[ Page 4421 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Royal assent to bills –– 4421

Oral Questions

Human rights legislation. Mr. Gabelmann –– 4422

Unemployment. Mr. Gabelmann –– 4422

Mr. Barrett

Pornography. Ms. Brown –– 4423

Tabling Documents –– 4424

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

On vote 31: minister's office –– 4424

Hon. Mr. Waterland

Mr. Skelly

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Passarell

Mrs. Wallace

Appendix –– 4444

TUESDAY, MAY 1, 1984

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I'd like all hon. members to pay a very cordial welcome to a number of grade 7 students in the west gallery, from St. Augustine's School in Vancouver-Point Grey.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to make welcome a large number of visitors in the gallery this afternoon representing the B.C. Human Rights Coalition. They are here in Victoria to undertake some legislative lobbying and demonstrations, as the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) well knows.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery this afternoon are two individuals whom I consider very close friends, all the way from Fort St. James, Paul and Merlis Bloomfield. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, from the great municipality of Burnaby, and more specifically from Burnaby South Senior Secondary School, are 50 students, led by their department head for social studies, Mr. John Ruryk. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, first I'd like to thank the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch) for greeting my students for me. I'd also like to join with him in bidding welcome to the 50 students and their socials teacher from Burnaby South Senior Secondary School, and ask the House to welcome them again.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like all hon. members to join with me today in welcoming Mrs. Aldis Hawkins, president of the Kootenay Social Credit Constituency Association, along with her brother, Glenn Allen, from Vancouver.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to join the member for Kootenay in welcoming Aldis Hawkins. She was formerly a resident of Logan Lake and was of great assistance to me in the previous election.

While I have the floor I'd like to advise the House of a phone call I just received from Mayor Gloria Stout of the town of Princeton in which she advised me that that community has been successful in having the 1987 world parachute championships awarded to Princeton. I think it expresses the benefits that can flow from things like the Ministry of Highways establishing a nice paved airport in Princeton and a very aggressive pursuit by the chamber of commerce and the municipality in trying to achieve this result.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take this opportunity for all members of the House to welcome into the assembly today the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes). Welcome back.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I understand that His Honour is in the precincts, if we might have a short recess.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, His Honour is in the precincts. Upon being informed of his arrival I will advise the members.

The House took recess at 2:14 p.m.

The House resumed at 2:20 p.m.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

DEPUTY CLERK:

Assessment Amendment Act, 1984

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1984

Constitution Amendment Act, 1984

Residential Tenancy Act

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1984

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these bills.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed.

MR. NICOLSON: On September 12, 1983, the House authorized the Select Standing Committee on Transportation and Communications to consider "methods for providing for the inspection as to safety and repair of prescribed classes of vehicles, and providing for different types of inspections for different classes of vehicles by the private sector.... The committee met on several occasions, the last being February 7, 1984, where briefs were circulated and consideration was given to calling witnesses to supplement the briefs submitted. The committee agreed to sit again at the call of the Chair after the witnesses had been contacted. The House adjourned on Friday, April 13, until today. On Tuesday, April 17, the Times-Colonist carried a statement from the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) that the provincial government wouldn't reimpose mandatory testing on private automobiles, and quoted the minister as saying: "We're not going to the private sector, and we're not bringing back inspections for the private motor vehicle."

Sir Erskine May, at page 138 of the nineteenth edition, specifies that disobedience to the orders of the House is a contempt of that House. I ask Your Honour to rule that the minister's determination of a matter before a select committee effectively stifled an important discussion on motor vehicle safety which the committee was specifically authorized to undertake, and that this constitutes a contempt of the House. If Your Honour rules that a prima facie contempt has been committed, I have an appropriate motion ready to present. I also have a copy of the edition of the Times-Colonist, which carried the minister's statement on page 3. The entire newspaper is available in accordance with the direction of May's nineteenth edition at page 163. I would submit to the Chair my remarks for your convenience, the motion and the newspaper,

[ Page 4422 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will undertake the claim by the member and bring a reply back to the House, without prejudice to the member's claim, at the earliest opportunity.

Oral Questions

HUMAN RIGHTS LEGISLATION

MR. GABELMANN: On Tuesday, April 10, the Minister of Labour introduced into the House the Human Rights Act. Earlier that day cabinet had approved that particular piece of legislation, according to orders-in-council. Could the minister tell the House on what day the advisory committee on the Human Rights Act presented its report to the minister?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware which order-in-council the member is referring to. Cabinet doesn't approve bills; this Legislature does.

MR. GABELMANN: Message bills.... Mr. Speaker, I don't want to get into a debate with the minister. The minister knows the procedure. It's indicated in the minutes of the cabinet meeting — the orders-in-council that are passed are an indication of which message bills have been passed in that particular meeting. When I checked to see which day cabinet apparently approved the introduction of that particular piece of legislation, it was the same day as it was introduced. My question again is primarily this: legislation was introduced into the House at six o'clock on April 10; on what day did the advisory committee on the Human Rights Act present its report to the minister?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the terms of reference for that advisory committee, and for the advisory committee set up to look at the Labour Code, were that there would be no report and no recommendations, only that from time to time it would advise the minister responsible for the bill. That is what happened. I'll take the rest of the question as notice; I'll check my diary and come back and inform the member.

MR. GABELMANN: Am I informed incorrectly that as of Thursday evening — the Thursday prior to the introduction of the bill on the following Tuesday — the deliberations of the committee had not yet been completed and their reports had not yet been delivered to the minister? Is that assumption incorrect?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the answer is the same. I'll check my diary and report back.

MR. GABELMANN: Is the minister saying, therefore, that the report or reports of the committee were not taken into full account prior to the consideration and introduction of its bill?

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

MR. GABELMANN: A final question on that subject. Will the minister undertake now to make public the communications received by him from that committee in respect of their suggestions as to amendments to the Human Rights Act?

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

UNEMPLOYMENT

MR. GABELMANN: I'll save further comment on that subject to debate in further debate on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, to the same minister on an entirely different subject, the B.C. Central Credit Union recently described unemployment levels in B.C. as perversely high. A report which was publicized today indicates that StatsCan figures on unemployment in British Columbia are seriously understated, and that in fact the actual figure in B.C. is 17.7 percent. As a result of this kind of information and the serious levels of unemployment in British Columbia, has the government taken advantage of the two-week recess we've just had to discuss the failure of its current policies and to develop a new economic strategy?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'm reminded that the same report also said that Expo was going to create thousands of new jobs for British Columbia. Yes, Mr. Speaker, that's the subject of very much publicized studies by the cabinet over the past weekend — for instance, to discuss the positive, new proposals that will enable British Columbia to meet the problems of the recession.

MR. GABELMANN: B.C. has experienced no employment gain since the start of the recovery throughout the rest of North America. The Conference Board in Canada has again downgraded B.C.'s economic performance for 1984. What emergency job creation measures have the government developed during the last two weeks to deal with the emergency that we face not in 1986 but today, at a time when we have one out of four people under 25 unemployed and facing permanent unemployment in this economy?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: As I said, some of the deliberations which have taken place over the weekend will be made public in due course, and all of British Columbia will be excited by them. In the meantime, we have some projects already underway, including the ALRT project –– 7,500 direct jobs and 7,500 indirect, for 15,000 new jobs in British Columbia; B.C. Place — 40,000 construction jobs over the life of that contract; Ministry of Highways and Transportation capital programs, 32,000 total jobs; student programs for this summer, 8,400 jobs under the youth program; northeast coal provided 7,500 jobs; southeast coal is providing 8,500 jobs; rail expansion, as a result of the lobbying by this government for changes in the Crow rate, will provide 87,000 jobs over 1984 to 1994; Alcan Vanderhoof smelter, which is in the planning stages now, will provide about 2,000 jobs; Western LNG, 200 jobs; the methanol fertilizer complex, 300 jobs; the possibility of a ferrosilicon plant, which is under discussion now, about 300 jobs. This government is working harder than any other government in Canada to provide new jobs for British Columbians.

[2:30]

MR. GABELMANN: It sounds as though we are going to have to import labour into British Columbia in order to fill all these jobs. Given that all of the information supplied by the minister has been well known by those economists studying our economy in this province, both at the Conference Board and at B.C. Central, given that B.C. Central indicates that

[ Page 4423 ]

our staggering unemployment rate will remain high throughout the 1980s, and given that these projects the minister enunciates do nothing more than maintain our unemployment levels at 16 percent, 17 percent or 18 percent, and maintain our unemployment levels among young people at 25 percent, what emergency programs have been developed aside from that list, which does nothing more than maintain a bad situation, which is predicted to last for at least the rest of this decade?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I don't for one moment accept the assumption that that member makes about simply maintaining an unemployment level which is unacceptably too high — everybody in this province agrees to that. Those projects are not designed to maintain any status quo whatsoever. I wish the member would help himself to reading all of the reports that he quotes in the House and not just quote pieces which suit his fancy. I don't believe that those jobs will maintain the status quo. Those jobs will dramatically improve the unemployment situation in British Columbia. In fact, reading that list you would wonder how a government could even do more, but this government is going to, and we'll be making some very exciting announcements soon.

MR. BARRETT: Given the fact that 250,000 citizens of this province depend for their monthly income upon either social assistance or unemployment insurance, could the minister inform me how he intends to inform those people lining up for sandwiches at soup kitchens, and those thousands of people waiting for food hampers in order to survive, where they can go to apply for these jobs? Would he inform us how and where they go to apply for these jobs, so that they can avoid the soup kitchens and the handouts of food that, under Social Credit, they're begging from churches?

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, no program from Doug Heal?

PORNOGRAPHY

MS. BROWN: My question is to the the Attorney-General. This morning in Vancouver Mr. Pattison, the chairman of Expo 86, announced that he is divesting himself of that portion of his magazine business which handles and distributes pornography. He went on further to recommend that the government appoint a review board to screen all pornographic material which is up for sale and distribution in the province. My question to the Attorney-General is: in the spirit of change of heart with which Mr. Pattison is making this recommendation, has he decided to establish such a board to screen or eliminate pornographic material which is being distributed in the province?

HON. MR. SMITH: I appreciate this question from the member. When I discussed this matter a while ago with Mr. Pattison, I understood that he was proposing that the industry itself set up a self-policing body which would recommend standards, deal with complaints and police the industry itself — very much along the lines of some of the functions that the Press Council now provides in this country. I prefer that to having government set up some kind of magazine censorship board. I would like to see the initiative start with the industry. It seems to me that what Mr. Pattison is trying to do is give a lead to that industry and give them a signal to clean up their act. I applaud that and applaud Mr. Pattison.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I'm really disappointed that the Attorney-General is not going to grasp this initiative which the magazine industry itself is enunciating and establish such a board, not on behalf of the magazine industry but on behalf of all the people of British Columbia. I am wondering whether the Attorney-General is willing to reconsider his position on this and establish such a review board.

HON. MR. SMITH: I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the member would want to create another government board or body to supervise, regulate or look into something, Mr. Speaker. I would remind her that the job of deciding whether material violates the Criminal Code is one that Parliament has already conferred on the law enforcement agencies. Sure, we could set up something like a magazine censorship board in British Columbia, but I would rather see some initiative on the part of the industry to provide a policing mechanism of their own and to take the lead themselves, instead of government always being asked to regulate and set these things up. I think Mr. Pattison was really looking at some kind of guidance and help from us, but I would prefer a self-help policing agency which the industry itself would do. I would prefer that as an approach, Mr. Speaker.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, under the present legislation, which the minister is speaking so proudly about, the distribution of not just pornographic material, but violent pornographic material, has been escalating in the province, not getting less. It has been proliferating, so obviously that legislation is not working. Now an idea has been suggested. Is the Attorney-General ready at this point to do something? Until now he's done absolutely nothing to slow down the proliferation of pornographic material in the province. Is the Attorney-General ready now to do something, such as to introduce this review board? In the same way that he is willing to legislate workers back to work, is he willing to do something in this area?

HON. MR. SMITH: Of course, we have done things to try to stop the proliferation of pornographic materials — prosecutions, raids, and particularly the use of video films. But the most tempting solution always, the eternal solution that flows from that side of the room, is a government regulatory body, an enormous rabbit warren of censors who would go around and investigate every magazine in the province. That is always their solution. It's a job-creation approach to the whole thing, I agree, but I still prefer an acknowledgment of responsibility on the part of the magazine industry: that the public of this province is tired of having available, at kiddie level in newsstands, inappropriate magazines for kids — and many for adults as well — and that the industry itself will start policing. They will start saying: "Look, we're not going to be tied in to publishing arrangements with American distributors where, in order to get Good Housekeeping, we've got to take Hustler and something else." They're going to fight that and say: "We're not going to take Hustler and these other magazines; we're just going to take Good Housekeeping." They should do these things, not government.

[ Page 4424 ]

On behalf of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) Hon. Mr. Phillips tabled the Compensation Stabilization Program Annual Report for 1983.

Hon. Mr. McGeer tabled answers to questions on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

On vote 31: minister's office, $155,718.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'm pleased to present my estimates to the House at a time when so much attention seems to be focused on forestry matters in Canada. The 1984-85 program of the Ministry of Forests covers broad mandates for managing timber, range and forest recreation resources. But it is the timber resource that is on most people's minds today; I will therefore be addressing most of my remarks to that topic.

The media have recently echoed discontent about how the country's forests are being managed. Such attention is really a mixed blessing. It shows that on the one hand forestry has become newsworthy, that people are increasingly aware of the importance of forests in our livelihoods and our lifestyles. On the other hand, the content of the coverage exposes misconceptions of what the real issues are, often extrapolating conditions from elsewhere in Canada to British Columbia.

Before going on to describe the 1984-85 program, therefore, I would like to take a short while to examine the conditions of the forests in British Columbia. There is a widespread impression of historic mismanagement, of a forest resource declining through neglect and abuse, and of a need for massive investment to avert financial disaster in the future. While it may be opportune in some circles to promote this impression, it represents a gross distortion of conditions in British Columbia. Notwithstanding arguments about how much additional timber might be produced if unlimited funds were available, the resource as it stands today in British Columbia is a major asset. On average across the province there is still over 50 percent old-growth timber remaining, and the second-growth timber on most of the balance of the forest land is in a thrifty, vigorous condition. In fact, British Columbia has a greater resource of standing old-growth virgin timber than any other major timber-producing region in the world, with the exception of the USSR, and most of their timber is economically inaccessible.

Why then all the concern expressed over our future as a forestry province? In large part it's because the potential decline in timber harvest in the next two or three decades has been equated to inadequate reforestation at present. The fact is that the planting program has doubled since the mid-1970s. Even though there must be a transition from old-growth forest with its many centuries of accumulated wood volume to second-growth forests where harvest must be balanced with annual production, yields as high as at present will be achieved over most of the province. A sound basic forestry program plus future expanded efforts in intensive silviculture and other practices will ensure a viable future for British Columbia's forestry sector.

In the mathematical models that are used to predict future harvests and the changing characteristics of the forests, there is a set of assumptions about growth and productivity of forest stands. These are based on the level of management anticipated under the ministry's program. For example, areas that in the past have not developed an adequate new crop of timber are not counted in the long-term supply base until such time as they are restocked. Stated simply, present harvest levels were predicated on the basic level of forest management inherent in the goals of the ministry's five-year program. After that starting point of sound resource stewardship, there are then charges about how much money should be directed to enhancing forest growth to generate greater harvests either today or in the future. Intensive forestry, by its very nature, is discretionary. It is a chance to buy a better future, but at a substantial price-tag. Much of the outcry of late has resulted from differing opinions about how much of this work should be done. The staff in my ministry are devoting a great deal of effort to analyzing the options for program development, to defining what can be produced from the resource and at what cost.

[2:45]

As we are acutely aware, recent years have been troublesome for the forest sector. Prices for lumber and pulp have declined in all of our major markets, causing a precipitous slump in stumpage revenues. It appears that market prospects are improving for the coming fiscal year, but it could be some time before stumpage and other forest-based revenues rise significantly throughout the province.

This cyclical pattern of revenues is a critical factor in determining the timing and extent of forest management programs. There is no doubt that more intensive forest management will pay dividends in employment and revenue and should be actively promoted in future programs. For now the investment schedule must recognize the reality of what is affordable today. That, in turn, is tied to the vigour of the forest industry and the revenues that are returned from the public timber resource.

Before I create the impression that forest and range management equate solely with funding for planting trees, I should stress that Ministry of Forests activities are directed to a wide range of objectives, all aimed at furthering the public interest in these resources. Since the ministry's first five-year program was approved in 1980, significant progress has been made on many fronts, including the following examples. The forest land base has, for the most part, been secured by adding a further 40 million hectares of land to the new provincial forests — as a matter of fact, only recently we have expanded some of the existing provincial forest. Reforestation is accelerating. Planting on Crown and private land has doubled since the mid-1970s and is still increasing to meet the goals laid out in successive five-year programs — 1982-83 saw a record 105 million seedlings planted in British Columbia; some 115 million to 120 million seedlings will have been planted in 1983-84 when the totals are tallied; and the recently released plan calls for the planting of 160 million seedlings per year within the next five-year program.

Discussions are progressing on a federal-provincial funding agreement to restock about 600,000 hectares of good- and medium-site forest land that is presently not carrying a suitable timber crop. When a new agreement is negotiated, hopefully this year, an intensive management program could be

[ Page 4425 ]

brought on stream immediately. In the meantime the current federal-provincial agreement has been extended to March 31, 1985.

A management system has been implemented which puts resource management by the British Columbia Ministry of Forests on a very sound, businesslike basis. A pamphlet is available which explains how the forest and range resource analysis, the five-year programs, long-term planning and the annual report contribute to providing direction to the ministry's activities.

The small business enterprise program was introduced in 1979, when Crown timber sales in the program were started by using Forest Service reserve timber. In 1982 a volume of timber was apportioned to almost all timber supply areas in the province to be sold only to small business operators registered in the two categories of the small business program. There are now 2,832 registrants under category 1 and 796 under category 2. Crown timber sales under the program since 1979 have totalled almost 15 million cubic metres in over 2,600 sales. Over five million cubic metres of timber were harvested and 864 small business sales were awarded during 1983.

A timber land exchange program was established to improve the efficiency of management of presently scattered holdings. The emphasis is on consolidating timber licences which remain from a number of old temporary tenures that were issued around the turn of the century. Progress has also been made since 1982 toward a woodlot licence program under which individuals will obtain access to small parcels of Crown forest land to manage on a sustained-yield basis and in many cases in combination with privately owned land. The purpose of this program is to directly involve provincial residents in forestry on Crown lands and to encourage the establishment of good forest practices on private land. The program also provides an opportunity to extend sound forestry practice, as I've mentioned, to these private lands which have been much neglected by the private land owners. My objective is to have our total woodlot licensing program, encompassing over 750,000 cubic metres of annual cut, fully in place within two or a maximum of three years.

Although the forestry sector has been through troubled times and depressed markets have necessitated layoffs, the province has benefited from continuous employment in the logging and manufacturing sectors. Employment opportunities during these periods were supplemented by the joint federal-provincial bridging assistance program. This program saw over $39 million directed to creating about 86,000 person-weeks of employment in worthwhile forestry projects in the province. This work helped to meet or to exceed our goals in intensive forest management during that year. A more detailed account of the EBAP program is available in our recently tabled 1982-83 annual report.

Recently a close look was taken at making a more efficient use of government and industry forest management efforts. There is a strong case for further delegation of management responsibilities to industry. Under forest legislation, tree-farm licence tenure is the most suitable vehicle for this purpose. It is predicated on joint management by industry and government, and it fosters an interest in better forest management on the part of a tenure holder by awarding area specific rights. As with other Crown lands, timber management on tree-farm licences is based upon multi-use principles. The first new TFL to be awarded since 1966 was issued Tanizul Indian band in 1983 up in the Stuart-Trembleur Lake area. That award resulted in a total of 29 percent of the provincial allowable cut to be under tree-farm licence tenure. At this time 34 more TFL applications are at hand. One has already been through the basic public hearing process; another two have been advertised, and those hearings will proceed in June.

These and many other activities that constitute management of timber range and recreation resources will continue in 1984-85. The program will continue to follow the goals set out following the 1980 forest and range resource analysis. Numerous measures have been taken to enable more efficient program delivery and to set priorities that will ensure that basic goals are met. Intensive forestry, on the other hand, will have to advance at a slower rate. In effect, work will continue in order to entrench a sound basic program this year, pending completion of the agreement with the federal government about our joint federal intensive silvicultural programs. During that time alternative means will be examined in which enhanced forest management programs might be funded. Now that the intensive forest management subsidiary agreement for 1984-85 has been extended and funding provided by the federal government, we will be able to proceed immediately to reduce the backlog of sites requiring reforestation.

The next forest and range resource analysis is to be completed this year. and that will shed additional light on the problems and the opportunities that must be considered in developing future programs. That analysis will be submitted to cabinet this September, and it will be tabled in this Legislature as a public document in the spring of 1985. This timing will allow the findings to be considered when the ministry's five-year program, beginning with the fiscal year 1985-86, is released. I hope that the present level of interest in forestry in Canada and British Columbia continues, because these long-term choices will be of immense importance in setting goals for managing the resource over the next decades and for determining the longer-term social objectives that must be met.

There was a brief summary and background, Mr. Chairman, of the Ministry of Forests estimates for the year starting on April 1. There were three votes, numbered 31 through 33: vote 31 being the minister's office; vote 32 for the general forest and range management programs; and vote 33 for fire suppression. The total expenditure requested for these three votes for the year is to amount to $252 million, a decrease of $10.4 million or 4 percent from the comparable figure for 1983-84. Including the amount allocated for section 88 stumpage offsets, our total expenditure budget for the year amounts to $311.3 million compared to $321 million last year, representing a decrease of 3.2 percent overall.

Vote 32 contains $5.5 million, which it has now been confirmed will be matched by the federal government when agreement is reached, and that agreement has now been reached. This will bring our forecast expenditures in the silvicultural program to $105 million. When one includes the $42.5 million allocated to silvicultural programs under section 88 — that is, the stumpage offsets — the total for the silvicultural program represents an increase of 14.5 percent. I think that clearly demonstrates the ministry's priorities for the coming year.

This, then, is the brief outline of where we are going, what we have been doing and where we hope to go in the future. I look forward to some meaningful discussion with my critic regarding my estimates.

[ Page 4426 ]

MR. SKELLY: It seems that more people have left the House than left the BCSTA convention. I don't think they recognize your talents. More people should be here, especially during the discussion of Forests estimates, because this is one of the most critical areas of provincial jurisdiction.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Where's your side? Where's your leader?

MR. SKELLY: I'm saying about all members of the House that they should be here to involve themselves in the debate on this very critical area of provincial jurisdiction.

The minister went through a brief outline of the program of the Ministry of Forests, discussing some of the concerns that have been expressed in the media, concerns that we all have about the state of the forest resource and also about the state of the forest industry and the forest economy. I think he glossed over some of the concerns a bit. There are some serious concerns out there, Mr. Minister.

Before going into those, I'd like to thank you for at least providing that outline. I remember we had a bit of a heated debate last session in which no outline was presented and the minister did not bring his staff into the Legislature, and we were concerned that it's important that the minister be well advised and that the program of the ministry be well presented to give us an opportunity to analyze that program and to have the benefit of his expert staff with him when we're debating these issues in the House. All we do is reflect the questions that are placed out there by the people of the province, who are concerned about what they read in the papers and, in fact, about the concerns as they are represented even by some Forests ministry staff, who occasionally have the opportunity to present their concerns at meetings of professional foresters, the Canadian Institute of Forestry and the like.

The minister said that the media were causing a bit of discontent out there and creating the impression of mismanagement and the widespread impression that the forests of the province are in precarious condition and are not being managed on a sustainable basis. That part of his speech certainly rings true, because if you read the editorials in the newspapers around the province you certainly do get the impression that the media are concerned. But again, the media are only reflecting the concerns brought to them by people involved in the profession, people in the industry and even by people in the ministry, as well as by federal and provincial government reports released from time to time that indicate serious concerns about the continued sustainability of our forests.

Here is an article from the Prince George Citizen of February 14, 1984. "Crisis Ahead" is the title of the article. "Continuing neglect of B.C.'s wealth of natural resources threatens to turn what was once one of the richest provinces of Canada into the backwater of the nation" — to the extent that it hasn't been done already by the government's mismanagement. "At the disparate rates logging is occurring and reforestation is being carried out, timber shortages will occur in as short a time as five years, according to a report prepared last year by Environment Canada's Pacific Forest Research Centre in Victoria."

So the newspapers or the media are not trying to generate hysteria around the topic of forest mismanagement and the lack of attention being paid to the replenishment and replacement of our forests. They are simply reflecting what government agencies, research stations or institutes and others involved in the management of our forests are saying around the province. It isn't the media that's trying to create hysteria through these types of articles.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It's the NDP.

[3:00]

MR. SKELLY: The NDP does not run the Pacific Forest Research Centre, Mr. Minister, in the event that you didn't know that. You might contact some of your colleagues in cabinet, and they will explain who does.

There are problems that are being documented by people in government, in the industry and in the professions that are cause for concern by all people around the province, and it's that cause for concern that's represented in the media. It is not sufficient for the minister simply to gloss over what's happening by saying it's media hysteria or whatever that is causing the problem in B.C. It is the management that's done by this Ministry of Forests that is causing the problem, and the management that's regulated by the Ministry of Forests that is also causing the problem. The same newspaper editorial refers to the management of the forests of British Columbia as being "stupidly" done. Unfortunately they say that neglect of the forest resource isn't our only area of stupidity, and they go on to mention fisheries in the province of British Columbia as well.

Other professionals, I guess you might call them, are also expressing concern, but probably in slightly more spectacular ways. John Walters talks about "fiscal lunacy" and the forests of the province being "gang raped" by industry and by the government. He says: "Public apathy has resulted in fiscal lunacy and a jurisdictional shambles between the federal and provincial governments. For years we have told the story reasonably and quietly; it's time that we" — speaking of professional foresters — "told the story reasonably and loudly. I propose we launch a sustained and intensive program of forestry education on prime-time television."

So there are people out there in the fields of forestry education and forestry professions who are critical of the government and the management of our forests, and concerned about the sad state of forest management in British Columbia. They are proposing to generate some kind of public backlash in order to encourage the government to get more involved in managing our forests and to make those forests sustainable so that we can pass on the forests of British Columbia to future generations and so that they will have the same opportunity to generate the wealth, jobs and industry that we have had, thanks to previous generations in this province. There are people out there who are expressing that kind of concern and, as I said, I believe it is insufficient for this minister to simply gloss it over and say that the questions and concern about mismanagement are only generated by the hysteria in the news media.

There is a concern that I have about the management of forests in this province now, in that in the past there seems to have been more concern to manage the forests of British Columbia on the basis of professional forest practice, on the principles of sustained yield. Now forestry seems to be something that — at least from this government's point of view — is managed on an ideological basis, and rather than having a

[ Page 4427 ]

chief forester, we've probably got a chief ideologist managing the forests of the province of British Columbia. The concern that we do have is that rather than managing for forestry reasons, we are now managing forests of the province for political reasons, or on the basis of a political ideology. For example, in the recent five-year program — and the previous five-year program — we're talking about concerns like privatization and downsizing, whereas in previous five-year programs we were talking about management of the forests in order to serve the regional and provincial economies and to encourage sustainability and management of the forests based on sound forestry practices. We are now dealing with privatization and ideological concerns rather than with true forestry concerns.

There are sound reasons why people out there in the province of B.C. are concerned that the job is not being done well by this provincial government or by the minister. There are serious concerns as to whether we can carry on and have the forests of the province of B.C. produce the same number, or an enhanced number, of jobs to take up the slack in the employment of this province, which, as the labour critic of the NDP has indicated, is somewhere in the neighbourhood of a quarter of a million people unemployed, many of those being in the forestry sector. There is a tremendous concern out there, and it is strictly insufficient for the minister to gloss over those concerns and to say that it's the newspapers that are generating the hysteria.

"Forest Survival." Patrick Durrant, the forestry writer for the Vancouver Province, which has temporarily suspended operations, said: "As we know it today, the forest industry is dying. I say this not to discourage investment in new mills, but to encourage investment in new forests, without which new mills can't survive." He is talking again about John Walters. Those are serious statements from a person who has serious concerns about the forest industry in the province. I ask the minister: what generates these concerns? People are saying that the forests of this province are dying. They must have legitimate grounds for making those statements to a meeting of forestry professionals. These are people with respected credentials in the management of British Columbia forests. Again I say it's insufficient for the minister to simply gloss over the concerns that the newspapers have expressed about the management of forests in British Columbia.

The minister says it's legitimate for the province to continue on its basic silvicultural program and that intensive forestry is something we should look at some years down the line. I'm not sure that that's the case. Reports coming back to us indicate that even the basic silvicultural programs are suffering in this province. I'll try to get to that later in the debate. I simply want to respond to the minister to the extent of saying that it's not sufficient for the minister to say that the problems in the forests of this province have been created by the media. The minister himself — and the ministry — are responsible for the management and stewardship of this resource. It's clear to me and to many thousands of other British Columbians that his management is not up to scratch. He's not been a good manager of the forests, a proper steward of B.C. forest resources, and it's insufficient to apologize for what he's doing to the forests of British Columbia in this way.

As I look through the annual report, which the minister mentioned in his opening statement, some serious concerns are evident. One of those concerns is for the over-commitment of our forests around the province. Table 2 on page 90 of the annual report, "Apportionment by Timber Supply Area and Tenure as at March 31, 1983," shows that the allowable annual cut in various forest regions is very close to being fully apportioned. For example, for the Cariboo the allowable annual cut is 6,050,000 cubic metres. You have a Forest Service reserve of about 52,800 cubic metres, so you are almost totally apportioned with the exception of that reserve. In Kamloops, an allowable annual cut of 7 million, and a Forest Service reserve of 80,230 cubic metres. When you add the damage done by fire in the Cariboo forest region — 523,000 cubic metres of mature timber, 22,000 immature — and also damage to timber done by pests, insects, fungi, etc., they are talking about 14.977 million cubic metres of timber, which brings that area very close to being over-committed. Some of the timber that is available and is already committed has been severely damaged, so we're not going to get the kind of quality timber out of that area that the table on page 90 might suggest.

The same is true of virtually every other forest region of the province: they are either very close to being fully committed or there is no room to manoeuvre, no room allocated in those areas for damage due to fire, insects, disease, etc. So the forests of this province, by the minister's own figures, appear to be in a fairly precarious situation. There's no room to exercise options. Fire and insect damage is not taken sufficiently into account. The one area that we're seriously concerned about is, of course, the Prince George forest district. The allowable annual cut is 14,850,000 cubic metres, yet the total apportioned in the region is 15 million, or about 17 to 20 percent over the allowable annual cut. And that doesn't take into account fire and insect damage, which have been fairly heavy in that region for the last little while.

I'd like the minister to explain what the process is and what's happening in those regions. Why have the forests under the ministry's jurisdiction reached a level of almost total commitment, leaving no option for allocation of additional cut, no security for timber damage through insects and disease? Why has the commitment been made virtually up to the allowable annual cut with none of those options remaining open, leaving no timber available for security in the event of widespread fire and disease attacks? Can the minister answer that question for me?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I can answer that question for the member. The allowable cut determined for each timber supply area in the province includes allowances for normal fire losses, and for losses through insects and disease. I think it's my responsibility to ensure that the total available allowable cut is indeed made available to the industry for use by that industry to create jobs, to create employment, to create revenue for the province, to create trade. I wish we could be even closer to that full commitment, but there are allowances for such normal losses.

When there are disasters such as large-scale insect infestations, when there are disasters such as massive wildfires above and beyond what the normal is, these things will be taken into consideration at the time of our reassessment of allowable cut, which takes place every five years. If at that time, because of disasters, it's necessary to reduce the allowable cut, each licensee will have his apportionment reduced in proportion to the amount that has to be reduced, so we will still be at a fully committed level. It doesn't make much sense to me to hold something back in reserve when there are people who are willing to invest money, time and effort in order to make use of this sustainable allowable cut.

[ Page 4428 ]

1 would also say that in this total apportionment — in all but, I believe, one of the timber supply areas in the province — there is an allotment for the small business program. That gives us flexibility, through loggers harvesting and through people in category 2 harvesting, to have that wood change homes from time to time as its demand and value changes.

Just a comment or two on some of the other comments of the member. I guess he wasn't listening too closely when I made my opening remarks. I did use a prepared text so that I wouldn't have to wait for Hansard to come back, but I didn't mention anything about media hysteria. The member used that phrase a number of times. What I said, and I'll read it again, is that the media have recently echoed discontent about how the country's forests are being managed — and there is discontent expressed in some sectors in this country about how the country's forests are being managed.

[3:15]

I would say that the forests of British Columbia are not being perfectly managed. There are still lots of things that we can do and should be doing in the future, and we still have an awful lot to learn about our forests. If we had an unlimited amount of funds to invest in the forest resource, we could and would be doing a lot more. But unfortunately we do live in a real world, where there is a limitation on the amount of funds available.

I did not say, as the member, I'm sure quite innocently, misquoted me as saying, that we can look at intensive forestry some years down the road. I've said that we can and will be starting intensive forestry this year. Under our agreement with the federal government, an $11 million intensive forest management program has been ongoing and will continue this year and hopefully we will this year conclude a much larger agreement with the federal government. There are other ways of acquiring funding for intensive forest management programs, such as we did with EBAP. I think the member would agree with me that there must be some way that that type of a funding program can be carried out on a more continuous basis. I have approached and will be approaching, together with the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland), ways of establishing a basic EBAP-type program that will be with us at all times and that can be built up during the downturns in our forest cycle to provide job creation in a countercyclical sort of way. I think there are better delivery systems that could be developed than what we had in the past. But these are all intensive forestry programs, and they are not going to wait for some years down the road.

The member said that future generations should have the same opportunities that we have. Unfortunately that's not possible. The opportunities that future generations have will be quite different because they will be managing, as we are beginning to manage now, second-growth forests. I'm not saying that the opportunities won't be just as good. In many cases they will be better. But they won't be the same, because we've finished the pioneering era of forest management in B.C. and are getting into second-growth management, just as has happened in many other mature forest jurisdictions in the world.

The member quoted from the Prince George Citizen, where the forest research station of the federal government was quoted as saying that we're going to have losses within five years. In attempting to convince their people in Ottawa to commit themselves to forest management, they quoted from the report on the state of the forest and range resource that we tabled in this Legislature in 1980. We said then that unless certain things were done, there would be reductions in allowable cut in some areas of the province and some as early as five years. Some of that has happened. We said that if things don't happen, this will result. One of the things we mentioned at the time was protecting the forest land base, making sure that the land base isn't eroded. We can only do that to a certain extent, because there are other very legitimate demands on the forest land base. We said we would have to improve the recovery within sawmills of saleable products. That has happened to a large extent. The recovery in sawmills throughout the province is increasing rapidly, particularly in the interior, and on the coast investment is again being committed to the retooling of that industry. The economic value of wood has to change as well, and as the world becomes shorter and shorter of woodfibre, many of the fibres that up until now we have not been able to economically utilize will be brought from the forest. We will be offered opportunities to use some of these lower-grade fibres. An example of this is that recently a pulpwood agreement was offered in the Okanagan, where a company wants to make wafer board out of stagnant lodgepole pine, a type of wood that up until now has not been economic to use. Technological advancement and the economics of making other types of panel board have made it possible for them to make a success of a venture using wood that wasn't available in the past and which will increase our allowable cut.

Jack Walters is responsible for the research forest at UBC and is always very outspoken about what is done in forest management. Jack Walters is a good forester. He tends to take a somewhat academic approach, as is quite legitimate in balancing the viewpoints. But as I said in my opening remarks, if you were to examine what the foresters, professionals and others are saying, the debate is really how much we can afford to invest and what level of investment, not whether or not the investment is needed. The level of investment is what is being debated. In many cases the media have not fully interpreted that correctly, because in British Columbia we don't do a bad job of managing our forests. As I say, we can do better, and we will do better as we learn more about our forests, and as we have more money available, but we don't do a bad job. I hope that when that member is the Leader of the Opposition he will fully support the government on this side of the House in promoting more investment in the forests of British Columbia.

MR. SKELLY: And I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that when that member is on the opposite side of the House he will fully support the plans of the next government, which will be laid out do him in detail in due course.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'll be long since retired.

MR. SKELLY: We will take steps to make sure that you enjoy your retirement, Mr. Minister.

It is a question of money, and it is a question of investment. I'm not convinced that it's a question of the availability of the money, because our understanding in reading the announcements of the provincial government as they come down from time to time is that money is available in the province and is available for other priorities. Some $128 million is available to build a stadium in Vancouver for the enjoyment of the citizens of Vancouver and a bunch of football players to knock heads on artificial turf. The money is

[ Page 4429 ]

available to extend an ALRT line across the Fraser River, which will cost all the people of this province, from the Yukon boundary to the United States border, $170 million. The money is available for Expo 86 and northeast coal development. Yet when the minister talks about the renewable resource upon which 40 percent of our economy and something like 300,000 jobs in this province depend, he talks about the money not being available. When the minister tells me that, that's an indication to me that the priorities are not there, because the money is definitely available.

You can tell a government is serious when it's willing to spend money on an issue. When the government talks forestry and doesn't spend money, the priority isn't there. When the government talks ALRT and is willing to borrow the money, obviously the priority is there. What we're saying is that this minister clearly hasn't had the push to get the government to recognize that forestry, upon which 40 percent of our economy and 300,000 jobs now depend.... The minister hasn't been able to have the push in cabinet to get cabinet to allocate the funds or, if they were really serious, to put the money up front through borrowing. They are willing to do it for B.C. Rail, B.C. Hydro, ALRT, Expo and stadiums, but they're not willing to do it for this, the most critical industry in the province of British Columbia, and that's what we're concerned about.

In the media, in the forestry professions, in the industry, in the federal government, in research facilities and in educational facilities around the province, whether you call them academics or not, people recognize the need to allocate more funds to the replacement and the sustainability of our forests. It's this government that simply hasn't recognized the priority of this area. This government simply hasn't recognized that forestry, and the sustainability of that resource, should be the megaproject of the government of British Columbia. The people would support it. The feeling is already out there now, among the people of British Columbia, that the forests of the province are being mismanaged. When this government screws up on human rights, as they've done recently with the legislation they've presented, they advertise around the province that everybody's beautiful. It's no substitute for the enforcement of human rights legislation, but they put the money up front to try to assuage public concerns and change public opinions. Right now public opinion suggests to us that the forests of British Columbia are being mismanaged by this government and this minister. This minister and this government simply do not have their priorities straight; they should be attaching more priority to the forests of this province.

What we're asking this minister to do is what has been done by the government in other areas: correct the public's concerns by doing what the public, the forestry professionals and research facilities suggest they should do. The money is available. It's not a question of the money not being available. If it's available for ALRT, for a stadium and for other projects around the province of British Columbia, it should be available for the most important megaproject over which the government has jurisdiction, and that's the forests and the forest industry of the province of British Columbia.

So that's why we're concerned. It's not a question of the money not being there. It's simply a question of whether the priorities are there, and clearly this minister has abandoned the priorities that he once had. When the Forest Act and the Ministry of Forests Act came down in 1978, and when the forest and range resource analyses came down in 1980, 1981 and up to this year, and when the five-year programs initially came down, there was a clear indication that the minister was concerned about forests. There was a clear indication that he was concerned that money be spent on forests. Also, when he set up the forest and range resource fund there was a clear indication that this government was prepared to put up money over a five-year period to fund its long-range forestry programs. That was endorsed virtually unanimously in this Legislature. It was endorsed by all sides of the House because all sides recognized that as a priority.

Suddenly things have changed. The ministry itself, in making its reports to cabinet back in September 1983, indicated that the restraint program had seriously damaged the government's management of the forest resource in the province. The ministry admitted this to cabinet in private. Yet the minister is trying to correct that impression in public and say that we are maybe doing a good job in managing our forests, when the ministry itself, in a report to cabinet in September 1983, indicated that its programs had been seriously damaged by the restraint program. So we are concerned that the minister is trying to gloss over what is happening in the ministry and what is happening with forest management programs in the province of B.C.

One of the other concerns we in the opposition have is the effect on employment in the forest industry. The federal government said that if we embarked on this intensive silvicultural program, and applied that program to something like 600,000 acres of NSR lands in the province of B.C., we could possibly create 200,000 person-years of employment in this province if we embarked on that program immediately — over a ten-year period, of course. The provincial government has not succeeded in negotiating an agreement with the federal government, and in the meantime plants have been shutting down all over the province of B.C.: Vanply in Vancouver, 374 employees; Victoria Plywood, 150 to 200 jobs; and other mills all over the province. New mills are being built. Where once, say, in Chemainus they employed 600 to 700 people or more, now they're building a new mill that will employ 130 people more or less, which is a tremendous reduction in jobs. What's going to be done for those people? What programs is the ministry considering for those people?

[3:30]

Before the last election, of course, in Chemainus and elsewhere around the province the minister developed the phrase, "Use it or lose it," with respect to companies that were shutting down plants and weren't producing employment in the province or weren't managing their operations properly. I wonder how many companies in this province and how many tenure-holders have actually lost the tenures they held. Has the minister been serious in his threat to use it or lose it? What happens during a strike, for example? When the employees are on the streets in the pulp strike or lockout, or when they're on the streets in the forest industry strike, what happens to the allowable annual cut of the tenure-holders who are being struck? I understand that their allowable cuts are scaled back, that they don't have to cut their requirements in that particular year in order to accommodate labour disputes. It seems to me that that provision encourages longer labour disputes than would otherwise be the case. If companies were forced to maintain their allowable cuts even though they get involved in labour disputes, the settlements in those disputes would come much more quickly than if the company were forgiven its allowable cuts. I understand that in virtually every case where there's a strike or a labour dispute the

[ Page 4430 ]

companies are forgiven their allowable cuts as a result of that strike, yet the employees who go on strike and have no other source of income, who exhaust their strike fund and must go to welfare or unemployment insurance, are denied access to those supports that are available to the government. The industry is supported, and the results are prolonged disputes and strikes, prolonged periods of lack of production, whereas the employees have absolutely no alternative, no way to turn. So the pressure is always on the employees, never on the companies.

I can't think of any significant example — in fact, any example — where a licensee has been forced to lose his timber tenure as a result of not performing up to the requirements of that tenure. For example, Doman Industries on Vancouver Island was given a certain amount of timber in Nootka PSYU — as it was called at the time — on the central coast, plus other timber rights. In exchange for its timber rights, which were granted several years ago, Doman Industries was required to produce, somewhere on Vancouver Island I believe, or somewhere on the coast, a thermal mechanical pulp mill. Doman hasn't lived up to its side of the agreement. In Alberta, B.C. Forest Products was required to build a mill at Whitecourt in a certain period of time as a condition of being granted additional timber in Alberta. When B.C. Forest Products failed to perform, the timber was withdrawn. Why is this government so soft on companies that do not perform up to the requirements that they agree to? Why does it not enforce the agreements that these companies enter into with British Columbia? Why is there always this forgiveness of those companies who do not perform? Why does the minister not live up to his threat of "Use it or lose it?" I think it's because the minister is so soft. The minister doesn't live up to.... I guess I shouldn't call them threats, but the requirements that he imposes on the industry. They feel they don't have to live up to their obligations. What happened, Mr. Minister, to the Doman thermal-mechanical pulp mill that they were required to build on Vancouver Island in exchange for the timber they received on the west coast and on the mainland coast, as well as other timber rights that they received? What happened to the agreement? What happened to that thermal-mechanical pulp mill?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The proposal on the mid-coast four years ago — somewhere thereabouts — on which Doman Industries bid.... As a condition of being awarded the sale, Doman was to build a pulp mill. There was no time-frame put on that mill. It was not necessarily to be a TMP mill, but probably would have been. I think that's basically what was discussed. Unfortunately, about that time or very shortly thereafter the tremendous recession hit the province, and capital was not available. It was at about the same time that Doman Industries, together with Whonnock and BCFP, acquired the assets of ITT-Rayonier. They had their plate full and were in a very serious financial condition. I didn't think it wise at that time — and still don't think it wise — when they were in financial difficulty, when in effect they had their very companies on the line with the banks, to remove their ability to survive and thus jeopardize the employment of their employees, jeopardize the Canadian ownership of what was formerly a large American company. Also, since that time we've had the rollover of the licences from the old Forest Act to the new one. That timber sale licence which Doman formerly had is now a forest licence. As a condition of continuation of that forest licence, Doman must build a pulp mill; that is written into the licence agreement. We will probably have to allow some more time until the economy is such that it makes economic sense, which it doesn't right now. As is the case with most forest licences, in ten years a new licence will be offered. It is a condition at that renewal period that if they don't have a pulp mill in operation or under construction, the licence will not be renewed, so it's still a conditional licence. It has been delayed primarily because of economic activities and other investments that they've made since. In fact, Doman has one-third interest in a pulp mill at Port Alice and also one at Woodfibre, in which they're investing massive amounts of money, this through Western Forest Products, as the member knows.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Regarding the cut control, the member is surely not suggesting that as a result of a strike, lockout or serious economic slump, if a company cannot maintain its cut and manufacturing level, we remove its ability in the future to do so by reducing its allowable cut. I've never said that we would remove that when there are conditions such as that. I think it would make no sense at all, though that would perhaps eliminate a lot of strikes in the province, because if members of the union were to strike knowing that their employer would lose the ability to employ them after the strike was over, that would be something worth thinking about. I'll take that up with the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland). I think it would be some type of an infringement of the labour relations aspect, though, and I don't think it would be a good idea. I don't think the member really thinks it would either.

We have removed cut, and two instances in recent years which come to mind are B.C. Timber and Louisiana-Pacific. Also, when through things such as strikes and downturns in economic cycles there is an undercut for a cut control period, we don't feel that it would be proper to remove the cut permanently. We do take that accumulated undercut and offer it for sale to the industry, generally through our small business programs. Or at times we can accumulate a larger amount and offer a larger sale over a long period of time. But it is put to use.

We are reviewing the coastal industry, which, as the member knows, has some very serious problems ahead of it. The massive capital commitments made a few years ago were deferred as a result of the recession. It will probably be some time before all of those can be put in place again, because the industry suffered tremendous losses, but there is a need on the coast to rebuild that industry. If we don't see commitments then.... In fact, there are companies talking to us about voluntarily giving up some of their cut, because in many cases they say they can buy it from the log market a lot cheaper than they can log it, and that is the direction that perhaps some of them will be taking in future years.

The member mentioned the fact that we don't have money for forest management yet we can borrow money for ALRT, Expo, the stadium, northeast coal and so on. I believe that in most cases these funds were borrowed by other government agencies such as B.C. Hydro, B.C. Rail and Expo, or whatever they call themselves. However, we have borrowed money for forest management. This year the province is running a budget of over $600 million, and I'm sure a good part of that budget is to provide funds to my ministry as well as others so that we can carry on with the basic programs that

[ Page 4431 ]

we have to carry on with, knowing that as times get better we'll be able to expand them. All ministries in government, with the exception of Health this year, have had to reduce overall budgets. In doing that, though, I rearranged my priorities within the ministry. The silvicultural part of my vote has gone up by over 14 percent, so even though we've had a budget reduction, and even though we've had to borrow money as a government to even maintain these levels, we are putting our priorities into forest management.

The members says that I don't have any push in cabinet. Well, of course I don't. When you're ahead you pull, you don't push.

MR. SKELLY: He doesn't have any pull, either. This is a minister obviously without push or pull in cabinet.

I guess the exceptions are the things that prove the rule in this case. He says he has taken tenure away from B.C. Timber and Louisiana-Pacific. But the minister did bring up something interesting: that some of the tenure holders on the coast are now possibly willing to give up their tenure holdings and to purchase timber on the open market. We've advocated for a long time that there be some kind of a market between those who harvest the timber and those who purchase it. As a result of requirements for processors to purchase on that open market they will be required to upgrade their facilities and make them more competitive, and as a result we'll have processing facilities that are much more competitive than if they can get the logs at low or cheap prices and don't have to upgrade their mills in order to make the whole industry competitive. That would be interesting. I wonder if the minister can tell me where those proposals are taking place, and how much timber land is involved. Is it on Vancouver Island or the central coast? Where exactly are these tenure holders who are proposing to give up their forest tenures and go to the open market?

I am sure there are a number of communities, Indian bands and small business people, or smaller operators, who might be willing to look at those tenures themselves. We've always suggested that a diversity of tenures in any particular area will create a much better market, much more efficiency in the harvesting and marketing of timber, than when one single company controls a tremendous area of timber and as a result there is very little competition. Also employment: the commitment to diversified economic development in that area declines. That's been proven with large agricultural concerns. Where you have huge agricultural enterprises controlling vast areas of land, smaller business declines.

Most of the inputs to the industry come from outside the region. Local communities decline and local opportunities for employment decline; people move into larger cities and create additional problems. If there are areas on the coast where large companies are willing to give up their timber tenures, what plans does the ministry have to diversify tenure holdings in that area? Will the minister answer the question of what areas are involved? I'm certain that if people in the area were aware that the major companies were willing to give up tenures, the minister would receive numerous submissions from small locally controlled operators who are willing to move into that timber and harvest it themselves and to sell it on the open market. I know that when the renewal process came up in the Alberni area for the MacMillan Bloedel tree farms, a large number of people in the area expressed an interest in breaking up those large tenures and in developing locally controlled tenures that would work to support Indian bands and local communities. I'd be interested in learning in which specific areas tenure-holders are willing to give up their tenures.

[3:45]

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I have a number of concerns with regard to the way in which this ministry is conducting its business in the province. I also have some questions of the minister, but prior to getting into that I would like to make a few general observations on the forest industry in British Columbia. Some of these observations are as a result of my 15-plus years of experience in the industry and some are due to my recent involvement in a certain segment of that particular industry.

In my estimation, we in this province can no longer afford the luxury of a number of the things we are doing in the forest industry which relate directly to the way we husband the forest industry. We can no longer afford the waste, whether that be due to the way in which we log and leave behind millions of cubic metres of precious wood fibre, or the way we allow what I believe to be the wholesale slaughter of much of the wood harvested when it is processed through our sawmill operations. We can no longer afford not to carry on a responsible — I emphasize the word "responsible" — silviculture program in British Columbia, whether that means planting or reseeding areas presently being logged or areas which have been logged and not planted and reseeded in the past, or whether it means treating the countless hundreds of thousands of hectares of land within our provincial forest boundaries that are presently going begging for some kind of silviculture treatment which would in time transform them into productive forest lands. We can no longer — I speak here I guess to the industry itself as well as to government — sit back in British Columbia, especially in this industry, and expect our customers to buy whatever it is that we want to sell them, rather than selling them what it is the customers want to buy. Mr. Chairman, it is utter madness, and it is hurting us badly. It's hurting us very badly out there on the marketplace. It's driving hundreds of millions of dollars worth of business elsewhere in the world.

Mr. Chairman, world buyers of wood products are no longer in a position of having to buy those products in British Columbia, and I predict that that is going to get far worse. World buyers no longer need to take whatever it is that we wish to sell them, whatever it is that we, in the forest industry in British Columbia, wish to manufacture. They no longer have to take it at a price that we feel they should pay. Those days are gone, I would predict, probably forever. There are areas of this world, many of them much more stable suppliers than ourselves, that are now getting in, in a big way, into the wood business: the U.S.S.R., South America, Africa, particularly the United States, where foresters in many of the southern states of that country are taught how to grow a tree every bit as useful for manufacture of wood-related items as those grown in British Columbia and taking 90 to 120 years to do so. Through technology, they've taught those foresters to grow that same tree in 40 to 60 years. No, Mr. Chairman, we in this province can no longer take this industry for granted, and that's what I believe we have done in the last decade. We've taken the industry for granted. We've decided that it's our primary industry and that it was going to be there forever.

Mr. Chairman, I am here to say that unless we wake up, it's not going to be. It's just not going to be. The forest

[ Page 4432 ]

industry has been the backbone of the development of this great province, but if we don't do something soon, surely it will, as well, lead to our demise. In a number of regions out there now, there is a real concern for the availability of wood in the future, for our children and our children's children. You need only fly over this province, as I do on many occasions to get back to my constituency, to see exactly what that means. You can see very clearly, particularly in the wintertime, where the timber has been cut and where it has not in the central and northern part of this province. I think we've practised neglect. Mr. Minister, we have not paid enough attention to reforestation. I know of literally hundreds of thousands of hectares of forest land going unplanted, unseeded.

We haven't handled this industry properly, so as to encourage the technology necessary to provide a very vibrant industry in this province. We haven't worked toward a vibrant industry; we haven't worked toward an industry that is highly competitive in present-day and future world markets in which there will be great competition for buyers and users of wood products.

I think we've got to find ways to utilize every last stick of available fibre growing in our forests, ways in which every last board foot of lumber will be cut out of every log that runs through our sawmills. In this I must agree with the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), although I don't agree with him on many subjects. I've got to agree that we've allocated the resource of this province to a very few, and through having done so have hurt this industry in British Columbia. We've allocated it to a very few, among whom there is no competition. There is no initiative to do better and to manufacture more out of the available wood, no need to strive to attain better recovery from the cutting rights held, no initiative to pay better prices for the raw materials and consequently to have to seek out better and more profitable markets or to produce a product that buyers on the world market are looking for. We've done this to a point where the resource is not showing a return to the provincial coffers in British Columbia; it's also because of section 88 of the Forest Act, which I'm sure all members in this House are aware of. During these tough economic times that we've seen in the last two or three years, the government of this province is building a debt to the large forest companies for work presently being done.

I could spend many days pursuing these and other aspects of an industry that I personally know very well. The industry is the primary resource industry of our province. Mr. Chairman, I think it's sufficient to say that at this time our forest industry in this province, whether or not we're willing to admit it, is in grave trouble. We as legislators had damned well better find ways to revive and rejuvenate that industry if we as British Columbians ever intend to continue paying for the high-priced services we presently provide in this province, high-priced services that are seemingly expected by everyone.

[4:00]

As I said at the outset, I have several concerns in regard to this ministry. I intend to bring some of them out in these estimates, such as the need for the Vanderhoof Crown land plan, in which the Ministry of Forests plays a very major role. I want to ask the minister.... I hope he will be able to give me the answer to this question, because I haven't been able to get it from the other two ministries involved in this particular plan. Why, when so many hectares of land within provincial forest boundaries in the Prince George forest district are literally begging for silviculture treatment, does the Forest Service wish to take land outside provincial forest boundaries into the provincial forest? Why do they wish to take land which is suitable for agriculture out of the realm of agricultural possibilities? Why do they want to take some 32,000 hectares of land within the proposed Vanderhoof Crown land plan into what they call integrated forest management? I want to know the answer to the same question in regard to the Kispiox Crown land plan.

I want to know before these estimates are through what is going to be done about the falldown relating to reforestation in the north-central part of this province, reforestation that's long overdue. The number of seedlings being allocated is only 58 percent of those required just to keep up with that forest land that's now being logged. That's not to speak of the backlog — land which I personally logged when I was a logging superintendent some twenty years ago — which today has not yet been reforested. What are we going to do, Mr. Minister, about those lands? What are we going to do for the provision of new forests for our children and our children's children to come?

I want to know what's going to happen with the woodlot licence program. The minister spoke glowingly of it in introducing the estimates. Well, I want to tell you that it's an absolute disaster. There is a shortage of woodlots being put up, and there is real frustration out there among the people of this province, who heard back in 1977 that we were going to get into a very viable woodlot program in the province of British Columbia, only to find that since 1977 only three woodlot licences have been allocated in the province of British Columbia. Some program! I'm running out of answers to give to many of my constituents who were very interested to get into this program and should have had that opportunity. I think it's about time that we thought of a new program, possibly called the agriculture silviculture lease program, to give our people, particularly our agriculturalists, the opportunity to farm trees in this province and thereby possibly leave a heritage for our children to come.

I want to have some answers before these estimates are through in regard to the small business program in the province of British Columbia. That's another disaster in my estimation. Far too few of these sales are ever put up to meet the needs of the small operator out there. What happens? Because there are far too few — I think the figure is 1 percent of the total allowable cut in this province, a mere pittance for the independent, small entrepreneur — those sales are bid out of sight, creating a situation where the small operator logging small business sales in this province pays as much as three, four and five times as much stumpage for that timber as do the very large corporations. It's not right. It's not just. I'd like some answers in that area. Why are these people priced out of existence? Why are these people driven out of existence because they can't obtain timber for their small logging or milling operations?

That is some of my concern, and certainly when I hear the response from the minister I'll have more.

MR. SKELLY: I really appreciate the remarks made by the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), and I think we find ourselves in agreement on most of these issues. I would congratulate the government for appointing an internal opposition. This gentleman from Omineca is doing a fine job.

MR. MICHAEL: He's the only one we have.

[ Page 4433 ]

MR. SKELLY: He's the only internal opposition they have. The rest of them are like sheep. They do nothing. But he's doing a fine job here.

I'd like to cover some of the points that the member for Omineca has covered — because he has covered them as they apply to his area — and in particular the problem of the small business program and the fact that the ministry is ripping off small business people in the forest industry by making them pay more than their fair share for the timber they cut, relative to what the larger companies are paying on a non-competitive basis in those huge forest tenures. The small business people are forced to bid on their timber, and forced to bid on a bonus bid basis. As a result, they pay much more than those large timber holders who are able to obtain timber on a noncompetitive basis.

I did a comparison among a few of the annual reports between 1981-82 and 1982-83. The total volume that went to the small business programs, say, in the Cariboo district in 1982-83 was 5.7 percent of the volume billed, but they paid 16.9 percent of the total stumpage in that area. In Kamloops the small business program received 2.6 percent of the volume billed, and yet they paid 9.8 percent of gross stumpage for that area. In Nelson the small business program got 3.2 percent of the volume billed, and yet they paid 7.4 percent of the gross stumpage in that area. In Prince George the same thing: 5.4 percent of the volume billed, and yet they paid 13.8 percent of the gross stumpage for that area. That's repeated in Prince Rupert and in Vancouver. The small business people in this province are being ripped off by the Ministry of Forests, and in general the large companies that hold the large tree farm licence tenures are getting a free ride. It should be the other way around, because those small businesses are the people who have roots in the communities such as those communities in Omineca, in the north and in the interior of B.C. Those people have their roots there, they employ people there, and they do their business, charge out their repairs and maintenance and buy their groceries in those communities. They provide much more benefit to the communities in which they operate, comparatively, than do the large forest companies who buy their inputs outside the region — generally in the larger centres or outside the province and even outside the country. So here we have a case where the people who are doing most for the communities in which they operate are being ripped off by the Ministry of Forests by being forced to bid competitively for timber that the large companies get without any competition at all. So the Minister of Forests has set up a small business program, made a great issue of it and made an issue of it during his opening remarks, and yet what he's doing is ripping off those small business people compared to the way he's treating the large companies that get their timber without any competition at all.

If there was more competitive bidding for timber between large companies and small companies, what we would see is a levelling off of the price of that timber. The province would get more, the small business people would probably be paying a little less for their timber, and the large companies would be paying a little more. Unfortunately this minister — again, without any pull or push in cabinet, doesn't seem to be able to set up a pricing regime for timber in this province that distributes the cost more fairly among tenure holders and people who involve themselves in the small business program.

I'm told by a number of federations for small business that operate in Canada that since 1981 most of the jobs created in this country were created by small business. We're told by the B.C. Central Credit Union and their economic analyses, and by the forest companies themselves, through the Council of Forest Industries, that there's declining employment in the large forest companies. It's these small business people, who create the most employment and have the most commitment to their own communities, that we should be assisting and providing incentives to, yet the minister and the ministry are ripping them off with the charges they have to pay for timber in the province. I fully agree with what the member for Omineca said: that we should be encouraging these small business people, not by removing the competitiveness from their program but by making competitive bidding for timber across this province a requirement for obtaining timber in the province of British Columbia. Nobody in British Columbia should get the resources of this province without bidding for them competitively.

It's interesting, the differences in principles and policies that the Premier and the minister apply to various sites, industries or conditions in the province. The Premier says there should be competitive bidding for every job at the Expo site, yet he's willing to allow most of the forest resource of the province of B.C., which is the mainstay of our economy, to go without any competition at all. Whereas the small business people, who are doing a tremendous job in that area.... He's making them bid competitively for the timber and pay much more than their share for the timber they receive. I'd certainly be interested in the minister's response to the questions posed by the member for Omineca about the obvious difference between what small business people are paying for timber and what those big dogs, who get their timber on a non-competitive basis, are paying.

The member for Omineca also mentioned section 88 and the rebate provisions. I've heard a number of complaints about the section 88 administration as I've gone around the province and talked to people involved in the forest industry. Again, the minister read from a prepared statement when he opened his remarks during the debates on the Forests estimates, but he did not circulate that prepared statement to other members so they could refer back to it during the estimates, and that's unfortunate.

[4:15]

HON. A. FRASER: They were only copious notes.

MR. SKELLY: COFI notes, meaning Council of Forest Industry notes? Or was that the last estimates?

The minister read from a prepared statement, in which I believe he indicated....

HON. A. FRASER: Copious notes.

MR. SKELLY: Somebody should provide that gentleman with a new battery.

Maybe the minister could just nod. My understanding of his statement was that section 88 rebates were going up 14 percent this year, that they were increasing this year.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Look at the budget. They're about the same as last year.

MR. SKELLY: According to the estimates book, it was $59 million last year and it's $59 million this year. I understand those figures are a bit deceptive, because there's been a

[ Page 4434 ]

change in ministry policy which takes the overhead for programs from the stumpage appraisal system and applies it to the section 88 system. So actually, when we're applying section 88 funds to forest roads, bridges and other forestry projects — to silvicultural and basic silviculture treatment — we're getting 18 percent less expenditure under the section 88 program this year than we were getting last year because of the transfer of administration or overhead costs directly to the section 88 program. That's my understanding after talking to people within the ministry and in the various regions.

As a result of that, the cost of stand-tending projects has increased by 18 percent, and they can do much less than they did last year — approximately 18 percent less. That's a concern that ministry personnel have expressed to me over the last little while; it has also been expressed to me by professional foresters. Instead of getting $59 million worth of basic and intensive silviculture out of that program, instead of getting as much in the way of roads and bridges as we received last year under that program, we're getting 18 percent less; or the projects we are doing are costing 18 percent more. So I would be interested in finding out from the minister exactly why he transferred those overhead costs from the stumpage system over to the section 88 rebate system, which results really in a $10.6 million reduction in what's available for expenditures on the section 88 program.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I've been making a few notes on comments made by the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) and the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), so I will try to find a place to start here.

Starting with the section 88 thing, we have done some rearranging in terms of what is allowed in appraisals and what is offset under section 88. Quite frankly, right now I can't advise the member of the reason. But generally speaking, particularly when you are not on minimums, the cost will.... If it's not in appraisals, that means the stumpage will be higher and you will get the money back if it's in section 88. So the money has to be spent somewhere, whether it's in section 88 or as an offset to stumpage or it's allowed in the appraisal or not allowed in the appraisal; therefore we get more money at six of one and half a dozen of the other.

The member said that no one should get wood without competitive bidding. I think in the last couple of years we've gone through some very good examples of why such a system would be very disruptive to both community and employment stability in the province. The member recalls the tremendous international tension a year ago focused upon the efforts by the Americans to impose a countervailing duty upon Canadian softwood lumber, most of which comes from British Columbia. You recall that during that time, and even today, employment levels in the northwest United States, our nearest competitors, were almost non-existent in the forest sector, whereas in British Columbia our industry carried along at quite a substantial level, with some reductions but nevertheless far more employment and community benefit, revenue to the government, than existed in that jurisdiction, the reason being that our stumpage appraisal system attempts.... It's not perfect, but it does a fairly good job of determining what a real market value is for the timber we sell on the stump to the industry. The Americans were saying that we were subsidizing our industry, which was implied when you say that we should only use competitive bidding. In fact, after intense investigation and scrutiny of our system — and our system was the chief one being scrutinized because most of the wood to the United States comes from British Columbia — it was determined by that rather unbiased international group that our system works well. As a matter of fact, those in the northwestern States would like to see a system like ours so that when they get boxed into a high bid, as they did, on the competitive system, they don't have to shut down. Our system allows for the market and allows us to continue that basic community stability.

The wood in the small business program is productive logs, but it's incremental volume. I don't know of any other way, without being just arbitrary and picking people at random, to allocate that wood. To the member for Omineca, we have 1 percent of our allowable cut set apart for the woodlot licensing program, but the small business program in the province averages around 10 percent. I think some of the areas in the western part of your riding have a higher percentage than that; some are up to at least 25 percent, some are down to a few percentage points. I don't believe Fort Nelson has any, because there is no interest in the small business program in that country. But how do we allocate this 10 or more percent of the wood that we have to put in the small business program unless it is competed for among peers? We don't allow people other than those who are eligible on the program to bid on it. Certainly we don't want to see a permanent ongoing quota type of thing, because that's what happened in the past.

The member for Omineca said that we allocated all the wood to these big companies. On the coast a lot of it was, in the early days, acquired by the big companies, but not directly from the government in many cases. In many cases the smaller operators acquired the wood and ultimately sold out to the big companies. I have that happening today. I don't know at times how I can refuse when you have someone who has spent all his life working in the industry, he's now perhaps in his late sixties or seventies, his sons didn't want to get into the business or perhaps like me he had all daughters and they didn't want to be loggers. Now he has this timber allocation, and over the years he has made a living, but he's really not set too much aside. He says: "Mr. Minister, such and such a company wants to buy my allocation. I want to get out of the business; I want to retire. May I sell it?" I would very much like to say: "No, you can't sell it to them, because that's further concentration. I don't want that big company to have that wood. It would be better for me to put it in the small business program." But how do I say that when that's all this guy has after a lifetime of work? Maybe he has some savings, but here is his nest egg. Usually, in a case like that, I do allow it to happen. I have one on my desk right now which I'm wrestling with, the same type of thing.

I don't want to see a permanent type of quota thing for small operators, because, once again, your flexibility is gone. Quite frankly, you might then get into selling out to the big companies, and you have further concentration. Our object is to put more and more wood into the program, and we can. As we accumulate undercuts, as some licences are reduced in size, and as we learn how to use some of the wood that we haven't been able to use in the past — and this is happening — we can increase the general allowable cut in many areas, and most of that will go into the small business program. I don't know how to deal with that wood unless it's through a competitive system.

[ Page 4435 ]

The figures that the member quotes as to what the small operators pay versus what the big companies pay are somewhat misleading — I know there is no intent on your part to mislead me. What happens is that we put out a sale, and we either provide the access to the sale ourselves or tag it onto an existing development. The small business licensee has very little additional cost to get to the wood and he doesn't have to assume any silviculture obligations afterwards, which would have cost him money. Instead, he generally puts that money into a bid for the small business wood, and quite often, when there is competition for that incremental supply, he can bid it up. What happens to that wood? It is harvested by him, and if he has bid it up somewhat above the going stumpage rate and sells it — and hopefully he doesn't sell it at a loss — to manufacturing plants and the "big" companies, and they pay him for that wood, including that extra stumpage which he bid, he's making a profit. The big company is paying more for the wood and thus paying that extra stumpage bill, because that guy is not going to pay for the right to harvest a bit of wood — it is the manufacturer who ultimately pays for it.

Category 2, the category for those who own small mills, is a little different. They are supposed to run the minimum percentage, which varies with the type of stand, through their own manufacturing plant. Generally competition is somewhat restricted, because there are not too many of that type of operators around. But at times there is fierce competition and they do bid against each other. The reason we don't require them to put all of the wood through their mill is that....

Maybe it is a specialty cedar mill and only 60 percent of the stand is cedar. He can't really use the rest, so we allow him to sell it. When he does, he sells it to the existing industry, which then pays the bonus that he has bid on it.

The program has its problems. I've said many times that the small business program has its problems. But I would differ with the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf). I don't think it's a disaster. I think there are lots of improvements needed. The problems are different in different parts of the province, because we're trying to adapt the program to suit the needs of that small sector, which is quite different in different parts of the province. On the coast, for example, the needs are much different than they would be in the dry belt in the interior. It is imperfect, but it's an opportunity for those who have developed as a service industry. The loggers are basically a service industry. We have allowed them the opportunity to harvest in their own right, and hopefully, as time goes on and the program expands, we will be able to develop more of a log market.

The member asked me to say who we're talking about who are considering perhaps giving up tenures. I am afraid it would be premature of me to discuss who or where at this time, because of corporate sensitivity, share values and that type of thing. But it is happening, and as it develops the member will of course be advised.

MR. SKELLY: What are the plans for the timber?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: We are in the formative development and talking stages now. There are various ways. Obviously no one is going to give up a secure timber allocation when there are manufacturing plants that need it, without perhaps some refusal right on the purchase of that timber on a market basis. These are the types of things we're discussing in several instances, both on the coast and in the interior, and it is developing,

The member for Omineca is going to strike out regarding the Vanderhoof and the Kispiox plans. I can't answer your questions. We are not the deed agency; it's Lands, Parks and Housing. My deputy has asked our people involved to come forward with a report. Whether or not my estimates will still be on when I get that I don't know, but I'll certainly provide the member with it.

That question and the following one demonstrate, I think, the dilemma which I have at times. The member is saying that this land which could be used for agriculture is tied up and is not being allocated for agricultural use. The member's next question was about what I was going to do about the falldown effect in the forest. There is my dilemma. A part of the reason that we will be having a falldown in future years is the shrinking forest landbase. We have a lot of land, and some of it in your riding, Mr. Member. You and I have travelled up between Vanderhoof and Fort St. James, and there is quite a bit of land adjacent to the highway there that was granted for agricultural use. The timber was removed, and it is not in agricultural, timber or any other kind of production. That is why, as you and I have discussed — we have discussed it in our caucus, and I have discussed it publicly — we can perhaps satisfy the need of people to own land if we combine silviculture and agriculture.

[4:30]

That is part of the idea of the woodlot licence program. Why can't we have a silviculture lease program similar to the agriculture lease program we have? British Columbia is one jurisdiction in which most of the forest lands are owned by the Crown. I think that there's a place for more private ownership of the forest land. People can and should be tree farmers if that is what the land is best used for. Even the better agricultural land in the interior is darned good forest land. It has been demonstrated that you can make just as good a living growing and selling trees on a continuous basis as you can most field crops in British Columbia. Combining the two, of course, is the best of both worlds. A lot of the land that has been alienated should be forested, and perhaps some of the forest land should he used for agriculture. But that is what these deferred planning areas are all about: that is, trying to figure out what the best way is of using that land to get the best value from it. There is a dilemma there, and I don't have a magic wand or the instant answer to it.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I agree again with the member for Omineca about the need for better utilization, especially the need for manufacturing for markets in specific areas. My recent trip to Europe and to the Oriental countries — Japan, Korea, China and so on — has indicated to me that changes come very quickly. In the past we have been able to manufacture anything we want in terms of solid-wood products. There was always a place in the world where we could sell it, but that has changed. The competition is much more severe now, and we have to be much more specific to markets.

The member mentioned the Chemainus sawmill. I think you have a good example there where that mill will be built to make specialty products for specialty market niches. In addition, there was a little furniture manufacturing plant established in Chemainus which is even more market specific. Perhaps the Chemainus mill can enhance the value of that furniture manufacturing plant as well. I hope so, because that is the type of thing we have to be doing. We have to use more

[ Page 4436 ]

of the wood that is in the forest, and it is happening. But I don't think we can pursue that with such vigour that we destroy the economics of the industry that is there. The industry has to use more. Because we've had an abundance of raw materials in the past, we've been somewhat fat and saucy in what we did with it. Our utilization and recovery has not been the best, but now as supplies tighten up we're going to be much more aggressive in pursuing markets and in making use of some of the wood we haven't used in the past.

I mentioned the fact that it really wasn't the government over the years that allocated the wood resource to the very few. I think I mentioned to the member for Omineca the example of what used to be called the sustained yield unit in the Okanagan. At one time there were over 90 small licensees, and of those 90 only a couple remain. Over time, they've gradually sold out as they retired or as the economics of the old bush-mill business changed and they couldn't compete. Concentration has taken place over the years. One of the things that I've tried to do through the small business program is to make sure that at least that amount of wood never is subject to that concentration.

I believe I've covered most of the areas. If I haven't, I'm sure....

Interjection.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Oh, the ripoff business? Well, I got into the small business ripoff by describing the different conditions of responsibilities. I don't think it's a ripoff. At times some of our small business operators get carried away, and they have bid dollar numbers that they can't operate on. Sometimes it is done for spite. Up until now we've had a relatively small bonus bid, and the guy will put down his bonus bid and bid the thing out of sight, knowing that he's not going to be able to operate it, but at least he would prevent somebody else. That type of competition is not healthy at all. In order to overcome that, it's been suggested by quite a number of small business operators that we increase the size of that deposit substantially so that it is something they can't afford to lose. It will at least force him to do his homework, to go and talk to his banker or financier, if he has to have one, and make sure that he can operate on the price he bids. By and large, the prices are a little bit higher, but as I've mentioned, the obligations are less as well.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, I have approximately nine constituency questions to address to the minister. But first, as a part of your job as my buddy MLA, I was wondering....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No longer.

MR. PASSARELL: What happened?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: They fired me.

MR. PASSARELL: They should have a long time ago. Okay, I'll drop that one. I've been working on this joke for about a week, but that's all right.

My first constituency question has to do with TFL-1, B.C. Timber, which is included in the Nishga nation. In light of B.C. Timber in that area, the company hasn't worked in over 13 months. The community of Nass Camp has been closed down. Very few people are living there. The very positive proposal that the Nishga nation has put forward regarding timber is not just a proposal, because if you look at what the community of Canyon City in the Nishga nation are doing in practically logging in the area as a start of what could happen in that valley.... The minister has travelled in the area and is aware, as he stated earlier, of the ongoing need regarding seedlings, and some of the logged-out areas through the Nass Valley that have never been replanted. The spokesperson for the Nishga Tribal Council in regard to forestry management units is Collier Azak, who has put forward some excellent proposals for timber management in the Nass. I know the Nishga nation has approached the Minister of Forest and his assistants, and the question I ask is: what is the ministry going to do with the proposals that the Nishga people are putting forward in regard to timber management in the Nass Valley, particularly when you look at Nass Valley and B.C. Timber, where there have been no operations in that vicinity for over 13 months?

In regard to your proposals, what proposals do you have for the Nass? There have been some rumours in regard to Stewart, and I'll get to Stewart further on in one of my constituency issues. There are individuals, particularly in Nass camp, who haven't worked for 13 months and who are hanging on. I feel for those individuals who are living in the Nass camp in that isolated area in the Nass Valley, waiting for some type of employment. They keep asking: "Whatever happened to 'Use it or lose it'?" I would like the minister's response on that.

Look at B.C. Timber particularly, which has the largest tree licence in the province, TFL No. 1; they're not using it. Why can't the Nishga people have some of that for jobs? Some areas of the Nass Valley have 95 percent unemployment. Why can't the people use the timber that is there, which B.C. Timber isn't using, to generate local jobs and to benefit local communities, and share some of the resources in a fair enterprise system?

Secondly, in regard to a contentious issue in the lower Stikine involving forest management in that area, which is a very environmentally sensitive area — as B.C. Hydro found out in regard to their plans on the Stikine — I have a recent letter from the minister dated April 30, 1984, sent to Lynne Thunderstorm in Telegraph Creek. I want to read one paragraph. There haven't been any public hearings per se, and that was one of the issues that the Tahltan people were bringing forward. I'm quoting the fourth paragraph: "As noted in the attached material, the planning report is an intermediate project. It will incorporate public consultation between February to April 1984 and will be available for public review in early June of 1984." Where does this public consultation begin? What communities? Is some type of public consultation going on in the ministry in Victoria? I was in contact with the Tahltan people just last week and my interpretation of what they said is that there really hasn't been any consultation in regard to the licence that was given on the lower Stikine.

A third question. Many residents in the communities that I represent use wood for heating and cooking and as their source of energy. Are there any plans by the ministry to enlarge some areas for woodcutting, particularly around the Atlin area, using trees down towards the O'Donnel that don't fall into the new forest management area or reserve that you've put in? I'm not talking about cutting down green trees, because most people don't really want to cut green

[ Page 4437 ]

trees. They'd rather have seasoned wood, trees that are downed.

The fourth issue is a major concern in the Atlin constituency, where we had a very low snowfall, resulting in a dry winter. A concern that residents were bringing to my attention during our two-week adjournment was in regard to fire. We've seen some major fires over the years but this winter we've had a particularly low snow accumulation, which is a strong signal for a higher-than-normal number of forest fires this summer. I'm wondering what type of increase in firefighting in the far north has been allocated by the ministry.

The fifth issue is the Nass road, particularly from Greenville to New Aiyansh. The minister has travelled that road numerous times, I'm sure, and he wouldn't want to bring his own vehicle up on that road. It's an ongoing problem. When B.C. Timber is in operation, they are responsible for the upgrading of the road, but since B.C. Timber has been down for over a year the road has deteriorated. Has the ministry looked at the possibility of turning that road access between Greenville and New Aiyansh over to the provincial highways system? It's fine when the company is in operation and their trucks are moving on it, but when the company is down, as it has been over the last 13 months, it's a very terrible road to travel on, safety-wise. Because of their isolated area — particularly Greenville, where 300 individuals live, Canyon City with 150 people and New Aiyansh with 600 people — people are wondering why they have to pay taxes on their gasoline even though their roads are private forestry roads to a certain extent.

My sixth question to the minister is on silviculture. I listened intently to the member for Omineca and agree with much that he stated. There was a time a few years ago when we used to have our own nurseries in the far north, particularly around the Nass, with local seedlings for local use. I've never understood why the province has ever had to import seedlings, particularly from Washington. In an era of high unemployment, why are we not using Crown land for seedling nurseries, particularly in the far north in communities like Nass Camp? There is high unemployment in that area. Here's a positive suggestion to put a few people back to work. These wouldn't be make-work projects, just going out and slashing some bush to constitute a job, but would be doing something that's very effective. You can't really take a nursery and put it into Atlin where there really isn't that much commercial timber going on, but in the Nass and up towards Dease Lake we can have some type of employment for the benefit of future generations.

My seventh question to the minister: why did you and your ministry turn down the federal proposal that would have been worth millions of dollars in jobs and seedlings in the province? The federal-provincial negotiations could have been working out some kind of agreement with the federal government that would have been beneficial to the residents of British Columbia.

[4:45]

The eighth question is something I referred to earlier, and that's in regard to Stewart. There have been a lot of rumours going around over the last few years about the high and low cycles involved with the community of Stewart in regards to Granduc and mining operations, particularly since Stewart is closed down, to a certain extent, with Granduc. What's happening in regards to....? Around Christmastime they were discussing log sorting out of Stewart. If I'm not mistaken, I think there was some problem; the federal government's environment section was holding up the use of Stewart as a port even though the provincial ministry was in support of it. Jobs are needed in Stewart today, and I hope the minister can elaborate on what's happening in regard to that log sorting and shipping out of Stewart, actively seeking new jobs in the community of Stewart for log sorting and shipping.

The last question I have to raise with the minister is in regard to public documents in Dease Lake. While you were out of the country, a bit of a problem arose with the Tahltan people and their nation in regard to the lower Stikine forest management. There were some documents in Dease Lake, and they travelled from Telegraph Creek to Dease Lake to see these documents. They were under the impression from their initial phone call that they were entitled to pay for copies of these documents in regard to what's happening on the lower Stikine. They arrived in Dease Lake and were told that they could see the documents but they couldn't take them, even if they would pay for the photocopying. The next day they contacted my office, and I contacted your office and found that those documents in regard to the lower Stikine would be given to the band council. I wanted to know if that is a policy — that individuals are not entitled to see public documents in the Dease Lake forest manager's office. Those are the nine questions I address to the minister regarding constituency issues and problems. I'd like the minister's response.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Was that nine? I only got eight; maybe I got two of them together.

I appreciate the manner in which the member presented his queries. I don't have absolute answers for all of them. With regard to the Tahltan people's attempt to get documents, if documents are the final approved plan, our policy is that they are public documents and anyone is welcome to look at them in the office. If they want to pay for a reproduction of them, it's theirs. I'm not sure whether these were proposed plans or finalized documents. That's what the policy is. Someone could have been in error if they refused to make copies for them, as long as they were willing to pay for the reproduction cost.

Stewart is a difficult area. As we all know, the Granduc mine is closing. Over the years I've been trying to promote activity based upon our forest resource there. I think we're getting closer. We are examining the specific quality of the forest resource, to determine how much, perhaps, we could put up. If we can put wood up, it would have to be on a bid proposal basis and open to competition — not necessarily strictly a bid, but a proposal for the benefit of the community. I hope to be able to come forward with something in the very near future, and when that happens the member will be made fully aware of it.

That log export problem. I remember the mayor of Stewart called me, and I got in touch with my colleague the Minister of Environment. I don't know what happened, but apparently the federal people did object. It was just a matter of doing some sorting in the estuary area adjacent to where that old sawmill skeleton is. Quite frankly, I don't know what happened, but I did pursue it with my colleague, and he took it up with the federal people. I don't think it worked out the way we wanted it to.

Silviculture and nurseries. I've suggested many times to our silviculture people that I'd like to have a nursery in

[ Page 4438 ]

Princeton and one in Hope and one in Merritt and one in Lillooet and one in Logan Lake and so on. Of course it hasn't happened. There is the economy of scale in nurseries. In some areas the climate is not such that the cost of operating a greenhouse-type nursery would be prohibitive because of the climate. We are, I think, still discussing the possibility of establishing a nursery in the Terrace area. We are expanding our nursery production capability. It will be years before we get to the most desirable level, and I guess when we get there, there will always be people saying we should have more.

We are expanding. We have not turned down any program with the feds. We're vigorously pursuing and negotiating with them. I guess you're talking about the backlog planning program that we suggested, which would plant some 600 million hectares over a ten-year period. I think we're going to have to wait until we find out who the next government is going to be before we can finalize something. They have a very short attention span these days; hence it's difficult to pin them down. The members of both major parties federally — the Conservatives and the Liberals — have expressed a desire to conclude an agreement with us. We haven't discussed it with the federal NDP, unfortunately. I don't think they are going to form the government, but I am sure we could count on their support in any event.

The Nass road, Greenville, New Aiyansh. The whole thing from the end of the Highways ministry paving, I guess, is a forestry road. Maintenance of it is up to the TFL holder. I, too, would like to see my colleague the Minister of Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) take the road over. He has built a bridge up there in the middle of all these forestry roads. I think we're both developing....

MR. PASSARELL: It's not finished yet.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Well, I hope it stays there. I think we are developing a good argument for him to take it over, because he's going to have a bridge at the end of a Forest Service road. Eventually that will happen. That is not the normal evolutionary process as time goes on.

Fire protection throughout your entire riding. Our policy is that as we assess the fire hazard as a result of moisture levels and so on as the year ends and the fire season begins in those high-hazard areas, we move in more suppression people. We have our rapid attack crews. We now have a good paved airstrip at Dease Lake which we can use as a tanker base. So our capability there is increased. As hazards become a reality, we put more people in the high-hazard areas. You as a member can certainly give great assistance in continually cautioning — along with our advertising — the general public as to the need to be extremely careful with fire in those areas. Because they are so remote and capabilities for suppressing fires are so far apart, it makes it much more difficult, and thus the hazard and the risk of a wildfire getting away is much greater.

Fuel wood. Why not? That area up around Atlin is not a part of our commercial forest base. If the people there need fuel wood, I'm sure our people should be willing to talk to them and put up sales. If they're not, I will see that they do, because that is obviously a major source of fuel for homes in the area and probably for a commercial undertaking as well. It seems to me that I once sat beside a nice big potbelly stove in a pub up there that was burning wood.

The concentration process in the lower Stikine. That's probably at a fairly informal level now. The idea is that as the public express concerns, our regional and district planners should be inviting them in or else going out and talking to them. At times we do set up public advisory groups. At times this does lead to problems, because if there is a need to create employment by awarding timber licences and so on, we don't like to see it hung up forever in discussions and meetings. But we do welcome the input and dialogue and consultation with people who are affected. I hope that's carrying on, probably at a fairly informal level — on a one-to-one, "you come and see us or we come and see you" basis.

TFL No. 1, Nishga nation: I know of no Nishga nation. I know of aboriginal land claims that the Nishga people have. They have never been recognized by this government, by that party when it was the government or by any government in Canada. But in my role as Minister of Forests I will always treat the native Indian people the same as I do anyone else. If there is an opportunity that comes up regarding allocations of wood — and maybe, as a result of our studies of the Stewart thing, some of the areas that could perhaps become part of a timber flow could be accessible to the Nishga — perhaps they will be willing to bid on it the same as everybody else. If a timber licence is granted anyway, it will require substantial contracting and other opportunities like that for the Nishga. They are good loggers. A lot of the loggers who work for B.C. Timber up there are native Indians from that area.

I believe that covers the areas that the member asked about. If I've missed anything, I'm sure he'll advise me.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise with a few questions for the Minister of Forests. Some of them have, of course, already been covered, because when we deal with forestry we're dealing with a lot of the same issues and interests.

One of the issues I would like to talk to him about is the federal-provincial program. It was a couple of weeks ago, I think, that he made an announcement that he had decided to go into a program — I think $11 million was the figure — which was to be shared jointly. That's a pretty small percentage of what the federal government is prepared to make available to the province for reforestation, and I am concerned, as are many people in British Columbia, I'm sure, that we are not, as an administration here in the province of British Columbia, taking full advantage of those federal dollars. Certainly the need is there. The backlog of nonsatisfactorily restocked lands is certainly great enough to provide ample opportunity to utilize those funds. Of the $11 million that was announced, $8 million was to be spent on rehabilitation and planting of the NSR lands and the balance on surveys, seedling supply and related forest research — that's my understanding — with an estimated total employment of 16,000 weeks. The backlog of NSR lands has been estimated at anywhere from 600,000 to one million hectares. They're good growing sites, they've been logged in the past, and they have failed to successfully regenerate or they are covered by brush or non-commercial species. There's a tremendous area there for putting people to work, and for creating jobs that would have an extremely beneficial effect down the road.

We have moved ahead with little consideration, partly because in the early days of logging we didn't really recognize the need. There was an interesting editorial done in one of my local papers earlier this year which talked about the fact that in the early days they started logging right from Cowichan Bay — and I'm sure the minister is very familiar with

[ Page 4439 ]

that spot at this particular point — right up the Cowichan River and through to Lake Cowichan. They thought those trees would go on forever. They really didn't know — and it wouldn't be right to blame those early loggers who worked with crosscut saws and springboards — that they were taking away, without any thought of replacing it, the most valuable growth of timber anywhere in the world. But there is no excuse now, because now we do know what has happened and we do know that we need to take care of those forests. But in spite of that, we still have this terrific backlog of insufficiently restocked area.

[5:00]

This editorial goes on to deride the minister quite heartily for not standing up for his rights and getting sufficient money in his budget. I think the total forestry budget is something between 2 and 3 percent of the total budget, and we're not talking about any major increase in the overall budget if in fact we were to provide sufficient funds in the Forests estimates to do an adequate job of restocking and intensive forest management. One of the problems, of course, is that while the minister has told us about all the seedlings he is planting, the unfortunate thing is that the funds for that seedling program have been directly derived by slashing other programs. The figures I have indicate that the forest protection branch, which is responsible for fighting insects, fire and disease, was slashed last year, I believe, by something like 40 percent. There is certainly no improvement this year in that particular aspect of the budget. That is an area that certainly is most beneficial if we are to get in there and do a job of fighting insects and fire and disease. If we're not going to take some action to protect the trees that are already started, to ensure that they live and survive and grow to produce good timber, that's not the answer.

This has been mentioned, I know: there has been quite a stir among professionals in the field of forestry expressing their concern over what has happened. One of the people is Bill Dumont, the vice-president of the Association of B.C. Professional Foresters. He has said that to simply plant our unproductive forests would create up to 20,000 new permanent jobs. He goes on to say that this creation of those 20,000 jobs would not represent big bucks; it would be perhaps 1 or 2 percent in the total provincial budget. That would cover much of the shortfall in the whole silviculture program.

Certainly if this $11,000 can create 16,000 weeks of work, the total backlog.... If we could move ahead to really clear up that backlog, it would mean that we would be adding.... An estimate made by the Association of Professional Foresters and the Pacific Forest Research Centre is that the backlog could add 1.7 million cubic metres to the long-run sustainable yield of B.C. This would result in a 5 to 10 percent return on investment in reforestation and intensive forest management. They came up with the figure of employment generation to be approximately 4.5 person-days per hectare, and if you're talking about a million hectares, then you're talking about a job creation program that has some real significance in today's very stagnant economy. Not only are you resolving an immediate problem of people who are living off social insurance or UIC by giving them some productive work and a meaningful place in our economic society again, but in addition to that you are recycling dollars back into the economy as a result of their earnings. So the total additional cost in providing them with jobs in such a meaningful and worthwhile occupation as building up our forest resource is certainly going to be recouped many times over, and even the basic cost is not going to be that much in excess of what we're already paying out in the way of UIC and social assistance payments, which are coming from the taxpayer, whether it be federal or provincial. You may say that the UIC program is a federal one, but it is still the taxpayer who is supporting those programs. It would be much better if we could reduce those costs and create some meaningful jobs for those people which from a social point of view would be extremely beneficial, and it would also be extremely beneficial from an economic point of view, in that it's establishing a viable industry today and ensuring that that industry remains viable tomorrow. As that sustainable yield goes up as a result of those programs, then you are certainly in a position where the marketing of the finished product can increase.

In your own five-year forest and range resource program which you filed in September last year, I believe, Mr. Minister, you indicated your ministry proposed a ten-year effort to reforest the best 60 percent of those insufficiently stocked lands at a cost of $600 million, to be shared equally between the two levels of government. Well, that's a fine forecast and intent, but if you've only got $11 million down the road out of that $600 million more than six months later — we're now into May — I don't think you're getting very far toward that program which you have talked about as being your objective.

My concerns and those of many of my constituents relate to the fact that these moneys that have been indicated are to go ahead and be spent for these types of programs, and I'm not talking about the temporary make-work programs. They're fine as a stopgap, but what we need are some permanent programs that will ensure.... The phrase that I've heard used lately that really appeals to me is jobs that people can build their lives around. I think that's important. If you're on a job and you don't know whether it's going to last two weeks, two months or two years, you can't build your life around that program. That is why I thought we had ten-year forecasts and why we had five-year forest and range resource forecasts. Those programs set out to sustain not only the forest resource but our human resource that works those forests and acquires their living from them. Those programs need to be on a sustained basis so they are the kind of programs that people can build their lives around. That's a very important phrase and one that I think it would be well for all of the government benches to remember. We cannot have a viable and thriving economy if we do not come up with meaningful jobs that are of such a duration that people can build their lives around them.

I did some calculations the other day. The 1 percent that you were going to reforest was going to create 16,000 man-weeks, which would amount to something like 300 man-years of employment. If 1 percent equals 300 man-years of employment, if we were to do 100 percent, that gives us 30,000 man-years of employment. In doing that we're talking about something really meaningful in dealing with the 2.5 million or 3 million people out of work today — people on welfare rolls and on UIC. If you went ahead and aimed at 100 percent restocking of those lands, you're looking at 30,000 man-years of employment. Certainly that is an objective that is worthy of looking at. It's an objective that, according to the professionals I've quoted, would not mean anything more than 2 or 3 percent in the total provincial budget. I don't think that it takes much of an economist to recognize the kind of return to the economy, the kind of stimulant and injection into our economic cycle that would be given by the

[ Page 4440 ]

creation of 30,000 man-years of employment. It is something that would have a real impact on today's economy.

In Cowichan, as you know, we rely very heavily on the forest industry. The Cowichan Lake research centre has done a lot of very interesting and productive work for the minister. A recent article which was carried again in the local paper quotes you, Mr. Minister, as citing financial restraints as the reason you have backed off on the federal offer of $52 million each year for the next five years. It goes on to quote Peter Ackhurst, president of the association of foresters. I think I've quoted him before, but this time he is saying that the provincial government is trimming its forest budget by a third in the area of silviculture over the past three years. He's referring to the changes that you have brought in. Every time you bring in a five-year forecast, those budgets are reduced. He talks about the intensive forest management techniques of thinning, spacing, pruning and fertilizing being virtually eliminated. He goes on to say that while you have maintained the basic replanting, it has been at the expense of these other programs. Of course, your former chief forester has warned very openly and widely that without this intensive management, the annual allowable cut will have to be reduced.

[5:15]

Going back to the research station, we have there a very qualified head scientist. I'm sure you are familiar with Mr. Karlsson. He says that the basic tree planting and fire protection must be maintained at all costs. Of particular concern are the 600,000 hectares of land not sufficiently restocked. He talks about the bottom-line steps, the minimum B.C. can do to keep itself in the forest business. Based on the present philosophy of the ministry, this will "barely scratch the surface of the province's forest potential." The article goes on about Mr. Karlsson's reminiscences of his boyhood in Sweden. He remembers the whole school class taking a couple of days a year to go and plant trees. He said that this gesture helped to instil respect for the trees in the kids. He later went on to plant trees for a living and then to enter the forest research profession. He said, too, that Sweden had a law ordering all logged land to be replanted quickly for more than 100 years. That's a law on the books, and it applies on privately owned as well as public land. Here we say that there's no way we can have any control over those privately owned lands. Mind you, we give them all kinds of money to restock them and, as a result, starve our Crown lands. In Sweden, as a result of this program, pretty well 100 percent of reforested land is under intensive management. Because Sweden invests all its time, energy and money in the forests, they grow at a rate of 4.2 cubic metres per hectare per year. By comparison, Mr. Karlsson tells us that many of the better tree-growing sites in the Cowichan Valley will produce 15 to 20 cubic metres per hectare per year — five times as much as you can do in Sweden — if you have the proper management. So certainly there is every reason why we should be embarking on and continuing with a very intensive program here. If we don't use that, we're going to be facing a reduction in the level of cut. So that certainly is a very strong argument in favour of additional funds for the Minister of Forests, and adequate use of those funds.

Another item that I wanted to raise with the minister deals with the export of logs. I came upon some statistics the other day which indicated that in the last three years, 1981 to 1983, our log exports have more than doubled. In 1981 log exports totalled 191,591,000 board feet. In 1982 that figure had grown to 270,391,000 board feet. In 1983 we exported raw logs in the amount of 466,188,000 board feet; that's more than double the export of raw logs in 1981. Why is this happening? The papers are full of ads for logs for sale. There's one here in Lake Cowichan. Sooke. Northwest Bay. Vancouver, I guess — West Georgia Street. Logs are for sale everywhere. When you export logs, you export jobs. I don't want to rehash with the minister what went on in the Chemainus mill situation and the use-it-or-lose-it issue with MacMillan Bloedel there, but certainly the minister who is charged with the responsibility for the management of our forests must ensure that the terms of those tree-farm licences are either adequately interpreted to ensure that we get the kind of processing that we must have here in B.C., or else that they are renegotiated — if that's not included — to ensure that that does happen. We cannot afford to continue to go on exporting raw logs, which is simply exporting jobs. We need those jobs here in British Columbia, and we need them now worse than ever before. So, Mr. Minister, the record is dismal, when you have gone from 191 million board feet in 1981 to 466 million board feet in 1983 of raw logs exported. That's a dismal record, and it indicates to me that you haven't been as forceful as perhaps you should have been in dealing with those companies which are circumventing our rules and regulations.

I know that there are difficulties. I know that you're faced with federal jurisdiction as well. But I suggest that if this economy in this country is to survive and prosper, we have to ensure that we do not continue to ship our raw resources out so freely and easily. We must change our directions and our policies to do further processing in this province and in this country and keep those jobs at home for British Columbians and for Canadians.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I will respond to some of the comments made, starting with the latter and working forward.

I think the member is aware of the study that I commissioned Mr. Trebett and others to do for me last year regarding the export of logs. That was done, and I have the report and have had it for some months. I believe I tabled.... That report is public information, I believe; if the member doesn't have a copy I'm sure we can get one. The report says and demonstrates that it's not really true that when you export logs you remove the possibility of exporting lumber. The amount of logs that we export is really so small, in spite of the numbers you gave, in terms of the export market that there is no effect on the amount of lumber we can sell. As a matter of fact, if we can't sell the lumber, exporting the logs does create some employment in terms of logging and handling. It's not that I'm proposing or supporting the export of logs; I don't think it's proper. It never has been the policy in the province. Those ads the member mentioned were not ads for the export of logs; they're ads for the sale of logs in British Columbia. If those logs which are advertised for sale cannot be sold — if there are no takers — only after that can they be put up for export, and then they have to go through an advisory process. I think we are going to be streamlining and improving that log export advisory committee process. I do believe there are some inequities in it. Some people have learned how to perhaps make end runs around the system.

Yes, log exports do go up in times of economic downturn. What's happened this time is about the same as what normally happens. Our log exports generally run from plus or minus I percent to 1.5 percent to about 3 percent, and that's what's

[ Page 4441 ]

happened. Again, I have a dilemma. Do we say no, they can't export the logs, and then have these logs subject to teredo worm destruction or just leave them in a bay somewhere to deteriorate, or do we allow them to be exported? Of course, when they are exported, somebody will log additional logs and then try to sell them, and when he can't he wants to export them as well. However, if we don't allow any log exports, there's a lot of material that we're not going to be able to use. It will not be harvested or used at all, so we won't have job creation from that. We won't have job creation and logging even from those that at times can be used here. I think we can improve the system. I have gone over the Trebett report a number of times now with my executive, and we're very close to revising our procedures and perhaps having some modest changes in the policies. But the policy will basically remain as it is now. That is, logs will not be exported unless it can be demonstrated that they cannot be used in British Columbia. We may have some refinements in the way of discouraging people from logging just for export.

The member mentioned Mr. Karlsson's comments about school classes planting trees and thus having an awareness of reforestation. I think that's a good idea. As a matter of fact, the little son of my neighbour and his boy scout group have just undertaken such a program. He talked me into sponsoring him for a tree-planting thing. I think it cost me five bucks. He planted 50 trees, and most members of his troop did as well. The Ministry of Forests is, within reason, always very happy to provide seedlings for that type of exercise.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: There is no such law, Madam Member. Somebody may have told you that in Sweden all land must be planted. It may say that all land must be regenerated, certainly not that all land must be planted. I believe the figure in Sweden is roughly 60 percent. That proportion of the areas that are clearcut-harvested is planted; the balance is naturally regenerated. They are required to do site preparation and encourage regeneration, just as we do in British Columbia. I think we're approaching 50 percent now in the percentage of what we plant compared to what we harvest. Our objective would probably be somewhere around what the Swedish and Finnish experience is.

The member mentioned the $11 million extension to the existing intensive forest management program, and said that it was only a small part of what the feds were willing to contribute. The federal government has made a lot of noise, promises and announcements. Even today the only agreements.... I don't think they've signed up with Ontario yet, although they say they have concluded an agreement; they have in Manitoba; I believe they have in Saskatchewan; they have in Prince Edward Island — why, I don't know; I'm not sure about New Brunswick, but they have in Nova Scotia — perhaps New Brunswick. These are relatively small programs. We haven't backed out of or abandoned our negotiations. We are very seriously pursuing that with them and they with us. Because we couldn't conclude an agreement, we extended the old one. In spite of the fact that we have included the money in our budget, only a couple of days ago the federal government was finally able to get approval for their $5.5 million of the $11 million program. That is ongoing. Finally, and thankfully, they have committed their money to Treasury Board, as we did and are doing in our budgetary process. But we do want to conclude an agreement with them. We discussed this previously this afternoon — perhaps you were out of the House.

Of that roughly 1 million hectares of NSR land, there are about 600,000 hectares of high-to-medium-site lands which should be planted. Planting the lesser-quality land does not increase the productivity that much, because they will naturally regenerate, but there will be some regeneration delay. We want to address the 600,000 hectares first. That is what our program is designed to do. I believe our figure is that the program over its ten-year span will create about a thousand man-years of work per year in planting and site-preparation work.

You mentioned 30,000 jobs could be created in forestry. I don't think you can take a straight extrapolation, as you did, and say that if you spend $100,000 you get so many, so if you spend $20 million you get 200 times that much. We couldn't possibly put 30,000 people to work effectively in the forests without perhaps destroying our forests. We don't know that much about the forests. We can do a lot more than we have been doing. The EBAP experience was a good experience, and as I mentioned earlier this afternoon, we are pursuing a better way of doing that EBAP thing. I agree that there should be a continuing, basic program that can be increased during a downturn in the economic cycle as other people want to have employment, but still have the basic core there all the time. We are pursuing that with the federal government — both the unemployment insurance people and the forestry people. The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and I have been talking these last few days about her and me and the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) finally getting all the parties together to sit down. It seems that we can talk back and forth forever. We haven't been able to focus on how to do that. I think there are ways of doing it which are much better and less demeaning to people than simply supplementing their UIC payments a bit. I think it can be made a core, meaningful work program. I like your phrase, "something to build their lives around," because not only do they build their lives around that but other people in the province build their lives around the forests that they create. It's a good phrase. Can I coin it?

[5:30]

Beetles and our protection program. This year our protection program, I believe, is almost $16 million. Last year it was $14.4 million. That includes protection from fire, insects and disease. A lot of the protection that we have to do with insects is harvesting and accessing roads through our harvesting budget, because the bark beetle, the pine beetle, the spruce bark beetle and so on can only be controlled through a harvesting or a burning program. We'd rather harvest ahead of the bugs and try to control them that way, as we have done in several other parts of the province. As the economy turned down, even though we could access them, there is quite a reduction in the volumes of wood being harvested. It is much more difficult to sell the bug-killed wood, so of necessity we had to pull back on it and we did lose substantial amounts of forests. We have to get ahead of that problem. I don't think we can ever get fully ahead of it unless we get some cooperation from nature. It seems that we need some peculiar weather conditions for a while to help stop the expansion of the bug population. But we are going to lose substantial volumes of wood, and it's quite discouraging. We are doing what we can and will do more. There are particular problems in north Chilcotin and the Flathead Valley, and some in the Elk River

[ Page 4442 ]

area in the Kootenays. The Okanagan problem, I think, is largely under control.

We have maps showing how this has changed over the years, and it's shocking. It's almost impossible to control. The only thing you can do is hope to get ahead and do some accelerated harvesting. I think I'll probably be creating some terrible headlines, but even if we have to, in fact, use fire to create a barrier between the bugs and the green forest, we should be considering that. We have in some areas such a sea of dead forests — a very dry, tinderbox type of situation — that it would be very difficult to control. But at some point we may get a wildfire, and that is a hazard, so we have to increase our protection in those areas as well.

The member mentioned the Cowichan Valley and the logging done years ago, and I won't blame those who went before us either for making use of the forest in the way they did. But right now, in that area of Cowichan Bay right on in to Cowichan Lake, there is some of the nicest second-growth forest you will find anywhere in the world. We don't have that much NSR land on the coast of Vancouver Island; natural regen does a pretty good job when we can't plant it. Our biggest NSR problem is in the central interior — the Prince George forest region. But hopefully, as we get this agreement with the federal government, within ten years we should be able to catch up with that. Just to correct an impression that some people seem to have, all the NSR is not from not planting areas we've logged. A lot of it — and I can't tell you what percent — was from wildfire as well. That has added to the NSR lands. But we must do better.

MRS. WALLACE: I thank the minister for his remarks, and I appreciate the tone in which they were given. I'm not saying he's wrong; all I want to do is, again, just quote here. This is Mr. Karlsson talking about Sweden. He says: "Sweden has had a law ordering all logged-over land to be replanted quickly for more than 100 years, and it applies on privately owned land as well as public." I'm no authority on it, but that was my source from an interview that was done with Karlsson, who is out of Sweden.

You said it yourself, Mr. Minister, when you were saying, well, we will try this, and we might have to do that, and we might do something else. We need more research. We need to know what we're doing. I'm a bit surprised to find how little we actually do put into research and, in fact, that that has declined. The Canadian Forestry Service tells us that the number of person-years available to research in the Canadian Forestry Service has declined by more than 50 percent since 1968. It should be going in the other direction. It should have increased by at least 50 percent since 1968. Without that research we will never have the kind of development in our forest industry that we need to ensure the protection of our stock, to know what we're doing — not to be guessing; nor will we have the knowledge available for further processing and the kinds of things that we should be doing to make more jobs here in British Columbia.

Research and development is one of the most critical areas, and to find that Canada generally has simply reduced that research by 50 percent over the last 16 to 20 years is extremely discouraging. It is required in almost all phases of forest management. There are relatively new biotechnological areas that could have a profound influence on our whole forest, and unless we are prepared to put money into ensuring that we have that knowledge, that we have the best possible expertise, then we're not going to do a good job managing this very wealthy resource that we have in British Columbia: 40 to 50 percent of our entire Canadian forest, with sites so high that they produce four or five times as well as the Swedish sites. It's a terrifically valuable resource site. We certainly need more money expended now on research and development, and I would urge that in particular to the minister's attention.

I have a couple of unrelated items that I might as well deal with now, since I am on my feet. One I was quite concerned about was in a little write up in the Lake Cowichan paper, which is a very small weekly. Apparently the forest companies in that area, as a result of a reassessment of their forest base, have reduced their taxes by more than $16 million. This is a terrific blow to the other taxpayers in that region, and the article points out that areas "F" and "I" of the regional district have begun an investigation as to what effect this tax reduction will have on the local taxpayers. The article says that the changes occurred because the forest companies — Pacific Forest Products, particularly — were given permission by the Forests minister to change large parcels of land to tree-farm classification. The rationale is that this is going to ensure better replanting, better sustained yield, and so on, but I think you and I know, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Minister, that that is going to come out of the taxpayers too, because it's going to come out of those logging companies' stumpage rates — the replanting and things that they do. It's our money that's going in there to do that, and yet we as taxpayers are going to have to face that extra tax burden because of the minister's decision to transfer that land into tree-farm licences.

I don't know how much of that land is actually.... I don't know that that's the best use for that land. I don't know what studies were done on that. I would hope that the land we're putting into those tree-farm licences is best suited totally for forestry. I'm thinking of the multiple-use concept, which is certainly one that foresters themselves.... The minister has indicated that he is committed to the multiple use concept, but I'm not at all sure that you really make the best multiple use of land once you have put it into a tree-farm licence. I know we're talking about private lands here, but again I'm talking about the kind of influence the minister can have in setting the terms of those licences and the requirements as a result of that. Again, it almost seems as if it's a giveaway to — particularly in this case — Pacific Forest Products. They have had their tax base so drastically reduced, and it really will cost them nothing more, because anything they do on that land will in effect come out of the taxpayers. So I have some concerns about that policy and that direction.

The other matter is quite an isolated matter. It has to do with forestry and flooding. Of course, that was pinpointed quite definitely over in the Hatzic Creek area last spring, when we had the runoffs there. There was almost a difference of opinion between the then acting Minister of Environment, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Rogers), and the Minister of Forests as to whether or not there was a responsibility on the part of the forest operations for that runoff. I have in my hand a report entitled: "Water Consumption by Forests." It is a very technical report. I don't know whether it mentions the people who did it, but perhaps it is not that critical. I received the report from First Watercount Systems in Vancouver. There is a slight mention in this report of a study that was done. Again I'm almost talking about research and development: I guess at least research in this instance.

[ Page 4443 ]

"Goodell (1958) removed half the trees in a forest of" — I'm not going to attempt the Latin names, but they were obviously evergreens — "on a calibrated watershed in Colorado. The trees were clear-felled in strips varying in width from 22 to 132 yards. The increases in stream flow in the two following years were 274 and 219 millimetres. However, when Rich (1959) " — this was another experiment — "removed 36 percent of the basal area of a mixed conifer stand in Arizona, using a method of selection that did not create the large gaps of Goodell's study, stream flow was not increased significantly."

As I say, this is a rather technical report, but I'm sure the minister understands what I'm getting at. The idea is that if you clearcut extensive areas, you are very probably contributing to a more rapid runoff, and if you do it on a less extensive basis perhaps you will not have that problem. I have talked to foresters who have been very involved in that Hatzic thing, and they tell me that what they really need are the funds to do the studies before and after so they can make a scientific estimate similar to what Goodell and Rich did in Colorado and Arizona, where they can come up with some scientific data so we will know here in British Columbia just how much you can clearcut, how large an area you can cut and not have a dramatic effect on the runoff.

What I'm suggesting to the minister is that again we need more funds for research in that particular line, because certainly the cost of flooding.... I'm not going to go into the emergency program, because that's a different ministry. Extensive costs have been paid out under a very narrow and restrictive program that does not allow full costs, by any manner or means, to the person who is damaged, so those individual costs have tripled and quadrupled — the amount that the taxpayers actually spent. But it's all cost, Mr. Chairman. What I'm suggesting is that a very few dollars spent now and made available now for those kinds of studies would limit very drastically the amount of dollars spent by individuals and other ministries in compensating for those runoff studies. So that's another item I'm commending to that minister.

[5:45]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Just very quickly, Mr. Chairman, I don't think I have ever been in conflict with the then acting Minister of Environment on that Hatzic thing. I said that timber harvesting was not the critical factor in that drainage. Obviously the denudation of the timber was not the factor and in fact was a contributing factor. We had over 200 millimetres — about eight inches — of rain in a 24-hour period, with a frozen soil. No amount of wood in the world is going to stop that from running off. As a matter of fact, there was not that much area up there that was clearcut-harvested that was not already replanted and growing again. The biggest denuded areas were the Hydro right-of-way that goes through there and fires which had broken out on that Hydro right-of-way and which, even though we had attempted a couple of times to replant them, had not been regenerated.

Taxation tree farms, very quickly. I am surprised, really. You profess to support forestry, and you have no objections to an agricultural taxation level for agricultural land. What is then wrong with the silvicultural taxation level for silvicultural land? It's not my ministry that determines this type of land use. We advise and work with the Assessment Authority. It's not a tree-farm licence; it's called a taxation tree farm. When it is determined that is the best use of land, a management plan is committed; they manage it on a sustained yield basis if it's private land. I think we should have more silvicultural land assessments called taxation tree farms because it will enhance our forest resource; it will encourage people to put land back into timber production. I'm afraid I don't know what effect it has on the other taxpayers. I hope it's not too detrimental, but it is an Assessment Authority problem. We just give them advice to the effect that yes, it is forest land.

Mr. Karlsson and I don't have a problem. I think there's one word that is out of place there, and that is the word "planted." I think either he inadvertently used that word or somebody else wrote it down. It's regenerated, reforested or whatever, but not planted. They don't plant all the land in Sweden. I've been there. I've seen them leave their seed trees for natural regeneration. It is regenerated, just as much of our land is regenerated, through assisting natural processes.

Yes, it would be nice to do a lot more research. There are many areas in which we can benefit. We have an awful lot to learn about our forests. We, the Canadian Forestry Service, other agencies and the universities — all have had to pull back on research expenditures, and priorities are being reestablished. We hope that in future we will be doing more research, because as we continue to compare with the Scandinavian countries we have to realize that we have a tremendously complex forest here, a young industry. We haven't been working it that long and don't know a lot about it. We have a lot to learn. I will always support more research, but we just haven't had the money. We hopefully will have more in the future.

I believe that pretty well covers the additional matters you brought up.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, earlier today the hon. member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) rose on a matter of privilege relating to remarks attributed to the hon. Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) and asked the Chair to consider whether such remarks amount to a prima facie case of contempt, bearing in mind the terms of reference given to the Select Standing Committee on Transportation and Communications in September 1983.

1 wish to observe that the member has been meticulous in following the required forms necessary when raising matters of privilege and has, as required, tabled a proposed motion, together with the newspaper extract complained of in the course of his matter of privilege. However, I am certain that if the member re-examined the very authority he has quoted in support of his matter of privilege he would quickly concede that prorogation of the first meeting of the thirty-third parliament on Friday, February 9, 1984, effectively terminates not only sittings of the House but terms of reference for the select standing committees thereof, including the Select Standing Committee on Transportation and Communications. In this regard I would refer the hon. member to the nineteenth

[ Page 4444 ]

edition of Sir Erskine May, page 662, dealing with the effect of prorogation on a committee's terms of reference.

Remarks attributed to the hon. minister appear to have been made subsequent to the prorogation of the House and termination of the committee's terms of reference. Accordingly, it is not possible for the member to establish a prima facie case within the clear meaning of the rule as stated in Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:51 p.m.

Appendix

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

15 Mr. Reynolds asked the Hon. the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications the following questions:

1. On July 27, did any members of the Public Service in the Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications leave their positions to attend a rally at the Parliament Buildings, and if so, how many?

2. In reference to No. 1, how many of these public servants will be paid for: (a) the whole day and (b) for part of the day?

3. Will any money be saved by Government as a result of No. 2, and if so, how much?

The Hon. P. L. McGeer replied as follows:

" 1. 19 employees were missing.

"2. (a) None and (b) 19.

"3. $468.66."

26 Mr. Reynolds asked the Hon. the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications the following questions:

1. On August 10, did any members of the Public Service in the Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications leave their positions to attend a rally at Empire Stadium, and if so, how many?

2. In reference to No. 1, how many of these public servants will be paid for: (a) the whole day and (b) for part of the day?

3. Will any money be saved by Government as a result of No. 2, and if so, how much?

The Hon. P. L. McGeer replied as follows:

" 1. 16 employees were missing.

"2. (a) None and (b) 16.

"3. $1,100.12."