By JOHN WALTERS
. director of the University of B.C. research

forest at Maple Ridge.

FEW days before Christmas |
sent gifts to Premier’ Bill Ben-
nett and his ministers. The gifts were
lapel buttons. They say “FIR$T —
FORESSTRY — FIRST.” They are to
remind them that forestry is the most
important industry in British Columbia
(and Canada) and that it should receive a
proportional share of the provincial
budget.
| hope they liked the gifts. | hope they
wear them too. As they sit facing each
other at cabinet meetings they will
always be reminded that forestry /s first.

And forestry /s first.
In 1976, B.C. exported $3.1 billion of

‘forestry products; $0.8 billion in mining

products; $0.6 billion in coal, natural gas
and petroleum; $0.2 billion in fish; $0.05
billion in chemicals; $0.02 billion in
trucks; $0.01 billion in apples; $0.007
billion in alcoholic beverages; $0.6 billion
in all. other products.

The total: $5.387 billion. Out of which
forestry accounted for 58 per cent.

In 1976-77, agricultural exports
amounted to only $11 million, yet the
budget for agriculture was $3.2 million
larger than for forestry. British
Columbians import most of their food
and always will. That food is paid for by
the foreign currency we earn from ex-
ports of wood and fibre.

Actually, forestry is first only in the
benefits it brings B.C. It it nearly last in
the thoughts of our politicians.

In 1977, our forests produced $83
million in direct revenue and $4 billion in
export values. It supported 76,000 jobs
directly.

In return, we spent $19 million on
reforesting our cut-over lands. In the
same year we spent 100 times more on

health and social services than on re-

newing our most important resource. We
spend only twice as much on forestry as
we spend on archives and museums.

Forestry is in serious trouble across
Canada. Recently, the federal govern-
ment commissioned a study of forestry

in Canada. The conclusions reached in .

that report should shatter the apathy of

our pewerninonts. Unfortunately, they
won't.

The report tells us that in coastal B.C.
50 per cent of the timber reserves upon
which we are relying to fulfil logging

THE WESTERN CANADIAN LUMBER WORKER

quotas are now not profitable to log. In
the southern Interior 20 per cent is non-
profitable.

Nearly three-quarters of B.C.’s timber
reserves are in the central and northern
Interior but now we find 50 per cent of
the reserves in the central Interior and
80 per cent in the northern Interior are
not profitable.

The report by F. L. C. Reed and
Associates states: “‘It is quite likely that
some substantial reduction in allowable
cuts will be announced due to a combi-
nation of environmental pressures and a
more realistic view of logging costs.”
Seventy years of gross mismanagement
and neglect by provincial governments
has gutted large areas of B.C.’s forests
and now we find that economic inac-
cessibility has wiped out half our
reserves.

Yet B.C. has vast areas of rich forest
land which have not been planted to
grow the new forests we are already be-
ginning to need desperately.

The 1975 B.C. Forest Service annual
report shows that we had 4.8 million
acres of productive forest land, suppos-
edly managed by the government on
sustained yield, which needed planting.
Somehow this same statistic was re-

ported to the Royal Commission on For-—

estry as 1.8 million acres. But in the 1976
annual report it was even higher at 7.1
million acres. The simple fact is that B.C.
doesn’t even spend enough on its forests
to know how much land we need to
plant.

Compare B.C.’s performance in for-
estry with that of our competitors.

We spend 13 cents per acre on
reforestation while Weyerhaeuser in the
U.S. spends $14 per acre — 109 times as
much. B.C. with its 130 million acres of
forest planted 73 million seedlings in
1976; Weyerhaeuser with only six million
acres planted 185 million seedlings. Even
Brazil outstripped us during this period
by planting four million acres.

And what is the government doing
about all this mismanagement and ne-
glect? Well, it has just lopped $5 million
off the -B.C. Forest Service budget. Of
this amount, $1 million is lopped off the
already paltry reforestation fund.

In October, Forest Minister Tom
Waterland proclaimed a “New era in
Canadian forestry’’ to the Canadian
Institute of Forestry at.its annual meet-

ing in Vancouver. He told an enthusiastic
audience:

“From now on, lip service about |
sive forestry will be finished in —

ritish
Columbia and the practice of it wil be a

reality. The exploitative days of forestry ©
are over. Forestry is for real in this coun-
try, not just a side show, or we're in
trouble.”

Well, October must have been a side
show because by November we were in
trouble.

In October, the British Columbia
Forest Service had $20 million to spend
on reforestation.

By November it had one million less.

After 70 years of “lip service,” after 70
years of “exploitative” forestry, after 70
years .of royal commissions and investi-
gations, nothing has changed.

The plunder of B.C.’s forests continues
unabated. Our forests still are bled to pay
for the extravagances of political expedi-
ency. Today before tomorrow. Us before
our children. Votes before reforestation.

Renewing the forests we are logging
today is a long-term proposition requir-
ing a long-term commitment — a
commitment by the government to put

something back into the forests on
which B.C. depends.

Tom Waterland is the most importa
man in British Columbia. A

Why? i
That’s an easy question which any,

school child in B.C. should be i to

answer.
Many people in B.C. recognize “y m-

portance. The trouble is, none of these

people are in the cabinet.

Regrettably, the cabinet doesn’t un-~
derstand that forestry accounts for more
than half of the B.C. economy.

It doesn’t understand that B.C. ac-
counts for half of the Canadian forest
economy. a

It doesn’t understand that in Canada, .

forestry is 1-1/2 times as big as
agriculture, and half as big again as oil,
natural gas, and coal combined.

The cabinet doesn’t understand that.
forestry is 15 times as big as fisheries.
The cabinet doesn’t understand these
things and so it doesn’t understand the
harm it does by not considering forestry

first.
Forestry is first in importance and
should be first in provincial priorities. —
Sol hope the cabinet ministers got my
little buttons. | hope they got the
message too.

NDP NOFLEY CAUTIONS ALBERTA ON OIL COMPANIES

Alberta NDP leader Grant
Notley has cautioned the pro-
vincial government not to be
stampeded by speculators and
others anxious to make a “fast
buck’’ into concluding an
unfavourable agreement with
Imperial Oil over the Cold
Lake heavy oil sands project.
’ The NDP leader told an
Edmonton news conference
that Imperial Oil has laid an
“wnacceptable series of
susan! before the Alberta
government before the third
tar sands plant in the province

can be completed. These in-
clude a guaranteed 20 percent
return on investment after
taxes, and a guaranteed floor
price for its oil.

Notley said there is no doubt
that speculators have pur-
chased land, property and
equipment on the assumption
that the project will go ahead.

‘“‘We have no moral obliga-
tion to any of these people.
Those who consider specula-
tion to involve a cherished
freedom must also live with the

freedom to lose money on a bad
gamble,”’ he said.

‘“Tmperial Oil has been
waving dollar bills in front of
local residents, promising jobs
and implying brisk demand for
their property.”

The NDP leader said Im-
perial Oil needs Alberta far
more than Alberta needs the oil
giant. He said his research
staff have calculated Imperial
will require a price for its oil of
more than $30.00 per barrel to
accommodate its financial
demands when the plant is

scheduled to start production
in 1985.

A wellhead price in this
range is roughly three times
the current $10.75 per barrel.

Notley fears a repeat of the
Syncrude negotiations which
spread over the period of 1973-
1975.

“It is a matter.-of Goins
record, the Premier’s lawsuit
notwithstanding, that Alberta
backed off and caved in
several times in the negoti-
ations. They did so in part
because of the companies’

shrewd bargaining strategy
and in part because of pressure
from companies and indi-
viduals who stood to benefit

from it.”

Notley said there is no
overwhelming reason to coy
ahead _witarthe-project ar
time. ‘There are
construction projects on
horizon already. €

“If and wad the project
proceeds, it piv cn on its
merits, not with massive
subsidies and guarantees,”’ he
said.

{

A
Q

i a

——