest rates for one; the extent to which Canada Mortgage, or what used to be Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, may have put mortgage money out in any given time; the extent to which banks were permitted to back mortgages; the current extent to which banks are able to go on a demand loan basis for second mortgages has an influence on the lumber industry. All of these are factors that we know exist, and have existed and will continue to exist. Recognizing that those outside forces are there, governments — and particularly this government — should not take that as an opportunity to gloat and identify that as something resulting from good management on the part of government, because it isn't; it's an accidental benefit that comes along.

I want to mention one — and this again is the Terrace area.... This is not a report to the minister from within the department. It was sponsored by an association of northwest forest operators — 1978, I believe it was — based on data supplied by C.H. Anderson and Associates. Admittedly, as I said earlier, a lot of reports of that nature become suspect, because you don't know the foundation from which they start, or the criteria that they establish for analyzing things and so on. But it is an official document, having on it a seeming stamp of approval from the Kitimat-Stikine Regional District. It says, "Further information can be obtained through the regional district of Kitimat-Stikine," and it gives the address and telephone number. It's about the use of an industrial transportation network to develop the forest resources of northern British Columbia.

Their intention is to say: "Let's go further afield. There are other trees out there. How do we get around to getting access to them on a viable basis?" It talks about timber shortages and the like. One thing I'd just like to put forward to the minister — with respect to the maps and so on — is the opinion of this study with respect to transportation. It says that transportation in the forest industry — from their analysis — is cheaper by rail than it is by road, Admittedly, one's got to look at the figures and the concepts that went into coming to that conclusion. Nonetheless, it is a conclusion that they came to, and it is, I think, worth looking at, analyzing, and having a view about. It talks about an area roughly encompassing Terrace, Kitwanga, Hazelton, Stewart, up the Nass River, the upper Nass and the upper Skeena areas. It identifies these areas by miles on a section of road and/or rail access to them.

It concludes as follows — and this is in 1978 prices: "For 350 miles of track, maintenance equipment and yards: $122 million. For 350 miles of paved road and merchandising yards: $110 million." On the capital costs and maintenance, as far as the track and the rail is concerned there is a difference of some $12 million in favour of the road system. They

[ Page 2725 ]

say, though, in contrast that the cost of moving wood via an industrial railroad is significantly cheaper than either an industrial road network or an expansion of existing road systems. "The estimated transportation costs of wood arriving in Terrace from Damdochax Junction" — that's up north of the Stewart area — "including capital debt repayments, operating and maintenance costs are" — and they give the 1978 figures — "$22.11 for 100 cunits by rail, compared with $36.90 for the same volume by road." It projects that into 1983, indicating $37.89 by rail compared with $63.24 by road. It says: "The lower rail-transportation costs result from lower maintenance costs, fuel consumption, replacement of parts, lower inflation rates on rails and equipment, as compared to alternative transportation systems."

Those are the kinds of things — and I don't even make reference to the essence of it; I just mention the details, because it was a conclusion that somebody came to, anyway — that should be examined by the Forest Service, in addition to and in conjunction with examining timber supply and establishing annual allowable cuts, areas which can or should be logged, and the destination of those logs as well. To deal with the subject that Mr. Young raised in his memorandum, "there may be inappropriate use of timber within the region."

All of those things should be fitted together in a composite plan to ensure that the most advantageous use is made of the timber supply, consistent with the need for a sustained annual cut and consistent with the concept of being able to come back a second time and log that same area, so that there is stability. Unless it's done in a composite way, in the totality of it, it just isn't going to function. If we leave one aspect of it outside of consideration, then we've got a variable out there that may distort the whole picture and may continue to have us just a little bit off balance all the time as to what is or should be taking place in the forest industry. That's what I'm putting forward to the minister today, in a formal and declaratory way — and in a positive way.

I won't go any further into objecting again to the earlier comments by two other ministers about that subject matter which are self-serving on their part. I'd just point out to you deliberatively that this is what I'm trying to get across to the minister, hoping that he's going to respond in a similar vein and say: "Yes, we need to do all of these things and examine them, and that's the total plan." We're going to have to wait for some while, he says, before we get the figures for the timber supply areas. What are the figures? What's the volume? What's the availability? Some of that's available now, I'm told, although I may be mistaken on that.

Maybe the minister wants to get the whole Prince Rupert forest region together with its nine or ten timber supply areas and have one total picture. That may not be appropriate because there are different areas in there and different factors affecting them. One is on the administrative side of the line of demarcation for coastal purposes and the other is on the other side of the line of the coast range — different species of timber grow there and so on. But whatever way the minister wants to approach it I hope he will say something now, in the House, and help to put aside and allay the fears of people in Terrace. At the moment many of them feel they don't have a very positive future in the forest industry. They'd like to have some assurance that what has taken place up until now will not be permitted to take place in the future.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I have some very brief comments, Mr. Chairman. The study Clay Anderson did on the possibility of rail transportation was after a similar study that was done on the Cariboo — or perhaps they were done about the same time. The same situation exists on the Cariboo line — Williams Lake, Lac La Hache, Quesnel and so on — where there's a vast volume of timber out in the Chilcotin to the west. As a matter of fact, the study that Clay did there was at my direct request because I recognize very clearly that the transportation cost and transportation problems cannot be looked at in the same vein as the distances get longer. We're hauling by truck well over a hundred miles in many cases, and when you're hauling that far, if appropriate gradients can be established, rail transportation is better; it's more economic.

The study done in the Cariboo led to similar conclusions, but with the level of confidence in the data they had and changing cost factors, the report said that it could not very clearly define, at this point in time, that rail would be cheaper when you consider the rather massive capital expense. We were thinking in terms of an industrial railway only, and there are cost advantages there, especially if you build them with a negative grade in the direction of your product haul. It indicated very clearly that as other cost factors go up — and fuel costs have gone up considerably since then — at some point rail can better serve some areas. If you tie to that the possibility of using perhaps pelletized hog fuel as the fuel for locomotives, you then get other advantages where you're using some of the wood waste to actually haul the balance of the wood from the forest.

The Anderson report was not conclusive because of the degree of confidence in the input data, but the one on the Cariboo was initiated personally by me a few years ago. We're quite surprised that the cost figures did come out as close as they did to the current truck haulage rates.

MR. MITCHELL: I'd like to bring a few comments to the minister's attention, and I'd like a few answers.

I'd like to comment on what he said yesterday: that there is a policy within the ministry of maybe developing the idea of small tree-farm licences where the smaller operators in British Columbia can be guaranteed a certain supply of timber. This is a problem that I've brought to the minister on numerous occasions. With the three mills that I have in my own riding there's always either a glut or a complete shortage of a supply of logs at an economical price that the mill can survive on. Last summer we had a market for lumber. There was a shortage of logs of any size. At the present time there is a shortage of a market for lumber, and we have a glut, or an availability, of logs. I would like to support, Mr. Minister, with evidence that is taking place in this area, evidence that the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) brought to the attention of the House.

There are a lot of sawlogs ending up in the chip market today. I say that, in some ways, very ashamedly, because the same people who have been fighting for a supply of logs are forced, at this point in time, to push the same logs into the chip market, at a detriment to the future. I feel that the ministry.... I hope that what the minister said is true, that they are trying to monitor it, that they are staying on top of it, because the supply of lumber logs is the future wealth of this particular area. It is a fact of economic life, both from the employees point of view and from the employee's point of view, that when there is a shortage of lumber and there is a market for chips, then the opportunity is there to protect the

[ Page 2726 ]

economic future of that particular area. The temptation is to utilize the logs for a market that I really don't think they should be developed into.

This is something, I feel, that is an extension we should be presenting now from the ministry. I really feel we should develop a market and a utilization of the thinnings that we are starting to harvest. The thinnings of the newly planted forest, the new technology we are developing in the forest industry.... We must be planning now, planning for the future and setting up the wherewithal to harvest the thinnings that are being taken out of the forest, that are presently being cut down, and in many cases are being left to rot. I feel that this is a resource which, both in terms of energy and the conservation of the forest resources, must be brought into the marketplace.

I think there are a number of ways this can be done. Innovative procedures must come from the Ministry of Forests from their own research, from their own leadership. There must be a development of the thinnings into the pulp and paper mills, into the chips. There must be a development, because some of the logs I have seen are smaller than some of the logs I've seen harvested in the interior.

There's also another need right now, which kind of works into the whole development of the forest industry. We should be bringing the thinnings into it as a form of labour-intensive labour management and the creation of jobs. The ministry itself must — he was mentioning that he is working with the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) — in a development within the economy of B.C. that we are going to have a need and a utilization of the lumber we are producing.

Right now, as the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) says, we're in a economic slump, but I feel that in this area the planning should have been done ahead. We could use the timber today to create the jobs that were needed to build the houses and rental accommodation, so we wouldn't have the shortage that we have today in greater Victoria and greater Vancouver. This would have utilized some of the timber that is now sitting on the docks. It would put to work a lot of the men who are unemployed because of lack of planning.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, all hon. members. The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew has the floor, and it is against our standing orders to be discourteous or to impede his position in any way.

MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your assistance. I always like to get a little rise from the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, and I want to thank him while I have him in the House that one of his staff has answered one of my letters and I really appreciate the assistance of his staff.

These are the innovative policies I believe the ministry should be leading the way for. There is the creation of employment and planning ahead in conjunction with the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot). We can create with the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) more in the needed extended-care facilities. These are the policies which should come from the ministry which provides 50 percent of the revenue of British Columbia. Fifty percent of the revenue of British Columbia is created from the forests. When the forests industry is in the doldrums, and having economic problems, that problem reflects throughout the industry and the economy of British Columbia.

I feel, Mr. Minister, that you can give that leadership. In one year you managed to get some logs into the local mills. You can give the leadership within the province of British Columbia of creating some of the jobs that are needed by planning ahead. I know it's kind of a radical idea that we should plan ahead. We should develop the job market so there is full employment so that we can utilize the lumber we are producing and utilize the resources we have in this province.

There is another issue I would like an answer from the minister on. It is quite noticeable right in the greater Victoria area. It is also noticeable in a lot of the harbours both in Victoria and in Sooke. That is the using of the harbours for log storage. I fully realize that the major logging firms are developing a dryland sorting from logs of timber, but once they are put into booms and delivered to the mill....

Maybe it is because we have this asset, if you want to call it that. At one time there was lots of water storage available. But in the greater Victoria area, Esquimalt and in Sooke, I feel that filling up the harbour and the Gorge with logs is wasting a lot of the recreational area. It is polluting and degrading a lot of the harbours that could be put to far better use for the community, for the tourist industry and the ecology of the area.

I feel that this is the leadership that must come from the ministry to develop a new use of all our resources. Another way to do it is to stop any abuse by one part of the industry of another part of the ecology. I feel that in conjunction with this ministry, environment and the tourist industry we have an asset in our harbours and our water resources that should be protected.

I know that within the report the development of the dryland sortage of logs is being accepted by the industry. I feel that we should also face.... I ask you that the ministry look at not only the sorting but also the length of time or the need for storing logs in the harbour. I feel that you can pile up many more logs on one acre of land than you can store on one acre of water.

There is another industry that is developing in our cities and towns. That is the conservation of the oil and the development of the wood burning industry. I feel that your department should come up with a policy of allowing the slash of the forest industry to be harvested by those homeowners who have taken the advice of industry, the government and the environmentalists, to save on the utilization of oil and burn wood. Every one of the families who have gone out and bought a wood-burning stove or heater or converting to a combination wood and oil burning furnace....

You drive down the road and there are miles and miles of timber, slash, and wood rotting on the land. But when they make inquiries as to the rights to go in and cut it, they are told it is private land. A lot of it is private land, but it is still part of the resource of British Columbia, and it is a waste. I feel that an economical product, with the leadership of the ministry, could be developed, not only for the forest industry but for the private owner. If some kind of a policy of how it should be harvested, some type of stumpage or some charge per cord were established, it would not only create a business but it would create an opportunity for many families to get out of their home, out in the country, to do a little hard manual work and it would also develop a use for some of the resources that

[ Page 2727 ]

right now are either rotting or laying there and being burnt up.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Do you have any trees in your yard?

MR. MITCHELL: No, I cut them all down to burn in my heater.

In summing up, I feel that some of these issues that do create employment and a little bit of stability in the forest industry, the mills, the mines and the plywood mills of this area must be planned ahead. We cannot allow the rise and fall of the economic development of the country just to be left unchecked. I feel that your ministry, Mr. Minister, should be coordinating the development of homes and of the other social services we need like the extended care, and utilizing and creating and maintaining full employment, not only in the forest industry, not only in the industry of building, but it would create a stable economy in our province.

I am asking what policy they have for harvesting the slash for the homeowner, the person with the woodburning stove. Is there any policy or any program right now?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have just a few brief words on this topic. I'll be quite brief. It is a topic I've discussed in this House on numerous occasions in the past — at least three or four occasions in this session alone.

I guess the minister is aware that Ocean Falls shut down this morning. At 3:15 a.m. the last roll of newsprint went through the mill. We have approximately 200 people in that community without jobs at the present time. I know the minister of small whatever — economic development or whatever he is — is responsible to this Legislature for that particular matter, but in my view the whole government is responsible for the bungling of the closure of that community and leaving those British Columbian citizens high and dry without funds. I've certainly never seen a more irresponsible government.

However, back to vote whatever. I posed this question to the minister about two weeks ago. As the minister is aware, there are many — I would guess approximately 100 — families who are going to continue to reside in Ocean Falls in spite of the complete closure of any industry in that community. They're going to be staying on in Ocean Falls as long as their finances will permit, because of the government's promise that there will be another type of sawmill or chip operation put in place in that community. However, in phone calls to and from Ocean Falls I find that nothing is being done. No wood has been allocated for the proposed sawmill and chip operation. The minister, Mr. Chairman, is certainly responsible for that. Obviously you can't have a sawmill and chip operation without wood. Now I will say that the minister did tell me....

That's okay, let them go. I couldn't care. If it bothers you, call them to order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the member for Mackenzie does have the floor, and there appears to be an awful lot of conversation going on that the Chair simply cannot allow. So if we could maintain our places in quietness, we can allow the member for Mackenzie to continue.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, that conversation on the government benches indicates to me that the government has absolutely no concern, no feeling for the people that they've deprived of a job and opportunities in Ocean Falls. No question about that — they just don't care. That's been obvious for several years.

Two weeks ago the minister said that they were looking at an area of British Columbia where some wood supply and fibre supply potential existed. I'd like to know from the minister at this time if they have now determined where they're going to allocate this proposed flitch and chip mill, as it's called, up in Ocean Falls.

While I'm discussing this matter I want to make it very, very clear that the government hasn't heard the end of their bungling of this situation. Ocean Falls would be operating and making money today, had we had a good government in British Columbia over the last five years. These people did absolutely nothing to sustain the life of that community. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, there are going to be about 1,100 people leaving that community eventually because they're forced to. They'll be going all over the province. What do you think they're going to be saying about this government in every community that they go into? Well, I can tell you in no uncertain words what they're going to be saving about this bunch.

HON. MR. CHABOT: They don't agree with you.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh, yeah — 96 percent of the vote for the New Democratic Party. Is that why you closed the place down, Mr. Minister? You better believe it. Revenge is sweet, isn't it? Well, our turn is coming, Mr. Minister. You'd better believe it.

It's easy for these guys to make fun of the plight of the situation for 1,100 or 1,200 people. They sit across there and make smart-ass remarks. They think it's very funny....

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, order. I will have to ask you to withdraw that remark. It's grossly unparliamentary. Would the member withdraw? Further, hon. member, I will point out to all members that under our standing order 61(2), the speeches in Committee of the Whole House must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration. The item in this point in committee is vote 103, the Ministry of Forests, and if the member could restrict himself to that debate, the Chair would be most pleased.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I withdraw.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame on the member for Mackenzie!

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame on the Minister of Forests!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. The member for Mackenzie, and all the other members, will maintain order in the House.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the unparliamentary remarks, but the fact is that while we're sitting down here in Victoria, so smugly making these crude remarks, what do we have from the members of the government? I see no concern expressed or displayed for those

[ Page 2728 ]

1,100 or 1,200 people in Ocean Falls who are out of jobs. As of today 423 are completely without a place to live; 200 of them have jobs and over 200 are without jobs at the present time. I've heard no concern whatsoever expressed by the members of that government.

My question to the minister is simply this. Has he allocated any wood for the proposed new flitch and chip mill? Can he offer any hope at all for those people who are going to be staying in that community? Can they hope to have the opportunity to apply for employment in this new proposed flitch and chip mill? I don't think that's too much to ask. I would like to hear one government member, one member of the treasury benches, get up in his or her place and display some compassion for those people in that community. I haven't heard it yet, not over the years; I haven't heard anything from those people yet and I'd like to hear something today. It's not likely; they're too busy digging tunnels and moleholes, or whatever they do. But I hope that one of these people will have the intestinal fortitude to get to their feet and display some form of compassion for those people in that community; I doubt that they have it.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I can appreciate the member's concern for his constituents. My responsibility is limited to provision of a timber supply for the planned flitch mill, and I'm sure that the member can address other questions regarding industrial operation itself to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), whose responsibility it is. I advised the member, I believe about a week ago when this was brought up, that the studies between members of my ministry and the consultants of the Ocean Falls Corporation were nearing completion. My deputy advises me now that the final report is being put together by the two groups, and apparently an area of operation has been identified.

The next move will be for the manager of Ocean Falls Corporation or the directors of the corporation to request the timber, and we have already indicated that this can be done without competition to an experimental timber sale, and that is the objective. I understand that operating areas have now been identified but require the report to be put together before they're fully defined. I can't help the member beyond that; I can't tell at what date that report will be finalized, because I just don't have that information.

The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) was commenting on the use of thinnings from juvenile spacing and commercial thinnings. I guess he was referring to the possibilities of acquiring firewood. Commercial thinnings are primarily logs of a smaller diameter that can be used in a mill if it's designed for small logs. There are a number of mill modifications now taking place on the coast to handle small logs as these thinnings begin to appear within the industry. I myself believe that we can use some of the thinnings from juvenile spacing for chip supply as the demand increases. I've seen examples of very small diameter wood from this type of operation, and the tops from other operations have been used in drum debarkers and then shipped to provide chips for the pulp industry. Some of it cannot be removed. In fact, it's probably best that some of it does not, because it does provide a considerable amount of nutrients for the soil. It may appear messy at first but within a very few years it's broken down and becomes a part of the soil nutrients for the continuing growing crop that remains.

Firewood supply. There's no way that I can force private landowners to allow people to come on to gather firewood. On Crown land in each of our districts — formerly ranger districts that are now forest districts — we have programs and we're attempting make areas available for the public to cut firewood. We do have a concern for the safety of the general public if we didn't have some controls. People unfamiliar with techniques in tree falling, bucking and so on, could very well get themselves into trouble, so we're trying to have it under some form of supervision. However, we are trying to make more and more wood available, but we don't have the authority over private land.

I think the member, my ministry and I would all like to see more possibilities in that direction. Some companies are actually taking their piles of slash and sorting out and bucking up pieces for the private individual to come and gather. It has to be very well coordinated with the industrial operation, because we don't want to see an individual with his pickup truck or car with a bit of firewood in it get run over by a large logging truck. So there are some industrial hazards associated, but I think we're making quite a bit of progress. I would advise individuals, if they need assistance, to contact the nearest forest headquarters. They all have areas set aside where firewood can be gathered.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, earlier today, in response to a point of order by the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), I undertook to examine the Blues of yesterday to determine whether the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) had used unparliamentary words in commenting on certain questions raised by the hon. member in question period.

In debate, when the Speaker hears unparliamentary expressions or when a member draws such expressions to the attention of the Chair, the Speaker immediately asks for withdrawal. The Chair makes the decision based on practice and tradition, and the member must withdraw when so instructed, failure to do so being an offence against the House. In the case at hand, the first member for Victoria complained that the minister's statement indicated that he had deliberately misinformed the House. The member indicated that he had inadvertently misdirected a document, and the minister pointed out he had not alleged that the member had deliberately misled the House. A statement that a member has deliberately misled the House is clearly unparliamentary and subject to intervention by the Chair. My examination of the Blues reveals that the minister made the following statement:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In question period today the hon. first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), who is not in his seat, in developing a series of questions, alleged that the minutes of the Provincial Capital Commission, October 3, 1979, contained certain information. Reference was made to page 4 of those minutes. I will in a moment, with leave, table a photocopy of the 141st meeting of the Provincial Capital Commission held on October 3, 1979, at 2 p.m. in the Malahat Building.

Mr. Speaker, there is no page 4. There is no reference on page 1, 2 or 3 of the minutes — and that is the full set of minutes to the matter on which the member built his questions and his case. I feel aggrieved by that fact. I am sorry the member is not here to apologize to the House.

I note that the Chair did not intervene, nor did any member ask the Chair to intervene at the time the statement was made. Therefore I felt it was necessary to re-examine the

[ Page 2729 ]

Blues to determine whether unparliamentary words had been used. The minister's statement indicates a difference of opinion between two members as to the content of the document, but does not contain any expression which would require a withdrawal, nor is there any basis for the claim that the first member for Victoria should apologize to the House.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:55 p.m.