[ Page 4771 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Vancouver Stock Exchange. Mr. Sihota –– 4771

Mr. Harcourt

Temporary government clerical staff. Mr. Clark –– 4772

Economic development regions. Mr. Blencoe –– 4772

Ministerial Statement

Emily Carr Gallery fire. Hon. Mr. Veitch –– 4773

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Forests and Lands estimates. (Hon. Mr. Parker)

On vote 40: minister's office –– 4773

Mr. Miller

Mr. Williams

Mr. Jacobsen

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Vant

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VEITCH: In the members' gallery today we have a very distinguished visitor, Mr. Jean Davaux, who is the consul-general of Belgium at Vancouver. Mr. Davaux is leaving Vancouver to return to his motherland in Belgium, and I know this House will wish him the very best of fortune and Godspeed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are approximately 25 grade 6 students from the R.L. Clemitson Elementary School in Kamloops, who are down on a history tour of Vancouver, Seattle and Victoria. They have just completed their tour and will be on their way back to that great constituency of Kamloops. On behalf of the second member for Kamloops (Mr. S.D. Smith) and myself, I would like the House to make them welcome.

MR. GABELMANN: My legislative assistant, Judy McCallum, is a former member of the Chilliwack Players' Guild. This year the Chilliwack Players' Guild won the best play award for the Fraser Valley zone, and they are here in Victoria representing the group in the provincewide competition, Mainstage. Their play is Agnes of God, and it is directed by Astrid Beugeling and Jan Farrell. In the House are the costume designer, Rita Plowman, and properties manager. John Plowman. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: In the legislative building today — and I had the pleasure of meeting with them — is a large group of students from Oliver Elementary School. I would ask the House to extend their welcome to the group visiting from this fine school in Oliver.

MR. REE: In the gallery today we have two gentlemen from the North Shore who are endeavouring to establish an enterprising venture on both the rivers and the coastal waters of British Columbia. I'd ask this House to welcome Capt. Robert Hunt and Michael Porter of Spirit Sea Fantasies Ltd.

MR. DE JONG: With us in the House today are 35 grade 11 students from the Abbotsford Christian Secondary School. They are accompanied by two of their staff members, Mr. Ralph Huizenga and Mr. Martin Gelderman. I ask the House, on behalf of the first member for Central Fraser Valley (Hon. Mr. Dueck) and me, to extend to all of these folks a hearty welcome.

MR. HUBERTS: In the gallery are two great constituents from Saanich and the Islands: Mr. Martin Olivier and Peter Sou. Would the members please welcome them.

Oral Questions

VANCOUVER STOCK EXCHANGE

MR. SIHOTA: I've been watching with interest the actions by Mr. de Gelder, the superintendent of brokers, in the Carter-Ward situation in the last few days. Left untouched is any action against the individual brokerage houses that were involved: namely, Canarim, West Coast and Continental. Left untouched are any actions against the brokers involved, and they played a significant role in complicity. Left untouched is Mr. Richard Pomper, a former floor governor at the VSE who was instrumental in the fraud, and Ron Beiber, a former senior listings officer with the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

With respect to the brokerage houses and the brokers involved. does the minister believe that the public interest is served by allowing the licences of the brokers to continue and by having no fines levied against the brokerage houses?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I dozed off for a minute, but I think I caught it all. The rather lengthy introduction seemed to be dealing with the Vancouver Stock Exchange and the regulatory examinations being conducted by the B. C. Securities Commission and the Vancouver Stock Exchange. The hon. member conveniently puts himself in the position, of course, by virtue of raising these issues, of being able to say: "Well, as a consequence of my representations, the regulatory authorities obviously responded." He has made that sort of statement in the past. He knows full well, unfortunately, that I cannot lead in these matters in this kind of a public forum. It is a matter of public record that the VSE board of governors is examining the circumstances surrounding the Carter-Ward affair. Mr. de Gelder was quoted in the press yesterday as confirming that he and his staff have been in the midst of examining the documentation surrounding that matter for some time. Mr. de Gelder is a public servant and is constrained by the legislation, and therefore due process must be followed.

[2:15]

It is imperative, I think, and in the interest of the democratic process, that if any action in terms of discipline or re-action of court proceedings is to take place, the people so affected must have the comfort of knowing that the investigatory processes have been followed to the letter and in a fully legally enforceable way. Premature action without adequate preparatory work could quite likely result in failure of the disciplinary measure being undertaken; conversely, premature discussion of examinations which subsequently might have been proven legally unenforceable would also do a disservice to the system. I am very comfortable with the public statements expressed by both the chairman of the Vancouver Stock Exchange and the superintendent of brokers, Mr. de Gelder, in terms of ongoing examinations. The matter is unfolding in a thoroughly satisfactory way, as far as I am concerned.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister says he can't lead, and it is true that this minister has not shown one scintilla of leadership with respect to this matter. It's true that a lot of people, including the minister, have been dozing. The VSE was dozing for three years with respect to the Carter-Ward situation, and they've been dozing for some time since then.

We learned today of another court case out of Montreal about a stock swindle that occurred on the Vancouver Stock Exchange. It's my understanding that that matter, which I'm sure the minister is aware of, was brought to the attention of the SOB's office and the VSE one year ago without any investigation — three years of non-investigation on Carter-Ward and at least one year investigation now. Can the minister explain why the VSE and the SOB's office failed to

[ Page 4772 ]

initiate any investigations on the Levesque Beaubien situation once they were alerted to it a year ago?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The answer is no.

MR. HARCOURT: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. We've had in the past three months the Carter-Ward in the courts, we've seen the Cumo Resources decision in the courts, and now we have the Levesque Beaubien case involving International Majestic Holdings, another court action initiated in Montreal involving fraud manipulation on the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

These matters and the continuing inaction of the government are endangering the financial reputation of this province, Mr. Minister. How much fraud are you prepared to tolerate before agreeing to our demand for a legislative probe into the Vancouver Stock Exchange? How much, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. members opposite obviously had a difficult problem arising this morning from the late partying the night before and as a consequence had some trouble preparing their questions for this period. This is the consequence of too much laxity and personal enjoyment, I think, Mr. Speaker.

The fact of the matter is that comments made in this forum about matters which are currently under review or possibly under review, which the alligators — if that is an appropriate word — know full well I'm not able to confirm or deny by virtue of either damaging the process or the reputation of innocence.... They know full well I'm unable to deal with that in this public forum. Yet they persist in raising these kinds of issues in this very arena, knowing that I'm impotent to deal with them in a public way.

If the hon. members have a genuine concern about the issues at hand, then I invite them to join me in a full and frank discussion with my officials and the other regulators so that we may share in confidence the progress being made on a variety of these initiatives.

Their failure to accept that generous offer in a spirit of sharing information, so that concerns, if genuine, can be satisfied, only leads me to conclude that they have one abiding interest and one interest only: to destroy the reputation of the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

TEMPORARY GOVERNMENT CLERICAL STAFF

MR. CLARK: A question to the Premier. As part of your privatization announcement last year, you said: "There are too many temporary assistance employees." As a result the privatization study group recommended and your government implemented a policy using companies like Kelly Services and Office Assistance to fill clerical vacancies. Can the Premier inform the House whether costs to government have been reduced as a result of this policy?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I will take that question on notice. I don't have that information available just now.

MR. CLARK: A new question to the Premier. I have here a confidential memo instructing the Ministry of Health to utilize Kelly Services and another company. The memo indicates that no money will be saved. The rate the government pays is $11.25 per hour to Kelly Services and $11.46 per hour to Office Assistance. The normal civil service rate is $10.87 per hour, so it may even be costing more to use these kinds of services. Could the Premier indicate what the justification is for contracting out services if it in fact costs the government more money and there are no savings to the government?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: If you simply compare hourly salaries one with another, you obviously don't get an accurate picture. There are many other considerations when you institute a program of this nature. The intent of government — and we've proven to be very successful in that regard already — is to save the taxpayers money and provide a greater degree of security for our people in the sense that we're not locked into a particular situation but have some flexibility.

MR. CLARK: A supplementary question to the Premier. I have evidence, Mr. Premier, that the women working for these companies are earning $7 to $7.50 per hour. The contracting company is raking off over $4 an hour. The company makes $160 a week for every one of these women who are working in the government. It seems to me that this kind of rake-off by these private companies is obscene. The government saves no money by doing this, but the workers are suffering significant reductions in their security and in their wages and the private company is making $160 a week. Mr. Premier, I think this is really a moral question as to how we treat....

MR. SPEAKER: Is the member finding a question somewhere?

MR. CLARK: The question is: isn't it time, Mr. Premier, to reverse this policy? What is happening is that there is no benefit to the government for doing this, but hundreds of women workers are seeing their wages and working conditions decline dramatically. Isn't it time to reverse the policy when the private contractor is making these kinds of profits?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I think we're looking at the whole of government with a view to, as I said, ensuring a greater degree of security and providing government, on behalf of the taxpayers, with much more flexibility. I realize that philosophically we are coming at this differently. I am also reminded, obviously, when I listen to the member across, that when the NDP came to power for the very short term in our history — when they in fact governed — the first thing they did was enlarge the public service tremendously and create a great degree of inflexibility. I'm sure that people throughout the province will be aware of that and that costs, as we recall them too, skyrocketed enormously. We are not about to learn from the NDP experience.

We as a government are setting out to provide an approach which will definitely save the taxpayers of this province a tremendous amount of money, which will provide us with more resource to assure good social programming in a continued way and to not risk that resource to the province and not put the taxpayers at risk in following the NDP example, which we are all reminded of when the member speaks.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGIONS

MR. BLENCOE: I also have a question for the Premier, about decentralization. We are now nine months into that undemocratic united states of British Columbia experiment,

[ Page 4773 ]

with $14 million allocated basically for propaganda for the government. We have had little or no action by that program, a multitude of committees and task forces, councils and small business not sure what is happening in the province, and now the mayor of Kelowna saying that we are creating nothing but tension and further confrontation. When is the Premier going to end this undemocratic experiment in confrontation in the province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I am well aware that the downtown Vancouver and downtown Victoria party don't support decentralization. I am well aware that the member who just spoke doesn't know a whole lot about these other regions of the province which feel that they are equally entitled to see their economic projects come to fruition and well entitled to be involved in priorizing the social services, the facilities, the programs and the equipment that ought to be provided to a particular region.

The decentralization process is working wonderfully throughout this province. I mention it every time I meet with a group wherever it is in the province, and there's tremendous support for decentralization from people everywhere in this province. We saw an example only a week ago in Summerland. Because the minister of state was involved with people at the local level, we were able to assist in assuring that a new fruit-processing plant would become a reality in Summerland. This plant will provide jobs and will provide people an opportunity to see their product brought to market because there is a processing means available.

Decentralization is being received well not only in Boundary-Similkameen, where the people speak highly of it and where they're extremely supportive of it. It's being received in South Okanagan, in North Okanagan, in the Peace, in the Cariboo and in all of those great regions of this province which make British Columbia such a diverse place with tremendous opportunities for all our people. We intend to continue to recognize all of those regions of the province.

Yes, we care about downtown Vancouver. Yes, we care about downtown Victoria. But we're able to see beyond downtown Victoria and downtown Vancouver. That's why this government was elected in '54 and again in '57 and again in '61 and again in '64 and again in '67 and again in '70 and again in '79 and again in '83 and again in '86, and that's why we will continue to be elected.

Interjections.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Ask me again tomorrow, and I'll answer it again.

Ministerial Statement

EMILY CARR GALLERY FIRE

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a brief ministerial statement. Last evening there was a fire at Bastion Square. There was some smoke and water damage to the Rithet Building, which houses the Emily Carr Gallery. I want to assure the House that no damage at all was done to the paintings. They have been removed from the building and everything is under control. I thought the House would wish to know that.

[2:30]

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
FORESTS AND LANDS

(continued)

On vote 40: minister's office, $304,458.

MR. MILLER: I just want to go back and cover some ground with the minister with respect to the opportunity for public input into renewal of management and working plans. We talked briefly yesterday about that. Referring back to the Thomson report in terms of their second recommendation and the minister's comments following that report, it was obvious that during the lead-up to the presentation of the final management and working plan in this particular instance — and I am not familiar with others — there was a fair degree of delay, first of all, in

MR. CHAIRMAN: Pardon me for interrupting. Hon members, the member for Prince Rupert is very valiantly trying to make a point. Could we have some order, please.

MR. MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I needed that assistance. I think the minister was paying attention, but I'm not sure about the other members. I don't want to repeat myself. I think the minister heard most of what I said.

There was obviously a fair amount of delay, first of all, in the company finalizing the plan before it was made public; if I'm not mistaken, as much as a year's delay. Secondly, the minister and the Forest Service had obviously been alerted that there was a great deal of public interest in the management working plan from various people on the Queen Charlottes — the communities, the Council of the Haida Nation and others. Some of those serious allegations that eventually came to the surface and caused the minister to engage T.M. Thomson to conduct the report had indeed been made public at the time, and yet the groups, in attempting to deal with the information that they thought was legitimate in view of the problems they saw with the renewal of the management working plan, felt quite frustrated. I know they felt frustrated in trying to get information from the licensee. I believe on the method of measuring waste levels, for example, the licensee indicated that that was their information; it was privileged information for the company alone. Yet the public and these groups felt that in order to comprehend the plan, they had to have access to that. There was a great deal of delay in getting that information.

The minister acceded to a request to delay the schedule of hearings and final implementation of the plan, but that wasn't satisfactory to the parties. We go back and bring all that back I'm really only talking about one renewal of a management working plan. I have no information on other management working plans, but it seems to me that in his recommendations Thomson recognized I'll read point two of the conclusions and recommendations to bear out what I'm saying:

"Both M&B and the Ministry of Forests and Lands followed established procedures in the preparation and review of management working plan 6. However, it was evident that the public was very interested in the draft of management working plan 6, particularly as to its effect on block 6, the Queen

[ Page 4774 ]

Charlotte Islands, and the chief forester extended the public viewing period for the management working plan.

"It is recommended that the public viewing period as allowed for under the Ministry of Forests and Lands procedures be extended by three months. Where there is community concern, such as the Queen Charlotte Islands, it is also recommended that a public meeting be held with the Ministry of Forests and Lands and licensee representatives in order to explain the key strategies of the management working plan. "

Would the minister advise whether he intends to follow the recommendations outlined in Thomson's report?

HON. MR. PARKER: The recommendations over and above the waste survey recommendations are under advisement at this time in the ministry.

MR. MILLER: They may be under advisement, but can we not have a little more discussion from the minister about what he is considering? I'll quote from a press release issued by the minister on April 14: "Parker said he appreciates one of the report's conclusions, that the public review process in the development of the management working plan for the area could have been longer. 'Under some circumstances the time for public input should be extended to allow for a full discussion before approval of a management working plan,' the minister said." Is that generally indicative of the review or under advisement that the minister talks about?

HON. MR. PARKER: Those are the sorts of items that we have under consideration.

MR. MILLER: When he says it's under advisement, is the minister considering any changes to regulations that would formalize the longer viewing period for more and better access for the public in terms of consideration of the management working plan?

HON. MR. PARKER: The matter is under consideration at this time.

MR. MILLER: I appreciate that the minister is a considerate guy.

I want to deal with a couple of other privatization issues. I wonder if the minister could advise at this date what the status is with regard to the forest nurseries. We know from the limited information we've been able to glean that some employees made proposals to purchase. It appears that they were rejected and that the government is now in receipt of 11 proposals. The proposals are not firm bids, as we understand it, but expressions of what might take place.

Could the minister just advise us what the current status is of that situation?

HON. MR. PARKER: The appropriate committee is reviewing the submissions, and we're starting to narrow them down. I would expect that we'll be able to wind things up by the end of next month.

MR. MILLER: Could the minister advise whether any restrictions would be placed on the facilities as they exist in terms of their current production and further production, and whether any restrictions would be placed on those facilities in terms of the new owner being allowed to use part or all of the facilities for alternative uses? Are the people who ultimately will be the successful bidders on the nurseries obliged to continue to operate as though they were — I'll use this term, but clearly you understand my meaning — owned by government. They were set up as nurseries for the particular purpose of providing seedlings. I think they've done an excellent job, and do not support their privatization. Are those kinds of restrictions going to be imposed on successful bidders?

HON. MR. PARKER: The nurseries are being sold as going concerns. As business enterprises they will do what they see fit in the future, depending on circumstances. The demand for forest seedlings in the province is in the vicinity of 200 million, and probably greater than that this year. That's a tremendous market opportunity for these nurseries because they have, to date, formed part of the basis for the supply of the 200 million seedlings we enjoyed during 1987.

MR. MILLER: Is the minister saying that the new private owners of these facilities are free to do what they see fit as private owners with the land and facilities that they will be purchasing?

HON. MR. PARKER: The nurseries are being sold as going concerns. If the new owners decide at some future time that they want to do something differently, as long as it's within the laws of the land and within the zoning requirements of the municipalities or the regional districts in which they reside, then certainly they can proceed as they see fit.

MR. MILLER: In the case of the Surrey nursery, it has been suggested that there's a great deal of value in the lands that form part of that operation. If I take the minister's comments and apply them there, then the successful bidders would be quite free in the future, or on becoming the owners, to realize the highest value that the market would offer, whether that be in selling the land for residential purposes or some other purposes or carrying on any other type of business that may bring a higher value to them than operating a nursery.

HON. MR. PARKER: The Surrey nursery remains with the Ministry of Forests and Lands, as does the nursery in Salmon Arm. The Green Timbers nursery is being discussed, and Green Timbers is located in Surrey. Perhaps that's the nursery the member meant. Both the Forest Service and the land service are discussing with the municipality what to do with that particular one, because it is a heritage piece of ground. It was the site of our first nursery in the province and has been supplying seedlings to British Columbia for almost 60 years now. We're working out with the municipality what may be done there, so it's not liable to go to any developers that we know of. We would prefer to work with the municipality and see that the municipality guided the destiny of that particular piece of property in exchange for a piece of land that may be more suitable for economic development of some kind.

MR. MILLER: To return to the fundamentals of the situation, as I see it, the minister is saying that following the removal of the nurseries from government control, the owners of these operations can do whatever they like. Yet the

[ Page 4775 ]

public has spent a considerable amount of money to develop these operations for a much-needed purpose, to supply seedlings for the market. Why has the government not decided to put the kind of restrictions on the sale that would provide for the operations to continue to be used for the purpose for which they were originally developed?

[2:45]

HON. MR. PARKER: I was diverted from the member's question for a moment, but I believe that the question is why aren't the nurseries destined to be nurseries forever? Is that the essence of the question, Mr. Member?

Interjection.

HON. MR. PARKER: I've explained that the nurseries are being sold as going concerns, as business undertakings. They have contracts in place, and it's up to the operators of the nurseries to determine if they want to be in the business or not. Certainly the market is there, the needs are there, the demand is there and the interest that has been presented to government in the purchasing of these nurseries is from people who are in the forest renewal business. I presume it will continue that way, but there won't be any undue restrictions on the purchasers.

MR. MILLER: I have some difficulty, Mr. Chairman. The purpose of privatization, as I've heard it expressed on numerous occasions by representatives of the government, is to turn it over to the private sector; the private sector can somehow do the job better than the government can do it. We can disagree on that, and we do, but the government seems to have gone one step further and is saying that this isn't privatization; this is simply selling off assets. There's a fundamental difference between privatizing a particular operation and disposing of assets the government might own.

HON. MR. PARKER: I think the member is confused. The disposal process is one of selling going concerns, not selling off assets. They are businesses that are being offered, and it's businesses that are being tendered by interested parties, including employees. It's not the intention of this government — it might be the intention of his party — to restrict the personal freedoms of the individuals concerned.

MR. MILLER: He keeps straying into these personal freedom arguments. To come back to the central point, the people of this province, through their government, over the years have spent a considerable amount of money to develop nursery operations to provide seedlings for reforestation. To do that was for many years seen to be a goal that was part of government's job. The minister is now saying they intend to dispose of the nurseries without having any requirement that the nurseries they're disposing off be continued for that purpose. That is not privatization; that is liquidation or disposing of government assets. You're assuming that the business conditions will be right and that those who buy the operations will never want to change. If you believe in the marketplace — and you keep talking about the marketplace every time you stand up — then that isn't necessarily the case. If there's a higher value in some other operation, or even disposing of the land for housing or you name it, then that's presumably the wisest business decision. The wisest business decision is not necessarily the best decision for government. There's a fundamental difference.

HON. MR. PARKER: The forest nurseries are being sold for fair market value. There's a great deal of interest, and the values expressed by the different parties reflect the opportunities in that field of endeavour. This isn't a fire sale; it's a sale of going concerns. What takes place down the road is the decision of the players of the day. Whether or not it's used for any different land use depends on local government zoning and not on the terms of sale.

MR. MILLER: There's a heck of a difference. Let's use another example. The province has developed and is selling — or may have sold by now — a conversion plant where they convert vans into ambulances. It was developed for a particular reason. There was a decision by government to set this up. It filled a need; it did the job. If we apply the same kind of logic the minister is using, we sell that, and if the people who buy it see an opportunity for greater profit in doing some other kind of work totally unrelated and simply take the position that they're not going to do the job that public money was expended for.... There was a social purpose for spending that public money. The government is not prepared to tag those social responsibilities onto the sale of anything they're disposing of under privatization.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, I restrict my comments to the estimates at hand, so I'll restrict my comments to the Forests nurseries which are under my purview. I think I've made it quite clear to the House that there will be no restrictive covenants on the sale of the nurseries and that they will be used forever as Forests nurseries, whether or not that makes good economic sense and is in the best interests of the people of British Columbia.

MR. MILLER: That's fairly clear.

With regard to the scaling institute that was part of the proposal under the changes to the Forest Act, could the minister advise what the current state of that proposal is?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, the possibility of a scaling institute is still real, but it is one of the lower priorities of the ministry at the moment.

MR. MILLER: Is the minister following the results of the study on that, regardless of the priority — the study done by, I believe, Sterling Wood Group with regard to the options available for a scaling institute?

HON. MR. PARKER: The recommendations from the report named are being considered, and as I mentioned earlier, the issue is one of low priority in the ministry at this time. It's not an active discussion and is unlikely to be for a few weeks yet.

MR. MILLER: I asked the question whether the Sterling Wood report was the basis for consideration by government in terms of any changes. Could the minister confirm or not confirm that?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, the recommendations are part of the considerations but not the basis of the considerations, if that's the question.

MR. MILLER: Would the minister advise what other work besides the Sterling Wood...? I understand the

[ Page 4776 ]

Sterling Wood report was done on a very quick basis — something like a week in order to file a report. What other work is the minister doing then if...? As he describes it, it's not an immediate priority; it might happen in a couple of weeks. A couple of weeks strikes me as being fairly immediate. What other work has the minister done to inform his ministry on this question in terms of what the ministry may do?

HON. MR. PARKER: The matter of the scaling institute is a matter of low priority at this time, and it probably will not be under active consideration for a few weeks yet.

MR. MILLER: Did the minister not hear my last question?

HON. MR. PARKER: Did the member not hear the answer?

There are no considerations for a few weeks yet. When we get to it, then we'll have it under consideration. After we have it under consideration, then we'll have some determination of what may take place.

MR. MILLER: So the minister has done no other work besides the Sterling Wood report. Is that correct?

HON. MR. PARKER: There has been some internal work done, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WILLIAMS: I wonder if the minister could advise us what the AAC is in the South Moresby National Park that's currently being negotiated.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, national parks do not have AACs.

MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe the minister could advise us what the AAC is in the area designated for a national park that is within the licence operations of Western Forest Products.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, we can get that number and bring it back to the House.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sure your staff could give us the range — something around 300,000 cubic metres a year within the park?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, we'll offer accurate information in due course.

MR. WILLIAMS: The total Moresby cut is 432,000, I think, not all of which would be in the park. Maybe your staff could confirm that.

We see in this morning's paper that Western Forest Products is arguing that it is a $100 million asset. Preliminary estimates working between the two governments — federal and provincial — arrived at a figure around $31 million, if my memory serves me correctly, so they are talking about even three times that. This whole issue is currently hung up, as we understand it, on the bargaining over what these timber rights are worth. I wonder if the minister has reflected about this question in terms of these very substantial values that are being claimed by Western Forest Products. Is it of concern to him that they are arguing a number that is so high?

HON. MR. PARKER: It seems to me appropriate that a licensee would be concerned about a reduction in his annual allowable cut and what it is worth to him, and I would expect that the licensee would hang a price on it.

MR. WILLIAMS: Could the minister explain what that price would represent, since this is Crown-owned timber? What would the justification be for $100 million for Crown-owned timber?

HON. MR. PARKER: Contractual obligation.

MR. WILLIAMS: Contractual obligation. We have a statute coming up that deals with that, don't we, brought in by this administration. There's no compensation either, no access to courts either, out of this administration. So much for the contractual obligations. But $100 million — Mr. Minister, isn't it true that this licence would have no value if we collected the full economic rent of the forest?

HON. MR. PARKER: I guess what the member is suggesting is that full economic rent of the forest is total destruction of the forest industry of the province. It's shocking, isn't it?

MR. WILLIAMS: The whole idea, as I understand it, in the private sector is for the industrialists to make money out of the processing, not to make it out of the public's trees. The whole idea of retaining public ownership of the forests of British Columbia is to retain the benefit for all British Columbians as the great land heritage of British Columbia.

In a relatively minuscule area, this private company is arguing that they are deserving of $100 million for timber that is the Crown's. Has the minister reflected on what that company paid for everything they bought in the first place in terms of pulp mills, other licences and so on? Is the minister aware that there has been a tradition, at least into this modem stage of the Social Credit administration, that it was required at the time of transfer of any of these assets that, one, it be approved by the minister? Two, the standard has always been, at least until your predecessor Mr. Waterland, that the numbers be put forth to the ministry in terms of what was being paid for.... So never, ever did ministers approve of the transferring of Crown assets — i.e., timber — for dollars. They would only approve transfers of actual private assets: that is, pulp mills, sawmills, equipment and the like. That was the tradition under Mr. Williston for 20 years and under the NDP administration.

What is your policy, Mr. Minister, in terms of approving transfers outside of private sector property?

[3:00]

HON. MR. PARKER: My purview comes under the Forest Act and has to do with the licences that we administer. We concern ourselves with the terms and conditions of the licences, the health of the forest industry, the state of the economy of the province and the returns to the people of British Columbia, and we take those things under consideration whenever we are asked for a transfer.

MR. WILLIAMS: Has this minister, then, approved transfers of licences where clearly substantial values were attached to public timber?

HON. MR. PARKER: The transfers of forest licences amount to a request to transfer, pure and simple, and we

[ Page 4777 ]

consider the request for transfer. It's not a real estate transaction.

MR. WILLIAMS: I didn't hear that last part. Did the minister say it is not a real estate transfer?

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's not a real estate transaction. But, Mr. Minister, when it's you, it's not a real estate transaction; when it's the national government bargaining with respect to a national park, and it's a private company, then it is a real estate transaction. It's pretty good for the company, isn't it? So you're saying that you have no trouble, that there was a policy established for some 25 years in this province that would not allow the attaching of value to public timber at the time of transfer, that it had to be real private assets. You're now saying that is not a concern and not a requirement of this administration.

HON. MR. PARKER: The Moresby issue, Mr. Chairman. There's a withdrawal of a substantial allowable annual cut from a licensee, and the value of that allowable cut for the well-being of the enterprise is what's in question. Who hangs a value on it remains to be seen. But it is not a real estate transaction, and the member opposite knows that, because he's certainly been in the real estate business. The transaction is not a real estate transaction; it's forgone cutting opportunities advanced under the terms of a timber contract. It's that simple.

MR. WILLIAMS: But if these forgone cutting opportunities.... If we charge for the timber what it was worth, then they simply would have no value. Do you understand that?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, I only understand the ignorance of the questioner, I guess.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

MR. WILLIAMS: We'll just let that one slide by, for what it was worth.

The important issue here is that what's happening is a continuing capitalization of the undercharging of the value of the forest — to the point where Western Forests Products is making this incredible claim that you're undercharging to that extent; that it's worth $100 million. That's what it is in economic terms. They're saying that because we undercharge for the timber, holding those cutting rights for that length of time has a value to them of $100 million. Isn't it strange? Do you have some comment, now that you've had some help?

HON. MR. PARKER: Well, Mr. Chairman, I guess I could ask: what's the value of the licence for a drinking establishment or nightclub? That too operates under a licence, yet it seems to be dealt with as an asset on the books of most of those types of establishments and in the trading of most of those establishments.

Anyway, the British Columbia Forest Service charges fair market value for the timber of the province, so that the people of the province get a good return, a fair return, and the industry of the province remains substantially healthy and is reinvesting in its physical plant to make sure it's in good shape for future generations of British Columbians.

MR. WILLIAMS: The minister might reflect on the provincewide implications of this problem in South Moresby if we extend the tree-farm licence tenure to the degree you're proposing in your policy statements — close to 70 percent. If we're challenged to the tune of $100 million for the part of one TFL that we want for other uses, what are the likely financial implications in terms of reversion and change over time, by transferring at no charge other licences into TFLs?

HON. MR. PARKER: I don't mind at all commenting on Moresby and the impact on the people of British Columbia. The proposed park at South Moresby has removed a substantial volume from the allowable annual cut of British Columbia forever. That's an annual allowable cut, which means it's a cut that takes place every year; and we have to forgo it because people elsewhere in the world think it's a great idea to preserve the entire chart area of the national park reserve instead of that which was suggested by the Wilderness Advisory Committee, made up of British Columbians who understand better the province of British Columbia, its needs, its requirements and its well-being. So we had foisted on us by external pressures a loss of ongoing economic activity and employment for this province — and it's a shame, I guess. That's all I can say, Mr. Chairman. It's very short-sighted, and it's a loss to all following generations of British Columbians.

I look forward to seeing substantial lands in British Columbia under intensive forest management to help make up that shortfall caused by the withdrawal of preservation undertakings such as South Moresby. We will probably see a lot more preservation moves, such as the Stein, three or four areas in the Cariboo, a few on the north coast, a few in the northeast and some more over in the Kootenay, as various single-purpose groups want to see large chunks of British Columbia reserved for wilderness, like Dr. Suzuki told the crowd in Ottawa: " ...at least 75 percent of British Columbia into wilderness preservation."

I don't know who is going to be working, but that doesn't matter. I guess if you have tenure in a university, you're okay. Fortunately, through the intensive forest management that we'll see evolve under a greater degree of tree-farm licence management, we'll help make up the shortfalls that the preservationists have foisted upon the people of British Columbia.

MR. WILLIAMS: The real Minister of Forests is speaking, so that's something. He is clearly contradicting government policy and the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) and the Premier, and so be it. There is a government decision to establish a national park in South Moresby.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: No. It's clear enough, despite the champion of literacy on the other side. Let's leave the lurid side aside and look at the numbers. We have an annual cut in British Columbia that is somewhere around 75 million cubic metres. Is that not so, overall, on an average? We have something in South Moresby of under half a million. There is no question about that, I think. The number I have for all of the TFL in Moresby — and I don't think all of it is acquired — is 432,375 cubic metres, so let's just say....

[ Page 4778 ]

If they're saying that this licence is worth $100 million to them, we have to multiply that by the 75 million cubic metres provincewide, and you want to make most of these into TFLs. Is my number work correct? Does that come to $140 billion in timber rights, provincewide?

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's not hard to just do the calculating.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, you want 70 percent. Okay, then it's 70 percent of $140 billion, which...

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: ...is 98. Thank you. The member from Nanaimo says $98 billion. It's a lot of money. Why on earth, when the province is going through this learning exercise currently in South Moresby where the private sector is making these arguments that their cutting rights have an enormous value, would the government entertain the idea of expanding those kinds of cutting rights that put them to this kind of challenge in the future?

As time goes on there will be different and conflicting demands on the forests, on the public lands of British Columbia. In many instances there will be a case for the transfer of those lands to other uses. Why on earth should we entertain the idea that the province should be held for ransom to get back its own land for other needed uses as perceived in the public interest?

MR. S.D. SMITH: That's the whole point: it's going to another government.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's going to another government?

MR. S.D. SMITH: It's another jurisdiction.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's another jurisdiction. So?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I would ask the members to direct their questions through the Chair, and we will keep some order and decorum in the House.

MR. S.D. SMITH: Do you want to subsidize the people in Rosedale? Is that your game?

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, I see. The argument, just for the sake of getting it on the record, from the second member for Kamloops is that because it's the national government it doesn't matter, in a sense. The national taxpayer is somebody else; it isn't us in British Columbia.

MR. S.D. SMITH: You know that's not the argument.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, that's the argument as I perceive it, Mr. Chairman. The issue is that once the principle is established that these cutting rights are worth these enormous amounts, be it $30 million, $60 million or the $100 million, that is a principle that should concern us all, in terms of the freedom of future governments to rationalize programs provincewide and to open up opportunities in this sector. For us to idly sit by and see these numbers escalate the way they are should be, if not a reason for action in terms of dealing with Western Forest Products, at least a reason for inaction in terms of future TFLs.

Doesn't the minister see that the implications in South Moresby when you write them provincewide are that we might be looking at challenges in the $100 billion level, strange as it is to say?

[3:15]

HON. MR. PARKER: I guess I might come to that conclusion if my research was a newspaper clipping and I took the thing at face value, but I imagine things go a little more deeply that. Perhaps after more sustained research the member opposite might have a better grasp on the matter. For now, he's quoting from a newspaper clipping which may or may not have the numbers right. It's a claim, not an evaluation; the market determines evaluation. There's negotiation to take place, and both levels of government understand that. They are discussing that issue.

MR. WILLIAMS: Even if it's the $31 million that government acceded to as a likely number, is that not reason enough for concern? Thirty-one million dollars for that small area. If you parlay that in terms of the kind of cutting rights you're talking about provincewide, it's of equal concern. The numbers are huge no matter how you put them together.

HON. MR. PARKER: I imagine that if you took somebody's liquor licence and passed it on to a neighbour, the licensee would probably expect some sort of compensation for forgone business on which he had planned his physical plant and his employment levels and made his market obligations.

MR. WILLIAMS: The minister can do as he likes in that territory, but the principle is clear in terms of timber. This is real land, public land in British Columbia. Real trees, some of the best trees in the world, and we're supposed to get a return from them that is significant. We're supposed to manage them for the benefit of the public. We have a private company arguing that it's $100 million worth, and we have government saying: "It's $31 million worth. Let's bargain."

Surely a government that finds itself in that kind of a box would simply say: "Let's not do that again. Let's not establish the kind of licences that makes us vulnerable, like this one has done." Isn't that a reasonable conclusion to come to out of this exercise?

HON. MR. PARKER: In 1912, with the establishment of the Forest Service and the first Forest Act, it was determined that we would sell our timber by licence; the cutting obligations would go out by licence and the Crown would retain title to the land. When we offer those licences, we offer an obligation that that wood supply will be coming. Accordingly, the licensee sets up the conversion plant and all the infrastructure to support that from stump to market. When you pull a substantial part of the wood supply from him with minimal notice, we can expect to have to compensate the licensee to some extent, having seen him operate in good faith and meet his obligations.

MR. JACOBSEN: I can't help but get involved in the discussion at this point. I think it's really very interesting.

[ Page 4779 ]

The member for Vancouver East has obviously learned a lot about the value of trees in a very short time. I can remember quite clearly that when some of us were concerned about dedicating this large area to a park not too many months ago and questioning whether it was fair to take this resource away from the people of British Columbia in perpetuity — whether it was fair to the people that work in the forest industry that they should lose their jobs and a right to earn an income — it was that member and his people who were adamant that it should be made into a federal park. Now he's concerned about the value of those trees, and he states that they are some of the best trees in the country, if not in the world. It's good to see that he's come to recognize that fact, but it's too bad he didn't recognize it earlier and support the woodworkers and the forest industry when he should have been supporting them.

MR. WILLIAMS: The interesting thing is that Western Forest Products has 2.5 million cubic metres in annual cutting rights. They bought the assets of what was the Rayonier Corp.; at any rate, other assets — pulp mills and so on. If you put these numbers together, you come up with a huge number for cutting rights. That means they got the pulp mills and everything else for free when they bought out this operation just a few years ago. Does that make any sense, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. PARKER: I think you'll find that the employees of the Western Pulp group think it was a great idea that Western Forest Products, B.C. Forest Products and Doman Forest Products all pooled their resources and went on the hook for the acquisition of that plant and kept it alive, kept it fuelled and saw fit to steer the sawlogs and the peeler logs that were being consumed by that pulp mill — steer them into conversion plants, sawmills and plywood plants and redirect low-value logs to that pulp mill. That's the sort of thing that took place. It was the market forces and good common sense on the part of the licensees and their management that brought that all together.

That has served British Columbia extremely well. It has kept the job opportunities on the northern coast and the northern part of Vancouver Island. It has sustained substantial revenues to the Crown. It has seen better utilization of the wood, which the members opposite yesterday seemed to think was a very important thing; evidently today they've changed their minds. We see better utilization of the forest because of that type of consolidation. That's the sort of environment we want to provide the industry of British Columbia: the opportunity to expand, consolidate, stabilize and provide good utilization of our forests and good returns to the Crown and the people of British Columbia.

MR. WILLIAMS: If you look at the numbers again, they've got 2.5 million cubic metres in cutting rights. If you parlay that — I think the 400, 000 figure is probably excessive in terms of Moresby because of it not all being included — and you use their $100 million number, you're getting up to the $500 million or $600 million number for timber alone. Then you throw in the company and the pulp mills and equipment and other assets of the corporation and it's very clear that this is a huge, balloon number around public timber and the cutting rights.

What we have here is a minister who's supporting all that and saying it's all fine. Why not? Why shouldn't the company? The member for Kamloops is saying it's okay because it's the feds. But we all get our neck in the noose down the road when the province wants some of these lands for other purposes. There's a goal of increasing the public parks and ecological reserves in British Columbia, and I think many of them are reasonable goals. As time goes on there will be increasing demands, and realistically it will impinge on some of these licences. If not these, once you reach up to that 70 percent level that you're talking about, then they will be impinged on. There is no question about it.

What you're building in for yourself is an incredible financial liability that will tie your hands behind your back and prevent the most reasonable public policies from evolving because you've accepted this kind of principle. Isn't that a matter of concern?

HON. MR. PARKER: The government of British Columbia has very reasonable policies. It has very reasonable policies in my ministry and in the government as a whole. We see the confidence that the world has in the province, and it's prepared to invest and help develop the province and provide the job opportunities and the market opportunities and all the service opportunities that come with that. I don't have a problem with good forest management. I don't have a problem with good economic development management, which this government has demonstrated time and time again.

If we keep going back to the member's example, we're talking hypothesis, we're talking fictitious numbers — we're talking air, basically, because there are no hard numbers there. He has indicated that the stated number from the federal and provincial government in discussions to date is something in the neighbourhood of $31 million compensation for licensees. That's probably a bit of an indication of the cost of preservation. The folks of British Columbia should probably pay attention to that and get a feeling for the trend.

MR. WILLIAMS: The trend is satisfactory, then, for the minister. The trend is an indication of under collection and under pricing of resources, and that trend is acceptable, is it?

HON. MR. PARKER: The British Columbia Forest Service charges fair value for the Crown assets, namely standing timber, and we retain the ownership of the land. The return to the province for the asset, the raw material, is right and proper. The development in the industry is fight and proper. The employment opportunities are fight and proper. All the taxes and sales taxes that evolve from that economic activity are right and proper because they support the many benefits offered by the government of British Columbia, including social services, education and health care.

MR. WILLIAMS: The minister says British Columbia retains ownership. If we retain ownership, can the minister explain how come the people who don't own anything are going to get $31 million or $100 million?

HON. MR. PARKER: Contractual obligation.

MR. WILLIAMS: So the minister is saying that the contractual obligation is even better than ownership. That's what you're saying, isn't it?

HON. MR. PARKER: The member should not purport to speak for me at any time. Whatever value is determined by

[ Page 4780 ]

the negotiating process will be a proper value for the contractual obligations.

MR. WILLIAMS: This really establishes that this minister has no trouble with policies that entrap us to this extent in huge future liabilities through the licensing game. You can call it contractual obligations, but when you sign the next tree-farm licence deal, just remember what kind of birthright you're giving away.

HON. MR. PARKER: I'm sure the member opposite will, when he sells his bar, consider the value of the licence he has to sell spirits.

MR. MILLER: The minister likes to compare liquor licences and tree-farm licences, and that's a pretty simple comparison which, I'm sure, is designed to impress people in the industry with his ability in that regard. As far as I know, pubs don't grow on the street comer, but maybe the minister has a different view of it. The trees and land were here, Mr. Minister, and you just happened to move into this province. Unfortunately for a lot of people, you're now in charge of administering that.

The question of harvest was raised, and I want to get into that. I briefly asked the minister yesterday about the level of harvest. In 1987 we hit about 91 million cubic metres. The minister advised us that's within the five-year cut control. Could the minister just review those numbers in terms of what period of time he's using?

[3:30]

HON. MR. PARKER: In 1987 the allowable annual cut from tree-farm licences, forest licences, timber sale harvesting licences, timber sale licences, wood lots and miscellaneous licences that fall under TSA management came to 77,941,000 cubic metres; and the volume from other tenures, such as private lands, old temporary tenures outside the TSAs, Indian reserves and miscellaneous others, was 12,621,000. So the total output from the province was 90,562,000. The allowable annual cut for 1987 was 108 percent of the present level of provincial allowable annual cut.

MR. MILLER: Has the minister done the calculation, to save me...? I didn't bring my calculator. What does that produce? Were you saying that the annual allowable cut for '87 was 108 percent of the 75 million forecast by the province?

HON. MR. PARKER: I'm saying that the cut of 77,941,000 cubic metres is 108 percent of the provincial allowable annual cut.

MR. MILLER: The provincial allowable annual cut is identified in the 1987-1992 five-year forest and range resource book put out by your ministry as 75 million cubic metres. Is that ...?

HON. MR. PARKER: I don't have a calculator here either, Mr. Chairman. All I have is a handwritten sheet from one of my staff. These aren't my numbers; these are numbers provided by staff today, and it says 108 percent of the 1987 level.

MR. MILLER: I would recommend this book to the minister: "Five-Year Forests and Range Resource Programme" — Province of British Columbia — "1987-1992." I quote: "A major goal is to maintain an average provincial timber harvest of 75 million cubic metres per year."

HON. MR. PARKER: The member's question was what percent is 77,941,000 of 75 million, and I said I did not have my calculator here, as he doesn't.

MR. MILLER: Could the minister comment on the significance — if any — of the "Five-Year Forest and Range Resource Program 1988-1993" where the wording has been changed somewhat and goes as follows: "The goals of the harvesting program are to maintain an average provincial... harvest of 75 million cubic metres per year or more...."

HON. MR. PARKER: Would the member please repeat the first part of his question?

MR. MILLER: Is there any significance to the change in the two reports, where the newest report has added, after the 75 million, the qualifying words "or more"?

HON. MR. PARKER: That statement indicates that we want to be able to maintain at least 75 million and to increase that by whatever means possible. That would include a change of economic criteria for stands that aren't presently in the allowable cut calculation. It would mean the results of intensive forest management and the inclusion of species that haven't been used to date.

MR. MILLER: So the minister has no particular figure in mind when he adds, "or more."

HON. MR. PARKER: No, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MILLER: Presumably the 75 million represents the best guess at this time in terms of the capability of the forested land in British Columbia to yield timber and continue to yield at least that same volume.

I received a copy of a letter — perhaps the minister is aware of it as well — from Prof. Reed of UBC wherein he raises a number of questions with regard to the annual allowable cut and the implications of various scenarios in terms of reforestation, silviculture and intensive silviculture. I'd like to run through the questions with the minister, because it seems to me that, coming from a respected academic like Prof. Reed and relative to such an important question, the answers would indeed be important.

Just to preface, Mr. Reed states in the first part of his letter that the long-range sustained yield in the province is approximately 55 million cubic metres per year. Does the minister agree with that statement?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, I would have to hear the whole letter that the member is quoting from, so I get an appreciation of what Mr. Reed was trying to communicate. Then if the member would like to ask specific questions such as the one he just did on whether the long-range sustained yield is something in the neighbourhood of 55 million cubic metres, we'll find that information. But I'd like to hear the whole communication from Prof. Reed.

MR. MILLER: I don't mind reading the whole letter, if that's what the minister is asking. Okay, we'll do that.

[ Page 4781 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: We've got a lot of time yet.

MR. MILLER: Well, we don't have that much time; there's lots to go through yet.

The letter is addressed to Mr. Marr and dated February 25; I'll just get right into it. "It's apparent that we in the forest community are still rather primitive in our approach to strategic planning."

I wasn't going to ask that question, but now that the minister has asked me to read the whole letter, he might want to comment on all the component parts of it. You're sure you don't have a copy over there? You could follow along.

"With this fact in mind, may I suggest an approach which is likely to meet with the combined approval of government, industry and the trade unions.

"The obvious context for this recommendation is the serious over-commitment of the British Columbia forests, as shown in the following schedule. Long-range sustained yield, approximately 55 million cubic metres per year; AAC, 75 million cubic metres per year; harvest in 1987, 90.6 million cubic metres per year; industry capacity, approximately 100 cubic metres per year.

"The long-range sustained yield indicated here at 55 million cubic metres annually assumes that the present silviculture program of roughly $250 million per year will continue indefinitely. Thus there is an important gap in volume between the long-range sustained yield and the AAC, a gap which does not even attempt to measure a disturbing decline in log quality and an increase in delivered cost.

"Moreover, there is another serious imbalance...the difference between the AAC and the current harvest level. And topping it all off is an industry capacity which is at least one-third higher than the presently calculated AAC.

"These numbers represent a challenge which is not being addressed, largely through a failure to understand the dangers involved in the status quo. Given the urgency of closing these gaps and indeed the benefits of increasing the saw timber AAC through intensive silviculture, I have listed on a separate page ten questions....

"Not a single one of the half-dozen silviculture modelling exercises now being developed in B.C. will give policy analysts the answers to even one of these questions. It will be necessary therefore to improvise on a more practical level rather than to wait for the ultimate modelling tool. There are skillful people in your ministry and the private sector who could be drawn on for a set of reasonable answers.

"The results of the silviculture program review have demonstrated that our current silviculture efforts are pitifully inadequate. I fear that all the work that you have put into new policies will amount to little in the absence of a rigorous strategic framework, and if we do not begin this promptly, then someone else will be stepping in.

"Meanwhile, on an emphatic positive note, I believe that intensive silviculture is justified in British Columbia as it is in competing regions outside Canada. This will become apparent as we develop answers to the attached list of questions."

Does the minister want to comment on the letter thus far?

HON. MR. PARKER: I thank the House for its patience while the member read into the record Professor Reed's letter of February this year. The professor is certainly entitled to an opinion.

We operate in the ministry under the considered opinion of the chief forester and his staff. with a substantial data base, who concluded that the allowable annual cut level of the province is 75 million cubic metres and that intensive silvicultural and forest renewal are an absolute must for responsible forest management of the province. We have established that quite clearly in our legislation within the last year, and the industry knows best how to build its plants. If it sees fit to build the plants a little larger than the wood supply will sustain, then they must be looking at filling it with raw materials from other sources as well — which is good. I would like to see us as a net importer of raw material into this province, because it means additional conversion, employment and economic activity.

MR. MILLER: I've heard the phrase, "Industry knows best," and it seems to have guided the philosophy of this government since it has been in office. Quite frankly, one wonders why we had to get into these massive taxpayer programs in order to do the basic reforestation and silvicultural work that should have been done a long time ago in this province. Or is that simply a failure on the part of previous Social Credit administrations?

HON. MR. PARKER: Previous governments, including the socialist government of 1972-75, operated on the same basis: that they were responsible for forest renewal. They didn't change it when they were in, but we changed it, and industry is responsible for forest renewal.

MR. MILLER: The professor's letter makes a number of statements. I will ask him now before we get into the questions posed. I wouldn't discount entirely Mr. Reed's qualifications or knowledge of the industry in this province. To dismiss it as lightly as the minister seems to want to do.... Actually, the minister seems to have a habit of dismissing almost anything anybody says who does not agree with him, whether it be the Premier or anybody else. That's fine. The minister can handle that, I'm sure.

Mr. Reed states in his letter that we are primitive in our approach to strategic planning. Could the minister advise how we are not primitive?

HON. MR. PARKER: The question is: can I demonstrate to the member opposite how we are not primitive? I don't see him wearing his breechcloth in the House today, Mr. Chairman.

[3:45]

MR. MILLER: If that was a demonstration of how we are not primitive, Mr. Chairman, I'm afraid the minister has failed miserably. He has just demonstrated that he is unable to answer a pretty basic question. It seems to me that estimates are a time when the minister, with his extensive knowledge of the forest industry of this province — a forester himself — could stand and give at least a short explanation of the kind of work that the province is doing that would counter this rather serious statement by the professor.

[ Page 4782 ]

HON. MR. PARKER: The people of British Columbia enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world. Half of the economic activity of this province is due to the forest industry, and the well-being of the forest industry depends on effective forest management. This ministry offers effective forest management; ergo we are in fine shape. We have, as I said, one of the highest standards of living in the world, and that should clearly indicate to the member opposite that we are well beyond the primitive state of forest management in this province.

MR. MILLER: I understand the deep reasoning there, and I suppose those who might not understand it are those who have not shared in the wealth of this province — who in fact are suffering in terms of the plenty that we have. It's a rather shocking situation we've also tried to deal with, getting nowhere as well, with this government. If the minister's analysis is that because we have one of the higher standards of living in the world, therefore we must be doing everything right in terms of planning in our forest, I suppose we'll just have to leave it to others to decide whether or not that's a very good analysis.

The letter goes on: "...there is an important gap in volume between the long-range sustained yield and the annual allowable cut, a gap which does not even attempt to measure a disturbing decline in log quality and an increase in delivered cost." Would the minister care to comment and elaborate on that situation from his point of view?

HON. MR. PARKER: The ministry's point of view is that the proper allowable annual cut for the province at this time is approximately 75 million cubic metres. We'd like to make that a little bit more a5 we work on the forest resource and things develop so that we can use species that heretofore weren't used, and stands that were economically inaccessible or economically inoperable before.

As for one man's guess as to what long-range sustained yield might be, how can I comment on somebody else's idea? My opinion is that we will see a growing level of allowable annual cut of the province, and we will see the development of a forest industry that up till now hasn't been really perceived by the general public. The research people will tell you that there are opportunities that are just about commercially possible to convert fibre in a number of ways that will make a lot of the technology we know today obsolete in the not too distant future.

The only thing we can do as forest managers at this time is take this snapshot in time, see what the parameters are and ensure that the wood supply will meet the standards that we know today. We're doing that, and we're satisfied that our numbers are good.

MR. MILLER: The minister is saying that he is gambling that the growth will come in primary processing, in more use of timber; that the timber supply has to grow, or we'll have to take more timber to see that kind of growth in the industry; that we won't see that growth in the industry on the secondary end; it's going to be in the primary end; let's just use more volume of timber. He's also gambling that technology — perhaps he's referring to pulp processes — will presumably allow more efficient use of the fibre and therefore we won't have a problem.

HON. MR. PARKER: There will be remarkable developments in all facets of the forest industry as we go along, everything from the soil and its management and what we know about it, which is the foundation of the entire business, right through to the markets. All segments are included in my statement.

MR. MILLER: Just getting into some of the direct questions posed by the professor in dealing with the gap, as he describes it, between the long-range sustained yield and the AAC, could the minister advise what kinds of silviculture treatments will be required, what the cost would be and how long it would take to close the gaps in the forest regions of British Columbia?

HON. MR. PARKER: I don't think the member has been listening. We haven't identified a gap; he perceives a gap.

MR. MILLER: I'm offering Prof. Reed's considered opinion on behalf of me and the public of British Columbia, and I am hoping to get some responses from the minister. There's no problem with No. 1. There's going to be a short letter back to Mr. Reed that I assume your deputy is going to write.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member please continue.

MR. MILLER: I am being slightly distracted, Mr. Chairman, by my colleagues, who advise me to advise the minister to keep his gap shut. That was a poor joke. Did the minister get it?

The fifth point the professor makes in his letter is that he asks: "What changes do we foresee in log quality and product volumes — lumber, chips, fibre — under (a) status quo silviculture and (b) more intensive management as it is implemented over coming decades?"

HON. MR. PARKER: On the basis of today's standards for log grades, as we move away over a period of years from old-growth timber to second-growth managed timber, if we use exactly the same grade parameters that are in place today, they will be different.

MR. MILLER: Does the minister foresee — and this is my own question, not Prof. Reed's — any serious fall downs in any of the forest regions with respect to either the volume or the quality of fibre that will be available for processing?

HON. MR. PARKER: I think we have some 36 timber supply areas in the province, and all the tree-farm licences are separate from the timber supply areas. They too are sustained yield areas. As you go through a rotation age — and the rotation can be as short as 40 years or 50 years in some of the very high sites in the lower coast, to as long as 120 years to 140 years in the far northeast of the province — there will be times when the distribution of age classes is such that you have slightly less volume or slightly more volume than the long-term average. There is a range that occurs.

MR. MILLER: Could the minister be more specific? Clearly the only example that I will quote at present is on the Queen Charlotte Islands, where Crown has notified both its employees and, I believe, the Forests ministry that they anticipate a falldown as they run out of their accessible old-

[ Page 4783 ]

growth timber and move into their second-growth. The graph goes like that, and there is a serious falldown that will result in lower levels of employment and lower quantities of fibre available to the processing facilities that they cut for.

There is going to be a falldown. It's going to have an impact on that operation. It would be naive to suggest that that's the only one in British Columbia. What work has your ministry done in identifying those areas where fall downs are likely to occur, and what assessment of the potential impact has been done by your ministry in terms of employment levels, impacts on communities and the whole range of questions that flow from that kind of thing happening?

HON. MR. PARKER: Now the member is speaking specifically to a particular cut block or operating block in a particular tree-farm licence. We're off the empirical discussion of the Prof. Reed letter, and he'd like a specific answer to a specific case on a specific part of the Queen Charlotte Islands. That's extremely difficult to do when we're talking about the estimates of the ministry.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The impact of variability in a rotation of the allowable cut of a particular area is some dislocation from that particular piece of geography. It might be several square miles or it might be tens of square miles. The tree-farm licence, I presume, has an annual allowable cut level and a number of operating blocks along the coast, probably from somewhere on Vancouver Island up to as far as the Queen Charlotte Islands. The cut is probably being reduced up there until the age classes are mature, because you don't want to be cutting immature timber. That's not effective forest management. So we'll be withdrawing from the cutting activities there and translocating them to another part of that same tree-farm licence. That's probably what's happening.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Minister, I didn't ask you for specifics on that particular instance. I related that particular instance; I have the specifics in my office. I've seen the presentation that the company put together. At least they were upfront with their employees in terms of what is going to happen down the road.

I've asked you specifically, as the Minister of Forests, to advise the House what kind of work and analysis you have done with respect to the question of falldown and its potential impact on the various regions of this province. You've expressed your strong feeling that we have no problems; that somehow we'll muddle through, whether it's in terms of the application of new technology to processing or the ability to get into new stands of timber, or whatever. But clearly other people have indicated that they foresee fall downs in the timber supply in various regions of British Columbia. I cited a specific example to indicate that.

I'm asking you as the Minister of Forests — and the person who should be in the best position to know — what kind of work and analysis you have done in your ministry with respect to that question. Would you advise the House where you see that happening, if you see it happening? What dislocations do you see taking place? Where are they going to be? How long are they going to be for? There are a range of questions attendant upon that issue, and it's one that is worthy of a frank approach in answering.

If I've encountered any single issue in British Columbia that has caused fear and concern and uncertainty, particularly in the small communities, it's that question. It's the feeling that people have, and they get it from reading some fairly knowledgeable people. that there is a falldown; that it is going to impact them. So I'm asking the minister to deal honestly and straightforwardly with that question. If the minister has information that will allay those fears that exist, he should offer it to this House and, indeed, offer it to the people of British Columbia. And if he hasn't got that kind of information, he should advise them of that as well.

[4:00]

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, if I were more sensitive, I'd probably take affront at the fact the member opposite suggested I should deal honestly and straightforwardly in this House. If I were more sensitive, I'd probably get upset about something like that. We are all honest and straightforward in this House. I'm sure the member opposite tries at all times to be honest and straightforward. I know I certainly do and my colleagues do on this side.

The forest policies of British Columbia are public information, so the people know what is taking place. The timber supply area management plans are public information. There's opportunity for public input and there's opportunity for analysis whenever the timber supply area analyses are being done.

The things that are taking place to ensure the allowable cuts of the province are things like assured forest renewal by industry, as a result of our policies; assured forest renewal of the small business operating areas; the competitive sale areas that are administered by the Crown; and the dedication funding, to make sure that that does take place. That's been done by this government; it wasn't being done by the socialist government from 1972 to 1975. They did not make those commitments. It did not happen under their term of office; it is happening under our term of office.

The forest renewal commitment is there. The opportunity for intensive forest management is there. And that opportunity is through an increased tree-farm licence tenure in the province. We have been working with the federal government, picking up backlogs that accumulated in the past, including 1972 to 1975. We are ensuring that there is no further backlog, because we made that contractual obligation with the federal government when we signed FRDA I. We are working with the federal government towards establishing a second forest resource development agreement, along what we call FRDA II. We are encouraging additional utilization of the forest resource by making the investment climate attractive and helping identify the opportunities to the business world, and the matter of value added. I think we are doing a great deal to ensure the well-being of the forests of British Columbia and to make sure that the wood supply is there for subsequent generations of British Columbians.

MR. MILLER: I'm sure the minister's favourite years were 1972 to 1975. He refers to them constantly. Something significant must have happened during those years to cause that minister to.... It's like one of those clocks: it just keeps coming around and goes tick, 1972 to 1975. The minister must have nightmares about 1972 to 1975. All I can say is, if he does I hope he has them often and I hope he thinks about 1990. What are you going to do next time — leave the province? Please.

That's fine; I don't mind taking responsibility for what happened in 1972 to 1975. In fact, I'm quite happy to take

[ Page 4784 ]

that responsibility. But if the minister wants to suggest in his remarks that there has been a failure of forest policy over the last 30 or 40 years, or whatever period you want to use, and that three of them have to be blamed on a previous New Democratic Party administration, then we'll accept that blame. But I would have to say that if that's what the minister is doing, we'll take our 10 percent and we'll leave you with the 90 percent of the blame for the failure of forest policy in this province, instituted on the basis that what's good for the companies is good for the province. That's like what's good for General Motors is good for the United States of America, and even the Americans don't accept that one anymore. But Neanderthal ideas are hard to change.

MR. WILLIAMS: Especially in Neanderthals.

MR. MILLER: Especially in Neanderthals.

Is the minister saying that intensive forest management will prevent fall downs in regions of this province?

HON. MR. PARKER: Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I was in discussion with my deputy. Would the member mind repeating the first part of his question?

MR. MILLER: Is the minister saying that intensive forest management will prevent fall downs in the various regions of this province?

HON. MR. PARKER: Intensive forest management is part of the responsible forest management of this government and this ministry. It's a segment, and basic silviculture is also a segment. The careful utilization and conversion of the resource is all part of the management. Intensive forest management will contribute towards reducing any falldown in various parts of the province at different times in a rotation.

MR. MILLER: Has the minister...? The ministry; when I say the minister I mean the ministry — sometimes. Has the ministry identified, then, those areas most in need of that kind of activity to prevent the fall downs I've talked about? Can the minister advise where those locations are — not specifically, roughly; the regions in British Columbia — where that kind of work is required to prevent that happening?

HON. MR. PARKER: We are concerned about responsible forest management on all the forest lands of British Columbia that are under the purview of this ministry, and we are dealing with all of those lands all the time.

As to when aberrations in cut occur, I can't say. There are some 35 or 36 timber supply areas in the province. They are each under a five-year management and working plan, and the parameters for merchantability and operability change. There's some variation in there that is very difficult to identify.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PARKER: Speaking from memory. The member is certainly privy to the timber supply area reports throughout the province, and he can determine for himself, as can anybody else in the province, what the current management regimes are and what the long-range management regimes are for each one of those timber supply areas.

MR. MILLER: I notice the minister frequently stands up and comments about whether questions are appropriate. I had always assumed that this was an appropriate forum both for me to ask questions and for the minister to take the opportunity to pass on information. Information that we impart in this House is really information we're imparting to the public.

I've asked the minister whether intensive forest management, in terms of incremental silviculture, will prevent fall downs in various regions of the province, whether the minister has identified those, whether the minister is aware that the proper programs are in place, whether or not there are going to be fall downs which will have an impact on employment levels — a number of very serious, non-combative, non-confrontational, honest questions trying to elicit honest information. Do you think this is a trap? Do you think this is a game? That somehow the more elusive your answer, the better it is? I can advise you that that's not the case. We realize there are sources of information. This is a public forum. Your obligation as a minister of the Crown is to give that information across the floor of this House to the people of this province. Is the minister unable to give the information, or does he simply feel reluctant to give the information?

HON. MR. PARKER: If it will help, Mr. Chairman, we will table the timber supply area analyses for each timber supply area in the province — if that means a great deal to the member opposite. I have answered responsibly and completely. Each of the timber supply areas of the province  — and the province is completely covered under some 35 or 36 timber supply areas — has a working plan, a management regime and its own idiosyncrasies. There's a substantial amount of variability. That's one of the characteristics of British Columbia. It's very difficult to compare to other regions of the world, their performance and what they have for a forest resource. We have a very diverse forest resource, a very diverse complex of soils, terrain and species composition. To the best of my ability in the House at this time, going from memory, I can tell you that the Ministry of Forests has that information at hand. It is public information and is shared with the public at all times. And intensive forest management is part of the prescription to help offset any aberrations in allowable cut over a rotation age.

MR. MILLER: That will make the people out there who are asking those questions happy. I'm sure they'll be quite satisfied with that kind of answer from the minister.

In going around the province on the forestry standing committee, I've received a lot of information, quite apart from our mandate, on the timber supply situation in a number of regions. For example, at the Nelson and Kamloops hearings we heard from people in the industry that they are facing increasing problems with timber supply. The operators there see the question of supply as a particular problem. Their testimony to the committee was that it is getting tougher and tougher to maintain supply. The Prince George area has expressed the same position, that supply is becoming a major problem.

Again, has the minister done the kind of analysis...? If he has, could he tell us briefly what kind of analysis he's done? Are mills facing timber supply shortages to the point where there are going to be closures and increased unemployment? Just what is the situation? Are we able to head off those timber supply shortages? I've read numerous documents that

[ Page 4785 ]

talk about the need to practise intensive silviculture to head off those timber shortages. Are we doing that? Is the full range of those kinds of activities taking place in the three regions I've mentioned, so that the people who work in those regions, who run mills in those regions, who live there, who don't wear loincloths, who like to take part in this province and enjoy the fruits of the wealth we inherited, can know and understand that there's a Minister of Forests in this province who is aware of the problem, is working on the problem and can give them advice to that extent? Is that the case? In the three regions I've talked about, is enough work being done in terms of possible timber shortages that those kinds of things will be forestalled and we won't see the closure of mills and laying off of people because of a shortage of fibre?

[4:15]

HON. MR. PARKER: The issues the member for Prince Rupert is raising have been answered. Those types of analyses take place with the timber supply area analyses. There's a five-year management and working plan for each timber supply area in the province. An analysis is done for each one of those areas and incorporated in its management and working plan. Each of the forest regions of the province is made up of timber supply areas. The information is available and is public, and the concerns the member raises from people he's spoken to while he's been going around the province on my ministry's Select Standing Committee on Forests and Lands.... That is a committee that has not been used for a number of years but has been resurrected by me and my ministry and authorized to travel the province to hear concerns on logging contracts. It has afforded that member and other members of that committee the opportunity to have dialogue with various players in the forest industry. It's most helpful for that member and other members of that committee to get that information and education and to get a feeling and understanding for the complexity of the business of forest management and the business of the forest industry of this province. That has been a useful exercise from that standpoint, and we'll wait and see what the determinations of the committee are; I'm sure they'll be most useful as well.

The member keeps asking if we as a ministry know what is taking place in the timber supply areas of the province and what the remedies or the prescriptions are or what the procedures should be for each one of those timber supply areas. Those are in each of the analysis reports. I'd say that the Ministry of Forests and Lands has an excellent appreciation for each of the timber supply areas, each of the regions of the province and each of the concerns and what needs to be done. We have a commitment from this government, one that has been put in place over the last 12 months to ensure that all possible is done to continue good forest management and to ensure that there's a continuing supply for the forest industry and for the people of British Columbia.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'd like to reflect on the.... Was it last fall when the minister made a major statement about new policy? Was it around September or something like that when you announced some of the items that are in the current legislation before the House? I can't recall exactly when that was. Was it around early fall last year?

HON. MR. PARKER: Yes, Mr. Chairman. It was mid-September.

MR. WILLIAMS: One of the points made by the minister, I believe, was that there would be no more funding of section 88 roads. Is that so?

HON. MR. PARKER: That's right. There will be no more stumpage offset for the construction of roads, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WILLIAMS: In September the minister established the new policy. We should reflect on what that policy was. As the minister said, it was a stumpage offset. It was a kind of welfare system for the forest companies. The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), the previous minister, and others had expressed some concern about that. This was money being deducted from what the Crown would normally get as stumpage. Has that, then, been the policy of the minister?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, section 88 of the Forest Act provides for payment to licensees for approved capital projects on behalf of the Crown to be made by credit note to the stumpage account. It's not a welfare situation at all, as the member really knows but doesn't care to elaborate. It's convenient for him and the member for Omineca to babble on about it being welfare. The purpose of the exercise was to pay for capital projects on behalf of the Crown within the licence areas operated by the licensee.

Out of that emanated a substantial amount of access throughout the province. especially for recreational users and particularly those who like to use the high country. They really appreciate having logging roads, forest roads. It's the main-haul roads that we look upon as capital projects, not branch lines, spur lines and the like. Yet those same lines are all used by recreationists, hunters, geologists, butterfly hunters, those who like to watch birds, those who collect insects as a hobby — people who really appreciate having that kind of access. The capital roads, of course, have to be maintained, so there's continuing access and continuing use. It has been a useful exercise for the province.

During the recession in the early part of this decade, a number of projects had to go on to access timber stands and areas for timber extraction — some of them by the small business program, Mr. Chairman, not just by the licensee. Those costs were carried and held on the books by the various licensees when they were approved capital projects — carefully scrutinized and approved by members of the ministry. They had to carry the costs on their books until times improved and their stumpage bills picked up and could cover the costs of that asset. We had the full, unfettered use of those assets, and I think we owe a big thank-you to the licensees, who saw fit to continue providing the infrastructure for all the users of the forests of British Columbia.

MR. WILLIAMS: It was a very interesting dissertation. Ho hum. Your statement of September was: no more money under section 88; no new section 88 roads. The question to the minister was: is that the case?

HON. MR. PARKER: The mid-September '87 statement was: "Effective immediately, no new commitments will be made under section 88 of the Forest Act, which allowed companies to obtain a standard credit to stumpage accounts in exchange for doing" — such capital projects as building roads. We have not made any new commitments since that time.

[ Page 4786 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: Let's listen very, very carefully to what the minister said. He said we have made no new commitments, in terms of section 88 roads, since the date when the policy was announced. I draw your attention, Mr. Minister, to a letter you wrote December 1, 1987, some months later regarding a section 88 road in your riding, contrary to policy, contrary to public statement and contrary to what you just now told the Legislature. I think that's serious.

On December 1, you wrote to Shames Mountain Ski Corp. in Terrace, B.C.:

"Dear Sirs:

"Further to our meeting in Terrace November 14, this letter confirms our discussions on the Shames Valley forest road.

"The Ministry of Forests and Lands will accept a section 88 proposal from the forest licensee Skeena Cellulose Inc. to bring the road to two-lane all-weather standards. The road specifications will...be determined jointly between you, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, and the Ministry of Forests and Lands."

You direct all further inquiries to the district manager, Mr. Dodd. You send copies to Mr. Mart, your deputy minister, and to many others.

Mr. Minister, that is contrary to your stated policy of September. It's contrary to what you've just told the House. You said there was no more welfare under section 88, and what we now have before us is a letter from you clearly showing that you're willing to help your friends in your own riding in a system that had been condemned across this province. Who are Shames Mountain and that corporation? They're active Socreds in your riding, people like Mr. Gerry Martin — active Socreds on the board of directors of the Shames Mountain Ski Corp. Isn't it about time you levelled? Isn't it time to 'fess up and retract what you've been saying?

HON. MR. PARKER: The Shames Mountain project was in discussion long before the September announcement on section 88. It was worked on prior to, during and after the press conference that we held in Vancouver establishing new forest policy. The policy was established through legislation, regulation and subsequent dates.

The Shames Mountain road was not a new commitment. It was more or less work in process at that time. The confirming letter happened to be dated December 1, but as of mid-September it was not a new commitment. It had been intimated prior to that time that because of the joint use requirements of the road up the Shames River valley, it was appropriate that public funds be used to provide public access to a public destination resort. That's for the well-being of the northwest of the province. It's part of the economic development of the province.

Certainly there are Social Crediters who have invested in that project, but they're not the only ones who have invested in it. We usually find that it is Social Crediters who invest in the province, because they have confidence in the province and the business acumen to make a good project come together.

MR. WILLIAMS: This is classic weaseling that we are hearing from this minister, Mr. Chairman. We asked very clear questions, and we got very clear answers.

AN. HON. MEMBER: You didn't listen.

MR. WILLIAMS: We listened. You said that was the policy in September. You said those were the rules. Then you were asked if any more concessions were given under section 88, and the answer was clear: no.

Then, when you are confronted with your own letter of December 1, all of a sudden we get the weaseling, and you say: "Well, it was more or less in progress." If it was more or less in progress, you would have written a letter in August or September, not in December. The letter in December, under your signature — not your staff — goes out to the senior manager in that region, and that's the word from you: "You build this road under section 88, and we pick up the bill, and it will help my Socred friends in this venture with respect to a ski development." That's very clear. You try to fudge it around after you are presented with the information about a letter that you didn't think we would have access to. That's the reality. Don't say that we don't hear over here. We hear all too clearly.

What you were doing was misleading the House just a few minutes ago, and what this letter proves is that you were not telling the House what in fact was the case. The benefits are there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, order, indeed. I think an apology is overdue.

[4:30]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member said that the minister was misleading the House, and that certainly is not parliamentary. I would appreciate it if you would withdraw that, hon. member.

MR. WILLIAMS: How do you call it, Mr. Chairman? I'm willing to withdraw. What words would you give to the fact that this member said: "Those are the rules. No more section 88 money and no more welfare." But then we find out: "In my riding and for my friends, it's different." That's what we find out just a couple of minutes later. To benefit this particular development — an outfit that had gone bankrupt in his own riding, which he befriends. He has not been straightforward with this Legislature.

HON. MR. PARKER: The policy statement in the middle of September was quite clear that there would be no new commitments for section 88 stumpage offset; that's a fact. I used the term that you could call the discussions on the Shames Valley road as more or less "work in process."

Again, it's a twisting of the words by the member opposite, which is his wont. It's less than direct, and it's his hallmark, as most people in the province can attest. His concern is whether there were any new commitments, because we said there would be no new commitments. There were a number of items in process at the time. That was one of them. But after the announcement in the middle of September, there were no new commitments to Stumpage offset.

MR. WILLIAMS: I suggest to you that if this was in the normal process.... You are using the weasel words, not us. You use the term "work in progress." Can you give us a list of all the works in progress that exceed this? No, in a minute. I have the floor.

Let's get it clear. This letter went out under your hand from your office. This is not the typical thing; oh no, it is not.

[ Page 4787 ]

In the normal course of events, it would be in the bureaucracy. It would be the senior officials of the ministry dealing with it; of course it would. In this particular instance, when it involves your riding and your friends, it goes out under your hand, and then you send a copy to all the bureaucrats. What you are saying is: "This is the commander-in-chief giving the orders. While we have a policy under section 88, it doesn't apply here where it's my friends and my riding." That's what that letter tells us. This is not a letter through the normal channels of the ministry — not at all. This is a political directive for political reasons in the minister's home riding. That's clear.

HON. MR. PARKER: I write letters to people all over the province — in fact, all over the world — daily. Yes, I do represent the constituency of Skeena. I'm proud to represent Skeena. I'm doing a much better job than my predecessor, who sat opposite. Skeena has seen substantial economic development in the last 12-month period. It's unreal the numbers that have been invested in that constituency, and I am pleased that we as a government are able to work toward public access up the Shames River valley, providing access to a public destination resort which will benefit not only Skeena but Prince Rupert and the area to the north and to the east.

Not only that, it will help attract the skiing public from the panhandle and other parts of Canada and the world, because fortunately we have good air traffic opportunities into Smithers, Terrace and Prince Rupert, which means that it's possible for international travelers to come in, clear customs and enjoy all the things that the riding of Skeena has to offer for recreation: the good development at Lakelse Hot Springs.... The Shames Mountain ski area will attract many people, together with the hot springs; they complement each other. The fishing opportunities down Douglas Channel and in the various watersheds in the Skeena constituency; the photography opportunities; the home of the Kermode bear, the white variation of the black bear....

What we do with our policies is make all of those opportunities available to people all over the world. They are coming in in droves. We have a substantial international trade in the Skeena constituency; it's really burgeoned in this last 12 months. It's fortunate now that we have government representation in the area to help make all of those things happen, because it certainly didn't happen in the past.

MR. WILLIAMS: Put it down to the Kermode bear.

Interjections.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's right. I think maybe it's appropriately named: Shames Mountain. You told one story to the House a few minutes ago, and then you changed your story. It's now on the public record that you play that kind of game: something special for Socred members in your riding in terms of this corporation that will benefit, in terms of the public picking up the tab for the road to their development. That's plain, clear and simple. Shames Mountain is the appropriate name.

HON. MR. PARKER: The member opposite likes to talk about the road to Shames, suggesting that the road is a shameful event. I guess that's what he's saying. I'm sure the Shames family doesn't appreciate the use, the implication, but what else can you expect? It's public funds that go into providing the infrastructure for any type of economic development in the province. It's public funds that go into hydro lines; it's public funds that go into railways; it's public funds that go into highways; it's public funds that go into hospitals; it's public funds that go into schools. I don't know what that member expects.

Of course, the only way we have revenue flowing is if we have commerce. We only have commerce if business and industry are taking hold 4 the development opportunities of the province and providing that commerce. That's what sustains the government of British Columbia and that's what sustains the government of Canada. It's fortunate that we have strong governments both in British Columbia and in Canada to provide those commerce opportunities.

MS. EDWARDS: I want to begin my discussion of the recreation function of the ministry by going back again to an issue that some members of this House have heard several times. But I'm not sure they're that familiar with it. Lake Koocanusa is in my riding. There are a number of severe problems that can occur that are related to that recreation resource in the riding.

I'm encouraged by your opening statement, where you said that you hope to integrate resource management. I know there has to be integrated management of the recreation resource in that area. The parks branch has two parks around Lake Koocanusa. The one that has existed for a while has 25,000 people a year using it. Nearly that same number of people use unmanaged facilities around that lake — 18,000 a year is the amount that the study shows. These areas, which are Crown land, are not included in parks; they are "managed" — I put that in quotation marks because sometimes the management is not very strong.... It is the function of your ministry to manage that resource for recreation.

The point I made to both the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid) and the Minister of Environment and Parks (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is that Lake Koocanusa is a reservoir controlled under the direction of two entities, one for the U.S. and one for Canada. The Canadian entity is B.C. Hydro. I would like this minister to add his voice to those of the other two ministers, to tell me that he will assure B.C. Hydro that the recreational use of that reservoir is important to you as the minister and to this ministry. I would like that word to be put to B.C. Hydro, so that in the small bit of management left over.... I think it would be quite enough, because there are some options available to B.C. Hydro in deciding what further generation is done downstream, above and beyond the amount generally considered because of agreements on normal reservoir levels. I would like the minister to respond. I would like him to say that he will commit himself to telling B.C. Hydro that the Ministry of Forests and Lands believes that the recreational resource is an important one, and that it should be considered in decisions that B.C. Hydro makes on managing the levels of those reservoirs.

In that connection, I would like this minister to agree to ask B.C. Hydro — and work within his own ministry — to see that there is a continuing structure through which the managers, B.C. Hydro, keep the managers of the land resource around it informed of what is likely to happen, so that the Ministry of Forests.... In this case it's not just a recreational resource the ministry is concerned with, because this year the ministry has had to build a whole bunch of range fences for range management.

I would like the minister to respond on those two things. I would like him to agree to see that there is an ongoing

[ Page 4788 ]

structure for consultation, so that Hydro tells the management ministries ahead of time so that they can prepare for more efficient management; and to say that Hydro should keep in mind, when making decisions about the levels they have — and they do have some control; don't say they don't, because they do — that recreation is one of the considered uses.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, those sound like good suggestions to me, and I'll certainly pursue them.

MS. EDWARDS: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

As I said, I wanted to talk in general about the recreation function of your ministry. I am at a loss, from the beginning, because there is no way I have been able to determine what you feel the budget is this year for the recreation function. As you know, the recreation function is no longer, in the books I have, listed under "Recreation." It's listed under "Integrated resource management"; and with that is "Range management and improvement" — not only recreational facilities and trails but also forest planning activities and the wilderness management program. How much this year is going to be put to the function of recreation, compared to the continuing figures of...? In the last several years, recreation has taken about $3.8 million — more or less. Estimates were up, but it wasn't spent. So it's approximately $3.8 million, as I understand it. I don't know how that compares to what the minister proposes to spend this year.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, we're frantically looking up the numbers for the member. As soon as we have them, I'll report them to the House.

[4:45]

MS. EDWARDS: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I'll leave that for a moment, but I will want to follow up on it a bit.

I want to pick up on another thing that you said in the introduction to your estimates. You said you want new opportunities created for the ownership of selected recreational lands, and a new strategy in concert with private sector developers for commercial backcountry recreation. You also mentioned a clear articulation of land rights for commercial recreation activities. That's a whole planning process, Mr. Minister. I'm not sure if that is connected to what you said was a policy paper on wilderness regulations, policies and procedures, which you said in your introduction — I believe it was yesterday; it might have been the day before — would be done this spring. "This spring I will release a policy paper." Is that the same thing? Perhaps a nod will do. Maybe you want to respond.

HON. MR. PARKER: The discussion paper on wilderness recreation area management deals with wilderness recreation areas. The matter of land tenures has to with the Lands part of the ministry and recreational tenures. Some are leased, and some are offered for sale from time to time. That's forthcoming this budget year.

Does that cover the questions, Madam Member?

MS. EDWARDS: I don't think it matters which part of the ministry it's in, because it's the recreational function, basically, and it's going in a different way. In fact, the ministry is now setting up wilderness areas. It is now legislated so that it can set up manage and maintain wilderness areas. You've said that you will release a paper this spring as a first step in developing wilderness regulations, policies and procedures. I'm wondering if that is what you were talking about. Is this policy paper therefore going to create these new opportunities for privatization? You say "ownership of selected recreational lands." Is that in wilderness areas? Is there going to be some selling of Crown land that would be or is now designated wilderness area?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, no.

If you just give me a moment, I think I can give you the numbers. No, we don't have them here. I'm sorry; I misunderstood.

MS. EDWARDS: I assume the numbers that you thought you might have were for the recreational function. How does one debate figures if we don't know what the figures are, Mr. Minister? I'm really at a loss to make my point if I don't know where I am.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, I don't have the figures here in the House. My assistant deputy minister advises me that the information is being sought and will be brought to the House very shortly.

MS. EDWARDS. Thank you.

Mr. Minister, you said that this policy paper on wilderness areas is not.... If I put this all together, I believe what you said is that you're not selling Crown land that would be or is currently designated wilderness area. What you did say is that you will create new opportunities for the ownership of selected recreational lands. I'm curious to know, Mr. Minister, what that is. You say: "a new strategy in concert with private sector developers for commercial backcountry recreation." I have to assume that this will include some way to regulate, I hope, such activities as heli-hiking, skiing, etc.  — these activities which currently create so much controversy.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, as Minister of Forests and Lands I'm responsible for several statutes, the Forest Act and the Land Act. "Recreational lands" refers to lands administered under the Land Act, and they're generally waterfront, ski-area lease areas or, in some cases, fee-simple ownership opportunities.

Under the wilderness recreation area policy — that has to be established yet. We'll be using the discussion paper to help us set policy, because we constantly go to the public for assistance in development of policy on resource management in this ministry.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Minister, I understand that the government's been in the process of developing a protocol for wilderness areas for approximately two years. You already have three wilderness areas designated, and it's waiting. You say that some policy will be released this spring. How will it get to the public following that?

HON. MR. PARKER: The legislation establishing wilderness areas under the Forest Act came into being last fall. Since then we've identified three such areas in the province. Staff in various regions have been investigating other opportunities. In the meantime, we have to develop the policy that will establish the parameters for the management and working plans for these recreation areas. They will be subjected to

[ Page 4789 ]

management and working plans, which will be reviewed on a five-year basis, the same as any other areas that we administer under the various statutes. The public will have their opportunity to comment on the discussion paper and indicate to us how they think they should be able to contribute to the management and working plan of each one of the wilderness recreation areas. So it is public process in helping us establish policy, and then it's public process in helping us establish the management and working plan; that's in a state of development.

MS. EDWARDS: I'm a bit curious about the hearing process rather than what they might advise on, because I'm sure you get advice on almost everything. Is it going to be a series of public meetings, or is it going to be one of these...? It seems to be the habit of ministries lately to go around and set up a series of magnificently done diagrams, have a few handouts and let people come in and out, but there's no process of exchange of views within the areas. Is it going to go to public meetings throughout the whole province? How broadly based is that process going to be, and how much are you going to be listening to what is being said? Who's going to be at the hearings?

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

HON. MR. PARKER: The discussion paper will be mailed to various interested parties — those who have indicated to us already that they have an interest. It will be available in every district office, and we have 45 of them throughout the province; so there's no difficulty for anybody to pick up a copy of that discussion paper. We expect to receive written responses — that's the input we're seeking — and we'll develop the policy from those responses.

MS. EDWARDS: Could you tell me which division of the ministry will ultimately make the decisions about wilderness areas?

HON. MR. PARKER: The final recommendations will come from the integrated resource management division. The decisions are made by the executive of the Forest Service with the concurrence of the minister. That's the way our system of government functions.

MS. EDWARDS: I've had it suggested that the integrated resource management division has really only an advisory role, much more advisory in this process than perhaps a lot of citizens would like. In other words, they simply advise. You say the division makes recommendations, but the recommendations are not final ones. Certainly I'm not suggesting that the minister shouldn't concur, but there seems to be some suggestion that those decisions are made outside of that particular division. Is that so?

HON. MR. PARKER: The management plan is developed and recommended by the integrated resources management branch. The director of that branch carries it to his assistant deputy manager, who is part of the executive; the executive consider and make the final decisions.

MS. EDWARDS: I guess we're not going to go much further on that.

I wonder if the minister would respond more to the.... He says that under the Lands part of his ministry he's talking about new opportunities for selected recreational lands — I'm not sure what he means by that — and about clearer articulation of land rights. What kinds of land rights need better articulation? You said you were looking at strategies for commercial backcountry recreation. That has to involve the areas that are currently designated as backcountry recreation areas. How much private involvement is going to go into those public lands?

HON. MR. PARKER: The first part of the member's question dealt with the recreational lots in the province. Some are lease lots and some are fee-simple lots; some are waterfront and some are ski hill.

Backcountry recreation is one where we have to work with the Ministry of Tourism, Recreation and Culture and the Ministry of Environment and Parks as there are more and more commercial undertakings in the less traveled portions of the province. Some of it is upland; some of it is river bottom and everything in between; some of it is wild lakes area; some of it is fiord area on the coast. We need to work with the other ministries on policy management and the types of tenures that may be needed. It may be just a small piece of land for a dock and a tie-up; it may be a bit of a meadow for grazing hobbled horses; or it may be a heli-spot for heli-skiers and what have you. That's what we mean by backcountry recreation. The basic operating philosophy of the British Columbia Forest Service is one of integrated resource management, and that means we work with all agencies of all levels of government. to make sure that there is responsible use of the land base.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Minister, this is the kind of thing that leads.... I could cite many, many examples where the integrated land use is not as integrated as it might have been. We have some concerns. Many people have many concerns, particularly about the things that can happen. I use as an example the threat of helicopters in wildlife ranges, where very few people ever are, but we know that the wildlife are there. We know that helicopters, for example, are going to interfere with their survival. There have been a number of cases where there has not been sufficient consultation on these things.

I look at this, Mr. Minister, and I see that you are going to look at more and greater.... I'm also a believer that we must develop our wilderness tourism potential, but I want to know how in the world you are going to set up and have more private people operating in there when the staff is going down. I have asked you about your recreational budget. I don't know whether it is going to be the same as last year, but it certainly isn't going to be larger. In fact. what's happening is that staff at the district level is being reduced in the districts throughout the province, as I understand it. I don't think the minister will deny that. The recreational people are being pooled into doing other jobs.

The staff that they had last year for trail work.... They had some Forest Service operations. They supervised some trail work. They had $2 million in JobTrac to put to trails, and they had about $1 million in isolated projects which were basically funded elsewhere. At least half of that workforce is gone this year. Two million dollars' worth of JobTrac is not there anymore. These people are not there throughout the province doing the maintenance and cutting of trails that needs to be done if we are going to have the recreational resource attended to.

[ Page 4790 ]

[5:00]

Besides that, you are not the only ministry that is cutting staff. Conservation officers are not there, and fish and wildlife staff is being cut in the districts. Who is going to be there to find out whether the private sector is doing what it's going to be allowed to do under what you are saying you are going to set up as contracts? Who is going to monitor these people as to whether they keep the contracts? Who is going to be in the wilderness areas where you are going to allow this kind of operation? You talk about helicopters from the private sector. That's fine, but the public sector is responsible for having the trails for people who have different kinds of recreation.

Could the minister please describe his commitment to continuation of effective recreational management on Crown land where it is not controlled by Parks, because it is not in any parks? All the recreational sites have to be serviced. There are thousands of them throughout the province, Mr. Minister. They haven't been serviced this year, I don't believe. Neither have the trails. What is going to happen?

HON. MR. PARKER: It's not the job of our staff to go out and grub trails. It's the job of our staff to make sure those things are done and supplied to the public of British Columbia. The actual people who are hands-on grubbing and clearing the trails or servicing particular recreation sites are not necessarily staff of the Ministry of Forests and Lands, but it is the responsibility of the ministry to make sure it happens. We are in a position to do that and we are doing just that.

MS. EDWARDS: I would like you to tell me how you are going to do that. First of all, I don't have a budget; I don't know whether the money is in recreation. You can't tell me that. I do know that the work done last year.... The amount of money there to do that has been cut in half. I know that a lot of the work is going to be expected to be done by non-profit societies and non-profit projects, and there are a number of those. Are you saying that the amount of work done on the recreational lands that your ministry manages may depend on the ability of the local recreational government employee to persuade non-profit organizations to apply for aid somewhere or other and get the work done?

HON. MR. PARKER: The integrated resource management group have some $10 million to work with this year, and they will see that it is used where it is necessary. It's not up to me to say that trail X will be maintained by you. That's their job. That's why they are managers, supervisors — competent individuals in that division, along with their colleagues in the rest of the ministry.

The member has asked specifically what amount is available for what particular point, and we are trying to dig out that particular piece of information for her. There's $10 million. That's a lot of money dedicated to integrated resource management in this ministry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Second member for Cariboo.

MR. VANT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MS. EDWARDS: I pointed out in the first place....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, member. The second member for Cariboo was on his feet much before you. Please proceed.

MR. VANT: I'll certainly allow the member for Kootenay to continue. First of all, before I start getting my share of questions to the Minister of Forests and Lands during his estimates, would the House give me leave to make an introduction at this time?

Leave granted.

MR. VANT: I'm very pleased that in the member's gallery is alderman John Dell of the city of Williams Lake. I know the House would join me in giving him a warm welcome this afternoon.

It's very timely that this gentleman can be here during the Minister of Forests and Lands estimates. For all of us in the Cariboo, of course, our economy is very dependent on the forests. Some 60 percent to 70 percent of all direct and indirect jobs result from the forest industry. Indeed, about 10 percent of all the timber harvested in our great province is harvested in the Cariboo forest region. We produce over 10 percent of the lumber production and about 8 percent of B.C.'s wood-pulp production. Almost a third of B.C.'s plywood production comes out of the Cariboo.

AN HON. MEMBER: Good plywood too.

MR. VANT: Yes, really good quality plywood and value-added products.

I want first of all to thank the Minister of Forests and Lands for delaying the increase in the grazing fees. Up until the recent rains we were very much in a drought situation in the Cariboo. Indeed, just last Sunday I was down at Clinton, and even though it was cloudy and had showered, it was very dusty on the ground, so we're still very much in a drought situation. Holding off on the increase of those grazing fees is very much appreciated.

I would like to ask the minister a number of specific questions. First of all — this relates also to the cattle industry but affects the Ministry of Forests and Lands — there is a discrepancy in the at lease situation in terms of the stumpage charged. For example, some at leases in the Cariboo were applied for in February 1987, and for some reason or other that wasn't all processed and completed until after October 1. So when their licence to cut was issued, in that particular situation they paid the new stumpage rate. Other ranchers would apply for an at lease in July '87 and they would luck out. The process would go very smoothly, and they'd be issued with their licence to cut prior to October 1, 1987, and they would have the old stumpage apply. In the Cariboo this would often happen in the same grazing area to members of the same cattlemen's association, and so there's great discrepancy between ranching neighbours regarding the stumpage on at leases.

Would the minister therefore consider the main criterion to be the application date when a rancher applied for an at lease? If he applied for an at lease prior to October 1, until a year down the road, say, the old stumpage would still apply. I see this as about the only viable way one could remove once and for all this inequity of stumpage rates charged to at lease holders. Could the minister please respond to that suggestion?

HON. MR. PARKER: It's not the intent of agricultural leases for any timber on there to be a windfall to the lessee. However, the point that the second member for Cariboo raises

[ Page 4791 ]

is an item we will take under serious discussion in the ministry. We'll need to get the details together on what leases and what the process was, but we'll certainly give that serious consideration.

MR. ROSE: I wonder if I could get up on a point of order. I know that usually there is an alternating between the government and the opposition in terms of committee stage. Usually it's a courtesy, before going to the other — whichever it is, the government or the opposition — to allow a member to finish her series or his series with the minister in these exchanges. The member for Cariboo, I think, might not be as aware of this, but if I interrupted him now in the middle of his questioning, he would probably feel a little bit chagrined. Therefore I just thought perhaps we could remind ourselves. I wouldn't like to interrupt the member for Cariboo, but the member for Kootenay hadn't really completed her series of questions. I would like to end up by saying that I think the member for Cariboo — as the member for Vancouver South, if he ever got on the floor — has a perfect right to speak and be heard in this House, but I think that we are all better for observing these little niceties and courtesies. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I wish to thank the Opposition House Leader for sharing those views. They are well taken. I would like to point out that the Chairman is not a mind reader. He does not know when a member is going to conclude. So if you are going to speak, I would appreciate it if you are quickly on your feet. I would ask the member for Kootenay to continue.

MS. EDWARDS: I appreciate that. I wanted to make very clear and to suggest that $10 million in the integrated resources management budget says nothing to how much you're going to assign to the recreational function. I might point out, and I don't have the book with me, that when I looked at the range function last year, it was approximately $4 million. So was the recreational function. There are a number of other functions that are rolled into that.

I don't know where it's going to go. I don't know whether you're going to increase or whether you're going to continue the business of not increasing. You may not have cut it, but you haven't had a single increase in the number of personnel you have in that ministry for the past five years, despite the government's strong assurances that this is going to be a marvellous province for recreation and tourism. There hasn't been an increase in that ministry for at least five years.

There is no way now to tell, even from the annual report, how many FTEs are assigned to the summer auxiliary work. Last year, as 1 say, the amount was twice as much as will be there this year. I'm asking the minister for information connected to a rationale that says: "Oh yes, we want to have this great recreational area and we're going to let more people in to operate." Where are the people who are going to supervise what's going on? Where are the people that are going to work on the continuing Crown resource, which is in your ministry? The major part of that....

MR. R. FRASER: You already asked that question.

MS. EDWARDS: Not within the parks. There are many recreational functions, and that is the function of your ministry. What is your commitment to that?

HON. MR. PARKER: The monetary commitment is some $3.6 million for the coming fiscal period. I don't have the number of FTEs, auxiliaries, temporaries and outside hires that may be used as projects evolve.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Minister, do the people in the districts have their budgets so that they can make some plans for the summer so that the people who are in recreation can know what they're going to be able to maintain and what they're going to be able to build and whether or not it's their job to go out and actually cut the trails? If it's their function to see that the trails are cut, they should be able to know ahead of time what's going on. I would like to know whether they know and where that $200,000 was cut.

HON. MR. PARKER: Yes, the districts know what their budgets are, and they know what their work is for the rest of the year.

MS. EDWARDS: Did you give me some explanation as to where that $200,000 was cut?

[5:15]

HON. MR. PARKER: No, I didn't give any indication of where that $200,000 was cut, and I imagine if we can identify specifically where each dollar went or was reallocated or actually moved from the budget, we'll share it with the House.

MS. EDWARDS: I think the recreational function has been sadly neglected. It hasn't been increased at all. The resources that it has to work with to do its job have been decreased, and we find that there's even a decrease of $200,000 again in the budget, if that's what it is. I think that if this government truly believes that the tourism industry is something to go with, if it truly recognizes how many of the people in this province believe in the environment and not necessarily destroying the resource as it's used, I think that this part of the ministry needs to have more attention.

HON. MR. PARKER: An integrated resource management approach is the mandate of the entire ministry, and all people in the ministry work under that basis. There are people in separate divisions to do certain tasks, but making sure that the people, the facilities and the infrastructure are in place is the task of the entire ministry. More than just the dollars in that particular segment winds up benefiting integrated resource management in the province. The entire budget complements that management philosophy.

MR. VANT: Regarding the agricultural leases, I realize that some non-ranchers have applied for these in the past, mainly just for harvesting timber. There has been some abuse, but for the ranchers it has never been a windfall situation. Indeed, I must inform the minister that at the new stumpage rate they'd be very lucky to break even, just looking at what they would recover by harvesting the timber and having it hauled into town. They'd be very lucky to recover their costs, let alone have anything left over to assist with land clearing and intensive cultivation of that lease.

I do appreciate that the minister is reviewing that and is willing to consider removing the inequities which I as an MLA am very aware of. Indeed, many letters have been sent to the minister's office documenting that very problem. I

[ Page 4792 ]

could very simply say to the minister that his budget for silviculture is way up and, given that the Cariboo harvests about 10 percent of the timber in the province, if we were given just 10 percent of that overall budget, I probably wouldn't be on my feet at this time. That's an oversimplification of the budgeting process.

I was very upset to read in the last two issues of the Quesnel Cariboo Observer — one being on Wednesday, May 18 — where it was announced by a member of your staff that Victoria turned down the plan to farm the forest. In a subsequent article another member of the staff in your ministry announced to the same newspaper on Wednesday, May 25: "Bitter Pill for Forest Farming. There will be no farming of the forests in the Cariboo this year." I was rather shocked to read this in the newspaper, because the minister indicated to me consistently that I should wait until his estimates were processed through the House — which we're in the middle of now — and that he would certainly let me, as one of the MLAs, know about this excellent silviculture proposal.

I would like the minister to comment on the status of the farm-the-forest proposal. It is quite a detailed proposal, but it would have the effect of ensuring that we in the Cariboo have forests for the future. It is a ten-year plan and was to be phased in. I would certainly appreciate at this time the minister's comments on that, in light of the fact that the silviculture budget has increased considerably this year.

HON. MR. PARKER: Just to touch on agricultural leases, they are awarded on the basis of their viability as an agricultural proposition, not on the basis of the advantages of timber opportunities. If in the land-clearing process the lessee is able to sell some timber and make a little bit on it, that's good. If he breaks even, that's okay. If he loses money on it, that's not too great. There is a program that helps to subsidize the cost of land clearing. The whole purpose of the agricultural lease program is not to provide a timber opportunity; it's to provide an agricultural opportunity.

I think the member for Cariboo will agree with me on that. I don't think anybody was trying to pull the wool over anybody's eyes when they took an agricultural lease. I think they really did believe they had an agricultural opportunity, and that's what they were after.

The farm-the-forest proposal which was put together by the communities of 100 Mile House, Williams Lake and Quesnel has merit. They are seeking funding from the JobTrac program, which was funded out of the Ministry of Social Services and Housing. The JobTrac segment they focused on was called "Forest track." The purpose of that exercise was to help people on social assistance to learn a skill and to help them re-educate themselves into an employment opportunity.

That has come to pass with the expanded silviculture program and the funding from the Ministry of Forests and Lands for basic silviculture and the obligations prior to October 1 and through the forest resource development agreement programs. There is a great expansion of employment opportunities for folks who have been trained and new entries into the business and, indeed, existing contractors prior to the JobTrac program of 1987.

The forest, basically, is being farmed. I have enunciated time and again throughout the province and in this House that it is precisely what is taking place with the forest management of forest lands of British Columbia for which we are responsible. The tasks that the farm-the-forest project had in mind were items like spacing, thinning and weeding — in other words, stand-tending of wild stands, particularly stands that were close to communities to which recipients of the JobTrac funding would have easy access, and where the logistics would support the program readily with minimum overheads and maximum flowing to the employees participating in the program.

The opportunities are substantial. The increase in the silviculture budget for the Ministry of Forests and Lands is substantial. The employment opportunities are there. Really the basis of the Vancouver Island mayors' strategy and the farm-the-forest strategy is to make sure there is employment available for the various communities, that people will learn a meaningful task, and that the spin-off will be some intensive forest management in the province and some stand-tending. What I'm saying today is that we've expanded our budget.

"Forest track" or JobTrac is not available to us this year, because it's been concluded that the employment opportunities are substantial. The figures and the trends show that. The opportunities for members of these various communities to be employed in various forestry work tasks are substantially greater than they were in the past. That concern should be addressed adequately in that manner.

I regret that my colleague had to learn through the press that the JobTrac funding and the funding from our ministry was not available. It was not the part of the employees who shared that with the press to discuss it until we had our estimates through the House. It's unfortunate that took place because until we knew precisely where we were and had the approval of the House, we didn't know exactly what programs we could espouse to any great degree. We just have a general concept of what would take place. We have to go through this process before we can say yes, we have them, and we are proceeding accordingly.

We've advised the districts and the regions throughout the province of the budgets that the executive of the ministry identified as being appropriate as submitted — as revised. They have their indicated operating budgets. Everybody knows that the process of estimates has to go through the House every spring. Every spring that's been history, and that's the way this system works. We have to go through this exercise.

However, I regret that the second member for Cariboo (Mr. Vant) had to learn in the press the state of funding availability for the farm-the-forest program. I'd like to tell the second member for Cariboo that the farm-the-forest program was a very comprehensive program. It's well thought out. I have commended those who have worked on it, those who developed it, and those who carried the message to the member and myself and other people in government. I'm pleased to see that sort of concern about the forest management of the province and the commitment from the communities, because with that kind of support, we'll certainly achieve effective integrated resource management in the province.

MR. VANT: I really find interesting the minister's account of the estimates procedure. I know that there is interim funding advanced and business goes on; it's not like everything actually stops until we get the minister's estimates through the House. I know that there's fine-tuned budgeting that has to take place as we proceed into the estimates, and I'm very disappointed that there isn't money specifically — if

[ Page 4793 ]

I heard the minister correctly — for this excellent farm-the forest proposal. As the minister outlined, it was proposed by the city of Quesnel, the city of Williams Lake and the village of 100 Mile House, with considerable assistance from the staff of the Ministry of Forests and Lands. It proposed, very ambitiously, an expenditure of no less than $137 million over a ten-year time-frame.

We in the Cariboo forest region and in our constituency are not too concerned about planting but more about thinning; we have such good natural regen in the Cariboo forest region. Last year I saw firsthand some JobTrac crews that were really doing an excellent job of thinning, especially in the pine stands west of 100 Mile House, Williams Lake and also Quesnel.

I would like to press the minister a little, though, on silviculture. The budget for silviculture is in the neighbourhood of $10 million for the Cariboo forest region. Apart from the farm-the-forest proposal, could the minister please outline for me the silviculture budget for this coming year in the Cariboo forest region?

[5:30]

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, I've asked my staff to retrieve those numbers for me. We'll bring them to the House as soon as they're available.

The member is quite right that funding is provided to keep the ministry moving between the end of one fiscal year and the time the estimates are approved. That does not include new programs; new programs have to go through the estimates process.

MR. VANT: I'd like to move on to the subject of stumpage. This is at the revenue end. It's always the temptation of every elected official to suggest worthwhile expenditures, but in the Cariboo the industry — not only the at lease holders and woodlot licence holders but the licensees — are very concerned about the new stumpage system. When you included the export tax, the industry in the Cariboo paid about $62 million — total cost of the stumpage plus the export tax. With the new system, in the latest figure the industry has provided me, that has increased to about $130 million.

I think the industry in the Cariboo and other parts of the province would be very interested to hear whether the new stumpage system would be made more market-sensitive than it is right now, and also if there would be any other fine-tuning done — hopefully downward — in terms of the overall stumpage. As a percentage of the sales value, the stumpage is now costing the industry about 25 percent, which is a considerable increase. In terms of the overall stumpage rates, we know that the stumpage on the coast has increased by 250 percent, but in the Interior it has increased no less than 650 percent.

Our industry in the Interior is very responsible, in that they spent millions and millions of dollars, even during the recession, to upgrade their plants to keep them competitive in the world markets. It was on an incentive system. If they were good corporate citizens, they earned tenure over Crown forest, which belongs to all the people of the province, and so for many years they had a real break on the stumpage. But with the exceedingly high stumpage now, I'm concerned that the industry will no longer be able to have the funds available for those necessary capital improvements to keep their plants very competitive, efficient and productive. Also, I'm very concerned that the industry survive the downturn which sooner or later will come in this very cyclical industry. We in British Columbia certainly wouldn't want our forest-industry-based towns to end up like some in the United States, where they're faced with six-month closures from time to time. That would be completely unacceptable for us.

I'd like to hear the minister's comments regarding stumpage.

HON. MR. PARKER: The comparative-value pricing system that we use for determining stumpage rates is a market-sensitive program, and the sensitivity is determined by a three-month moving average of market prices for sawn products as reported to and compiled by StatsCan and then turned out in a public tabulation. We have some concerns that maybe that doesn't move quite quickly enough with the upswings and downswings of the market, and we're working with our sources of information in StatsCan to try to speed up that process so that the market response is much quicker.

The Cariboo Lumber Manufacturers' Association is one group. Licensee-operators in the Cariboo who are not members of the Cariboo Lumber Manufacturers.... One thing we in the House should understand is that the industrial associations do not represent all the operators, all the licensees. It's usually the case in most associations that it's a group they claim to represent; they don't necessarily have 100 percent membership. So we not only talk with the Cariboo Lumber Manufacturers' Association, but with individual licensees and all sizes of operators. We listen to their concerns and take their input. Since the system was instituted, we've continuously modified and fine-tuned it. It's a continuing process. As a matter of fact, we're just in the process of formalizing a system whereby we can have a standard working group of both government and industry people that help us keep the system current, keep it sensitive and keep it reflective of the true value of the resource.

One thing we have no intention of doing is killing industry and causing the massive dislocations that some communities in the States have seen. We work very closely with industry, as we do with other agencies and all people in the province who have concerns about the forest management approach by this ministry.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. VANT: I'm very pleased to hear from the minister that the new stumpage system will be made more market sensitive. That is very critical, I think, to the very survival of the industry.

I'm concerned currently that in the Cariboo a lot of the timber sales under the small business program have a very high initial upset price. I've seen them set the upset price at $15 to $16 a cubic metre for very small timber — the like of which if it was at the coast it would probably be left in the bush. Then at these small business sales, of course, the bonus bid starts after that.

I'm just wondering if the minister has any idea if the stumpage could somehow be at a level that would be viable for those who are interested in harvesting the timber through the small business program. At certain prices, the logger who takes that on has cash flow but he's using up the equity in his machine. He's just running perhaps on the depreciation of his machinery.

Would the minister answer my question of why the basic upset price is set so high on some not-exactly-prime timber stands?

[ Page 4794 ]

HON. MR. PARKER: The question unasked there is why it is set so low on some small business timber sales, because the minimum is 25 cents a cubic metre in the province.

The comparative value pricing system reflects the value of the stand. It may be small timber that is wasted on the coast, because it doesn't withstand the handling of the logging systems that we use in most coastal settings — the cable style or other types of overhead logging. Whereas in the interior, for the most part, it's small wood — especially in the Cariboo.

If the timber is readily accessible, sound and straight.... The mills that have evolved in the interior are high-speed, lineal processors that put out commodity products, basically. They function best with sound, straight material. If those small business sales that the member alludes to were readily accessible, sound and straight on a comparative basis in that particular region, they have higher value, so the stumpage rates are higher.

In the small business program, we calculate the upset price exactly the same way we calculate the stumpage and cutting permits on the renewable tenure. That's the noncompetitive sector; it's exactly the same way. Then we add the cost of access — if any — and the cost of forest renewal. That's what the licensees with renewable tenure also have to pay. They have to pay the cost of access and the cost of forest renewal.

In some cases they have some additional costs. They have much more responsibility in forest protection responsibilities, for example, in the small business program. That's how the upset price comes about. If there are any that seem unreasonable, there is opportunity for interested parties who are considering bidding on those timber sales to talk to the district manager and the regional evaluation people to see if there is some error in the calculation of the upset. The process is quite open, but that's the way the upset prices come about.

MR. VANT: I have another question for the minister.

In the Cariboo, of course, we have the traditional pine stands in the dry belt, and we also have a dry fir belt and the wet belt in the east. There's quite a variety of ecological zones, I guess you could say, and different species. Currently, of course, there's a very distinct possibility that the aspen and birch stands will become commercially valuable rather than just weed trees. Indeed, there is a proposal in the Cariboo where there is the possibility of some new industry that would utilize these heretofore weed trees. Shortly, I believe — I hope it is shortly — there will be an advertisement for a harvesting area.

It just seems that the ministry is exceedingly slow in this process. Is there any way the ministry could speed up some of these processes, not just in terms of processing applications for certain areas...?

Interjections.

MR. VANT: I hear from the socialist comer of the House, Mr. Chairman, that there's no one left. Believe me, I'm very familiar with all the district offices and the regional office, and there are still lots of Ministry of Forests staff in the Cariboo.

It does seem to me that the process seems to be rather slow at times — not just in processing the applications, as I was going to say, but in the ministry actually advertising certain areas. It just seems that it's very tedious and very slow.

[5:45]

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, the initiatives by several operators in the Cariboo to undertake to utilize the hardwood species — the aspen, cottonwood and birch species — are recognized. We've received the information. We've been asked to consider advertising a PHA. When you advertise a PHA, one of the things you have to identify is what kind of annual allowable cut would be available. Up until this time, these species were not considered commercially viable in the Cariboo region. This is one of the things I was alluding to earlier in our discussions on the estimates: that time and circumstances change and species that heretofore were not utilized or considered commercial now may be commercial.

Would we advertise a PHA? As soon as we have a handle on the resource and what the AAC can be, we'll be pleased to advertise the PHA. That process, I'd like to advise the member, is underway in the ministry now.

MR. VANT: I realize that this is a new venture for the ministry to look seriously at those stands of hardwoods. Considering the eastern wet belt in the Cariboo, we have almost a coastal logging situation with a lot of rain and very steep terrain — some slopes exceeding 70 percent. You're into either helicopter or high-lead logging, which in that part of the province is a rarity.

In order to enable the industry to harvest some of the over mature spruce stands in the eastern portions of the Cariboo forest region, would the minister be prepared to consider new regulations that would formulate and specify that a certain area would have to be logged through high-lead logging rather than traditional Cat-skidder logging on those steep slopes?

HON. MR. PARKER: The extraction systems are determined in the management and working plan, and that's worked out between the licensee and the licenser. There are some areas that need to be cable-yarded, but through research with the Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada, FERIC, we've determined that some areas on the steep slopes of British Columbia can be effectively harvested using small Cats or small crawler tractors. It's a function of slopes, soils, aspect and the type of timber, but the extraction system is determined by the management and working plan. Deviation from that management and working plan requires the permission of the licenser, the Forest Service.

So the process is in place. It's not one of having to set up policy or regulation or legislation. It's working and has been working for a number of years. Those areas that need to be harvested by a specific type of system because the area is sensitive to one thing or another, whether it's environmental constraints, merchantability constraints or topographic constraints, whatever it may be.... That process is in place and has been going for some time.

MR. VANT: I can understand that with a licensee you still retain some influence. I hope so.

Under the small business program, if an independent logger did have high-lead equipment, I wonder if there would be certain areas in that same part of the Cariboo forest region where the minister would entertain small business sales that

[ Page 4795 ]

would specify in the small business sale proposal itself that it would only be sold to loggers under the condition that they would use a particular harvesting method.

HON. MR. PARKER: The answer is yes.

MR. VANT: Thank you. I'm pleased to hear that.

I want to get back to the rancher situation and point out to the minister that many ranchers are second-generation and have been in the Cariboo a long time. Often adjoining their deeded land they have grazing rights which they've had for quite some time. They do, however, feel certain insecurity as more and more ranchers move in and there is more and more agricultural development. Sometimes they are actually forced to apply for an at lease which covers the same area they used to have grazing rights on. They're almost forced into this situation in order to preserve the viability of the ranch and in order not to get boxed in, because they have a certain amount of deeded land. For many decades they could bank on these grazing rights adjoining, but with neighbouring ranches developing and this kind of land rush, I guess you'd call it, often out of fear of losing that very critical grazing area they are virtually forced into applying for an at lease. This underlines some of that concern about the viability of them developing that at lease as they are required to do, and having that fair and equitable stumpage appraisal on that. The genuine ranchers are not in there, believe me, primarily for the timber. Perhaps the minister would consider some criteria to separate those who are really into farming and ranching and those who are going after at leases purely for the timber.

In the past there have been some loggers that lived right in the municipalities and had no deeded land adjoining anywhere near where they had applied for an at lease, and there has been some abuse. But it would be very simple for the ministry to specify that if a rancher has deeded land in the area — it is indeed a ranching operation — some reasonable consideration be given to them.

HON. MR. PARKER: We always give consideration to all of the users of the forest lands of the province, and particularly to those in the agricultural community.

There are two types of tenure for grazing purposes. One is a grazing permit over Crown range. The other is a grazing lease which becomes an area-based tenure for a rancher; I guess it's to protect that particular grazing lease that the member was mentioning the fact that some have felt it necessary to make application for an agricultural lease. In some instances the land is determined by the land inspectors of the land service to be unsatisfactory for agricultural purposes. It's fine for growing grass and trees together, but as far as an agricultural opportunity is concerned, the land doesn't meet those criteria.

This was raised not too long ago with me, and one of the things that has crossed my mind is that perhaps there is an inbetween tenure that we need to consider or something along the lines of a pasture lease, where trees still grow, but there's a grazing opportunity for the rancher, and his grazing opportunities are protected. It's something to think about. Or maybe it's just the means by which we define a grazing lease and the successor rights to grazing leases. It's food for thought. We'll take it under advisement and work towards that end. Hopefully I can work with the second member for Cariboo (Mr. Vant) to help with input, because there are so many ranchers in his constituency that he'd have a good handle, I think, on the issue. I would appreciate his help.

MR. VANT: I certainly appreciate the minister's remarks. I think we're eventually, particularly in the Cariboo, going to end up having to draw a hard, fast line in order to protect our forestland base. There are now in excess of 62,000 people living in the Cariboo, two-thirds of them outside the incorporated areas. In a sense it's frontier country, where you still have this encroachment on the land. I occasionally see orders-in-council which remove land from a provincial forest. Eventually, of course, we'll no longer be able to allow that to happen.

One great concern we have in the Cariboo is particular pressure groups that insist that certain land be designated as wilderness area. Believe me, as one of the members for Cariboo, I wouldn't like to see our forest lands given up for single use, where the hug-a-tree crowd — to put it that way — would end up having tenure over a lot of our forest base. Indeed, the harvesting of our forest in some way enhances the wildlife and also gives access for all kinds of recreation. So I certainly commend you on the multi-use concept of your ministry, but I do share a very legitimate concern for preserving that productive forest land. Eventually we are going to have to draw that hard, fast line to prevent the encroachment.

That ends my remarks. I see we have about three more minutes, so I'll sit down.

HON. MR. PARKER: I am pleased to hear that the second member for Cariboo endorses the integrated resource management philosophy of this ministry, because it's one of the areas of the province that's probably the best example we have of ongoing, multiple use of the forest land base.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.