[ Page 10857 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act to Provide Collective Bargaining Rights for Independent Truckers.

(Bill M228). Mr. Clark

Introduction and first reading –– 10857

Oral Questions

Health risk from mine tailings. Mr. Zirnhelt –– 10857

Pacific National Exhibition. Mr. Sihota –– 10858

Columbia River Treaty. Mr. Davidson –– 10858

Ms. Edwards

Pacific National Exhibition. Mr. Sihota –– 10858

Effect on tourism of highway closure announcement. Mr. Crandall –– 10859

Commercial vehicle inspection. Mr. Miller –– 10859

Non-recyclable liquor containers. Mr. Cashore –– 10859

Tabling Documents –– 10860

Point of Privilege

Taped conversations of Attorney-General. Mr. Sihota –– 10860

Forest Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 35). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Richmond) –– 10863

Third reading

Forest Amendment Act (No – 2), 1990 (Bill 48). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Richmond)

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 10863

Mr. Miller –– 10864

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 10864

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

On vote 30: minister's office –– 10865

Mr. Miller

Mr. Zirnhelt

Ms. A. Hagen

Presenting Reports –– 10889

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. S. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today we have four special guests. I would like to introduce them to the House at this time: Stuart Lang, who is the president of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce; Leslie Abramson, past president of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce; Doug Vincent, executive director of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce; and Brian Small, executive director of the Victoria Chamber of Commerce. Would the House please assist me in bidding them welcome.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have five members of the Environmental Youth Alliance. These young people are meeting with people from both sides of the House today. Some of us met with them at lunchtime, and most assuredly, these people will be taking a role in the development of public policy in this province and elsewhere. Their names are Daniel Ng, Debra MacKillop, Rina MacKillop, Matt Brook and Kerry Irish. Will the House join me in making them welcome.

MR. HUBERTS: In my office I have a beautiful painting of a Pacific Northwest scene. My uncle painted that painting, and I'm very proud of it and of him. I would like the House to welcome my uncle and aunt from Lynden, Washington: Carroll and Vivian Forseth.

MS. PULLINGER: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure today that I introduce three people who are visiting in your gallery: Mr. Ed Palmateer from Nanaimo, who recently moved to the area with his wife; his brother Larry Palmateer, who has recently moved to Ladysmith; and Marg McGeachy from Duncan. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. LOENEN: Mr. Speaker, there are two special guests in your gallery who are visitors from California: John and Elaine Hyatt. John has a position at the University of California at Irvine school of medicine. I would ask the House to make them feel at home and to welcome them.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Rumour has it that it's the birthday of the first member for Cariboo (Mr. Vant), and I'd like to extend non-partisan greetings.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO PROVIDE
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RIGHTS
FOR INDEPENDENT TRUCKERS

Mr. Clark presented a bill intituled An Act to Provide Collective Bargaining Rights for Independent Truckers.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, in the last three years we've had major labour disputes involving independent truckers. Three years ago there was a dispute on a highway contract in Richmond. A couple of years ago there was a problem with log-haulers in the Prince George area. Six months ago there was a dispute in Revelstoke, and recently there was a virtual provincewide shutdown by independent truckers.

While the problems in the trucking industry are many and deregulation has been a contributing factor, one of the primary concerns expressed has been the inability of independent truckers to legally organize to have some voice in their wages and working conditions. This bill rectifies that problem. It provides collective bargaining rights for independent truckers. This has the potential not only to improve the working conditions for truckers, but to improve the stability of the industry. Mr. Speaker, no other province denies dependent contractors the right to unionize, nor does the Canada Labour Code. This bill brings British Columbia in line with the rest of Canada.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, while the primary purpose of this legislation is to provide collective bargaining rights to independent truckers, it also extends those rights to other dependent contractors. For example, this is a growing problem in the entertainment industry in British Columbia.

Bill M228 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

HEALTH RISK FROM MINE TAILINGS

MR. ZIRNHELT: I have a question for the Minister of Tourism. The health risk posed to local residents by mine tailings in the Wells area seems to be well on its way to being abated, but to my knowledge, a number of tours in the Wells-Barkerville area were recently cancelled because of concerns tourists had for their health. Is the Minister of Tourism willing to assist this area by publicly assuring tourists that they can still enjoy a good and safe holiday in the Wells-Barkerville area?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question, and I'll take it on notice.

[ Page 10858 ]

PACIFIC NATIONAL EXHIBITION

MR. SIHOTA: I have a question to the Minister of Tourism, which deals with the PNE and the board. This afternoon the board will be discussing a report prepared by Peat Marwick that deals with the handling of labour relations and the amalgamation of the chief executive officer's position with the position of president. Could the minister advise the House whether or not that report was secured in compliance with the tendering guidelines of the PNE board?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I thank the member for his question. Obviously the report wasn't very well guarded, because at some time in the last few days it was leaked to the press.

MR. SIHOTA: In his report to the board, Mr. Thomas indicated that the report would cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of $35,000. All matters over $20,000 are to go to tender, and the ultimate cost of that report was approximately $53,000. Could the minister advise the House why the report was procured in a fashion inconsistent with the tendering process established for the PNE?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: The Minister of Tourism will take that question as notice.

MR. SIHOTA: A new question to the Minister of Tourism. There is to be a meeting of the board today, where the matter of Mr. Thomas's handling of the labour negotiations just concluded is to be discussed, together with Mr. Smith's — who I believe is the general manager of the PNE. The handling of labour negotiations by Mr. Thomas and Mr. Smith's performance to date are to be discussed. Board members were advised of this meeting just recently. My question to the minister is this: could he explain why his ministerial assistant, Mr. Van, was phoning board members in advance of today's meeting, suggesting to them how they should vote on the matter of Mr. Smith's future?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The member still has the floor.

MR. SIHOTA: If the member wishes to rise, Mr. Speaker...

COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY

MR. DAVIDSON: My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. In view of the recent $100 million Bonneville power agreement and the other benefits which will accrue to the province from the Columbia River Treaty, has the minister recommended that these benefits be earmarked for retirement of the province's deadweight debt?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Essentially, the recent announcement by the chairman of B.C. Hydro is good news. When the Columbia River Treaty projects were built, they were to some extent overbuilt. They are capable of more regulation of floodwater flows than was envisaged in the Columbia River Treaty. There is now an agreement between Hydro and the downstream utilities in the U.S. to recognize these additional benefits and to share them on a 50-50 basis. These benefits are worth roughly $100 million over the next ten years, so they're in addition to the Columbia River downstream benefits as negotiated in the treaty.

As to any commitment for the use of these moneys, the moneys that will flow to the province as a result of repatriating or patriating the downstream benefits will flow to the treasury of B.C. and not to B.C. Hydro. It will be a matter of future government policy, but certainly they would go a long way toward wiping out the deadweight debt of the province.

MS. EDWARDS: I'd like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, vis-à-vis the same agreement that you've been talking about and also in relation to the extensive damage and the reduction of the recreational value of the dams downstream from the reservoirs which will be emptied, has the minister made plans to have public hearings on the agreement that he has announced?

HON. MR. DAVIS: The answer really is no. However, the environmental impact studies relating to this additional regulation have all been done and they're all published and available to the public, and if there is continuing concern there may well be an occasion to hold some hearings. However, I'm told by Hydro that the environmental impacts are negligible: zero, certainly, on the Arrow Lakes; zero on the Libby reservoir; and minimal, if they exist, upstream of Revelstoke.

PACIFIC NATIONAL EXHIBITION

MR. SIHOTA: I have a question to the Minister of Tourism. Just putting aside the matter of whether or not Mr. Van discussed this matter with board members and encouraged them to vote on a particular matter, does the minister think it proper that his assistant should be contacting members of the board of the PNE and telling them which way they should be voting with respect to the crucial personnel matter that they're to discuss today?

[2:15]

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Obviously the opposition must be in some difficulty today with running short of questions, in view of the tremendous job this government is doing in all regions of the province. It's obvious that they're looking for a little time on the clock, because they don't seem to have a very well prepared agenda today. But I will advise the

[ Page 10859 ]

member that I will gladly discuss that with my assistant.

MR. SIHOTA: Supplementary question to the Minister of Tourism. Did you direct Mr. Van to discuss this matter in any way with members of the board?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I thank the member for his question, and once again it's quite obvious to me that 15 minutes is quite an expanded time for question period today. They seem to be very short on meat and questions, but I can assure the member that the answer to the question is no.

EFFECT ON TOURISM OF
HIGHWAY CLOSURE ANNOUNCEMENT

MR. CRANDALL: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Last week there was a mud slide across the Trans-Canada Highway just west of Revelstoke and it brought about an announcement on the wire services that the TransCanada Highway was closed. That started a flood of cancellations to the tourism operators in the Trans-Canada corridor. In fact, the highway was not closed, and I would like to ask if you would investigate that and be sure that your staff doesn't put out any bulletins to this effect, because it has a tremendous effect on the tourism operators.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I am not aware of that incident, and I would be pleased to bring back a report.

COMMERCIAL VEHICLE INSPECTION

MR. MILLER: To the Solicitor-General. I am not quite sure how to interpret his statements regarding faulty equipment not being responsible for accidents, when 40 percent of trucks in an emergency inspection program couldn't pass. But specifically with respect to the coroner's report of May 24 on the Kamloops accident, which said it wasn't adequate and recommended the hiring of more inspectors — this was buttressed by the safety committee in Kamloops — will you tell the House how many new inspectors will be hired and when they will be in place and doing their work?

HON. MR. FRASER: A comment on the report of the coroner's investigation will be made jointly by the Minister of Highways and myself.

MR. MILLER: To the same minister. The coroner's jury made specific recommendations with respect to the commercial vehicle inspection program rulebook being amended to require the removal of backing plates. Could the minister advise if that change has been made? If not, when it will be made?

HON. MR. FRASER: As I said, a joint comment will be made by the Minister of Transportation and Highways and me on that particular incident.

MR. MILLER I think the travelling public is waiting for more than just meetings. Specifically, the coroner's jury recommended — and I think this goes to the heart of the matter — that a training program, involving at least two months of winter driving, be put in place, When will that be in place so that the travelling public can be assured that the people driving commercial vehicles are trained to do so?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the specifics of that coroner's report, as I've already said twice, the Minister of Transportation and Highways and I will be making a joint statement. With respect to trucking and traffic safety in general, there is no government in Canada more committed to safety than this one, and there is no minister in Canada more interested in safety than me.

MR. MILLER: I would remind the minister that it was his government that abolished mandatory vehicle testing in British Columbia — abolished; privatized. Does the minister now, in hindsight, not regret that decision having been taken?

HON. MR. FRASER: This comes as a heaven-sent opportunity. It is true that there were three inspection stations in the province not too many years ago; now there are 1,637 inspection stations. Every commercial vehicle in the province is required to be inspected twice a year; not only that, but we have the toughest standards in North America. The province of Manitoba is adopting our standards; the province of Alberta is looking at adopting our standards. The private vehicle inspection program is the best in Canada. We have the best record for safety inspections anywhere.

NON-RECYCLABLE LIQUOR CONTAINERS

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services. All British Columbians agree that we're in favour of reducing waste and that we require more environmentally appropriate packaging. But while the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds) appears on television to tell us we can turn garbage into gold, the liquor board is helping clog the waste stream with garbage we can't do anything with at all. Has the minister decided to help out his colleague and do his part for a cleaner environment by directing the liquor board to stop ordering products in containers that can only be recycled in North Carolina?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The question concerning the liquor distribution branch doing their part for the environment is interesting. My information is that the liquor distribution branch in British Columbia has a very enviable record of reclaiming their used cartons — or the used product, the bottles and the cans. They have, in fact, led the way, I believe, and continue to do that. I have sat in on discussions with people from the liquor distribution branch, and they talk about ways of recycling the small plastic strip

[ Page 10860 ]

that holds a half-dozen cans together. I don't know how people could be more dedicated to doing that than those people. We recently had a special day at the liquor distribution branch in Vancouver to officially launch renewed activity in recirculating and reclaiming all of this waste product.

Very often there is criticism of people who work for government or do jobs for government. I want to stand here today and say that I'm proud of the people at the liquor distribution branch and the job they are doing, and so should all the rest of us in this House.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I notice in our gallery the president of the Cariboo Tourist Association visiting us this afternoon. Would the House please welcome Pat Corbett.

HON. L. HANSON: I would like the members of the House to join with me in welcoming to British Columbia over 1,000 athletes from all provinces in Canada who are participating in the Canadian Special Olympic Summer Games, which kick off tonight at B.C. Place Stadium in Vancouver.

The Canadian Special Olympics are held every four years, and this is the first time that British Columbia has hosted these games. There are nearly 200 athletes from British Columbia who have qualified for the many events, including swimming, track and field, rhythmic gymnastics, power-lifting, soccer and bowling.

I am certain that all members of the House will join me in wishing good luck to the 1,000 athletes of the Canadian Special Olympics.

MR. BLENCOE: On behalf of our side of the House, I would like to join with the minister in welcoming the 1,000 athletes from all over the country to these very special events. It is, I think, a great privilege for British Columbians In the next few days to witness the activities of the Special Olympics, which once again show to all of us that everybody has the ability to participate and that we are learning so much as the years go ahead in so many events.

All sides of the House, I am sure, welcome this event and wish them all great success.

Hon. L. Hanson tabled the audited financial statements for the Provincial Capital Commission for the year ended March 31, 1990.

Hon. Mr. Couvelier tabled the report of guarantees and indemnities for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1990, in accordance with section 56 of the Financial Administration Act.

Point of Privilege

TAPED CONVERSATIONS OF
ATTORNEY-GENERAL

MR. SIHOTA: I wish to rise on a matter of privilege, or more accurately a matter of contempt of parliament.

Mr. Speaker, before I proceed I would just like to table with you the text of the comments that I intend to put forward, together with evidence that I will be referring to during the course of my comments, so that they form part of the official record.

That being done, let me say this. The material that I have placed before you raises the issue of whether the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) has violated the independence of his office by discussing with a person that he knew to be in contact with defence counsel matters and strategies relating to the prosecution of the former Minister of Tourism, and whether by so doing the Attorney-General is in contempt of parliament.

Fundamental to our parliamentary tradition is the principle that an attorney-general should be independent and impartial with respect to any prosecution before the courts. He must be scrupulous not to involve himself in a prosecution. Professor Edwards, in a quotation that I provided you with, in a work entitled The Law Officers of the Crown, expresses the principle in some detail.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. It's very important that the Chair be able to listen to the matter being stated, because the Chair will have to determine whether or not in fact a prima facie case exists. So I would ask all members to restrain themselves so that the Chair can listen to the matter. There is a sequence of events which have to take place any time a member wishes to rise on a matter of privilege, and the sequence is being followed.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I should say that I have served notice to the Attorney-General of this matter, together with the text of the comments that I'm reading into the record now.

The Attorney-General, of course, has an obligation to be impartial and independent. The Attorney-General himself best expressed that requirement on May 2, 1989, when he described his responsibilities in this House as follows: "I want to say — through you, Mr. Chairman — that I will continue to do what I believe to be correct in the service of this office; I will apply to the best of my ability the law in an even way; and I will do so without having the imprimatur of my personal biases and my political biases placed upon it. That is what I was sworn to do, and that's what I will do."

I wish now to set out the material which speaks to the issue at hand. I should at the outset, however, advise Mr. Speaker that it is not my intention to raise the merits of the case against the former minister, but

[ Page 10861 ]

rather to put forward information as it relates to the responsibilities of the Attorney-General.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the RCMP did recommend on two occasions that charges be laid against the member. The Attorney-General did not follow the recommendations. Subsequently, a justice of the peace issued a process on May 28, 1990, and compelled the member to attend in court on June 12, 1990, to answer the charge. Due to the Attorney-General's decision not to proceed with a public prosecution, the private prosecution was commenced by me. The first date for hearing of that prosecution was June 12, 1990.

On June 12, 1990, the Attorney-General engaged in a conversation with one that he knew to be in direct contact with defence counsel. I wish now to read to you a transcript of the main portions of an actual discussion which took place between this individual and the Attorney-General. Mr. Speaker, I will not be reading the entire transcript — I have tabled it for you as information — only the pertinent parts. The conversation which occurred on June 12 went as follows. This conversation is between the Attorney General and an unidentified individual whom I shall be referring to as X the reasons for this, Mr. Speaker, will become apparent during the course of....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. On a point of order, the government House Leader.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I would submit to you that on charges as serious as this, as this member alleges, the very least he could do is name names and verify the accuracy of the information he is putting forward. At the very least, Mr. Speaker, I would caution you to take into account the fact that he has not verified this information nor has he named names.

[2:30]

MR. SPEAKER, I still have to hear the basis of what the member has to say before I can make a decision. The Attorney-General is not present today, but I would advise all members that prior to the Chair making a decision, there will be an opportunity for the Attorney-General to stand in this House and make a statement on the matter as well. In the meantime, I must hear the matter before I can begin to deal with it. I would ask the member to continue.

MR. SIHOTA: X says as follows: "And he's hired a dimwit as a lawyer."

The Attorney-General: "That was my next thing, who is this guy?"

X: "A nobody. He's a guy that...."

The Attorney-General: "He says you guys used to use him, and he's a friend of Murray's."

X: "He is, but Murray fired him off the case because he wasn't any good. That was the Frisbee case. That was the murder on a cruise ship."

The Attorney-General: "Yes."

X: "And he couldn't handle the pressure and didn't do any work, so Dennis fired him and put Ernie on the case. The guy almost had a nervous breakdown."

The Attorney-General: "How can we get that out?"

Mr. Speaker, the comment, "How can we get that out?" indicates — and it will be important in terms of what I will put forward to the House in a minute in terms of other evidence — that the Attorney-General took more than a passing interest in the information that was forwarded to him. You must determine, Mr. Speaker, whether the foregoing establishes a prima facie case as to the violation of the independence and impartiality on this count. There are others. The House, of course, Mr. Speaker, must decide on the question of contempt.

The conversation continues.

X: "Oh well" — then there's laughter — "I'll tell you who it is."

The Attorney-General: "We could do anything we want now."

X: "Yes, he's well known in the legal community as not being much of a heavyweight, and I'll tell you something else he's doing. He has bragged over the last few months that when..." — Mr. Speaker, I have to refer to my own name here, or I'll just say that reference is made to my own name — "...is the A-G, that he'll be the new ADM, criminal justice."

The Attorney-General: "Oh, is that right?"

X: "Yes."

The Attorney-General: "Oh, I love it."

X: "Yes."

The Attorney-General: "Really?"

X: "Yup."

The Attorney-General: "Who in the hell has he said that to, I wonder?"

X: "Well, apparently he has boasted around, because Ernie mentioned it to me over the last week because we were trying to.... We were speculating in terms of who..." — again, they mention my name — "... would get, and he was one of the names. We thought, well, Vickers and Orris. But then it came down to Firestone because of this brag that he's been making."

Attorney-General: "Jeez, is that true?"

X: "Yeah, he's got no.... I shouldn't say no respect. I mean, he's a likable enough guy...."

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, in a situation like this, what is required is for the member to state his case briefly, table his material and for the Chair then to determine whether or not a prima facie case exists. If the Chair determines that such a prima facie case exists, then all of the details that you may have or wish to bring forward would be brought forward at the committee at that time, As you have tabled a full copy of your statement for the Chair, the Chair will have ample opportunity to read all of the material which you have now read. So I would ask you to briefly state your case and then advise me about the next motion you have to make.

[ Page 10862 ]

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I seek some guidance from the Chair on this. I'll cease reading from the transcript, except to draw your attention to the salient portions of it. Is that...?

MR. SPEAKER: If you've tabled a total copy of the transcript, you can rest assured that the Chair will read the entire transcript.

MR. SIHOTA: Fine. That being the case, let me continue, given that the documents now form part of the public record.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of matters that I wish to bring to your attention. First, as I have already mentioned, is the comment of the Attorney General: "How can we get this out?"

In the same conversation there is then another discussion between the Attorney-General and this individual. During the course of that conversation, the Attorney-General suggests to this individual that the informant — who is me — could be called before the courts. You will see that in the information, He then suggests to that individual information upon which I can be cross-examined. He then talks in the transcript about how that information would benefit the defence. He then talks to the individual in question about the details of various strategies for cross-examination.

Then it becomes apparent that the individual he is talking to is a conduit between him — the Attorney General — and the defence counsel, Mr. Butler and Mr. Anderson. Mr. Speaker, I wish specifically to draw that to your attention again. I won't quote from it, but on page 3, fourth item from the bottom, a conversation appears with respect to X, where X makes it very clear that he was discussing the various strategies the day before with the former minister's lawyer.

What emerges, then, in totality with respect to this first conversation is that the Attorney-General did as follows: he discussed with a person, whom he knew to be in direct contact with defence counsel, ways in which to embarrass the private prosecutor in the proceeding against the former minister. He then went on to wonder how he can make public the information which relates to the prosecutor. The Attorney General expressed opinions to this person who was in contact with defence counsel as to how the informant may be called as a witness and strategies to cross-examine the informant — myself.

In a second conversation that I have also attached — which I will not read — he engages in a conversation with a reporter. The conversation with the reporter is designed to further the comment that I have brought to your attention. In other words: "How can we get that out?"

The conversation is between a reporter and the Attorney-General, and the Attorney-General suggests to the reporter that they would have the story of the year if they could get out information with respect to the nervous condition of the private prosecutor and to the brag that he was purported to have made. Again, the comments in that regard are clear.

Mr. Speaker, I have provided you with transcripts and evidence of conversations that took place between the Attorney-General and others. For verification, should you require it, I would be more than pleased to provide you with the actual tape recording of the conversation.

It is my submission, together with a legal opinion to the effect that there is nothing improper or illegal with the material as it was recorded and provided to me by a third party....

It is my submission that the totality of the material that I have forwarded to you demonstrates on a prima facie basis that the Attorney-General violated the standard of independence and impartiality expected of him with respect to this prosecution involving a colleague of his. In so doing, the Attorney-General not only offended the integrity of his office, but also brought the administration of justice into disrepute.

Accordingly, it is my view that the Attorney-General should resign. However, in the context of this privilege motion, I wish now to serve the notice of motion that I intend to present, and that motion reads....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. SIHOTA: Sorry, I....

MR. SPEAKER: No, don't file it either. just advise the Chair that you are prepared to table the motion if a matter of privilege is found.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise you that I intend to table the motion if a prima facie case is found.

MR. SPEAKER: It is possible and desirable to have you tender the motion with the material that you table with us, but not to read it.

MR. SIHOTA: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: I would remind the House that the Attorney-General is not present, and that prior to the Speaker making a decision on this matter, the Attorney-General will have an opportunity to rise in his place and state his case.

I'd also advise the member and all other members that, of course, you would normally expect that the Chair take some time to deliberate over a serious matter such as this. Therefore I will hold the matter in abeyance until such time as I am prepared to bring forward my case.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On a point of order regarding the member's point of privilege — I mean this with the greatest of respect to the Chair, and I have no intent of lecturing the Chair — I just urge you, Mr. Speaker, because of the seriousness of these charges, to consider the source and how this information was obtained, whether it was obtained in a legal fashion. Prima facie, it doesn't seem to this member

[ Page 10863 ]

that it was. Also I urge you to identify who Mr. X is. In charges that are as serious as this, I urge you to consider all of these factors.

MR. SPEAKER: I think all members are well aware this is indeed the most serious challenge the Chair has had to date. Next order of business.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 35, the Forest Amendment Act, 1990.

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

The House in committee on Bill 35; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 35, Forest Amendment Act, 1990, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call second reading of Bill 48, Forest Amendment Act (No. 2), 1990.

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1990

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Bill 48, Forest Amendment Act (No. 2), 1990, introduces several amendments to the Forest Act that will permit more effective management of British Columbia's forest resources in terms of timber administration and protection from forest fires. So in moving second reading, I just wish to make a few comments on the various aspects of this bill.

First, in terms of timber administration, Bill 48 will authorize the disposition of pulp-quality timber on tree-farm licences to holders of pulpwood agreements. Currently the Forest Act authorizes the disposition of timber on tree-farm licences to licensees under the small business forest enterprise program and to woodlot licences. These licences are primarily for sawlog-quality lumber.

A number of tree-farm licences, however, contain timber that is below current sawlog standards and is not currently being used by the tree-farm licence-holder. It is in the interest of British Columbians to make this timber that is not being used by tree-farm licence-holders available to other parties, specifically to holders of pulpwood agreements. Without Bill 48, our ability to dispose of currently unused pulp-quality timber stands within new and existing tree-farm licences to holders of pulpwood agreements will be severely hampered, and perhaps precluded.

Bill 48 will also enable the Minister of Forests, with the consent of the holder of a pulpwood agreement, to consolidate, subdivide or otherwise amend a pulpwood agreement. Currently there is no clear authority for changing the geographic boundaries of a pulpwood agreement once it is issued. However, consolidation or other types of amendments are sometimes in the public interest, as these changes will often allow more effective and efficient administration by the Ministry of Forests, and more effective and efficient management and use of the timber resource by the pulpwood agreement-holder.

In addition, Bill 48 clarifies the wording of the Forest Act regarding overlapping pulpwood agreements. It is desirable to be able to enter into more than one pulpwood agreement over the same land area, because different pulpwood processors sometimes have different raw material requirements. For example, two pulping processes might use different tree species. Overlapping pulpwood agreements ensure that the highest level of wood utilization can be achieved.

Bill 48 will also ensure that the costs of basic silviculture — reforestation — following timber-harvesting on non-replaceable licences will be borne by the licence-holder. By law, the holders of all major licences must, at their own expense, carry out basic silviculture following harvesting. In the case of a replaceable major licence, there is little chance that the licence-holder would try to avoid this requirement because of the risk of not getting a replacement licence.

[2:45]

However, the Ministry of Forests has issued — and continues to issue — non-replaceable major licences to create or maintain economic opportunities. These licences are issued for timber that does not contribute to the annual allowable cut of a timber supply area because of its quality, size, species or location. Because these licences are not going to be replaced, there is less incentive to carry out basic silviculture, particularly towards the end of the term of the licence. An unscrupulous company could harvest the timber in the latter years of the licence and then move on, leaving the cost of basic silviculture to be borne by the people of British Columbia. Bill 48 prevents this potential problem by requiring a non-replaceable licence-holder to provide financial security in the form of a lump-sum deposit or levy per cubic metre to cover the cost of basic silviculture as a condition of the licence.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 48 provides a more consistent method for calculating trespass charges for unauthorized cutting of Crown timber. These trespass charges are based on the price of the timber, including an average of bonus bids paid for timber sold under the small business forest enterprise program. This program was expanded into tree-farm licences in 1988, but the average of bonus bids used for trespass charges does not currently include these timber sales.

[ Page 10864 ]

In addition, Bill 48 provides for the establishment of regulations that will require contracts between contractors working on tree-farm licences and forest licences and their subcontractors to be in writing and contain a provision for arbitration. In the past it was common practice for the holders of tree-farm licences to make verbal agreements with independent logging contractors to harvest timber on their licences. Needless to say, this kind of agreement provides little security for contractors — who, by the way, usually have a significant investment in logging equipment. Regulations were recently put in place to require agreements between tree-farm licence-holders and forest licence-holders and their logging contractors to be in writing and have provision for arbitration.

Bill 48 makes provision for extending the requirements of written contracts and arbitration to contracts between the contractors referred to above and their subcontractors, who also have significant investments in equipment. Thus, if a contractor has an agreement with a tree-farm licence-holder or forest licence-holder to conduct all phases of a harvesting operation and chooses to subcontract out one or more phases, the contract between the contractor and the subcontractor must be in writing and have provision for arbitration. This will ensure fairness to all parties and will provide needed job security to the subcontracting community.

Bill 48 also provides the necessary authority to allow the Ministry of Forests to increase public safety as it relates to forest fires. By way of background, the province of British Columbia experiences over 2,800 forest fires annually. Increasingly, many of these fires are occurring in areas known as the "urban-wild land interface" — areas where home development and forested wild land come together.

This bill addresses two aspects of fire hazards in this interface zone. First, it provides for the mandatory immediate evacuation. The occurrence of forest fire in British Columbia can come at any time during the hot summer months and anywhere in this province. Homes, buildings and lives can be threatened with alarming speed. It is the erratic behaviour of forest fires that compels the government to request the authority to allow a peace officer or a forest officer to order a person to evacuate a residence, a building, or any inhabited area. Without evacuation, firefighting with water bombers could not proceed due to possible injury, and the losses of timber and private property could be substantially greater. That is why refusal to evacuate will be an offence.

Second, this bill also addresses the significant public hazard that exists on private property. In recent years the extent of private-land logging has increased. Many of these privately logged parcels are owned by absentee landowners or are sold once they are logged. What remains behind can be a significant fire hazard, threatening neighbouring homes and communities.

Throughout British Columbia, on Crown lands and those parcels of private land under a forest harvesting agreement, the ministry may enter these lands to determine whether or not slash is present or a fire hazard exists. The tenure-holders or owners are then instructed to abate or remove the fire hazard. On other private lands the ministry does not have this authority to enter to inspect slash hazards. This bill will provide forest officers with the right to enter onto private land, but not into dwellings, to conduct a proper and thorough inspection of fire hazards.

Bill 48 also protects a peace officer exercising his or her authority under the Forest Act from liability. This is the same protection as is already provided to staff of the Ministry of Forests.

The sections of the bill dealing with forest fires show the government's commitment to public safety by ensuring that where slash or fire hazards exist, forest officers will have the right to ensure that the hazards are dealt with quickly and effectively.

Mr. Speaker, these amendments contained in Bill 48 demonstrate the government's commitment to full utilization of the timber resources in British Columbia and to efficient and effective management and administration of those resources, ensuring fairness in contractual relationships between logging contractors and logging subcontractors, and to public safety.

I now move the bill be read a second time.

MR. MILLER: Gee, I thought it was a relatively simple bill, but after that fairly lengthy speech by the minister, I'm not so sure anymore.

On the face of it, I've not been able to discover anything nefarious in the bill, but who knows what might happen. We will be supporting it.

I would only note in general terms the issue of PAs, which I think needs to be canvassed. I intend to do that with the minister during the estimates debate. The only comment I could make on the inspection on private lands is that I know this has been an issue within the ministry for some time. I believe a White Paper was issued in 1987. The bill is silent on any action the ministry may be able to take. If conditions are discovered after inspection which, in the ministry's opinion, could further the danger of fire hazard, the bill does not speak to what remedies may be available to the ministry.

Trespass billing was another issue identified by the auditor-general. We support provisions to tighten the penalties and the collection of penalties on that. We're also pleased — including myself, as a member of the select standing committee dealing with the contractor clause — to see that the issue of arbitration is addressed in the bill.

I'll leave it at that, Mr. Speaker. The bill really demands a clause-by-clause approach in committee, and we will do that.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I now move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 48, Forest Amendment Act (No. 2), 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.

[ Page 10865 ]

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

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

MR. MILLER: I had intended to cover some of the budget issues when we started, and I overlooked one in particular. I note that there has been a significant increase of 79 percent in the advertising budget, and I would like the minister to advise the House what is contemplated. There was some rumour of an advertising campaign which would be modeled on or would parallel the "Forests Forever" campaign of the forest industry. Perhaps the minister could outline what is in store for us.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I determined early on, after taking over this portfolio, that if we could be faulted at all as a government, one thing was in not informing the public well enough about what we do in the Ministry of Forests, That's through no fault of anyone's. It's just that times change very rapidly, and there's a lot of information being put out by people which is incorrect about the forest industry. Information is being put out by special interest groups which contains misinformation — to be kind — and not complete information. I feel very strongly that it's necessary that this ministry tell the story of what it's doing in the forests of British Columbia.

There is no rumour about what we're going to do I've stated it very publicly that we intend to launch a public information campaign. It's not an advertising campaign, and it's not going to be modelled on the industry's campaign. However good or bad that may be is probably a matter of opinion. The intent and the message are good; how well it is received is maybe another question. But we intend to vigorously pursue a public information program.

I again urge the members in this House and anywhere in this province to take a look at our most recent publication, which has been off the press now for about a month, called "All Things Considered." That is one of the means by which we intend to inform the public. It's an excellent book. It tells what we do in the forests, and that we are good stewards of the forest resource. So if there's an increase in an advertising budget," that would account for it. But I want to assure the member, this House and all the people in British Columbia that it's not an advertising campaign; it's an information campaign. The publication I just spoke of is probably one of the first manifestations of that campaign. I sincerely hope you've had a look at it. We intend to do more of that type of thing.

I should speak for a minute, too, on what the companies are doing, because they also realize that they have to get their message out to the public. Because if the public is informed, they will not buy some of the information coming out of groups such as the Western Canada Wilderness Committee and the Sierra Club, however well-meaning those people may be. Paul George himself has said that they will use any method to achieve their ends. I think the one defence we have against that is an informed public. The companies recognize this, and some are spending large amounts of money to show the public what they do in the forests. One company, Fletcher Challenge, chartered buses and took hundreds of people into the Walbran area to show them what they are doing in the forest, a clear-cut, newly planted land, thinned and pruned second-growth and how they're tending the stand. I think a lot of people came away with a different impression than they might have had before they went on that tour.

Other companies, not just to single out one — MacMillan Bloedel, Canfor and Western Forest Products — are all doing the same thing. They're starting with their own employees; they are taking them into the woods to show them what they do. They're taking schoolchildren, and they're going into school classes and giving lectures and slide-shows on what they do. They're opening information offices in urban centres so that many people who live in places like Victoria and Vancouver, who never get out to see what's happening in the bush, can at least go into an office in an urban centre, get brochures and see what the forest companies are doing.

[3:00]

I just wanted to get it on the record that because of the changing times we're in and the tremendous pressures on this industry, I think it is necessary for both the industry and the ministry to see that the public is informed.

MR. MILLER: I agree in many respects that part of the difficulty in dealing rationally with forestry issues, land resource issues or land use conflicts is that there often appears to be two sides that are immovable. Yet I find, even in reading some of the statements made by the minister, that there's a recognition of a changing set of values because of events worldwide. Rather than the kind of mentality that says, "We're being beat up by the press, which accepts statements from any source without verifying them, or from particular groups who put out information that is not verifiable or is inaccurate, so we somehow must have a campaign to counteract," is there not a better emphasis?

For example, lots of people have talked — including Zimmerman — of trying to come to a common set of agreements in terms of some base numbers for forestry or some basic information that we can get various quarters to agree with. That would remove some of the more inflammatory elements of this kind of cross-advertising campaign.

Additionally, before the Forest Resources Commission, your deputy talked about the need to develop an analytical approach to allow people to really make up their own minds. In other words, the ministry should be neutral, but it should be able to put out information that would allow people to draw conclusions from that information.

As well, I thought one of the more useful publications in prior years was the ForesTalk magazine. It

[ Page 10866 ]

was informative and easily readable by lay people, and it dealt with the whole cross-section of forestry issues and with the cross-section of geography that we have in this province. I wasn't here at the time, but I think that publication was scrapped by your administration. Have you considered reviving that?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: To address one of the first points, the member talks about numbers and putting out numbers. We will endeavour — and always have endeavoured — to make sure that any numbers we put out are as factual as we can be. So I guess if that's being neutral, then we're neutral. We're not in a position to exaggerate one way or the other, as special interest groups are, nor do we intend to. So to answer to the neutrality: yes, we intend to be as factual as the information we have will allow us to be.

ForesTalk. I remember the publication because I was in the Legislature when it was being printed there was nothing wrong with it; it was a good vehicle to get information out. The only problem with it was that it was read mostly by people who were directly concerned with the forest industry. But there's nothing wrong with that, and we have talked about reinstating an internal organ to do something like that. But our immediate goal was to get far beyond just those with an immediate or a vested interest in the forest industry and to get to the general public, because that's where the pressures are coming from. We don't mind that. We canvassed this the other day, and we can canvass it again today.

Of course there's a changing set of values. The whole world is changing its set of values. There's no argument with that. When you look back at the way the world was thinking just five years ago and the way the world is thinking today, values and many things have changed, especially in the environment. Environmental issues have changed incredibly in the last five years, so if the member is thinking that we've changed our values he's absolutely right. But I think so has he, and so have most of the people I come in contact with. Any surveys or polling results will tell you that. If you look at results from even three years ago and look at them today, you will see that people's priorities have changed.

We don't intend to be dinosaurs. We intend to change with those values and to at least stay current with public thinking — if not ahead of it. Again I'll just come back to information; that's what the public is after. I think facts are what we need to disseminate. I could get into a lot of specific instances where incorrect information being perpetrated by others is costing the province of British Columbia considerably in jobs and in dollars. We might get time in these estimates to canvass some of those specific instances. But we are fighting — a rear-guard action in some cases — for the hearts and minds of the public. I think the public is hungry for the facts. "Do I believe this side? Do I believe that side?" I guess the member is right. We want to come up the middle and be seen as those who are putting out the facts. It's pretty hard to argue with facts.

MR. MILLER: Not to belabour the point, because there are other issues I want to canvass, but the issue came up. I attended the commission hearing in Sandspit and the question was posed: "How do we inform the public?" There was a bit of a debate in terms of whether we can get into the school system and whether it's possible to provide that kind of information, I suppose, right across the spectrum or across the grades in the public school system. I think in an indirect way there is really something wrong in a province like ours when we see declining enrolments at the faculty of forestry.

Surely the minister would agree that one of the most effective ways to deal with — and this is open to definition, clearly — the lack of accurate information the public might have is to involve them, particularly in the small communities. It seems to me, and my experience has been, that where there has been that kind of involvement, it spreads throughout the community naturally, because you have informed people in the community, who can talk with authority about what the real situation is, versus having to glean your information from watching either Council of Forest Industries ads or other sources. Everything is suspect now; there is clearly a lack of confidence.

I remember, not that long ago, when the forest industry said that they couldn't afford to have stumpage increased; there would be dire consequences; mills would shut down. Yet they absorbed a pretty hefty slug, and that didn't come to pass. It tends to remove any effectiveness. So you have to be accurate. You can't spread false messages and then expect that people are going to believe you later on.

So I am interested in the form. I know you've put out some booklets, but I am really interested in the form of what you intend to do, across the spectrum of what you might do, involving the schools, involving.... As I have said, I would like your comments, and we will probably talk about this a little bit more in terms of public involvement as being one of the ways in which the public can be better informed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I won't belabour it, but I did mention in my remarks a few minutes ago that we have to get into the schools and into the communities. We intend to do just that. We are working with industry to develop a program where we can have people — MLAs, city councilors, elected people, leaders in the community — go into schools with a prepared package: a slide presentation with a prepared text, with books such as I have mentioned, "All Things Considered," and other brochures to show what we are doing in the forests.

Yes. I saw, immediately upon taking over this ministry, that we had to get in and do a better job at the local level, in the school system, in service clubs; we had to get into the communities. Through our process of awarding licences and reviewing cutting plans, etc., we are doing our utmost to involve the local community in local resource-use plans and to get community input.

In fact, I should stop here. I was remiss the other day in not introducing the two fine gentlemen who

[ Page 10867 ]

are supporting me in these estimates. I should put on the record that to my immediate right is the Deputy Minister of Forests, Mr. Philip Halkett, and to my immediate left is the Assistant Deputy Minister of Forests in charge of operations, Mr. Wes Cheston.

I think Mr. Cheston would be the first to tell you that he has chaired many public hearings throughout the province on many things. The member for Prince Rupert says he has seen him at a few. Wes has even been beat up pretty good from time to time — he's got the scars to show it — but that goes with the territory. Right, Wes? Every interest group in the community can put their case forward at a public forum and express their thoughts.

I agree that we have to have the information flow the other way. So to come back to your original question about why we are spending more money on doing these things, it's for the exact reasons that you just mentioned and that I mentioned earlier. An informed public is the kind of public we want, a public that will not buy incorrect statements out of hand from either side, from industry or from special interest groups or from anyone. If they are well-informed, I think we will all be much better off.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I'd like to ask the minister about the important contribution that no one will doubt the forest industry makes and will continue to make to the economy of the province. You appeared, I think, before the Sea to Sky conference, as did a lot of other people. Mr. Bryan, from the Council of Forest Industries, indicated that contrary to myths, the contribution to the provincial economy is about 25 percent; the contribution to the manufacturing portion of the provincial economy is 50 percent.

I noticed in the statement you made the other day that you did allude to the 50 percent of manufacturing. Can you confirm the position your ministry is taking on this now? This is something I've been aware of for some time. In fact, I've been criticized by some of the share groups for using Mr. Bryant's figures; and they come back and use the figures that you used at that conference. This is an example of let's get the facts on the table. To me, 25 percent, 20 percent or 10 percent is very significant. I'd like to know your position on it.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In my opening remarks I referred to the manufacturing sector, where now I believe it's over 50 percent. I think about 53 percent of all manufactured goods are from the forest sector.

As to how much of the economy is directly or indirectly related to the forest industry, I suppose that's a figure that we could bandy back and forth for a long time. There are conflicting opinions. Some claim, as you say, that it's as low as 25 percent; I haven't heard that figure before. Others say it's somewhere between 35 and 50 percent. I guess it's one that we could argue indefinitely, because it depends on how far you spin off the jobs into the community. As you know from where you're from, Mr. Member, and where I'm from — not necessarily the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller).... For many people in the northern parts of the province and in the northern parts of Vancouver Island, it's close to 100 percent. In some communities it is the whole community.

I was in Port McNeill at a public hearing that we held on the Tsitika Valley. I can tell you, if the forest industry ever folds, that community is gone. Williams Lake is another one; I believe your home is in Williams Lake. I think the figure there would be considerably higher than 50 percent. I imagine it depends on where you're from and what your perspective is, and it probably depends on how far you spin the jobs off. Does one direct job in the forest industry spin off into two indirect jobs, or two and a half, or three, or what? I think that depends, again, on where you live.

I never hesitate to say, when I'm speaking, that the wealth of this province is not generated on Howe Street, as a lot of people might tend to think. The wealth of this province is generated out there somewhere. The head office may be in Vancouver, but that isn't where the wealth is generated.

[3:15]

I guess we don't need to get into a debate on exactly what percentage the forest industry contributes to the B.C. economy, but I think we all agree on its importance. It's far and away the number one industry — and I'm not denigrating any others. There's always an argument now over who's in second place. Is it mining? Is it tourism? Is it agriculture? It really doesn't matter. They're all very important industries to the province, but they're only about a quarter or one-fifth the size of forestry. When we say forestry is number one and these others are in second, third and fourth place, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that forestry is number one by a wide margin.

MR. ZIRNHELT: So I'd just confirm that we don't have anything like an official position. But I would trust that when you are putting this forth, the different multipliers will be told about; the different points of view or the different analytic bases for the numbers will be presented as well. I find the public are using these figures, and it's important to know what they're based on.

In your comments a few minutes ago you said that you would be working with industry to put programs into the schools. I've had experience where an environmental group wanted to put a program into the school, and it caused problems. Some balance had to be set there. Are you working also with some of the "environmental" groups at the same time to develop a balanced view? I would expect industry will present its viewpoint, and that may not reflect other points of view.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: We work very closely with the B.C. Forestry Association, who are very concerned about putting both sides of the argument across. I guess what we're trying to do, again, is to let industry know what we're doing, so that wherever possible we can harmonize our programs. What we're

[ Page 10868 ]

trying to put forward is as factual a view as we can. We're trying not to bias what we say. In our publication, the latest one I've referred to, we are not trying to report with a bias.

I don't have any problems — and I've said it many times publicly — admitting that mistakes have been made in the past. We're trying not to make those mistakes now, and for the most part, I don't think we are. But there is no question that industry, the Forest Service and people in general have made mistakes in the past with the way we've harvested the timber resource. We've learned from our mistakes and, like we've said, a lot of things have changed very rapidly in the last few years. But to try to pretend that we haven't made mistakes would be foolish in the extreme. If we do make them even now, we're quite willing and man enough, if you like, to admit we've made a mistake.

AN HON. MEMBER: Human.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, I guess human. I feel that way most of the time, except sometimes when I'm in here. But most of the time I do.

We don't want to put forward a biased view at all. If we can stick to the facts in what we're doing and, yes, brag a little bit about our successes and admit when we've made mistakes, then I think the public will perceive us as the type of stewards they want over this resource.

MS. A. HAGEN: I know that the Forests critic has an infinite number of issues that he wants to explore with the Forests minister. I want to just ask one question around what would be a very good initiative on the part of the Ministry of Forests to make material available to the schools. However, there is always a concern when one hears that we are going to make material available to the schools that another ministry, the Ministry of Education, another institution — the school boards — and the professionals who teach in schools are going to have the material imposed and some expectations around what will be done with that.

Perhaps the minister can just assure us that it would be his intent to provide the schools with useful resource materials for our students to examine our forest industry — a very important industry in our province in many regions — and to examine those materials along with many others from national and international bodies within our province so that our students may be in ' formed in a broad and enlightened way about these issues. In this way, when they grow up, they will not make the same mistakes the minister has acknowledged we've sometimes made and will be better able from a knowledge base to make good policy decisions for the environment, industry and the community with respect to this very important part of our economy.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Well, that is exactly the intent of what we want to do. We don't want to impose any information on anyone. We'll say: "Here it is for your use. Please use it and digest it." We don't have any problem with other groups putting material into schools either. I'm just saying that we have done it in the past. It isn't as if we haven't done anything. I don't think we've pursued it aggressively enough, and consequently others may have outstripped us in getting information into the schools. It's not the intent to force anything on anyone. If the material is made available, as the member says, our young people — and I've been into many schoolrooms and classes and spoken to them, and they are pretty bright — will absorb the information and use it to the best of their ability.

I think we should make sure that we don't think they're not going to make mistakes as well when they get out there. We just hope that we can help them to avoid making unnecessary mistakes.

MR. MILLER: I was going to note that the minister and I may disagree on things in terms of what is accurate, so you'll never get to the bottom line in terms of everybody agreeing.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: We each have our own set of facts.

MR. MILLER: That's right. I dare say we might have different values. I wanted to review the issue of the relationship between the ministry and native Indian bands or tribal councils when it comes to cutting plans. It falls broadly under the heading of integrated resource management. They are different around the province. Every band and tribal council has a different perspective, and they operate in a different area and have different approaches.

I noted that in the submission to the Forest Resources Commission that the deputy was quoted as saying, first of all, that no distinction is made between the needs or concerns of native and non-native people in planning how forests will be logged. I'll leave aside the question of land claims. I pressed that yesterday and will continue to press it in every appropriate forum because it's something that the government should do. But having said that no distinction was made, he went on to talk about allowances made for archaeological sites — and I'm quoting from a newspaper article: "Allowances are made for archaeological sites, or Indians themselves can point to special areas including places where berries, small plants and mushrooms are gathered, which should be left alone." When asked directly if he thought Indians should be involved in the planning of B.C. forests, the deputy answered yes. That's kind of setting the stage, if you like.

Further to that, I note the memorandum of March 16, which was sent to all regional district managers. Again the topic was integrated resource management, and in the letter constant references were made to stress that this process had to work. It was a key component in forest planning — the statement that all decisions must be environmentally acceptable, that: "We must seek out and respond to broad public desires in our planning and management and give

[ Page 10869 ]

full weight to all interests. We need to demonstrate at every opportunity our commitment to provide equal consideration to all resource values."

The letter went on to state that the Forest Service image and communications ability needed upgrading. The ministry was going to work towards a broader-based TSA planning process which involved maintaining and enhancing public involvement in all user groups.

I think it's fair to say that relationships are not always the best out there with band councils. I'm wondering, in relation to the issue I raised with the minister some time ago — the issue of culturally modified trees — whether the minister could outline what specific policies are followed. What happens at the district level in that TSA planning and those specific sales to take into account the interests which, in this case, the Indians have in the culturally modified trees or areas containing culturally modified trees, but which, I suppose, in other areas of the province could encompass a variety of issues — those referred to in the article that I quoted initially? Perhaps you could outline what is followed.

I'm interested in this particularly to see whether or not it's working, and whether or not the process really does take into account these other values.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On the specific issue of the culturally modified trees, these are the ones on the Queen Charlotte Islands, I believe, that the member spoke to me of a few days ago. We have a process in place. We're dealing with exactly that type of thing, and those specifically where the companies must hire experts in the field — whether you would call them archaeologists, anthropologists or whatever — to identify and map those specific trees and inform the natives exactly what is taking place, where they are, etc.

The system has been in place now for maybe a little better than two years and appears to be working reasonably well. I know there have been a couple of conflicts in the Queen Charlottes over this exact issue. In one case, I think it is being worked out well between the logger and the native Indians, and in the other case I don't think it is. I think there's going to be a court case over one of them.

It's not foolproof, but we're doing our best to take into consideration all of the values in the forest, including historical and spiritual values, and values that may not sometimes be important to all of us but are important to certain people and especially to a lot of the native Indian bands.

As the member said, they canvassed land claims yesterday during the estimates of the Minister of Native Affairs (Hon. Mr. Weisgerber). It's something I don't think we want to get into here, because we could argue for a long time over the right approach to aboriginal title and land claims, whether we should recognize it exists or not and just how we should handle it. I imagine there's a difference of philosophy between the member and his party and the government and me.

Having said that, I think we'll probably leave that alone, or we could be here all night talking about it. Suffice it to say that we agree to disagree. However, I want to assure the member, this House and all British Columbians that I am doing my very best to involve native Indian bands wherever possible in the economic side of forestry.

Leaving the aboriginal claims aside, I feel it's my responsibility to, if at all possible, get them involved in the economics of forestry so they can become independent and self-sufficient. I have had several meetings now with several of the bands. To name a few, they are the Takla band, the Kluskus, the Ulkatcho, the Oweekeno, the Nuxalt, who are side by side with them, and a few others. I can't remember all the names.

[3:30]

We have some very active negotiations going on at the moment to try to get these people involved in some form of tenure in the forests. It's not going to be all that easy, because in some cases there's a wide gap when we sit down at the table. But we're closing that gap, and we're working hard at it. We've got the district managers sitting down now on the first round of negotiations. For the most part, we agree on many things, but as in all negotiations, you will always find a few places where you agree to disagree.

That doesn't mean we can't work it out. I think that in some of these instances we're getting very close to signing an agreement. In the Cariboo, in the north country, and on the mid-coast especially, we are working very hard to come to some agreement.

It's difficult to deal with them all at one time. We have limited resources, and as happens when you start negotiating some of these, more and more people want to get involved. Letters are coming in weekly now from other bands and tribal councils that hear what we're doing. They want to get involved, which is a good thing, and I just ask them to be a little bit patient, because we have to work these out one at a time.

We want them involved when we strike committees to deal with specific areas, such as the Chilcotin. We invite them to be involved in the committee that we formed up there recently, because there are some very serious problems in the Chilcotin plateau. To pretend otherwise would be less than honest. We have some very serious problems up there that are of concern to everyone, not just the forest industry but those in the ranching community, wilderness guides and outfitters, and to the native community. We want all of these people involved when we strike a committee or task force to come to some conclusions.

I guess I've strayed a little from the exact question, but it gives me a chance to express the opinions and the feelings of government that we want to try very diligently to involve native Indian bands in the economics of the forest industry.

MR. MILLER: I don't mind talking about that. I was trying to keep a fairly narrow focus in terms of the issue of coming to decisions about cutting-plans on specific sites. Is a specific study required?

[ Page 10870 ]

I'm aware of another location in my constituency, the Kitasoo band — Kitasu Hill, I believe it was called — where a specific study was commissioned by the Ministry of Forests to identify the archaeological sites and the archaeological interests and historical interests that the Kitasoo band had in that area. I'm not too familiar with those kinds of studies. I couldn't tell you if it was comprehensive, but nonetheless it did identify all of those concerns.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

In this particular case I've referred to, is that a requirement? Is the ministry required to have a study, a document they can actually refer to which identifies those archaeological sites?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On the specific example of Kitasu Hill, yes, I had a meeting some time ago with the chief and their band administrator; I just don't remember the names offhand. That was discussed, and we are very aware of their concerns. As a matter of fact, we've put a hold on that sale until such time as we've determined whether it should go ahead and under what conditions and who should get the licence, etc. So we've just put a hold on it. I've written telling them that. Because of their concerns over the herring-spawning grounds and other things, they make some very good points, and we don't want to continue with anything that's going to damage their means of making a living. They're concerned with the long term. So we've put a hold on that licence.

MR. MILLER: Yes, I'm aware of that, and I've had fairly extensive discussions with Chief Councilor Percy Starr about their concern. The minister is obviously aware that their herring licence really allows them to generate economic activity within the band, and I applaud their efforts in expanding their fishery program to try to provide increased employment in that community.

I only referred to that because I was aware that that specific study had been done by the Ministry of Forests, and my question really was broader: is that a requirement? I refer back to the document that I quoted initially, the letter sent by the deputy on integrated resource management. The whole thrust of the letter was reinforcing the notion that integrated resource management had to consider this full range of values; there had to be a level of competence that the values that people had were being considered. And in that context I ask: does the ministry have to come up with a document on these kinds of sites?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On those kinds of sites, yes, we will have "experts" study the site and give us a report. But to answer the broader context, if we were to impose a moratorium on logging any site that someone had an objection to or a query about, then we would probably shut down the industry in very short order. We get letters on a daily basis asking for people to stop the process here, stop the logging there and not to do anything until this happens. We just cannot accede to every request to stop logging until something happens. We would probably shut the industry down within 24 hours. But wherever there is a concern such as that mentioned by the member, then yes, we do require some facts and an expert to look at those sites before we will proceed.

MR. MILLER: First of all, we have established that a specific study — or a report at least — has to be done by the Ministry of Forests. Going back, I noted a couple of questions ago that the minister said: "We inform the natives." I think it goes much beyond informing; surely the minister is aware of that. I also think he must understand that his government's refusal to deal with the substantive issue colours the relationship. I'm talking about aboriginal title and negotiations; it makes it more difficult. I am certainly not advocating shutting down the province.

Going back to the earlier conversation, if forestry isn't number one, then I would think something's wrong. I think it should be number one, and it should be bigger than it is now. I think it can be. But dealing with this relationship, the letter says we must seek out and respond to desires in planning and management. Now, having conducted the study, is there a further requirement that the district manager would in some formal sense have to sit down with the interested parties and come to an agreement, to try and sort out any conflicts that might exist?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Of course, Mr. Chairman. Having identified archaeologically sensitive areas and reported on them, the next step would be to sit down and discuss them and come up with a way that we could get on with the job of harvesting or not harvesting in an area. We use local knowledge to alert us to the existence of any of these areas, we use experts to identify the sensitive areas, then we sit down and try to come to some agreement with the Indian band involved. There's no question about that. That doesn't mean to say we're always going to come to an agreement. No matter who is involved, when you have two parties arguing two sides of something, we're not always going to come to an agreement.

I come back to the two instances in the Queen Charlotte Islands. One, I think, is being resolved between the two parties; and it appears on the surface that the other is not being resolved without ending up in court. So the process is not perfect.

MR. MILLER: Would the minister agree, then, that something is required beyond advising people that the plans were available for public viewing at a meeting? In these instances, do you think there is a requirement beyond that, whereby the district should be proactive in seeking a meeting and trying to head off any problems?

I've been informed that on the Collison Point site the CMTs are fairly closely grouped, and it would not be that difficult to have those set aside and the sale continue. Yet in that particular case, because of the uncertainty, the successful bidder, as I have been

[ Page 10871 ]

advised, was advised not to proceed. And we have the other unfortunate situation in which a small business logger, who can ill afford to not have capital flow, is really caught in a squeeze that is now unfortunately before the courts. I don't know if there is any resolution the minister can suggest that we could deal with on that question.

It seems to me that this illustrates that a more formal process, where the ministry was more proactive in seeking a formal meeting with the concerned parties — in this case, the Council of the Haida Nation or the individual bands of Skidegate or Masset — could have resolved.... And I understand further that there are conflicts between the archaeological sites branch and the Haida in terms of what they would like to see where culturally modified trees exist.

I would point to the process laid out by your ministry with regard to heritage trails. In reading that, it seems to me the ministry has correctly recognized the importance of heritage trails and has set in place a process involving not only your ministry but also the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture. It's very specific in terms of not only the public involvement but also the whole planning process: "A public planning process which is carried out for each trail ... approved jointly by two ministers." It goes on in terms of a memorandum of agreement, identifying that heritage trails have heritage and recreational value. Who is responsible for defining a specific trail? "Any detected problems will be resolved through joint liaison by the parties to this agreement and in keeping with the spirit of the stated purpose of this agreement." In terms of guidelines, it points out very specifically that road crossings should be kept at a minimum. Buffer zones will be established on either side of the trails.

"All non-commercial timber, including immature trees, will be left standing, subject to the silvicultural considerations.... If a trail is disturbed as a result of logging, the operator must restore the trail to its condition prior to the logging, using hand methods if necessary.... Recreation objectives and visual-quality objectives shall be established in the management plan.... The management plan must identify how the trail area will be managed for timber, range, recreation, heritage and other resource values.ff And jointly prepared plans. Here we have, to illustrate the point when it comes to recognizing heritage trails, a fairly extensive and very well-laid-out policy in terms of how that planning process will be conducted.

I don't know if the minister has had an opportunity to read the affidavit regarding the CMTs, but I don't think you could argue that there would be any distinction between these areas — in terms of their significance, if not for everyone, at least for the people who live there — and heritage trails. It seems to me they are fundamentally dealing with the same kind of thing.

I was fairly moved, in this particular case, because part of the rebirth of Indian people in this province is a rediscovery of their roots. I think that's fundamental to any people's sense of place: where they are, who they are and where they come from. I think it is fundamental, and I think a number of Indian people in this country have lost that, and in seeking out.... We have a museum across the road here that has devoted a considerable amount of money in that regard.

I was thrilled, as were others, to see the results of that rediscovery in the form of the canoe that was carved under the direction of Bill Reid, one of the foremost artists in this province, if not this nation. And that process of rediscovery was in part assisted by being able to go to those sites that I've referred to. Yet it appears that in the planning process it is given relatively short shrift. There does not appear to be a formal process. There does not appear to be the necessity of the ministry being proactive in terms of taking a particular study and sitting down formally and going through it and identifying conflict areas and trying to come to a resolution.

[3:45]

I would ask the minister to respond to that and perhaps advise whether or not, given the importance that he is giving to the issue of integrated resource management, there needs to be a better system set up to deal with these issues.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I thank the member for his endorsement of our policy on heritage trails. It sounded pretty good when you read it back. Wes is sitting here just grinning from ear to ear.

I can inform the member that the licensee at Collison Point at the time of the issuance of the licence was aware of the culturally modified trees. All the intending bidders were notified, No objections were received from the Haida after they were informed of the existence of the location of the trees. Now all of a sudden we have a problem.

There may, Mr. Member, be a need for a process, but up until now the process has worked very well. I am told this is the first time we've had this kind of a problem. If it isn't working and we need to have a better process, that may be something we'll have to look at.

You must admit — and I think everyone would recognize — that the political climate on the Queen Charlottes has changed dramatically over the last year or two. There may be a whole new mind-set and a whole new agenda over there that we must become aware of. I don't have to tell anybody; it's no secret to you or anyone else that the heat is being cranked up over there on many issues, not just forestry issues but fishing and other issues. So you may be absolutely right: as conditions change and people's values change, we might have to initiate a whole new process. I can tell you that up until now it has worked quite well. This is the first time we've had this kind of a problem.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I could comment on the fishery: I disagree. I think the minister draws the wrong conclusion, and I don't know where he gets his advice. But it's interesting to note that there is a parallel, I believe, with the fishing issue in the

[ Page 10872 ]

Charlottes, in that it is really a resource-allocation issue. If you look closely, you find that the traditional commercial fishermen — the trollers — are supporting the Haida, many of whom are traditional commercial fishermen. We're talking about the allocation of a resource for a new use and about the allocation of a resource without consultation and input from the local people, and I think there's a real parallel between what's happening there and what's happening in forestry. And I don't think it's because of....

I certainly agree that Indian people in this province are doing whatever they can to press their case. What is unfortunate is that the government is not listening. That is making the situation more difficult. But I don't agree, in that particular case the minister referred to, that that's the issue. The issue is resource allocation and the fact that it's been given by a federal government to a new industry, and the people who have traditionally harvested that resource have been ignored. The people who sacrificed their livelihood by not harvesting that resource in order to allow those stocks to rebuild are now being told that they can't have access to the stocks: "Now that they're larger and coming back bigger, you can't have access." That's the issue up there.

I don't mind praising the minister or the ministry where it's due. I reserve the right to both praise and be critical. I've pointed out that the ministry understands — or accepts — the need for a fairly well documented and extensive policy with regard to heritage trails. I simply asked you whether or not that same kind of policy should be applied in the instance I'm talking about.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: As I said to the member — I didn't want to get off into talking about other issues, because they can be canvassed under other ministers' estimates — where conflicts do occur, we put local resource use plans into place. They work fairly well. I don't say that they are perfect, but they do work reasonably well.

We have the Forest Resources Commission looking at this very issue — public involvement — and I believe the Provincial Round Table on Environment and Economy will probably be dealing with it as well. Yes, we're very concerned about public involvement — about looking at the planning process, at how the public does get involved and at meeting the public's needs. As I said to the member, this may very well be an issue where we have to take a look at a special process, as we've done with heritage trails. It's worked reasonably well up to now. It hasn't been "broke," so we haven't fixed it. But if it's broke, we'll take a look at it. It may be very necessary to fix it.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I won't pursue beyond that. My colleague from Cariboo may wish to pursue the issue that I've raised.

I would ask specifically, with regard to the people who have been caught in the middle, what advice the minister may be able to offer. Is it possible, through the ministry, to resolve the situation that the people I've referred to find themselves in?

Small business loggers do not have access to large amounts of capital. They rely on being able to bid on sales fairly, to get their machinery and equipment onto the site, to get their workforce onto the site, and to apply their expertise and their workers' expertise in getting the harvest out and marketed, in order to keep operating. In this case — and I won't get into it in terms of laying blame, fault or anything else — we've got a small business logger, a native of the Charlottes, who finds himself in a very untenable position.

I think there may be opportunities to find some redress to resolve this — hopefully, to their satisfaction. I ask the minister if he can offer a position in terms of that.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Certainly whenever there is a conflict and I can help by getting involved, I would be more than happy to do so. In fact, on numerous occasions conflicts have got to a point where they can't resolve them at the district or regional level. It requires their coming up to the senior management level; or in some cases the minister has to get involved. I haven't been asked to get involved in this one yet. There is, I believe, a court proceeding underway; there's an injunction involved, or proceedings towards an injunction.

If we can't resolve this conflict at the district level, I would certainly be more than happy, if I think there's a resolution to it, to sit down and mediate or resolve the dispute between the two parties. I'm a great believer that when reasonable people sit down together and talk reasonably to each other, a reasonable conclusion will be reached. If that will expedite this or solve the impasse, I'd be more than happy to make that offer. To date I haven't been asked. I usually wait until I'm asked; I don't like to inject myself into disputes. I like to be asked to resolve them, and I would be more than happy to do so.

MR. MILLER: Unfortunately, I phoned your office at five to nine this morning, and you haven't got back to me yet today. I would have asked.

I appreciate the minister's response. I think the important point here is that the contractor is not in a position to wait for a resolution through the courts. It is simply impossible. I appreciate the minister's offer and will contact him privately, should that be required.

I would ask my colleague to proceed.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Pursuing this issue, I don’t think it's a matter just of trails or archaeological sites per se. I think the whole issue in forest planning.... If we're going to be proactive about finding out where the spots are that are going to cause trouble, we have to change the process a bit. I don't think it's working to advertise five-year development plans, because there's usually too much. There is no response capability on the part of the Indian bands. I happen to know that they never have enough resources to respond to the number of professional people generating the plans. Often they attempt to make a general

[ Page 10873 ]

response and ask for a process that maybe serves them a bit better.

I wonder what your feelings are about being proactive about seeking out the opportunities for conflicts before they occur. It's my assertion that the process you have now doesn't work. I'll give you an example: the referral process. You don't make bands a referral agency for the purpose of referring cutting plans, as you do other agencies. That has been a longstanding request and something that I think would help immeasurably in terms of alerting people to the next area of cutting plan. As I say, the five-year development plan is almost too much. There are too many of these kinds of sites. Would you care to comment on that?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I just want to canvass the last item the member for Prince Rupert mentioned. I'm informed that there is an injunction by the Haida against this logger he talks about. The last place I like to see anything end up is in court, because usually the only people who win there are the lawyers. So if we can resolve this issue without going to court, I think that's what we will endeavour to do.

If you were phoning me today, the reason you couldn't get me was because I've been in cabinet all morning and then in caucus and then into the House. So if there's a message there from you and I haven't responded, it's because I haven't seen it yet. I will respond to it. If asked to, I'd be more than happy to get involved to try to resolve that impasse.

To answer the second member for Cariboo's question, yes, we're looking at the process. We realize that in all cases our process of involving the public is not perfect. That's one of the reasons we've asked the Forest Resources Commission, as one of the specifics of their mandate, to look at just exactly that: public involvement. You are probably correct that it is necessary for us to be more proactive. Wherever we anticipate that, we try to.

You mentioned limited resources. I've got to tell you that we have limited resources too, and at the moment they are stretched to the limit. So it isn't always possible for the staff to maybe be as proactive as we would like to be. However, we're taking that under advisement, and we also await the report of the Forest Resources Commission.

[4:00]

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I just want it to be clear. I think it illustrated the situation fairly clearly as I understand it, the ministry has said: "Look, we've put up an area for sale. There's a court action it's not our responsibility." There may be some assistance; the minister referred to that. All I'm saying is that the contractor I'm referring to is not capable of dealing with it, nor should he be put in the position of having to resolve it. So with that, I'll.... Did you want to pursue it?

MR. ZIRNHELT: To go back to the issue of the Chilcotin and just emphasize the problem, I suggested, as you know, a process that would have focused on the Chilcotin. I think you gave some consideration to it, but you decided to focus on the overall Cariboo, because that was the timber supply unit. In doing so, you end up with representation offered to tribal councils, and, as you know, that doesn't always adequately represent the local bands. So the process is at a scale that doesn't work for the very purpose that it has been created for.

While I understand that you can't continue to put unlimited resources after unlimited resources, I think that it becomes a matter of approach. What happens is that it may be a case for extension among your staff, where they work differently — not more, or whatever, but work differently — so that when they're involved in the planning process, early in the stage of five-year development planning other users are used. We're particularly sensitive to the ones about the native people because they seem to be in a position to get injunctions. That's what people in the industry are concerned about; they never know where the next one's going to be. In the process, the net doesn't seem to be cast wide enough or early enough; it's always putting some of these users in a position to have to be reactive to the five-year development plan.

At some point we've got to start the process. I realize that we're dealing with a problem that has been there in the past. But, for example, the Chilcotin: it seems to me that in many respects it is a sub-region. You alluded to that yourself. It may need some process of its own, rather than on a Cariboo-wide basis.

Just as a further point to that, there are people on the east side of the Cariboo who are asking for information on the supply blocks so that they can look at the relative amount of extraction over time in that area, just as the people in the Chilcotin are concerned about the pace of extraction and whether it will decelerate after the bug-kill cuts. You have to narrow the focus of a lot of these planning processes, or it's too much for people to handle.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, a lot of what the member says I don't disagree with. We have no problem with narrowing the focus and getting local bands involved. We've done that in a couple of instances. We are involved in negotiations now, as I said, with the Ulkatchos and the Kluskus.

Most Indian bands are very willing to sit down and talk about that; I'm coming back to native Indian bands for a minute. Some are not, though. It wouldn't matter what process you have in place, because they're hung up on a certain philosophical difference that the member for Prince Rupert and I discussed a few minutes ago, and that's where the negotiations stop. Until you're willing to sit down to negotiate aboriginal title, they will not discuss it any further.

They said to me twice now at meetings when I've been up there that they intend to blockade a road or do whatever is necessary, regardless of what else happens. So in some cases it wouldn't matter how

[ Page 10874 ]

much planning or local input you had, they've got some hang-ups on a philosophical basis.

But I don't have any problem in narrowing the focus of a task force or a committee to deal with specific areas, specific tribal councils or specific needs of guides, outfitters and those who depend on the wilderness for a living. I don't have a problem with that at all.

MR. ZIRNHELT: In this case, the Chilcotin, where you have met with some intransigence, which I understand is over the question of title....

I think we have to admit that there are some rights. If there weren't, then the courts wouldn't be giving injunctions over culturally modified trees or wouldn't be prepared to consider giving injunctions where there is a band trapline involved or whatever. There are a number of what appear to be established rights with respect to hunting, trapping and those kinds of things. There is enough common ground where I don't think your government would dispute those rights, and where you could sit down and consider the effect of those undisputed rights on forest management in the area.

I am looking for the common ground, and I think another run has to be taken at this in order to talk about — even in a hypothetical way — what the impacts are, for example, of forest practices and the plans in the region on these particular bands. It could be hypothetical.

You have a situation where there is no recognition, and you're waiting for the courts or some other process to define the implications of the title argument, but there is no question that there is a common ground where we have to deal with forest management practices as they affect some of these resources which are the subject of the claims.

So regardless of who owns title to the resources, it is my belief that progress can be made if it's framed in the right way. If there is some willingness to deal with some of these other rights — albeit not the global rights of title — then you are prepared to localize the planning process on the Chilcotin plateau.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I think we've demonstrated that while we may have a philosophical difference on the overall subject of land title and aboriginal title, we have recognized in many instances — and continue to do so — other rights such as trapping, hunting, fishing, traditional berry supply areas and the rest. We don't intend to get away from that practice. As a matter of fact, these are the very things we want to sit down and negotiate, and we are.

When we talk to these Indian bands — the Ulkatcho is a good example, where they have some very specific ideas of how they want to harvest, etc. — we're very willing, and we are talking with them about just that very thing. So we do recognize the rights of users of the forest land — not only natives, but guides, outfitters, trappers and the like who rely on the wilderness for their livelihood.

I guess other than — we keep coming back to it — the basic philosophical difference of the overall aboriginal title, that doesn't mean we don't recognize their rights in these other areas.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Just on a slightly different approach: assuming that the native people themselves are not prepared to sit at the table in the Chilcotin, are you prepared to sit down with the other users and localize the process? I see a problem with taking the whole Williams Lake TSA as too large a focus to satisfy the sub regional needs.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Oh, sure. We put a task force in to deal with the Cariboo, but we intend to deal with local issues on a local basis. If that means forming subcommittees or whatever, then we will do that — absolutely. We don't intend to have this task force deal with the entire Cariboo every time they have a meeting. They will deal with the specific local issues.

MR. MILLER: Moving right along, I wanted to deal with the letters of understanding. The minister is familiar with the subsidiary agreements — the letters of understanding — which is the policy where you are going to basically turn it over to industry to provide you with the information and, I think more importantly, to put them in a position where they are the lead agency that can influence what happens.

This really flowed from something I referred to yesterday — a 1983 letter from the Council of Forest Industries addressed to the then Premier. The letter stated: "This letter and the attached brief are submitted to you in response to your personal invitation to the Council of Forest Industries on May 27 to present industry's ideas on ways to make the Ministry of Forests' activities more cost-effective." Of these 21 specific recommendations, one was to delegate responsibility and accountability fully to licensees, in line with their existing and suggested additional contractual obligations.

I think that has been part of the problem with this and previous administrations. Their closeness, if you like — or appearance of closeness — to the industry and their reliance.... Particularly, the last minister was quite over reliant on the industry.

This was followed in December 1987 with a letter to the forest licensees outlining what form these agreements would take. I'd like to read the letter, because it's illustrative of the issue. It was from the Ministry of Forests to licensees:

"Dear Sir:

"We would like to inform you that the revised replacement forest licence document will be finalized shortly and that it will be forwarded to you by the regional managers. The forest licence document was revised to reflect input received from industry associations and licensees. The revisions also reflect the ministry's new forest policy.

"While we do not intend to discuss all the revisions to the forest licence document at this time, we would like to advise you that the intent of the letter

[ Page 10875 ]

of understanding (subsidiary agreement) is to be included in the revised forest licence document.

"Essentially, this means that the licensee will be responsible for obtaining input from other resource agencies and licensed resource users for five-year development plans prior to submitting them to the ministry for approval. Issues which cannot be resolved between a licensee and a resource agency will be referred to the Ministry of Forests and Lands.

"In addition, the licensee will be responsible and accountable to perform all operations under the licence to the standards approved by the licenser and to comply with all operating constraints negotiated with and agreed to by the licensee with other resource agencies and licensed resource users. The licenser will audit the licensee's performance."

The letter outlined the policy desired by COFI. COFI said, "We want it, " and this letter essentially gave it to them. It made the licensees the lead agency. The penultimate paragraph in this letter is: "The licensee will be responsible for obtaining input from other resource agencies and licensed resource users." That was fairly vigorously opposed and withstood for some time, but finally the government decided to overturn that policy. Presumably they listened to public opinion on it. At the time that they did that, in September 1989, they earned a glowing headline in an editorial in the Times-Colonist: "Forestry Blunder Erased in Secret." Nonetheless, a letter was sent out in September from headquarters to the regional and district managers. It goes like this:

"A number of things have changed since the Forest Service began entering into letters of understanding with TFL and FL holders. For example, it had originally been decided that the Forest Service would focus on periodic technical audits to maintain control of forest management on TFLs and forest licences and would shift the responsibility for day-to-day monitoring to the licence-holder. However, it has become clear that this concept would not be in full harmony with public expectations, and that some Forest Service presence on a cutting authority, in addition to the audit, is required to ensure approved plans are implemented as intended and that the public interest is protected."

That is a startling reversal, Mr. Chairman. I can understand why it was done, as the Times-Colonist editorial has suggested, in secret, as they had embarked on a very unwise course of action, in my opinion and in that of others. The ministry didn't necessarily want to admit that publicly.

[4:15]

Having gone through that step, I was somewhat alarmed when the previous minister, in his hometown in late September of last year, had this to say about that policy reversal. I'm quoting an article from the Terrace Standard — a very good newspaper in Terrace — from September 27, 1989. The headline is: "Audits Still On Way." The article reads as follows: "Critics are wrong to interpret a ministry document as meaning it is abandoning plans to let the industry police itself, says Forests minister Dave Parker." I think that was a couple of days before he was fired.

HON. MR. MESSMER: Be nice.

MR. MILLER: Okay, I'll be nice. He was responding to opposition claims that a memo from assistant deputy minister Wes Cheston meant just that. In a letter to regional and district managers Cheston said: "It has become clear that this concept would not be in full harmony with public expectations." He also suggested some Forest Service presence in operational woodlands would be required. However, Parker maintained the memo basically says we won't be moving quite as quickly into the audit function.

The policy went on to say: "The ministry was still in the process of developing a system which would leave it to tree-farm and forest licensees to ensure their operations met ministry requirements. The policy would cover anything to do with operations, " he explained, "including logging, slash burns, replanting and stand-tending. Ministry officials would then carry out periodic audits to ensure companies were complying."

Parker went on to make some rather odd analogies, and they're worth quoting: "Maintaining the industry should not have to 'baby-sit' the companies, we consider all British Columbians to be honest, to know what their contractual obligations are and to live up to the letter of the contract." Offering the analogy of the hunting licence, Parker said that was essentially a contract, which allowed him to harvest certain wildlife....

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Which Parker is he referring to?

MR. MILLER: I stand chastised by the member for South Peace River. I referred to the member by his name — the former minister. I'll use "the member for Skeena." Offering the analogy of a hunting licence, the member for Skeena said that that was essentially a contract, which allowed him to harvest certain wildlife, subject to specified regulations. He added: "But I'm not going to have a conservation officer holding my hand every time I go out with a rifle." Well, it's certainly not true in this province, because they are few and far between.

The point of this is obviously the severe contradiction between the statement by the ministry official and the statement by the ministry. I seek clarification from the current minister with regard to these letters of understanding, these subsidiary agreements. Who is right? Is it the letters sent out saying that these are no longer in effect? Is that the current policy? Or is the policy as outlined by the previous minister in his last few days in office the one that exists?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The letters of understanding were discontinued. They are no longer in effect, and we have made provision for more monitoring in the field. To that effect we have 45 additional FTEs in the field. So the policy is that it's history. They are no longer in effect, and I can assure you that it's going to stay that way.

MR. MILLER: Just to quickly follow that, on June 20 in this House I put this question to the Minister of

[ Page 10876 ]

Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds): "Could the minister advise whether or not the forest licensees are still the lead agency when it comes to these referrals? In other words, do they pilot the application through the referrals?" The Minister of Environment said: "Yes." The member for Prince Rupert goes on to say: "Is that not a contradiction of an earlier statement made by the Minister of Forests that that practice would cease?"

I think it is incumbent on the minister.... He was very clear in his answer, and I guess the conclusion is that the Minister of Environment was wrong.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Not having been privy to that and not having been here when the Minister of Environment answered the question, just let me say that where there's an environment problem, the licensee will deal with the environment directly. If they can't resolve their problem, then we will get involved and try to act as a mediator and resolve it. But it is incumbent on the licensees, for example, to deal with the Ministry of Environment.

If it's a pulp mill or a logging practice next to a creek or whatever, it's up to the licensee to deal with the Ministry of Environment if he's in violation or perceived violation of some regulation under Environment. They would deal with him directly.

MR. MILLER: That's not the basis on which I put the question, just to refer to the earlier part of the questioning. The question was very specific, and I didn't read this one previously. I said: "Could the minister advise whether or not the forest licensees are still the lead agency with regard to those referrals?" I think that's somewhat different from a forest licensee company dealing with the Ministry of Environment on a particular issue that might affect the operation of that company.

Really, it talks about the licensee being a lead agency. I think the ministry finally accepted the reasons why that was not the case. But I don't want to belabour the point. I accept the minister's explanation that it's no longer a practice and that the planning is done with the Ministry of Forests as the lead agency. They're the ones who gather the input from the other referral agencies. So I'll leave it at that, although I do think that the minister might want to take the opportunity to clarify that policy I could send the Minister of Environment a copy of Hansard.

I wanted to discuss the issue of access to information and information considered confidential. It is a big problem, and it ties into the issue I referred to earlier and certainly into the issue of integrated resource management. It has been the cause of concern from groups and individuals trying to obtain information so that they can assess plans put forward by forest companies. I think there's a real problem with that so-called confidential information.

I know I asked the minister a question on that earlier this year in question period. I would ask him to comment on the specifics of this case, wherein an organization wrote to the district manager and made specific requests for wood-waste billings on particular cutting permits and asked for the volumes and the monetary value of penalties. In addition, they asked for a list of trespass billings leveled against the operating company on their cut-block. That was followed up by several phone calls and ultimately by a letter from the ministry, which reads:

"A review of the Ministry of Forests public information policy has revealed that your request for information dealing with (1) wood-waste billing and (2) trespass billing cannot be accommodated without the consent of the person to whom the scale and royalty account was registered. Subsequent to acquiring written consent from the party involved, a ministry information request form, FS400, must be completed, giving explicit information pertaining to the request.

"Please note that such inquiries are subject to appropriate handling charges, in accordance with ministry policy, currently set at $50 per hour."

I would ask the minister why that information would be considered proprietary. What possibly could be done with it other than inform the people in that area, who are concerned about forest policy and planning, the nature of the companies operating in their region and the implications of how they operate?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I don't have any problem with freedom of information. I'm a firm believer that the public should know as much as possible about this industry, this ministry and every other ministry. The only place where we would draw the line is when it is private financial information belonging to a company which they might not want to make public or which might put them in an adverse position for marketing or put them at a competitive disadvantage or something like that. I believe in running a wide-open shop, and wherever possible, we will provide the requested information.

If the member knows of areas where we recently haven't given information, and it should have been given, please let me know, because I've informed the staff and all the offices that, other than for really confidential information which could do damage to a company if it got out, I have no objection to the public having access to any information.

MR. MILLER: The latest letter is dated in January. I don't know if the minister is aware of any activity subsequent to that which makes this out of date. As far as I'm aware, the information is still not being provided. Specifically, I'd ask why wood-waste and trespass billings would be considered confidential. If I recall correctly, that information was made public in a number of instances where the ministry advised the public that certain companies operating in British Columbia had been fined certain amounts of money for waste billings — in other words, for timber that they had left lying on the ground. Do these requests fall within that area of confidentiality or not?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On the surface of it, it would appear that they do not. If they do not, it should be made public. As I say, if you know of

[ Page 10877 ]

instances when people have requested information that isn't of a confidential nature and haven't got it, let me know. I'll make sure that they get it. We don't have anything to hide in that regard. I would prefer that wherever possible, everything be done out in the full view of the public so they know what's going on.

I guess I could go on on a philosophical bent here and talk about other things that I think should be done out in public. I think a lot of negotiations should be done in public, before the scrutiny of the press and the TV cameras, and we might end a lot of posturing in certain areas and have the public better informed. Mr. Member, if you or any other member knows of instances where information is being denied the people, let me know, and we'll see that they get it.

[4:30]

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: If the member for wherever it is is bored, I'd have to say he's easily bored. That becomes his problem, not ours.

I want to keep on this, because it seems to me that it's part of the problem with respect to the public involvement that the ministry talked about and included in their submission to the Forest Resources Commission. They thought it was an essential ingredient for proper forest planning in Canada and for also having the public on side in terms of what's happening.

Maybe I'll just recap what occurred with respect to this particular case, because when we went back farther to when the company was preparing their five-year plan on this particular cut-block, various requests came forward from groups and individuals in the region, asking that they be given certain information so they could do an analysis of what the company was proposing.

That was refused on the basis that it was proprietary. It was refused on the basis that the company had certain systems that they didn't want anybody else to know about. It ultimately led to one of the more embarrassing moments of this government, and that was the wood-waste articles in the Globe and Mail. It had the opposite effect: it simply alienated people. They felt they were not part of the process, that they couldn't go to a private company to get information and that it doesn't really work.

They have to be able to go down to the local Ministry of Forests office, and when they request information, it has to be made available to them. They can't be deterred or put off either by $50 an hour fees — perhaps the minister might want to comment if he's scrapped that plan — or a private company given a proprietary interest over a large area of land, saying: "Sorry, this is ours. We don't have to give you any information."

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Is the minister contemplating any further changes with respect to those five-year plans that companies are obligated to submit — tree-farm licence holders — and the obligations they are required to meet under the Forest Act? Clearly the ministry and the minister feel that the issue of public consultation should be greatly expanded. But what about these tree-farm licences which are on Crown lands, but where the management has been delegated to individual companies?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Our policy has certainly changed over the last little while. I don't know how far back in history the member is going. But I will just reiterate that we want to make everything possible available to the public. I guess we can't dictate what private companies do, but any information we have — except for that which I outlined earlier — is certainly available.

The member wanted me to comment on the fee charged for information. In some instances we had to implement that because we got some very frivolous requests. People were literally wanting to waste the time of our staff. We don't have any problem with spending as much time as possible or as necessary to deal with people who are legitimately after information. I make that commitment right here and now. We don't intend to run a closed type of shop.

It comes back to your statements earlier today that we feel an informed public is the best public — the public we want. The more the people know about what we're doing the better, as far as we're concerned. I don't have any problem with access to information.

MR. MILLER: It goes back, really, to the issue of the letters of understanding that we talked about earlier. Obviously the ministry changed that policy; they changed it because they thought — in the words of the directive — that it was unacceptable to the public.

So when we deal with five-year plans, why is it acceptable? What's the difference? It's Crown timber. What's the difference between saying, "That's unacceptable," and allowing this system to occur where the public really has to deal not with a public agency but with a private company?

Again I'll relate a specific instance. I'm not going very far back in history; this one is November 1989. I don't believe there has been any change in policy. In this particular instance an individual wrote to the Forest Service and received a response regarding a particular plan. It happens to be a very experienced individual and a very reasonable one in terms of environment and forest policy and planning.

I'll just read elements of his letter to illustrate his feeling in terms of trying to get the views, as a local resident and someone with a fair degree of knowledge about local conditions and technical knowledge as well about forestry and environmental issues....

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: Yes, he wrote to the Ministry of Forests. It won't take too long to read the full letter — or at least some major excerpts from it.

[ Page 10878 ]

He advised the district manager that he had recently responded to an ad in the local paper placed by the company in question, and this ad advised the public that they would be seeking an amendment to their cutting permit to allow harvesting in a particular area.

This individual got a copy of the map of the proposed block; he walked the boundaries and part of the road, made a number of observations and measurements. He then wrote to the company, as requested in the ad, advising them that he was opposed to a consideration of the inclusion of this particular block at this time and further advising them that he had difficulties with the proposed boundaries as ribboned and painted in the field.

He then wrote to the ministry and said that he was confused, because, having written to MacMillan Bloedel, he was then advised by another source in the ministry that the ministry would not accept an application to amend the cutting permit. So on the one hand, he follows the processes laid out — he responds to the ad — and then from the ministry itself he is advised that they are not going to accept M&B's application in any event.

He says:

"I asked for clarification because I would like to make a full submission on this block, but would like to do so at the appropriate time. I would also like to make such a submission to the appropriate decision making authority, which is the Ministry of Forests.

"Based on past experience...I do not consider the process of making comments to the company in response to a newspaper ad to be appropriate or constructive. In this case, the company was not willing to make copies of maps or reports available for review. Access to this material was restricted to viewing in their office" — at their headquarters in the region — "during office hours. Could you advise me on future progress?"

Clearly this individual, who I described as very knowledgeable and sincere and committed and trying to convey his concerns  — which most likely parallel other people's concerns in the area — is faced with that kind of process. He has to deal with a company; he can only deal with it at such and such a place; it can only be in business hours. And he really lacks the confidence that the company is going to consider his input.

Certainly the company does not have at least the perceived objectivity which the ministry should have. Anyway, the answer came back: "You have to deal with MacMillan Bloedel. We don't deal with MacMillan Bloedel; they are the ones that solicit public input." Interesting paragraph.

"The ministry does not reject input from the public or other sources. However, it is appropriate and necessary that we pass this input on to the planners — in this case M&B — in order that they can make their own reviews and adjustments prior to submitting it to us."

So although the minister said that the letters of understanding are dead, it's clear that in the case described, in November 1989, it is indeed the company that individuals in that community have to respond to. And there is a level of frustration and there is a level of mistrust, I would submit — and probably a lack of confidence in what happens to their submissions. How easy is it to make submissions? I don't know. I think that if the ministry is encouraging a broader planning process and is saying that the public has to be involved, it's incumbent on the ministry to ensure — even if they are tree-farm licence holders — that individuals get an honest hearing, and that their input is going to be listened to.

I think the best way for that to happen is for them to make that to the ministry, which should be the objective, neutral body that was talked about by your officials at the Forest Resources Commission. In my view, this incident is not isolated to this particular area in the province. I think there's a fairly widespread agreement around the province on this issue on the need to have that kind of change — a much more open process — with the Ministry of Forests in a very clear position of authority with respect to who you deal with. I certainly would like the minister to respond to that.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I guess we're always going to have the individual who will write a letter because they feel they've been badly treated. The member didn't mention who the letter was from.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I know, but if memory serves me correctly, it's from an individual who used to work for that company. I did receive one from an individual who worked for them. He didn't leave on the best of terms; so naturally there is going to be a bit of a problem there. Sometimes these conflicts exist.

We have asked the Forest Resources Commission — to repeat myself — to look at exactly this public involvement. Is it sufficient? Are we using the right process? We feel that in the vast majority of cases people do get a fair shake and give good public input into these five-year plans and cutting plans through the companies. If after their hearings around the province the Forest Resources Commission determines that is not the case, then that's exactly why we've asked them to look at it. I'll anticipate their report later this year, and then we will deal with it.

The member may not believe this — and maybe everyone over there doesn't — but I want to reiterate for about the third time that I think the public should have all the input necessary before any harvesting of a resource goes forward. The last thing we want to do is to stifle public involvement or public information. That is the tack we will be following in this ministry from here on in: to involve the public and to inform them to the best of our ability.

MR. ZIRNHELT: The issue often is not whether the information is kept from people; it's a matter of whether it's in an appropriate form. This becomes a problem.

Let me give you an example. As soon as you've started to collect information on the history of cut in

[ Page 10879 ]

an area, you accumulate it only on a timber supply area. The information is not available on a smaller unit. A lot of the public is saying that they want to see sustained yield on somewhat smaller units than the TSA levels. If you want meaningful input from the public on whether, for example, they consider there has been overharvesting in an area or whether the sub regional economy.... If the smaller areas — not the big centres of Kamloops and Williams Lake but the smaller centres of Horsefly, Big Lake and Likely, where you have small towns and people with homes and so on — want to know, they want the information on the sustainable level of cut that's possible in the subregion. You need to aggregate the data in a meaningful form.

[4:45]

Until you go back to watersheds, the old PSYUs or some of the other units, it’s not in a useful form. I'll give you an example in the Williams Lake area. People in the eastern part of the Cariboo want information on the east. They are told that the cost could be up to $100,000 to generate that data. It's known for the whole cut-block, but they want the 20 years of cutting history to compare that to the sustained yield information. The inventory information is available, but the history of cutting is not available.

It seems to be a simple technical matter to have this built up by Polygon, for example. Why can't we aggregate this data and make it available without making it a big research project? That's the question. We have to modify the form in which it's available for it to be meaningful, so that people can give you the input.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Again, perhaps the Forest Resources Commission will tell us this. Royal commissions in the past — I believe it was the Pearse commission — recommended TSAs and that we calculate things on that basis. If in 1990 the Forest Resources Commission comes back and tells us we have to break it down into smaller units, then perhaps we'll have to do that. As you have alluded, there's a tremendous cost attached to that. We might have to weigh the value of whether we do that against the cost and the manpower involved to do it to generate that information is very costly.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I don't think we have to wait for a Forest Resources Commission for everything. We can try a few things, because the commission itself is not going to be in a position to test new methods.

It seems to me that if the ministry was adaptable and trying different things.... When you have a public that is genuinely interested in some larger scale of planning than some small, isolated cut-block, when they are genuinely interested — and it's probably one of the groups that your facilitator is encouraging to become involved in developing options — they need information.

I'm saying it needn't cost $100,000; it seems to me that it can be generated at considerably less cost. But I don't think we have to wait for the Forest Resources Commission to try new ways of making information available, and new forms. I think that innovation should be encouraged. We should not put everything on hold, or we're going to lose a lot of valuable time in terms of developing techniques.

MR. MILLER: I want to ask the minister about the issue of charges. Last December the minister put out a release which was a curious paradox. It talked about the new freedom-of-information policy of the minister, and went on to talk about how much it was going to cost you. It seemed to me to be a contradiction. I don't know, maybe the minister didn't think it was. The headline was: "Forest Service Brings in New Access to Information Policy." It talks about everybody having the right to get stuff, and then when you turn the page, it's $25 for services that take half an hour, and $50 for every hour of ministry time. Has the ministry had cause to reflect on that? Have they changed that policy? Are they still charging that $50? I know that in a couple of cases that were brought to my attention this has caused concern to groups trying to get information. In view of the comments of the minister, who says he wishes to have more public involvement, is this not really an inhibiting factor?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I answered it a few minutes ago. I'll go into a little more detail now. Did you leave the room?

MR. MILLER: I was thinking.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The majority of the requests that we get for information are handled within a half hour, and there's no charge for that. In fact, most of the information we have can be provided readily within half an hour, but the charge is based on a fee of $50 an hour. To correct one thing that I think I heard the member say, there is no charge if the time involved is less than half an hour. When the time exceeds 30 minutes, the minimum charge is $25. The fee charged includes the costs of providing photocopies, blueprints and computer print-outs, where appropriate.

There are times when people come in and ask for a great bundle of information. One thing it has done is cut down the amount of frivolous requests for information. We did have people in there who would waste a lot of the staff's time.

There haven't been many instances when we've had to charge people a fee for information. One thing I should point out, too, is that we're not the only jurisdiction to do this. We brought it in to be in line with other governments, including Ontario and Manitoba.

Suffice it to say — and I don't think it's a contradiction in terms — that we want people to have access to information as much as possible. Legitimate requests we have no problem with, but we have limited resources and do not have a huge staff that can spend hours and hours with requests for information.

[ Page 10880 ]

MR. MILLER: I know you don't have a huge staff, Mr. Minister, and I'll deal with that a little later.

I must have been distracted. I keep getting these messages from members of the Social Credit back bench asking me to leave the room so they can pass this set of estimates. I'm a bit discouraged that they're not interested in participating.

Again following on the issue of integrated resource management.... Although it's a term that's used a lot, it's perhaps not that well understood or even well defined. I think we've really gotten off to a late start when it comes to integrated resource management, though I note the ministry in its submission to the Forest Resources Commission makes the following statement: "To carry out its mandate as assigned to it in 1978, following the recommendations of the '76 Pearse royal commission, the ministry has developed policy, procedures and protocol agreements on integrated resource management."

It was some time later, if I'm not mistaken, in 1987-88, that the integrated resource management branch was instituted within the ministry, and that's confirmed in the 1987-92 five-year forest and range resource report, which says: "Two reviews during the past year — the internal mission review and the forest management review — noted the lack of an integrated approach to resource management as a serious deficiency. To meet this challenge, the ministry has created the integrated resource management program." So it really was never set up until 1987. There's a common belief that it is yet to be set up.

I note a resolution put to the RPF convention this year: "Whereas the Forest Act and the Ministry of Forests Act express integrated resource management objectives in general, non-verifiable terms such that nobody is held truly accountable for implementing adequate planning processes and management prescriptions...." It goes on to call for the establishment of a truly workable integrated resource management unit.

That, I believe, was compounded by statements made by ministry officials before the Forest Resources Commission, specifically Mr. Cheston, that the assessment of demands other than timber is really outside the purview of his ministry, and reflected in headlines like "Wildlife Recreation Takes a Back Seat to B.C. Timber."

Again quoting that official, he said, "Concerns for wilderness recreation and watershed management were considered, but they took second place to timber," and "Yes, other things are considered, but all within the context that those areas have been identified and their primary use is the growing and cropping of trees, and those other uses are secondary." He said: "Some areas might be identified as having a better use as wildlife or recreation areas, but those areas were not taken out of the timber-harvesting area."

I would note, as the minister probably will advise the House, that subsequent to that, the same official who said that single-use is the removal-of-the-timber option came back before the commission somewhat later to advise that the opinions he had expressed were simply personal opinions and not the policy of the ministry.

That's fine as far as it goes, but it certainly seems to me to be reflective of the policy of the ministry, which is carried out by individuals. Has that generally been the description of how integrated resource management planning has been carried out within the ministry? It is conceded that the minister has talked about the need to change, but we haven't done that yet. Is that the basis on which we've been planning in forestry?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, no. When we talk about integrated resource management and multiple use of the land, we mean just that. We mean that all values in the forest will be taken into consideration, not just timber values. If the member would be fair to the staff member who made that quotation, he should read on and read the entire text of what he said. I believe that some of the things he said were taken out of context. I don't think he said — in my recollection of it, and I don't have it in front of me — that it was a personal opinion. However, we should always remember that the planning of the land use and the resource is the purview of the chief forester and will remain thus.

MR. MILLER: How are those other values considered by the ministry then? I realize that the Forest Act touches on some of them: timber production, forage production and forest- or wilderness-oriented recreations. But nowhere in the act is the potential for commercial tourism, wilderness values or ecological values recognized. Certainly the opportunity for these to be considered is not in the act either. In fact, I believe the only opportunity for a public hearing under the Forest Act is under section 27, the rollover. It is the only opportunity for those kinds of major considerations to go through that process. If the minister is saying that these other values are incorporated, how is that done?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: We do consider all values in the forests. You should read my book. My book — my latest publication, All Things Considered — is excellent on it. It's all in there.

I could quote from section 5 of the Forest Act — I think it's worth putting on the record — which says:

"A Provincial forest, other than a wilderness area, shall be managed and used only for one or more of the following purposes:

" (a) timber production, utilization and related purposes;

" (b) forage production and grazing by livestock and wildlife;

" (c) forest or wilderness oriented recreation;

" (d) water, fisheries and wildlife resource purposes;

" (e) any purpose permitted by the regulations;

" (f) any other purpose that the chief forester considers is compatible with using the Provincial forest or a part of the Provincial forest for any of the purposes set out in paragraphs (a) to (d)."

[ Page 10881 ]

So it's pretty broad, and it gives the chief forester a pretty wide range when he's considering uses in the forest.

[5:00]

I could go on and on quoting from the Forest Act, but I don't think it's necessary. Suffice it to say that we are concerned with all the uses and the users of the forest resource and this land base. But I hasten to add, as I said the other day, that integrated resource management means just that and multiple use of the land means just that. It doesn't mean that every hectare of land in the province is going to be used for every use, because that's an impossibility. But it does mean that the days of single-resource use of the land are over.

MR. MILLER: I know what it says in the act, and I also know that the chairman of the Forest Resources Commission said that the information currently available was not designed for integrated resource management. His quote specifically from the interview in the Vancouver Sun of May 19 is this: "They are all over the lot, and you have to question, with respect to what the ministries have said quite clearly, that if their inventories are to be used for integrated resource management on a relatively small land area, whether they're up to the task." So it appears to me that it's not as simple as the minister described, reading out a section of the act. It's far more complex than that.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Having said what you have about the possibilities under the act and the fact that single use is a thing of the past, the issue of integrated resource management needs clarification, especially in those areas that are under provincial forest designation. Is it not true that as soon as you've designated the area as provincial forest, the primary use becomes timber, and other uses are secondary to that?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: No.

MR. MILLER: Is the minister familiar with the ombudsman's report of last year on integrated resource management? It's entitled "Integrated Resource Management — The Issue is Fairness." It goes on to describe what in the ombudsman's opinion are the principles of administrative fairness. Without getting into extensive reading of the report, he lists some essentials: "An opportunity for meaningful participation must be provided to those individuals or groups whose interests are affected." He talks about the opportunity for.... "A structured framework is required for the exercise of discretion." And in terms of public input, he talks about public hearings. All of the recommendations, it seems to me, are consistent. And they're appealing in the sense that they lay out what this impartial observer feels should be required: external review procedures; appeals; independent statutory appeal process, available without excessive cost; independent assessment of environmental and social impact; public hearings.

None of these are in place in terms of the frameworks outlined in the Forest Act, with the exception, as I pointed out, of section 27; and presumably we're not going to see that exercised, given that there's a hiatus in the implementation of new tree-farm licences.

Has the minister read this document produced by the ombudsman? Does he have any comments on the principles that the ombudsman outlines of what should be in place?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, I've read it, and no, I don't have it in front of me, so it's pretty difficult for me to comment on individual proposals. But I think we've covered in our conversations today the basic principles that he talked about.

We don't have any disagreement with public participation and involvement, and we are doing our utmost to involve the public. I don't think there has been a time in the history of British Columbia when the public has been more involved in the decision making process than they are now. In this ministry in particular and in government in general, I don't think there's ever been another time when the public has been as involved as they are now. I don't think there has been a time in history — and I can say this without fear of argument — when a government has been more open in taking government to the people. Both in cabinet committee form and as individual ministers, this government has traveled extensively in this province and listened to the public.

When we talked earlier about the former minister reversing the policy of letters of intent, that mainly came about because that minister traveled this entire province and had I forget how many public meetings, and listened for hours and hours, truly listened, and came back and said it was time to change this policy. I don't have any problem at all, Mr. Chairman, in defending this government's policy of public involvement, and we're heading more and more in that direction every day. As we institute new policies and regulations, we involve the public more and more.

MR. MILLER: Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't think I've ever seen a government have to reverse themselves as many times as I've seen this government have to reverse themselves. The TFL policy was a pretty good example of that.

In dealing with the public and in dealing with these issues that are so critical in British Columbia, it's readily apparent that the Forest Service has been downsized to the extent that many people question their effectiveness and their ability to do the kind of work...particularly the new burden being added in terms of environmental concerns. The minister talked about 45 additional FTEs a moment ago. This year, with all of the commitments to the environment, the ministry has actually managed to lose one full-time employee. It has nearly 60 fewer employees than it had two years ago. That was after the Crown lands were taken away from the ministry.

The auditor-general's report for this year states that "the ministry had decided to maintain a regular

[ Page 10882 ]

presence in cutting areas, through regular harvesting inspections." That relates to the issue I talked about earlier — about, first of all, wanting to turn it over to the companies to do the job, then realizing that the public didn't accept that and changing your mind. The report goes on to say that "the inspection frequency required by existing policy is not being met for major licensees" and that "District workload pressures limit the ministry's ability to increase the frequency."

Has the minister any comments on that in terms of the ability to actually do the job that must be done and handle what increasingly appears to be a heavy workload?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Not really. I mentioned earlier that we added 45 FTEs because we changed the policy and changed who should be monitoring what goes on in the forests. If we pursue this line of discussion — which we can, and I'm very willing to do so — we'll get into the basic differences in philosophy between the party on that side and the one on this side. I think there's a basic difference in what size the government should be.

Yes, there's a heavy workload and the Ministry of Forests, but they're all very capable people. They're doing an excellent job, and some of them are working to capacity — probably most of them. We're not afraid to add FTEs where we deem it necessary, and we will do that. There's no question that the workload is going to get greater as we get more and more into public involvement. It requires a lot of staff to conduct public hearings and assimilate all the information, and as we get more and more concerned about the environment and environmental problems, I have no doubt in my mind that the staff in the Ministry of Forests will grow, as it will in some other ministries. I think it's a price the public is willing to pay, but I don't think the public is willing to pay for a limitless size of ministry or bureaucracy. So when we do add staff, it will be done very carefully and where necessary.

MR. MILLER: I wonder, does the minister have a basic difference in philosophy from those in some of our neighbouring territories, Washington and Oregon? I think that that's a rather foolish statement. The minister keeps talking about philosophy. I'm not a philosopher. I think we should be dealing with how we get the most for our resources in this province And I suppose it can be argued that at a certain time, the over reliance on philosophy simply gets you into trouble. It's what guides you, instead of some common-sense or practical approach to issues.

Just to support my contention — and I really think it's quite foolish to talk about philosophy when it comes to having sufficient staff within a ministry to do the job — Pearse had this to say in 1976 about the situation we were facing and the situation in the ministry:

"But over the years, in the face of its own inadequate financial resources, the Forest Service has tended to rely increasingly on licensees to carry out functions ranging from access development to cruising, planning and reforestation. This reliance on the private sector is now very heavy relative to other important forest jurisdictions with extensive public ownership."

To some observers our present dependence on licensees to not only carry out management and development functions but also to initiate their planning and determine their priorities is alarming. If the minister and his predecessor had bothered to read the last royal commission on forestry in this province, perhaps they wouldn't have had instead to ask COFI what the direction should be and ultimately to wind up in their current position, where they had to abandon a plan for giving the licensees effective control of the forest land.

Pearse went on to say, "I share the concern that the Forest Service is in danger of losing the initiative and effective control over the development of the public forests through excessive reliance on licensees, " and then also talked about — I don't want to go on too much about it — the fact that, given that loss of staff and loss of ability in the Forest Service, the balance between the public and the private sectors was tipped. You handicapped the public sector.

The minister might take some comfort in that; I take absolutely none. Without a public sector adequately staffed with people who know their job and have the dedication and enthusiasm, you don't get the job done. Maybe that's part of your problem. Maybe that's where philosophy has blinded you.

We have now considerably shifted the amount of work done by the ministry and by contractors. There is a heavy reliance on contractors. Given the information I've cited from Pearse, does the minister not have a concern about the ability of the Forest Service?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I'm not too interested in answering that, because it's quite obvious that when the member happens to disagree with me, my comments are foolish, according to him, So there's not much point in our pursuing this line of questioning. He doesn't want to talk philosophy, but philosophy is what is underlying his comments.

His idea and mine of what is an adequate public sector are probably quite different. As the workload increases — and it will — the size of the ministry will increase, but until that time I don't happen to agree necessarily with what he says about whether we're understaffed or with what Mr. Pearse says about whether we're understaffed. I'm also not all that interested in the philosophy south of the border. Some of the things they do south of the border, I agree with; others I do not.

[5:15]

MR. MILLER: Well, they get a heck of a lot more revenue for their timber than we do. I don't know why the minister wouldn't be interested in that. Again, going back to Mr. Pearse, it seemed to me that the warning signals were there. The people in the know were advising the ministry and the government what they should do. Pearse said:

"Over the years, the staff and appropriations of the Forest Service have increased, but they have not

[ Page 10883 ]

kept pace with the growth and demand on forest resources. In view of the above" — and this is pretty significant — "we contend that British Columbia requires a greater level of integrated resource use planning than any other province. However, the magnitude and ever-increasing complexities of forestry in the province are such that the British Columbia Forest Service and other resource departments will not be able to make any significant advance in integrated resource management."

Pearse also talked in another section in terms of operating a public service and managing a public resource and trying to be a little ahead of the game, "using appropriate vehicles to anticipate changing trends." This administration has never done that; they have always been behind.

It's interesting to note the comparable figures for 1976 between British Columbia and those other two jurisdictions that I talked about. Just dealing with the U.S. Forest Service, that agency administered at that time a comparable area, yielding about the same timber harvest as the public forestlands of British Columbia. Its total staff number of 32,000 compared with less than 3,000 in British Columbia. It employed 4,897 professional foresters, while at that time B.C. had 327. Within the comparable regions of Washington and Oregon, the U.S. Forest Service employs a staff of 4,800, of which 678 are professional foresters, while B.C. has a staff of 774, of which 44 are professional foresters. It is pointed out that this province is one of the few jurisdictions on the continent that spend considerably less on forest administration than they receive in direct timber revenues.

All of the objective evidence at that time said that you should develop a better-staffed Forest Service. That has been ignored — philosophically, in my view, because of a blind adherence to the principles of privatization. Given the level of contractors, are you not concerned that the expertise will not be retained within the ministry — that it will be lost?

I know that in some areas of the province it is the ministry's view that contractors are not able to supplement the work that should be done by the Forest Service district office. In many regions they have difficulty getting contractors that are even qualified. So we find situations where, if anything of significance happens, the ministry has to go to a consultant; it has to go to a contractor. They don't seem to have either the ability.... I'm certainly not reflecting on the individuals who work for the Forest Service. I think there are many excellent people and many frustrated people, but they don't have the ability. They've been downsized; they have been gutted by this government. There is no commitment to beef that service up. Instead, there's a blind adherence to privatization.

Surely the minister would agree that over time you lose your ability as a cohesive unit. If you keep farming it out, where is all that intelligence? It doesn't reside within your organization. That sense of history doesn't reside within your organization, and therefore, in my view, you don't do the job as well. We all suffer for that, and you ultimately suffer for that.

Surely the minister has some comments. I don't know how he can support that dramatic shift in the ratio of permanent staff to contractors.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I don't have any problem with professional foresters in the private sector doing work for us. We now have a staff in the ministry of some 3,456. This will be the third time I've said this: there's no doubt that as we get into more public participation, public hearings and more environmental demands, the staff will grow. But I still don't find any problem with professional foresters, hydrologists and others in the private sector doing work for the ministry. I've had some good meetings with the Association of B.C. Professional Foresters. They look forward to working for and with the ministry.

MR. MILLER: By the ministry's own submission, they now have 3,407 full-time — the minister has indicated they've added a few — supervising approximately 5,200 contractor person-years. Do you think it's valuable for ministry employees to spend their time supervising contractors? Can you tell me why you would consider that to be an efficient use of people?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, quite simply because a lot of those contractors are tree planters; they're silviculture people. I don't happen to believe that every one of those people has to work for the Ministry of Forests. I don't think everyone who works in the forest sector has to work for government. I believe that when people come out of UBC and other learning institutions with a degree in forestry, they should have more options than just working for the government. I would submit to you that if that party ever formed the government — heaven forbid — it would probably be the only place for them to work.

MR. MILLER: In many instances that I have heard about — and if the minister hasn't heard about it, then nobody's telling him — contractors go, out and do a job, then the ministry has to go out and check the contractor's work. It's a duplication of effort. The ministry is in danger, in my view, of losing their pride and their expertise. I constantly hear stories about ministry people having to go out and check the work of contractors. I hear ministry people tell me: "We can't hire contractors, because they don't understand the nature of the work that has to be done. In any event, when we hire a contractor, we've only got to go out and check what they've done anyway."

That is not a good situation. It's led to some problems in some of the more remote areas of this province, where there have been difficulties acquiring permanent staff, where the contracting companies are not located, where you are essentially bringing people from outside the region for these little spot visits: "Let's bring in a contractor. We'll hire a contractor for everything." There is no continuity

[ Page 10884 ]

when you rely excessively on contractors; there can't be. Certainly I recognize the increase in terms of silviculture, but there have been excessive increases in the use of contractors in other ministry activities: cruising and scaling is 5 percent by ministry and 95 percent by contractors; forest inventory, 25 percent by ministry staff, 75 percent by contractors — and we have a serious problem with our inventories.

Would the minister be prepared to give some commitment that there needs to be a beefing up? I'm not saying that we go out and rehire all the people that were laid off, but clearly the budget is there in terms of spending it on contractors. I think it's more cost-efficient to develop a quality Forest Service that has enough staff to do the work that's necessary, and then to use contractors, as Pearse recommended, to fulfill those specialized needs.

I even noted that during a hill-slip in the Vernon area, there needed to be an investigation, and the minister said, "We need someone capable. Therefore we'll have to hire a consultant."

I think there's a greater obligation in terms of trying to defend, on the minister's part, this dramatic shift to the use of contractors, for all of the reasons that I have outlined. It would seem obvious to me that the minister should cast aside the silly, philosophical things he keeps drifting into and start dealing with the real issues; that is, a good, well equipped and well-staffed Forest Service in this province that can carry out the functions that we've identified as having to be carried out.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The member says if we have contract work done, we have to inspect it. Of course we do. We owe it to the taxpayers to make sure they are getting value for money. Does he think for one minute that if staff of the Ministry of Forests did it we wouldn't have to inspect it?

Secondly, when you hire a contractor to do a specific task, when that task is finished, you are no longer paying the contractor. When you hire permanent people to do that specific task, when the task is over they are still on the payroll with all their benefits, etc.

That's how a bureaucracy grows, Mr. Member. A bureaucracy grows — if left unchecked — by about 7 percent a year. That's how you end up with a civil service that might be very capable and very competent, but it's a civil service that the people cannot afford.

That's why we're in such trouble if we want to get into this at the federal level. If Canada had a federal civil service it could afford, it would be a lot smaller than the one we have today. We've got 27 million people in this country, and we've got a civil service that would befit a country twice our population.

When we start talking about whether it's wiser to have everybody on staff doing it or to contract things out, I think there's a good balance to be made. I guess we could argue for a long time whether we're at that balance right now. As I said, circumstances change, and we might have to increase the size of the Ministry of Forests. But if we adopted the philosophy that you just expounded, we would have a tremendous increase in the size of the forest service within a very short time. Those people are on the payroll forever and ever, as you well know, along with their benefits, etc.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

I didn't say — on the specific slide in the Okanagan — that we must have an answer, and therefore I have to hire somebody. In this instance it was far better and would give the people in that area greater assurance to know that an independent person was looking at the conditions there, and not someone in-house who was going to come back with a report that the minister wanted to see. I think there's sometimes much to be said for an independent outside report rather than an internal look at things. The public are sometimes suspect of internal investigations.

MR. MILLER: That's a pretty sad note. The minister says that the public would feel more assured if someone outside the Forests ministry conducted a study of an area than if the ministry did it themselves. That really speaks volumes about the confidence that the public have in the Forest Service. I don't know if the minister wants that one to stay on the record, because that is shocking.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I don't find it that way at all, Mr. Chairman, because it was the Forest Service that was accused of mismanaging the area. The accusation was that we had allowed cutting to go on in a place that shouldn't have been cut; therefore we were responsible. So I think that when an agency is being blamed for something, it's far better to have an outside independent person come back with a report than to have an internal investigation investigating allegations against itself.

[5:30]

MR. MILLER: Getting to the question of balance, the minister talked about the need to have the right balance. Does he have any idea what it is? Has there been any kind of assessment internally about that balance and about retaining the expertise within the Forest Service? Surely that is critical. Surely the question of morale of the Forest Service is critical. Surely the question of the public perception of the Forest Service is critical and surely, from an administrative point of view, there is a balance. There is a need to have a balance. There is the need to retain the kind of depth of experience that allows the continuity over a long period of time. What kind of balance? We've shifted in terms of the ratio — according to ministry figures — from about 2.7 to one in 1980 down to 0.65 to one in terms of ministry to contractors. Does the minister have an id ea of what a reasonable balance would be in an operation the size of — and given the obligations of — the Ministry of Forests?

[ Page 10885 ]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, we're constantly reviewing the needs of the ministry, the workloads of the staff and whether they can handle it. Morale is very important to us. I think the morale in the ministry is very good, from what I've seen. I've traveled most of the province now — not all of it — and visited with a lot of the staff. I've found the morale to be exceptionally high. Yes, there are complaints of being overworked from time to time. I think we all feel that strain once in a while, but we're constantly reviewing it to make sure that we're doing the job and that we have the staff available to do it. As I say, situations change from year to year, and the numbers that are there this year may be entirely different in a few years' time.

MR. MILLER: Just following on that, Mr. Chairman, what about the problem of the smaller districts where the contracting sector is not readily available or, in the opinion of the ministry, is not equipped to provide the kind of service that's required, and where there continue to be difficulties in attracting staff for whatever reason? Are there specific programs? What are you doing to counteract that particular problem? I think my own district is understaffed. I've been told that it's not that desirable a place to go, and I don't know why. How are you getting around that in terms of trying to equip district offices with the resources they need to do the job?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The member hits on a problem that is inherent in many ministries in government, not just in this one, in some of the more remote areas of the province. It is difficult to recruit, train and retain competent staff; there's no question about that. It's a problem we've faced in this province for many years. It didn't just happen this year. We do have programs in place to try to counteract that. There are northern allowances.

I think that in some of the cases, especially in the remote northern areas of the province, a lot of this will be dealt with in the future by such institutions as the university of the north in Prince George, where we can recruit and train people from the area who will work in that area. When I was Minister of Social Services, I found that the same thing applied. Health is finding the same thing, and so are we in this ministry. If you can recruit people from an area and train them in that area, they are more likely to stay in the area in which they've grown up than someone transplanted from the lower mainland.

You have hit the nub of a problem across government — not just this government; other provinces face the same thing. It's one that we're attempting to deal with.

MR. MILLER: Just getting back to the question of balance, Mr. Chairman, the minister didn't offer any hard numbers. There are now more contract employees in the ministry than there are full-time staff. Is that out of balance? Should it be fifty-fifty? Should it be 75 percent ministry and 25 percent contract? Does the minister have any idea of what that balance should be?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I guess, Mr. Chairman, to reiterate my answer of a while ago, if you take in all the tree planters, thinners and pruners, and all the people who work on a contract basis for contractors.... Many of the people who work in the bush for the large companies are on a contract basis, for many of the same reasons that we employ contractors. They're in business for themselves, and they don't have to be on the payroll of the large companies. It's the same with the people who plant and grow trees for us in greenhouses and nurseries: they don't have to be on our payroll to do a job. So I guess if you total up all the person-hours on contract, yes, it would be considerable. But a lot of that is, as I say, in the silviculture side of the industry.

MR. MILLER: I wanted to ask the minister what is happening currently with these pulp and harvesting agreements. Are they still being actively pursued?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes.

MR. MILLER: The Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds) suggested during his estimates that that's not the case, that they're on hold specifically pending a forest development review process which would provide a structured review of forest resource allocation, such as PAs and the new TFLs. I don't have the Hansard here, but the minister specifically said that they're on hold pending the development of this process. That seems to contradict what you've just said.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: No, we have ourselves purposely withdrawn two pulpwood agreements because we wanted more information before we took them to public hearings, and those are specifically 17 and 18. We withdrew 17 and 18 temporarily; we will be reinsituting them in the very near future. But the others, 9 and 19, are still being actively pursued. In fact, on 19 I think we're not too far away from reaching some kind of conclusion. It has taken quite a bit of time. With 9, we're not nearly as far along in the process. But they're quite active.

MR. MILLER: Does the minister have any comment — this is really a little bit off the topic — with regard to chip prices? Skeena, in their application for the Cariboo licence, proposed to cut and chip in Anahim. Lake, to truck to Bella Coola and to barge to Rupert. Does that indicate to you that there's some room in terms of the price that mills are paying for chips?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: We haven't made a decision on that particular application yet, so I won't comment on it, because it would not be very propitious. Chip-pricing is another topic that we could get into and spend an awful lot of time talking about whether chips are at the right price now or not. It

[ Page 10886 ]

would depend on which side of the fence you are, whether you're buying or selling.

MR. MILLER: I'm interested in exploring the issue of these harvesting agreements from the point of view of a desire expressed by the companies for security of supply. It's rather amazing that some quite large companies are doing this. But at the same time, one of those quite large companies advised the Select Standing Committee on Forests and Lands that although you've withdrawn PA 18 for more information.... Mr. Bentley specifically, on March 28, in front of the committee, re-emphasized his need to have a secure fibre supply when he said: 'We're sure you realize that in order to finance new pulp ventures it is necessary to demonstrate security of fibre supply." But he also went on to say this:

"We note that the recently advertised PA 18 overlaps our PA 1 and PA 7.

"...I fail to see how the Forest Service and the minister, and therefore the government, could administer awarding the same timber softwood below the standard of sawmill utilization if they had calls from two PA holders for the same resource at the same time, when we know the inventory is such that the government could not honour its commitments that went before and would be creating an overcapacity, which will lead to layoffs and other dire results...."

Does the minister have any comment on that?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, in those two pulpwood agreements that were mentioned — I believe it was 1 and 7 — there is no duplication.

MR. MILLER: Is the minister saying that Mr. Bentley is wrong in saying that PA 18 overlaps PA 1 and PA 7? Is the minister saying that is not a fact?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: No, I'm not saying anybody's right or anybody's wrong. But I will say that there has been some confusion as to whether there's duplication, and there is not.

MR. MILLER: I have seen the map. I don't know if that will help the minister. I have seen a map and PA 18 is about that big, and inside it is PA 1 and PA 7. Is that not overlap, or is the minister saying that PA 1 and PA 7 are separate areas?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 30 pass?

MR. MILLER: Perhaps if the minister doesn't want to answer that, he can advise why 18 has been withdrawn. What kind of information was not available prior to the ministry offering those agreements?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The confusion over PA 18, 1 and 7 is whether they overlap physically on a map. Yes, if you just looked at a map, they overlap. But as types of wood and species, they do not.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It's a different type of wood. As to why we withdrew it, we felt that we didn't have enough information on 17 and 18 to go to public hearings. We started taking a look at it and felt that we were deficient. I guess "withdrawing" is maybe not the right choice of words; what we're doing is delaying the process, probably until this fall.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Bentley suggested that there would be inventory problems. We are essentially talking about pulp, and I don't know why their requirements would be different. It seems to me they would be relatively the same, so I can't quite understand that. Mr. Bentley clearly says that if both were exercised, the amount of timber... He does say that if one is deciduous and one is not, he can understand it. He talks about softwood below the lumber standard. I don't understand what the minister is saying and why the requirements would be different in the same area. You are effectively dealing with the same timber.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It does involve different species — hardwoods or deciduous in PA 18 that are not involved in 1 and 7.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Can you explain the difference between 18 and 19, for example? Do you feel you have sufficient information in the case of 19, but that you didn't in the case of 18?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, we do, but I should qualify that. When we did the public hearings on 19, we listened very closely to the concerns of the people and reduced the size of PA 19 considerably because of those public hearings. I think we reduced the size of it by about a third in the western and southwestern areas.

MR. ZIRNHELT: From your comments, I take it that you're close to a decision on PA 19. Can you tell us when you expect to make the decision? I understand the company is anxious to have its groundbreaking ceremony and also to hire staff to get on with it. At least Cariboo Fibreboard is ready to go.

[5:45]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, let me assure the member that I had hoped we would have had it signed by now. We're very close to it. As you know, it's a very complex issue with regard to fibre supply. We want to be able to give the assurances to the public and to everyone else that the deal is solid, and that when we do sign it, it's there for a long time. Without getting into the details of it — which I don't want to do at the moment — I sincerely hope we can conclude PA 19 within the next couple of weeks to meet the groundbreaking ceremony that the owner would like. If we can't and it takes longer, then it will take longer.

Interjection.

[ Page 10887 ]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Not if we haven't concluded a deal. I guess this is the message I've been trying to send to Mr. Stockmann and to everyone else: until we have what we consider the right deal for everybody, we're not going to sign it. I would urge him to consider that when he sends out the invitations for the groundbreaking ceremony.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I'm sure that if you need assistance in redressing an imbalance between pressure and expectations about the thing going ahead right away, you could always generate some counter pressure on the other side of the river to strengthen your hand. I think that you will be conducting very balanced negotiations. I know the people of Williams Lake are looking forward to some kind of venture that will help offset the falldown in employment because of the bug-kill licences.

Going back to something we discussed earlier, I'd like to ask a question about the letters of understanding. Can you tell us whether or not letters of understanding are still appended to the licencees' management and working plan documents?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: No, we've changed the policy on that, as I made clear to the member for Prince Rupert. I'm informed there are some outstanding ones that will be dealt with, but we're not issuing any new ones. As far as we're concerned, they are a thing of the past. If there are outstanding ones, they will be dealt with in due course.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Whew you said "dealt with," does that mean they will be removed?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: If we find that they indeed don't serve a useful purpose or are not compatible with our current standards or practices, they will be removed — and chances are they will be.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Reading through your responses to the question posed by the Forest Resources Commission, I note under planning processes that "current activities and initiatives include...to develop a land use zoning program for provincial forest lands." I am wondering if you can elaborate on that a bit, or tell us some of the time-lines and what's being considered.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: As best as I can determine, Mr. Chairman, the member is asking about some of the processes we have in place or are trying, such as the Clayoquot Sound task force, the Tsitika follow-up committee and the Kyuquot task force — I might have the wrong name for that. We are attempting various models to try to come up with the right combination and the right way of doing these things. Some seem to work well in some instances and some not. We are also going to try a community committee approach to the upper Carmanah watershed before any harvesting takes place there. I guess I could say honestly, from the look I've had at it in the short time I've been the minister, that I'm not satisfied that we have the correct model in place to deal with these things.

MR. ZIRNHELT: The reason I picked up on it was that it specifically says, "developing a land use zoning program for provincial forest lands," so I assume that the program would be provincewide rather than a number of experiments here and there. I just wanted to confirm that you were developing such a program, or if not, when you would be doing that.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On a provincewide basis rather than a specific watershed basis, we do have a policy in place to deal with wilderness; we have an old-growth strategy that seems to be working well; and there's a Parks '90 strategy which deals on a provincewide basis. So if that's what the member is referring to — how we are going to zone on a provincewide basis — those three are in place: wilderness, old growth and Parks '90.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I read it somewhat differently, as macro-level zoning. If that's your program, I guess that answered my question.

I'd like to ask you something about what's called "new forestry," which comes out of many years of research in the United States. It has some bearing, probably, on what's happening in British Columbia. I'd like to know if this is one of the things you are encouraging your ministry to look at — in terms of what they're doing in the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, where they are actively promoting the ecological path for managing forests, a whole new set of scientific findings and strategies for management.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Sure, we're always interested in looking at what others are doing. In fact, the chief forester is down there right now having a look at what they're doing in Washington State. A lot of it at the moment is still theory.

MR. MILLER: You had some problem with their philosophy down there.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: No, I said I don't agree with everything they do down there. I agree with some of the things they do down there.

MR. CLARK: Too much free enterprise.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'm not sure. The member says: "Too much free enterprise." If I can believe the figures quoted by the member for Prince Rupert — and I have no reason to doubt him — as to how many staff they have, it doesn't sound like free enterprise to me; it sounds like an incredible bureaucracy. But we're always willing to look at what other people are doing and to learn from them. Some of the things they do will be applicable to what we're doing and other things will not. Likewise, lots of people come here to see what we're doing.

[ Page 10888 ]

Just as an aside — and I must share this with you before we get this vote — about a month ago I had a group of about seven forest industry businessmen from Finland visit me in my office. They have just struck a deal with the Soviet Union to manage a large tract of forest land just inside the Soviet Union, near the Finnish border.

MR. CLARK: Do they glow in the dark?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: No, it's not near Chernobyl; it's on the Finnish border. I forget how many hectares, but it's a large tract of land that the Russians have asked them to manage for them. They are doing that, and they have set it up modeled on the British Columbia tree-farm licence. They looked around the world, apparently, and decided that of all the models they looked at, they wanted to model it after what we do in a tree-farm licence. So it can't be all bad, I guess, if foreign governments are using our tree-farm licence model.

MR. MILLER: I had a specific question and concern about the Cariboo PA. Although the previous PAs were replaceable.... I'll get into that. It won't be tomorrow, but I'll get into the whole question of the industry saying that they need to have this secure fibre supply in order to attract capital to build these plants. The Cariboo is non-replaceable. I believe my colleague has mentioned — and the minister should be aware of it — the fragility of the environment in that region. Many of the trees are very old, yet not very big.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: Older than I am, I'm sure, but smaller than me and, I hope, a little more dense.

The whole question of the replaceability of that forest.... When I read some of the information put forward by the ministry, it seems to me you are saying that in fact they are non-replaceable, because the harvested stands are not expected to be replaced. That begs the question of whether or not you should really be in there harvesting in the first place.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I don't believe it says that we believe those stands are not replaceable at all. In fact, when I flew the area a month or five weeks ago, I had pointed out to me many instances where the whole area had burned in years past. It's all second-, third- or fourth-growth in the Cariboo. The trees haven't been there forever. They've been burned many times over their history, and devastated by nature, bug kills and everything else.

I am one who doesn't happen to believe these people who say that trees won't grow back if you harvest them out in the Chilcotin plateau. I think it's a reasonably good growing site, although it does take longer for them to grow than on the coast. The further north you get, the longer it takes for trees to grow. You were quoting Sweden to me the other day, which is pretty well a boreal forest. It's mostly comparable to Prince George and slightly north of there. They are on their third rotation, and they are growing more fibre per hectare than they ever have before. I just don't believe that you can't regenerate the forests in the Chilcotin plateau.

MR. MILLER: The fact is that you and others have said that these trees are very old and very small. What would lead you to believe that you're going to do a better job than nature has done thus far? That is certainly a contradiction in terms of how we have managed our forests so far, because nature has clearly provided us with the really valuable resource, and we have really not done much to try and duplicate that. We haven't done anything to try and duplicate it, except plant trees. It appears to me that it is a liquidation policy. There is absolutely no guarantee. Are you satisfied that silviculturally you can do it? Why would you be more successful than nature, which has had 200 years to produce a pretty small tree?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, I think we can. I didn't use the words, "We can do a better job than nature, " but I think we can do as good, if not better, by genetically superior trees, by fertilizing and thinning and pruning and all the rest of it. Those trees haven't been there forever.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: No, some of them are 130 and 140 years old. They've been burned off and bug-killed before.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I think 130 years; something like that. So they can grow back. I've been out and looked at some of the second growth. I forget how old it is now. Some of it's this high. It will grow back.

If you truly believe, as you just said, that it is a liquidation of the forest, then I suppose if you were in charge of it, you would just shut her down right now and say: "We can't grow trees here." I think we can.

MR. MILLER: I will get into that later on. The absolutely concrete evidence is that this government does an insignificant amount of incremental silviculture. You don't fertilize; you don't do any of those things that would lead to producing either faster-growing crops of trees or anything of that nature. So why we would have any confidence that somehow you are going to do it in the plateau is a question that we hopefully will explore.

Given the hour, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[ Page 10889 ]

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

MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a report from the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services, and I move it be read and received.

[6:00]

Motion approved.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

"July 10, 1990. Your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Member's Services begs leave to report as follows:

"The preamble of Bill PR402, intituled Vancouver Charter Amendment Act (No. 1), 1990, has been proved as amended, and the committee recommends that the bill proceed to second reading.

"All of which is respectfully submitted. F.C.A. Pelton, Chairman."

Bill PR402 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a report from the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services. I move that the report be read and received.

Motion approved.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

"July 10, 1990. Your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services begs leave to report as follows:

"The preamble to Bill PR401, intituled Vancouver Stock Exchange Amendment Act, 1990, has been proved as amended, and the committee recommends that the bill proceed to second reading.

"All of which is respectfully submitted. F.C.A. Pelton, Chairman."

Bill PR401 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:02 p.m.