[ Page 10785 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Financial Administration Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 60).

Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Introduction and first reading –– 10785

Tabling Documents –– 10785

Presenting Petitions –– 10785

Forest Amendment Act (No. 2), 1990 (Bill 48). Hon. Mr. Richmond

Introduction and first reading –– 10785

Oral Questions

Social Services accommodation for children in crisis. Mr. Clark –– 10786

Island Hall liquor licence. Mr. Sihota –– 10786

Arsenic and lead levels In Wells area residents. Mr. Zirnhelt –– 10787

Vancouver Charter amendments. Mr. Perry –– 10787

Nurses' strike. Mr. Rose –– 10787

No-smoking policy on B.C. ferries. Mr. Davidson –– 10788

Carmanah Pacific Park Act (Bill 28). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Richmond)

Mr. Harcourt –– 10788

Mr. Kempf –– 10791

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 10793

Forest Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 35). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Richmond)

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 10797

Mr. Miller –– 10797

Mr. G. Janssen –– 10798

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 10798

Mr. Cashore –– 10799

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 10799

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

On vote 30: minister's office –– 10800

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Mr. Miller

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Zirnhelt

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Today is a very special day in Victoria. It's the day that all of the constituency assistants of the Social Credit caucus from all over British Columbia are here to learn, to teach us, to share fellowship and to lead us. All of my colleagues are saying: "Say especially mine." They're all important — each and every one of them. I would like the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, I have several introductions today. I'd like the House to welcome visitors from New Orleans: Derrick Williams, who is attending Malaspina College in Nanaimo on a basketball scholarship, his mom Evelyn Falls and his sister Alzina Myles. Would the House please make them welcome.

Visiting from Terrace today is a good friend of mine, Mr. Mo Takhar, an alderman and a member of the Timber Export Advisory Committee. Would the House please make him welcome.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to quickly welcome Alderman Takhar to the legislative precincts today. It's a pleasure to see him here from Terrace. Would all members please join me in giving him a warm welcome.

MR. REID: After the dynamic speech I gave on Friday about the PNE, I was looking around the audience, and I thought all the Miss PNE contestants were here to offer congratulations. But as I look closer, I see someone I recognize. So I was mistaken, Mr. Speaker.

MR. PELTON: Hon. members, in the gallery today we have a very distinguished visitor from Victoria, Australia. Mr. John McGrath is a Member of Parliament in Australia, and I would ask the House to give him a very warm welcome.

Introduction of Bills

FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Hon. Mr. Couvelier presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Financial Administration Amendment Act, 1990.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, this bill amends the Financial Administration Act for two purposes: first, to facilitate more flexible and cost-effective financing when the government borrows money for the purpose of making loans to government bodies; and second, to clarify the types of financial agreements into which the government may enter. I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 60 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mrs. Johnston tabled the consolidated financial statements of the B.C. Railway for the year ended December 31, 1989.

Presenting Petitions

MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia in Legislature assembled, the petition of the undersigned 4,126 people of the new constituency of Delta North states that in view of the tremendous population growth within the North Delta–West Newton area and the resulting need for a local hospital facility, your petitioners respectfully request that the hon. House do review such need and determine the appropriateness of establishing a separate North Delta–West Newton hospital specifically for those residents.

Mr. Speaker, to simplify the recording process, I have attached only one letter to the said petition. However, there are some 4,126 letters included in this mailbag, which, for the sake of appropriateness within the House, I will have returned to my office rather than tabled in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair appreciates that action. The table is quite crowded as it is.

Introduction of Bills

FOREST AMENDMENT
ACT (No. 2), 1990

Hon. Mr. Richmond presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Forest Amendment Act (No. 2), 1990.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, this bill amends the Forest Act to enable better management of our forests, to promote fair treatment of subcontractors in the forest industry and to improve safety in the face of wildfires.

The bill clarifies that pulpwood agreements can be issued within tree-farm licence areas, enables the subdivision and consolidation of pulpwood agreements, enables secure funding arrangements to ensure reforestation of areas harvested under non-replaceable forest licences, and provides a consistent basis for calculating the bonus bid for purposes of establishing rates to be charged for the unauthorized cutting or damage of Crown timber. It requires timber-harvesting subcontracts to be in writing and to provide a means for resolving disputes — the same as for contracts. It provides powers of immediate evacuation in areas threatened by wildfire and au-

[ Page 10786 ]

thority to inspect logging slash on private land that may be a significant public hazard.

Bill 48 Introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

SOCIAL SERVICES ACCOMMODATION
FOR CHILDREN IN CRISIS

MR. CLARK: I have a question for the Minister of Social Services and Housing. At least 30 children in the last two months have been placed by your ministry into "sleazy, flea-bag hotels," to quote your own official. Now that the ministry has been caught, the minister says: "We won't do it again." I wonder where the minister's been the last couple of months. Can the minister inform the House how many children have been placed in motels or hotels since he became the minister?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I can't give a number of how many children have been placed in hotels or motels since I became a minister. There are a few.... There may be times in the future when it's necessary in an emergency situation — always in an unfortunate situation, I might add — to have children protected immediately. So they need to be placed in some accommodations to satisfy those needs they have at that moment.

I can tell the member, though, that I was very concerned about the article he refers to. I immediately asked the ministry to review the situation. We are going to do a detailed review and see exactly how that process is working. The children in question were immediately removed from those particular facilities. I can assure the people of British Columbia that no child in British Columbia will be placed in any kind of accommodation that is not safe and appropriate for a child to be in.

MR. CLARK: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure that's cold comfort for the 30 or 40 children who have had to live in flea-bag hotels. The minister says that only in emergency situations would they be placed in hotels. His own ministry social workers said that if these were private citizens they would be apprehended ... the treatment doled out by his ministry. The minister says now that no children will go without being properly cared for, but his own ministry manager in Vancouver states: "...won't rule out hotels being used this summer." What new measures has the minister taken since your official statement last week to guarantee that Vancouver children in crisis do not end up in hotels this summer or in the future?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Speaker, the member wishes to know what assurance I can give that children will not end up in hotels n the future and what I have done. Well, what I have done is notify the ministry of my concern. Every regional director in Social Services in the province of British Columbia is aware of those concerns. It is my intention to go and visit the particular establishments referred to in the article to see personally what type of accommodation those children were placed in.

Beyond that, we are doing the best we can. We have recently opened a five-bed facility in Vancouver. We are looking forward to opening another 12-bed facility in the very near future. It may be, though, that children under an emergency situation will have to be provided for in a hotel or a similar facility, but if that is the case, they will be in a hotel that is safe and appropriate and comfortable for children to be in.

[2:15]

ISLAND HALL LIQUOR LICENCE

MR. SIHOTA: I have a question to the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services. Circular 498 that governs beer and wine stores — a very lucrative industry — states: "A licensee retail store must be part of or located adjacent to the prime licensed establishment and have the appearance of being part and parcel of that establishment." Could the minister explain why, in the case of the Island Hall Beach Resort in Parksville, clearance was given to allow them to build a beer and wine store on the Island Highway that is not attached to the liquor establishment?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I understand that the particular licence the member speaks of happened some time ago. I want to tell him that it's a rather big job trying to keep up with all the new developments and legislation that we are bringing forward, and trying to keep things running well and improve wherever we can, as we have been doing. So if he has a question on something that has happened in the past and wants information on that, I'd be happy to take the question on notice and bring him back the information.

MR. SPEAKER: When a question is taken on notice, normally the member would just say "take the question as notice" and not give an answer, and then take it on notice.

MR. SIHOTA: A new question. The clearance with respect to Island Hall was provided at the very time when similar applications were being turned down. One of the shareholders, with respect to that facility at Island Hall, is legal counsel to the liquor branch. Was the branch made aware of this fact when the application was being reviewed?

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: It's a different question to the minister. Could the minister advise the House whether, in the case of the Island Hall application, the branch was made aware of the fact that one of the

[ Page 10787 ]

shareholders in that company was legal counsel to the liquor branch?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The question was taken on notice, and I thank the member for his additional information and concerns. If he has more, perhaps he should make me aware of them, and I'll bring forth the whole package. Please, if you have more, Mr. Member, let us hear it.

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Provincial Secretary. There is a process in place, either under the Financial Disclosure Act or, secondly, by way of notification to superiors, whereby employees of government advise their superiors of the fact that they have a beneficial interest with respect to a matter that they may be passing judgment on. Can the Provincial Secretary advise the House whether or not the individual involved in this case advised his superiors or indicated through the provisions of the Financial Disclosure Act of his interest in Island Hall?

MR. SPEAKER: A question such as this is reasonably technical and would probably be best on the order paper. It would be difficult for the Chair to believe that a member of the executive council would know all the details. But I'll ask the minister if he wishes to respond.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question on notice.

ARSENIC AND LEAD LEVELS
IN WELLS AREA RESIDENTS

MR. ZIRNHELT: I have a question for the Minister of Health. The people in the Wells area have been told that mine waste has contaminated the area with arsenic and up to nine times the acceptable level of lead. Can the minister tell the House when a clinic will go into the area to test the arsenic and lead levels in the residents of the area?

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'd be pleased to take that question on notice and get back with the schedule for the member as soon as possible.

VANCOUVER CHARTER AMENDMENTS

MR. PERRY: I have a question for the Premier. The government has twice derailed the city of Vancouver's attempt to control the cutting of heritage trees, and the people of Vancouver are increasingly frustrated by their inability to prevent the defoliation of their neighbourhoods. On June 12, when I asked the Premier a question, he responded that he was very concerned about the preservation of older trees. In view of events in the Private Bills Committee last week, has the Premier now decided to give all municipalities the right to control the destruction of heritage trees?

MR. SPEAKER: A matter that is before a committee, when the committee has not reported to the House, is not to be discussed here. But on the matter you brought up, I must caution the member about the fine line you're on.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that as well, and I'll certainly not offend the House by giving information that might be more appropriately discussed later. But I know the route the member takes by Helijet to his home, and he is probably thinking of phytophthora, which is affecting many of the cypress, particularly along Granville and Oak Streets, but generally throughout Vancouver.

NURSES' STRIKE

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health, and it concerns the failure of the government to resolve the strike by community and psychiatric nurses, which is now having a serious impact on health care. Psychiatric patients have been forced to remain on the street because admissions are cut back, and babies are not being immunized against disease. There are some other matters, such as diabetics and others who are affected here. The question is: is the government now prepared to heed the call of the mediator, Vince Ready, and return to the bargaining table this week?

HON. J. JANSEN: In fact, the government requested that the parties come back to the table to deal with some of these issues. We are very concerned as well with the patients and with the concerns that the nurses have. On Friday I met with both the nursing union and the board of directors of Riverview. We're very concerned with and very aware of the issues, and we are looking forward to the resumption of discussions later on this week.

MR. ROSE: I think the minister will know — certainly the public does — that we've seen a growing number of confrontations in the health field over the year: hospital waiting-lists, the nurses' strike, foot-dragging talks with doctors and the hijacking of air service ambulances.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: As a matter of fact, I was just about to get to my question,

We've had a lot of confrontation and conflict in the health field, and it's hurting our public health system. There is no question about that. I'd like to know whether the minister has decided to act now to resolve this latest dispute. Or is this going to be another blow against our public health system for British Columbians?

HON. J. JANSEN: The question is a bit inappropriate, given that the answer is obviously yes. We're very interested in resolving the concerns of many of the stakeholders in the health care system. And no,

[ Page 10788 ]

we're not interested in dealing with some of the things that you're talking about  — nor do we participate in them.

We on this side of the House, as government, are concerned about the health care system, are working together with every single group that gives care to our province — patients, doctors, and nurses — and are interested in resolving some of these difficulties.

NO-SMOKING POLICY ON B.C. FERRIES

MR. DAVIDSON: My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. I'll preface it by saying that I am not a smoker. However, recently the minister initiated a no-smoking policy on all the ferries, and as a result of some inquiries and requests that we've all had.... Now that the nice weather is here, it's okay, but we're going to be approaching inclement weather. Has the minister taken any decision on providing a small location for the smokers who travel the ferries regularly?

MR. SPEAKER: I'm not sure the question is in order.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The answer is no.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 28.

CARMANAH PACIFIC PARK ACT
(continued)

MR. HARCOURT: After surviving the Anahim Lake Stampede on the weekend, it is good to be back to deal with Bill 28, Carmanah Pacific Park Act. We have looked at this bill, and quite frankly, after reading through the bill and looking at the principle behind it — to establish the Carmanah Pacific Park by taking it out of tree-farm licence 44, and to establish a forest management area and an advisory committee — we see that the bill is fundamentally flawed, because it carries on the valley-by-valley watershed battles taking place in this province.

In essence, it is a shortsighted bill based on political expediency, not on a commitment to parks, not on a commitment to dealing with the underlying tensions that take place all over the province. It is not only short-sighted and politically expedient; it is also contemptuous of the people in the area, because it lacked any meaningful public participation. The Forests ministry officials state that a tremendous amount of work had to be done that hasn't been done at all. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, nobody is satisfied — except the 43 Socreds, or however many are in your caucus now; it keeps shrinking. Nobody else is satisfied with the principle behind this bill. People are getting weary of doing battle, and this bill is going to promote that. People in British Columbia are getting weary.

The Forests officials have commented on the political expediency behind this bill and the lack of meaningful public participation. If you read the Forests ministry's evaluation that was released at the time the decision was made, it reveals.... I'll read from the minister's own report.

Interjection.

MR. HARCOURT: If he doesn't know the names of his own officials, that very clearly shows the kind of thought that went into this bill, Mr. Speaker.

His own officials have said that the detailed ecological classification has not been done for the forests and the valley that is outside the proposed reserve; that the strategy for preventing wind throw damage in the lower mid-valley has not been shown to be effective; that hydrological work does not incorporate floodplain mapping or take proper account of erosion hazards; that data on wildlife habitat are 13 years old and have not been updated; that a comprehensive recreation plan has not yet been prepared for the area; and an accurate cost-benefit analysis is not currently possible due to the absence of data. The minister's own officials have made those remarks. It shows quite clearly that this government is clearly out of touch. It has not done the homework that's necessary, even to deal with this park. As I said, it continues the battles, valley by valley and watershed by watershed, in this province.

[2:30]

Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, the principles behind this bill are flawed. It is a flawed bill. It is a bill that is not going to receive the support of this side of the House. We are not going to support this bill. It is fundamentally flawed. It is not going to bring about the changes that are required in British Columbia. As I said at the start, nobody is satisfied. All you have to do is to listen to the people who are going to be affected, and this government didn't do that. They didn't listen to MacMillan Bloedel, who stated on April 10 in their press release dealing with this, and in subsequent comments: "This decision is based on politics, not on good forest management or sustainable development, and certainly not on economics. It escalates the uncertainty over fibre supply for the Alberni region and security for the people who depend on it." The company's land use manager, Stan Coleman, the fellow who has to live with these shortsighted, politically expedient decisions, has stated: "If these kinds of things continue — land use decisions from a political rather than a forestry perspective — I wonder what's going to happen to the rural communities on Vancouver Island." Well, they're going to lose more jobs, Mr. Speaker.

IWA, Local 1-85, has stated that if this type of knee-jerk reaction continues throughout Vancouver Island, B.C., a lot of people will be out of work. What they're calling for is what New Democrats are calling for: a proper process to be put in place for this province. They say that valley by valley decisions will destroy our forest-based economy, not to mention the livelihoods of many of our people. Again, the

[ Page 10789 ]

government talks about compensating the industry for lost revenue but makes no mention of compensation to workers, who always end up paying the price with lost jobs. Those are the workers, Mr. Speaker.

We have the Western Canada Wilderness Committee and the Sierra Club calling the bill and the decision a non-decision and saying it is unacceptable.

George Watts, chairman of the Nuu'chah'nulth Tribal Council, responded by saying that the first citizens in that area are so outraged that if the government proceeds, they will seek a court injunction to address this government's failure to address aboriginal rights. Chief George Watts has stated that "the government didn't even have the courtesy to talk to us about this, which is just another example of the government's insensitivity to the aboriginal interest."

So we have all the people in the Port Alberni area who are going to be affected by this not wanting the bill. They don't want the bill because they see that it is as fundamentally flawed as I see it to be.

The government has shown not only that it is run by short-term political expediency and that it has refused to involve the people who are going to be directly affected, but that it is seriously out of touch with the people of British Columbia — and not just the people in the Alberni valley and on the west coast who are going to be affected by this.

The reason why they don't have the work that I talked about earlier done is that staffing and funding cutbacks have taken place in the Forest Service because of the government's neglect. This has led to wasteful and environmentally damaging logging practices that have shown up not just in the Alberni Valley in British Columbia but internationally. We have articles from Outside magazine, the New Yorker — and soon National Geographic — that show the shameful practices that this government has allowed to take place in this province.

This bill is the consequence of 40 years of neglect, not just on Vancouver Island but throughout this province. Around where this park is being contemplated, this government has allowed Vancouver Island to be overcut by 40 percent a year for ten years — 25 million cubic metres instead of 15 million cubic metres. That's why Canadian Forest Products is laying off people in Gold River, that's why Fletcher Challenge laid off 470 workers at three different operations on southern Vancouver Island and that's why hundreds and hundreds of jobs in Port Alberni have been lost over the last little while.

That neglect is based on continuing what's so flawed in the principle of this bill — British Columbians doing battle with each other in every major watershed, whether it be the Stein, whether it be in the Cariboo or the Chilcotin, Clayoquot Sound or Sulphur Passage, Meares Island, the Khutzeymateen or the Slocan Valley. It's all over this province. And that's why this government is going to be history pretty soon.

MR. REID: Don't hold your breath.

MR. HARCOURT: I'm not, because you haven't got the guts to call an election. Go ahead and call it. You haven't got the guts because you're afraid of facing the people of this province. You're afraid because you know that the people of this province are aware of a better way. There is a better way, and it's the New Democrat way.

There is a better way. The people of this province are looking for the new leadership that New Democrats can offer. They're looking for a consensus that can be brought about among British Columbians instead of the bitter controversy and the battles that this bill is going to promote, not just here in the Carmanah but throughout this province.

The alternative to this bill is very clear. It is an environment and jobs accord that takes place throughout this province with three goals in mind. The first is to bring stability to forest workers and their communities so that the workers don't suffer as they have under Social Credit, who compensate the companies but not the workers. You have only to look at South Moresby to see that. With the bountiful forests that we have in British Columbia, we believe that there are many more stable jobs that could be created to create stable communities and stable families for our forest workers. That is the first goal.

The second goal is to increase the park and wilderness areas in this province from 6 to 12 percent. That is going to be essential, because you and I are aware that the population in this province is going to double from three million to six million people in the next little while and that one of the fastest-growing areas of tourism is wilderness tourism — people coming to the God-given areas of the globe where people had the vision to preserve unique ecological areas. We believe that this government will show their less than superficial support to the Brundtland report, which calls for this measure. I'm sure they'll back us when we bring forward a bill to do just that, rather than attack it.

The third goal of the environment and jobs accord, which we would put in place of this fundamentally flawed bill, is to sit down and negotiate and arrive at an honourable settlement with the aboriginal people — the Nuu'chah'nulth Tribal Council — as a start, instead of having a Premier who takes advantage of a photo opportunity three weeks before the last election and then straight-arms the aboriginal people from there on in on self-government and on negotiating a fair settlement. I advise the Premier to sit down and read the Sparrow decision, if he wants to understand — he said at the 1987 constitutional conference that he didn't understand — because it will show the direction he should be going instead of using this flawed bill.

Those are the three goals that New Democrats would offer in the environment and jobs accord as an alternative to this short-term, expedient bill.

The environment and jobs accord would be carried out by undertaking a number of initiatives, all of which can be done. The first initiative would be to do what this government should have done a long time ago: take an inventory of the province's forests. They

[ Page 10790 ]

have not done that. For a so-called business party — in which most of the members are not; they haven't shown that they understand free enterprise and good business practices.... I don't know what business wouldn't do an inventory of what's in its warehouse for 20 years or more. What an atrocious way to run the business of our forests. We are calling for an immediate, provincewide inventory of our province's resources.

Secondly, New Democrats would implement a reasonably based land use planning framework within which conflicts would be addressed throughout this province on a region-by-region basis. The conflicts would still be there, Mr. Minister, but they wouldn't be as damaging and bitter as the ones your government was promoting — a conscious policy to divide British Columbians for your own short-term political survival. British Columbians are ready for it, and I trust British Columbians, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. HARCOURT: They've trusted us through six by-elections, hon. members, I'll tell you. I don't hear you mentioning your successes in those by-elections when I talk to the sane principles that we would put in as an alternative to this flawed bill before us — Bill 28.

There would be time-related and limited negotiations, and if those negotiations....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think there are a couple of things we would like to.... I would ask the first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson) to return to his seat if he wishes to applaud. It's inappropriate to pound someone else's desk in applause.

Secondly, I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that we're on the principle of the bill. We've strayed somewhat. I realize that you have been prompted to stray, but in view of the fact that we're trying to proceed with this thing in an orderly fashion, I'd like you to return to the principle of the Carmanah Pacific Park Act.

[2:45]

MR. HARCOURT: As I have said from the beginning, the principle is flawed. I have pointed out — as British Columbians and even some members of the government have been asking — what the alternative would be. I think British Columbians want to see positive alternatives, and that's exactly what I am offering to this very flawed bill, Mr. Speaker. Part of the alternative would be time-related negotiations that would take place in each region. I'm sure that in most instances consensus could be reached, and if it couldn't at the end of that time, the provincial government would make a decision. We would also make sure, as part of that negotiating process, that areas would be sorted out into working forests and those to be put into conservation, park and wilderness areas.

Rather than this desperate bill and the principle behind it, we think far more could be done with the existing forests in terms of creating jobs. I've only to point out to the minister that Sweden, with two thirds of the forests of British Columbia — and their forests are above the 60th parallel — has 250,000 jobs in its forests. Here in British Columbia, with this marvelous God-given resource, we produce only 85,000 jobs. To say that there isn't more potential in our forests is just wrong, wrong, wrong. You have only to look across the border at similar forests. Washington State has twice as many jobs per cubic metre as we have here in British Columbia. So it's just not legitimate to say that we couldn't do far better with the forests than we're doing now.

Another initiative we would take is to make sure that workers are protected. Unlike under the Social Credit government, workers would not bear the full brunt of these kinds of decisions, which is what we have now: the Social Credit government is prepared to compensate the companies, but not the workers and their families. We're prepared to introduce a community stabilization fund that would take into account the sorts of decisions that have been made, such as the so-called Solomon-like decision of cutting the baby in half, which has happened here — the Socreds are the first ones I know of to actually go and do it, rather than just threaten to do it; and that's why this bill is being received with the huge raspberry that it deserves and the anger that most British Columbians feel.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: How much will you fund it?

MR. HARCOURT: Well, first of all, we wouldn't lose $150 million on the Expo lands, so we'd have some funds to be able to do that. We wouldn't lose $150 million in the middle of a real estate boom, as they have done. You want to know where there's some money? There is where there is some money. And this so-called business government wonders where the money would come from.

Interjections.

MR. HARCOURT: The Premier's wondering what the amount would be. Well, it would be more than his amount, which is zero. That's what the Social Credit has for workers.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I am saying that this bill is flawed in principle. I am going to vote against it. This side of the House is going to vote against it because we know that there is a better way. We know that the vast majority of British Columbians are looking forward, whenever this government has the courage to call an election, to making a choice; and the choice will be between a New Democrat environment-and-jobs accord and a Social Credit battle valley by valley that is destabilizing and embittering British Columbians. It will be the choice between New Democrat stability and Social Credit instability. It will be a choice between renewing the forests with

[ Page 10791 ]

New Democrats or mismanaging and diminishing the forests even more under Social Credit. It will be about bringing lasting economic benefits to the regions of this province, to the hinterland areas which need to have lasting economic benefits, rather than diminishing ones under Social Credit — and disruptions and court battles. Over $100 million is being spent in court battles throughout this province right now, and that is unacceptable. There's another source of funding for workers, for renewal of the forests, for settling with the aboriginal people and for putting aside the park and wilderness areas that are required.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, it is a choice between a New Democrat government that listens, that is open, that works with people, and a Social Credit Party that is imposing its own narrow decisions, its own narrowly based, politically expedient approach on the people of this province. We are prepared to vote very clearly against this bill, very clearly saying no to this bill and yes to British Columbia.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, it's with a heavy heart that I get up to debate this bill in this Legislature. I think I just heard — in listening to the words of the Leader of the Opposition — what has always happened in this Legislature, which has brought us to the position that we are in with our forest resource in British Columbia today.

I heard it once again used as a pawn, as a plum, as a plank in a platform for an election to come down the road. That, in this chamber, is what has brought us to the destruction of our forest resource in British Columbia, and that's what will continue until such time as all sides of this House begin to realize that we are here for the benefit of that resource and the people who depend on it, and not to kick it around as some political football.

It's with a heavy heart that I've watched for many years in this province....

MR. PERRY: If it's too heavy, you might sink through the floor.

MR. KEMPF: I would ask all members to listen. I think there's a message to be told here when debating Bill 28, because we as politicians do things simply in an attempt to garner votes. That doesn't always mean that we do what is best for that which we are passing legislation on.

I have worked for 20 years directly in the forest industry. For a number of decades I've watched the destruction of that industry in our province. Unless we as politicians begin to work together and to listen — not just pay lip-service to listening — to those people out there who really matter....

I hear a lot — and I wasn't here on Friday last, but I read every word in Hansard that was said since the introduction of second reading of this bill. I have yet to hear one word from either side of this House that tells the real story of what is being done in Carmanah. That's unfortunate, because if we all pulled in the same direction here and were serious about doing with that valley — and not just that valley.... I believe we're setting a precedent in Carmanah that is a very dangerous precedent indeed, because there aren't very many Carmanahs left.

Some would say that we should set aside more of our wilderness area for parks, and I disagree with that as well. I believe that with the finite resource that's left in British Columbia, we had better be looking at ways to have the best of both worlds. That can be done in Carmanah.

When for a short time I was the minister responsible for forests in this province, I tried desperately. I saw changes necessary then that are now being demanded by the public of British Columbia. That wasn't the case four or five years ago; it is now. I think we as politicians have to rise to that occasion. We as politicians have to take a long look at what we do with what is left of our forest industry.

We need a new blueprint for the harvesting or for leaving as parks of what is left of our forest resource in British Columbia. We have reached — and it has not been easy, and it won't be easy — a new age. We have — and I'm speaking of the public — grown up, if you like, with respect to our views of what has to be done with what remains of our forest resource. We can no longer get away with simply doing as we please with the resource that belongs to all British Columbians: those who enjoy wilderness, those who make their living cutting trees and those who would come to our province and spend their dollars to take pictures of that wilderness. We've got to take a look at all of that when making decisions.

I think we can have the best of all worlds in the Carmanah. I don't think we can have the best of those worlds by setting it all aside as a park. I don't think we can have the best of those worlds by clearcutting it all. I don't agree that we can have the best of those worlds by cutting half of it and leaving the other half. What I do believe is that we, as politicians from both sides of this floor, have got to enter that new age together with the citizens of this province. We have not only got to pay lip service about including....

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Does it really matter, Mr. Member? You can ask "How come you went back?" as many times as you like. Does it really matter where we sit in this House? Does that dictate how we should speak for the people we represent? I don't for one moment think so. I don't think any differently than when I moved from that seat to this. But I want to tell you....

MR. CASHORE: We'd rather have you over here than Thumper.

MR. KEMPF: Well, where you'd rather have me is immaterial, Mr. Member, because I'm here by the popular demand of my constituents. I would ask how many of you sitting on either side of this floor can go through the same exercise I did and still sit here.

As politicians we can no longer make decisions with respect to what's left of our forest industry

[ Page 10792 ]

without truly including those citizens out there in that decision-making process — not after the fact, but before the fact.

[3:00]

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.)

I heard it mentioned a few moments ago that the situation in the state of Washington is different. Yes, it's different. I have a report in my hand, many copies of which I've sent to supporters in this province. We don't have to reinvent the wheel. There are other jurisdictions as near as the state of Washington which have done it very successfully. We must also do it. We must also make decisions on valleys like the Carmanah on the basis of equal input from all of the public — true community participation. Then we wouldn't have to have an act before us about which people on either side of the floor can say, "Yes, it's wrong," and "Yes, we're going to vote against it," and not give a reason why.

I don't agree with Bill 28, but not for the reasons given by the opposition or the government. We could have had the best of both worlds in the Carmanah. We can have the best of both worlds in any watershed. I'd give South Moresby as an example. South Moresby was one of the biggest mistakes we have ever made in British Columbia.

We have set aside in a national park a resource that should be enjoyed and should be harvested. But because of what we've done with it, it will not be either. That mature timber, that bug-infested timber, will fall down and rot. Those 70 jobs that were provided by a harvest on South Moresby are gone forever. I think that it's very valid to talk about that when discussing the bill before us. We can make the same mistake.

The only way we can change that is for all of us in this chamber to cooperate, to get together, to put our good ideas together — and there are good ideas on both sides of this floor — for the betterment, for a change, of the people of British Columbia. We're on the threshold of a new era of community forestry. We must give our communities a say in what's going on in the resource around them before it's all gone. In many cases that's almost the situation now — and I single out Hazelton. It's almost too late. If we don't do it now, we're not going to get that opportunity. And we're not going to do it by setting aside the Carmanah as a park. We're not going to do it by clearcutting the Carmanah. Yes, there is a grove of spruce trees that should be maintained in the Carmanah, but who's to say that you should log only half of it? Who's to say that you shouldn't log two-thirds of it? Who's to say that you should leave only half of it? Who's to say that you should log all of it, or two-thirds of it, or leave all of it or two-thirds of it? I don't think we've put our heads together to really ascertain that.

The question is, Mr. Speaker, why can't we have the best of all worlds? Why can't we set it aside and log it both? Some might say it's an impossibility. I don't think so. Not if we start practising intelligent forestry in British Columbia.

I just want to read, and put in the record of this House, a bit of a story about a gentleman in Ladysmith who has, over the years, practised intelligent forestry on a 55.5 hectare tree-farm, a piece of land which, since 1936, he and his....

AN HON. MEMBER: A good New Democrat.

MR. KEMPF: I don't care whether he's a New Democrat, a Rhinoceros, a Social Crediter or even a Tory. That's what I'm trying to point out here today, Mr. Speaker. That's just what I'm saying. That's just the blinkered attitude of so many members of this House, regardless of which side they sit on.

Let me go on with the story, Mr. Speaker. Those 55.5 hectares of forested land have been logged, border-to-border, nine times since 1936. And there's more and better timber standing on that 55.5 hectares today than there was in 1936.

Now just for a moment let your mind wander to a situation where we had done that with all of British Columbia. How fortunate a people we would be today had we done that!

Why can't we do it with the Carmanah? Why can't we have true community input in the Carmanah? Why can't we designate the harvesting methods so that we can assure... ?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Ask the government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wrong government.

MR. KEMPF: No, not wrong government at all, Madam Member. I read all that was said on Friday, and I heard the Leader of the Opposition today. Did I hear that we can have the best of both worlds in the Carmanah? No, I didn't. "I'm going to vote against the bill. I'm not sure why, but I don't like it, " Now tell me, will one of you...? I'll sit down. You tell me how we can have the best of both worlds in the Carmanah.

All we've got to do is use our heads. You know, I heard in the prayer at 2 o'clock that we're here to tend with care our heritage. Well, we haven't done it in the forest industry for a hundred years in British Columbia. We won't do it with this bill, and we certainly won't do it with anything that I've heard emanating from the other side of the floor, Mr. Speaker. We don't have to reinvent the wheel. The timber-fish-wildlife agreement in the state of Washington shows us that. We in this chamber need only to have an open mind, to let loose a little in this province, and to let the public — and I say all of the public; bring them to the negotiating table as equals — have a bit of a say. Why should it be the politicians who always make those decisions, and on the basis of pure, raw politics? It's wrong. Our citizens have to have equal status. It's the only way it's going to work. If we don't give them that, and if we don't change our ways....

Interjection.

[ Page 10793 ]

MR. KEMPF: We talk about New Democrats — I wonder what Jack Munro is. I wonder where the hell he's been for the last five decades when all of the jobs in the forest industry in British Columbia have disappeared, 50 percent of them in the last decade alone. Isn't that a clear indication that we'd better get back to basics? That's what automation has done, and I haven't ever seen Jack Munro stand up and speak against automation in the forest industry. I wrote him a letter with respect to what was going on in South Moresby and said: "Where are you on behalf of your brothers and sisters, 70 of whom have jobs on the Queen Charlotte Islands?" I never even got a response. That's what politics does. It's no different with Jack Munro than in this chamber, and therein lies the problem.

Community forestry, true integrated resource management.... To set aside a whole valley as a park allowing the mature trees to fall and rot is not true management. To clear-cut a whole valley, letting fall everything in sight, is not true management. There has to be a happy medium.

There can be a happy medium, but not until we in this chamber, who are sent here to protect the resource which belongs to the people we represent, grow up and virtually put politics aside, and don't continually think of re-election the next time around and use everything in our path to ensure that that happens, regardless of what it does to the resource. Sure, as for our re-election it doesn't matter to us what's left of the forest industry 20 years hence. We don't have to worry about that, because even though I'll be here after the next election, I won't be here 20 years hence; I know that. So it doesn't really matter to us. But whichever side of this floor we sit on, we're here as the stewards of that resource.

[3:15]

To either set aside all of the Carmanah as a park or cut all of the Carmanah and make logs out of it is not the way to go. We can, through communication and cooperation, have the best of both worlds. I am saying that we have an opportunity here to make that start in British Columbia, to change some of those rules, to put some teeth back in the B.C. Forest Service and to allow those people in the field to do their job, not to direct them from this chamber on the basis of politics. We have that opportunity in the Carmanah. If we throw it away, we may be throwing it away forever.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Under standing orders, the minister closes debate.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I do wish to respond to some of the remarks made on Friday and again today regarding the Carmanah Pacific Park Act. I think that the Carmanah Pacific Park Act is a good bill, and if any member of this House reads it through from one end to the other, they will realize that it's a good bill.

No, contrary to what some of the people on the other side said, we didn't expect to please everyone with this bill. That was not the intent. We had many editorialists write that the Socreds expected to please everyone and they pleased no one. Not true. We didn't expect to please the fringe groups who don't want to ever cut anything more. We didn't expect to please those on the other side who want to clearcut everything.

We know that most British Columbians are pretty rational, reasonable human beings, and when they read the bill and see what we've done in the Carmanah, they will realize that we have made a balanced decision that's in the best interest of most British Columbians.

It does protect some 3,600 hectares of beautiful, old-growth Sitka spruce. I think we'll turn it into one of the finest provincial parks anywhere — the Carmanah Pacific Park. It will be a park that all British Columbians can be proud of. We sincerely hope that this very special stand of old-growth spruce survives for many generations of British Columbians to see.

Yes, I've been to the Carmanah. Fortunately I was able to go there by helicopter, as many others have, but most people will never go there in a helicopter. They will drive to the Carmanah Pacific Park on a logging road that was put there to open up the resources of this province for the people of the province. It's a park that should be protected.

The second part of the bill allows the harvesting of timber in the upper half of the Carmanah. After careful studies and careful community input, we have — if people will read the bill, and I guess we can get into this in committee — structured a committee of vested interests in the Carmanah to oversee the harvesting of timber in the upper Carmanah to see that it's done properly and that it doesn't adversely affect the beautiful stands of spruce in the lower valley on the alluvial floodplain.

We've heard the typical arguments put forward by the opposition — especially the Leader of the Opposition. They love to talk about the valley-by-valley conflict. Yes, there is valley-by-valley — or if you like, watershed-by-watershed — conflict. I don't foresee that we will get rid of that conflict, no matter what kind of a plan or, as the former speaker said, blueprint that you put in place. If you put in place a blueprint that tries to deal with all the watersheds in the province, you will not do justice to any of them, because every valley is totally different from the next one.

The Carmanah Valley is quite different from the Stein, which is quite different from the Tsitika, which is different from the Khutzeymateen, the Walbran and so on. Some of them have mineral values; some do not. Some have historical and archaeological values; some do not. Each valley, although they are all beautiful in their own way, has its own set of values.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

So to say, as the Leader of the Opposition said, that if we had a blueprint in place for dealing with these valleys we would end conflict.... We would not end the conflict. What we would have is a new base from whence to start the arguments. That's

[ Page 10794 ]

exactly what we would have. That's not what we want, but that's what we would have.

When I said to him: "Oh, you would end the conflict." He quickly backtracked and said: "No, the conflicts would still be there, but they would be different." The only thing different is that they would be starting from a different base. They would be starting from whatever base you set aside. It would then become the baseline where the preservationists would start from or from where those who would like to clearcut everything would start from.

The Leader of the Opposition read some quotations from the Forests ministry staff, but I submit to you that he read them totally out of context. He was reading comments they made about the land which would not be in the Carmanah Pacific Park, not that which would be in the Carmanah Pacific Park. I think he owes the staff of the ministry an apology for that. He took their words totally out of context.

He quoted MacMillan Bloedel on the Carmanah when it suited him, but he didn't say he agreed with them. He just quoted them. Who does he agree with? He says he agreed with Catherine Caufield and the article she wrote in the New Yorker, which was reprinted in the Vancouver Sun. Yes, it is a marvelous article, but it's full of untruths and half-truths; yet he stands in this House and says that he agrees.

I wonder if he would send to Mr. Munro a copy of that speech in which he agrees with Catherine Caufteld. If he doesn't, I will. Jack Munro and the members of the IWA should hear what the Leader of the Opposition says in here. He should hear what many members of the opposition say in here. He will stand in here and condemn us for the decision made in the Carmanah. Then he stands at his own convention and says: "Watch my lips. There will be no logging in the Carmanah." Yet the member for Alberni will stand in here and condemn us for the job loss because of removing some of the working forest in the Carmanah. He'll say it's going to cost jobs in Port Alberni. Of course it is. Any time you remove some land from the working forest, it's going to cost some jobs, and the people should know that. Every time you set aside some land and remove it from the working forest, there's a price tag. That's not always wrong. Some land should be set aside and taken out of the working forest, but the people should know there's a price to pay, not only in dollars and cents but in jobs.

The member for Port Alberni says it's going to cost some jobs in his riding. Of course it is. How many would it have cost, though, if they had made the decision? It would have cost a lot more jobs, because the Leader of the Opposition said: "Watch my lips. No logging in the Carmanah." So who's going to cost them more jobs?

You're on the horns of a dilemma over there, Mr. Member from Victoria and Mr. Second Member from the Cariboo and Mr. Member from Prince Rupert. You're trying to please two masters. You're trying to keep those happy who berate this government for doing any logging in any watershed, yet you're trying to keep your labour constituency happy. You cannot serve two masters — and they should both know that.

I want to talk just for minute in the context of the Carmanah bill and jobs and the IWA, and all the ancillary jobs that go with forestry. I hope that members of the IWA will listen and read the Carmanah Pacific Park Act, and realize that the correct decision was made. But I hope they will read the comments from the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Prince Rupert, the member for Alberni and the others who spoke on it, and I hope they will examine what's being said there, vis-à-vis their livelihood. When they stand up and just say, holus-bolus, "We will double the size of parks in British Columbia, "there will be an incredible cost to pay. If you're going to do that, it must be done very carefully and in the knowledge that there's going to be a tremendous price to pay. But they never talk about how many jobs it will cost; or they talk about it very fleetingly, very quickly, as they did at Simon Fraser University and in the Valhalla recommendation, which said to double the size of parks in the province. They said it will only cost 2,400 or so direct jobs. COFI said it would cost more, and the spinoff jobs are at least three to one.

I want to reiterate for members of the IWA and others who rely on forestry for their living. It's easy to sit in a comfortable home in Oak Bay, Point Grey, Ottawa, New York or Toronto, and these are just numbers on a piece of paper. But when you get into Port Alberni, as I did, or Cowichan, Port McNeill, Prince George, Terrace and other places, these are real people. These are people with dreams and mortgages and children to educate, and they have real hopes for the future.

MR. MILLER: They're losing their jobs.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The member for Prince Rupert says they're losing their jobs. Yes, they are. But not at as fast a rate as if you had been making the decisions on the Carmanah Pacific Park.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, they are. We'll get into that in my estimates, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about jobs lost and jobs created in the forest industry over the last couple of years. I have some interesting statistics, if the member would care to see them — and he will. There have been jobs lost in one sector of the forest industry and jobs created in others. We all know the reasons; you know them as well as I do. The previous speaker touched on them. Automation is one of the reasons; mechanization is one. A lot of those are being replaced, but the jobs that are lost because of taking land out of the working forest can never be replaced. Yet here's a party that would double the size of parks tomorrow. They said that should they ever become government, they would double the size of parks. That's exactly what they would do, should they ever become government, which I doubt.

[ Page 10795 ]

They talk about compensating the workers, but they don't say how much or for how long. Yes, I too would like to compensate every forest worker who loses his or her job, but how do you do that if you're getting rid of jobs and taking land out of the working forests, as they would do, and reducing your income to government, and yet you're still going to spend more money compensating workers?

The Premier asked the Leader of the Opposition how much he would put into a fund to compensate workers. He doesn't have an answer for that. They don't have an answer when it comes down to putting their money where their mouth is. They make these big promises: we will do this; we will do that. But how much? And who's going to pay? How much, Mr. Leader of the Opposition?

When you talk about settling aboriginal claims, how much? I think you owe it to the people to say what your starting position is. If you're going to negotiate aboriginal claims, then tell the people of British Columbia where your starting position is.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson) says: "Justice and fairness." Well, how much is justice and fairness? Is it 100 percent of the land base, or 110 percent, as they're asking? Is it 20 percent, 30 percent, 50 percent? Give us an answer, Mr. Leader of the Opposition. Level with the people of British Columbia and tell them what you propose. Level with them. I think you owe them that.

He says that if we have a comprehensive land use plan, there will be no more conflicts. There will be a panacea in the province if we just have a plan — a marvellous plan. Well, let me tell you, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, there is more planning going into the forest industry in this province at the moment than there ever has been in history. And there's more public involvement in the forest industry than there ever has been in history. I sometimes wonder if the Leader of the Opposition and some of his members realize just how important the forest industry is to British Columbia. Do they really realize how much of our economy is generated in the forest industry? I doubt that very much.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, the member for Prince Rupert left because he doesn't want to hear this. He doesn't want to hear what's really happening in the forests. We'll get to that in my estimates when we talk about jobs.

But the Leader of the Opposition, when he's debating the Carmanah Pacific Park Act, points to Sweden and what they do in forestry. Yes, in Sweden they do some marvellous things in forestry. There are some things we're learning from them, and there are some things that they're learning from us. I had dinner with a group of Swedish businessmen last night in Prince George. They've come over here to learn some of the things that we're doing, because we do some things very well in the forest industry.

But he also fails to mention that Sweden has a socialist government — social democrats, they profess to be — and has a GST of 23 percent. So if they're such marvellous managers of their forest industry, what are they doing with the money that they need a GST of 23 percent to make things run, and income tax rates as high as 65 percent for the average worker? I just verified those figures last night, because I talked with some people from Sweden. So that's what a social democratic government, as they profess to be, would do for you — a GST of 23 percent and income tax rates that you can't afford.

MR. ZIRNHELT: But more jobs.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Oh, yes, more jobs. I've got a life-size picture of more jobs, as you keep taking land out of the working forest and taxing people so that they can't afford to live. I've got a real life-size picture of more jobs, Mr. Speaker. That's why the Carmanah Pacific Park Act is such a good act, because it does provide the people with a magnificent park and preserves jobs in the working forest.

[3:30]

The member for Cowichan–Malahat (Mr. Bruce) made an impassioned speech on Friday, and I wonder if some of the members over there were listening, because not only did he come out and defend the Carmanah Pacific Park Act, but when the debate over the Carmanah was going on, he got involved in his community. The member for Alberni (Mr. G. Janssen) didn't, and the first member (Mr. Lovick) and the second member for Nanaimo (Ms. Pullinger) didn't.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or Victoria.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Or Victoria. But the member for Cowichan–Malahat got involved, and he got his community involved. They came to me with a plan that they would like to see implemented, and there were some good things in that plan.

MR. BLENCOE: Before he left or after they came back to you?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Listen. The member that came back recently just spoke and said there should be public involvement. The member for Cowichan–Malahat didn't just pay lip service to it. He went out and got his community involved, and they came up with a very sound plan. Many of the recommendations he came up with for the Carmanah have been incorporated into the act — not everything, but many of the things he recommended.

They talk about a knee-jerk reaction, Mr. Speaker — or political expediency, as the Leader of the Opposition said over and over. Nothing could be further from the truth. There was nothing knee-jerk about the Carmanah. It was debated and studied for months before any decision was made.

[ Page 10796 ]

As I was sitting there listening, I thought that the NDP are always great. They want more studies, and they said that we should have studied this and studied that — studies and studies and studies. After they had studied it, I'm sure they probably would have come to the same conclusion that we did: where we drew the line and said, "Save this and harvest that," they would have agreed that it would have been right on. But they would have done it in the year 2011. That's when they would have come back with their conclusion.

MR. BLENCOE: High ground stuff.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I think it's high ground to Port Alberni. By the time you people had gotten around to making a decision, you wouldn't have had to worry about Port Alberni anymore, because there wouldn't have been any jobs there.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Not the way you're going.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I wonder if the member has ever asked his leader about "Watch my lips. No logging in the Carmanah" and the figures you did for us on the cost of the jobs. Have you done the same projection for your leader's stand that says: "No logging in the Carmanah"? Have you done a projection on that, Mr. Member from Port Alberni?

Once again, Mr. Speaker, we see that it's very easy to be a critic, such as we see over there, when you don't have to make a decision. You're not accountable. We can do this; we can do anything. They run around the convention floor saying: "Don't say this. It might hurt our re-election chances."

Their philosophy, Mr. Speaker, on the Carmanah was — and one of their members said it the other day, the member for Maillardville–Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore), if I'm not mistaken — that there should be a moratorium until all of this is decided. Not just a moratorium on the Carmanah, but a moratorium on the industry. That's his solution. Put a moratorium on the whole industry until we make these decisions. Then how many jobs are we creating, Mr. Member from Port Alberni?

I want to correct one thing the member for Alberni said in this debate. It's important, and I'm glad to see Les Leyne, the only journalist in the place up there working. Pay attention, Les, this is important. When the member for Alberni.... Les has disappeared now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It's inappropriate during second reading or at any other time to refer to the second estate. Would the minister please...?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: It is not the fourth estate. There are only two estates in this province — if you know what the other four are, which members may be tested on someday — and I would ask the minister not to refer to members of the second one. Please continue.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I do want to set the record straight, Mr. Speaker, because the member for Prince Rupert, when speaking on this bill, said that the Minister of Forests would rather fight it out valley by valley. That is not true. Those words were uttered by Mr. Paul George of the Western Canada Wilderness Committee, and they are not true. I've never said that. What I said was that we will end up doing battle, if you like, valley by valley, because that's the way it's going to go. It isn't the way I would like it; it isn't the way any of us would like it. But I can tell you that there is no other way. If you try to bring in a plan to deal with every valley, such as the Carmanah, it is not going to work. You will just end up with a new baseline. Every watershed is different, so we're going to end up making a decision on every watershed on its own merits. But they will be intelligent, well-thought-out decisions backed up by technical data, as was the Carmanah decision.

The member for Prince Rupert says we can increase the annual allowable cut through intensive silviculture. We know that, Mr. Speaker, and that is exactly what we're working towards in this ministry and this industry. In the next few years we will be increasing the annual allowable cut, and we will not be increasing the percentage of land in the province that is working forest. We'll be able to save large tracts of land which should be saved, like the Carmanah, but we'll still be able to increase the annual allowable cut through incremental silviculture.

He says we have not considered the full range of options. That is not true. I don't think there was an option that wasn't considered and put on the table for discussion during the Carmanah debate in the ministry or the caucus.

In conclusion, I just want to mention a couple more things. For those in this House who will stand up and say that we do not consider all the values in the forest — and they've said that about Carmanah — it is just not true. I would refer them to a recent publication in my ministry called "All Things Considered." It has been out only about three weeks or a month. It will clearly show that we do take our responsibilities as stewards of the land base very seriously. We do consider all the values in the forest. The industry doesn't even feel comfortable sometimes, when I say in speeches to people in the industry that there are many values in the forest other than timber; but there are.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It's not just lip-service. Read the book, Mr. Member for Victoria. I know you don't have any forests in your constituency, but get a copy of our publication, "All Things Considered."

We take the Brundtland commission report very seriously, where Ms. Brundtland says very clearly that you cannot have a healthy economy without a healthy environment; and vice versa: you cannot have a healthy environment without a healthy economy.

It's very easy to stand over there, as the Leader of the Opposition did, and say that the answer to

[ Page 10797 ]

everything is to write a cheque. "If jobs are displaced in the forest industry, we'll compensate them; we'll just write a cheque." With what? As you keep removing land from the working forest, it will become more and more difficult to write that cheque. He won't say how much the cheque is for. It's a blank cheque, I suppose. It's typical NDP philosophy: a blank cheque. "Whatever the problem is, we'll just write a cheque for it. We'll solve the problems of anyone losing their job in the forest industry or any other industry."

The young people in this province have a tremendous stake in the forests, and we intend, through bills like this and others, to make sure that they have a future and someplace to work when they are ready to enter the workforce.

In conclusion, talking about public input into this bill, I wish some of the members of this House could have been with me one day in Port McNeill when we had a public hearing. The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) was there; he was the only one. He was very impressed. He sat there all day and listened as one young person after another got up and said how they value the forest and all the values in it, and how they wanted us to get on with making decisions like the Carmanah and like the Tsitika Valley. These are real people in Port McNeill whose livelihood depends on the forests, and they are very concerned about it, as we are.

Mr. Speaker, I commend Bill 28, the Carmanah Pacific Park Act, to this House and to the people of British Columbia. I now move second reading.

[3:45]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 32

NAYS — 17

Bill 28, Carmanah Pacific Park Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call second reading of Bill 35, Mr. Speaker.

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Bill 35 amends the Forest Act to make spiking of timber an offence. It addresses the concerns of many workers in our forest industry that their health and even their lives are endangered by the actions of a few irresponsible individuals who hope to save a few trees with such actions.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The bill makes it an offence to spike timber, including all trees, whether living or dead, standing or fallen. This is because this action creates dangerous situations for loggers whose chainsaws may break and for sawyers working in the mills. In either case, serious personal injury can result.

It also makes it an offence to aid, abet or counsel another person to spike timber, to carry spikes or other potentially hazardous objects with the intention of spiking timber, and to solicit funds for the intention of spiking timber.

For these offences there are fines up to $2,000 and imprisonment for six months, and where an offence results in physical injury or property damage such as a broken saw, there are fines up to $10,000 and three years in prison.

I move the bill be read for the second time.

MR. MILLER: We are rising on this side, of course, to support the bill. We find tree-spiking to be one of the most abhorrent acts that could possibly be undertaken in British Columbia.

I want to read a paragraph from a letter I wrote last September to a woman in Port McNeill, who had written to me regarding the matter. In response, I wrote to her: "There can be no question that tree spiking is a violent act, threatening the well-being of forest workers and mill workers. Therefore I agree it should be regarded as a criminal offence, whether under a specific amendment to or under current, more general provisions of the Criminal Code." That is just to illustrate that I as the Forests critic, and the individual members of this caucus, have long been on record as opposing the use of tree-spiking.

Just briefly, I will relate — I suppose in a personal vein — that I used to work in a woodroom. At that particular time we had something you probably don't see much — the old bandsaw and a no-man carriage. But it was and still is quite common for metal to be embedded in logs. Anybody who has worked in the forest industry knows that pieces of boomchain are left in swifter logs and boom logs; that dogs — which are metal devices used by people on booms to secure individual logs — are sometimes left in logs. It's not uncommon for rocks to be embedded in logs with soft centres. I've seen the results when a log goes through a bandsaw, and it happens to hit a piece of metal. I've seen co-workers injured, and in some cases quite severely cut up, when a bandsaw gets

[ Page 10798 ]

derailed off the carriage or shatters. It's not pretty. I've also worked in areas where we had cutoff saws, and similarly have seen the results of high-speed equipment coming in contact with metal objects. The same holds true as well, and continues to this day, in chippers.

There have been lots of safety devices installed in woodrooms, in sawmills, to collect metal and to try to alert workers to the fact that metal is embedded in logs. You can't always get it. There's no question that anyone who knowingly spikes trees, for whatever reason — there is no reason, in my view, that would justify the spiking of trees — should be subject to the full penalty of the law laid out in this bill.

I don't know whether the minister, in wrapping up, would care to comment on the difficulty of trying to prove charges under this kind of legislation. Certainly that may be a problem. But there's no question that people who have this intent should be deterred by the full letter of the law, so we'll be supporting the bill.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I would also like to welcome this bill. It is 11 months since I first notified the Attorney-General ministry that tree-spiking was taking place in the riding of Alberni. I brought forth information — addresses and names — and I hoped that charges would be laid. No action was taken. It wasn't until two trees showed up in the Somas sawmill and had the potential of injuring workers.... Fortunately that didn't happen, although we know, as the member for Prince Rupert has pointed out, the devastation that can result when it happens. The teeth from the saw, pieces from the bandsaw itself or the spikes in the trees can travel at the velocity of bullets and injure either the sawyer or the tail-sawyer.

I believe that charges could have been laid under the public mischief section of the Criminal Code. The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) indicated to the House that the federal government was unwilling to put tree-spiking in the Criminal Code. I hope that this government continues to pursue bringing this tree-spiking law — which I'm sure will pass in the House — into the Criminal Code, because with the wanton spiking of trees, there is surely a planned intent to injure workers. However strongly you feel about an issue, to use a malicious act such as tree-spiking to bring about injury to those who are doing their job.... I think it should be included in the Criminal Code.

Again, we support this act. It has been a long time coming. Hopefully it will have some effect and stop the spiking of trees. Perhaps it is appropriate that this bill comes right after the Carmanah bill. I'm sure that there's a relationship between tree-spiking and land use conflicts in this province. Perhaps the ultimate answer would be to resolve those land use conflicts, and people wouldn't be driven to the extremes they find themselves driven to.

We welcome the bill, and we encourage the government to continue to push to bring it under the Criminal Code.

HON. MR. SMITH: I want to speak on this issue ever so briefly. The member for Alberni sounded suspiciously like someone who was, by way of even the slightest bit of sympathy, condoning the actions of people who do this. It is not a question of land use issues in which they may or may not decide to take the issue one step further and become, after all, eco-terrorists, purely and simply. These people are reprehensible individuals, however you characterize them. The fact that they may have a dispute on a land use issue is irrelevant, Mr. Member for Alberni; that they may have a dispute on a land use issue is not the point. They are putting people's lives at risk — period. Accordingly, they should be brought to justice.

On a couple of occasions the member has intimated that it is known who these people are and that charges should flow; and I agree charges should flow. But in our system, criminal charges require the names of the people to charge as well as the evidence to prove the charge. I would invite anyone in this House, including the member who intimates that those people are known: if he has information about them or the incidents, then for goodness' sake put it before the police so they can deal with it appropriately — and I can assure you they will.

The member has also intimated on more than one occasion that there is reluctance on the part of the Crown or the police to pursue these people and charge them. That is a false assumption and position to take. There is no reluctance whatsoever either by the police or by the Crown with respect to this matter. I've said it before in this House, and I want to say it again for the record, because I don't want it to be left on the record that the police or anyone else in the justice system condone, in any way, the work of these terrorists; and that is what they are, purely and simply. The wanton disregard for life that they show by simply driving these missiles into any tree which will show up in any mill, goodness knows where, is completely despicable. It should not be couched or reduced or somehow condoned even in attitude by suggesting that it has anything to do with land use conflicts; it does not. It has only to do with the mentality of a human being who would drive a missile into a log knowing it is going to go through a bandsaw, and reckless of the fact that the nail may come out of the bandsaw into the body of the worker — period. That's all that it's about. It has nothing to do with land use, Mr. Member, and don't give them that cop-out, because that's all it is.

[4:00]

In the past the member has invited the province to amend the Criminal Code. I want to again put on the record that the province cannot amend the Criminal Code, because the Criminal Code is federal legislation. We have requested and we will continue to pursue the notion that into the Criminal Code should go the specific charge of tree-spiking. We think it should happen simply because it is a matter of such concern and prominence that a particular offence dealing with it should be in the Criminal Code.

[ Page 10799 ]

That does not preclude the use of the Criminal Code, and — I want to say for the record again — it won't. Where names are provided and evidence is sufficient for the Crown to move on the substantial likelihood of conviction, there will be absolutely no hesitancy to so move. That can be done under the public mischief sections of the Criminal Code, among others.

This legislation buttresses the Criminal Code provisions, and it makes certain that there are specific charges dealing with this horrible, despicable, reckless and wanton act on the part of people who should not be given, at any time, the slightest benefit that their actions in some way can be justified by their beliefs about land use in the province of British Columbia. They don't deserve that credit, because this act deserves no credit from anyone, anytime, anywhere, least of all by the member for Alberni in the Legislature of British Columbia.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General's propensity to create an adversary in this House where one doesn't exist, by his attack on the member for Alberni, accomplishes nothing in promoting the intent of this bill.

I rise to speak in favour of the bill. I want to say a bit from the perspective of environmentalism. I think all of us share a desire to see the day when we don't see a line of difference in our definition of an environmentalist, a working person, a homemaker or a business person. All of us in this province have a responsibility to uphold the highest environmental practices. Therefore anything that we can do that recognizes that working people, who are people we're concerned about in this particular circumstance.... It's very important to see that they are themselves people who have a very strong tradition and a strong value with regard to the environment.

Mr. Speaker, anyone who would call himself or herself an environmentalist and would indulge in tree-spiking is, by that very fact, a contradiction in terms. Anyone who would claim to uphold the concept of a holistic approach to the environment while doing that which could result in personal harm to any living human being.... That would belie any worthwhile goal that they might have in mind. Clearly, when one takes the risk with another person's life, this is a case of the end being used to justify the means, and it simply does not work.

There is just one point I'd like to make, based on a visit that I had into the Cowichan Valley with some members of the IWA. At that time they were showing me some evidence of forest practices that they found to be inappropriate. In one of those situations, the company was causing the roadbed to be blasted prior to the trees being cut down. On that occasion, I observed many Douglas fir, hemlock and cedar trees that had large boulders and some smaller rocks embedded within the bark of those trees as a result of the blasting that took place during that road building. I think it's fundamentally inappropriate to build a roadbed over the trunk of a fir tree four feet in diameter. That tree, if it's going to be harvested, should be harvested for all the wood-fibre that can be gleaned from the tree. But when that process is used and the roadbed is actually built around the tree, and where the blasting that takes place results in rocks being embedded in the tree, the danger to the worker could be almost tantamount to the danger of a spike being placed in a tree.

I just put that on the record in the hope that the minister will consider that there is potential danger to a person working in the forest or working in a mill that could result from inappropriate forest practices — and not necessarily tree-spiking.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members are advised that pursuant to standing order 42, the minister closes debate.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I just have a couple of comments before we call for the vote. To answer the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller), I think that the fines and sentences that we are imposing in this bill are the maximum allowed under provincial law. When it results in physical injury, the $10,000 and three years in prison is the maximum that we can allow.

Once again, just to address two members. To the member for Port Alberni (Mr. G. Janssen), who talked about civil disobedience and conflicts, I think, with the greatest of respect, that you are naive in the extreme if you think that you or anyone else is going to bring in a policy that is going to end land use conflict once and for all. To hide behind that as an excuse for driving a spike in a tree I find just totally unacceptable.

There are many times when many of us don't agree with government actions at the federal, municipal, regional or provincial levels, and that's understood. It doesn't matter who's in power, there are going to be disagreements with governments. But I don't think anyone in this House could or should condone civil disobedience and acts of eco-terrorism — as they're called — such as driving spikes into a tree, and should not even allude to the fact that it might be justified from time to time, because it is not.

It's quite different from the situation the member for Maillardville–Coquitlam mentioned when he says that he sincerely hopes there's a day when everyone working in the bush is an environmentalist. I think they are, Mr. Member. I've been out there talking with them in the Cariboo, in Port Alberni, in Port McNeill, in Kamloops and everywhere else, and I think every one of them is an environmentalist.

MR. CASHORE: He's twisting what I said.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: You had your turn to speak, Mr. Member. If we want to talk about twisting the meaning of other members' words, you people are experts at it; you do it time after time in this House. You said, as nearly as I can remember, that it will be nice to see the day when everyone is in the same lineup, when everyone is an environmentalist and we do not have these conflicts over the environ-

[ Page 10800 ]

ment. I think we are all environmentalists. I know I am. I think most of the people I know in this place are environmentalists, and most of the people I talk to in the sawmills and in the bush are environmentalists. But they don't condone acts of civil disobedience to make their point, and they're not extremists. I think we must categorize people where they belong.

I don't think you can talk about bad forestry practices in the same breath as eco-terrorism. I don't think the two are related at all. I'm the first one to agree that there shouldn't be bad forestry practices, and I've talked to several IWA members, who are the first to report bad forestry practices by their company or any other company. There have been numerous instances where they've reported bad forestry practices to me, and I commend them for it. They don't want to see things like you're talking about, where rocks are being driven into a log or where logs are being dragged through a creek where they shouldn't be dragged through a creek. I've had that and other bad forestry practices reported to me, and I commend IWA members and everyone else for reporting that. But that really has nothing to do with the content of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I'm certain there won't be a member in this House who would vote against this bill. It is possibly overdue, as the member for Alberni has said. But I brought it in as quickly as possible since assuming this portfolio, and I think that every working man and woman in the forest industry will stand up and applaud the day that it's passed in this House. I now move second reading.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Bill 35, Forest Amendment Act, 1990, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply.

[4:15]

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

On vote 30: minister's office, $336,735.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of committee members, I just want to make a few introductory remarks to summarize the 1990-91 estimates of the Ministry of Forests.

The estimates of the ministry comprise four votes: vote 30, for the operation of my office; vote 31, for the administration and delivery of ministry programs; vote 32, for fire suppression in our forests; and vote 33, which funds our forest renewal activities. The total expenditure request for the ministry in votes 30 through 33 is $512.8 million.

As we enter the nineties it is increasingly clear that the days of seemingly unlimited resources are over. This is perhaps particularly true in relation to our forests. Population growth, new demands and expectations for all products of the forest are requiring us to harmonize those demands. Consider, Mr. Chairman, that our forests not only produce timber but are our watersheds and the habitats for fish and wildlife. They sustain recreation and tourism industries in providing a scenic backdrop for residents and tourists alike, and they provide forage for our ranching industry and for wildlife. We need to balance these various uses of our substantial but nonetheless limited forests, and we must also balance today's needs with consideration of the needs of future generations.

We are not alone in that challenge. The Brundtland commission told the world that economic development and environmental management are linked. Both are essential. Economic development requires an environment that can sustain it. Environmental management requires wealth with which to manage. Decisions on the use of our forests must be balanced. These decisions mean considering the economic benefits and the environmental requirements together. Balanced decisions demand judgment. Finding the right balance means protecting the environment and providing for development. Clearly my ministry is dedicated to finding the optimum balance implicit in the concept of sustainable development.

We agree with the conclusion of the Brundtland commission that environmental responsibility is best placed on agencies like our Ministry of Forests in making resource allocation and management decisions. We accept that approach. For example, obligations and accountability for forest renewal are now placed directly on those responsible for harvesting. We require the forest industry to have plans for limiting environmental impacts and fully regenerating harvest sites before they begin to log. Failure to follow these plans leads to penalties.

Our new zero waste tolerance policy ensures full utilization and penalizes those who waste timber resources. Mr. Chairman, we are committed to improving forest practices. These estimates provide for more field staff to monitor and enforce the forest practice standards we require of industry. I have also asked the Forest Resources Commission to review and recommend ways to improve forest harvesting practices, focusing on clearcutting and associated impacts.

To practice sustainable development one must know, acknowledge and take into account all the values that British Columbians place on our forests. We have therefore directed that the Forest Resources Commission find out what our forests represent to British Columbians. This includes assessing the full range of forest values, how our forests might be managed to protect and enhance those values, and their social and economic significance to the province.

[ Page 10801 ]

Paralleling the work of the Forest Resources Commission, my ministry is also directly responding to what the public says. We have recently issued our wilderness policy, after consulting on its contents, and we are embarking on an action plan to identify and designate areas with prime wilderness values. In conjunction with other ministries we have initiated a consultative process to define and develop an old-growth forest strategy.

Mr. Chairman, these are examples of our constructive approach to resource management. We listen to all sides. We assess all the demands and seek to reach solutions, which can integrate and balance these competing needs. We are also ensuring a bright future with our successful reforestation program. We now reforest every area being harvested, and we are catching up on old areas. Over 320,000 hectares will be reforested this year, compared to 200,000 hectares harvested. Much of this has been possible because the obligation to reforest has been placed on industry since 1987. A large portion in previous years has been done under FRDA — the forest resource development agreement, a cost-shared program between British Columbia and the federal government for reforesting older, not satisfactorily restocked areas.

The work done under this agreement, which expired on March 31 of this year, is being continued by the province. The province will fund the most essential reforestation activities, but, clearly, reduced federal funding will adversely affect our reforestation, research and stand management efforts, as well as have a negative impact on our future wood supply. Accordingly we are seriously negotiating with the federal government for renewal of this important program.

Besides making sure that we leave a sustained forest for our children, as Minister of Forests I also have the mandate of ensuring current jobs and economic health. In British Columbia, forestry remains the heart of the provincial economy, even with the economic diversification we encourage and welcome. Half the value of this province's manufactured shipments comes from our forests. Over a quarter of a million jobs are dependent on this $13 billion sector. Indeed this harvest represents a domestic product of approximately $10,000 for every British Columbia household. Thus our future cannot be bright if we do not sustain the heart of our fragile economy.

Last year direct employment in the forest sector increased over 12 percent while only harvesting 1.6 percent more timber. Over 11,000 new direct jobs were created last year, primarily from fuller utilization of timber.

The small business forest enterprise program was one initiative contributing to this increased process, which created both value and employment opportunities. For example, the bid proposals under this initiative resulted in $56 million of capital investment and over 900 new jobs. As well, British Columbia's established forest companies created new products and worked at developing worldwide markets for them.

Besides creating new opportunities, we must also ensure that British Columbians have confidence and trust in the management of their provincial forests. Thus, besides asking the Forest Resources Commission to review forest practices and the values British Columbians place on their forests, I have also asked the commission to recommend ways to improve public participation in forest planning and management. As well, the commission is to advise me on the effectiveness of tree-farm licenses as a form of tenure.

Indeed, the Forest Resources Commission is a permanent advisory body, currently holding initial meetings across B.C. on these assignments. I look forward to receiving recommendations from the commission. It is my intention to meet the needs of all British Columbians regarding the use of their forests. My task is to provide leadership in providing a proper balance of forest uses based on consideration of the diverse demands of today, but respectful of the needs of tomorrow.

We are committed to ensuring a healthy forest which contributes to a healthy environment and supports a healthy economy, capable of producing the revenue necessary to help pay for the social needs of British Columbians now and in the future.

MR. MILLER: I intend to go through some of the ministry documents, but the question really is: what have we done in the past, and what are we doing now with respect to the forest resource?

There were some interesting points raised during the previous discussion about jobs. While I can appreciate the minister saying that there is an appreciation that the resource is not unlimited, that there are new demands, and referring to the Brundtland commission, I think we have yet to really come to grips with some of the central issues. I don't think there is a political party on the federal or provincial level that hasn't paid lip-service to the Brundtland commission. What is far more difficult is interpreting what the Brundtland commission means and putting in place appropriate measures in British Columbia.

The question is: has the performance of this administration in the past and currently led to the optimum use of the resource in terms of industrial activity in jobs? I would note — very briefly, because I intend to canvass these issues separately throughout the estimates — that over the last decade we have seen some 20,000 jobs lost in the forest industry in British Columbia.

I would further note that although the annual allowable cut has increased since 1986 by some 13 percent, in terms of total direct employment we again have suffered a loss. If we look at overall direct employment between 1986 and 1989 in the forest industry, we've fallen by about 2 percent — about 1.5 percent in the lumber sector, 2 percent in the plywood veneer sector, 5 percent in logging and 1.5 percent in the lumber sector. At the same time as we have seen the amount of resource harvested increased by 13 percent, we have continued to see it decline in industrial activity in a decline in the number of people employed in the industry. It hardly

[ Page 10802 ]

suggests that we are doing anything to reach the kind of potential that should be achievable in this province.

Do we have management regimes in place that allow the public participation that has been identified as necessary by a range of recommendations or studies and impartial observers? I'm thinking particularly of the ombudsman, who made some major recommendations last year in terms of a process allowing public participation. The kind of conflict that we are facing in the province suggests that we haven't addressed that issue adequately.

History, as I read it, says that as a result of policies of this government, there has been not only a timber bias, but a bias in favour of the large companies in this province. Have there been policies in place that encourage the best potential for our forest land base? In other words, have we put in place over time policies and programs that have allowed the best use of that land and have allowed the kind of production off those lands that is possible from good growing sites?

The fact that we have concluded a significant tax-based reforestation program and the minister — and myself as well — has made lots of comments about the unfortunate position we're in of not being able to renew that program suggests that we're making up for lost time. We're trying to make up for lost time, and that seems to suggest a failure of past policy.

[4:30]

When we look at some other issues in our forest industry, for example, the issue of research and development.... I've canvassed that every year that it has been my job as the forest critic, not only with the Minister of Forests, but with other ministers. There's general agreement that we haven't put the kind of investment into research and development in the forest industry and the forest sector that has allowed us to realize the potential that I think is possible. I think there are particular reasons for that.

Some of that relates to the amount of concentration, or the branch-plant economy. Quite frankly, when you have to lay blame for those things, you have to lay it at the door of the people who have been responsible, which is this administration.

I think that we missed the boat. We are a little late in starting to evaluate some of these so-called modern issues — the issues of the environment. I think there were opportunities — had there been a follow-up to the royal commission recommendations in 1976 — for us to be slightly ahead of the game. I agree that events have changed very quickly in the last decade, particularly in the last half of the decade. People's perceptions about environmental issues have changed significantly.

I think there's a need to address those and also to educate and to inform people about environmental issues and the choices we face. Given our current state in this province, I don't think that this government or its predecessors have done the kind of job that really should have been done, considering that the resource is a public resource. The responsibility for management of that resource and all that flows from it lies squarely with the government. Perhaps it has been the government's reluctance to grasp that responsibility, or perhaps it has been their adherence to a different philosophy that suggests they're not capable of doing that kind of management that has led us to some of these problems.

I don't know if the minister wants to respond to that. I'll just get into some of the questions I have. First of all, just to clear up some of the numbers that come from some of the reports — the annual reports, some of the productions put out by the ministry, the forest and range reports.... It's really to clarify the amount of land we have as productive forest land — the amount of land considered operable — and questions about the annual allowable cut as established by the Crown.

Mr. Chairman, when I look at the 1985-86 annual report, the report states that the amount of productive forestland in British Columbia is 46,807,000 hectares. When I look at the 1987-88 annual report, it says that the productive forest land is 45,959,000 hectares. That is a difference of some 848,000 hectares. In that period, if ministry documents are to be accepted, the amount of land that was considered to be NSR was netted down. This is just in one particular category, but nonetheless it was netted down from approximately 750,000 hectares to the 500,000 range. So we're talking about an additional 200,000 hectares of land that you would assume would have been reclassified as operable forest land.

The difference is about a million hectares, which is not an insignificant amount of land, and I am wondering if the minister can account for that apparent discrepancy.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, no, I can't. It's a question that I will take as notice and see if I can bring back an answer. But just off the top of my head I don't have that answer.

MR. MILLER: Does the minister not think that given this apparent difference...? These are actual numbers; your officials can probably verify them. It's a bit confusing for people who rely on these documents to draw conclusions.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'm not inferring anything by it. I think it's a significant number, and I'm not trying to downplay its importance. I just don't have an answer to that question at this particular moment, but I will have one by tomorrow.

MR. MILLER: I would appreciate it if the minister could bring that back at the earliest possible opportunity.

In the same vein, the "Forest Management Review — British Columbia" brochure that was put out this year — I believe that's its title — quotes a number of figures as well. They identify the productive Crown provincial forest lands as being 43.3 million hectares. So there's another figure that's different from the figures in the '87-88 and '85-86 reports.

[ Page 10803 ]

Similarly, the amount of land that's considered operable has not changed. If we go to the '85-86 report, we're looking at 26,849,000 hectares of operable land. Given that there was a netdown, it's hard to understand why in '87-88 that was described as 26,693,000 hectares — a decline — and in the brochure that I just referenced the productive Crown provincial forest land is described as 22.6 million hectares. Again, I would appreciate it if the minister could get those figures as soon as he can, or at least an explanation of why there's a difference.

I wanted to canvass the issue of the Forest Resources Commission for a while. I want to relate a bit of history, because I think it's important. There are some questions around as to whether or not the commission.... Without prejudging it — and I think I've said publicly that I don't intend to prejudge what the commission might come up with in the final analysis — I do have some concern that their mandate might not be all that clear, and that we won't see the kind of clear, definitive report that I think is important in terms of establishing future directions for forest policy in this province.

First of all, I suppose what sparked much of this was the announcement back in 1987 that this government wanted to expand the tree-farm licence system. By the way, that came out of a 1983 letter from the Council of Forest Industries to the Premier, which said something to the effect of: "Thank you for asking us what should be done. Here's what we think should be done." That was one of their paramount recommendations — that essentially the forest be privatized.

That met with very stiff resistance around the province. It also met with a gradually accumulating call for a royal commission. Many people pointed to Pearse's '76 commission, citing it as the basis for having another one. Pearse had recommended it; Sloan had recommended it. We had gone past the time — a decade — that had been recommended. All of that was met at that time by the current minister saying to the public that he didn't want to call a royal commission, because the calls were really only coming from environmental coalitions, the opposition and natives. He kind of denigrated the concern that people had by saying, "Really, it's only the opposition, environmentalists and natives," when in fact, as of March '89, some 31 groups had made that request.

I think the commission has several advantages, in that the terms of reference are more clearly defined. The report, therefore, should reflect that clarity. However, the government chose to establish a forestry commission, and on June 29 it announced its establishment. In response to some criticisms at the time, they said that they intended to get right on with the job. In fact, the person who was appointed to be the chairman of the commission — this is a quote from the Sun of June 30 — said: "This committee is comprised of people who are not accustomed to wasting their time, and I'm not accustomed to wasting my time. We're going to work hard, and we're going to make darned good recommendations." On August 28 he said that he didn't have the time; he had to step down. Therefore we wasted a couple of months — actually more than that — until the government finally appointed Mr. Peel in October.

We've gone since June, when the commission was originally established, to the present day with a commission having conducted public hearings by splitting up into separate panels around the province. We've gone a year without the substantive work having been done. I wonder if the minister has any concern about the length of time it's taking for the commission to produce a report.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Well, most of the events that the member chronicles happened before I assumed the portfolio. I can assure him and everyone else that from the time I assumed this portfolio on the first of last November, we have urged the commission to move with all haste, and they have done so. It would be easy to comment on things that happened before that time, and it's unfortunate that the commission got off to a slow start. I guess these things happen. People make decisions and then have to change their minds; like I say, that was last summer. That's unfortunate, because we had hoped that they would have gone on with their work before that time.

But I can assure the member and everyone in British Columbia that now the Forest Resources Commission is working with all haste to do a very comprehensive and complete review of the things we've asked them do. As the member has stated, they've held numerous public hearings around the province. I've spoken candidly to several members of the commission, who said it went very well. They have reams and reams of material and are looking forward to presenting me and this government with a report as soon as possible — hopefully a preliminary report before the end of this year.

MR. MILLER: In speaking of the difference between setting up a commission — I believe it has been described as a permanent commission — and a royal commission, which is really the method that was most commonly used in British Columbia, or the only method, the former minister described the royal commission as being too narrow. Is that the minister's view?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Again, I don't like to comment on something that former ministers or other people have said. I have never referred to a royal commission as being too narrow. No. I haven't.

I could talk at length as to why I prefer the Forest Resources Commission to a royal commission. I was in cabinet when the decision was taken to have a permanent Forest Resources Commission in place rather than a royal commission, because we have many millions — in fact hundreds of millions — of dollars to be potentially invested in the forest industry in British Columbia.

When we made this decision, as near as we could estimate, the amount was in the order of $6 billion that could be potentially invested in our industry in British Columbia. That's foreign investment; that's

[ Page 10804 ]

domestic investment; that's all investment. It might be an optimistic figure, although I was assured that it wasn't pie in the sky; it was very real.

So one of the reasons we chose not to go with the royal commission was because a royal commission is like a snapshot in time. It truly is. Even though it might take a year to accomplish, it's like taking a still-frame rather than a moving picture of what's going on in the industry.

As the member said in his opening remarks, this industry is changing very rapidly — probably more rapidly in the last three years than at any time in its history. There are more pressures now on the forest industry than at any time in its history.

So with change taking place that rapidly for many reasons — because of technology, because of trading patterns around the world, GATT rulings and all the rest of it and because of the environmental concerns — we didn't feel it was wise to take a snapshot of what was happening in the industry. That would do two things: it would give you a picture that was out of date the minute you got it developed; and it's not like doing a royal commission on health or education, which are not dependent on the private sector to the extent that the forest industry is.

[4:45]

We didn't want to say to people that until we have this royal commission and all their findings are evaluated, you have to go away and keep your money on hold until we tell you that it's all right to invest in this industry. I think that's what would have happened. I think a lot of investors would have said: "Until this royal commission is finished, the findings are in and the decisions are made, I don't think we want to put $100 million into here or $200 million there or $20 million into this." We didn't want to take that chance at a time when the forest industry needs all the investment it can get. So we decided to put in place a permanent commission to give us a moving and continual picture of what's happening in the industry. It is changing rapidly, and we want to give that feeling of security to those who will invest in this industry. That's where the jobs come from, Mr. Member. I'm sure you're very much aware that without that investment in new technology and in value-added, we wouldn't have what we want out of the forest industry in this province.

I think that a Forest Resources Commission can do everything that a royal commission can do. I really believe that. I don't think that by not having a royal commission we're in any way denigrating or diminishing the task at hand. It is a big task. It's one that needs to be done, but it will need to be done next year, the year after and the year after as well.

I think if you look back in history at royal commissions that have been.... And they have done some great work. I'm not saying that Pearse, Sloan and the others didn't do some good work, but by the time their reports were in and the recommendations and the changes made, their report was almost becoming out of date — and things weren't changing as rapidly then as they are today. With the changes happening today, any royal commission that took that snapshot would have an out-of-date picture — to continue with the analogy — by the time we had developed it. So I think it was a decision well taken. It was debated at length around the cabinet table, and I think we've made the right decision to put in place a permanent resources commission.

MR. MILLER: I am just rereading Pearse, and I note some of the recommendations from '76 from his royal commission. First of all, he talked about the need to have a very clear mandate: the government should define very clearly what they want the commission to do. He also noted that his task was made easier because that was done in 1975. And I would point out that Pearse took about 15 months from inception to report — June 1975 to September 1976. So in 15 months he had dealt with the issues referred to him and produced a very clear, comprehensive report.

I did at the outset mention that the major furor, in terms of forest policy, came as a result of the COFI-inspired "let's expand the tree-farm licence system." That's really what gave rise — the political heat flowing from those public information sessions — to the government's decision to strike a commission.

Interestingly enough, Pearse also rejected the idea of a permanent forest commission. I don't know if the government took the opportunity to discuss the issue with various people in the forest community prior to striking it, but certainly it appears from my fairly casual reading of history that it certainly wasn't done in the way that was recommended — for the reasons that I've illustrated in terms of the clarity of the mandate, the time, etc.

When the commission was originally struck, it was given — and not surprisingly — three original mandates, one of which was to advise the minister on the effectiveness of the TFL as a form of tenure. I say not surprisingly because that essentially gave rise to the formation of the commission. In the meantime, the proposed conversion policy — the rollover policy, section 27(l) of the Forest Act — has been put on hold.

So again, since the announcement of the policy in September of 1987, nothing has happened. I would argue, if you want to talk about that policy or at least some eventual conclusion in British Columbia about that policy, that that seems to be an inhibitor — or at least that's what industry said when they were making their submissions. Nonetheless, there's one mandate: to advise on the form of tenure.

The second mandate was to advise on improvements to public participation in forest planning — and that's admirable. The third mandate was to look at the whole range of forest harvest practices that was obviously of concern to people — clearcutting, etc. I think that tenure alone would have been sufficient for the commission to deal with — and probably fairly quickly. I think we could have had a report by this time.

Subsequent to the change in portfolio, an additional mandate was added in November, 1989. Your

[ Page 10805 ]

quote from the news release issued by your ministry of November 30, 1989 says:

"Since becoming Minister of Forests, I have been reflecting on forestry issues, and I have concluded that I need an assessment of the values of our forests to serve as a useful background for the policy issues and to assist me in making policy decisions. Accordingly, I have asked the commission, which will be meeting this week, to provide me with a comprehensive view of what our province's forests represent. This view should consider the full range of forest values, how our forests might be managed to protect and enhance these values and the total economic impact of the forests to the province."

This is the point I really want to get to here. After creating this commission with three definable goals, have you now added this further mandate that essentially covers such a wide range of ground that the commission could be in danger of not making that kind of clear report on the individual facets that make up components of forest policy? It's so wide-ranging that in fact we might just.... It's kind of fuzzy, if you like. I can appreciate the minister wanting to have this kind of assessment, but given that kind of really broad mandate, perhaps the commission itself might not prove as useful as originally conceived.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I guess to answer the last part first; I think it's quite the contrary. It's very important that we, as the stewards of the resource, try to understand all the values in the forests — not just the timber values, but all the values. That is what I was asking the commission to do. Granted, we wanted them to address those three specific items and to give them priority. But at the same time we also gave them a mandate to listen to other concerns of people about all the values in the forests and about the stewardship of the land. So I think it's quite the contrary.

In fact, when you listen to the speeches in this House from either side, you hear time and time again: "All the values in the forests, not just the timber values." So I think that in order for us to get our minds around that, we have to have as close a definition, as close a value, as we can on the entire land base — especially the working forest. The wilderness values that come up all the time, just to mention one, are becoming increasingly important to people. Everybody mentions wilderness values everywhere you go. Wilderness tourism is becoming very important — just the aesthetic value of places like Carmanah Pacific Park. I think it's very important to get an idea of what people think out there and what value they put on our forests.

"The clarity of their mandate," to quote the member.... It is very clear. We didn't want to limit the commission, because it's a permanent commission. It's not one that's going to be there for a year and then gone; we intend it to be there for all time. So we didn't want to handcuff them and say: "These are the only things you can look at." Those have been given priority. The member has mentioned them, so I won't run through them again. I disagree with him that if we had only given them one task to look at, we would have had a report by this time. I don't think that would have happened.

The other thing I am told — I wasn't in Forests at the time — is that Dr. Peter Pearse spent some two years doing background on his royal commission before he actually started the commission, so it took him longer than 15 months. I think it can take years sometimes to get recommendations and reports from royal commissions. I'll let it go at that; I hope I've answered the member's question.

MR. MILLER: My recollection is that specific individual tasks were assigned to Pearse prior to the establishment of the royal commission. It seems to really buttress my argument, for example, in looking at the issue of the expansion of the tree-farm licence system. I think a commission could have looked at that fairly quickly, done the kind of economic analysis that's required and made a recommendation to government. Certainly that's what happened in 1974, when Pearse was handed at least two — possibly three or four — specific tasks to report to government on, and ultimately the government could use those recommendations for action. But at the same time, they decided to proceed with a royal commission.

Getting back to your news release, was it your feeling that the kind of information you had asked for, or had asked the commission in November to provide you with the answers for, was not available?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I think that's fair to say. I don't think anyone could say with any certainty: "This is the value, of all the values, in the forests." I don't think you can ever put a value in dollars and cents — I don't mean it in dollars and cents. But I felt that if the Forest Resources Commission was travelling the province and listening to wide-ranging groups of people — people of all interests, not just timber interests — they would certainly get a feel for the value people put on the forests. I think it's a case of participatory democracy at its best when you ask people what they think the values in the forests are. If you've got this commission travelling the province doing that, then why not get a feeling back from them as to what they think the public thinks the values in the forests are — wide-ranging, away beyond timber values?

To answer the question — and I guess I've used a lot of time doing it — I don't think that information was or is available.

[5:00]

MR. MILLER: Is that necessarily a failure of past administrations for not attempting to compile that kind of information? There's probably an extreme difficulty in quantifying it, but it seems to me that your statement reflected an absence of some pretty basic information. Why would that be? Have you formed any opinions about why more information of the type that you are requesting the commission provide is not available from within government?

[ Page 10806 ]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I think you answered it in your opening remarks. It's because people's perceptions of this planet are changing very rapidly. Things that seem to be important today might not have seemed important ten or 15 years ago. I'm not casting any blame or trying to put down any former administration. Situations change. The world is changing more rapidly than we've ever seen in history. I think we have to try to keep up with those changes. As I said, things that weren't important even as little as three and four years ago are now extremely important. A lot of the information we want today wasn't deemed to have been too important five or ten years ago.

MR. MILLER: I believe you said that you expected a preliminary report this fall. Perhaps the minister might want to go through this, but as I recall, a preliminary report was to be made public, and then the government hoped to act on that report. When? The following spring? Could the minister just clarify that — for me, at least, if not for other people? I don't want the exact week or the exact month, but I'm trying to get a sense of the time-frame, what the commission will be reporting on and what subsequent action would flow from that.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I would assume that the commission's preliminary report would be along the lines of the three specific mandates that we gave them. They may go broader than that. I have no idea what will be in their preliminary report. We may have to put it out in the form of a discussion paper. We haven't made that decision. We'll wait to see what is in the report. We have no intention of keeping it secret. We would want to share it with the public just as quickly as possible.

I would not like to try to put a date on that. I don't even know when they are going to get that preliminary report to me. But we will get it out to the public as quickly as possible so it can be discussed at length, as it should be.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

MR. MILLER: I wanted to canvass the issue of integrated resource management. It seems to flow from some of the things we've been talking about today.

There was a lot of debate on Bill 16 setting up the sustainable development fund, and a lot of debate about the whole issue of integrated resource management. That has caused some confusion among people who formerly relied on the Ministry of Forests in terms of that issue of integrated resource management.

Specifically the bill set up under the Ministry of Environment — or at least under the sustainable development fund — an integrated resource management unit. Can the minister describe how he sees that working? Clearly the explicit mandate as outlined in the legislation is for the Ministry of Forests to conduct that integrated resource management. How are these two separate groups going to interact? Is there a particular protocol between your ministry and this other integrated resource management unit that is in place? Are we going to have two separate groups — albeit one smaller — doing overlapping work? How are the two going to work?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I think it's going to work very well, because that which is under the mandate of the Ministry of Forests will stay there; that which is in a discretionary part of the fund will be decided by the Cabinet Committee on Sustainable Development, in which the Ministry of Forests plays an integral part. This was fairly well canvassed under the Minister of Environment's estimates and one other estimate, if I remember correctly.

I don't think there's any confusion in it at all. There is overlap in the sense that ministries do overlap, such as Environment, Parks, Crown Lands and Forests. They do overlap, but they are all on the same committee of cabinet. I think there's a real cohesiveness there.

That which is in the Forests budget will remain in the Forests budget.

MR. MILLER: If there's a real cohesiveness, why the need for two separate bodies to do the same thing?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Maybe the member could enlighten me on what the two separate bodies are.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, under the mandate of the Ministry of Forests they have explicit responsibility for integrated resource management. "Explicit" is the word. Under the sustainable development fund and under the co-chairmanship of the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Regional and Economic Development, there will be an integrated resource management unit. I'm wondering: if one works so well, why do you need two, and why do you have two separate units, essentially appearing to be doing the same thing, one under your responsibility as the Minister of Forests and the other under the responsibility of a committee?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Again, I don't see that there's any confusion here. That which is the mandate of the Ministry of Forests will remain that, but there are many other things involved in integrated management of sustainable development. There are things that are outside the purview of the Ministry of Forests. I'm thinking of uses of water, recycling, the blue box program — just off the top of my head — and many other programs that are not explicitly, to use your word, under the Minister of Forests but do concern everyone in British Columbia and certainly everyone on the sustainable development committee. Air quality, which Forests plays a part in, but so do many other ministries....

I don't see any confusion or conflict at all. We've had a cabinet committee functioning for many years.

[ Page 10807 ]

It has changed its name from time to time, but I think that's indicative of changing times, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I don't think that anything should be cast in stone and be there forever. I think the Cabinet Committee on Sustainable Development is an appropriate name for that committee. It touches many ministries in government. In fact, it touches every ministry on the economic side of government and on water quality and air quality — all the environmental issues. I think it will work very well.

MR. MILLER: I suppose one of the things that the public and those who have to deal with government like to see is some kind of certainty and some well-laid-out procedures and administrative bodies that they have to deal with. They don't like to run around to three or four different offices to have to get things done. You should appreciate that. In fact, I think your party is always talking about it.

I repeat, the ministry has, under its act, explicit responsibility for integrated resource management. We'll get into some of the specifics about that later on. It's the full range of activities in terms of those other values that in your release of November 30 you were so puzzled about. How do we quantify these other values? What are they? I asked you if you thought that there was a failure in terms of not being able to provide that kind of information, and you said you didn't think so; that it was really a reflection of changing times. But nonetheless you have the mandate within your ministry.

On May 23 the Ministry of Environment announced the formation of an integrated resources management division, under Bill 16. It appears to be doing the same kind of thing that you have exclusive or explicit jurisdiction for. I'm just a bit curious about why you would want to have two separate bodies to deal with the same issues.

That's number one. I really don't understand it. I perhaps could have understood an expansion of the integrated resource management unit under your ministry, but not the formation of a separate one.

Secondly, what are the ramifications of that in terms of people having to deal with either your ministry or the Ministry of Environment? Is there a feeling somehow that there's a turf war or that they're going to be caught between these two bodies?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: No, I don't think so; not at all. I guess I could go over it and over it again: that which the Forests ministry is responsible for, we will continue to be responsible for and administer. But many things in this changing world of ours have an overlap, such as water quality, air quality, recycling, renewal, etc. Words that weren't even in our vocabulary two and three years ago are now common, everyday phrases, such as sustainable development. I think it shows that we are changing with the times and recognizing our mandate as the Ministry of Forests to recognize all the values, but we recognize that the public has many other concerns these days, including the ones I've mentioned.

On several occasions now the opposition has tried to make it appear that there is confusion. I don't think there is any confusion at all. If we in the forest industry advertise for a pulpwood agreement, with the intent of attracting a new pulp mill in any given area, I don't think it's confusion or conflict or whatever you want to call it to involve the Ministry of Environment in an impact study or major project review. I think it's just good planning and good common sense and something the public is demanding these days — that we take a look at all the environmental possibilities. I don't think a lot of those come under the mandate of the Ministry of Forests. A lot of them do, and a lot of them don't. That's another good reason for having a sustainable development fund under the aegis of this Cabinet Committee on Sustainable Development.

MR. MILLER: Well, I think some clients are confused. I'll refer specifically to the B.C. Cattlemen's Association. I got a little handwritten note from their secretary saying: "Is there any reason we're confused over the minister's commitment to integrated resource use?" That was just following the May 23 announcement by the Minister of Environment that I referred to earlier. Just to illustrate the point, on May 4 the B.C. Cattlemen's Association — their chairman of the land use committee, Mr. Lundquist — wrote to the Minister of Environment. It seems to me that some of his statements illustrate what I was trying to get at. By the way, they attached for his information a letter they sent to him on April 6, and I'll quote a few references from that. I think I'll just read the letter, Mr. Chairman; it probably makes it a little easier to understand the point: 

"Dear Mr. Reynolds:" 

Pardon me for using that, Mr. Chairman.

"I have attached a copy of a letter sent on April 6, 1990, to the hon. Minister of Forests. While you were sent a copy of this letter at the same time, statements attributed to you at a recent public meeting in Kimberley indicate to us that you either haven't seen the letter or don't support the principle of multiple use of the forest and rangeland resources of the province. We understand that you indicated to those attending the meeting that wildlife management areas are your number one priority.

"While we can empathize with your posturing in light of your present portfolio, we cannot accept the position, that you are reported to have promulgated at the Kimberley meeting, that your ministry has control over wildlife management areas and that livestock have no right there.

"Mr. Minister, we understand that there are currently six proposed wildlife management areas, three of which are on Crown rangeland. In light of the statements attributed to you, we have no choice but to question the sincerity of the contents of the public information paper pertaining to wildlife management areas circulated last fall by your ministry. I refer you to page 13 of that document, wherein it is stated: 'Multiple use of wildlife management areas will be permitted where such uses are compatible with or complementary to the objectives for fish and wildlife management.' Further on on the same page: 'The

[ Page 10808 ]

Wildlife Act specifies that land and wildlife areas will be subject to all prior rights granted.'

"Mr. Minister, the concerns we have are over the apparent 'distancing' of the government's commitment to the integrated or multiple-use concept of the forest and rangeland resources...."

[5:15]

So the cattlemen are writing to the Minister of Environment, obviously concerned about statements made publicly. That seems to reinforce what I was saying, and it reinforces what they said to you on April 6 in their letter. In a paper from your ministry entitled, "Managing Wilderness and Provincial Forests," and in another paper, "Wildlife Management Areas," from the Ministry of Environment, there appears to be some confusion about who is in charge — at least in their minds. Who do they deal with? What are the government policies? Is the Ministry of Environment leading the policies in this issue of concern to cattlemen, or are you? Traditionally the Ministry of Forests has been responsible for range.

To illustrate the point I made earlier, there is confusion. I don't know what response you have given the cattlemen, but it seems to me that the points they raise are legitimate. You may wish to respond.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I don't have the copies of the letter at hand to quote from, but let us make it perfectly clear that just because there is a conflict over land use doesn't mean there is some problem with jurisdiction within the government. There have always been conflicts over land use, wherever farm animals and game animals come together and compete for the same rangeland, the same forage, the same grazing rights. We always manage to work these out. Wildlife is under the mandate of the Ministry of Environment; it has been for a long time. Rangeland and grazing are under the mandate of the Ministry of Forests; it has been and will continue to be.

We will have to work these conflicts out, and I'm sure we will to the best of our ability. It's all the more reason to have an amalgamated committee under a sustainable development fund, where we can sit around the same table and work these conflicts out, rather than work in isolation from one another and running off in different directions and contradicting one another in public. Heaven forbid we should ever do that! It has never happened in the past, to my knowledge. I think that's all the more reason why we should sit at the same table and discuss the conflicts that the member is talking about.

MR. MILLER: I take it then that the integrated resource management unit established under the sustainable development fund is the problem-solver. They're the go-between, if you like. So whenever you get in a fight with your colleague, they're the ones who are going to call the meetings and deal with the parties in order to resolve this.

Mr. Minister, I can understand having conflict over land use. God, anybody living in British Columbia has got to understand that. I've always professed not to have the instant answers for all of those problems as well. I think we've tried to point out that there are processes that could be used to assist people in coming to resolution.

But don't you agree that it's a bit of a dilemma for the cattlemen, who appear — at least in terms of the public statements of the Ministry of Environment and the mandate of your ministry — to be caught somewhat confused? Their letter clearly reflects that. Have you written to assure them that some process is in place — whether it's under this sustainable development fund or whatever — that will allow them a degree of comfort in resolving the conflicts? I think you might want to respond to that. Following that, I think some of my colleagues from the part of the province where they actually have cows — unlike Prince Rupert — might wish to pursue the issue of range management with you.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: To put the member's mind at ease, I did better than just write back to Mr. Lundquist, who I happened to have met on several occasions. I spoke to the cattlemen at their recent convention in Kamloops. It was a very successful one, by the way. I assured them that when it comes to rangeland and managing of it for the cattle industry for grazing land, the Ministry of Forests is the ministry in charge of that and has been historically and will continue to be. We will always make sure that the concerns of the people in the cattle industry are at any table where there happens to be a conflict with land use.

At the moment there does happen to be a conflict in the Kootenays — and has been for many years, as a matter of fact. It isn't something that just happened last week or last month. I can remember the former member for Kootenay discussing the same problem many years ago when I first came here. It's not something that just happened this year, and it isn't something that can be easily resolved. It's going to take an awful lot of working together with wildlife people, with the Ministries of Environment, Parks, Crown Lands and Forests.

But I want to make sure that the cattlemen know that the Ministry of Forests will always represent them at the table. It's one of those things where nobody's right and nobody's wrong. You can't say that it's black and white, this is the issue, and this is how it's going to be decided. It will take a long time to resolve this. But the only way we are going to resolve it is to sit down at the table and start working towards a resolution. We plan on doing just that.

MS. EDWARDS: I'd like to question the minister somewhat on the "Five-Year Forest and Range Resource Program, 1990-1995," which I have in front of me. I don't know whether the minister has it near at hand or not. It says some interesting things about the range programs within the ministry. One of the first things I found very interesting was under "Programs of the Ministry of Forests." It describes the ministry operations as consisting of two main programs and describes the first as the forest and range resource

[ Page 10809 ]

program. Then the other part is the supporting of a management services program and the role of the private sector. I find it strange and practically inconceivable to understand why, in this description of the ministry's programs, we have the role of the private sector included as something on which the ministry is making a statement — certainly to put that phrase right into the most key position. So I would ask the minister if he'd like to describe why he considers the role of the private sector to be a supporting program within the ministry.

I'll leave that as the first question, and proceed from there.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I don't have the publication with me that the member refers to. We don't bring all of our publications, obviously, or we'd probably fill up half the desks in the front row.

I think it would be ridiculous — I guess that's the word — to consider trying to manage Crown rangeland when it works in such close proximity to private rangeland; and to not consider the private sector in any decisions that you made regarding rangeland would, I think, be absolutely foolhardy. Most of the ranches in British Columbia — the ones that I know quite well, and I happen to come from ranching country — are made up of deeded land, fee simple land and a good deal of Crown rangeland. So without having the publication in front of me and the specific quotations, I would say that for us not to include in our plans the private sector would be foolish in the extreme.

MS. EDWARDS: I'd like also to mention that when the first draft of the range report, which was the first — what shall I call it...? The B.C. Forest Service's range program had been reviewed and the first draft came out with no particular name to it that I know of, except that it described the range review. It did involve a considerably expanded role for the private sector in the management of Crown range, and so it made me wonder whether the minister is at the point right now of considering that the private sector will have a larger role in the management.

At the time, it was compared to the granting of tree-farm licences to forest companies. It was said then that if you were a rancher and were going to be leasing or using Crown land for grazing your cattle, you would have certain responsibilities to manage that land.

I wonder if the minister could explain to me what position he sees the private user, who is not an owner of the land.... Are they going to have a larger function in the management of Crown range?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes. We expect that the people who use the Crown range at a very nominal fee — they pay per animal unit month for grazing fees on that land, but they earn their livelihood from it.... It is similar to the forest industry, where they are now responsible for reforesting and silviculture and taking those seedlings to a free-to-grow state The comparison is not exactly accurate, but in the broadest sense it is, in that they are earning their livelihood from that land. And we expect the private sector, those who are using a Crown resource, to treat it well and to nurture it, and to use it to the very best of their ability and to their advantage. So, yes, we do intend to have the private sector play a larger and more important role in rangeland.

MS. EDWARDS: I wonder if the minister could be a little more specific about what he would expect. First of all, there must be some responsibilities. Does that involve reseeding? Does it involve paying for fencing? What kinds of things does it involve? What rights would go with it? Does the private user then have any rights to exclude other users?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: We take the phrase "integrated resource management and multiple use" very seriously. We think the days are past when any single user has rights to the Crown land. So the member need not fear that we will be excluding other users. It's the same in the case of the forest industry.

If people are going to put out their life savings and borrow — especially at today's interest rates — to improve the value of their holdings, their ranch, then they must have some security of tenure. And in return for the security of tenure that we give them as a grazing lease, we're expecting certain standards of performance. At the moment I can't answer specifically what that entails. I don't have the information at my fingertips. I'll take that part of the question as notice, if you like, and come back in the next day or so — or three or four or five, however long we're here — with some specifics. I just don't have them at my fingertips.

[5:30]

MS. EDWARDS: I'm not sure how solid this is, and whether you believe it's solid. Presumably you certainly have rules for what's going on now.

According to this report, the draft strategic plan for the range program — which is another one.... The program is not expected to be complete for a while yet, and it's only to be available in July 1990 — which is this month. Can you give me some indication of whether that particular draft is available now?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I can't answer that, but I don't think it's available yet.

MS. EDWARDS: I have to refer to the estimates of the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds), because he said that there would be some recommendations coming from the Closkey report. The Closkey report dealt with range, again. At every opportunity I get, I have been questioning the ministers about how several reports work together — the whole business of tree-farm licenses and the original proposals the government had, the Closkey report, the new draft range review and a number of other incidental things — but those were the three major initiatives. How do they work together?

[ Page 10810 ]

Can the minister give me some idea when there will be clearer direction as to how we manage the range in British Columbia, and the guidelines?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: We try, wherever possible, to keep the industry up to date with what we're doing and get their input on it, because we don't want to operate in isolation. We will be bringing forward some amendments to the Range Act later this session. I can't share them with you right now. I think the bill is at the printers. Some will be implemented and others will be put out as a discussion paper. Beyond that, I can't elaborate on what they are. I don't have the bill in front of me, but it will be introduced in the House probably next week. I think it's due in next week.

As for as the paper you asked about — no, I'll have to bring back an answer for you tomorrow.

MS. EDWARDS: Is it fair to suggest then that the draft plan will not be a draft plan but that in fact some of the feedback you've had.... I'd be interested to know whether that feedback is already being put forward in the legislation that will be brought forward next week, or whether there will be more public input. How extensive will the public input to the draft range resource plan be?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I don't know which publication you have there. In the "Five-Year Forest and Range Resource Program" — I think that's the one you're quoting from — on page 6 the third paragraph says: "The public's comments on the report are being considered in the preparation of a draft strategic plan for a range program by July 1990. This plan will also be distributed for public review...." So it will be. The changes I mentioned are changes to the Range Act but are a separate issue from here. "This plan will also be distributed for public review, as will a discussion paper on legislation changes required to implement the proposed plan."

MS. EDWARDS: That's what I read. My question is: is it simply that it will be distributed and people will have to write in? Are you planning to have some meetings in various areas? You talk about keeping the industry informed. There are a number of industries involved in use of range, Mr. Minister, and frequently others besides the agricultural industry feel themselves to be neglected. I am interested to know what specific type of public input you see coming for this draft range resource plan.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: We haven't decided yet exactly what form the public input will take. What we're interested in is getting this into the hands of all interested parties and then, I guess, determining from there exactly how we get the input. You're quite correct that there are many people interested other than the cattle industry. We intend to get this paper into as many hands as possible. If we feel that either public hearings or meetings with staff are the way to go, or a combination of the two, that's the way we'll go. We haven't made those decisions yet.

MS. EDWARDS: Since you have the document in front of you, I'm referring to page 9 under "Range," where it says that the range subprogram provides stewardship, conservation, rehabilitation and enhancement of Crown provincial rangeland. Then it says the most interesting thing. It says: "...80 percent of which comprises land managed for timber production."

One of the major problems with the amount of range that we have in the East Kootenays is the in-growth of forest. It's scrubby forest, forest that's not worth much, but when it grows in, we have a great argument over whether it should or shouldn't be forest. Anybody who believes in range can tell you quite clearly and provide a considerable amount of documentation to show that most of these sites will provide only scrub forests but would provide fairly good range.

That's why I question why we are describing range — perhaps even defining range — as land which is managed for timber production. I find it a strange description of rangeland to go out in an official ministry publication.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Again, I get the feeling that the member is trying to read more into this than is there. We have said that we firmly support the concept of integrated resource management, which includes multiple use of the land. I don't think that all land has to be either/ or — either rangeland or forest land. In many instances it's a good combination of the two.

It says: "...provincial rangeland, 80 percent of which comprises land managed for timber production." I don't find any problem with that. When we say "integrated land use management," that's exactly what we mean. I said a few minutes ago that the day is gone when the land is going to be there for a single user.

MS. EDWARDS: Perhaps, Mr. Minister, my concerns arise from many years of living in the Kootenays and dealing with the great conflict over the range resource. We want some very specific definitions, and we would like to know that the people who are in Victoria and who are in political control of our range resource understand it. So it comes as some surprise to me when we have the minister saying that he thinks that range is used for timber production. That is most amazing to me. I don't believe that happens. It looks as though whoever wrote this, wherever it comes from, doesn't understand our problems and doesn't have any idea of what the major problem is right now with the amount of range and the scrambling that we do to share the bits of range that we have in the East Kootenays, and the fact that forest in-growth is one of the major problems. Then we have it said that our rangeland is managed for timber production. If it's managed for timber production, Mr. Minister, then it's not managed for

[ Page 10811 ]

range, and that is one of the major concerns in our area. That was my question.

Integrated use is fine. It deals with the edges; it deals with the various things that go on. But you do not manage land for range at the same time as for timber production, according to anything I have ever experienced in my long time of being involved in resource conflicts in the East Kootenays.

However, I will go on and ask for some specifics, because the other thing it says in this resource program is that there are new initiatives based on recommendations from the range program review, and that the implementation of these initiatives will go on this year and beyond. I wonder if the minister can describe any of these initiatives. What is going to come out of this range review?

It then says: "Major activity includes increased planning and inventory," etc. I'd like to know how much inventory. Is there an increase in the amount of money? This is an estimates discussions, Mr. Minister. Can you tell me how much more money is going to be put into range management and how much more money is going to go into the inventory that is needed to intelligently manage our range?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: While we are looking for the specific number, I would just say to the member, who said a moment ago that you can't manage land for timber resource and range, that she is dead wrong. You are dead wrong on that. In your own constituency there is a lot of land that is managed for a timber resource, in many cases to enhance grazing and rangeland. In other cases, grazing is on clearcuts during regeneration phases of reforestation. Some is under forest cover, such as the ponderosa pine and the Douglas fir stands. So to say that range management and timber management don't go hand in hand, Madam Member.... You should get with some of the people in the Forests ministry in your constituency and have them take you out and show you some of that.

I don't have the numbers for you yet, but I'll take that as notice and get it to you.

MR. MILLER: Before yielding to my colleague from the Cariboo, I just wanted to ask a couple of specific questions. I asked before, but I didn't really get an answer. In other words, the specific protocols for the interaction between this fund.... You know our feelings on it. We've characterized it as a PR fund. The whole exercise, essentially, was to take your budget and try to convince people that you are doing something about the environment.

Are there specific agreements between the IRM unit set up under the fund and the IRM unit under your ministry?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The short answer is: at the moment, no. But there are protocol agreements being worked on. I guess when we have them in place, then we will make them public.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I'd like to ask the Minister of Forests whether or not his department retains the management responsibility for the grass that will be eaten by cattle in wildlife management areas once the area is established. Who is the lead agency? Who is the manager of the forage for livestock?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Wildlife is clearly under the mandate of the Ministry of Environment.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Therefore, because wildlife is under the management of the Ministry of Environment, the grass in a wildlife management area that's been utilized heretofore by cattle.... I'm speaking specifically of areas proposed as wildlife management areas where there is grazing by cattle. Is my question clear?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: You are speaking of an area that's proposed for a wildlife management area. If it should become a wildlife management area, then that area would be under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Environment. But it doesn't preclude prior uses.

[5:45]

MR. ZIRNHELT: Therefore the integrated management of the forage resource will be exclusively under the Ministry of Environment? In other words, the practical effect of this — there's nothing tricky here; I just want to clarify it — is that if my ranch has been grazing in a wildlife management area, then the person managing the AUMs, the management plan and improvements, and the impact mitigation.... It would all be done by the Ministry of Environment.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: No, any grazing leases issued in that area would be under the Ministry of Forests, the same as any timber licenses, etc. Again, we come back to the integrated land use. The lines of demarcation, if you like, are very clear as to who has the mandate for issuing grazing permits or grazing licenses.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I'm talking about grazing licenses as opposed to grazing leases, where there is different tenure involved. These areas I'm talking about probably have both involved, but in particular it's the area that is not part of grazing leases. I understand that; I think that's governed by one piece of legislation. It's the Crown lands that have not been alienated through leases under which there are long-term licenses for management.

MS. EDWARDS: I would like to talk a bit more about wildlife management areas, because as I understand it, there needs to be some protocol arranged between the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Forests before wildlife management areas can be reasonably put together. Is that correct? Would the minister like to comment on where we are as far as arranging that kind of protocol is concerned? It might deal with who manages grazing, because the minister

[ Page 10812 ]

says that the Minister of Forests will manage any grazing. But if it is in a wildlife management area, I don't feel too confident of the answer. I hate to doubt the minister, but I don't feel that confident.

There is, of course, the possibility in a wildlife management area of there being some timber. Who gets the stumpage from the timber? Who is allowed to go in? A number of issues of the Crown's return have to be arranged, and I understand that they're normally arranged through protocol. Can the minister elaborate?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: If an area is declared as a wildlife management area and the use of that range is subject to the approval of a plan by the Ministry of Environment, the Forest Service would still issue range permits for domestic grazing — if approved in the overall plan of the wildlife area. So it comes back to the member for Cariboo's question. If an area is designated a wildlife management area, there must be a plan approved by the Ministry of Environment, but the Forest Service would still issue grazing permits or licenses and timber licenses — anything to do with the other resources. Similarly, the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources would deal with licenses to do with mining, but the overall plan would be subject to approval by Ministry of Environment.

MS. EDWARDS: What about roads related to a timber licence — for example, in a wildlife management area?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Any roads that were proposed or planned for the harvesting of timber or the extraction of any natural resource would have to be approved in the plan, which again would come under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Environment.

MS. EDWARDS: Excuse me, Mr. Minister, but there are a number of issues. Who would build the road? Who would maintain the road? Are you saying that as long as it's approved in the plan, it could be almost anybody? Or are you suggesting that it may likely be Ministry of Forests roads? Who would do it, in particular, in a situation where there might be a mine and a forest licence?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I don't know if there is any clear, succinct answer I could give you on that. It would depend on the type of licence, what the road was intended for, whether it's for resource extraction. I don't know if off the top of my head I could give a clear answer as to who would build, pay for and maintain the road and whether it would be abandoned once the resource had been extracted. I think it would depend on too many things. I don't know. I'd like to give you a better answer to that, but I don't think there is any one answer. If there is, I'll come back with it.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I have a question to the minister about the conflicts between the user of the grazing resource and the user of the timber resource.

I think the position that you have taken is that if there are conflicts between these two users, it is for them to sort out, there is no compensation or no liability for compensation on the managing agency and it's simply a matter for the logging company and the rancher to work out. The kind of examples that come up are when the cattle damage the trees; if the logging roads that need a new lift of gravel make it impossible for somebody to get to the cattle chute that they had on the range; that there was a plan to locate the cattle-handling facilities and so on, but somebody who wasn't aware of the needs — what it takes to back a truck to a loading chute and load a cow — approves the raising of the road.

As the problem is presented, the small rancher doesn't feel he's got the financial resources to sue the company, and on the other hand, the owner of the company is very reluctant — if he thinks damage has been done by the owner of the cattle — to sue him, because it's not good PR. So your ministry has taken the attitude that you can get out of the way of the conflict and let them sort it out.

I understand there have been meetings between your officials and the cattle industry. I wonder if you could report on what progress there has been in this clearly unsatisfactory situation.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: First of all, I'm not so sure it is unsatisfactory, because you and I both come from country where these conflicts occur regularly. There's a cattle guard or a fence, or somebody is complaining about something. We just don't have the resources or the staff to referee every dispute between a cattleman and a forest company. But we find out that in most cases, most people are pretty reasonable, and when the two people sit down to talk about it, they can resolve their problem. I hate to put a percentage on it, but in a vast majority of cases they work it out.

When we get to the case where they can't work it out and it's a clear conflict, then we are prepared — and only then — to step in and say: "Okay, we will have to be the arbiter here, and we will have to come to a conclusion." But I think you will agree that usually when reasonable people sit down and talk things out, they can work out their problems. Most of the problems are not that serious. They may appear that serious on the surface or at that particular time, but that's why we don't want to inject ourselves into every little argument between every rancher and every person in the forest industry, or we'd be doing nothing but.... The minute there was the slightest conflict, they would be running to government to solve their problems. I don't think we are there to do that, and I'm certain that we just don't have the staff to do it. Most conflicts do resolve themselves by people sitting down and talking. When they can't, then we will get involved.

[ Page 10813 ]

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might have leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'd like the House to meet two of my sisters-in-law. With us and joining me later on this evening are Lib Chase from Los Angeles and Mary Quakenbush from Vancouver — a constituent, I might add, and supporter of the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Marzari), I'm sorry to say. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming them here this afternoon.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, due to the lateness of the hour and commitments that members have, I move the committee do now rise, 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. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.