[ Page 4691 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Attendance of deputy minister at Social Credit Party conference. Mrs. Dailly –– 4691

Mr. Lea –– 4691

Mr. Barrett –– 4692

Mr. King –– 4692

Mr. Howard –– 4692

Mr. Macdonald –– 4692

Mr. Levi –– 4693

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Forests, estimates (Hon. Mr. Waterland).

On vote 98.

Mr. King –– 4693

Mr. Lockstead –– 4698

Mr. Macdonald –– 4703

Mr. Nicolson –– 4707

Mrs. Wallace –– 4711

Tabling Documents

Vital statistics report for the province of B.C.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 4715

B.C. Steamship Company Ltd. annual report for the year ending December 31, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 4715

MONDAY, MARCH 23, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. LEGGATT: I'd like to welcome to our gallery today the grade 10 class of the Mary Hill Junior Secondary School and their teachers, Mr. Fuller and Mr. Meronuk. Would you join me in welcoming them.

HON. MR. BENNETT: In this gallery today is a former member of this assembly who also served in the cabinet, the former member for Burnaby-Willingdon, Elwood Veitch. I ask the House to bid him welcome. In the gallery with him is a very important British Columbian, Mr. Henry Justesen, principal of Pacific Vocational Institute, which is trying to help us provide the skills to enable young British Columbians to take their place in the great economic boom that's taking place in this province.

MR. LEA: Talk about having your work cut out for you!

I wonder if the members of the Legislature would join me in greeting a friend and colleague from the Queen Charlotte Islands, Frank Caulesen, the band manager in Masset, and colleagues of his, who are down here today to talk about getting some money for recreational facilities.

MR. LAUK: In the precincts today from the great city of Vancouver, visiting ministers and officials, is his worship the mayor of the city of Vancouver, Michael Harcourt. I ask the House to join me in welcoming him to Victoria.

MRS. WALLACE: In the gallery today I have a guest from south of the border, from Spokane. She is a friend named Mrs. Penny Southwell, along with another friend, Mrs. Lillian Thomey from Ladysmith. I ask the House to welcome them.

Oral Questions

ATTENDANCE OF DEPUTY MINISTER
AT SOCIAL CREDIT PARTY CONFERENCE

MRS. DAILLY: Could the Provincial Secretary confirm to the House today that his public relations deputy minister, Mr. Douglas Heal, was present at a Social Credit Party meeting at Harrison Hot Springs this past weekend? Did he participate in party strategy meetings?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I appreciate that question, because there seems to be some misunderstanding about the activities of Mr. Heal. He did arrive at this conference at Harrison to answer questions having to do with his new function in terms of information programs. In answer to your second question, he did not participate in policy discussions. He simply answered questions to describe his activities. I think that's quite appropriate. He departed, having done so. He did not participate in the conference as such, but appeared there to provide information to people who were interested in the job we try to do in putting out government information to this province.

MRS. DAILLY: No matter how we cut it, it was a Social Credit Party meeting at which, it has now been confirmed, one of the senior civil servants attended to take part in a party meeting — not a general meeting that the public was invited to. My question to the Provincial Secretary is this: did Mr. Heal give a presentation to that meeting and would you tell us what the content of his presentation was?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Heal did not make a presentation to the conference. He was there to answer questions, because on the agenda of the conference was government information programs and communications. It was to provide a better service to those interested in his capacity. He's quite prepared to answer questions to the press or anyone else having to do with the job he intends to do in that activity. I think it's just a matter of providing useful information to anyone who wants to know.

MRS. DAILLY: I have a question for the Provincial Secretary. At any time during that presentation to the party members was the image of the Premier of this province discussed?

HON. MR. WOLFE: The member continues to refer to it as a presentation. It was not a presentation. I hope that I made that clear, Mr. Speaker,

MR. LEA: I have a question for the same minister. I take it that the deputy minister was ordered to go there by the minister. Could you let the House know exactly how much money it's going to cost the taxpayers of the province to send the deputy minister to this Social Credit gathering?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman did not attend in a room in a hotel. As far as I know it cost the taxpayers of this province nothing.

MR. LEA: Is it a normal practice for deputy ministers to travel without putting in for expenses? Is the deputy minister, Mr. Heal, going to put in for expenses to the meeting?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. A further question?

MR. LEA: I imagine the minister would like to answer. Is the deputy minister going to put in an expense claim? How did he get there? Did he come by snorkel? Surely he arrived there by some fashion. Was it by car? It had to be some way. Are the taxpayers going to pick up the expenses for the transportation of this deputy minister to this Social Credit gathering?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker. I don't have the answer to that question. As far as I'm concerned the gentleman in question will not be submitting an account for any expenses attributed to that visit.

MR. LEA: I would like to go back. The question I ask is: was he instructed by a minister to go to the meeting? That's number one. Was he instructed by a minister to go to the meeting?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Sometimes I wonder whether the member has concluded his question or not. He pauses in the middle of a sentence, then carries on a little later on. The

[ Page 4692 ]

question was: was he instructed to attend? I asked him if he would mind attending the conference — or something like that.

I take it from this line of questioning that the members opposite would like to keep secret everything that the member is concerned about and actually not make available to the people of this province the information and activities that Mr. Heal intends to plan to have. I think that's an appropriate performance.

MR. LEA: My question is to the same minister. If he had minded, would he have had to have gone anyway?

MR. SPEAKER: That question is out of order.

MR. LEA: Had the minister made a decision when he asked Mr. Heal to go? If Mr. Heal had refused, had the minister made up his mind that the deputy would have to go anyway?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is out of order in the fact that it is hypothetical.

MR. BARRETT: My question is to the minister. The minister has admitted that Mr. Heal was asked to attend at the meeting. Could the minister inform the House whether or not an expense sheet will be honoured by the government if Mr. Heal submits one after meeting the request of the minister to attend the meeting?

MR. SPEAKER: Again, the question is hypothetical.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, is there a decision now to pay the deputy minister's expenses for attending this meeting?

MR. SPEAKER: If the question is, "Has a decision been made?" the question is in order.

HON. MR. WOLFE: The question was really based on conjecture: "If the gentleman were to submit an expense account…?" As far as I am concerned, he doesn't intend to; but I'll take the question as notice, just to make sure.

MR. BARRETT: If a deputy minister is asked to attend a meeting, is it normal to assume that once his attendance is requested an expense-allowance sheet will be honoured for his attendance at such a meeting?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition knew that there was a meeting to be held at which an item on the agenda was "communications," would he not want to have the best person available first-hand to attend and respond to those questions? That's the answer to this question.

MR. BARRETT: I ask the minister directly: is it the intention of the minister who asked the deputy minister to appear at this meeting to have his expenses paid?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I took that as notice.

MR. BARRETT: Would the minister inform the House whether or not other deputy ministers will be requested to attend secret, closed Social Credit meetings?

MR. SPEAKER: That's a futuristic question.

MR. BARRETT: Has the minister decided that other deputy ministers will be required to attend closed policy meetings of the Social Credit Party?

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary, can the minister tell the House whether any other deputy ministers were called to account before the Social Credit party membership at the meeting in Harrison last weekend? Were there other deputies there besides Mr. Heal?

HON. MR. WOLFE: To answer the member's question, Mr. Speaker, not that I'm aware of.

MR. HOWARD: The minister has said that this item was on the agenda prepared by the Social Credit Party. The minister made reference to the fact that they did not want to do things in secret and that they'd like to draw the whole general public into their conversations. Would the minister be prepared to table in this House the tape or transcript of any of the information which a deputy minister working on behalf of all the people in B.C. gave to that Social Credit closed meeting?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'd be quite prepared to table with this House the explanation which Mr. Heal gave to members of this party having to do with his planned activities to do with communications. That might be a good idea.

MR. HOWARD: That will be all of the discussion taped or transcribed, will it? Am I taking that correctly?

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: I take it then that what the minister is offering is an edited version, which is not acceptable.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I take it, therefore, that the member doesn't want to have me submit the information I am referring to.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney-General on the same subject matter, in view of the fact that this was clearly a meeting of a political party, the Social Credit Party, called at Harrison for the purpose of developing political strategy, would it be the opinion of the Attorney-General that the use of public money — that is, the use of somebody who was on an annual salary, in this case of $65,000 a year — to attend a partisan gathering of that kind at the request of a minister is a proper use of public money?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the Attorney-General wish to answer?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Speaker. As the member well knows, he is seeking legal opinion, and that is not a proper question.

MR. MACDONALD: Does the Attorney-General not think that in matters of this kind he ought to be the guardian of public morality in this province?

[ Page 4693 ]

MR. LEVI: To the Provincial Secretary, did he receive a request from the organizers of the conference that the deputy minister for communications attend?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, as I recall, there was indication from people responsible for the conference that it would be helpful if Mr. Heal attended in order to respond to questions.

MR. LEVI: Did somebody who was organizing the conference speak to you about that — that Mr. Heal should attend?

I have a further question. After it was decided that Mr. Heal would go — that is, the minister decided it would be a good idea — did the minister have a discussion with Mr. Heal about the desirability of going, the nature of the conference, and whether in fact Mr. Heal himself was comfortable in going to that meeting? All of us over here know the difficulty of deputy ministers attending these kinds of meetings. Did you discuss with him, or did he discuss with you, the desirability of staying away from that kind of thing because of the secretiveness and the political nature of it?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

(continued)

On vote 98: minister's office, $160,231.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the Minister of Forests if the Premier instructed him to have his deputy minister attend at Harrison Hot Springs last weekend.

It's probably instructive that the government had a very close look at the executive council and decided that the only image that was necessary to be salvaged out of that sorry government remnant was the office of the Premier, and therefore they invited his deputy but not the Deputy Minister of Forests. Mr. Chairman, I seriously want to ask the Minister of Forests whether or not he has ever instructed either his deputy minister or any other staff person from within the ministry whose wages are paid by the taxpayers of B.C. to attend a Social Credit Party function and to answer and be accountable to party membership who are not elected members of this Legislature. Has that ever occurred?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No.

MR. KING: Perhaps the minister would advise me whether or not he has any intention, even if a request is made to him, of having any of his staff whose wages are paid by the taxpayers of British Columbia attend political party functions and answer for their ministry to a closed meeting of the Social Credit Party. Will that ever occur? Does the minister agree with that kind of use of public servants?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: If any members of my ministry wish to attend political functions they are perfectly at liberty to do so, and they are perfectly free to make that decision on their own, just as I made a decision when I worked for the provincial government to become involved in political parties and to actively seek nomination and election on behalf of a political party. I was employed by the provincial government at the time. Of course, those things are the types of things that the former Premier encouraged all the government service to do; he said they should have very right to be involved in political parties and to actually seek election. That is a decision that each civil servant must make on his own.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the minister is not responding to my question. I'm very familiar with the fact that for the first time the New Democratic Party government freed public servants to participate in politics at their discretion. It's quite another matter for a minister to instruct his deputy to attend a party function. Let's make no mistake about it; when a deputy minister or any other senior public servant receives a suggestion or invitation from his minister, that is tantamount to an instruction. I think it would be a very brave public servant indeed who would fail to respond to the invitation of his minister to attend some function. I'm asking the minister if he agrees that he, as a minister, should. at any time, invite or instruct his senior staff to attend Social Credit Party functions?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: When I was working for the provincial government, if the government of the day, which was the NDP government, had told me to go to a party function, I would very quickly have told them where to go. That is a decision that every civil servant has the right to make on his own.

MR. COCKE: You weren't a senior civil servant.

MR. KING: I can't for the life of me imagine why the New Democratic Party would invite some obscure mining inspector to attend one of their functions when they were in government. But that is not the point. The minister is evading the point. We have here a senior staff person at the deputy minister level who was invited to attend a function by his own minister. My question to the minister is whether he agrees with that policy. Can I anticipate Mr. Apsey showing up at a secret Social Credit meeting in Harrison Hot Springs to satisfy the questioning of Social Credit Party members regarding matters of forest policy? Might that occur in the future, or would the minister object to that kind of instruction, that kind of policy? That's the simple question. Will the minister please answer yes or no.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: If my deputy minister were invited to attend a Social Credit Party function...

MR. KING: By you?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: …by me or anyone else, his response would have to be his own response. He is a person who can do what he wishes when he wishes.

MR. KING: The minister continues to evade the question. I am not putting the question to Mr. Apsey. I would hope that he would have the good taste not to attend a Social Credit Party function. What I am asking you, Mr. Minister, is: is it your policy to encourage and invite your senior staff mem-

[ Page 4694 ]

bers to private party functions or not? I'm asking you what your decision is and what your policy is. Your estimates are now before the House, and we in this Legislature and the public have a right to know what your policy is in this respect. I ask you to answer what your policy is, not what Mr. Apsey's response might be. Surely that's not too much to expect if the minister intends to be candid with the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 98 pass?

MR. KING: No, it shall not, Mr. Chairman. I asked the minister a question regarding policy. I want to know whether Mr. Apsey might be invited by his minister to appear at a private Social Credit Party function — a secret one at that, at which members of the media were kept at arm's length by some kind of security force, I understand. I want to know whether or not the Deputy Minister of Forests might anticipate such an invitation from his minister. Does the minister agree or disagree with that kind of policy? I think it's a legitimate question and that people have a right to know.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I've responded to the member's question. I don't anticipate inviting my deputy minister, as a deputy minister, to a party function. I see no need for that. There's nothing of any particular political significance that he would attend a Social Credit Party function for — other than if he desired to go. I can't answer what his desires might be.

MR. KING: It's pretty obvious that this minister too has left the door open to abusing the role of senior civil servants. He said that he would not invite him as a deputy, indicating, I suppose, that he might well invite him as a citizen. He knows full well, as the House does, that there's no way that a deputy minister can divorce himself from his relationship with his minister when it comes to a partisan role in politics. That's utter nonsense. The minister is just dodging the question and refusing to answer. I guess we have to assume that from this time forward the Social Credit government of B.C. and every member of the executive council intends to abuse and interfere with that traditional separation that has existed between the public service and partisan politics in the province of British Columbia. That's a sorry day for this province. This sets a complete precedent.

It puts me, as the Forests critic, in a strange position, because in the past I have dealt with senior staff of the Ministry of Forests as though they were impartial public servants hired by the government, with their wages and expenses paid for by the people of the province, and answerable to the total Legislature. I now have to come to the inevitable conclusion that that is not the relationship anymore — that this government intends to involve their senior staff in partisan political activities. That being the case, I don't know how I as an opposition member of this Legislature can approach senior staff in the Ministry of Forests, secure in the knowledge that they will treat each and every part of the province of British Columbia — regardless of who the elected member happens to be — in a fair and impartial manner.

This is a very serious matter, Mr. Chairman. To my knowledge it has never occurred in the history of this parliament before, and in my view it completely prostitutes the original concept of a free and independent public service in this province. It's a very sorry day indeed.

Mr. Chairman, we have found this Minister of Forests less than forthcoming in answering in a concise fashion what his policy would be in this regard; we have found him less than forthcoming in answering other questions. I think we should give him a rest. I move that the Chairman do now leave the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is it agreed to now proceed with the division?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I hear a no.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, it is very difficult to entertain any points of order during division.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It is not a point of order. You suggested earlier that it would require unanimity until the bells were working, and I would like to have assurance that the bells are working.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Again, hon. member, it's very difficult to entertain any questions or points to the Chair during a division. Points can be taken at the conclusion of the division.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 27

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

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that we do from time to time apparently have some difficulty with the functioning of the division bells throughout this building. I just want to make it clear that your ruling, as I understand it, is that when it is drawn to the attention of the Chair that the division bells are not function-

[ Page 4695 ]

ing in some part of the building, the time for the taking of the division will be extended until all persons are in the chamber. Is that your understanding?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is the interpretation of the Chair at this time.

MR. BARRETT: We certainly understand that there is difficulty. Mr. Chairman, could you instruct the House as to when the bells will be checked and when a definitive report will be given to this House? We would suggest, perhaps, no later than the end of this week so that all the bells are checked and the rules of this House can be carried forward.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's a fair comment by the Leader of Opposition. I can assure the members of the House that steps are being taken at this moment to have the matter reviewed, as was done last week and as was done last year. There is, however, a problem that we seem to be having some difficulty in resolving, and I can undertake, on behalf of the House, that that will be looked into at the earliest possible opportunity so that all members will be able to be called to the chamber when a division has been called. That was the reason that when the question was put that a division be taken we asked if unanimous consent would be given. I feel that unless members have any objection to that, it is a fair system under the circumstances as they exist at present.

MR. KING: I want to get back on the minister's estimates and to some questions I asked on Friday last regarding a new and really unreported policy that the government has developed with respect to the size that any corporations operating in the forest industry will be allowed to attain. The Minister of Forests confirmed that such a policy has indeed been adopted, and I would like to know a bit more about it. Firstly, I would like to know if there are any existing corporations in the forest sector in the province now which exceed what the minister's criteria would be for an optimum size of a corporation operating in the forest sector in the province. That's one question. It's brief and concise. Are there any corporations that the minister is concerned are now close to or beyond the optimum size that he thinks is appropriate for the province?

Secondly, could the minister tell us whether or not a kind of registry exists so that the government is alerted when any of the corporations that exceed the optimum size bid for ownership or control of any existing forest company in the province of British Columbia? Does the minister have that kind of registry? Does he have a list of names of certain companies that would not be welcome in the province?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

We know that so far two of them are not. We know that Canadian Pacific Investments is not welcome in the forest industry of the province of British Columbia, and we know apparently that Noranda is not welcome in the forest industry to any further degree than they already are. I would like to know from the minister how this decision is set. Does he have a list, or is it simply by an ad hoc assessment when these bids come in? I would also appreciate it if the minister would tell the House who makes the decision. Is it the Minister of Forests by his own whim, or does he take it to the cabinet and discuss it with his colleagues and then they go through the holdings of that company and decide that this one's permissible or that one's too large? What are the criteria? I would very much appreciate having the minister explain a little more fully than he has done to the House so far just how the policy implementation works. I'll take mv seat and hope that the minister will answer those brief questions.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I went through this question in considerable detail last week. However, if the member wishes. I'll tell him again.

It is a policy of the government of British Columbia that there is a maximum size to which we think a company should get in terms of its control of allowable cut. There is no size limitation on what value they add. We'd like to encourage all companies to add more value in British Columbia. But we don't feel that a concentration of a large percentage of the cutting rights in the hands of a single corporation is a good thing. We have said that the size limitation right now is that of the largest corporation, MacMillan Bloedel. We wouldn't like to see companies get larger than MacMillan Bloedel, with the exception of British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation, which is so widely held within British Columbia. There is no registry — I don't know where that term came from — as to the size of companies. Of course, within the ministry we have statistics as to the current level of cut which is controlled by the various companies.

The member was not right when he said that Canadian Pacific and Noranda are not welcome in British Columbia to any further extent than they are right now. That has never been stated. We said that our policy is that we don't like to see a company control more cut than M&B does right now. By buying control of M&B, Canadian Pacific would exceed that government policy. Canadian Pacific Investments is more than welcome to be involved in other forestry operations in British Columbia, as long as their size does not exceed that which we feel is the maximum size. The same applies to Noranda. We have not said that Noranda is not welcome in British Columbia — as long as they live within the stated government policies.

The decisions. Any time an acquisition is contemplated which gives a company the control of an additional allowable cut, it is assessed statistically within the ministry. Then this information is taken through our cabinet committee process to cabinet, where a final recommendation is generally made by myself as the Minister of Forests. As I mentioned to the member last week, Mr. Chairman, the criterion is twofold: (1) the total amount of cut that is controlled; and (2) the degree of regional concentration that would result from a company making an acquisition.

MR. KING: I thank the minister for his response. In terms of setting up this policy, apparently MacMillan Bloedel is going to be used as the model. No larger than MacMillan Bloedel — how was that arrived at? Was it simply because it exists at that size now? Has the minister looked beyond the policy implementation to decide whether or not MacMillan Bloedel itself exceeds that optimum size in terms of controlling the annual allowable cut? It is strange that MacMillan Bloedel's size happens to be the optimum size. He's not going to allow any higher control of annual allowable cut. If he's concerned about this kind of concentration, what kind of a study has been made to see whether or not MacMillan Bloedel might also exceed the bounds of public interest in terms of controlling, the annual allowable cut? Was it just a

[ Page 4696 ]

convenient benchmark to use MacMillan Bloedel as the model? How did he arrive at that particular size? Is it simply because they're there, because it's a desirable size, or because he simply didn't want to get involved in cutting back the supply that MacMillan Bloedel enjoys now? It seems strange that this kind of policy existed without any awareness of it out there in the industry. I'd appreciate it if he'd respond to that one.

I want to turn now to the vote that we're on, vote 98 of the minister's estimates. I want to point out a couple of things in this first vote under the minister's estimates and ask for some explanations from the minister. The allocation for the minister's office has gone up very substantially, from $123,000 to $160,000. That is quite a significant increase in the cost for the minister's office. The provincial Forest and Range Resource Fund has gone up marginally, from $38 million to $4 million. Regional and range management has also increased about $2 million. But we find a reduction in district forest and range resource management from $61 million in the last fiscal year to only $58 million in the current estimate. This is a crucial area if, as the minister suggests, we are going to get into intensive forest management. It's not consistent with the minister's suggestion that we are increasing our capability to restock the forest land and to manage it more intensively.

What is really shocking is that while we see a cut of $2 million in that important district forest and range resource management area, we see the fantastic increases in building occupancy charges — up from $3 million to $10 million. I know I commented on this previously. I know the minister said there has been a reorganization of his ministry, but my goodness, that's an increase of $7 million in building occupancy, while we see a cut of $2 million in the regional forest and range resource management program. What is the priority of that ministry? Is it to try to perpetuate our forests in a healthy state, or is it to build accommodation for bureaucrats? I certainly believe that the accommodation that has been available throughout the years has been satisfactory.

I find it passing strange that many of the field offices the Forest Service has maintained for years in many of the little communities are being phased out and closed. How is it that we are abandoning buildings and accommodations in places like New Denver, Fauquier, Chase and many of these little areas, where an on-site staff existed to stay in close touch with the resource and manage it wisely? They are being phased out and lost to any use, and yet we see here a $7 million increase in building occupancy charges.

I think the Legislature deserves a better and a more detailed explanation of this inordinate amount of funds allocated to building occupancy, rather than funds allocated to what is the main and prime responsibility of the minister — ensuring that we have healthy and perpetual forest growth in the province of British Columbia. It just jumps right out of the estimates and strikes one. The minister hasn't given any detailed explanation. I would appreciate having one.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Once again we are going over old ground. As the member can see by the blue book, the budget for my office has no provision for temporary office help, which is primarily replacement during vacations and additional assistance during overload work times. This was not included last year but is included now. There is also an increase in travel expense, which more closely reflects the actual expense of the last few years.

As far as the other items the member mentions go, I will have to say again that, although he is trying to create the impression that there is a reduction in forest and range management funds, the blue book does not present the whole picture. Once again, there are funds allocated under section 88 to offset our stumpage credit, and there are funds provided through the Forest and Range Resource Fund. The actual expenditures in these areas will be larger than last year, although the method of reporting them is somewhat different as a result of reorganization of accounts.

I will say again what I said last week about the building occupancy charges. We are in the process of turning over to B.C. Buildings Corporation those facilities we owned in the past and did not have to provide a rental amount for. In addition to that a reorganization is required for the placement of personnel in different areas. In these areas, of course, we don't own buildings and the B.C. Buildings Corporation will be providing the funds for the facilities, and we will be paying them out of our budgetary allocations.

MR. KING: The most affluent and the fastest growing branch of government in the province of British Columbia is the B.C. Buildings Corporation. The greatest allocations I see consistently all the way through the estimates are for that very avaricious monster created by this government, which seems to be dominating to a great extent much of the moneys that should be available for more important purposes within the ministries.

Mr. Chairman, the minister has confirmed that what is happening here is that money is being taken out of the Forest and Range Resource Fund that was set up last year and held out as a separate fund to provide capital to accelerate the improvement of our forests — the replanting, the thinning and the intensive silviculture treatment. That fund, instead of going towards that purpose, is now being used to subsidize a diminishing budget within the minister's own department. Mr. Minister, you held out the proposition that that was all fresh cash allocated for intensive management. If your own budget keeps diminishing, as is the case here — and as he has just admitted, Mr. Chairman — then that is not a real gain in capital funds through the Forest Range Resource Fund. You can't spend it twice.

That money has been set up in a special fund, but now we see that we're getting cutbacks in the normal budgetary allocation that has been obtained in the minister's estimates for years. That looks to me like traditional Social Credit flimflam. It looks to me like just another indication of the practices that have built up over the years with that government, where they hide the real costs of hydro projects by tucking them away in the Highways ministry's estimates and various other places. Mr. Minister, because you've cut back on the normal allocation that should have been provided in your own budgets, you're chiseling away from that special reserve fund that was set up and held out by your ministry to be a separate allocation simply for intensive forest management in the province of British Columbia. I think that's deplorable and I suspect that we're going to see more of it as we go along.

I still haven't received a satisfactory answer from the minister as to where all these buildings are that he's taken over and been charged for by the B.C. Buildings Corporation. Are they all in Victoria or are they in Vancouver? What new facilities has the ministry occupied in the last year that were not occupied previously? That's a fantastic amount of

[ Page 4697 ]

money — $7 million. Surely the minister can tell us where they are and how many people are being housed in these costly new facilities. Where were they before and where did they move from that caused this kind of unusual acceleration in building occupancy costs? We're entitled to a more detailed answer than the minister has provided so far.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I think the member has had explained to him in the past the philosophy of the ministry's reorganization. As he knows, in the past we had about 100 ranger districts and six decision-making centres, which were called forest district offices. We now have 47 decision-making centres called forest districts plus six regional offices, which are also decision-making centres, plus, of course, Victoria. A lot of the new facilities we occupy are the new district headquarters — some of which are in the same physical location as previous ranger stations, many of which are not and which are in effect new district headquarters.

MR. KING: I really don't understand what the minister is saying. He gets up and mumbles away. I appreciate that the structure was changed somewhat, but unless there was an absolute explosion in staff, which I don't believe there has been, I cannot for the life of me understand why it would be necessary to provide an increase of $7 million to house and accommodate a staff that's simply been reshuffled. I don't care whether you have developed six regions or 12 regions; as I understand it the ministry still has the equivalent staff that they've had for the past number of years. If anything, I think there have been an inordinate number of resignations from the Ministry of Forests staff, out of some disillusionment with the reorganization that the minister talks about. But when the public is asked to come up with an additional $7 million for building occupancy charges, I would expect more specific information from the minister than to get up and mumble: "Well, I've reorganized my ministry; we now have a number of regions, and so on." Are all these buildings occupied? Are they fully utilized? It's a fantastic amount of money to come up with as an increase in building occupancy charges, particularly when we see other more important, more crucial functions of the ministry's service being cut back. But I guess we have to despair of getting any precise answers out of the minister, Mr. Chairman, a sad as it is.

I want to go back to another point that I raised earlier and just run it by the minister once again. I referred previously to his planned cutback of 25 percent for AAC in the TSAs, so that timber may be released and available to allocate to the small business program. I'm not at all critical of that initiative; I'd like to know a bit more about it. Is this a general program that the minister is going to apply right across the length and breadth of the province, or is it going to be selectively applied in just some regions?

Finally, I wonder if the minister plans to expand this initiative, this policy direction, to the tree-farm licences in the province too, so that everyone will have to compete for timber, not just the small operators but the large integrated firms as well. I would appreciate the minister's commenting on that policy a bit more fully, if he would.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, while I have discussed with the member, and I've explained in the House to a certain extent what our plan is for the small business program, I would point out that it is the intention to make sure that we have a substantial small business program in every timber supply area. The objective is to have 25 percent of the cut in every timber supply area available to the small business program and thereby create a log-marketing system in these areas, so that the manufacturing sector of the industry can draw part of its wood supply from the log market.

Right at this moment there is no plan to reduce the available cut in tree-farm licences, although I would point out that within the tree-farm licences there are considerable opportunities for the small business program at the present time. It is now a requirement of every TFL that at least 50 percent of the harvesting be done under contract. In addition to that we've also made provision whereby a contractor can, if he so wishes, demand a minimum five-year contract if he is a stump-to-dump contractor, or a shorter term if he is a phase contractor. So there are opportunities within TFLs for the small business sector. These have been expanded considerably over the last few years. We also have the right to issue timber sale licences within TFLs, if cut is available to do that.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the program as far as it goes, but it's kind of inconsistent with what the minister said previously. Here he is concerned about corporate concentration, as it were, and therefore he's prepared to limit the size of a corporation that can operate in the forest industry and which can hold and monopolize annual allowable cut. But when it comes to freeing 25 percent of the cutting rights in the province for competition, he applies it just to the small entrepreneur, the small licence holder. And then he says we're going to leave alone the large corporations that exist and function primarily in the tree-farm licences. because there is a contractor clause; they have to contract out some of their cutting. The minister knows full well that the contractors are a long way from being fully independent when it comes to cutting rights within a TFL. It is a fact that the licensee has to contract out, but the squeeze can be put on independent contractors. They have virtually no right of tenure. They can be squeezed out and frequently have been. The B.C. Loggers' Association has told the minister about the kind of problems that they face in this regard.

If there is an area of corporate concentration in B.C., surely it is and has been for years with the virtual control that the eight large corporations in the province have now over annual allowable cut in the province. Yet it's a hands-off policy with them. They have virtual perpetual tenure, as the Pearse royal commission pointed out, in many cases for a supply of timber beyond their own fibre needs. But here's the minister with no policy whatever to free up any of the timber that they hold in absolute licence and to subject it to a competitive log market. No, that just applies to the small operator. I think that's a pretty clear indication of the fact that this minister and this government are not prepared to rock the boat one iota when it comes to real concentration and real corporate power in B.C.

I think that the policy we talked about before of suggesting that MacMillan Bloedel is the optimum size for any company to hold cutting rights in the province of B.C. is nonsense. If the minister really wants to have some impact on corporate concentration and control in the forest industry, he should make sure that each and every one of them has to compete for some of its timber requirements. That 's the way to ensure competition. That's the way to ensure that the public interest and return on our fundamental and most important natural resource is fair and stands the test of the market. I suggest to the minister that the size of the corpora-

[ Page 4698 ]

tion has nothing to do with it. If he and his government had the will and the policy objective of setting up some good old-fashioned free-enterprise competition in the forest industry, he'd be serving the interests of the people of the province much better.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: It's interesting to note that the minister didn't see fit to answer the last question posed by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King). Perhaps we can elicit some answers from the minister during my questions under his estimates.

First of all I have a few brief remarks. The minister is very much aware, of course, that the forest industry is so vital to my riding. I represent an area where timber is extracted and generally processed elsewhere, with the exception of the paper mill of MacMillan Bloedel in Powell River and the paper mill in Port Mellon. We used to have three paper mills in the riding. The third one was called Ocean Falls. I intend to be discussing that. In fact I should discuss it while the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is in the House because I know he's very interested in Ocean Falls.

I just have a few general remarks on forestry. I did read the Blues very carefully and saw the minister's response to questioning on his first and second five-year plans. It's interesting to note that the B.C. professional foresters, a very highly trained professional group in this province — and I know that the minister is very familiar with these people — have seen fit to make some comments on the minister's first five-year plan and have suggested that while it's a step in the right direction, the fact is that the minister and his ministry have not gone nearly far enough. In fact, the $17 million cutback in that program.... As it says here, quoting the professional foresters: "Do you know what a forester could do with $17 million?" He could do any of the following: "We could plant 57 million seedlings on 150,000 acres; we could juvenile space 85,000 acres of overstocked young stands; we could fertilize some 280,000 acres of slow-growing forest." A lot of urgently needed work could be done to secure their position. In fact a forester could hire 170,000 extra man-days of labour with that much money.

I don't want to cover a whole lot of ground that was covered by the previous speaker, but the fact is that the reforestation program in this province is not moving nearly fast enough, and the professional foresters.... I want to make it very clear that I don't blame the people within the Forest Service. Generally speaking, throughout the province, particularly in my riding and from senior officials in the Forest Service, I get a quick response to questions I pose about information required, and I appreciate that. Generally speaking, the people within the service, in my view, are very qualified. They do have problems. You often find that private industry — I don't know if the correct term is "rob" or "steal" — acquire people who have been coming up through the Forest Service. Because of the frustrations within the Forest Service personnel, those people who are qualified, when they can, will go off into private industry at the first opportunity, and as a result of that the province is the loser. Nonetheless, I happen to have a very high regard for the people in the service.

In terms of reforestation in 1980, a total of only 75 million seedlings were planted on Crown land, according to the professional foresters. They have suggested that 210 million seedlings are required. What I'm saying is that it would appear that the Forest Service is some eight years behind in its planting program, and this is of great concern to all of us. I know the minister will answer that question again briefly, as he did to the previous speaker.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I want to get on to a couple of other matters. The minister, I am sure, has heard from many small independent or would-be loggers on the coast regarding his small business program and woodlot programs. That program has been singularly unsuccessful. One of the reasons for the lack of success of that program is that there is no timber. This government has already alienated most of the timber on the coast. I had a request just the other day from a person who has been trying for two years to take part in this program. I've read your figures and the report, and I know how many people you say have entered into the program since it was initiated. But the fact is that I've also talked with no end of people particularly in my riding, because it is a forested riding that are unable to get any kind of program underway even where they find areas of timber where they could operate as small independent businessmen, which this government claims to be the champion of. I think that theory has gone out the window, but nonetheless, the present government takes pride in it and likes to boast about their free enterprise programs.

I don't see any problem with people like Whonnock getting timber. They have no problems. While we're discussing that particular program, I have correspondence from a professional forester, endorsed by nine independent logging companies in my riding based on theSunshine Coast — for your information that's the area generally discussed from Port Mellon, Gibsons to Pender Harbour — in terms of discussing Whonnock Forest Products Ltd. I'm not blaming Whonnock for what I'm about to reveal here. After all, they are a company that's out to get the best deal they can, make money and all those things. This relates specifically to helicopter logging, which is supposed to be — and was originally brought in as — a program of experimentation. As a result of that type of program, these people were able to obtain timbers in certain parts of the coast of British Columbia — specifically in my riding — at 91 cents per thousand cubic feet. That's what they were paying on that program. And yet here I have correspondence — quite a bit of correspondence, actually — on this subject.

I want to quote a few phrases, if I can. As a matter of fact this correspondence I'm quoting from was addressed to the minister, so I know he has a copy himself. This forester, Mr. Timchuck, not only does forestry consulting for a large number of small independents, but he does consulting as well for some of the bigger firms in the area. That's how he makes his living. He was at one time employed by the Forest Service.

It is important that I get your attention on this one, Mr. Minister, unless you're already familiar with the topic and the complaint that you're about to hear. It is an important topic and apparently it's going to get worse. It deals with helicopter logging on the coast of British Columbia. I'm quoting parts of Mr. Timchuck's lengthy detailed letter on this subject. He says: "Helicopter logging is no longer an experiment. We suggest that you regard the helicopter as a conventional logging machine. We also suggest that your district's management and appraisal of helicopter logging be with the same intent as other logging methods."

[ Page 4699 ]

Mr. Chairman, I agree with that method of logging to some extent for certain areas. But the reason I'm bringing this subject here this afternoon is that particularly in an area where there's very little Crown timber left for the small independents to operate on.... Most of it's been alienated, as you know, to various companies which I won't name here; everybody knows who they are. On certain helicopter logging sites where prime timber was removed at the very low rate of 91 cents per thousand cubic feet, which is practically nothing, we have independent operators now applying to log that same area by conventional methods. Now the Forest Service is in a bit of a bind. There are roads through these areas. Why was a helicopter licence given to these people in the first place to log the prime timber off and leave the residue on the ground? If you could see the area, you'd know as well as I do that it is almost impossible to replant that type of area after helicopter logging because they don't have proper cleanup and proper logging methods. I'd like to know from the minister how they determine what a helicopter logging site is and what it isn't.

This should be interesting to you: in this one particular site in Sechelt Inlet — all the details are in this correspondence, which you have — another independent logger went into the area. There are roads there for utilizing conventional logging methods. The Forest Service said that they couldn't log in there because it had already been logged by helicopter. The fact is that this independent would love to relog the whole thing. He would probably pay the conventional stumpage fees and make a buck or two.

How do you and your ministry determine who gets this timber? The allegations and rumours going around on how this timber was let are horrendous. Hopefully they're not true. On one site a large company was logging the timber before they had the actual clearance from the Ministry of Forests, and they got away with it. They were never charged. How did they get away with that?

You hear rumours about contributions and campaigns. I don't know if they're true or not. No wonder rumours like that are going to start, when people can get away with certain methods of logging and practically no-cost timber. The independents — nine of them who have actually signed this lengthy correspondence to the minister — are understandably upset. They have to go through the process and wait sometimes months and years for a show. Most of them have no quota. They have to depend on contractors.

Mr. Chairman, I mentioned Ocean Falls. While we're on the topic, I'm not going to get into a lot of detail. I can hardly wait for the estimates of the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) to get into the nitty gritty of that one. You recall, Mr. Minister, that throughout the last session I asked repeatedly for you to table in this House the mid-coast timber supply area report. You said you had it, but it's not very interesting and of no consequence to anybody. I did finally manage to obtain a copy of that report. The fact is that it is extremely interesting to me and to the people living in the central coast and particularly to people living in Ocean Falls. Your colleague on that side of the House has told me on numerous occasions that one of the reasons you had to shut down Ocean Falls is because they have no guaranteed timber supply.

Let me tell you what has happened since the Social Credit government came to office. The central coast area is one of the few areas in British Columbia where we have large areas of uncommitted Crown timber. Guess who got licences to log that area — the timber rights — over recent years? Doman Industries. Is Mr. Doman a contributor to the Social Credit Party? I think so. I'm not saying that's why he got the logging licence in the central coast area of this province, but he did. Ocean Falls couldn't get it. You wouldn't give Ocean Falls any timber to keep that community alive and to keep 450 people employed. You couldn't do that. but Mr. Doman got a large tract. Do you want the licence number? I've got it here.

MacMillan Bloedel got a large tract of timber in that area. How did they get that? When Ocean Falls was shutting down you told us there was no timber available for Ocean Falls. There seems to be timber available for MacMillan Bloedel.

Pacific Forest Products got a big tract of timber in that area. It's all here. I think the letter came from you. No, it didn't.

B.C. Forest Products. How did they obtain a tree-farm licence or a cutting licence in that area? It's all here: your map, your numbers. There are none for Ocean Falls.

Mayo Forest Products. Of course. they were logging in the area — fair enough — as was Crown over the years. They obtained timber in that area, but there was none for Ocean Falls. Why shut down Ocean Falls? Why? Because it was an NDP operation that made money under an NDP government and through mismanagement by your government lost funds.

Weldwood of Canada are doing all right up there. They've got a nice little operation going in — two sides operating this spring. But none for Ocean Falls — no involvement of the local community. There's high unemployment at Bella Bella, They could have had an operation. They've applied to you for some timber rights in that area. What were they told? You know what they were told, of course.

MR. KEMPF: What year was that'?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Every year since 1976. The member for Omineca, who knows the area well....

MR. KEMPF: How much timber did they get from the NDP?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: They got a heck of a lot more from our good government than they have from whatever kind of government it is you have. They got nothing from you guys. In fact, you guys don't even have the guts to go in and talk to those people. You won't even meet with them.

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: It was only under an NDP government that the Indian people of this province started to get a fair break from anybody in this province. They've never once met with you guys. You close doors.

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We know what you think of Indian people. The minister is testy because he shut down Ocean Falls.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If the hon. members to my right will let the member continue. and if the member will address the Chair, we'll proceed.

[ Page 4700 ]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'm glad to see you're protecting me from that very vocal Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. I can understand why he is testy. They know they made a mistake in terms of shutting down that community. I'm not going to get into all of that now; it's not the right place. What I'm talking about is timber supply, which is directly under the control of the Minister of Forests. Timber was available and there is still lots of timber up there. Who's getting it? That's the question. They could have kept Ocean Falls going. Their own report indicates this.

One of the questions I would pose to the minister at this time.... I understand through writing and telephone conversations with Mr. Williston that he is discussing with the Minister of Forests — here is what we're going to get for Ocean Falls — the possibility of some low-grade cheap cedar, not the good stuff, for a particle-board plant. I want to hear from the minister whether that transaction is completed and those timbers have been committed for that particular project. That's an easy enough question. He should be able to answer it.

I have a couple of other items. I just want to mention in passing — because this is not the appropriate ministry — the question of an archaeological site on Hardinge Island, which is currently being logged. Because it is being logged a certain amount of responsibility must fall on this minister we are questioning today. About a 400-acre site on this privately owned island is being logged by Peavy Logging, which is really Mr. Mahood and Mr. Porter. They have told the government, myself and anybody else who is interested that if the government will not come up with the funds to save this archaeological site, which contains a whole lot of Indian artifacts — burials, rock paintings, the whole thing....

Besides which, it happens to be a beautiful harbour. They are private enterprise but they have offered to government some kind of land swap. I'm not usually in favour of land swaps, by the way, and I'm going to discuss that in a few minutes as well. But they have suggested that on a fair evaluation — even by a third party — they would be willing to turn over this particularly important archaeological site to the government as a park site or for whatever reason.

The fact is the government has replied, "No way," and the ministry has, in fact, said.... I have it right here in writing: "There is no other Crown land available that we could possibly trade with PV Services" who are presently engaged in logging that site. The timber will be felled within the next month, "because all the property on Vancouver Island has been fully committed." Those are the exact words used by the minister. That is nonsense, of course, because they have found.... I just want to state before I finish this Hardy Island thing — because as I said, it's not the appropriate ministry, but it does involve logging — that I'm not in favour of land swaps of the huge type.

This government has a history of swapping land with various private people and coming out with the short end of the stick every time; in other words, the people are the losers. But on this kind of little transaction, where the property — I don't know what it's worth, but let's say it's worth $750,000.... That's really not too much money, because once that site has been logged and then subdivided for whatever — recreation, lots or whatever PV Services intends to do with it — it's lost forever. A real, true heritage site in British Columbia is lost. I'm extremely upset about that whole thing. Everybody, including people within the Ministry of the Provincial Secretary who handle this, have made repeated requests to the minister to save at least this one heritage site. I have the support of the regional districts of my area, both major Indian bands, everybody who knows the site and every archaeologist I've met. They're going to just let it go down the tube, and it's irreplaceable.

While we're on the topic of land swaps, most people aren't aware that not long ago a major land swap took place in this province. This government gave away to the CPR — through Pacific Logging and Marathon and all those people — some 5,000 acres of land, fully treed, much of it waterfront, on Sechelt Inlet. Sechelt Inlet, by the way, is located near the Pender Harbour and Egmont areas; in fact, it happens to be right across…. Egmont itself is located in the Sechelt Inlet. I have all the evidence right here. The timber values on that property alone have been estimated by an independent forester at some $60 million. You understand that the CPR has about a 125-year history of getting Crown land from people right across Canada. You can hardly blame the CPR, Marathon or Pacific Logging; they're in business. It's my view, though, that government members — all of us in this House, but particularly ministers, who have the power to make decisions — are elected to look after the best interests of the people. In this case the best interests of the CPR were looked after, and not the best interests of the people.

They had some excuses. They said: "Well, look what we're getting in return. We're getting about double the number of hectares — acreage on Vancouver Island." But what do we get in return on Vancouver Island? The map is here; the assessments are all here. What we got in return are some nine chunks of swamp, mountaintop, lands that had already been logged by Pacific Logging; it was a bad deal. There are two of the properties up where it's changed on Vancouver Island, which I agree should be preserved for park properties. Maybe there are three. You can go as far as you want on that. But there are other ways of doing things. You don't have to give away fee-simple ownership of waterfront property by the mile — thousands and thousands of acres — to obtain the same result.

You're so proud of your budget and your investments; have a third party come in, negotiate a fair deal, buy up property for park purposes or whatever. The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) tells me he has no money. Look at his budget. There's less money this year than last year, and he didn't have any last year. There are other ways of doing things. You don't have to just give away. More than that, Mr. Chairman.... Listen to this. By giving away that 5,000 acres of land on the Sechelt Inlet to the CPR through Pacific Logging, you have probably put six or eight independent small loggers out of business. It would have provided some five to eight years' logging for them — accessible waterfront timber with winter shoals. Who's got it? The CPR has it now.

Last but not least, there is something terribly suspicious about this deal. This transaction went through after negotiations started with this government and Marathon Realty over B.C. Place in Vancouver. The government has previously denied that there was any connection. Who knows what happens when Marathon Realty is dealing in the back room with government negotiators? Those transactions aren't taking place in public. Can you tell me that even this minister would be negligent enough in his duties to allow the CPR to take over that 5,000 acres without some other factor being involved? I don't know that and can't prove it? But the fact is I'm very suspicious that this government gave the CPR that

[ Page 4701 ]

5,000 acres on the Sechelt Inlet as part of an unwritten, unspoken, unpublished part of the B.C. Place transaction.

What else can I say? The minister knows this. I've written to him and received replies. The only minister who didn't reply was the Premier. The Premier never replies to anybody. Of course, he's hardly ever here. I always get a nice letter from the Premier's secretary. She says this will be brought to the Premier's attention on his return from wherever he's going or wherever he's been. But when he does return I never hear anything further.

Mr. Chairman, the minister can take these questions, so that he can perhaps answer the whole bunch at once. Concerning the Forest Service property at Lund — your deputy will know about this; it's an abandoned Forest Service station; you have new facilities and there's nothing wrong with that — I'm wondering what you're planning to do with that property, how you plan to dispose of it and who is going to get it. The facilities are unbelievably beautiful and, in my view, they should be preserved. They should not be alienated or sold out, and if nothing else, they should be preserved for a parksite, an experimental station of some sort for the aquaculture industry, or whatever. I wonder if the minister could tell me what he is doing with that.

Last but not least, concerning the log-salvage regulations, which the minister has promised to bring in for some time — without further consultation. mind you.... As a result of not bringing in these regulations, you have literally hundreds of people in the log-salvage industry on the coast of British Columbia who are prepared to upgrade their boats and equipment — I know one fellow down in Gibsons who must have spent $30,000 on his boat because he's in the business — but who can't do anything until they know what the regulations are. We have no idea. I've contacted people within your ministry and have received the same old answer that hopefully the minister will make a decision within a month. A month goes by and I check again, and they say: "Well, we still haven't heard." I ask why those regulations haven't been brought in, and nobody in your ministry will tell me. In fact, they say that I have to ask the minister. That's fair enough. I can understand that. Maybe the minister could answer today and tell us when those regulations are going to be brought in, because the fate of literally hundreds of log salvagers out there depends on those regulations.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Going back to the beginning of the member for Mackenzie's discussion, he started off by stating that there are quite a few people in the small business sector who have not received timber sales under the small business program. That is quite right, and I guess there will always be people who do not get sales. There's not enough wood for everybody who wants it. However, we're making sales available for competition within the small business sector as quickly as we can. As I have said, that program will be expanding, and as it does more and more small business entrepreneurs will be successful in acquiring sales. However, they are put up to competition among those registered in the small business sector.

The member talked about helicopter logging. Helicopter logging is a relatively new harvesting method. We have issued sales for helicopter logging. They've been largely through competition. Some cutting permits have been issued under existing licences, which are designated as helicopter logging sales for various reasons. The reasons can vary. One factor would be environmental sensitivity: helicopter logging is very sensitive to the environment. You can lift logs out from areas where you should perhaps not build roads because road building disrupts the environment. In some areas it extends the forests that we can harvest.

The process is that before the cutting permit is approved for helicopter logging our field people have to look at it. They usually do so in consultation with the licensee. Then it's designated as a helicopter logging show. I think there have been a few instances where it was questionable whether it should in fact have been a helicopter show, and we're trying to tighten up the criteria, Improvements are coming. I think there have been a couple of cases, only very few, where some timber was harvested which perhaps should not have been harvested by helicopter.

As the member knows. there's a special stumpage rate. By sometime this year or perhaps early next year. we should have in place a special helicopter logging appraisal allowance system so that we won't have to have an artificially pegged stumpage. We'll have enough cost data by that time to make realistic helicopter cost allowances. They'll really be on the same type of appraisal system as others in the industry, except allowances will reflect those higher costs incurred by helicopter logging. It is expensive, and the cost factors are considerably different,

Yes, there have been a few complaints of areas logged by helicopter that perhaps could have been reached by other means. That will always he a judgment factor. We are attempting to tighten that and be much more specific with the criteria we use to judge helicopter logging shows.

I was rather disappointed in the member for what he said about campaign donations somehow being linked to the acquisition of timber licences and the right to harvest timber. I can expect that from certain other members opposite, but it's a little out of character for that member. I'll just let it rest at that. This is a completely false accusation.

MR. LEA: Unheard of.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: lm sure the member for Prince Rupert will have every opportunity to take part in this debate, if he wishes.

MR. LEA: Yes. you're right, I will.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I hope so.

The member also discussed Ocean Falls and the fact that other people acquired timber. They didn't. All the timber put up is through competitive bidding, either through straight bidding or a bid proposal system. Ocean Falls, I believe, did bid on a couple of sales, but unsuccessfully. We show no favouritism to any company, whether they be government owned or otherwise. Ocean Falls Corporation did bid, and in one case I think they bid jointly with another party, and when they have bid have been unsuccessful.

There is the question, of course, of whether we should be providing high-grade wood that can best be used in other areas and allow it to be around into pulp, because that was a refiner-grounder operation which required fairly high-quality wood to make into pulp. We feel the best way to go is to use by-products where possible and for kraft pulp mills to use chips.

Ocean Falls Corporation has received an experimental timber licence. As you know, the thrust that is taking place there now is to find ways of harvesting and then ways of using

[ Page 4702 ]

some of that low-grade wood on the coast, of which a high percent is cedar. Some experimentation has taken place with products that can be produced. Oriented-strand plywood is one such possibility. Ocean Falls Corporation has received an experimental timber licence, which we can issue without competition for experimental purposes. I believe it's about 850,000 cubic metres to be harvested over a five-year period. We have identified those sites in which they will be harvesting. Those licences were issued some months ago, I believe.

The member mentioned the archaeological site.... I don't recall the name of the island. I'll have to take that question as notice and try to get the information back to the member. I can't recall discussion on it with the staff, but perhaps before my estimates are completed I'll be able to get back to the member with the information on that particular item.

The Pacific Logging trade. As the member knows, the new Forest Act makes very specific provision for land trades where it's going to be to the advantage of both the government and the industry for the purpose of consolidating scattered areas into areas that can be more conveniently and economically harvested. Such a trade has been arranged with Pacific Logging. We'll be trading approximately 5,000 acres of Crown land for 10,000 acres of land which they own, and the assessment of the value of these lands and the timber on them is taking place now.

I don't know what the member was referring to when he had his assessment in hand, but Horth consultants are doing the work for the government and, I believe, Reid Collins are working for Pacific Logging. If the values placed on these lands by these two consultants are within 10 percent of each other, I believe our agreement says that we will average the difference. If, however, the value has more than a 10 percent spread then we'd have to have those two assessments referred to some third party for a rationalization of the difference. Also, if there is a difference in favour of the government — if our land is worth more than theirs — there will be no payment made to Pacific Logging. The land will be swapped two for one on an acreage basis. However, if the land that Pacific Logging is acquiring is of more value than the land we're receiving, then Pacific Logging will pay us the difference.

So it's a no-lose situation for the government. We will receive money if the land they are getting is of higher value, and we will pay nothing if their land is of higher value. There are a number of these land swaps and consolidations taking place now. In fact we have a person in the strategic studies division of our ministry whose job is to assess the possibility of land swaps for the rationalization of cutting areas.

I can't recall anything specific about the forest properties at Lund, but the normal procedure would be that we would turn that land over to Lands, Parks and Housing. If it has special uses to which they can put it, I would assume that would be done. However, the land would be theirs to deal with, not ours.

The log-salvage regulations are right now with the Attorney-General's department for assessment as to the legal wording, and it shouldn't be very long before those regulations are issued. I can't give you a specific time, but it should be a matter of weeks. As the member knows, we had a White Paper issued for discussion purposes on the log-salvage regulations. We had a great deal of input, some of it rather vociferous, from the log salvers. However, we have made a lot of changes to the original White Paper as a result of that input, and I feel that when the regulations come out, they will be in the best interests of both the salvers and the government and everyone should benefit from them. I believe that covers the points raised by the member up to this time.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Just to go over a couple of points relating to the minister's answers very briefly, first of all, I did not accuse the minister, because I don't know, about campaign funds and this kind of thing. But I raised the subject because I want the government and the minister to know that this is what I'm hearing out there. This is what they're saying out there, and it's my job as an MLA to relay those factors back into the House, and I intend to darned well do so. You can bet your boots on it. It looks kind of suspicious, you've got to admit. Anyway, I did want to clarify that point.

When there was no timber available for Ocean Falls, there was timber available for some of these other people, and I think it's a crime when 450 people are thrown out of work. If the minister would go into that community.... There's a new school, new hospitals, a library, recreation facilities, wharves and houses that you'd be paying $150,000 for on the lower mainland today, all boarded up. So don't tell me about Ocean Falls and how people up there are feeling about that subject.

In terms of the CPR land swap, I was familiar with that reply. It's been replied to me often, I believe, and certainly in writing from some of your staff. But the fact is that that is not good enough. First of all there was no consultation with the local regional district, the small independent loggers in the area or the big loggers. There was no consultation with any of these people and, as a matter of fact, I understand the letters of intent of agreement were signed before anybody living there became aware of it. Furthermore, you say no damage was done. Let me tell you the damage that was done. What you've done is successfully remove from the small gypo six to eight years of potential timber. That's what you done, and you've given it to the CPR. You haven't taken into account the value of the miles of waterfront that they received along with this transaction and the subdivisions that Marathon will ultimately accomplish in that area. The land in that area is selling for about $5 per waterfront foot, so don't tell me about that.

I'd like to know, Mr. Minister — perhaps your deputy will recall — what section of the act you used to carry out this arbitrary land swap without reference to regional districts, the people living in the area or anybody else. What section of the act did you use? Mr. Minister, in terms of log salvers, I obviously didn't make my point. What I'm telling you is that I'm out there. You're in your office and you deal with what happens in your office, but I'm out there talking to these people, particularly between sessions. What I'm telling you in terms of the log salvers is that, in some cases, you're breaking them; you're putting them out of business. There was input, superficial as it may have been; you did meet with them.

However, when you redrafted the regulations proposed in your White Paper number 8, you did not consult. We have no idea what you finally came up with. You're going to bring in those regulations arbitrarily, and we have no idea what they're going to be. You say you've listened to them. B.C. Hydro is required to hold public meetings. They hold meetings, but they go ahead and do exactly what they want anyway. I suspect this is the case with White Paper number 8. We have no idea what's in that paper. The log salvers don't. We have people out there wanting to spend money to modern-

[ Page 4703 ]

ize their equipment, and they can't make a move until they hear from you. So give us some kind of a time-frame. Will they be out in a week, two weeks, two months, two years? Give us a rough idea. You can't say that they'll be out sometime. What does that mean? You told us months ago they'd be out soon, and we haven't heard a thing from you yet. Why aren't you bringing the darned things out? Mr. Chairman, perhaps the minister will answer, please.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The member suggests that after a White Paper discussion and our meetings with log salvers, we come back, redraft regulations and go back and have meetings again. I guess we'd have to redraft regulations and then go back again. At some point you've got to stop the discussion and get on with the job. The log salvers' representations to us were fully considered. A lot of their ideas will be incorporated. The log salvers right now are still working under the former regulations. There is no reason why they can't carry on with their plans just as they have done in the past. As I said, the new regulations will be out very shortly after extensive consultation with them.

As far as the section of the Forest Act which provides for swapping of lands, the swap does not take place under the Forest Act; it comes under the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing regulation. We cannot grant title to fee-simple land through my ministry. That will be done through the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'm shocked. Do you mean to tell me that the Minister of Forests allowed the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) to proceed with this land swap with the CPR, Marathon, Pacific Logging and the whole bit? You must have been consulted. You must have had the timber values for that area. I cannot believe it. Certainly this issue will come up again under the appropriate ministry. Do you realize what you've done and what you've just said? Obviously if you were consulted.... That's the worst shame! I cannot believe it. You were elected, like other members of this House, to protect the best interests of the people of British Columbia. In my opinion, Mr. Minister, you're failing in that duty. What can I say?

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, while I come from a city riding and the trees are mostly shade trees, I'm very interested in what the minister has said about the swap of lands. I heard him say that there were powers, and I thought it was under the Forest Act. I'm surprised at the answer that has now been given that another minister was involved. "Powers to consolidate holdings," that's what the minister said. I took that to be timber holdings in one area so that they could be conveniently logged. The minister was clearly then referring to forestry practice under the Forest Act. Now he takes all that back, because I would be astonished if the Minister of Forests had the power to transact something of an exchange on this scale, without any competitive public bidding, under the Forest Act. Now he says: "I can't do it under the Forest Act." But obviously this minister is fully apprised of the situation, as well he should be.

So I ask him some simple questions. To me. Mr. Minister. It seems very strange that you can log off an area.... Even though you're exchanging two acres for one in the new area, the new area is treed. It's going to be a fee-simple proposition. It has not only prime timber but it has the potential, as the member is pointing out, for subdivision of waterfront access, which is extremely valuable. So I would ask the minister: is he willing to let the people of the province into his confidence and table the…? I presume there is an agreement; he mentioned a letter of intent, and agreement. I think those documents could be tabled very nicely with the Chairman, who is in a very good humour today and ready to receive anything that's placed in a responsible way upon the table, and referred for filing through the unmentionables in this House. We would like to see the agreement. Has it been made public already? If it has, I take this request back. We would like to see the agreement between this government and Pacific Logging or CPR, whichever it happened to be. Possibly Marathon was an undisclosed party to the transaction, because at that particular time, as most people in the province now know, Marathon Realty had this government over a barrel. That's why we're asking the questions.

The commitment to go ahead with B.C. Place as one of the…

How do you pronounce that word, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Monuments.

MR. MACDONALD: …monuments of this government and to this government had already been publicly announced. But there was no deal with the CPR to get the land and it couldn't be expropriated. So the CPR had led this government down into a cul-de-sac, where the government was in serious difficulty. We say to the minister that when timberlands of this magnitude are swapped or exchanged, we would like the agreement filed. We'd like to know he date that the negotiations took place. These are specific questions, Mr. Minister. I'm sure you can remember them. because you are not taking them down. Will you file the agreement? When did the negotiations take place? At whose behest was this so-called swap. which you misdescribed in what you said earlier…? You clearly implied that was under the Forest Act.

In terms of a factual question, I'd like to ask the minister this. I would like to know of the minister, as a city boy, what the timber cruises revealed in terms of the cunits of timber in the 5,000-acre parcel in Sechelt that was going to the CPR in fee-simple. I would like to know the quality of the timber — whether it was cedar, spruce, hemlock, fir, old growth, partly new growth, and so forth. I would like the minister to tell us more about the appraisals that he has mentioned. I don't now the names. I know Reid Collins; I don't know the other one — Forth. I think the minister said.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Horth.

MR. MACDONALD: Al I right then. When we're dealing with a matter of this magnitude, will the minister file the appraisals with this House? Did the firms make the appraisals for you as the minister or for the Minister of Lands. Parks and Housing? Do you have those appraisals? If so, I would like to know what timber they indicate to be available for logging on the 5,000 acres near Sechelt. I would like to know how they arrived at the value of the other lands on Vancouver Island, which I suppose were near Comox. I would like to see the appraisals so that I can know and be satisfied that this was a genuine exchange for market value and not otherwise. So I ask the minister right now: are you prepared to be forthcoming with the committee and table the contracts and the appraisals that led you to the conclusion that this was a proper exchange, that it was really at arm's length and really at market value?

[ Page 4704 ]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: First of all, the appraisals aren't completed yet, as far as I know.

MR. MACDONALD: Was the deal completed?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The agreement was signed. Oh, I can't give the member the date; I can look it up. I don't even see any reason why that agreement shouldn't be tabled in the House. I don't happen to have it with me, but I'm sure there's no reason why it can't be tabled here. I don't see any reasons why the appraisals can't be tabled when they are completed. They are being done by two different appraising firms which specialize in appraising timber values. There's no reason at all why they shouldn't be public information when they are completed.

The quality of the timber. I don't know how you go about appraising the quality of timber, a value on it. That's something people who specialize in that business, I'm sure, know how to do, but I'm sure that the methods of doing it will be explained when the appraisals are completed, and I'd be more than happy to share that with the members here.

The agreement which was signed was an agreement between myself and the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, as signatories to it, and Pacific Logging. Negotiations began, I believe, early last summer. They were concluded in the early fall or late summer — there is no secret about that, Mr. Member. The authority granted me in the Forest Act to make swaps of areas of harvesting, tree-farm licences or other types of tenure areas, is, I believe, under section 51. The actual right to dispose of fee-simple land is not mine; that comes under the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing's legislation. Not being very familiar with his legislation, I would have to take that question as notice as to just which section of his legislation provides for that.

MR. MACDONALD: Perhaps the minister, because his estimates are now up, could have a message go back to his office. He has indicated willingness to file the agreement between himself and the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing and Pacific Logging, and we would like that before the committee. So it's easy enough, I suppose, to send a message to your office. I used to be able to do it; I don't know why you can't. I'm sure you will.

The other thing, though, that does bother me is that you said that you signed the agreement before you had the appraisals. You know, I'm kind of working that back; I'm regurgitating a little bit on that answer. Why wouldn't you get the appraisals before you signed the agreement? Perhaps you're being skinned. I don't know. Surely you would get the appraisals to see whether this was a proper thing in the interests of the forestry of British Columbia and the people of British Columbia before you signed the agreement. You're beginning to remind me a little bit of the minister of industry and lesser projects of one kind or another, who goes ahead with a railway without the slightest idea of what's in those mountains, whether it's shale, gravel or granite; he has no idea of the cost. So perhaps we're in the same position as you, Mr. Minister.

I ask you why you would sign an agreement with the CPR before you had the appraisals at a time when the CPR had this government over a barrel. It was last fall; we were asking the questions. I have two points then: will you answer that question and will you undertake to file the agreement, so that we can see that while the committee is sitting? It can be easily obtained from your office, I'm sure.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, the fact is that even if the minister does produce those agreements, there is a question of ethics or morality involved here. The CPR has a long history — and governments of this country have a long history — of alienating land, particularly to the CPR, as well as to a lot of other people. But there is a question of morality involved here. You produce those agreements, and we can study them and see what kind of a deal we've got. But even if the deal in terms of dollars and cents turns out.... It may or may not have been fair; I doubt that it would, because the CPR, once again, has a long history of pulling the wool and coming out better in dealing with governments. And why not? The CPR has been responsible in the past for electing governments, practically whole governments, so you know very well where your friends are — you know that they know.

But the fact is, Mr. Minister, I don't think that.... In fact, I don't think there are enough people in the House right now, so I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 27

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. KING: I was very interested in listening to the minister's response regarding the swap with Pacific Logging Co. Ltd. I understood from the minister's response to my colleague from Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) that he would indeed table the agreement with Pacific Logging for the exchange of land. I would appreciate it if the minister would do that as soon as possible because as he can appreciate that if we're to make any intelligent judgments on the agreement and whether or not it was a fair one, we have to have an opportunity to see it while we're still discussing the minister's estimates. If the minister would do that as soon as possible, I'd be very pleased.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

[ Page 4705 ]

Additionally, he's indicated that he would be prepared to table the results of the appraisals when they are complete. It may be that the agreement contains some provision for additional payment if the appraisal is over a certain amount. I don't know what the terms of the agreement are. It seems to me rather a strange way to do business. I really don't know what the imperatives were in this deal. What was the urgency that required the trade of this valuable Crown land containing, I think the minister has indicated, much mature timber? What was the urgency that brought about the need to make this swap with this agency of CPR before the appraisals and the inventory were complete as to the value of the forest resource on that land'? I have noted that in most respects the Ministry of Forests moves rather slowly. We're still awaiting an inventory from two years ago to bring into being the small business program and an allocation of timber to that program in many areas of the province. How is it that negotiations just started last summer have already produced an agreement for the trade of valuable Crown land before an inventory is even complete? That's not even-handed treatment.

The other question I would like the minister to answer — I think my colleague from Vancouver East put it to him but he failed to respond to that one point — was what brought about these negotiations for this exchange of land. Was it initiated by Pacific Logging Co. Ltd. or was it initiated by the Ministry of Forests or the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing? I would appreciate knowing who initiated these discussions. Whose objective was it to bring about this trade? I would appreciate the minister responding to that point.

I want to go into another area of discussion, so perhaps I'll just let the minister respond to those few brief questions before I raise a new point.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: In the time that I have been the Minister of Forests, there have been attempts made to rationalize the scattered holdings of Pacific Logging, because they do have both timber and recreational values and they are scattered in such a way that they can't be operated in a very efficient manner. This discussion was underway, of course, during the development of policy and passing of the forest legislation and regulations in the House. Early last summer or in spring we had come to the position where we could then begin seriously discussing specifics with Pacific Logging and other companies. It was at that time that our procedures for making this type of trade came into place, so we began discussing with Pacific Logging how we would go about doing this. Of course, you can't finalize a trade until you have values placed on land, and the appraisal of the values on the land is a very expensive proposition. Rather than going ahead with that, with no understanding of how the final trade would be taking place, we simply signed an agreement stating how the trade would take place and how the values would be assessed or rationalized, because there was going to be a difference at the end of the appraisal system. We knew that if we went ahead with the expense of the appraisal, we would know how we were going to make the final trade at the cumulation of that appraisal process.

What we are in effect doing is acquiring about 10,000 acres on Vancouver Island, where we are short of both recreational land and lands for the many small business operators to operate in. These scattered blocks of land are better suited to the independent operator who can go in and cut on a smaller scale than they are for a larger operation such as Pacific Logging to undertake. It makes eminent sense from the forest management point of view, and it also makes sense from the point of view of the recreational aspects of some of those lands. The whole policy came together after the legislation, the regulations and the policy manuals were developed about the time that we had started talking last summer. We couldn't really get into it before then, because our procedures weren't in place.

MR. KING: That seems like a bit of an odd way to do business, in my view. It sounds something like the northeast coal deal. You sign a paper and then ultimately, at some point down the road, hopefully we're going to agree on contract prices.

The problem is that this committee has an obligation to scrutinize government policy and to look at whether or not the public received fair value for this exchange of their land, which the currently elected government presides over at the moment. Once the agreement is made. If the appraisals reveal that there's a vast disparity of value between those land parcels that were traded. what happens then? Some questions come to mind. It's my understanding that the bulk of the Pacific Logging land had in fact been logged. Have those portions of it that were logged been restocked? Have they been replanted? Or is the government now going to have to undertake that additional cost of restocking the land that has been logged? There's a cost factor there.

The minister said that the Pacific Logging land was in some small, fragmented parcels and has recreational value. That recreational value is not going to go away. What was the great urgency about consummating this deal — this swap — before all of the information was in and not only the minister could make a fair evaluation as to whether or not the trade was fair and represented fair value to the public. but the people of the province would have the same opportunity? I find it a very strange way of doing business, and it makes me wonder whether my colleagues from Mackenzie and Vancouver East are in fact correct when they suggest that this government was over a barrel in terms of the position it was in with respect to the False Creek property, which this government required for its development down there and for which it had to go cap-in-hand to CP Rail to release that land.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was a problem of their own making.

MR. KING: A problem of their own making indeed, and certainly they were in a position where they had no bargaining leverage with C.P. Rail. I'm somewhat afraid that we're seeing the consequences of that very foolish position that this government placed itself in vis-à-vis that colossus, CP Rail and its empire. We'll be able to judge it more effectively when we are able to have a look at the agreements, and the minister has given a commitment to the House to table that agreement. I hope he would do so today; if not, certainly before we reconvene tomorrow morning to consider his estimates once more.

I want to raise another matter with the minister. I want to read for him a brief statement that comes from one his colleagues, and I want to commend this course of action to him. I'm going to give a pat on the back to the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) and quote a letter that he has written to Commerce magazine of B.C. — just one small part of it. The minister has this to say: "The time is long past of industries and government taking actions

[ Page 4706 ]

that affect the general public without justifying the need for such actions." In other words, the Minister of Transportation and Highways is saying: with the public, take the public into your confidence and let them know what policies you are initiating. I want to know how that squares with a number of other things this Minister of Forests is doing. The trade of the land with Pacific Logging is a case in point. The public is going to be brought into an assessment of that deal after the fact, without any opportunity to determine whether or not it would have been their preference to make the kind of trade that the minister has apparently committed the province to. We've seen too much dealing in secrecy with matters that the public has a right to be involved in, with matters that the public has a right to make some indication of their preference on, a right to some input on.

Another letter comes to my mind, and it's a memorandum addressed to Mr. J.C. Johnston, Deputy Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing: "Re proposed study to establish the Soo provincial forest up to eight new parts and to amend the boundaries of Garibaldi Park." I think the deputy minister knows something about this memorandum, because it is signed by Mr. T.M. Apsey, Deputy Minister of Forests. There's a proposal contained in it; I'm not going to read the whole letter. It starts out:

"I would like your concurrence that a study be conducted jointly by our ministries to establish the Soo provincial forest and to consider the merits of establishing as many as eight new parts contingent upon amending the boundaries of Garibaldi Park."

He outlines the objectives and the background, and then he outlines proposed stages for a study, a brief feasibility study. He concludes the suggested feasibility study with this paragraph:

"If the preliminary feasibility study did not show substantial benefits, the proposed amendment and further study of Garibaldi Park boundaries would be dropped. The feasibility study would be entirely confidential within our ministries. Depending on the results of stage one, a decision as to whether or not to proceed further would be made jointly by the two ministries. Further action would provide for stopping the project if strong public resistance developed at any stage."

I presume the Deputy Minister of Forests took this initiative with the full knowledge and consent of his minister. If not, I would suggest he was certainly overstepping the bounds of the public service by getting into the realm of a major policy question. I assume he did this with the full support of his minister. But it's the method that bothers me. There's an aura of secrecy about it which is completely out of step with the suggested approach that I read from the Minister of Transportation and Highways — that the time is past when governments should be making decisions that affect the public without fully taking the public into their confidence. Not after the fact, but up front and out in the open, so that full public discussion can take place. It talks about: "Stage 2, contact the interest groups involved; stage 3, public involvement." It says:

"Subject to the results of step 2, a joint press release would advise the public of a proposed study to consider establishment of new parks, amendment of Garibaldi Park and establishment of the Soo provincial forest. The press release would announce a public meeting to explain the study and to create an advisory committee to represent the public. One of the objectives would be to ensure public support for eventual political decisions."

I wonder why the minister didn't put out this memorandum. If that was his policy and if we are dealing with conditioning the public mind out there to a particular political point of view, I would have thought that would have been a responsibility of the minister, not a public servant.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps you can now understand the feeling of revulsion which the opposition benches had when we learned of a command performance by a senior public servant up at a private Social Credit partisan political meeting just this last weekend. When I see secret memoranda that are supposed to be kept confidential advocating such things as involving the public with one of the objectives "to ensure public support for eventual political decisions" coming from a deputy minister, that bothers me a great deal. It should not be the deputy minister who is attempting to condition and change public political perceptions out there. That's what members of this Legislature are elected for. It is we who are supposed to be debating various public policy positions, different philosophical positions, and attempting by all means to persuade the public and convince them that whatever point of view we have is a correct and a valid one.

I suggest that we are seriously overstepping the bounds, and we are going down a new road, when we get the public servants, however senior, involved in this kind of surreptitious document. It attempts to set up a course of action on a very strictly confidential basis, and then set up some public committees with the view of eventually conditioning the public mind to a particular political decision that has, in effect, already been made. I suggest that is a dangerous and irresponsible course of action for the minister to allow in his ministry. I would like to hear the minister's response to this.

The other more serious thing that we find in this particular memo is that this whole proposal is put forward out of a basic concern, it would seem, for a serious shortage of timber in the timber supply area. It looks like an attempt to tamper with the boundaries of parks to try to ameliorate the serious shortage of timber being experienced in that particular area. Well, there are shortages of timber in many, many parts of the province right now. The analysis for the West Kootenays has just come out, and shows a serious shortage there. Is the ministry's response going to be an incursion into the parkland up in that area to accommodate the shortage in timber supply? Does this herald an incursion into the Valhallas? Into Kokanee park perhaps, and some of the others up in the interior? Perhaps Stanley Park too; I don't know.

I want to suggest that the matter of a shortage of timber is of major concern to every member of this Legislature and to the public. I think the way to overcome that shortage of timber is through a greater commitment to wise management of the resource and to ensuring that an adequate budget is put forward to meet the restocking needs on an annual basis to keep pace with the annual allowable cut, not to start chiseling on the park areas of the province to make up for the abuse and neglect that has taken place in the past to produce the shortfall in timber supply. That's what's needed. The minister has a big grin on his face; I don't know whether it's happy or what you might describe it as. I certainly wouldn't want to be insulting.

He may feel satisfied that he's got a program of adequate restocking; certainly I'm not. I just want to point out to him that many of the people involved in the industry are not either.

[ Page 4707 ]

I have a copy of the Forest Cover paper that's put out by the tree planters. The February issue has this to say — and I quote some fairly senior Ministry of Forests staff too:

"Reforestation Falling Behind. The shortcomings of the five-year plan are particularly noticeable in reforestation. 'We don't have enough trees,' says Tony Richmond, forest consultant in Prince George. 'This region needs 54 million seedlings to be planted annually by 1984. The allocation says there will 36 million seedlings planted annually by 1985.'"

Robert Jones, silviculture manager for the Ministry of Forests, states:

"More seedlings are being requested; different species are being requested. There has been a massive increase in seedling allocation and an even greater demand. Foresters are concerned that the inadequate silviculture budget is locked into the five-year plan. The Pacific Reforestation Association claims that the province should be planting twice the number of trees projected in the plan. The general consensus among the forest industry is that the budget projected in the five-year plan is only a start."

It concludes:

"Foresters will have to wait for the new budget to see whether the government has heard their message. As one of them bluntly put it: 'If we don't get more trees, we could have a toilet paper shortage. The minister has to get the message: the five-year plan has to be updated and the budget increased.' "

The point I've been trying to make to the minister ever since we started considering his estimates is that, far from seeing his budget increased, we are seeing his budget reduced and the five-year range resource allocation used to subsidize that diminishing amount of dollars in his budget. The industry and the professionals in the field are making the same point. So it looks to me, when I see secret memoranda like the one put out by the deputy minister, as though there's a degree of desperation in the ministry. The dollars are not there; he's facing a crunch in terms of timber supply; and he's reaching out with some desperation and attempting now to find a new supply of timber in some of the parklands of the province of British Columbia. Well, maybe that makes sense in some areas, if we can find some way of selectively logging areas that would perhaps improve parks. I'm willing to consider that. I don't like the single-use concept in land management myself. But one thing I hate worse is the secretive attitude by the Ministry of Forests.

You know, there's a lot of competence out there in the public today. There are a lot of professional people who are out there and who have an interest. They don't necessarily work for the Forests ministry. They would like to have a role to play in managing the resource. I believe that if the ministry would be prepared to take people into its confidence and say: "Let's examine some of this park and wilderness area and find out whether or not we can come up with methods other than clear-cut logging to shore up what is a very serious timber shortage, so that employment security might be maintained...." I think the public is responsible enough and mature enough to have a look at that. But they want some honesty and they want some guarantee that they're going to have control over monitoring the program. They want some guarantee that we're not just going to see the kind of incursion by heavy road construction — the interference with the esthetic values and the fishery values — that has accompanied much of the clear-cut logging in traditional areas of the province. If ways could be found that would protect those interests, then I think it's possible and fair that there should be a constant appraisal of some of these areas in the province of British Columbia. But we don't need this kind of back-door surreptitious overture into these areas, with public involvement only in an attempt to condition people to a certain point of view, so that it becomes politically palatable for the government to make the announcement somewhere down the road.

I think the minister owes the committee an explanation of what prompted this particular epistle from his deputy minister. I await his reply with great interest, Mr. Chairman.

MR. NICOLSON: First of all, I would like to say that I think all members in this House — those few of us here at the present time — are genuinely interested in the forest resource. We're interested that the funds that are allocated through these estimates are expended in the most prudent and productive manner possible. I am concerned that this activity find its way to creating a lifestyle, security and jobs for the people of this province. One thing that I think both the present and all past forestry administrations have not looked toward maximizing is simply the number of jobs produced per cunit of fibre that we harvest; rather they look at what is necessarily the most profit oriented.

Those two may or may not be common aims and objectives. One might by default be fulfilled by the other, but I don't think that's true in all cases. I am concerned that the fibre be utilized in the most efficient way possible. That is to say that peeler logs should not be sawn into sawlogs and that sawmill logs not go through a whole log chipper and find their way into pulping. This is something which people in the mills and the woods tell me still happens. We haven't rationalized the timber supply.

Just as we would like to utilize the fibre in the most effective way possible, we should also look to utilizing the land base in the most effective way possible. We should not seek to necessarily log an area if it does have a higher use. I do see some place for single use. I would think that in most places I would like to see multiple use. We cannot afford any more. The people of this province, whether they be on Vancouver Island, on the coast, in the Okanagan, in the Kootenays or in the north or central plateau, will no longer sit aside and allow watersheds to be decimated. The people are demanding and indeed getting a higher level of sophistication in the wood management area of the industry.

Mr. Chairman, it's very nice to listen to large figures spouted. But I would like to know from the minister what is going to happen in the Nelson region. the Nelson forest district and in the new Arrow Lakes forest district — I guess it's called the Arrow Lakes forest district: it's the one that's served out of Castlegar. Specifically I'd like to know what is going to happen in certain areas of reforestation. How many seedlings are going to be planted?

I don't know what the figures were for 1980 but up until 1979 in the Nelson forest region the number of seedlings planted had actually declined every year since 1975. At least it never reached the 1975 level. However, there is also an increase in selective logging. The proportion of clear-cut logging decreased and the amount of selective logging increased. It is, to some extent, comparing apples to oranges, but when one looks at the major problem of catching up on inadequately reforested or untreated areas — that catch-up

[ Page 4708 ]

that we have to go through — one could still just look at the number of seedlings being planted as one indication of something that should have been increasing, and I would specifically like to know what is going to be the level of activity. But that is only one thing, and to simply adopt the planting of seedlings as a panacea for what is now being called the falldown effect in our industry would be very short-sighted indeed.

A couple of weeks ago, or maybe about one week before the Legislature reconvened, I spent a day touring the woodland operations of one of the intermediate-sized non-integrated forest companies in my area. They showed me examples of some of the poor logging practices that their company had undertaken in the past, they showed me some examples of logging of which they were a little more proud, and they showed me some areas in which the skid roads were very poorly placed and others in which they were very well contoured. Just to remind myself — for speaker's notes — I've brought a few photographs into the House. They also showed me some areas which had been logged by high-lead cable, and in fact I watched some cable logging in progress. In the area I looked at, ground disturbance from the cable logging was quite minimal. They also showed me an area in which there's a tremendous amount of fibre still lying on the forest floor — fibre which could still be recovered if there was any economic use to which it could be put. It would still be useful pulpwood. They also showed me deckings in the area that they're presently logging, and at the one decking we happened to look at there was a person from the ministry there who had just scaled it. It scaled about 6 percent sawlogs, 8 percent culls, and the rest was all considered to be pulplogs. In that part of the country, as the minister well knows since he was the minister responsible for Kootenay Forest Products — Mr. Ray Williston reported directly to him before KFP was put under BCRIC — the problems are simply that we have an abundance of decadent cedar and hemlock logs and, as I mentioned in this House a year ago, even Mr. Knudsen, the head of MacMillan Bloedel, had said the greatest expansion opportunity in the province lies in the Kootenays. But it's not an expansion opportunity for sawmills and conventional plywood; it's an expansion opportunity either for pulp or perhaps for oriented-strand board, which Mr. Williston is now working on in Ocean Falls. He has had some very successful tests conducted in Lewiston, Idaho, looked after by Forintek, I understand.

Those are the few opportunities for expansion at the moment, and I'd like the minister to know that companies are being asked to take everything out of the woods. Things which a few years ago would have been left in and just crumpled up and ground down with heavy Cats and machinery are being decked there, and that's where they're going to stay unless this government does something which is going to be very difficult to do now. They've really lost their opportunity, because the government no longer has direct control of Can-Cel or Kootenay Forest Products, and I suppose nobody has control of BCRIC.

As I said in the budget debate, what an opportunity. There were $600-odd million of investment capital which people put up with the full expectation that when you take these forest companies away from your direction, Mr. Minister, and put them under this new corporation they will be in the forest business. And what do they do'? They go and buy a coal-mine.

So where is this wood fibre capability, this pulpmill which probably should have been built to either expand the Castlegar mill or, as they were talking of building even a year ago under BCRIC, a green-field mill? You know where it is? Mr. Kaiser went and bought himself an NFL football team, and our pulpmill is now in Denver, Colorado.

Now this is the problem and this is the waste which is going on. What we should be doing in our area is cutting down one section of forest which, after a 300-year-old forest fire, grew back so densely that there are about 5,000 stems per acre on it. It is an area in which the largest tree — after 300 years of growth at a very low elevation, on prime land — is only about 11 inches in diameter. Those trees range from 5 to 11 inches. What are we going to do to get those areas back into production? We've heard so much about what's happening. Well, I really haven't been able to see anything that exciting that's been initiated by the ministry.

I will say this: I've played my role in trying to help with the minister's program in our area under the program where they're encouraging private growers to grow seedlings. One person is trying to expand his greenhouse operation, but can no longer operate it with the current oil prices, so he needs natural gas. I have done everything I can, and I think that we will be successful in getting natural gas extended two miles to that area so that that person will be able to contract and produce seedling trees. It might be a lot easier to help people if certain changes weren't made in the Energy Act too, but at least we are dealing with a company which, I think, is a splendid corporate citizen in our area — Inland Natural Gas — and I think that everything will be brought together.

So we're cooperating, and I'm not knocking the intention, but I really don't see that much when I go out to look for the fantastic increase, when I look at statistics. This minister has been minister for a goodly number of years now and this government has been government since 1975, but the records which I have which show fewer seedlings planted in 1979 than in 1975. I would like some specific figures on what is going to happen in the Nelson region and in the Slocan in particular, because going in and logging the Valhallas for a couple of years is not going to overcome these problems, though it might postpone them. The real way to solve things and to get the best utilization in our area is an accelerated program to put some fantastic land which is only on a between 2,000- foot and 3,000-foot elevation up there.... It has presently got some stunted forest, which just grew up all wrong 200 or 300 years ago, and it is not producing. The question is: how much activity and how accelerated an activity could we see in that area to really start to address this falldown effect, and where we really have an oversupply of sawmilling capability and an oversupply of pulp or fibre which might be available for oriented-strand board, and how much is the government putting into research on the oriented-strand board, other than allocating I forget how many cunits or cubic metres of timber in the Ocean Falls area?

Mr. Chairman, I'd also like the minister to tell us how many people in the Forest Service have indicated since forest reorganization that they're taking early retirement, how many probably will be electing early retirement as a result of the reorganization program, and what the cost of early retirement would be. I'd also like the minister to tell us how many people were given a job classification with higher pay out of the total ministry. In other words, what was the net effect in terms of upward promotions as a result of the reorganization

[ Page 4709 ]

program? We look at the increase which was referred to on Friday in the building and occupancy charges. How much of that was necessitated by the reorganization program? I wonder if the minister could answer some of those questions.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I don't have specific numbers for the latter questions the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) asked. It would probably take some time to develop statistics on how many people were upgraded and how many early retirements were taken, but I'd be very happy to have that researched and let the member know.

A few moments ago the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) remarked that I was smiling. The reason I am smiling is because I sort of like living in B.C. I think it's a tremendous place to live, especially when I look across the floor and see the down-in-the-mouth looks and completely negative approach to everything that happens. I like B.C. and I'm always happy here, except very occasionally when I get discouraged. It's a great place to live and I wish the members opposite would be a little happier once in a while. living in this great province.

I have one little complaint of the member for Nelson-Creston and his reference to BCRIC. Again. he's always negative. Mr. Member, I know that you would like to see BCRIC fail. You would like to see BCRIC be a bad investment, a company that lost money. Let me tell you. there are thousands and thousands of British Columbians who own shares in BCRIC, and your negative talk — every time you say something negative about BCRIC, and your party does it quite often — has some effect on the value of the stock. I hope you realize that. You're affecting the worth of assets of people of British Columbia. So even though you'd like to see it fail because it was started by this government, please remember that you're affecting an awful lot of people when you are constantly saying negative things about BCRIC.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, the minister is imputing to me a motive for which there is no basis.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the minister has imputed any false or improper motive to the member for Nelson-Creston, I'll ask the minister to withdraw.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: There was no motive imputed at all. I'm just repeating some of things that member said — that they would like to see BCRIC become a poor asset in the hands of the people of British Columbia so that they can gain some political advantage from it. I think that's very obvious from some of the things that they've been saying.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, the minister is trying to say indirectly what he cannot say directly. I ask him to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the minister has imputed any improper or false motive to another hon. member, the minister must withdraw.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No imputation, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister will withdraw any imputation of false....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: If there was one, certainly I will — if that is the way the member interpreted my comment.

I'm happy to see that the member did get out in the bush for a day or so. That makes him an instant expert on all matters of reforestation, silvicultural management, logging practice and so on.

The forest industry and the Forest Service have made mistakes in the past. We're not proud of all the things that have happened over the years in forest management or forest harvesting techniques. They are improving at a tremendous rate right now — in the types of logging being done, the utilization of the material that is being extracted from the forests, and the degree of extraction as well. The total thrust of trying to eliminate the effect of the falldown that takes place as you begin to harvest second-growth stands — the total answer is not planting trees. That's one small part. I'm glad the member finally realizes that. If you were to read the plan you would see a large number of initiatives taken — things that are being done in order to offset the falldown effect. Planting of trees is one very important part of it.

I believe it was the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke who read from the Western Foresters Association and Forest Planters Association the fact that they hope the government realizes the need for more planting. Indeed the government does. That is why over the next five-year period we will be doubling the number of plantable seedlings produced in British Columbia. When you consider that it has taken 50 years to reach the level of 75 million plantable seedlings or seedlings actually planted last year, double that within a five-year period of time is a tremendous undertaking. To achieve it will require an awful lot of cooperation and coordination between the ministry and the private sector. It's a giant stride forward. There are those who say that we should do it more quickly, and perhaps we should, but we don't think we can. I'd love to be able to say that within five years we'll be planting 250 million seedlings but it's a physical impossibility. We cannot put together the people, the plant, or even produce the seed to grow seedlings, within that period of time. We're moving as quickly as is practically possible, not only in our planting, but in the other treatments which we intend to use. If the member will look at page 17 of the summary of the five-year program, he'll see that we'll be increasing the spacing of overstocked stands from 21,000 this next fiscal year. which in itself is quite an increase, to over 66,000 within a five-year period of time. That's as fast as you can get the people together. That's as fast as you can learn how to space the various types of stands that we have in British Columbia. These are Giant strides ahead.

Fertilization will increase from 15.000 hectares to just under 40.000 hectares in that same period of time. We'll have tremendous increases in site rehabilitation work in our backlog planning. So we're taking giant strides ahead, and the member should acknowledge that. We have done more in the last two years in increasing our forest management level than they did in the three years that they were in government. The only thing that happened was that a royal commission was appointed. The results of that appointment were positive. But nothing was done to improve the management of forests during that period of time. We waited for the report.

I can't answer the member's specific question about what research, other than that which is being done by the Ocean Falls Corporation or by B.C. Cellulose Company is being done on oriented-strand fibreboard. It's not a new product.

[ Page 4710 ]

What has to be researched is: can the specific type of wood we have be used in that process and can we develop markets for it? There are many other things being done in research on wood products, primarily in the private sector. Forintek is cooperating with the industry in many areas of research. We must find better and more ways of using the lower quality and previously unused species of wood in British Columbia. Giant strides are being made. Hardwood utilization is one thing that is moving along quite quickly. Hopefully, in a very few years, some of what are presently weak species will become valuable commercial species of wood in our hardwood stands.

How much planting and how many areas will be spaced, thinned and fertilized in the Nelson area? I can't answer that question specifically. Each timber supply area will have a silvicultural committee made up of members from the industry and the government, and those professionals will plan the best possible use of the funds and the expertise available in the various areas. You will see increases in all of these applications over the next five years, and I'm sure for many years beyond that.

I'm glad the member said that he believes in multi-use. The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke does as well. But it's strange to me how you can be both for and against multi-use at the same time. Certainly there are some areas that should be set aside, but every time we turn down a request for a single-use alienation, we get nothing but criticism from the members opposite and also from members of the public. It's a difficult balancing act to put each acre of land to its best possible use, and multi-use is usually the best use. When we harvest in watersheds, we must do it in a sensitive manner so as not to detract from the quality of the water. We seek cooperation and consult with the private sector and the general public in developing these plans. There will always be the lobby that says: "No, you can't log in any watershed. You must continue to set aside large areas for single-use wilderness." We in British Columbia can't afford that type of thing.

I should remark too on the comments made by the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) about the secret, clandestine memo that was sent from my deputy minister to the Deputy Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. This was simply an interdepartmental memo. As good resource managers, my deputy, after having discussions with both local governments in the Garibaldi area and resource managers in the area.... It was suggested that they should be able to establish eight new provincial parks for public use. My deputy sent this memo in hope of having some assessment done of existing parks and of the possibility of enhancing both park values and forest values by perhaps doing some rationalization of park boundaries.

As the member knows if he looks at a map, the boundaries of Garibaldi Park are largely straight-line boundaries, which in a practical way make no sense in very mountainous terrain. There are many very pristine areas lying just outside these boundaries which could well be included in the park and would probably have their best use if they were included in the park. There are other areas of much less recreational value which would probably be best used if devoted to multi-use management.

My deputy minister, who is a good administrator and manager, suggested to the other ministry that we assess this. If our initial in-house assessment indicates some increase in value to both sides, then perhaps we should look at it and involve the public in discussion. There's nothing secret about it; it's simply an interdepartmental memo.

Mr. Chairman, I think that covers the points raised by the last couple of speakers.

MR. NICOLSON: I'm kind of surprised. First of all, I would say that the very fine point concerning the interdepartmental memo was raised by my colleague from Revelstoke. I didn't mention it or even allude to it in my speech.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, I'm somewhat taken aback by the minister's saying such things as: "Well, I suppose if you were out in the bush for one day it makes you an instant expert." I didn't claim to be an expert. I didn't get up and say that I spend half my time in the bush. I didn't get up and say that a goodly number of my friends work in the bush either as IWA fallers or machine operators or that others are small contractors to various companies in the area. Others are professional foresters, people whom I have home for sociable reasons. In fact I do go out and look at it. I think that if most members in this House didn't know a little bit about forestry before they got elected, they better learn a little bit if they want to be elected two or three times.

So, Mr. Chairman I don't know what my expertise is in forestry, but I certainly know what my concern is for the industry that is the economic backbone of the area that I serve. I have tried to bring to the minister's attention some very....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member should be allowed to continue, hon. members.

MR. NICOLSON: Would you bring that Premier up to date? He's been out of this country so much that he doesn't know that I've been living back in Nelson-Creston for over three years.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Neither do they.

MR. NICOLSON: I think that the people of Nelson-Creston spoke on that in May 1979.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I've asked the member for Okanagan South (Hon. Mr. Bennett) to come to order.

MR. NICOLSON: All of that aside, what I'm trying to bring to the attention of the minister is that there are some very serious areas in this sector of the province. There is the ironic situation where we have opportunity for economic expansion and development which has been set aside and put on a back burner. In fact there were plans back in 1975 for the expansion of the Castlegar pulpmill of Can-Cel, and those things were shelved by this government. One time four or five years ago I got up in the House and was told: "Don't you realize that pulp prices are down? This is no time to build a pulpmill." I said that was the time to build pulpmill — when they were down, because they would surely go up. They've gone up since then. They're still hovering up there. They're maybe just ready to start going down again.

We've missed a full cycle in the pulp economic cycle and we have jobs rotting on the ground. That's what I want the minister to realize. That's what I want the minister to take

[ Page 4711 ]

some action on — whether it's to tell BCRIC to tell Can-Cel to get on with its plans or whether it is to put out the opportunity for a company that wants to take this fibre and utilize it in the form of oriented-strand board, some type of enterprising and ingenious utilization of this fibre, rather than letting it stay on the ground, which I can show you pictures of.... If any of these jabber-wonkies here want to come up to my riding, I can certainly show that to them as well.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: I must say that I have probably, even from a position of being in the official opposition, produced more jobs than all of these people put together — those who are chattering over there, not those listening attentively.

It is a very difficult situation that we are faced with today. I would hope that the minister would realize that plywood is under severe competition from products such as aspenite. It's going to be in increasing competition with products such as oriented-strand board. We can either just allow mills, such as the old Pacific Veneer plant in New Westminster, to shut down or we can look at the problem that we face today. And we can try to seize some opportunity from that problem. Jobs are rotting on the ground, and if those Munchkins don't care about jobs rotting on the ground, then we'll let the people of their ridings know about it. Every one of these logs is a job lost. It's hours, paycheques and prosperity lost. This is what we want to bring to the minister's attention. We have problems, but there are solutions. The industry and the demand for products are changing. If the best that the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) of this province can do is to sit in this House and make inane remarks rather than going out and producing real jobs, perhaps our efforts are wasted. But we hope that somehow, by some process of osmosis, a message will get down. We do know that the public servants, people in Crown corporations and people in the B.C. Economic Development Corporation, carry on very well in spite of the minister and lack of leadership.

I note that the minister is not here, and that would be the obvious thing to do, wouldn't it? But I'm sure his deputy minister will have been taking notes, and that perhaps when the minister composes himself he will address himself to me, not confront me. When I got up first time some very serious things had been raised by my colleague the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) about a land exchange about which we've had very little information. I didn't pursue that — others had done it very well — but what I was talking about was all very well motivated, very serious and very important to the people of my riding.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for assisting me to bring to this House the concerns of my riding over very trying circumstances.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. It's very difficult for members to be heard over the noise that is developing in the chamber. I would ask all members to show the courtesy deserved by the members speaking.

MRS. WALLACE: I find it a little difficult to rise to address the Minister of Forests when he is not present, but I hope he will be back very shortly. It's rather difficult to ask him a question when he's not here. But perhaps while I'm waiting for him to return I might just quote from the most recent forest memo from the British Columbia professional foresters. The minister, by innuendo, has indicated that we are novices over here and don't really know what we're talking about. [Applause.] I thought that would probably get the proverbial clap from the proverbial Munchkins over there.

I would suspect, Mr. Chairman, that they would not say that about the professional foresters in this province. I would suspect that the Minister of Forests would have some respect for the opinion of professional foresters in British Columbia. In their March 1981 forest memo. which all members of this Legislature received — it's not a secret memo directed, as a confidential document, out of sight — they talk about the concern of all foresters for long-term planning. They say that the current five-year planning done by the Ministry of Forests is a step in the right direction.

The Minister of Forests has now returned. Mr. Minister, I'm suggesting that you would not say that professional foresters in British Columbia are novices in regard to understanding or knowing about the forest industry. In their most recent memo they have indicated their concern that a five year term is not really long enough when you're growing trees. Those five-year plans must be responsive to changing conditions. Then they refer to the current five-year planning that has been done and what has happened in the first two years of the five-year plan that that minister brought in. They say:

"A lot of good work was done, but the money supply ran out. Forest fertilization on the coast was cut back in 1980. among other things. In fact, $10 million were cut in total. The second year of the plan, 1981, doesn't seem to be doing any better. In fact, $7 million has already been cut and the year is just starting. This is happening just when we are finding the original plan was conservative and needed upward revision to meet changes in climate.

"It doesn't really matter where the cuts are being made within the ministry. The fact is that the total budget has been cut by $17 million in two years."

Then, for some positive suggestions they go on and ask if we know — and I'm wondering whether or not the minister knows — what a forester could do with $17 million. He could do any one of the following things, they say: he could plant 57 million seedlings on 150,000 acres, juvenile space 85,000 acres of overstocked young stands, or fertilize 280,000 acres of slow-growing forest. Those are the kinds of things that could have been done, if in fact the budget hadn't been cut back — if the long-term planning hadn't been cut back for the actual in-field programs that this ministry has said it's committed to carrying out. That's the professional foresters' point of view. That's what the professional foresters are saying about the five-year plan and its effectiveness.

I want to turn to the minister's five-year forest and range resource program. On page 9 he talks about coordinating resource management. He says: "Last year, the first priority of the ministry was to define the land base for timber and forage production with other agencies. The first resource analysis for timber supply areas and the creation of provincial forests are positive steps towards this end." The creation of provincial forests is a good objective, but I would like to ask the minister why, if that is such a good and positive objective and a first priority of his ministry, we found in January of this

[ Page 4712 ]

year the Premier involving himself in a decision where the creation of provincial forests were to be deferred for two years in contentious areas. I would like the Minister of Forests to answer me as to why the establishment of those provincial forests was deferred, why they were not established, why that program was put in limbo for two years. Is the minister prepared to answer that question?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The member continues to indulge in selective misinterpretation of things that people say. There is in fact a program to establish additional provincial forests in British Columbia. As a matter of fact, in the last couple of months we've established five additional provincial forests, covering about 2.5 million hectares. The Premier recognized the fact that there are competing demands being made on the land, that there are some areas where a hard and fast decision cannot be made. Because the Premier is the leader of our party and the Premier of our government, he has given some very specific directions to two of his ministers. I doubt if there was any direction ever offered to any ministers under the previous government. But when our Premier sees policies that appear to conflict over the same land area, he tells us that we must get on with the job and sort it out.

The only deferral areas are those in which it is not a clear-cut decision, where there are competing land uses, both apparently of equal value, which have to be sorted out. So we're doing that. In the meantime we are carrying on with provincial forest establishment in areas which are quite obviously best suited to the multiple-use aspect that provincial forests provide. The 2.5 million hectares of new provincial forests established have come in within the last two months. And the member says: "You're deferring the establishment of provincial forests." Utter garbage!

The member talks about the cutback in spending in my forestry programs — a cutback from $260 million last year way down to $300 million this year. That's some cutback! The programs that are laid out are for a five-year commitment to funding and management options. These are based upon 20-year and 100-year plans. You cannot plan provincial forest management in terms of a few years. We have committed funding for the five-year program. Each year we will have another five-year program. We'll always have a commitment to funding in forest management for five years ahead. This is the only jurisdiction in the world, as far as I know, that does that type of commitment ahead of time.

MR. BARBER: Outside of Russia.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The first member for Victoria is probably quite familiar with what happens in Russia. I'm sure there are some things there that are in common with his type of thinking.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, the member talks about massive cutbacks in spending from $260 million to $300 million. I hope she has more to contribute than that.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, I have more to contribute. The figures which I was quoting were figures from the professional foresters in this province. Is the minister telling this House that either those foresters do not know what they're talking about or that they're deliberately misleading? Is that what the minister is telling this House? I am quoting figures from the professional foresters in this province, and that minister is trying to tell me that those figures aren't correct.

Is he saying that the professional foresters don't know what they're talking about? Is that what he's telling this House? I think that the professional foresters would be very interested in those remarks and in knowing that that's what the minister is saying to the Legislature — that the foresters don't know what they're talking about, because that appears to be what he's saying.

Again the minister has left the House. I would like to know how many hectares of the forest are involved in the deferred areas relative to provincial forests in this province, where those areas are and what resolution is being made. I understand there was to be a 30-day period of reviewing the problems that occurred, the conflict of interest — a conflict between two ministries and a third ministry involved. Certainly my concern is what's happening to those core lands that were to be designated for agriculture. They're caught up in this thing too, in the Cariboo particularly. You know, I can't ask the minister these questions when he isn't here.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: It's no wonder that the member for Cariboo (Hon. Mr. Fraser) is concerned about what's happening with the Minister of Forests; we've heard quotations on the floor of the House today relative to this. It's no wonder he's concerned, because I can tell you that the agricultural and the ranching community is mightily concerned.

Without the minister here, Mr. Chairman, I move that the Chairman do now leave the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have heard the motion. All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Opposed?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The noes have it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Division is called.

Hon. members, is it agreed that we now proceed?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I know that the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) is in the building. We've sent the Whip for him because I'm sure that he wouldn't want to miss this division. Perhaps you could afford us a few extra moments.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The same courtesy was extended earlier.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I draw your attention to the clock.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the Chairman's attention having been drawn to the clock leaves me with two alternatives: to complete the division or to report immediately without debate to the Speaker.

[ Page 4713 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: In the circumstances, while we started some many minutes ago, I think it would be appropriate to complete the division.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

MR. HOWARD: I think I should point out to Mr. Speaker that if the mace were on the table we appropriately would be conducting business; otherwise the items we are about to deal with would have no validity.

The motion which the Attorney-General has put before the House is that the House meet again tomorrow morning commencing at 10 o'clock. That reflects what I consider to be a double-cross. At the beginning of this session in December, I had the opportunity to meet with the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) in his capacity as House Leader for the government. He assured me then, and during the time that we were considering the budget debate, that the only time during which the government would want to have morning sittings would be during the throne speech and the budget debate. He assured me of that twice. The Premier may feel that he's running affairs, but he obviously didn't get his message through to the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations because he misled the opposition by making those declarations on two occasions.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I must ask the hon. member to withdraw the word "misled."

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I have the greatest admiration for the Chair and yourself, and on that basis only will I withdraw the word "misled."

MR. SPEAKER: The member withdraws.

MR. HOWARD: The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations led us to believe otherwise than what is now the case before us in this particular motion. One of the difficulties that arises — members opposite know this.... We're not opposed to extra sittings, as is well known....

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: There's Gracie using her mouth instead of her finger.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. On a point of order, the hon. Minister of Human Resources.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I think that the member who has just now been speaking is speaking in a derogatory fashion towards this member. I would ask him to withdraw those remarks.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, those remarks which may be distasteful to any member are not necessarily required to be withdrawn unless they are unparliamentary. Otherwise the Chair would be required to make a value decision on all remarks made. Those which could be distasteful to some would not be distasteful to others. Therefore, with great respect, the members of this House are asking the Chair to accomplish something which is scarcely accomplished even under the rules of unparliamentary language, With great respect, I think that is asking the Chair to do too much. Those words which are unparliamentary will be asked to be withdrawn.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I thank you for the ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I understand the predicament you would be in, particularly dealing with this member.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed, may I remind the hon. member who has the floor that the scope of debate on this particular motion is extremely narrow, sir, and you must confine yourself to the time.

MR. HOWARD: I was trying to hew to that narrow line, except I was interrupted by catcalls. If I live to be 100, Mr. Speaker, I will never have the unsavoury reputation that the Minister of Human Resources has in political matters.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. please. Now to the debate.

MR. HOWARD: As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted earlier, we are not opposed to sitting extra sittings, Mr. Speaker. In fact, it's well known that, both during the last session and earlier, the tradition of this Legislature was to have sittings in the afternoon and in the evening in order that during the mornings members could spend the time attending to their functions of relating to their constituencies. The cabinet may be quite happy to conduct their affairs of state sitting in the Legislature. They may be able to do so because they've got sundry minions in their offices to deal with constituency matters. The rest of us don't have that, and it makes having to deal with matters extremely more difficult. I'm suggesting that what should happen is a return to the position of having sittings during the evening, as has traditionally been the case until the Social Credit government with its cornflake mentality decided that it wanted to meet in the mornings instead.

To that end and for that reason, and looking towards the possibility that we'll return to some sane method of dealing with the business of the people in this Legislature, I would move that the motion be amended by deleting "10 a.m." and substituting therefore "2 p.m." If that amendment passes, we will be in a position tomorrow — Tuesday — or tonight, if the Attorney-General so wants to decide, or in any evening at 6 o'clock, to move that traditional and historic motion about adjourning until some time later in the evening. That's the purpose of the amendment, and I regret that the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) led the members of the opposition to believe something which obviously is not the case in the eyes of the government.

MR. SPEAKER: First of all, we'll determine whether or not the amendment is in order — and it appears to be. We will then entertain debate on the amendment.

[ Page 4714 ]

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I draw your attention to our Votes and Proceedings for the first sitting of this session on December 4, in which the motion was made by the hon. House Leader, the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, that on each Tuesday and Thursday there shall be a morning sitting, with no mention of evening sittings. Therefore this particular motion is a reflection on a vote already taken by the House.

Mr. Speaker, may I further draw your attention to the clock, it now being past 6 p.m.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the attention of the Speaker has not been drawn to the clock since having arrived at the Chair. If there was a pointing to the clock, it would have had to have taken place in committee, and, of course, the only way that the Chair has any knowledge of what happens is through the report of the Chairman himself. I am aware that the committee was adjourned by pointing to the clock through report to the Chair. But we are at present on a motion. We cannot stop halfway through a motion, and therefore, when the motion has been concluded — and it has now been amended, as I understand it — we must bring the motion to its proper conclusion, following which the House must determine at what time it will sit again, and following which we must have a motion to adjourn. I'm sorry, hon. members, we are on the amendment.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I'm asking for your ruling on the motion which was passed by this House on December 4 — Votes and Proceedings of Thursday, December 4, 1980 — in which the hours of sitting were voted upon. This motion offends that particular order.

MR. SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. minister that the final phrase of that particular motion is: "…unless otherwise ordered." That order can only take place in this House by the House. As I understand it, that is what the House is trying to determine at this very moment.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: On the amendment, the government does not accept the member's amendment. We have seen over the years the consequences of sittings at various times of the day and the evening. It must be clear from the experience this year that much more significant progress has been made in the conduct of the affairs of the House when the House has sat on Tuesday and Thursday mornings rather than in the evening. It is in that respect and in my capacity as House Leader that I move the motion which is currently before the House today.

If I may be permitted to say, I was not aware of any understanding that the members of the opposition may have had as a consequence of any discussions between them and the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom). Unfortunately he is not here to put the record straight. Aside altogether from whether the record is straight or not, this House is entitled by motion to conduct its own affairs and determine the times it shall sit. I think that when the matter is finally considered that will be the case. I will say this to the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard); if he has reached a conclusion other than what seems to be the case today, I would be most happy to communicate with the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations and to ascertain from him whether or not any specific understanding was reached with the opposition on this matter. I will then be prepared to discuss it with the member for Skeena as soon as I've spoken to the minister, which could be tomorrow morning.

MR. NICOLSON: I am in favour of this amendment. The Attorney-General talks about the progress that this House has made. I haven't seen too many summons convening committees. We know what will happen to committee work when we continue with this. Remember, Mr. Speaker, that when this sessional order was brought in, in courtesy to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor and all the people who were sitting around here, I restrained myself from debating this at that particular time. But I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that if this sessional order is brought in — the day of the Speech from the Throne or any other day — I will get up and debate it. It should not be brought in under that guise. Members of this House have precious little time when they can phone offices and expect people to be in. It's fine to come back here and work till 10 or 11 o'clock at night, as I have been doing during this session, but it is inefficient.

I am in favour of the amendment. I think that this government is simply showing its own fear and weakness by bringing in this sessional order. That is a promise I have made before this House: when I see this sessional order next year I will get up and debate it, and I will use the full force and the full time that I possibly can to debate against this particular thing. I think it's a ridiculous practice. It goes against the tradition of this House. It goes against our standing orders, which have been in effect for many, many years and which, on that point, have served us very well.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 24

NAYS — 28

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

Motion approved.

[ Page 4715 ]

Hon. Mr. Nielsen tabled the 105th report of vital statistics of the province of B.C.

Hon. Mr. Fraser tabled the annual report of the B.C. Steamship Company Ltd. for the year ending December 31, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6.31 p.m.